Resolves on uncontested reporting of a Starmer statement that is clearly congruent with the title.
I will not bet in this market.
Market will be extended until hostilities cease.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ277 | |
| 2 | Ṁ262 | |
| 3 | Ṁ222 | |
| 4 | Ṁ176 | |
| 5 | Ṁ118 |
This is clearly enough for me, resolving YES
@JoshuaWilkes if anyone is wondering why I went for a pause-and-wait before, when this statement is basically what was reported:
There was just something about the way that it was reported and framed as Starmer agreeing with what Sunak was saying that made me a little concerned that his actual remarks might not have gone far enough and it was Sunak/Cameron who had gone further.
That's clearly now shown to be not the case.
And this:
https://news.sky.com/video/labour-leader-backs-sustainable-ceasefire-israel-hamas-war-13035569
@JoshuaWilkes, thoughts on this? In my book that's uncontested reporting of a Starmer statement clearly congruent with Keir Starmer calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.
Starmer is known for flip flopping, if the conflict continues and thousands more Palestinian civilians die it seems inevitable that the public mood in the UK and even more importantly in the US will swing even more towards a ceasefire. Unless Israel significantly scales back they will eventually anger Biden, remember that Starmer is refusing to call for a ceasefire in order to align himself with world leaders, much more so than to appease the right or Jewish voters. Once Biden changes course so will Starmer.
Can you clarify what you mean by hostilities ceasing? Is it one sided; would Netanyahu saying "the war is over" be sufficient? Or some sort of surrender by Hamas? Or X days without any reports of a Palestinian injuring an Israeli or an Israeli injuring a Palestinian? It feels like there's a reasonable chance of hostilities going on for years, depending on the definition; is that the intent?
@CanlumNodel I'm sort of reluctant to make a definitive ruling on this.
However, if the Israeli armed forces are continuously engaged in Gaza with on the ground or through strikes and Gazans or Israelis are being killed or injured on a frequent basis then I will deem hostilities not to have ceased.
It's possible that there will be a military occupation with infrequent casualties that seems not to meet that threshold.
A useful rule of thumb would be whether in the current situation calling for a ceasefire is something other voices are still doing, but again, I don't want to make that a definitive qualification.
One reason for saying I will not bet on this market (usually I do not give myself this restriction) is to give me more space to make these determinations in a fair way, rather than applying stringent criteria to a complex situation.