"National Security can't come at the cost of Social Security" - WTAF?

[Binnyforthewin]

Surely our PM releases that without National Security there is no Social Security? One is entirely dependent on the other.

From which body/court has this arrest warrant come?

Deluded....are you going to move them to Blackpool where all the jobs are. It's certainly cheaper than Peckham

Many many people who claim benefits are actually working. Unfortunately their wages are so poor they can't afford to live without welfare. So uprooting these welfare claimants would harm our economy and cause more problems for areas with high unemployment.

International Criminal Court (ICC)

And so far there has been no arrest, is that correct ?

Because he is avoiding the countries that would arrest him, just like Putin is. Putin also has an arrest warrant for war crimes from the ICC.

…

Not read all the comments but we desperately need social housing. It pays for itself. Compare £2,000 a month housing benefit paid for temporary accommodation as opposed to £500 a month in housing benefit for a council house. I don’t believe Labour will build any, by the way - despite their claims. I have lost faith in them entirely.

So the ICC is just a toothless organisation that relies on others to do it's dirty work?
Unless Nettanyahu is convicted he can't be called a "War Criminal".

More pressing is the matter of Hamas praising Milliband for his actions in applying sanctions to the West Bank.
Basem Naim, a senior figure in Hamas's political bureau, said: "The imposition of sanctions by Britain and other European countries and Canada on goods imported from the settlements of the occupied West Bank, and the London foreign minister's use of the term 'ethnic cleansing' to describe the crimes of the settlers, are important steps in the right direction but they are not enough."

So it seems that this Labour government is now taking on the role of a terrorist organisation's lackey?

Ameer Kotecha, CEO of Centre of Government Reform and ex-Head of Palestinian Issues at the British Embassy in Israel, said that Labour's sanctions on Israeli settlements will have “very real consequences”. The former diplomat described the sanctions as a “moral crusade” or “virtue signalling”, rather than having a “hard-nosed focus on the British national interest”.

Mr Kotecha described Labour's sanctions announcement as an own goal amid retaliatory sanctions, particularly as humanitarian efforts for Gaza are orchestrated out of the consulate.
He said: “The consulate is basically the place coordinating all of our humanitarian and aid efforts for Gaza.
“There is a very real argument here that this is going to harm the ordinary Gazans that the average British person wants to support and assist.”

Gideon Saar, Israel's foreign minister, announced the UK would be barred from participating in the US-led coordination mission in Gaza. Speaking at a press conference in Jerusalem, Mr Saar said: "We do not return to our land after 2000 years in order to lose it under the pressure of Islamists, antisemites, jihadists, woke people and people from the extreme left.
"Not only will you not harm us, you will harm yourselves."

Mark Sewards ( new Chairman Labour Friends of Israel) says the trade ban on West Bank settlements could bolster Binyamin Netanyahu before pivotal Israeli elections and fuel antisemitism in Britain,

Oh dear another anti ICC and apologizer, we have every right to call him a war criminal because that's the accusation and he won't surrender himself to the court. He will never be able to visit mainland Europe against and he is effectively on the run.

I will remind you while it wasn't the ICC, many Nazis and Bosnian war criminals were prosecuted by international courts.

These courts reflect the will of our world to bring justice in the face of immense power. When people undermine their power they will become toothless and lawlessness will prevail. When people like Trump, Netanyahu, Putin break international law they are simply undermining treaties and organisations that uphold human decency and rights.

I believe it will be Congress that will hold Trump to account and pressure will bring Netanyahu in line. If Israel continues the unfortunately it is highly likely that war will prevail and escalate.

No, he can't be called a War Criminal because he hasn't been tried in any court.
So we have another blinkered poster with selective compassion.
While there are atrocities taking place in Sudan, China, and Myanmar people are being pointed towards Israel because of course it's "no Jews no news".

I believe it will be Congress that will hold Trump to account and pressure will bring Netanyahu in line. If Israel continues the unfortunately it is highly likely that war will prevail and escalate.

What you believe is irrelevant when there is no proof of guilt.

By take logic Hitler wasn't a war criminal. Netenyhu should certainly face trial at the ICC. he will face the charges in time, he can't be in power for ever.

So the public sector pays Google to provide the services. Where does the money come from to pay google? Taxpayers.

The public sector does not "create" wealth as Ive said. It facilitates the creation of wealth. It does not create wealth. Unless of course you consider quantative easing as "wealth creation" (haha) and then we really are in trouble.

Consumer spending is not wealth creation in and of itself. Its just passing money on.

You're comparing apples & pears there.
The whole world was at war with Hitler, the whole world isn't at war with Israel.

@dwordle Our military is in a better state than it was under Margaret Thatcher, and if Argentina were stupid enough to attempt to take the Falklands they would be in for a pretty nasty surprise.

If we can't even get a warship from here to Cyprus, I don't hold out much hope of getting one down to the South Atlantic.

But rents are going to go up even more as landlords leave the rental sector as they can't earn enough to pay the mortgage on the property. Those houses that were previously rented would be sold. The government can't have it both ways. If they have insufficient public provision for renters then they have to include the private sector. And landlords then have a choice to accept the rent caps which may mean that being a landlord doesn't work for them financially. Which is what is transpiring due to the new regs.

This. The good private landlord would be priced out.

What is your evidence for this? (rather than Daily Mail type propaganda...).

For example the media talks a lot about PIP when in reality the DWP own figures show that fraud is close to 0% for that particular benefit as it is in fact incredibly hard to qualify for.

You also have to show ID documents, proof of address, bank details and so on to qualify for any unemployment benefits.

To suggest that 'most of this benefit money' goes into fraudulent claims is just nonsense frankly.

Also many people on UC actually work but their employers pay poverty wages so they have to top up their salary with benefits. Funny how this is never mentioned when talking about benefits: why should the tax payers prop up businesses who don't pay decent wages?

You seem unable to grasp the timeline that’s a matter of public record.

‘Headless chickens’ who have brought down both net migration and small boats, and moved most asylum seekers out of hotels (all Tory promises).

They're doing it to farmers too. The government clearly want to kick farmers off the land and are using government policy to make farming so unpalatable that farms are sold. They presumably want to either build on prime farm land or cover it with solar panels. Bit short sighted obviously particularly if we end up in a war as humans can't eat houses or solar panels but by then the land will have gone or be degraded.

No I'm just applying your definition. Hilter was never found guilty of any war crimes but I think we would all agree he is a war criminal.

No need to try and be patronising. It doesn't make you look clever.

Any reduction in migration is due to the effects of Tory actions.

We can rehash the timing of the legislation process if you want. But laws don't get passed quickly. Particularly if you have a large number of left MPs who don't really want to reduce migration. And now Labour are in, look at how the ILR time frame where you can claim benefits has been reduced from 10 years.

I’m not being patronising - I’ve explained myself clearly, you’re wilfulfully ignoring the timeline to defend a policy you feel should have been pursued. I see no point continuing to explain.

How can a reduction in migration two years into this government be a result of the actions of the previous one?

ETA the post Supreme Court legislation was actually quite quick, and wasn’t held up by the opposition. That suggested to me that the govt new what they were proposing was unlawful and had prepared legislation on that basis.

Labour are missing that barracks instead isn’t the win they’re looking for.

They didn’t run on we’ll get rid of hotels but use barracks with 1000 plus men instead or HMOs.

What happend to innocent before being proved guilty. You can't brand him a war criminal before the trial just becuase he hasn't been arrested. Some people on here are become more and more despotic.