Join the Labour Party and save your country!

1…452453455457458…501

Comments

  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,625
    I can't remember in my entire conscious life a government actually delivering on 'efficiencies' or 'waste'.
    _
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 27,756
    rick_chasey said:

    Labour says it expects to save £4bn from its clampdown on waste


    That old chestnut.
    They are a little more specific than usual in their fantasy numbers - 2.6bn from corrupt covid contracts and 1.4bn from slashing spending on consultants.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 27,756
    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Anyone fancy taking this away from the Labour Party thread?

    I was expecting Brian to complain about that.
    Maybe there is a general "half thoughts on the latest crisis" thread somewhere.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,523
    rick_chasey said:

    I can't remember in my entire conscious life a government actually delivering on 'efficiencies' or 'waste'.

    I think this idea is better than the one about following EU rules except for VAT on education. Who doesn't want some efficiency savings?
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,625
    edited October 2023
    Pfft you lot have gone soft. If the Tories had said it we'd all be rolling our eyes. What makes you think this will be any different?

    Every government I've ever seen says this. Never makes a blind bit of difference.

    You get efficiencies by running things really well and generally governments get in the way of that, even with things like the civil service.

    Maybe I am talking up my own book but if you actually hire the right people into roles you can do that but all the government efficiencies basically mean cuts of some description and tbh after 15 years of austerity I sincerely doubt it achieves much.

    _
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 27,756
    What about the phrase "fantasy numbers" makes you think I didn't roll my eyes?

    If they can get anything back from corrupt covid contracts I'd be surprised, never mind £2.6bn.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,523
    kingstongraham said:

    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Anyone fancy taking this away from the Labour Party thread?

    I was expecting Brian to complain about that.
    Maybe there is a general "half thoughts on the latest crisis" thread somewhere.
    There you go.

    https://forum.bikeradar.com/discussion/13120852/todays-discussion-about-the-news/p1?new=1
  • super_davo
    super_davo Posts: 1,205
    rick_chasey said:

    Pfft you lot have gone soft. If the Tories had said it we'd all be rolling our eyes. What makes you think this will be any different?

    Every government I've ever seen says this. Never makes a blind bit of difference.

    You get efficiencies by running things really well and generally governments get in the way of that, even with things like the civil service.

    Maybe I am talking up my own book but if you actually hire the right people into roles you can do that but all the government efficiencies basically mean cuts of some description and tbh after 15 years of austerity I sincerely doubt it achieves much.

    To be fair this government has meddled with the civil service like no government before, so I could well believe that there is a significant amount of money to be saved by leaving them alone to do their job. And also allowing them to appoint people based on their experience and ability to do the job, rather than being super predictors or Brexiteers.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    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.

    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.

    My own opinion is that once you commit a terrorist act that you are fair game.

    There is definitely a blurry line in Ukraine between civilians and combatants
    Or even when Ukraine sends drones to posh Russian flats. That never seems to be heavily criticised perhaps due to your first point that Russia has lost the moral high ground.
    My first point was more about putting a target on your back rather than any reference to the moral high ground.

    So none of this rules based terrorism like the IRA bomber ducking back across the border, in my opinion you could get shot in bed at any point in the future.
    Presumably though you would stop short of destroying all property owned by the bomber's family and general indiscriminate bombing? More of a Mosad hit job where they sometimes get the wrong person?
    Yep, to the Mossad hit job, obviously stops repeat offenders but it is interesting that it does not act as a deterrent.

    About the time Terry Waite was kidnapped they also grabbed some Russians, who responded so badly they were released. I guess that suggests you can terrorise a terrorist but civilised society won't go to those extremes.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,625
    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    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.

    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.

    My own opinion is that once you commit a terrorist act that you are fair game.

    There is definitely a blurry line in Ukraine between civilians and combatants
    Or even when Ukraine sends drones to posh Russian flats. That never seems to be heavily criticised perhaps due to your first point that Russia has lost the moral high ground.
    My first point was more about putting a target on your back rather than any reference to the moral high ground.

    So none of this rules based terrorism like the IRA bomber ducking back across the border, in my opinion you could get shot in bed at any point in the future.
    Presumably though you would stop short of destroying all property owned by the bomber's family and general indiscriminate bombing? More of a Mosad hit job where they sometimes get the wrong person?
    Yep, to the Mossad hit job, obviously stops repeat offenders but it is interesting that it does not act as a deterrent.

    .
    You could also just lock them up.
    _
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,084
    kingstongraham said:

    What about the phrase "fantasy numbers" makes you think I didn't roll my eyes?

    If they can get anything back from corrupt covid contracts I'd be surprised, never mind £2.6bn.

    As mentioned above, this is pretty marginal in the scope of public spending and thus not terribly ambitious. It's only 12% of the losses so It's obviously more to set the contrast with the preceding administration than to actually make a difference to available money.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Jezyboy
    Jezyboy Posts: 3,533
    rick_chasey said:

    I can't remember in my entire conscious life a government actually delivering on 'efficiencies' or 'waste'.

    It's dull, and takes away from noise around going after COVID fraud.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    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.

    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.

    My own opinion is that once you commit a terrorist act that you are fair game.

    There is definitely a blurry line in Ukraine between civilians and combatants
    Or even when Ukraine sends drones to posh Russian flats. That never seems to be heavily criticised perhaps due to your first point that Russia has lost the moral high ground.
    My first point was more about putting a target on your back rather than any reference to the moral high ground.

    So none of this rules based terrorism like the IRA bomber ducking back across the border, in my opinion you could get shot in bed at any point in the future.
    Presumably though you would stop short of destroying all property owned by the bomber's family and general indiscriminate bombing? More of a Mosad hit job where they sometimes get the wrong person?
    Yep, to the Mossad hit job, obviously stops repeat offenders but it is interesting that it does not act as a deterrent.

    .
    You could also just lock them up.
    Never lock up terrorists
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,145
    rick_chasey said:

    I can't remember in my entire conscious life a government actually delivering on 'efficiencies' or 'waste'.

    Doesn't mean it isn't there. Anyone who has worked in a public sector environment with knowledge of private sector methods will have seen plenty (and a lot of private sectors still have plenty of waste). With Government buying power they should never be paying more for things than the public sector would be.

    Spending billions on the groundwork for major infrastructure projects then scrapping them would be a good place to start along with not doing policy u-turns everytime the media decides they don't like something.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,625
    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    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.

    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.

    My own opinion is that once you commit a terrorist act that you are fair game.

    There is definitely a blurry line in Ukraine between civilians and combatants
    Or even when Ukraine sends drones to posh Russian flats. That never seems to be heavily criticised perhaps due to your first point that Russia has lost the moral high ground.
    My first point was more about putting a target on your back rather than any reference to the moral high ground.

    So none of this rules based terrorism like the IRA bomber ducking back across the border, in my opinion you could get shot in bed at any point in the future.
    Presumably though you would stop short of destroying all property owned by the bomber's family and general indiscriminate bombing? More of a Mosad hit job where they sometimes get the wrong person?
    Yep, to the Mossad hit job, obviously stops repeat offenders but it is interesting that it does not act as a deterrent.

    .
    You could also just lock them up.
    Never lock up terrorists
    Why?

    I didn't have you down as a capital punishment kind of guy.
    _
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,084
    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    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.

    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.

    My own opinion is that once you commit a terrorist act that you are fair game.

    There is definitely a blurry line in Ukraine between civilians and combatants
    Or even when Ukraine sends drones to posh Russian flats. That never seems to be heavily criticised perhaps due to your first point that Russia has lost the moral high ground.
    My first point was more about putting a target on your back rather than any reference to the moral high ground.

    So none of this rules based terrorism like the IRA bomber ducking back across the border, in my opinion you could get shot in bed at any point in the future.
    Presumably though you would stop short of destroying all property owned by the bomber's family and general indiscriminate bombing? More of a Mosad hit job where they sometimes get the wrong person?
    Yep, to the Mossad hit job, obviously stops repeat offenders but it is interesting that it does not act as a deterrent.

    .
    You could also just lock them up.
    Never lock up terrorists
    Why?

    I didn't have you down as a capital punishment kind of guy.
    Doesn't seem to be an issue with the current batch of varying political persuasions we have in Belmarsh (notwithstanding the one we accidentally put in Wandsworth).
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 19,509
    kingstongraham said:

    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Anyone fancy taking this away from the Labour Party thread?

    I was expecting Brian to complain about that.
    Maybe there is a general "half thoughts on the latest crisis" thread somewhere.

    Hey, what have I missed? I've been out riding my bike in the sunshine, eating cake and ice cream, and drinking coffee. Do I have to check back so I can dredge up some only semi-intelligent guff?
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    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.

    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.

    My own opinion is that once you commit a terrorist act that you are fair game.

    There is definitely a blurry line in Ukraine between civilians and combatants
    Or even when Ukraine sends drones to posh Russian flats. That never seems to be heavily criticised perhaps due to your first point that Russia has lost the moral high ground.
    My first point was more about putting a target on your back rather than any reference to the moral high ground.

    So none of this rules based terrorism like the IRA bomber ducking back across the border, in my opinion you could get shot in bed at any point in the future.
    Presumably though you would stop short of destroying all property owned by the bomber's family and general indiscriminate bombing? More of a Mosad hit job where they sometimes get the wrong person?
    Yep, to the Mossad hit job, obviously stops repeat offenders but it is interesting that it does not act as a deterrent.

    .
    You could also just lock them up.
    Never lock up terrorists
    Why?

    I didn't have you down as a capital punishment kind of guy.
    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    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.

    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.

    My own opinion is that once you commit a terrorist act that you are fair game.

    There is definitely a blurry line in Ukraine between civilians and combatants
    Or even when Ukraine sends drones to posh Russian flats. That never seems to be heavily criticised perhaps due to your first point that Russia has lost the moral high ground.
    My first point was more about putting a target on your back rather than any reference to the moral high ground.

    So none of this rules based terrorism like the IRA bomber ducking back across the border, in my opinion you could get shot in bed at any point in the future.
    Presumably though you would stop short of destroying all property owned by the bomber's family and general indiscriminate bombing? More of a Mosad hit job where they sometimes get the wrong person?
    Yep, to the Mossad hit job, obviously stops repeat offenders but it is interesting that it does not act as a deterrent.

    .
    You could also just lock them up.
    Never lock up terrorists
    Why?

    I didn't have you down as a capital punishment kind of guy.
    Opens your citizens up to kidnapping so they can do an exchange
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,084
    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    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.

    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.

    My own opinion is that once you commit a terrorist act that you are fair game.

    There is definitely a blurry line in Ukraine between civilians and combatants
    Or even when Ukraine sends drones to posh Russian flats. That never seems to be heavily criticised perhaps due to your first point that Russia has lost the moral high ground.
    My first point was more about putting a target on your back rather than any reference to the moral high ground.

    So none of this rules based terrorism like the IRA bomber ducking back across the border, in my opinion you could get shot in bed at any point in the future.
    Presumably though you would stop short of destroying all property owned by the bomber's family and general indiscriminate bombing? More of a Mosad hit job where they sometimes get the wrong person?
    Yep, to the Mossad hit job, obviously stops repeat offenders but it is interesting that it does not act as a deterrent.

    .
    You could also just lock them up.
    Never lock up terrorists
    Why?

    I didn't have you down as a capital punishment kind of guy.
    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    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.

    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.

    My own opinion is that once you commit a terrorist act that you are fair game.

    There is definitely a blurry line in Ukraine between civilians and combatants
    Or even when Ukraine sends drones to posh Russian flats. That never seems to be heavily criticised perhaps due to your first point that Russia has lost the moral high ground.
    My first point was more about putting a target on your back rather than any reference to the moral high ground.

    So none of this rules based terrorism like the IRA bomber ducking back across the border, in my opinion you could get shot in bed at any point in the future.
    Presumably though you would stop short of destroying all property owned by the bomber's family and general indiscriminate bombing? More of a Mosad hit job where they sometimes get the wrong person?
    Yep, to the Mossad hit job, obviously stops repeat offenders but it is interesting that it does not act as a deterrent.

    .
    You could also just lock them up.
    Never lock up terrorists
    Why?

    I didn't have you down as a capital punishment kind of guy.
    Opens your citizens up to kidnapping so they can do an exchange
    The evidence of the number of terrorists we have locked up would seem to disprove your theory.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,625
    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    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.

    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.

    My own opinion is that once you commit a terrorist act that you are fair game.

    There is definitely a blurry line in Ukraine between civilians and combatants
    Or even when Ukraine sends drones to posh Russian flats. That never seems to be heavily criticised perhaps due to your first point that Russia has lost the moral high ground.
    My first point was more about putting a target on your back rather than any reference to the moral high ground.

    So none of this rules based terrorism like the IRA bomber ducking back across the border, in my opinion you could get shot in bed at any point in the future.
    Presumably though you would stop short of destroying all property owned by the bomber's family and general indiscriminate bombing? More of a Mosad hit job where they sometimes get the wrong person?
    Yep, to the Mossad hit job, obviously stops repeat offenders but it is interesting that it does not act as a deterrent.

    .
    You could also just lock them up.
    Never lock up terrorists
    Why?

    I didn't have you down as a capital punishment kind of guy.
    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    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.

    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.

    My own opinion is that once you commit a terrorist act that you are fair game.

    There is definitely a blurry line in Ukraine between civilians and combatants
    Or even when Ukraine sends drones to posh Russian flats. That never seems to be heavily criticised perhaps due to your first point that Russia has lost the moral high ground.
    My first point was more about putting a target on your back rather than any reference to the moral high ground.

    So none of this rules based terrorism like the IRA bomber ducking back across the border, in my opinion you could get shot in bed at any point in the future.
    Presumably though you would stop short of destroying all property owned by the bomber's family and general indiscriminate bombing? More of a Mosad hit job where they sometimes get the wrong person?
    Yep, to the Mossad hit job, obviously stops repeat offenders but it is interesting that it does not act as a deterrent.

    .
    You could also just lock them up.
    Never lock up terrorists
    Why?

    I didn't have you down as a capital punishment kind of guy.
    Opens your citizens up to kidnapping so they can do an exchange
    Only if you start exchanging
    _
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 27,756
    Reeves says they will overhaul the planning system to actually allow infrastructure to be built and Starmer is apparently going to announce new towns and releasing more low quality green belt land for development.

    It sounds good.
  • pangolin
    pangolin Posts: 6,602
    kingstongraham said:

    Reeves says they will overhaul the planning system to actually allow infrastructure to be built and Starmer is apparently going to announce new towns and releasing more low quality green belt land for development.

    It sounds good.

    All good as long as it's not too close to me frankly, too busy around here already.
    - Genesis Croix de Fer
    - Dolan Tuono
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 26,967
    pangolin said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Reeves says they will overhaul the planning system to actually allow infrastructure to be built and Starmer is apparently going to announce new towns and releasing more low quality green belt land for development.

    It sounds good.

    All good as long as it's not too close to me frankly, too busy around here already.
    NIMBY. 😉
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 27,756
    edited October 2023
    pangolin said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Reeves says they will overhaul the planning system to actually allow infrastructure to be built and Starmer is apparently going to announce new towns and releasing more low quality green belt land for development.

    It sounds good.

    All good as long as it's not too close to me frankly, too busy around here already.
    If they build the infrastructure to support it, wouldn't it make it less busy if it was near you?

    I assume the overhaul of the planning system will mean a lower emphasis on the opinions of those who already live in the area. And newts hopefully. We'll find out next year, I guess.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,625
    pangolin said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Reeves says they will overhaul the planning system to actually allow infrastructure to be built and Starmer is apparently going to announce new towns and releasing more low quality green belt land for development.

    It sounds good.

    All good as long as it's not too close to me frankly, too busy around here already.
    Good for the house price 😜
    _
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,145
    kingstongraham said:

    pangolin said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Reeves says they will overhaul the planning system to actually allow infrastructure to be built and Starmer is apparently going to announce new towns and releasing more low quality green belt land for development.

    It sounds good.

    All good as long as it's not too close to me frankly, too busy around here already.
    If they build the infrastructure to support it, wouldn't it make it less busy if it was near you?

    I assume the overhaul of the planning system will mean a lower emphasis on the opinions of those who already live in the area. And newts hopefully. We'll find out next year, I guess.
    I think it may have been sarcasm
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,084
    kingstongraham said:

    pangolin said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Reeves says they will overhaul the planning system to actually allow infrastructure to be built and Starmer is apparently going to announce new towns and releasing more low quality green belt land for development.

    It sounds good.

    All good as long as it's not too close to me frankly, too busy around here already.
    If they build the infrastructure to support it, wouldn't it make it less busy if it was near you?

    I assume the overhaul of the planning system will mean a lower emphasis on the opinions of those who already live in the area. And newts hopefully. We'll find out next year, I guess.
    Just funding the system properly so that there are enough well-trained planning officers to make well considered and timely decisions that would be a huge improvement.

    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • pangolin
    pangolin Posts: 6,602
    Pross said:

    kingstongraham said:

    pangolin said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Reeves says they will overhaul the planning system to actually allow infrastructure to be built and Starmer is apparently going to announce new towns and releasing more low quality green belt land for development.

    It sounds good.

    All good as long as it's not too close to me frankly, too busy around here already.
    If they build the infrastructure to support it, wouldn't it make it less busy if it was near you?

    I assume the overhaul of the planning system will mean a lower emphasis on the opinions of those who already live in the area. And newts hopefully. We'll find out next year, I guess.
    I think it may have been sarcasm
    Yeah apologies doesn't really work when written down!
    - Genesis Croix de Fer
    - Dolan Tuono
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 27,756
    Starmer: "I never thought I would say this, but I’m beginning to see why Liz Truss won."
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 19,509
    kingstongraham said:

    Starmer: "I never thought I would say this, but I’m beginning to see why Liz Truss won."


    They've had one or two almost decent jokes in the past few days (which is rare in politicians). This is quite droll too.

    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois

Categories