littleyellowbirdie

No, but my point is that one battalion of the IDF isn't the IDF. To describe it as sanctions on the IDF is misleading, intentionally or otherwise.

Emotional blackmail is core to the Labour brand.

All of it. People are so conditioned into it, even supporters of smaller parties define themselves relative to the two big parties. Even in the Lib Dems there was basically a Toryish camp and a Labourish camp. It's so tiresome.

@Well b back, that was a bit d1ckish on my part to be fair. Must say, Indy threw me the other day when he just backed off after a falling out. He's a good egg. Like he said, people get passionate, and personally I like passionate people, so not sure what I've done to apparently wind you up to a new level, but whatever it is, I apologise for it, so chill out a bit, eh?

There is no context to what he said. He simply said 'US sanctions on IDF', with no qualifications. Semantically, that sounds like it's implying the whole IDF, doesnt it? Now be honest. Don't let yourself down as our champion of facts and truth on this. Additionally though, the sanctions are down to alleged war crimes of small groups; there's no suggestion the state is actively sanctioning war crimes in the US position, factually speaking. Still, good job. 👌

C'mon @well b back. We need our factual guru to the rescue... You can do it! I'll give you a hint... is it the whole IDF that has been sanctioned? What say you? @Yellow fever. You can join in if you like.

I'm interested in why you seem to be going downhill into just base insults these days, and pretty much out of the blue at that. Am I not paying you enough attention?

@Well b back, with your recent love of factual correction on misleasing statements, can you make the correction on YF's statement? Or maybe YF would like to correct it himself?

What have I said that's not factual? No rush for an answer. If you want time to go and ask your MP, then I'm happy to wait. 😉 Seriously: Where have I negated any of that?

Absolutely. With so much debt hanging over the country along with a structural deficit, there's really very little choice to be had on fiscal policy for any PM, whatever the ideology.

Yeah, I'm personally in favour of it, so long as we start calling out corruption in football for what it is, because you're right: This can only be corruption or staggering incompetence; in either case the referees are showing themselves to be unfit for the job.

It amazes me you can write posts like this and call other people stupid with no pause for thought.

Portugal: Oliveira France: Lees-Melou Germany: Leitner Spain: Sainz Netherlands: No idea Belgium: No idea Poland: No idea: Noway: Yes way. Sweden: No idea. Finland: Pukki Brazil: Sara Argentina: Buendia

Absolutely. VAR removes all doubt as to being able to see what happens. If decisions then look like they're not right to most people then either the rules are wrong, the interpretation is wrong. If the interpretation's wrong then it's a question whether it's a good faith misunderstanding or corruption. Corruption can easily be avoided by making sure there are no conflicts of interest as there was here.

Stress testing, procedures and contingencies are not regulations. The potential for such problems with LDIs had been foreseen years ago. The crisis could have as easily been triggered by external factors as from a negative reception to the budget. They could and should have had those in place.

Except that in considering why they don't want to talk to the BoE and OBR beforehand, you only have to look at the fact we've had budgets leaked beforehand. Employees of the civil service have again and again broken faith with governments, which is a large part of why we are where we are; discretion is supposed to be part of the job, but they can't resist getting involved in politics.

Fair comment, not you personally, but as you've only come into this later on you can be discounted for the purposes of this discussion and focus on the YF's, CMs and Horseflys in the mix, plus those that like to make snotty, but pointless comments from the sidelines, like Wellbback, Herman and Squit. They've all bent over backwards to avoid acknowledging that the BoE should be in for legitimate and pretty substantial criticism in the how and the scale of the crisis, and it's purely about party politics. If you want to talk about Rwanda though, in my view they're doing the right thing given that it's impossible to do anything internationally and there must be some mechanism for removing people who aren't legitimate; there has to be some deterrent to people who abuse the rules like so many undocumented migrants do. There will not be one person on the Rwanda flights who hasn't gone through exhaustive administrative and legal processes in consideration of their cases. Just like YF can demand absolute proof of a God, but can just assert that he 'knows' what Liz Truss would have done in a 'what if' scenario, so can a democratic government stand up and say 'okay: We believe that Rwanda is a safe place to send these people' and make the lawyers work on that basis. Once it is underway then we can see if the critics were right. Worst case scenario, Labour can bring them back and answer to the public for it.

Thanks for proving my point. Frankly, what's PM calibre anyway? Looking polished and sounding reasonable; sounding statesmanlike in stage managed photo ops while committing the UK to a war on false pretenses that irrevocably destroyed the UN's credibility like Tony Blair did?

Oh come on. You lot would argue Theresa May wasn't PM calibre. That's not what it's really about. It's all about the party with you folk. And if this was labour we were talking about it would be completely the other way, just like John Kelly's suicide was nothing to do with the government.

Maybe hanging about with Diabetic (and Fatty as well seeing as she's fat) Abbott?

Well there you go then. We can put to bed entirely the 'what ifs' about Liz Truss and concentrate on the fact that contingencies for LDIs were known unknowns at the BoE since 2018 and they had nothing in terms of setting up monitoring of risks, stress testing, or contingencies which resulted in the crisis being far greater than it might have been.

Yet another person commenting with what they think they already know rather than actually listening to the episodes I posted.

There's no 'of course' about it. The risks had already been established in 2018; the BoE did nothing to address them until there was a real problem. It was the case here that the trigger was a government decision, but it need not have been; an external trigger could have caused an LDI crisis that the BoE would have been no better prepared for. And furthermore, there has been no public scrutiny of what changes they've made or whether they're actually sufficient, because people like you want to avoid a true historical look at it to keep it nice and simple for your own political preferences.

What does informal advice have to do with whether or not the Bank of England was doing its job properly? There are two major conclusions from what Peston had to say: -Had the BoE invested time and effort into stress testing and contingencies over threats in the LDI market, the negative economic effects from the mini-budget would have been smaller due to the massive reduced delay in identifying the problem and taking steps to counteract it. As such, some of the blame for the overall damage is on them. After the whole crisis, the BoE has introduced changes to prevent something similar running out of control in the future further underlining that it was caught with its pants down. -Had the BoE done that, they would have been in a position to explain the risks formally to the PM, face to face, in an email, whatever. If that had happened then we would know for sure whether Truss would have listened or not. As it is, we know there's a way the BoE could have possibly prevented it by doing what should be considered as their job.

There's no risk to anyone other than the personal risk to the Jewish guy among the pro-Palestinian protesters. If the so-called pro-Palestinians are entitled to protest then so should the pro-Israelis be entitled to protest them. If the pro-Palestinians become violent against the pro-Israelis then they should be arrested.