|
Post by oggyoggy on Feb 21, 2024 9:34:52 GMT
Will Badenoch apologise to Mr Staunton? Will she resign? A really bad day for the darling of the right. She lies and lies and lies and doesn’t care at app about the public who she supposedly serves.
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Feb 21, 2024 9:50:21 GMT
PMQ's could be good today, think I'll get some Butterkist in 😄
|
|
|
Post by maxplonk on Feb 21, 2024 10:47:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Feb 21, 2024 12:32:06 GMT
Replied to the wrong post 🤦
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Feb 21, 2024 12:33:43 GMT
PMQ's could be good today, think I'll get some Butterkist in 😄 Sunak really is the King of whataboutery 😄
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Feb 21, 2024 19:30:03 GMT
Hoyle needs to step down as an MP. Starmer needs to step down as leader.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Feb 21, 2024 19:55:51 GMT
Hoyle needs to step down as an MP. Starmer needs to step down as leader. He's toast as far as the Speakers role is concerned unbelievable scenes.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Feb 21, 2024 20:39:02 GMT
Hoyle needs to step down as an MP. Starmer needs to step down as leader. Much ado about nothing. The SNP want a ceasefire, labour want a ceasefire, the tories want a ceasefire. Why can’t they all grow up and vote as one for a ceasefire? Why did the SNP motion beed amending!? They are like squabbling children. Meanwhile Israel prepare to storm Rafah.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Feb 21, 2024 20:42:34 GMT
Hoyle needs to step down as an MP. Starmer needs to step down as leader. Much ado about nothing. The SNP want a ceasefire, labour want a ceasefire, the tories want a ceasefire. Why can’t they all grow up and vote as one for a ceasefire? Why did the SNP motion beed amending!? They are like squabbling children. Meanwhile Israel prepare to storm Rafah. Because each of the parties want to claim credit for the proposal. Decency, integrity and humanity are secondary to that.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Feb 21, 2024 20:46:43 GMT
Much ado about nothing. The SNP want a ceasefire, labour want a ceasefire, the tories want a ceasefire. Why can’t they all grow up and vote as one for a ceasefire? Why did the SNP motion beed amending!? They are like squabbling children. Meanwhile Israel prepare to storm Rafah. Because each of the parties want to claim credit for the proposal. Decency, integrity and humanity are secondary to that. Labour and the Tories shouldn’t have amended the motion. Labour shouldn’t have pressured the Speaker, the Speaker shouldn’t have broken convention, the tories and SNP shouldn’t have walked out. They are a disgrace. The lot of them.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Feb 21, 2024 20:53:58 GMT
Pathetic excuses from Hoyle today saying he made his decision because of MPs being intimidated. What a load of shite. Another attack on our democracy and the usual nodding busters will no doubt use this to feed their next culture wars.
All Hoyle is trying to do is save his Labour chums face and to try and keep them in a job come the next election. Labour had absolutely NO right to make any amendments on SNPs opposition day. If Labour wanted a ceasefire then they had many opportunities to table one on their own opposition days - they didn't.
Labour aren't listening to their base and frankly don't care. They know their constituents want a ceasefire but they don't care. The main voice Labour listen to is that of the Israel Lobby - a foreign country. So much for getting our sovereignty back when a foreign country has more say on our politics than the electorate. Labours amendments are a sham and Starmers way of trying to take us for mugs because he's a weak spineless man.
After all the sleeze and corruption these last few years and Starmer is just as big a snake. Starmer and his cronies are wolves in sheeps clothing, this isn't labour nor left wing nor democratic. It's a sad day when you come to the realisation that our best hope is The Workers Party led by George Galloway. But here we are.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Feb 21, 2024 21:03:50 GMT
Pathetic excuses from Hoyle today saying he made his decision because of MPs being intimidated. What a load of shite. Another attack on our democracy and the usual nodding busters will no doubt use this to feed their next culture wars. All Hoyle is trying to do is save his Labour chums face and to try and keep them in a job come the next election. Labour had absolutely NO right to make any amendments on SNPs opposition day. If Labour wanted a ceasefire then they had many opportunities to table one on their own opposition days - they didn't. Labour aren't listening to their base and frankly don't care. They know their constituents want a ceasefire but they don't care. The main voice Labour listen to is that of the Israel Lobby - a foreign country. So much for getting our sovereignty back when a foreign country has more say on our politics than the electorate. Labours amendments are a sham and Starmers way of trying to take us for mugs because he's a weak spineless man. After all the sleeze and corruption these last few years and Starmer is just as big a snake. Starmer and his cronies are wolves in sheeps clothing, this isn't labour nor left wing nor democratic. It's a sad day when you come to the realisation that our best hope is The Workers Party led by George Galloway. But here we are. On the sovereignty issue Gawa, we still need to wlect a representative government. Being in the EU would make no difference to that. Galloway could work with Farage on certain issues, which is incomprehensible to many www.facebook.com/share/v/1sZCYg1Wx5qcF6o9/
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Feb 21, 2024 21:05:54 GMT
Much ado about nothing. The SNP want a ceasefire, labour want a ceasefire, the tories want a ceasefire. Why can’t they all grow up and vote as one for a ceasefire? Why did the SNP motion beed amending!? They are like squabbling children. Meanwhile Israel prepare to storm Rafah. Because each of the parties want to claim credit for the proposal. Decency, integrity and humanity are secondary to that. - Opposition days are days allocated in the House of Commons for the discussion of subjects chosen by the opposition (non-government) parties. There are 20 days allocated for this purpose per session (under Standing Order 14). - Today was SNP's opposition day allowing them to bring the subject of Gaza to the table and a call for a ceasefire. - By convention only the government can offer amendments - which they did. Not a third party such as Labour. - Labour changed it from "immediate ceasefire" to "immediate humanitarian ceasefire". They also removed this part "“an end to the collective punishment of the Palestinian people” as well as making further changes. - Basically wishy washy Starmer trying to please everyone and not take a stance on anything as per usual. By changing those statements it makes them open for interpretation and allows him to call for a humantarian ceasefire whatever the fuck that is rather than an actual ceasefire while acknowledging Israels crimes too. - Labour should NEVER have had the opportunity to make any amendments. They should have simply had the choice to vote for the tory's amendments or the SNP's - not add their own to the mix. - In doing so it has allowed Labour to avoid from voting for SNP's ceasefire and facing further criticism from Israel/Jewish and also avoid not backing a ceasefire. Instead they can vote for their own wording which should have never been a choice to begin with. - The whole thing is completely politically motivated and a disgrace to our democracy. SNP and the Conservatives were completely right to walk away from the farce in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Feb 21, 2024 21:08:09 GMT
Because each of the parties want to claim credit for the proposal. Decency, integrity and humanity are secondary to that. - Opposition days are days allocated in the House of Commons for the discussion of subjects chosen by the opposition (non-government) parties. There are 20 days allocated for this purpose per session (under Standing Order 14). - Today was SNP's opposition day allowing them to bring the subject of Gaza to the table and a call for a ceasefire. - By convention only the government can offer amendments - which they did. Not a third party such as Labour. - Labour changed it from "immediate ceasefire" to "immediate humanitarian ceasefire". They also removed this part "“an end to the collective punishment of the Palestinian people” as well as making further changes. - Basically wishy washy Starmer trying to please everyone and not take a stance on anything as per usual. By changing those statements it makes them open for interpretation and allows him to call for a humantarian ceasefire whatever the fuck that is rather than an actual ceasefire while acknowledging Israels crimes too. - Labour should NEVER have had the opportunity to make any amendments. They should have simply had the choice to vote for the tory's amendments or the SNP's - not add their own to the mix. - In doing so it has allowed Labour to avoid from voting for SNP's ceasefire and facing further criticism from Israel/Jewish and also avoid not backing a ceasefire. Instead they can vote for their own wording which should have never been a choice to begin with. - The whole thing is completely politically motivated and a disgrace to our democracy. SNP and the Conservatives were completely right to walk away from the farce in my opinion. Well put!
|
|
|
Post by noustie on Feb 21, 2024 21:14:52 GMT
Because each of the parties want to claim credit for the proposal. Decency, integrity and humanity are secondary to that. - Opposition days are days allocated in the House of Commons for the discussion of subjects chosen by the opposition (non-government) parties. There are 20 days allocated for this purpose per session (under Standing Order 14). - Today was SNP's opposition day allowing them to bring the subject of Gaza to the table and a call for a ceasefire. - By convention only the government can offer amendments - which they did. Not a third party such as Labour. - Labour changed it from "immediate ceasefire" to "immediate humanitarian ceasefire". They also removed this part "“an end to the collective punishment of the Palestinian people” as well as making further changes. - Basically wishy washy Starmer trying to please everyone and not take a stance on anything as per usual. By changing those statements it makes them open for interpretation and allows him to call for a humantarian ceasefire whatever the fuck that is rather than an actual ceasefire while acknowledging Israels crimes too. - Labour should NEVER have had the opportunity to make any amendments. They should have simply had the choice to vote for the tory's amendments or the SNP's - not add their own to the mix. - In doing so it has allowed Labour to avoid from voting for SNP's ceasefire and facing further criticism from Israel/Jewish and also avoid not backing a ceasefire. Instead they can vote for their own wording which should have never been a choice to begin with. - The whole thing is completely politically motivated and a disgrace to our democracy. SNP and the Conservatives were completely right to walk away from the farce in my opinion. I’m no Flynn fan but he’s right to be fucking raging for me! Labour deserve a kicking for the shitebaggery but are desperately trying to paint everyone as point scoring on such an emotive subject.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 21, 2024 21:38:33 GMT
Because each of the parties want to claim credit for the proposal. Decency, integrity and humanity are secondary to that. - Opposition days are days allocated in the House of Commons for the discussion of subjects chosen by the opposition (non-government) parties. There are 20 days allocated for this purpose per session (under Standing Order 14). - Today was SNP's opposition day allowing them to bring the subject of Gaza to the table and a call for a ceasefire. - By convention only the government can offer amendments - which they did. Not a third party such as Labour. - Labour changed it from "immediate ceasefire" to "immediate humanitarian ceasefire". They also removed this part "“an end to the collective punishment of the Palestinian people” as well as making further changes. - Basically wishy washy Starmer trying to please everyone and not take a stance on anything as per usual. By changing those statements it makes them open for interpretation and allows him to call for a humantarian ceasefire whatever the fuck that is rather than an actual ceasefire while acknowledging Israels crimes too. - Labour should NEVER have had the opportunity to make any amendments. They should have simply had the choice to vote for the tory's amendments or the SNP's - not add their own to the mix. - In doing so it has allowed Labour to avoid from voting for SNP's ceasefire and facing further criticism from Israel/Jewish and also avoid not backing a ceasefire. Instead they can vote for their own wording which should have never been a choice to begin with. - The whole thing is completely politically motivated and a disgrace to our democracy. SNP and the Conservatives were completely right to walk away from the farce in my opinion. Indeed. Starmer disgraced British politics today. He was heading for a massive rebellion in his own party today, as scores of Labour MP's were going to vote with the SNP but he personally couldn't live with the "collective punishment" element of the resolution, so he decided to turn our democracy on it's head, instead. Straight out of the Johnson playbook. Shameful.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 21, 2024 21:47:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Feb 21, 2024 21:49:53 GMT
Pathetic excuses from Hoyle today saying he made his decision because of MPs being intimidated. What a load of shite. Another attack on our democracy and the usual nodding busters will no doubt use this to feed their next culture wars. All Hoyle is trying to do is save his Labour chums face and to try and keep them in a job come the next election. Labour had absolutely NO right to make any amendments on SNPs opposition day. If Labour wanted a ceasefire then they had many opportunities to table one on their own opposition days - they didn't. Labour aren't listening to their base and frankly don't care. They know their constituents want a ceasefire but they don't care. The main voice Labour listen to is that of the Israel Lobby - a foreign country. So much for getting our sovereignty back when a foreign country has more say on our politics than the electorate. Labours amendments are a sham and Starmers way of trying to take us for mugs because he's a weak spineless man. After all the sleeze and corruption these last few years and Starmer is just as big a snake. Starmer and his cronies are wolves in sheeps clothing, this isn't labour nor left wing nor democratic. It's a sad day when you come to the realisation that our best hope is The Workers Party led by George Galloway. But here we are. On the sovereignty issue Gawa, we still need to wlect a representative government. Being in the EU would make no difference to that. Galloway could work with Farage on certain issues, which is incomprehensible to many www.facebook.com/share/v/1sZCYg1Wx5qcF6o9/I know John I'm just ranting a bit so I am. There's alot with Galloway I don't agree with too but having read the workers party manifesto - there's alot more there I agree with compared to anything tabled by Labour so far. workerspartybritain.org/manifesto-britain-deserves-better/
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Feb 21, 2024 21:51:20 GMT
On the sovereignty issue Gawa, we still need to wlect a representative government. Being in the EU would make no difference to that. Galloway could work with Farage on certain issues, which is incomprehensible to many www.facebook.com/share/v/1sZCYg1Wx5qcF6o9/I know John I'm just ranting a bit so I am. There's alot with Galloway I don't agree with too but having read the workers party manifesto - there's alot more there I agree with compared to anything tabled by Labour so far. workerspartybritain.org/manifesto-britain-deserves-better/I like the " so I am " bit....where were you born Gawa?
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Feb 21, 2024 22:05:19 GMT
- Opposition days are days allocated in the House of Commons for the discussion of subjects chosen by the opposition (non-government) parties. There are 20 days allocated for this purpose per session (under Standing Order 14). - Today was SNP's opposition day allowing them to bring the subject of Gaza to the table and a call for a ceasefire. - By convention only the government can offer amendments - which they did. Not a third party such as Labour. - Labour changed it from "immediate ceasefire" to "immediate humanitarian ceasefire". They also removed this part "“an end to the collective punishment of the Palestinian people” as well as making further changes. - Basically wishy washy Starmer trying to please everyone and not take a stance on anything as per usual. By changing those statements it makes them open for interpretation and allows him to call for a humantarian ceasefire whatever the fuck that is rather than an actual ceasefire while acknowledging Israels crimes too. - Labour should NEVER have had the opportunity to make any amendments. They should have simply had the choice to vote for the tory's amendments or the SNP's - not add their own to the mix. - In doing so it has allowed Labour to avoid from voting for SNP's ceasefire and facing further criticism from Israel/Jewish and also avoid not backing a ceasefire. Instead they can vote for their own wording which should have never been a choice to begin with. - The whole thing is completely politically motivated and a disgrace to our democracy. SNP and the Conservatives were completely right to walk away from the farce in my opinion. Indeed. Starmer disgraced British politics today. He was heading for a massive rebellion in his own party today, as scores of Labour MP's were going to vote with the SNP but he personally couldn't live with the "collective punishment" element of the resolution, so he decided to turn our democracy on it's head, instead. Straight out of the Johnson playbook. Shameful. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out and the conservatives response to it too. Lindsay Hoyle used MP safety and intimidation as his reason for breaking convention. Well not initially, it was because it was a sensitive topic and the current approach is outdated amongst many other reasons. MP safety was his excuse after he seen the reaction. The conservatives have an open goal here to attack Labour for sleeze and flip it on them. But some conservative commentators are already beginning to sympathise with Hoyles comments. Will the tories attack? Or will they also sympaphise with Hoyles excuses. The end result will no doubt be some sort of bill to remove our freedoms of speech or rights to protest because of "Mp safety". Which to me sounds like removing accountability.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Feb 21, 2024 22:09:08 GMT
I like the " so I am " bit....where were you born Gawa? I am from an estate in North Belfast which has its kerbs painted red white and blue and union flags flying off lampposts and every other house during the summer. You wouldn't think it with my politics 🤣. I lived in the Midlands, North West and North East of England for a few years too and my interest in Stoke City began when Michael ONeill took over. I don't watch as many games as I did under MON but still semi regularly watch streams on discord and follow the match day threads/news and reports. They all thought I'd leave when my alleged husband was sacked
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2024 22:09:19 GMT
I do feel that there are a number of decent politicians out there having looked more closely at it for the last year or so. However, Starmer, Johnson, Truss and Sunak have shown completely that as soon as they get close to a wiff of power, morality just goes straight out of the window.
Those four are disgusting.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Feb 22, 2024 0:36:26 GMT
Pathetic excuses from Hoyle today saying he made his decision because of MPs being intimidated. What a load of shite. Another attack on our democracy and the usual nodding busters will no doubt use this to feed their next culture wars. All Hoyle is trying to do is save his Labour chums face and to try and keep them in a job come the next election. Labour had absolutely NO right to make any amendments on SNPs opposition day. If Labour wanted a ceasefire then they had many opportunities to table one on their own opposition days - they didn't. Labour aren't listening to their base and frankly don't care. They know their constituents want a ceasefire but they don't care. The main voice Labour listen to is that of the Israel Lobby - a foreign country. So much for getting our sovereignty back when a foreign country has more say on our politics than the electorate. Labours amendments are a sham and Starmers way of trying to take us for mugs because he's a weak spineless man. After all the sleeze and corruption these last few years and Starmer is just as big a snake. Starmer and his cronies are wolves in sheeps clothing, this isn't labour nor left wing nor democratic. It's a sad day when you come to the realisation that our best hope is The Workers Party led by George Galloway. But here we are. 1. On the sovereignty issue Gawa, we still need to wlect a representative government. 2. Being in the EU would make no difference to that. 3. Galloway could work with Farage on certain issues, which is incomprehensible to many 4.https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1sZCYg1Wx5qcF6o9/ 1. I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. Is it changing the way voting takes place E.g. PR which is entirely in the gift of a Sovereign Parliament, i.e. not going to happen as we don't have a Constitution requiring a Referendum Or do you just mean first Election since Brexit 2. I agree, being in or out of EU makes no difference to Sovereignty of British Parliament to enact Laws by Majority 3. I'm not so sure why it would be incomprehensible to people as on some fundamental issues Farage and Galloway are in full alignment E.g. Brexit and support for Putin are just two examples 4. I completely agree with Farage here that events in Parliament today are just a Pantomime and have no possible effect on actions or inactions taking place in Gaza. On most issues of Foreign Policy UK is not relevant on the World Stage to have an Independent Sovereign Policy it merely takes instructions from US as to what it's position should be.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Feb 22, 2024 5:43:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Feb 22, 2024 7:33:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Feb 22, 2024 9:34:11 GMT
You never know, I wouldn't bet against her outdoing even this.
|
|
|
Post by adri2008 on Feb 22, 2024 9:34:42 GMT
I do feel that there are a number of decent politicians out there having looked more closely at it for the last year or so. However, Starmer, Johnson, Truss and Sunak have shown completely that as soon as they get close to a wiff of power, morality just goes straight out of the window. Those four are disgusting. Plenty of very reasonable backbenchers from all parties. We only see the bits where they disagree of course but a lot of the time they have a great deal of common ground and simply get on with the job without a massive amount of fuss.
|
|
|
Post by adri2008 on Feb 22, 2024 9:36:45 GMT
This will appeal to the nutjobs on the far right of the party who really need to find a new political home.
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Feb 22, 2024 9:52:58 GMT
Hoyle needs to step down as an MP. Starmer needs to step down as leader. He's toast as far as the Speakers role is concerned unbelievable scenes. I see people are jumping on those to distract from what the tories and sn p were trying to do and that's erode labour lead and create devision not in supporting the people in gazza Hoyle saw through this and allowed 3 votes the order was labour sn p then government what should have happened was labours fell first then sn p then government success because of tory majority Tories then played politics and walked out then sn p then during this dep speaker called a vote ahes independent but was aa tory mp thee was then a verbal vote which approved labour Tories haad been beaten by one of their own and them and snp came up with lies to deflect from them being outflank So don't be fooled this was not about gala but about domestic politics and avoiding labour's unity and pole lead If you look at the 3 options if you agree to a ermanant sense fire labiurs proposal was best Tories was only for temp pause and then killing to return snp was one sided
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Feb 22, 2024 9:54:49 GMT
He's toast as far as the Speakers role is concerned unbelievable scenes. I see people are jumping on those to distract from what the tories and sn p were trying to do and that's erode labour lead and create devision not in supporting the people in gazza Hoyle saw through this and allowed 3 votes the order was labour sn p then government what should have happened was labours fell first then sn p then government success because of tory majority Tories then played politics and walked out then sn p then during this dep speaker called a vote ahes independent but was aa tory mp thee was then a verbal vote which approved labour Tories haad been beaten by one of their own and them and snp came up with lies to deflect from them being outflank So don't be fooled this was not about gala but about domestic politics and avoiding labour's unity and pole lead If you look at the 3 options if you agree to a ermanant sense fire labiurs proposal was best Tories was only for temp pause and then killing to return snp was one sided Why did Labour not raise the motion in one of their many opposition days then? You can't be opposed to tory corruption and sleeze while cheerleading it when it's starmer doing it.
|
|