RayC

I interpret that as meaning it is impossible for a (social) survey to be objective because bias will always be present in the question(s) being posed and survey design? If that is the case then it begs any number of questions, the main one being, why bother conducting any such surveys if the results are, by definition, bias? I agree. Wrt sub-standard schools, improvements might be found by adjusting their current operations, but it will almost certainly entail allocating relatively more resources (both human and capital) to such schools vis-a-vis the better performing schools. It must be more economically efficient as the potential marginal gains are greater. One of your 4 tests of being a leftie is placing equity above equality. I would suggest that this is an example where such a position is warranted. Indeed, I would go further and suggest that there are a wide range of public policies where such action is justified, and that one does not have to be a 'leftie' to support such decisions. You are proving my point: It is extremely difficult - if not impossible - to define a set of attributes which constitute culture. I would contend that it is therefore even more difficult to state that one culture is superior to another. I realise that it was a joke (as was my response). Yes, cricket on the sub-continent is something else. I would love to go to an India vs. Pakistan match. I have more hatred for the extreme right, but have little time for the hard left either.

Nail hit squarely on head. Air travel is not a public good. According to another poster, Thai Airways profit margin is 1.2%, so that hardly indicates profiteering.

I think that your link supports my contention: What alternative did Ukraine have but to put its' trust in the West? As the article suggests, Putin is untrustworthy. Add in the fact that Putin does not recognise Ukraine's right to exist as a sovereign nation, then it had no option but to look to the West. You suggest that Ukraine could have managed the situation by "... adeptly balancing (the pull of) east and west". I would argue that was (and is) an all but impossible task. Even if possible, it would have required the 'touch of an angel'. Was there anyone in the Ukrainian administration blessed with that gift?

Irrespective of whether its' trust was misplaced, what alternative did Ukraine have but to put its' trust in the West? It is clear where putting its' trust in Russia would have led i.e. being subsumed into a 'Greater' Russia.

That's a shame, Trans. I'm afraid that I'm not to rehash the post, so I guess that we will both have to learn to live with our disappointment 😭😉

The subject matter might well be subjective but the methodology could, and should, be objective. You're right. I would suggest that anti-Israeli, rather than anti-Semitic, sentiment has increased in the UK. I would think that their position(s) have hardened. Where the US goes, the UK follows. Some would argue the centre has already disappeared from UK politics. We are straying from the topic nevertheless ..... You are missing the point. My point is that equality of opportunity is missing. I think that it uncontentious to say that not all universities are equal? In England (I will exclude the rest of the UK as the education systems are different), Oxford and Cambridge (Oxbridge) are generally accepted as being the two best universities. In order to be accepted into Oxbridge a student needs, as a bare minimum, at least 3 'A' grades at GCSE 'A' level (the public examination sat by 17/18 year old students in the UK). In addition, most applicants for Oxbridge have to sit a separate entrance examination set by the Oxbridge colleges and attend an interview: The working class student is at a disadvantage from the outset. S/he is unlikely to have attended one of the fee-paying public (private) schools. These schools have much better facilities and environments for learning than their state counterparts. In addition, they are geared towards sending their students to Oxbridge and, more often than not, offer coaching for the Oxbridge entrance exams and interviews. Unlike the majority of their counterparts in the state sector, the teachers at these schools are almost inevitably graduates of Oxbridge and ex-public schoolboys themselves, have an intimate knowledge and quite often connections within and to the Oxbridge colleges. Except for very rare instances, these options are simply not available for state school pupils. The odds are stacked against them from the outset. Therefore, whilst the content of the public examinations - and to a lesser extent, the Oxbridge entrance exams - may be unbiased, etc the preparation for them certainly isn't. It's akin to letting some runners in a 100m race start 2 secs before the rest. Sometimes one of the late starters will win the race; the vast majority of the time they won't. I'm afraid that my ignorance of the US education system is almost total. However, whilst the SAT tests themselves may well be free of bias with all students have equality of opportunity, can the same thing be said of the system which prepares students for these tests? Imo that is far too narrow an explanation of what constitutes culture. Religion doesn't completely define society's culture but I would argue that the norms, symbolism, art, etc associated with religion form an intrinsic part of the overwhelming majority of culture(s) around the world. As I inferred previously, I wouldn't even know where to start defining the set of criterion - let alone how to measure - the superiority of one culture vis-a-vis another. In the unlikely event that you find yourself standing on a patch of grass - which might not be in the best of condition - armed only with a helmet, some padding and a willow bat, about to face someone who is about to bowl a leather encased sphere with a pronounced seam - possibly deliberately aimed at your head - at a speed of 90+ mph I wish you luck and hope that you don't get hit (I guarantee that it will hurt even with the helmet and padding). Can I also suggest that you don't refer to either the sport or the bowler as "sissy-ass" as this is probably going to upset them. In the circumstances that you find yourself, I would venture that this is something best avoided. That depends on your viewpoint. I was rather disappointed in the result.

We were talking at cross-purposes. I think that we are in (broad) agreement about the causes of the upsurge in hatred. The attached link gives details about the main organisers of the protests in the UK. A mixed bag although I concede that some of these organisations are, at best, anti-Israel and, at worse, anti-Semitic. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/who-are-the-six-groups-organising-the-pro-palestinian-protests-113037580.html I am probably guilty of pedantry here. Apart from the bit about Hamas protesters in education, imo your comment could equally be applied to the UK. One factor that may be unique to the UK? The Pro-Palestine organisers insisted on holding a protest on Armistice Day. This upset a lot of people. Imo this certainly didn't do the Pro-Palestian cause any good, and it may well have contributed to anti-Islamic sentiment. Why would it necessarily have had to be subjective? In any event, irrelevant now as the opportunity has passed. Because, as I explained, imo anti-Semitic feeling was (and still is) fuelled by Israel's response to the attacks. At the risk of over-generalising and over- simplifying matters, they have disagreed with the Israeli government's policies toward, and actions, in Palestine over the years, and have sought to put pressure on the UK government to lobby for change. You didn't and you have now clarified matters. However in my defence, in the UK the term 'leftie' is often used to describe someone who holds views which are thought to be 'left' of the political 'centre' (i.e. not part of the general consensus). Imo this depends on the context and circumstances. What if equality (of opportunity) doesn't exist? A case in point are the disproportionate number of PMs who originate from Eton (a UK public school (a fee paying private school in American parlance). No one in their right mind would suggest that this is coincidence or that all kids in the UK have an equal chance of attending Eton. Given that attendance at this school brings many advantages, isn't there a case for levelling the playing field? That would probably be construed as placing equity over equality. Given that I believe such actions are justified, I guess that makes me a 'leftie' based on this criterion. I am not. 1-1. How do you even measure this superiority? Is Tibetan Buddhism superior to Italian Catholicism? Is the popular music of the UK superior to that of Nigeria? Is cricket better than baseball? (Actually that is a rhetoric question and the answer is quite obviously 'Yes'😉). I'm still at 1-1. Oppression exists. However, I don't believe the world is divided simply into 'oppressors' and 'the oppressed'. So based on your criteria, it's 1-2 and I am not a lefty😉😁

For someone who claims that their sole concern is an end to the bloodshed, you spend an extortionate amount of time gloating about Russian triumphs and Ukrainian setbacks. Maybe you've been brainwashed by RT?

If you look at your original post, it consists of a statement, " It is interesting .... protests in the UK", contained in one sentence in a single paragraph. There is then a new paragraph containing the following: " Why do you guys suppose that is?" A question. I didn't recognise this as rhetorical and took it at face value. "I don't know" is (one) often used response to questions such as "Why do you suppose ... ?" when the person being questioned, well, doesn't know (or doesn't have an opinion on the matter): I "suppose", strictly speaking, the correct response would be along the lines of, "I don't have an opinion on the matter", but I would contend that is just being pedantic. As for my thoughts on the matter. I have already stated that imo the protests have contributed to the anti-Semitism and anti-Islamic sentiment which exists: I don't have an opinion of why the article excludes mention of the protests. Imo it would foolish to deny that some are anti-Israel and some anti-Semitic: Others are anti-war (period); others may be using the protests as a vehicle for other political ends, etc, etc. However, I certainly wouldn't contend and/or conclude that the protests were anti-Semitic by design: The organisers and protesters are many and varied. It's possible but in order to support that contention there would need to be data available re the level of anti-Semitic and anti-Islamic sentiments, pre-October 7; post-October 7 but before any protests; and post-October 7 and after the protest(s). I agree (strictly speaking). I think that there can be little doubt that the Hamas attack fuelled anti-Islamic feeling. Those who already held anti-Semitic views may have 'doubled down', and tried to further fuel such sentiment, but imo this had little effect. I don't have data to support my view but I would contend that the immediate response post-attack was support for Israel and Jews in general. The increase in anti-Semitism was a result of Israel's response. Pro-Palestine rallies have been a regular occurrence in London for decades although not, of course, on the scale we now see. Around 100,000 attended a Pro-Palestine demo the week after the Hamas attack. As I mentioned earlier, whether the protests are responsible for the bulk of the hatred being shown is debatable. That the protests have fuelled this hatred is imo incontestable. When used in a political sense, the words 'left' and 'right' (and 'centre') are relative to each other. Therefore, one still needs, at least, one other point in order to say whether the point in question is on the left or on the right. By definition, at least, three points are needed if you are going to label things left, right and centre. If you are using 'leftist' in a non-relative sense then the attributes associated with the term need to be defined. I can't answer your original question, "Are you a leftist?" until you supply some context.

Actually a statement followed a question. Not that this reply adds anything to the debate but to address matters directly, here goes: "(the article) says nothing of the pro Hamas/Palestine protests in the UK" Agreed "Why do you guys suppose that is?" I don't know. Personally, I think the protests may have contributed to both anti-Semitic and anti-Islamic sentiments, but clearly the catalyst for the rises is rooted in the Hamas attack and Israel's response. Are you a leftist? That depends upon what is defined as being the centre.

I don't understand what point you are trying to make?

For once I agree with your analysis. However, I struggle to reconcile this post with your view that the war in Ukraine has nothing to do with Russian expansionism. If that's the case, why would Europe need to spend money on a deterrent?

Imo Brown wasn't a very good PM - although he compares favourably with those that have followed him - but a very good Chancellor.

Why continue to post and refer to this map of yours? The relevant map is the one which I posted which shows Ukraine's internationally agreed borders. If Russia agrees to respect these borders, then discussions can take place about the funding of the reparations. I don't question your sincerity in wishing for peace - no sane person would want anything else - but peace comes at a cost. The cost of your negotiated settlement would be rewarding an aggressor and further encouraging him. A very heavy price to pay.

Any war? What about historical wars such as WW2? You'd have left Nazi Germany and Japan to do what they wanted?

There were many who said that the UK should sue for peace between 1940 - 42. Fortunately, the tide turned.

A distasteful, dismissive, flippant comment about a catastrophe. However, notwithstanding that, the fact is that allowing Russia to " ... keep Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, whatever .." would be rewarding an illegal invasion and may well embolden Putin to push into other nations' territories such as Georgia and possibly Estonia. Yes, Estonia is a NATO member but Putin might reason that if the US was willing to withdraw support for Ukraine, if might well feel the same about NATO. I'd suggest that this is not an unreasonable assumption if Trump were to win the forthcoming election given his recent comments. The simple truth is that Europe cannot currently defend itself without US backing at the moment. Are most European NATO states culpable for this? Imo, yes (at least, they are a major factor). Nevertheless we are where we are. Imo if the US allows Putin to achieve his goals in Ukraine by withdrawing funding, then imo there is a real risk of this leading to a larger, more major, more lasting conflict in Europe. Is the US content to run that risk with all that entails? That's the question it needs to ask itself.

His comments on domestic issues extended to rejuvenating the local markets and enticing Primark to Rochdale.

You forgot 'Putin apologist'

The Putin apologists are out early and in force today. NATO are the warmongers. NATO has blood on its' hands. Please spare us your misplaced righteous indignation. Is there no end to this blinkered hypocrisy? The simple fact is that Putin has been attempting to destabilise Ukraine ever since he came to power. His annexation of Crimea, support for Dombass separatists and the invasion of Ukraine were all illegal acts. Those calling for Ukraine to cede territory in a negotiated settlement will be rewarding naked aggression. It's as simple as that. Here's a map of Ukraine showing it's internationally agreed borders. This is what Ukraine should look like at the end of this war.

So what point are you trying to make? If we do away with war then the nations of the world can disband their militaries? A lovely thought but imo unrealistic. Alternatively given that in your opinion, the military aren't happy unless there is a war going on, the world should be permanently at war in order to satisfy the military? So that's your justification for Putin's invasion of Ukraine: He was only trying to appease the Russian military.

I wouldn't join in the 'lap of honour' just yet. Wasn't exactly a stellar night for the Conservative or Reform parties either. Why anyone would vote for George Galloway is frankly beyond me. Would he won if Labour had not withdrawn its' endorsement of Azhar Ali? Perhaps but I very much doubt that the Labour vote been so low. Imo this result is an outlier which is mostly a result of (local) circumstance. That said, I have never believed that Labour are a shoo-in at the next election. Unlike '97 when support for Labour was positive i.e. they will benefit the country, the support for Starmer is negative i.e. he can't be as bad as the alternatives. This type of support might decide to abstain or change. However, there will need to be something positive for voters to change their mind and there's not much good news at the moment (I imagine that the vast majority of people will view any tax cuts in the forthcoming budget for what they are: A bribe). Interesting survey from YouGov. https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/48786-labour-and-starmer-arent-popular-but-the-tories-are-even-less-so

Do try to keep up! Starmer is a Jewish puppet on Mondays and Tuesdays; Wednesdays and Thursdays is the Islamists' timeslot; Friday, it's the Christian fundamentalists' turn, while control of Starmer at the weekend is shared by China and Russia.

I think the lack of knickers was part of the supposed problem😉

Vans would be a bonus; it might be a bit tricky. The other three most certainly.