Not spending years propping up an Islamic militant group in Gaza as a means to weaken the PLO so that Israeli could take over the West Bank piecemeal would've been a great place to start. Netanyahu has been playing with fire for the best part of two decades, has been warned that he was playing with fire by his own security services, and continued to play with fire because it benefited him politically. And was so damned proud about it that he gloated about it for years and years. It was his crowning achievement, and it had predictable consequences. He raised a viper and it bit him. Hamas and the right wing of Israeli politics deserve each other. Those caught in the crossfire do not. As for what Netanyahu should have done, no one would have blinked if they had launched surgical attacks to take out Hamas' leadership, most of whom weren't even in Gaza. There would have been massive international support for pushing Hamas out in favour of a return of the PLO, something that likely would have been supported by most Gazans...Hamas was deeply unpopular, and as this followed closely on years of protests in Gaza against Hamas, there was plenty of opportunity to weaken its position. Instead, Netanyahu chose indiscriminate violence because his only chance of remaining in power is to court the ultra-right, and the ultra-right wants nothing short of the ethnic cleaning of Gaza and the West Bank. None of Israel's actions have benefited their security situation, have benefited their international standing, they have simply benefited that most cynical of political survivors, and his successors will reap the consequences of his having survived so long. But sadly, he has also shaped Israeli domestic politics sufficiently that even when he is finally ousted, the forces he set in motion to keep himself in power aren't going to go away any time soon.
Please don't take my comment as supporting Israel's action, and certainly not supporting Netanyahu (who I think is an absolute blight on the world now). Agreed that a lot of this is about his retention of power. The surgical removal of the leadership is an interesting idea, but as you say, most of them aren't in Gaza, so that would have meant encroachment of Israel into places like Iran - and that would have been...a bit hairy, no? (Yes, I know they've done it before, but even so).
Ah yes, it’s all so easy when you listen to king Schad. Why didn’t the Israelis think of any of this?
Exactly. The big question is, when Britain inevitably becomes majority Muslim and the votes resemble that, will the new wave of MPs be tolerant and respect the British traditions? currently we have a ‘Conservative’ Party who laugh in the face of all tradition and break all conventions. Their corruption has shown how many unwritten rules mattered in politics and how easy it is to break tradition and do whatever you like. So I don’t see why that would improve in the future as we elect more people with less of a connection to the UK.
Surgical removal of the leadership is in Gaza itself has only been possible using bunker busting bombs. Which are, by definition, not surgical. That’s the problem with starting a war and then hiding underground. Also, surgical removals without military might would not have stopped Hamas launching daily rockets on Israel, including on tel aviv. What country in the world would sit by and accept tens of rockets a day being aimed directly at civilian targets? The only way to stop that is to suffocate Hamas of weapons. Which they were only able to do by seizing the Philadelphi corridor. Also, what Schad says about Hamas being “deeply unpopular” is just not true. Even at their lowest ebb, they were roughly level with the PA. The PA themselves are pretty extreme in their anti Jewish rhetoric, holocaust denial and general desire to see Jews dead. They have a “pay to kill policy” whereby they financially incentivise any Palestinian who killed a Jew for the rest of their lives. So they’re not some beautiful panacea. His take on the region is pretty laughable and factually inept. Not surprising given he takes his news from middle east eye, a despicably antisemitic propaganda channel, funded by,…Qatar, of course.
Yeah that tweet is hugely problematic. It was taken down, apparently. But shows a real, dangerous slide towards sectarian politics which will sew even more division
Squeeze until the pips pop and the juice runs down his thighs, evil bastard. "Bankruptcy trustee plans to shut down Alex Jones' Infowars" "In a court filing filed on Sunday, the trustee, Christopher Murray, said he was planning to close operations of Infowars' owner Free Speech Systems and "liquidate its inventory". The news comes a week after a bankruptcy judge decided Mr Jones' personal assets would be liquidated to pay back the victims for spreading misinformation about the deadly 2012 shooting at a suburban Connecticut school. The judge appointed Mr Murray to oversee the liquidation of Mr Jones' assets. The conspiracy theorist and his company, Free Speech Systems, filed for bankruptcy in 2022 after Mr Jones was ordered to pay the $1.5b in multiple defamation cases over false claims about the Sandy Hook shooting, in which 20 children and six adults were killed." https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0003l7gl6o
Why are we destroying this stuff, though? I get that in a crisis you're going to make some dumb decisions and in the cold light of day you should revisit those decisions and learn from them for the next time... but surely we can make use of masks and gloves somewhere rather than scrapping the whole lot.
Prison time for all involved. Absolutely disgusting. 37k nurses could have been paid with that money according to the BBC. Sickening corruption and ineptitude
PPE has a shelf life of 2-3 years, it wasn't going to last for ever if not used. The question is should those who gave out these contracts have had a better idea of the demand at the time and why they decided to order that amount? It may have been a justifiable projection or more likely panic buying due to unknowns in the pandemic. The manufacturers were given a £1.78bn contract and was 13% of the governments total spend. There was always going to be a very real possibility of massive waste when dealing with huge amounts of degradable products if they got it wrong. Whoever "they" are will no doubt have their reasons but should really be explaining why so much public money has apparently been wasted.
Agree 100%. Whilst it is a hell of a lot of money wasted and it appears it was 'jobs for the boys', the pandemic was unprecedented and we were so badly prepared that whoever was in was going to panic buy and waste money. There were too many unknowns at the time. I am not defending the contracts as they looked like they went to their mates, but at the time, we were always going to overpay and 'due diligence' frankly went out of the window - this would have happened whoever was in charge.
Agree with all this. I'd go further and say that while it's probably fair to describe things as "jobs for the boys" it's also totally understandable that in those circumstances people resorted to using companies/people they knew, and would add there were existing contracts in place for emergency PPE. The problem is at least one contract wasn't honoured, partly because the supplier was able to get better prices elsewhere and partly because the supplier was French and the French government (somewhat predictably) decided to seize PPE. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ovid-19-as-supplies-sent-to-china-coronavirus Another reason why we should make things ourselves rather than rely on overseas manufacturers.
I raised the topic of Physician Associates, a few days ago, who are basically people who are less well trained than a doctor replacing doctors in GP surgeries and hospitals. Locum doctors, who are fully trained, are now struggling to find work as they are being replaced by the cheaper option of a PA. James O’Brien has been on this topic and the video includes two callers, one a doctor and one a Paramedic Associate, making a case for or against.
HIGNFY. Tory campaigners have been told to shift their efforts South and abandon the North, which should come fairly naturally to them. please log in to view this image
I'm not sure you can say that with all certainty No7, there likely would have been an overspend in the circumstances but who really knows what Labour would have done? I'm not a great fan of the "this would have happened whoever was in charge" expression anyway because 1. You just don't know what approach a different government would have taken, and 2. It is not relevant because whoever is in power has the responsibility for decisions on which they are judged. What Labour would have done is not really that important IMO. Although in this case there hasn't been any mention of a Tory connection to the couple that owned the business, there was most definitely connections in other PPE contracts. The "jobs for the boys" you mention did happen though and was exposed soon after but I have seen no investigation or much interest in what clearly looks like corruption*. That for me is a big factor in the Tory's reputation for sleaze. *Maybe it was at the Covid enquiry but I've seen none myself.
Labour has suspended parliamentary candidate Kevin Craig after being told the Gambling Commission has launched an investigation into him, a party spokeswoman says. Labour says as soon as they were told by the Gambling Commission they moved quickly to suspend Kevin Craig. But interestingly, he was not suspended because he had bet on the date of the general election - that was the reason the Conservatives withdrew support from two of their candidates. As I understand it, what appears to have happened is this Labour candidate in this seat, which has a large Conservative majority, actually bet that he himself would lose the seat.
I think the point is that they are not up to standard. So they can’t just be used. I don’t understand the nuances but the implication is that they are not a lot better than not having anything at all. Which doesn’t make sense to the layman
