DJ360

Meanwhile.. I have just watched a segment on BBC News in which a Surgeon from the Oxford University Hospitals Trust spoke about Gaza. I think his name was Nick Mason or similar. He said he has worked in Gazan hospitals for many years though he isn't there at present. He claims he has never seen any evidence whatever of Hamas fighters basing themselves in hospitals. Furthermore, he claimed that when IDF troops enter hospitals they routinely destroy vital systems and kit such as scanners, oxygen supplies etc, which are of no military value. He is apparently due to give evidence

Oz. Follow the money...

All happening at Chez Col. I'm in the middle of a bathroom refurb. Lick of paint and new 'vanity unit, basin etc... plus new flooring. My knees are just about coping... This p m though I cut the back lawn while it was dry for a few minutes.

You never know your luck!

I didn't hear what she said, but I would hope that she doesn't mean PFI.

If you read the Reform Manifesto, it is full of superficially attractive proposals and even some, such as Proportional Representation, which I agree with. But when you dig deeper, there are some worrying ideas.

Agreed, and yes, lots have done it, including, as I recall, Churchill. But just because it's been done, doesn't mean it should. I'd be in favour of insisting on a by election for anyone wishing to change party allegiance, or even anyone who has 'the whip' permanently removed by their party.

I'm in general agreement, but I don't recall anyone saying 'it's just Populism'..which sort of implies it doesn't matter. Of course it matters, because employing 'populist' tropes, around things like immigration, race, religion etc., to unite an electorate behind a 'Saviour' (Read: Trump, Farage, Mosley, Galtieri, Putin, Hitler, Mussolini, Tice etc,etc.) against a common, albeit imaginary enemy, is the classic method employed by Fascists and Dictators the World over.

I'd certainly favour something along those lines. I don't know for certain but apparently they are told to do so, by the people smugglers. It's a minefield Jim and I have no easy answers. Neither, I would argue, has anyone else.. which is part of why I'm so annoyed by the Tory efforts to keep immigration, and now their idea of 'Extremism' Front and Centre, as a distraction from their myriad failures. We have to face the fact that the 'Middle East and Global South', are the focus of Political and Religious unrest, catastrophic environmental change etc.

It seems to me that it's usually a question of recognising what is most important to you in any situation. So, for e.g., my 'primary imperative' at the next General Election is to get rid of the Tories, so I'd be prepared to vote for whoever is most likely to prevent a Tory win in my constituency. On the other hand, in local elections I have frequently voted for the candidate rather than their party, so, the odd Lib Dem, Green, or even occasional Independent (only if I know them very well..as there's a recent trend for the 'unelectable' with a track record of extremism, to stand as 'Inde

I did say 'generally' Jim. All is relative.

Hardly.. Maybe if I'd said 'that's ONE option for Labour too'. Play them at their own game, only better. At present, there is little real pre-election 'sloganising' to be seen from either party, but I'd say that for those prepared to listen to the detail, the performance of most Labour folks on the Telly, on such progs as Newsnight, The Daily Politics, QT, etc., etc., generally blows the Tories out of the water. Even with a relatively poorly developed 'message' and policy offer, Labour come out on top because the Tories just have no answers.. Their 'Govt' has been such a chaot

@Brew, Regarding my 'proxy' Manifesto for Starmer, it was of course a 'back of a fag packet' list, which I came up with in a matter of moments. I was just highlighting the lack of anything in Starmer's message to inspire ordinary voters, and at the same time pointing to issues which people are really 'p'd off about that they are looking for someone, anyone, to fix. How hard would it be to join the two into a simple message of hope for a tired and disillusioned electorate? If I sat down and really concentrated there's hardly an aspect of British Govt, Infrastructure an

Starmer puzzles me. If I were him, I'd be promising to tackle regulation of privatised utilities such as water and energy suppliers, forcing them to end pollution of our rivers etc., Fat Cat salaries, shareholder dividends etc, on threat of Re-Nationalisation without compensation. Also Rail and other public transport. I'd be promising to fix our roads. I'd be promising to fix Education and Training and to end the 'businessification' of Higher Ed which is destroying both the reputations of our Uni's and the experiences/outcomes for students. I'd be promising to root out sleaze a

What people should do, is to read ALL of any party's manifesto. Just as Johnson and Co. 'telegraphed' their real, anti democratic objectives in their manifesto, so Reform hide their darker and and more authoritarian ambitions behind their Populist and simplistic message.

I'm not here to defend Blair. As I repeatedly say, my politics are pretty much fixed and often most closely align to Labour's, but that doesn't make me a Blairite or a Starmerite. At present the party which has most closely aligned itself with my views is probably the Greens, but sadly they won't unseat the Tories, which is my priority at the next election. So..to Blair. I repeat, I'm not defending him, but his use of statutory instruments, though clearly pretty extensive, was qualitatively different to what some Tories have tried to achieve since 2010. The vast majority of Statut

I didn't do Latin, but I'm assuming 'Vanity of vanities, all is vanity!!' Cheer up old chap! Dum spiro spero! The HP motto was 'Virtus Sola Nobilitas', which I was reliably informed translates as 'Virtue Is The Only Nobility', a sentiment with which this old lefty fully concurs!

I can only speak for myself Oz. I'm pretty uninterested in 'The Royals', though not an active Republican, in the sense of wanting them all removed etc. The problem around Kate as I see it, is that there is intense speculation around her health, which in my view is her own business... and as they say 'nature abhors a vacuum', so that in the absence of any real facts, the rumour mill goes wild and seizes on the photo. Quite why she published it is my only question.

Yes. I'll take most of that, especially your first paragraph. But I'll say again that it's not about black shirted goose stepping mobs. It's about a steady chipping away at citizens rights, at the independence of the judiciary, the supremacy of Parliament, etc. That stuff is not unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, it is all documented fact. And yes, most of the media opposition to the Tory Far Right is inevitably coming from the very few papers etc, which are not Tory supporting and it inevitably takes the form of journalistic 'opinion pieces'. And of course, 'sloppy journalism' isn'

I see no need for it to be a 'group' effort. It's published on the Kings College website, and also in Byline Times, which was the reason I put a in my post. Surely Kings College would have disavowed the article had they thought it insufficiently rigorously researched, or damaging to their Academic reputation? Dr Corbet and his main specialism of Defence Studies hardly come across as 'raving lefties'. Surely there comes a point at which you can no longer dismiss valid criticism of this Tory Govt. simply by claiming it to be 'biased' etc. Of course it's biased..we're all

You won't be surprised that I don't regard my centre left views as extreme, especially when compared to those of Truss, Rees-Mogg, Anderson, Braverman et.al. But whatever...if theTory attitudes actions and pronouncements against institutions aren't malicious..how would you describe them?

As ever, late to the party on here Margie, but at least I managed timely good wishes via Facebook.

So you don't see the Tory obsession with re-framing anything that is basically socially liberal, as either 'woke', 'socialist', or 'far left', as malice? It's quite difficult to get at the Print Media's views on this as most of them hide behind 'paywalls' and I have no intention of further enriching the likes of Murdoch and the other, often foreign and mostly Tory supporting Press Barons. However, one article from The Economist escaped to here,( Reddit) and gives one perspective on the Tories' attacks on British Institutions, with the conclusion that it is only Tory incompeten

Then I'll be interested in your view of the King's College paper.

So you don't see malice in the sustained attacks on Civil Servants, Public Services, Local Govt, legitimate protesters, etc., etc?