Join the Labour Party and save your country!

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

As I've said before, be careful what you wish for:
https://telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2023/09/12/labours-mask-is-beginning-to-slip/

I think there's a mountain of evidence in the UK that union laws are too weak currently.

In what way?

A decade and a half of wage stagnation.

Surely stronger unions would have been pushing for higher wages.
This indicates the unions laws are either too strong or just right at best.

So there is a mainstream school of thought that stagnating productivity has a lack of union strength element

can you talk us through that

I think it’s about the balance of bargaining power. If it’s too skewed to the employer then they suppress wages to sub optimal levels. Things like lack of skills investment, or under utilisation (eg hand wash car washes versus machine car wash - if wages are low enough there’s no incentive for the investment in the machine to occur). Paying 10 people a lower wage rather than paying 8 more productive people is good for employment stats, bad for productivity.

I think there is also an argument that higher wages due to bargaining up to a point don’t hurt profits but instead reduce exec pay - which in and of itself doesn’t matter, but lower paid workers spend marginally more of their pay etc and aggregated across the economy is a more efficient spread.

Something like that, I’m no economist.

Conventional wisdom is that unions resist change so will be against new tech which would lead to job losses. In your example i a uionless world they would go from 10 to 8 employees and not pay them anymore. With unions they would buy the tech and still have 10 employees paid more for doing less.

Sure. Perhaps it's more nuanced laws for non-unionised employees.

It's safe to say in places like the NHS, where there is chronic understaffing, the balance between the employer and the employees has not been met yet.

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

As I've said before, be careful what you wish for:
https://telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2023/09/12/labours-mask-is-beginning-to-slip/

I think there's a mountain of evidence in the UK that union laws are too weak currently.

In what way?

A decade and a half of wage stagnation.

Surely stronger unions would have been pushing for higher wages.
This indicates the unions laws are either too strong or just right at best.

So there is a mainstream school of thought that stagnating productivity has a lack of union strength element

can you talk us through that

I think it’s about the balance of bargaining power. If it’s too skewed to the employer then they suppress wages to sub optimal levels. Things like lack of skills investment, or under utilisation (eg hand wash car washes versus machine car wash - if wages are low enough there’s no incentive for the investment in the machine to occur). Paying 10 people a lower wage rather than paying 8 more productive people is good for employment stats, bad for productivity.

I think there is also an argument that higher wages due to bargaining up to a point don’t hurt profits but instead reduce exec pay - which in and of itself doesn’t matter, but lower paid workers spend marginally more of their pay etc and aggregated across the economy is a more efficient spread.

Something like that, I’m no economist.

Conventional wisdom is that unions resist change so will be against new tech which would lead to job losses. In your example i a uionless world they would go from 10 to 8 employees and not pay them anymore. With unions they would buy the tech and still have 10 employees paid more for doing less.

Feels a tiny bit Ladybird Book of Unions. I think a lot of people base their views on the noisiest union leaders. Rather than the largest unions. Stevo's favourite bogeyman is not even in the top ten in terms of membership so I think warnings of Mr Lynch's potential power are a bit exaggerated.

super_davo

I think Unions are another group suffering from bad press and memories of the 70s.

The reality is they've been largely benign for 40 years, a combination of legislation, unions scared after the miners strike and a public tired of their antics.

The thing that's noticeable about recent strikes from the likes of nurses, teachers, transport workers is quite how much public support there has been. It's hard to paint a group of people as greedy whilst there are still signs around the place calling them heroes. That suggests to me that the last part of the equation was way more important than given credit for.

Will it continue? I suspect now we've let the genie out of the bottle it will to some degree.
Is that a bad thing? Probably not. As RC says, there is a balance between employer Vs workers got skewed way too far to employer, leading to things like an exponential rise in exec pay and at the same time little movement at the bottom. That means we get ridiculous situations like working tax credits where the state effectively subsidise companies so their lowest paid employees can afford to live.

I don't think stronger unions will fix every ill, but they have played an important role in dragging up pay & working conditions in the past, and perhaps the fact they have been so weak has contributed to the situation we're in today where so many feel "left behind".

Pross

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

As I've said before, be careful what you wish for:
https://telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2023/09/12/labours-mask-is-beginning-to-slip/

I think there's a mountain of evidence in the UK that union laws are too weak currently.

In what way?

A decade and a half of wage stagnation.

Surely stronger unions would have been pushing for higher wages.
This indicates the unions laws are either too strong or just right at best.

So there is a mainstream school of thought that stagnating productivity has a lack of union strength element

can you talk us through that

I think it’s about the balance of bargaining power. If it’s too skewed to the employer then they suppress wages to sub optimal levels. Things like lack of skills investment, or under utilisation (eg hand wash car washes versus machine car wash - if wages are low enough there’s no incentive for the investment in the machine to occur). Paying 10 people a lower wage rather than paying 8 more productive people is good for employment stats, bad for productivity.

I think there is also an argument that higher wages due to bargaining up to a point don’t hurt profits but instead reduce exec pay - which in and of itself doesn’t matter, but lower paid workers spend marginally more of their pay etc and aggregated across the economy is a more efficient spread.

Something like that, I’m no economist.

Conventional wisdom is that unions resist change so will be against new tech which would lead to job losses. In your example i a uionless world they would go from 10 to 8 employees and not pay them anymore. With unions they would buy the tech and still have 10 employees paid more for doing less.

This appears to be the case with Unite at Port Talbot steelworks. Listening to their rep he is saying that the cleaner electric furnaces that are apparently part of a £500 million Government grant deal will result in the loss of 1500 jobs needed for the current coke furnaces. I can understand it is the Union’s job to protect their members’ jobs but ultimately if there is cleaner technology that is less labour intensive it needs to be brought in or the place will close altogether.

surrey_commuter

Pross said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

As I've said before, be careful what you wish for:
https://telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2023/09/12/labours-mask-is-beginning-to-slip/

I think there's a mountain of evidence in the UK that union laws are too weak currently.

In what way?

A decade and a half of wage stagnation.

Surely stronger unions would have been pushing for higher wages.
This indicates the unions laws are either too strong or just right at best.

So there is a mainstream school of thought that stagnating productivity has a lack of union strength element

can you talk us through that

I think it’s about the balance of bargaining power. If it’s too skewed to the employer then they suppress wages to sub optimal levels. Things like lack of skills investment, or under utilisation (eg hand wash car washes versus machine car wash - if wages are low enough there’s no incentive for the investment in the machine to occur). Paying 10 people a lower wage rather than paying 8 more productive people is good for employment stats, bad for productivity.

I think there is also an argument that higher wages due to bargaining up to a point don’t hurt profits but instead reduce exec pay - which in and of itself doesn’t matter, but lower paid workers spend marginally more of their pay etc and aggregated across the economy is a more efficient spread.

Something like that, I’m no economist.

Conventional wisdom is that unions resist change so will be against new tech which would lead to job losses. In your example i a uionless world they would go from 10 to 8 employees and not pay them anymore. With unions they would buy the tech and still have 10 employees paid more for doing less.

This appears to be the case with Unite at Port Talbot steelworks. Listening to their rep he is saying that the cleaner electric furnaces that are apparently part of a £500 million Government grant deal will result in the loss of 1500 jobs needed for the current coke furnaces. I can understand it is the Union’s job to protect their members’ jobs but ultimately if there is cleaner technology that is less labour intensive it needs to be brought in or the place will close altogether.

Is that real life or from the Ladybird Book of Unions

rick_chasey

RJS has a point when he says using the traditionally the most militant unions, port workers and rail workers, is probably not that helpful for a balanced view on the matter.

focuszing723

There is a Dummies book for the Unions in Rugby.

skyblueamateur

Pross said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

As I've said before, be careful what you wish for:
https://telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2023/09/12/labours-mask-is-beginning-to-slip/

I think there's a mountain of evidence in the UK that union laws are too weak currently.

In what way?

A decade and a half of wage stagnation.

Surely stronger unions would have been pushing for higher wages.
This indicates the unions laws are either too strong or just right at best.

So there is a mainstream school of thought that stagnating productivity has a lack of union strength element

can you talk us through that

I think it’s about the balance of bargaining power. If it’s too skewed to the employer then they suppress wages to sub optimal levels. Things like lack of skills investment, or under utilisation (eg hand wash car washes versus machine car wash - if wages are low enough there’s no incentive for the investment in the machine to occur). Paying 10 people a lower wage rather than paying 8 more productive people is good for employment stats, bad for productivity.

I think there is also an argument that higher wages due to bargaining up to a point don’t hurt profits but instead reduce exec pay - which in and of itself doesn’t matter, but lower paid workers spend marginally more of their pay etc and aggregated across the economy is a more efficient spread.

Something like that, I’m no economist.

Conventional wisdom is that unions resist change so will be against new tech which would lead to job losses. In your example i a uionless world they would go from 10 to 8 employees and not pay them anymore. With unions they would buy the tech and still have 10 employees paid more for doing less.

This appears to be the case with Unite at Port Talbot steelworks. Listening to their rep he is saying that the cleaner electric furnaces that are apparently part of a £500 million Government grant deal will result in the loss of 1500 jobs needed for the current coke furnaces. I can understand it is the Union’s job to protect their members’ jobs but ultimately if there is cleaner technology that is less labour intensive it needs to be brought in or the place will close altogether.

I don’t believe the issue is moving on from coke fuelled furnaces but they are objecting to moving solely to electric arc. This significantly reduces the amount of product manufactured which in terms leads to thousands of job losses. I think they want electric arc and hydrogen hybrid so that they can fulfill their current order books.

I don’t know enough about the steel industry to now whether this is economically viable.

pblakeney

I remember part of a university course covering automation. The thinking was working hours would be reduced. While this initially looked like a good thing the flip side of effects on household income and time management was seen as problematic.

This was in the 70s. We have had decades to prepare and...

kingstongraham

skyblueamateur said:

Pross said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

As I've said before, be careful what you wish for:
https://telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2023/09/12/labours-mask-is-beginning-to-slip/

I think there's a mountain of evidence in the UK that union laws are too weak currently.

In what way?

A decade and a half of wage stagnation.

Surely stronger unions would have been pushing for higher wages.
This indicates the unions laws are either too strong or just right at best.

So there is a mainstream school of thought that stagnating productivity has a lack of union strength element

can you talk us through that

I think it’s about the balance of bargaining power. If it’s too skewed to the employer then they suppress wages to sub optimal levels. Things like lack of skills investment, or under utilisation (eg hand wash car washes versus machine car wash - if wages are low enough there’s no incentive for the investment in the machine to occur). Paying 10 people a lower wage rather than paying 8 more productive people is good for employment stats, bad for productivity.

I think there is also an argument that higher wages due to bargaining up to a point don’t hurt profits but instead reduce exec pay - which in and of itself doesn’t matter, but lower paid workers spend marginally more of their pay etc and aggregated across the economy is a more efficient spread.

Something like that, I’m no economist.

Conventional wisdom is that unions resist change so will be against new tech which would lead to job losses. In your example i a uionless world they would go from 10 to 8 employees and not pay them anymore. With unions they would buy the tech and still have 10 employees paid more for doing less.

This appears to be the case with Unite at Port Talbot steelworks. Listening to their rep he is saying that the cleaner electric furnaces that are apparently part of a £500 million Government grant deal will result in the loss of 1500 jobs needed for the current coke furnaces. I can understand it is the Union’s job to protect their members’ jobs but ultimately if there is cleaner technology that is less labour intensive it needs to be brought in or the place will close altogether.

I don’t believe the issue is moving on from coke fuelled furnaces but they are objecting to moving solely to electric arc. This significantly reduces the amount of product manufactured which in terms leads to thousands of job losses. I think they want electric arc and hydrogen hybrid so that they can fulfill their current order books.

I don’t know enough about the steel industry to now whether this is economically viable.

I think giving a half billion quid to bin jobs and move to something that means you need to buy certain grades of steel produced overseas in the less "clean" way isn't a slam dunk decision.

pblakeney

Having been involved in industry requiring high quality steel I can say that sourcing it is not as easy as you'd think. Especially when dodgy certification is prevalent.

Pross

skyblueamateur said:

Pross said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

As I've said before, be careful what you wish for:
https://telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2023/09/12/labours-mask-is-beginning-to-slip/

I think there's a mountain of evidence in the UK that union laws are too weak currently.

In what way?

A decade and a half of wage stagnation.

Surely stronger unions would have been pushing for higher wages.
This indicates the unions laws are either too strong or just right at best.

So there is a mainstream school of thought that stagnating productivity has a lack of union strength element

can you talk us through that

I think it’s about the balance of bargaining power. If it’s too skewed to the employer then they suppress wages to sub optimal levels. Things like lack of skills investment, or under utilisation (eg hand wash car washes versus machine car wash - if wages are low enough there’s no incentive for the investment in the machine to occur). Paying 10 people a lower wage rather than paying 8 more productive people is good for employment stats, bad for productivity.

I think there is also an argument that higher wages due to bargaining up to a point don’t hurt profits but instead reduce exec pay - which in and of itself doesn’t matter, but lower paid workers spend marginally more of their pay etc and aggregated across the economy is a more efficient spread.

Something like that, I’m no economist.

Conventional wisdom is that unions resist change so will be against new tech which would lead to job losses. In your example i a uionless world they would go from 10 to 8 employees and not pay them anymore. With unions they would buy the tech and still have 10 employees paid more for doing less.

This appears to be the case with Unite at Port Talbot steelworks. Listening to their rep he is saying that the cleaner electric furnaces that are apparently part of a £500 million Government grant deal will result in the loss of 1500 jobs needed for the current coke furnaces. I can understand it is the Union’s job to protect their members’ jobs but ultimately if there is cleaner technology that is less labour intensive it needs to be brought in or the place will close altogether.

I don’t believe the issue is moving on from coke fuelled furnaces but they are objecting to moving solely to electric arc. This significantly reduces the amount of product manufactured which in terms leads to thousands of job losses. I think they want electric arc and hydrogen hybrid so that they can fulfill their current order books.

I don’t know enough about the steel industry to now whether this is economically viable.

You should become their rep as he certainly didn't explain those issues and sounded very much like the luddite type that SC was describing.

To be honest the factory has been under threat of closure for as long as I can recall and it has regularly been in 'competition' with Llanwern to avoid closure / job losses (Llanwern lost out and is now just a finishing plant with a large part of the site being redeveloped for housing).

One thing is for certain, they need to do something about the environmental side at Port Talbot as anyone who has ever passed it on the M4 will know.

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

Having been involved in industry requiring high quality steel I can say that sourcing it is not as easy as you'd think. Especially when dodgy certification is prevalent.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/devils-metal-strikes-again-trafigura-nickel-fraud-case-2023-02-17/

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

Having been involved in industry requiring high quality steel I can say that sourcing it is not as easy as you'd think. Especially when dodgy certification is prevalent.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/devils-metal-strikes-again-trafigura-nickel-fraud-case-2023-02-17/

Yeah, but I'm talking about high quality steel required for design reasons. Lower quality steel is supplied with high grade certificates, things go wrong, people get hurt.
Lawyers do well mind. 🤬

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

Pross said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

As I've said before, be careful what you wish for:
https://telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2023/09/12/labours-mask-is-beginning-to-slip/

I think there's a mountain of evidence in the UK that union laws are too weak currently.

In what way?

A decade and a half of wage stagnation.

Surely stronger unions would have been pushing for higher wages.
This indicates the unions laws are either too strong or just right at best.

So there is a mainstream school of thought that stagnating productivity has a lack of union strength element

can you talk us through that

I think it’s about the balance of bargaining power. If it’s too skewed to the employer then they suppress wages to sub optimal levels. Things like lack of skills investment, or under utilisation (eg hand wash car washes versus machine car wash - if wages are low enough there’s no incentive for the investment in the machine to occur). Paying 10 people a lower wage rather than paying 8 more productive people is good for employment stats, bad for productivity.

I think there is also an argument that higher wages due to bargaining up to a point don’t hurt profits but instead reduce exec pay - which in and of itself doesn’t matter, but lower paid workers spend marginally more of their pay etc and aggregated across the economy is a more efficient spread.

Something like that, I’m no economist.

Conventional wisdom is that unions resist change so will be against new tech which would lead to job losses. In your example i a uionless world they would go from 10 to 8 employees and not pay them anymore. With unions they would buy the tech and still have 10 employees paid more for doing less.

This appears to be the case with Unite at Port Talbot steelworks. Listening to their rep he is saying that the cleaner electric furnaces that are apparently part of a £500 million Government grant deal will result in the loss of 1500 jobs needed for the current coke furnaces. I can understand it is the Union’s job to protect their members’ jobs but ultimately if there is cleaner technology that is less labour intensive it needs to be brought in or the place will close altogether.

Is that real life or from the Ladybird Book of Unions

Ha. 🙂 One would have thought that if the new furnaces need so much less manpower that maybe they could increase the number of furnaces. That would really increase productivity.

Union resistance to job losses seems like the least of UK steel industry problems TBH.

rjsterry

pblakeney said:

Having been involved in industry requiring high quality steel I can say that sourcing it is not as easy as you'd think. Especially when dodgy certification is prevalent.

Was hard enough getting people to even use CE marked steel for construction.

skyblueamateur

Pross said:

skyblueamateur said:

Pross said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

As I've said before, be careful what you wish for:
https://telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2023/09/12/labours-mask-is-beginning-to-slip/

I think there's a mountain of evidence in the UK that union laws are too weak currently.

In what way?

A decade and a half of wage stagnation.

Surely stronger unions would have been pushing for higher wages.
This indicates the unions laws are either too strong or just right at best.

So there is a mainstream school of thought that stagnating productivity has a lack of union strength element

can you talk us through that

I think it’s about the balance of bargaining power. If it’s too skewed to the employer then they suppress wages to sub optimal levels. Things like lack of skills investment, or under utilisation (eg hand wash car washes versus machine car wash - if wages are low enough there’s no incentive for the investment in the machine to occur). Paying 10 people a lower wage rather than paying 8 more productive people is good for employment stats, bad for productivity.

I think there is also an argument that higher wages due to bargaining up to a point don’t hurt profits but instead reduce exec pay - which in and of itself doesn’t matter, but lower paid workers spend marginally more of their pay etc and aggregated across the economy is a more efficient spread.

Something like that, I’m no economist.

Conventional wisdom is that unions resist change so will be against new tech which would lead to job losses. In your example i a uionless world they would go from 10 to 8 employees and not pay them anymore. With unions they would buy the tech and still have 10 employees paid more for doing less.

This appears to be the case with Unite at Port Talbot steelworks. Listening to their rep he is saying that the cleaner electric furnaces that are apparently part of a £500 million Government grant deal will result in the loss of 1500 jobs needed for the current coke furnaces. I can understand it is the Union’s job to protect their members’ jobs but ultimately if there is cleaner technology that is less labour intensive it needs to be brought in or the place will close altogether.

I don’t believe the issue is moving on from coke fuelled furnaces but they are objecting to moving solely to electric arc. This significantly reduces the amount of product manufactured which in terms leads to thousands of job losses. I think they want electric arc and hydrogen hybrid so that they can fulfill their current order books.

I don’t know enough about the steel industry to now whether this is economically viable.

You should become their rep as he certainly didn't explain those issues and sounded very much like the luddite type that SC was describing.

To be honest the factory has been under threat of closure for as long as I can recall and it has regularly been in 'competition' with Llanwern to avoid closure / job losses (Llanwern lost out and is now just a finishing plant with a large part of the site being redeveloped for housing).

One thing is for certain, they need to do something about the environmental side at Port Talbot as anyone who has ever passed it on the M4 will know.

There’s a fair bit of family history tbf, although they all think I’m a Tory 😂

briantrumpet

Corbyn reminding everyone why he was a disaster: he can't even bring himself to condemn Hamas by name. It shouldn't be hard, however much someone passionately believes that what Israel is doing to the Gaza Strip is indefensible, to condemn Hamas by name for what they've unleashed.

https://twitter.com/OzKaterji/status/1711053886503419981

rick_chasey

His continued support of Russia put that to bed a long time ago.

briantrumpet

Haha, still trying to play the Corbyn card. Desperate and funny.

briantrumpet

rick_chasey said:

His continued support of Russia put that to bed a long time ago.

It's actually quite funny though to witness him still demonstrating why he's almost as bad as his brother: here was an open door to show he's learned a tiny tiny lesson, and he walks into the wall.

TheBigBean

briantrumpet said:

Corbyn reminding everyone why he was a disaster: he can't even bring himself to condemn Hamas by name. It shouldn't be hard, however much someone passionately believes that what Israel is doing to the Gaza Strip is indefensible, to condemn Hamas by name for what they've unleashed.

https://twitter.com/OzKaterji/status/1711053886503419981

I think an interesting question is what should Hamas have done? Same attack without the civilian stuff? No attack at all?

briantrumpet

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

Corbyn reminding everyone why he was a disaster: he can't even bring himself to condemn Hamas by name. It shouldn't be hard, however much someone passionately believes that what Israel is doing to the Gaza Strip is indefensible, to condemn Hamas by name for what they've unleashed.

https://twitter.com/OzKaterji/status/1711053886503419981

I think an interesting question is what should Hamas have done? Same attack without the civilian stuff? No attack at all?

All sorts of interesting questions, indeed, but a clever politician still would have been able to namecheck Hamas for stuff like the music festival targeted (and hostages taken from there) without giving any succour to Israel or downplaying the horrors of living in Gaza.

rjsterry

Not sure it is that interesting.

secretsqirrel

He is a bloke with beliefs and principles, in that respect like Thatcher, what you see is what you get. Agree or not.

Where he is not like Thatcher is that he is incredibly naive to be a politician. He became leader due to shenanigans we are all aware of, has been expelled from the Labour party, so not really that relevant anymore.

If all the tories have is the Corbyn card they are attacking the person who threw him out. They should look in the mirror from time to time.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

Corbyn reminding everyone why he was a disaster: he can't even bring himself to condemn Hamas by name. It shouldn't be hard, however much someone passionately believes that what Israel is doing to the Gaza Strip is indefensible, to condemn Hamas by name for what they've unleashed.

https://twitter.com/OzKaterji/status/1711053886503419981

I think an interesting question is what should Hamas have done? Same attack without the civilian stuff? No attack at all?

it is an interesting question. They should not have targeted civilians and they should have stood and fought when the IDF turned up

TheBigBean

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

Corbyn reminding everyone why he was a disaster: he can't even bring himself to condemn Hamas by name. It shouldn't be hard, however much someone passionately believes that what Israel is doing to the Gaza Strip is indefensible, to condemn Hamas by name for what they've unleashed.

https://twitter.com/OzKaterji/status/1711053886503419981

I think an interesting question is what should Hamas have done? Same attack without the civilian stuff? No attack at all?

it is an interesting question. They should not have targeted civilians and they should have stood and fought when the IDF turned up

I tend to agree, but they would still have been labelled terrorists. See Afganistan as an example of how repeated attacks against an occupying military force are labelled.

Also, if all citizens are part of the reserves are they still civilians? Maybe you know the answer to that one. Perhaps it is matter of uniform or active duty or something.

Pross

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

Corbyn reminding everyone why he was a disaster: he can't even bring himself to condemn Hamas by name. It shouldn't be hard, however much someone passionately believes that what Israel is doing to the Gaza Strip is indefensible, to condemn Hamas by name for what they've unleashed.

https://twitter.com/OzKaterji/status/1711053886503419981

I think an interesting question is what should Hamas have done? Same attack without the civilian stuff? No attack at all?

If they felt the need to attack they should have targetted the Israeli military only. That usually triggers a heavy handed, in the eyes of many, Israeli response which I would suggest tends to get them more international support / condemnation of Israel. I would suggest that would also get them greater support from Palestinians although they could be counting on this resulting in an even harder response and even more hardening of support I suppose.

TheBigBean

Qatar are trying to arrange a child prisoner swap. I didn't realise Israel was holding kids in military prisons.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

Corbyn reminding everyone why he was a disaster: he can't even bring himself to condemn Hamas by name. It shouldn't be hard, however much someone passionately believes that what Israel is doing to the Gaza Strip is indefensible, to condemn Hamas by name for what they've unleashed.

https://twitter.com/OzKaterji/status/1711053886503419981

I think an interesting question is what should Hamas have done? Same attack without the civilian stuff? No attack at all?

it is an interesting question. They should not have targeted civilians and they should have stood and fought when the IDF turned up

I tend to agree, but they would still have been labelled terrorists. See Afganistan as an example of how repeated attacks against an occupying military force are labelled.

Also, if all citizens are part of the reserves are they still civilians? Maybe you know the answer to that one. Perhaps it is matter of uniform or active duty or something.

I think killing young women and parading their naked bodies around or attacking a music festival to kill and take prisoners is not on, regardless of what you call it.

FWIW the BBC refers to Hamas as "fighters".