|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2024 13:00:56 GMT
100% agree Cobham. Jo Cox was brutally murdered by an extremist, Jeremy corbyn was used as target practice by the army, punched in the street and had articles in the telegraph saying he needed to be killed. Unfortunately I forsee more attacks coming in the future with pro establishment pushing a narrative that we are now an Islamic state. Unfortunately none of this does alot for the 36000 innocent civillians murdered in Gaza who no longer have a voice. It's a real shame to see MPs now try to act the victim while an innocent person dies every 4 minutes. Kier Starmer and his front bench get my deepest sympathies. The threat of intimidation was so much that they broke convention in the house of commons to prevent the SNP from getting to vote on a motion for a ceasefire and condemning Israel for its collective punishment. I always thought when you were intimidated or threatened and fearing for your life you'd be pushed to do something by those intimidating you. But these MPs were so scared that they actually broke convention to do the opposite of what the public were "intimidating" them to do. Very very brave individuals who should probably be getting a Victoria Cross. The people of gaza may even erect a statue of Starmer for his bravery. Incredibly impressed that after a call with the Israel president and after 13 of 31 people in labours shadow cabinet received donations from the pro Israel Lobby group that they defied all that intimidation to do the opposite of what these Islamic extremists want. It's nearly as if the actual people putting pressure on politicians and intimidating them is the Israeli government and pro Israel Lobby. You know the ones who made starmer break convention so that he could put through a motion which doesn't call out Israel for its collective punishment of Palestine people. A new person dies every 4 minutes so that's probably another 5 deaths in the time I've written this post. Not 5 deaths of MPs, 5 deaths of mostly innocent women and children. I wonder if the Islamic extremists will intimidate MPs into saying Israel has committed no war crimes next. Indeed mate, what we've seen over the last 24 hours is one of the most vulgar displays of gaslighting in British politics, erm ... ever! The speakers decision had absolutely NOTHING to do with protecting the safety of MP's, he said at the time (after his meeting with Starmer) that it was because he believed the current rules were archaic and unfair, it was THIS, that had made him turn protocol on it's head. The bullshit safety of MP's excuse was something which was cooked up much later. If you think the safety of MP's is at risk, you DO NOT alow this to trump British democracy, you inform the police FFS! Did Thatcher allow the Brighton bombing to influence rulings in the HOC? Did she buggery, she dusted herself down and went back to work the very next day. And the whole excuse is actually completely illogical ... Which terrorists was Hoyle so apparently scared of? If there had been an unconditional call for a ceasefire, then is he suggesting that it would have been Israel we would have been under threat from FFS? And as a result of Starmer's treachery (I use that word intentionally), look what he (and Hoyle) have unleashed ... a brand new platform from which right wing nut jobs can spew their hate. British politics is so far into the gutter at the moment, it really sickens me to the core. Ha, Braverman. Just another populist now pulling the sympathy card for the very divisive nature that her disgusting rhetoric helped to make mainstream.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 23, 2024 18:32:53 GMT
This utterly insane!
Can we remember that we are paying this nut job ÂŁ120k a year for the rest of her life and she is still a sitting MP earning a full MP's salary.
How can she be allowed as a British servant, to spew such utter bollox?
I really, really don't know what's going on anymore. 🤦‍♂️
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 23, 2024 18:49:50 GMT
On three occasions, Starmer is asked if Labour MP's threatened the Speaker and on all three occasions, he refuses to give an answer ... Was just scolling through the thread and I hadn't realised that for *some reason* Sky I have pulled this clip. Man, we're in trouble. 🙄 EDIT: Thankfully somebody kept the receipts ...
|
|
|
Post by desman2 on Feb 23, 2024 18:57:02 GMT
An enemy of something can only be effective if there is weakness. Time and time again over the last 20 years our parliament has demonstrated weakness to any trouble maker out there. People warned years ago that we would end up in the mess we are now should parliament show it's weakness and now the chickens have come home to roost. It's not even down to one party. They are both responsible for it. Once MP's are intimidated by fear then we are in a very dangerous place and it's the last place I want us to be but at the same time for me that fear has come from themselves and their actions and decision making.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Feb 23, 2024 19:49:56 GMT
Leaving personalities aside and motivations of the current politicians.....
Do you think it is quite possible in the medium future that an " Islamic" party could be elected in some northern working class communities? Most of the contributors to the EE political threads have been clear that neither of the main two parties represent them in any way. In some of the northern working class communities wouldn't an " Islam " party be the one thst is more likely to represent Muslims....rather than , for instance, George Galloway, Reform, Labour, Tory and the Libdems?
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Feb 23, 2024 20:53:28 GMT
Leaving personalities aside and motivations of the current politicians..... Do you think it is quite possible in the medium future that an " Islamic" party could be elected in some northern working class communities? Most of the contributors to the EE political threads have been clear that neither of the main two parties represent them in any way. In some of the northern working class communities wouldn't an " Islam " party be the one thst is more likely to represent Muslims....rather than , for instance, George Galloway, Reform, Labour, Tory and the Libdems? Good question BJR. In the north there are towns where the voting majority follow the Muslim faith and the issue of Palestine will affect the way they vote. That doesn't make them extremists but if their only candidate is an extremist who trumpets the Palestinian cause then most might vote for him. It's very dodgy ground and sheep may follow sheep, so other northern cities where the majority are Muslims could follow them. For Labour to defeat an extremist Muslim candidate, they MUST come down on supporting the Palestinian cause. At the moment, Starmer is sitting on the fence trying to be all things to all men. I don't like Galloway's ethics but he's a good orator and might tip the balance for those who follow the Muslim faith who don't want to vote for Radical Islam. Whatever, those towns will have loads of candidates who will support the Palestinian cause. They'd be fools not to. OS.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Feb 23, 2024 21:39:06 GMT
Leaving personalities aside and motivations of the current politicians..... Do you think it is quite possible in the medium future that an " Islamic" party could be elected in some northern working class communities? Most of the contributors to the EE political threads have been clear that neither of the main two parties represent them in any way. In some of the northern working class communities wouldn't an " Islam " party be the one thst is more likely to represent Muslims....rather than , for instance, George Galloway, Reform, Labour, Tory and the Libdems? No. Firstly because there are actually very few consituencies with a muslim majority (two in Birmingham and one in Bradford). And secondly because despite how they are caricatured the majority of muslims are integrated into a wider British society and abhor the notion that they should be regarded as insular or extremist. An 'Islamic' party would no doubt appeal to a few, but there has been an Islamic Party in Britain since 1989 and it's never gained any traction - and just like any other minority party in Britain will always have to contend with FPTP.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Feb 23, 2024 21:43:57 GMT
Leaving personalities aside and motivations of the current politicians..... Do you think it is quite possible in the medium future that an " Islamic" party could be elected in some northern working class communities? Most of the contributors to the EE political threads have been clear that neither of the main two parties represent them in any way. In some of the northern working class communities wouldn't an " Islam " party be the one thst is more likely to represent Muslims....rather than , for instance, George Galloway, Reform, Labour, Tory and the Libdems? No. Firstly because there are actually very few consituencies with a muslim majority (two in Birmingham and one in Bradford). And secondly because despite how they are caricatured the majority of muslims are integrated into a wider British society and abhor the notion that they should be regarded as insular or extremist. An 'Islamic' party would no doubt appeal to a few, but there has been an Islamic Party in Britain since 1989 and it's never gained any traction - and just like any other minority party in Britain will always have to contend with FPTP. [br I would not be so certain in the future Seymour. Changing Demographics
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Feb 23, 2024 21:50:37 GMT
No. Firstly because there are actually very few consituencies with a muslim majority (two in Birmingham and one in Bradford). And secondly because despite how they are caricatured the majority of muslims are integrated into a wider British society and abhor the notion that they should be regarded as insular or extremist. An 'Islamic' party would no doubt appeal to a few, but there has been an Islamic Party in Britain since 1989 and it's never gained any traction - and just like any other minority party in Britain will always have to contend with FPTP. [br I would not be so certain in the future Seymour. Changing Demographics If you ask me the likes of Anderson and Truss would just LOVE it to happen so they could say 'I told you so', look a little less unhinged and gain support for their PopTarts If you play that game there's always the danger that someone might turn around give you what you want just to up the ante.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Feb 23, 2024 22:01:15 GMT
[br I would not be so certain in the future Seymour. Changing Demographics If you ask me the likes of Anderson and Truss would just LOVE it to happen so they could say 'I told you so', look a little less unhinged and gain support for their PopTarts If you play that game there's always the danger that someone might turn around give you what you want just to up the ante. Not bothered about the current personalities, petty Party politics. Given the disillusionment with traditional party politics, when a particular group of people can identify with a particular party... they just might vote for them. Single issue parties can be successful, if the Single issue appeals to a significant number of people in the constituency....eg Sinn Fein, SNP, UKIP. Nothing to do with the current personalities, just numbers and direction of travel. Or locally perhaps the Labour Party will fulfil the aspirations of the " Muslim " vote?
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Feb 23, 2024 22:20:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Feb 23, 2024 22:36:49 GMT
Disgusting, from a soon to be out of work racist shitbag.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 23, 2024 22:58:27 GMT
This is blatant racism, utterly appalling comments for a sitting MP (well for anybody actually) to make.
What does he mean by 'Khan and his mates'?
Just imagine what would be the outcome if an MP had said the same about a Jewish Mayor?
There has been a noticeable upturn in Islamophobic remarks over the last 48 hours, Starmer and Hoyle need to have a very long look in the mirror.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Feb 23, 2024 23:40:55 GMT
This is blatant racism, utterly appalling comments for a sitting MP (well for anybody actually) to make. What does he mean by 'Khan and his mates'? Just imagine what would be the outcome if an MP had said the same about a Jewish Mayor? There has been a noticeable upturn in Islamophobic remarks over the last 48 hours, Starmer and Hoyle need to have a very long look in the mirror.
Â
The tory party don’t need an invitation to be islamaphobic. You can’t pin this on Starmer or Hoyle.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 24, 2024 0:07:38 GMT
This is blatant racism, utterly appalling comments for a sitting MP (well for anybody actually) to make. What does he mean by 'Khan and his mates'? Just imagine what would be the outcome if an MP had said the same about a Jewish Mayor? There has been a noticeable upturn in Islamophobic remarks over the last 48 hours, Starmer and Hoyle need to have a very long look in the mirror.
The tory party don’t need an invitation to be islamaphobic. You can’t pin this on Starmer or Hoyle.
Of course I can.
As a direct consequence of their dangerous and highly negligent tactics on Wednesday, it's been off the chart.
It's not just Tory MP's either, it's everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 24, 2024 0:45:29 GMT
And rightly so ...
Labour has called for Liz Truss and Lee Anderson to lose the Conservative whip over media appearances that also prompted a rebuke from a former Tory Cabinet minister.
“For a senior politician to engage in spreading such blatant conspiracy theories is incredibly damaging to our democracy, our institutions and social cohesion.”
He added: “For a former prime minister to make such remarks, while on an international visit to a country with whom the UK shares a special relationship which upholds liberal values is an unforgivable lowering of the office of prime minister which lessens the United Kingdom’s standing in the world and needs to be acted upon.
“It’s time to show some leadership and take on the extremists in your party. Liz Truss and Lee Anderson must no longer sit as Conservative MPs. Their words cannot go unchecked or unchallenged.”
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Feb 24, 2024 0:57:27 GMT
If you ask me the likes of Anderson and Truss would just LOVE it to happen so they could say 'I told you so', look a little less unhinged and gain support for their PopTarts If you play that game there's always the danger that someone might turn around give you what you want just to up the ante. Not bothered about the current personalities, petty Party politics. Given the disillusionment with traditional party politics, when a particular group of people can identify with a particular party... they just might vote for them. Single issue parties can be successful, if the Single issue appeals to a significant number of people in the constituency....eg Sinn Fein, SNP, UKIP. Nothing to do with the current personalities, just numbers and direction of travel. Or locally perhaps the Labour Party will fulfil the aspirations of the " Muslim " vote? I'm not sure why you are obsessed with the 6.5% of the "Muslim Vote" and why they might coalesce around a handful of Candidates in Muslim Majority Constituencies The current single issue you refer to can only be Gaza A huge Majority of ALL British Electorate are in favour of a Ceasefire in Gaza current Polls put it at 75% yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/48675-british-attitudes-to-the-israel-gaza-conflict-february-2024-updateYes there is disillusionment possibly apathy is a more appropriate word, towards Traditional Party Politics I.e. Conservatives and Labour, being the only two Parties capable of forming a Westminster Government, as their respective Voters do not feel the policies they are pursuing reflect their wishes. Sinn Fein and SNP are far more than Single Issue Parties which is why they are leading their Governments in their respective Countries and UKIP/Reform/Brexit Party are not represented. at all. You may say that is due to FPTP Voting System and you would be partially correct but those Parties overcame that hurdle by having mass not minority support
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Feb 24, 2024 1:11:11 GMT
100% agree Cobham. Jo Cox was brutally murdered by an extremist, Jeremy corbyn was used as target practice by the army, punched in the street and had articles in the telegraph saying he needed to be killed. Unfortunately I forsee more attacks coming in the future with pro establishment pushing a narrative that we are now an Islamic state. Unfortunately none of this does alot for the 36000 innocent civillians murdered in Gaza who no longer have a voice. It's a real shame to see MPs now try to act the victim while an innocent person dies every 4 minutes. Kier Starmer and his front bench get my deepest sympathies. The threat of intimidation was so much that they broke convention in the house of commons to prevent the SNP from getting to vote on a motion for a ceasefire and condemning Israel for its collective punishment. I always thought when you were intimidated or threatened and fearing for your life you'd be pushed to do something by those intimidating you. But these MPs were so scared that they actually broke convention to do the opposite of what the public were "intimidating" them to do. Very very brave individuals who should probably be getting a Victoria Cross. The people of gaza may even erect a statue of Starmer for his bravery. Incredibly impressed that after a call with the Israel president and after 13 of 31 people in labours shadow cabinet received donations from the pro Israel Lobby group that they defied all that intimidation to do the opposite of what these Islamic extremists want. It's nearly as if the actual people putting pressure on politicians and intimidating them is the Israeli government and pro Israel Lobby. You know the ones who made starmer break convention so that he could put through a motion which doesn't call out Israel for its collective punishment of Palestine people. A new person dies every 4 minutes so that's probably another 5 deaths in the time I've written this post. Not 5 deaths of MPs, 5 deaths of mostly innocent women and children. I wonder if the Islamic extremists will intimidate MPs into saying Israel has committed no war crimes next. Indeed mate, what we've seen over the last 24 hours is one of the most vulgar displays of gaslighting in British politics, erm ... ever! The speakers decision had absolutely NOTHING to do with protecting the safety of MP's, he said at the time (after his meeting with Starmer) that it was because he believed the current rules were archaic and unfair, it was THIS, that had made him turn protocol on it's head. The bullshit safety of MP's excuse was something which was cooked up much later. If you think the safety of MP's is at risk, you DO NOT allow this to trump British democracy, you inform the police FFS! Did Thatcher allow the Brighton bombing to influence rulings in the HOC? Did she buggery, she dusted herself down and went back to work the very next day. And the whole excuse is actually completely illogical ... Which terrorists was Hoyle so apparently scared of? If there had been an unconditional call for a ceasefire, then is he suggesting that it would have been Israel we would have been under threat from FFS? And as a result of Starmer's treachery (I use that word intentionally), look what he (and Hoyle) have unleashed ... a brand new platform from which right wing nut jobs can now spew their hate. British politics is so far into the gutter at the moment, it really sickens me to the core. Of course the speakers decision was nothing to do with MP safety. This is his speech here were he doesn't reference MP safety as a reason once. MP safety was only mentioned afterwards when he apologised for what he described as a mistake. If you're breaking convention because you're intimidated and worried about MP safety then who are you appeasing? The ceasefire supporters who have been marching in their 10s of thousands for 5 months and in that time you've not once raised a motion for a ceasefire? Yet the SNP on only 1 of the 3 opportunities they get a year to raise motions call for a ceasefire and suddenly you're intimidated? And with that intimidation you break convention so that you can suddenly add your own version of a ceasefire to vote for. One which the majority of ceasefire supporters don't agree with comparatively to the SNP one. What we do know is that Starmer was on the phone with the Israeli president beforehand. Hoyle visited Israel. Hoyles dad was a senior member of labour friends of Israel. 40% of starmers cabinet have received donations from Israel lobbyists. Israeli lobbyists have significant influence over the current Labour Party (https://electronicintifada.net/content/secret-document-reveals-israel-lobbys-dominance-labour/36591) The only intimidation which occurred was from the Israeli lobbyists who avoided Starmers Labour the humiliation of being divided on the SNP vote and putting his leadership at threat.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Feb 24, 2024 7:43:51 GMT
The tory party don’t need an invitation to be islamaphobic. You can’t pin this on Starmer or Hoyle. Of course I can. As a direct consequence of their dangerous and highly negligent tactics on Wednesday, it's been off the chart. It's not just Tory MP's either, it's everywhere.
Sajid Javid got every single tory leadership candidate to commit to an investigation into islamaphobia within the party. Johnson won the candidacy and he did nothing. Baroness Warsi has for a long time talked about institutional islamaphobia in the party. Islamaphobia and anti semitism will be on the rise as a direct consequence of the Hamas attack on 7th October and the fact they still hold hostages, and Israel awful retaliation killing thousands and levelling a country. That obviously does not mean what Anderson said is OK. He should lose the whip. He should be sacked by GB News. Neither will happen. But to blame Starmer or Hoyle for what Lee Anderson said is completely wrong and ridiculous. Calling for a ceasefire in Gaza and breaking a convention to allow everyone a say is not islamaphobic or encouraging islamaphobia. The SNP and Tories are just as reasonable for the fiasco in Parliament the other day as Labour and Hoyle. None of the parties were thinking about Gaza. They were all primarily politically motivated by their actions. Arguably Hoyle the exception as he just tried to allow everyone their say rather than making it political. None of the parties were islamaphobic in what they were doing. The Shamima Begum appeal outcome will increase islamaphobia too.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 24, 2024 11:21:48 GMT
Of course I can. As a direct consequence of their dangerous and highly negligent tactics on Wednesday, it's been off the chart. It's not just Tory MP's either, it's everywhere.
Sajid Javid got every single tory leadership candidate to commit to an investigation into islamaphobia within the party. Johnson won the candidacy and he did nothing. Baroness Warsi has for a long time talked about institutional islamaphobia in the party. Islamaphobia and anti semitism will be on the rise as a direct consequence of the Hamas attack on 7th October and the fact they still hold hostages, and Israel awful retaliation killing thousands and levelling a country. That obviously does not mean what Anderson said is OK. He should lose the whip. He should be sacked by GB News. Neither will happen. But to blame Starmer or Hoyle for what Lee Anderson said is completely wrong and ridiculous. Calling for a ceasefire in Gaza and breaking a convention to allow everyone a say is not islamaphobic or encouraging islamaphobia. The SNP and Tories are just as reasonable for the fiasco in Parliament the other day as Labour and Hoyle. None of the parties were thinking about Gaza. They were all primarily politically motivated by their actions. Arguably Hoyle the exception as he just tried to allow everyone their say rather than making it political. None of the parties were islamaphobic in what they were doing. The Shamima Begum appeal outcome will increase islamaphobia too. It is not completely wrong and it is not ridiculous. The terrorist threat story was made up bollocks that wasn't thought through, concocted way after the event, proof of which has been referenced to several times in the proceeding pages of this thread. It is an utterly dreadful way to conduct British politics and it is as equally as bad as any stunt that Johnson pulled during his tenure as PM. The terrorist 'threat' is now being referenced to in every corner of the media, amongst right wing MP's and indeed by the ordinary man in the street, only somebody who isn't paying attention, or doesn't actually WANT to see could be blind to it.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Feb 24, 2024 11:48:39 GMT
Sajid Javid got every single tory leadership candidate to commit to an investigation into islamaphobia within the party. Johnson won the candidacy and he did nothing. Baroness Warsi has for a long time talked about institutional islamaphobia in the party. Islamaphobia and anti semitism will be on the rise as a direct consequence of the Hamas attack on 7th October and the fact they still hold hostages, and Israel awful retaliation killing thousands and levelling a country. That obviously does not mean what Anderson said is OK. He should lose the whip. He should be sacked by GB News. Neither will happen. But to blame Starmer or Hoyle for what Lee Anderson said is completely wrong and ridiculous. Calling for a ceasefire in Gaza and breaking a convention to allow everyone a say is not islamaphobic or encouraging islamaphobia. The SNP and Tories are just as reasonable for the fiasco in Parliament the other day as Labour and Hoyle. None of the parties were thinking about Gaza. They were all primarily politically motivated by their actions. Arguably Hoyle the exception as he just tried to allow everyone their say rather than making it political. None of the parties were islamaphobic in what they were doing. The Shamima Begum appeal outcome will increase islamaphobia too. It is not completely wrong and it is not ridiculous. The terrorist threat story was made up bollocks that wasn't thought through, concocted way after the event, proof of which has been referenced to several times in the proceeding pages of this thread. It is an utterly dreadful way to conduct British politics and it is as equally as bad as any stunt that Johnson pulled during his tenure as PM. The terrorist 'threat' is now being referenced to in every corner of the media, amongst right wing MP's and indeed by the ordinary man in the street, only somebody who isn't paying attention, or doesn't actually WANT to see could be blind to it. Quite right Paul and citing a Terrorist Threat, we understand the implication from where, as cover why the ordinary business of HoC couldn't be conducted is no less egregious than what Liz Truss and 30P Lee have said. They were said for different agenda but the potential outcome is the same, an increase in Islamophobia Neither of these 3 Politicians have acted in a responsible manner "You can't shout Fire! In a Crowded Theatre" - Oliver Wendell Holmes
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Feb 24, 2024 14:01:17 GMT
Disgusting, from a soon to be out of work racist shitbag. Gets worse grant shnaps failed to condem it on breakfast this morning
|
|
|
Post by maxplonk on Feb 24, 2024 15:01:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Feb 24, 2024 17:59:11 GMT
The right thing to have done by the tories.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Feb 24, 2024 18:02:14 GMT
Sajid Javid got every single tory leadership candidate to commit to an investigation into islamaphobia within the party. Johnson won the candidacy and he did nothing. Baroness Warsi has for a long time talked about institutional islamaphobia in the party. Islamaphobia and anti semitism will be on the rise as a direct consequence of the Hamas attack on 7th October and the fact they still hold hostages, and Israel awful retaliation killing thousands and levelling a country. That obviously does not mean what Anderson said is OK. He should lose the whip. He should be sacked by GB News. Neither will happen. But to blame Starmer or Hoyle for what Lee Anderson said is completely wrong and ridiculous. Calling for a ceasefire in Gaza and breaking a convention to allow everyone a say is not islamaphobic or encouraging islamaphobia. The SNP and Tories are just as reasonable for the fiasco in Parliament the other day as Labour and Hoyle. None of the parties were thinking about Gaza. They were all primarily politically motivated by their actions. Arguably Hoyle the exception as he just tried to allow everyone their say rather than making it political. None of the parties were islamaphobic in what they were doing. The Shamima Begum appeal outcome will increase islamaphobia too. It is not completely wrong and it is not ridiculous. The terrorist threat story was made up bollocks that wasn't thought through, concocted way after the event, proof of which has been referenced to several times in the proceeding pages of this thread. It is an utterly dreadful way to conduct British politics and it is as equally as bad as any stunt that Johnson pulled during his tenure as PM. The terrorist 'threat' is now being referenced to in every corner of the media, amongst right wing MP's and indeed by the ordinary man in the street, only somebody who isn't paying attention, or doesn't actually WANT to see could be blind to it. I guess you are angry that Lee Anderson has lost the whip when what he said was Starmer and Hoyle’s fault…
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 24, 2024 18:05:35 GMT
It is not completely wrong and it is not ridiculous. The terrorist threat story was made up bollocks that wasn't thought through, concocted way after the event, proof of which has been referenced to several times in the proceeding pages of this thread. It is an utterly dreadful way to conduct British politics and it is as equally as bad as any stunt that Johnson pulled during his tenure as PM. The terrorist 'threat' is now being referenced to in every corner of the media, amongst right wing MP's and indeed by the ordinary man in the street, only somebody who isn't paying attention, or doesn't actually WANT to see could be blind to it. I guess you are angry that Lee Anderson has lost the whip when what he said was Starmer and Hoyle’s fault… Bloody hell oggy, with respect, you're just ranting now mate. You even liked a post of mine on this very page, where I called for Anderson to lose the whip.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Feb 24, 2024 18:08:42 GMT
I guess you are angry that Lee Anderson has lost the whip when what he said was Starmer and Hoyle’s fault… Bloody hell oggy, with respect, you're just ranting now mate. You even liked a post of mine on this very page, where I called for Anderson to lose the whip.
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Feb 24, 2024 18:29:36 GMT
The right thing to have done by the tories. Bit late after defending him this morning
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Feb 24, 2024 19:50:28 GMT
I guess you are angry that Lee Anderson has lost the whip when what he said was Starmer and Hoyle’s fault… Bloody hell oggy, with respect, you're just ranting now mate. You even liked a post of mine on this very page, where I called for Anderson to lose the whip. I’m obviously not being serious. I strongly disagree with you that Hoyle and Starmer are responsible for Anderson’s comments. Why don’t you blame the SNP for bringing a motion aimed squarely at causing political damage to Starmer? Or the Tories for amending the motion just so Labour’s amendment wouldn’t be chosen (under convention)? They have all behaved as badly as each other on this. But Anderson’s comments reflect generally what many on this message board say on the London thread about Khan. He and only he is responsible for what he said. Nobody else.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Feb 24, 2024 20:52:52 GMT
Oggy
There are 20 Opposition days per Parliamentary Session based on representation 17 were allocated to Labour 3 to SNP
It is unusual but not unique that the main opposition Party, Labour, would table an amendment to the next largest opposition Party, SNP. In the circumstances Conservatives also tabled an amendment which is quite normal.
Under Convention the Speaker selects only one amendment which again under Convention would be the Government's amendment
Under normal circumstances the SNP Motion would have been debated upon first and Labour could have Voted For, Against or Abstained
The Speaker broke convention and selected both amendments. This was also against the advice of the Clerk of the houses advice, who is the Speakers chief advisor who felt so strongly he wrote a detailed letter outlining his objections.
The Speakers original justification for breaking with convention was he wanted as wide a debate as possible and denied it was due to pressure from Starmer.
The following day the Speaker offered a different justification that he selected Labours motion because MPs were under threat
The Speaker made two apologies to the House The First on the evening of the debacle where the justification was still a wider debate.
The Speaker offered a second apology the following day when the justification had become because MPs were under threat.
If the Speaker felt his actions were correct why did he feel the need to apologise, twice.
Of course if you unlike the Speaker feels he acted correctly then fair enough
|
|