|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 24, 2024 22:08:28 GMT
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. No they haven't behaved as badly as each other. Starmer realised over the weekend that he was in deep doo doo, as there was about to be a MASSIVE revolt on his benches (including some of his shadow cabinet). What he did next, was play disgusting, underhand tactics that had nothing much to do with the issue in hand but was primarily aimed to save him from colossal embarrassment. It was straight out of the Boris Johnson playbook and if he had pulled such a stunt, you would have (rightfully) called him out for it. What came next was even dirtier because between them, they concocted a bullshit excuse to try and justify what had happened and get Hoyle off the hook. Since then, there has been a 300%+ increase in reports of Islamaphobia, it's not a coincidence. Oh and what wannabee said above too.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Feb 25, 2024 0:31:35 GMT
This sounds a bit woke. Suspended for criticising a mayor. Can you not criticise MPs now?
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Feb 25, 2024 7:56:18 GMT
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. No they haven't behaved as badly as each other. Starmer realised over the weekend that he was in deep doo doo, as there was about to be a MASSIVE revolt on his benches (including some of his shadow cabinet). What he did next, was play disgusting, underhand tactics that had nothing much to do with the issue in hand but was primarily aimed to save him from colossal embarrassment. It was straight out of the Boris Johnson playbook and if he had pulled such a stunt, you would have (rightfully) called him out for it. What came next was even dirtier because between them, they concocted a bullshit excuse to try and justify what had happened and get Hoyle off the hook. Since then, there has been a 300%+ increase in reports of Islamaphobia, it's not a coincidence. Oh and what wannabee said above too. Why do you think the SNP put forward the motion? It was to try and put Starmer in deep doo doo (as you say). It wasn’t about the people in Gaza, that’s for sure. Starmer should have just backed the ceasefire motion, calling the SNP’s bluff. The tory amendment was pretty much exactly the same as the labour one. They only put it forward to try and put Starmer in deep doo doo. It was nothing about Gaza. Hoyle saw through the political doo doo and said he would allow votes on both of those amendments to give everyone a say. That seemed the logical thing to do, but for an old convention that says otherwise. Then the SNP and Tories faked indignation and walked out. The biggest irony of the lot is had they simply backed the ceasefire, it wouldn’t have done anything other than show that on a moral issue, our elected officials can actually come together and do the right thing. They all want a ceasefire. If you read the original motion and amendments, the lib dem one was the best. But they all pretty much say the same thing. We have entitled children in Parliament unfortunately. Nobody cones off well. In my opinion the Speaker came off best of all, even though he broke the rules! I expect we must agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Feb 25, 2024 8:08:11 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 The Speaker broke the rules. No question about that. I personally think he was right to as he was trying not to politicise the very serious subject of the debate. The debate was only happening to hurt Labour (not to help Palestinians) and the tories only filed an amendment to hurt labour (and not help the Palestinians). In my opinion labour should have called the SNP and Tories’ bluff and voted with the original motion. It would have done them no damage whatsoever amongst 99.9% of the electorate. Hoyle tried to cut through the childish bullshit of a motion which was virtually identical to the two virtually identical amendments and allow a voice from all sides (against the convention) so the focus could actually be on the issue rather than politics. Once that happened, the SNP and Tories made sure the issue got no debate and no focus and walked out with fake indignation that they didn’t get to try and embarrass Labour. If a referee makes a decision you do not like you do not walk off the pitch. You play on to the whistle. Meanwhile the serious issue of Gaza got ignored. Well done to our elected officials in the three biggest parties. Childish idiots, the lot of them. Playing politics with the invasion of Gaza reflects badly on them all.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Feb 25, 2024 8:22:32 GMT
No they haven't behaved as badly as each other. Starmer realised over the weekend that he was in deep doo doo, as there was about to be a MASSIVE revolt on his benches (including some of his shadow cabinet). What he did next, was play disgusting, underhand tactics that had nothing much to do with the issue in hand but was primarily aimed to save him from colossal embarrassment. It was straight out of the Boris Johnson playbook and if he had pulled such a stunt, you would have (rightfully) called him out for it. What came next was even dirtier because between them, they concocted a bullshit excuse to try and justify what had happened and get Hoyle off the hook. Since then, there has been a 300%+ increase in reports of Islamaphobia, it's not a coincidence. Oh and what wannabee said above too. Why do you think the SNP put forward the motion? It was to try and put Starmer in deep doo doo (as you say). It wasn’t about the people in Gaza, that’s for sure. Starmer should have just backed the ceasefire motion, calling the SNP’s bluff. The tory amendment was pretty much exactly the same as the labour one. They only put it forward to try and put Starmer in deep doo doo. It was nothing about Gaza. Hoyle saw through the political doo doo and said he would allow votes on both of those amendments to give everyone a say. That seemed the logical thing to do, but for an old convention that says otherwise. Then the SNP and Tories faked indignation and walked out. The biggest irony of the lot is had they simply backed the ceasefire, it wouldn’t have done anything other than show that on a moral issue, our elected officials can actually come together and do the right thing. They all want a ceasefire. If you read the original motion and amendments, the lib dem one was the best. But they all pretty much say the same thing. We have entitled children in Parliament unfortunately. Nobody cones off well. In my opinion the Speaker came off best of all, even though he broke the rules! I expect we must agree to disagree. The SNP put forward the motion because they do care about the people of Gaza and believe an immediate ceasefire is in their interests. Their motion only put Labour in the doo doo because Labours position is mealey mouthed and they are desperately trying to come over as not being anti-Semitic by towing the official government line that the UK supports Israel's right to protect its people - even if it means murdering thousands of innocent Palestinians. It is Labour who behaved dishonourably in order to try and defeat an honourable motion by the SNP. The SNP did nothing wrong - the fact that Labour have come out of this covered in shit is entirely down to Labour and a Speaker too weak and impartial for that office.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Feb 25, 2024 9:14:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Feb 25, 2024 9:19:47 GMT
The right thing to have done by the tories. But they are still trying to defend him on kunsburg and also defending kruella and lizzy truss racist comments Also pm hasn't called out anti Islamic comments Terrible tories he true racist party
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Feb 25, 2024 10:22:11 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 The Speaker broke the rules. No question about that. I personally think he was right to as he was trying not to politicise the very serious subject of the debate. The debate was only happening to hurt Labour (not to help Palestinians) and the tories only filed an amendment to hurt labour (and not help the Palestinians). In my opinion labour should have called the SNP and Tories’ bluff and voted with the original motion. It would have done them no damage whatsoever amongst 99.9% of the electorate. Hoyle tried to cut through the childish bullshit of a motion which was virtually identical to the two virtually identical amendments and allow a voice from all sides (against the convention) so the focus could actually be on the issue rather than politics. Once that happened, the SNP and Tories made sure the issue got no debate and no focus and walked out with fake indignation that they didn’t get to try and embarrass Labour. If a referee makes a decision you do not like you do not walk off the pitch. You play on to the whistle. Meanwhile the serious issue of Gaza got ignored. Well done to our elected officials in the three biggest parties. Childish idiots, the lot of them. Playing politics with the invasion of Gaza reflects badly on them all. The Speaker broke the Rules/Convention, we both agree on that. You think he was right to do so, he says he was wrong and has apologised, twice. I agree with him, he was wrong. The SNP Motion wasn't happening to hurt Labour, it was the same position/Motion SNP took in November in which 56 Labour MPs voted for. You're completely wrong that the Government filed a Motion only to hurt Labour. It would be extraordinary if the Government didn't file a Motion setting out its position on such an important matter for the House to decide which has most support. Labour on the other had were the ones to break Convention by amending an Opposition Motion which they hoped its MPs would hold their nose and Vote for rather than the SNP Motion I agree with you that Labour should have voted for the SNP Motion but Starmer doesn’t have the Moral Fibre to take that position and now we don't know how many Labour MPs agree or disagree with him. You are deluded if you think all 3 Motions were identical. The SNP Motion called for an Immediate Ceasefire no ifs buts or maybes, the Labour Motion finally used the word Ceasefire but it was caveated with so many conditions for this to happen it was virtually meaningless. The SNP Motion called for a stop to the Collective Punishment of the people of Gaza, a War Crime, the Labour Motion had no such wording. The Government Motion was further watered down but close to the Labour Motion. I think in someways the Cowardly actions of Labour, in effectively supporting the Government, has shone a light on the hypothetical position of Government who continue to supply Military Equipment to Israel yet pretend to be even handed in the Conflict and sit on their hands at UN. 75% of UK people support an Immediate Ceasefire. I doubt many if any support Hamas. They just want the Carpet Bombing of Gaza and the slaughter of Innocent Civilians they see on their TV each night to stop. The SNP Motion is the only one that reflects that position
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Feb 25, 2024 10:54:51 GMT
The Speaker broke the rules. No question about that. I personally think he was right to as he was trying not to politicise the very serious subject of the debate. The debate was only happening to hurt Labour (not to help Palestinians) and the tories only filed an amendment to hurt labour (and not help the Palestinians). In my opinion labour should have called the SNP and Tories’ bluff and voted with the original motion. It would have done them no damage whatsoever amongst 99.9% of the electorate. Hoyle tried to cut through the childish bullshit of a motion which was virtually identical to the two virtually identical amendments and allow a voice from all sides (against the convention) so the focus could actually be on the issue rather than politics. Once that happened, the SNP and Tories made sure the issue got no debate and no focus and walked out with fake indignation that they didn’t get to try and embarrass Labour. If a referee makes a decision you do not like you do not walk off the pitch. You play on to the whistle. Meanwhile the serious issue of Gaza got ignored. Well done to our elected officials in the three biggest parties. Childish idiots, the lot of them. Playing politics with the invasion of Gaza reflects badly on them all. The Speaker broke the Rules/Convention, we both agree on that. You think he was right to do so, he says he was wrong and has apologised, twice. I agree with him, he was wrong. The SNP Motion wasn't happening to hurt Labour, it was the same position/Motion SNP took in November in which 56 Labour MPs voted for. You're completely wrong that the Government filed a Motion only to hurt Labour. It would be extraordinary if the Government didn't file a Motion setting out its position on such an important matter for the House to decide which has most support. Labour on the other had were the ones to break Convention by amending an Opposition Motion which they hoped its MPs would hold their nose and Vote for rather than the SNP Motion I agree with you that Labour should have voted for the SNP Motion but Starmer doesn’t have the Moral Fibre to take that position and now we don't know how many Labour MPs agree or disagree with him. You are deluded if you think all 3 Motions were identical. The SNP Motion called for an Immediate Ceasefire no ifs buts or maybes, the Labour Motion finally used the word Ceasefire but it was caveated with so many conditions for this to happen it was virtually meaningless. The SNP Motion called for a stop to the Collective Punishment of the people of Gaza, a War Crime, the Labour Motion had no such wording. The Government Motion was further watered down but close to the Labour Motion. I think in someways the Cowardly actions of Labour, in effectively supporting the Government, has shone a light on the hypothetical position of Government who continue to supply Military Equipment to Israel yet pretend to be even handed in the Conflict and sit on their hands at UN. 75% of UK people support an Immediate Ceasefire. I doubt many if any support Hamas. They just want the Carpet Bombing of Gaza and the slaughter of Innocent Civilians they see on their TV each night to stop. The SNP Motion is the only one that reflects that position Labour did nothing wrong amending the motion. The lib dems did too but their amendment wasn’t picked. Labour oressured the speaker into picking theres. Has there ever been any vote in Parliament where the speaker hasn’t been pressured by someone? I doubt it. Labour shouldn’t have amended and neither should have the tories. Everyone wants a ceasefire. I bet the SNP don’t want a ceasefire not respected by both sides. An immediate ceasefire not respected by both parties isn’t a cease fire. It is all petty semantics and makes no difference to anything. Nobody should have amended the original motion. Even if the motion had been voted through, how would anyone enforce the ceasefire!? It was an utterly pointless vote. It is like voting for world peace, or a solution to climate change, or that Rwanda is a safe country, or that Stoke stay up! It is meaningless and achieves nothing whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Feb 25, 2024 10:56:19 GMT
Why do you think the SNP put forward the motion? It was to try and put Starmer in deep doo doo (as you say). It wasn’t about the people in Gaza, that’s for sure. Starmer should have just backed the ceasefire motion, calling the SNP’s bluff. The tory amendment was pretty much exactly the same as the labour one. They only put it forward to try and put Starmer in deep doo doo. It was nothing about Gaza. Hoyle saw through the political doo doo and said he would allow votes on both of those amendments to give everyone a say. That seemed the logical thing to do, but for an old convention that says otherwise. Then the SNP and Tories faked indignation and walked out. The biggest irony of the lot is had they simply backed the ceasefire, it wouldn’t have done anything other than show that on a moral issue, our elected officials can actually come together and do the right thing. They all want a ceasefire. If you read the original motion and amendments, the lib dem one was the best. But they all pretty much say the same thing. We have entitled children in Parliament unfortunately. Nobody cones off well. In my opinion the Speaker came off best of all, even though he broke the rules! I expect we must agree to disagree. The SNP put forward the motion because they do care about the people of Gaza and believe an immediate ceasefire is in their interests. Their motion only put Labour in the doo doo because Labours position is mealey mouthed and they are desperately trying to come over as not being anti-Semitic by towing the official government line that the UK supports Israel's right to protect its people - even if it means murdering thousands of innocent Palestinians. It is Labour who behaved dishonourably in order to try and defeat an honourable motion by the SNP. The SNP did nothing wrong - the fact that Labour have come out of this covered in shit is entirely down to Labour and a Speaker too weak and impartial for that office. The SNP are motivated by hurting labour.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 25, 2024 12:37:14 GMT
No they haven't behaved as badly as each other. Starmer realised over the weekend that he was in deep doo doo, as there was about to be a MASSIVE revolt on his benches (including some of his shadow cabinet). What he did next, was play disgusting, underhand tactics that had nothing much to do with the issue in hand but was primarily aimed to save him from colossal embarrassment. It was straight out of the Boris Johnson playbook and if he had pulled such a stunt, you would have (rightfully) called him out for it. What came next was even dirtier because between them, they concocted a bullshit excuse to try and justify what had happened and get Hoyle off the hook. Since then, there has been a 300%+ increase in reports of Islamaphobia, it's not a coincidence. Oh and what wannabee said above too. Why do you think the SNP put forward the motion? It was to try and put Starmer in deep doo doo (as you say). It wasn’t about the people in Gaza, that’s for sure. Starmer should have just backed the ceasefire motion, calling the SNP’s bluff. The tory amendment was pretty much exactly the same as the labour one. They only put it forward to try and put Starmer in deep doo doo. It was nothing about Gaza. Hoyle saw through the political doo doo and said he would allow votes on both of those amendments to give everyone a say. That seemed the logical thing to do, but for an old convention that says otherwise. Then the SNP and Tories faked indignation and walked out. The biggest irony of the lot is had they simply backed the ceasefire, it wouldn’t have done anything other than show that on a moral issue, our elected officials can actually come together and do the right thing. They all want a ceasefire. If you read the original motion and amendments, the lib dem one was the best. But they all pretty much say the same thing. We have entitled children in Parliament unfortunately. Nobody cones off well. In my opinion the Speaker came off best of all, even though he broke the rules! I expect we must agree to disagree. You can agree to disagree if you like but there isn't a shred of doubt in my mind, that if Johnson had pulled a similar stunt, then you would be completely (and rightfully) apoplectic about it.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Feb 25, 2024 12:39:09 GMT
The Speaker broke the Rules/Convention, we both agree on that. You think he was right to do so, he says he was wrong and has apologised, twice. I agree with him, he was wrong. The SNP Motion wasn't happening to hurt Labour, it was the same position/Motion SNP took in November in which 56 Labour MPs voted for. You're completely wrong that the Government filed a Motion only to hurt Labour. It would be extraordinary if the Government didn't file a Motion setting out its position on such an important matter for the House to decide which has most support. Labour on the other had were the ones to break Convention by amending an Opposition Motion which they hoped its MPs would hold their nose and Vote for rather than the SNP Motion I agree with you that Labour should have voted for the SNP Motion but Starmer doesn’t have the Moral Fibre to take that position and now we don't know how many Labour MPs agree or disagree with him. You are deluded if you think all 3 Motions were identical. The SNP Motion called for an Immediate Ceasefire no ifs buts or maybes, the Labour Motion finally used the word Ceasefire but it was caveated with so many conditions for this to happen it was virtually meaningless. The SNP Motion called for a stop to the Collective Punishment of the people of Gaza, a War Crime, the Labour Motion had no such wording. The Government Motion was further watered down but close to the Labour Motion. I think in someways the Cowardly actions of Labour, in effectively supporting the Government, has shone a light on the hypothetical position of Government who continue to supply Military Equipment to Israel yet pretend to be even handed in the Conflict and sit on their hands at UN. 75% of UK people support an Immediate Ceasefire. I doubt many if any support Hamas. They just want the Carpet Bombing of Gaza and the slaughter of Innocent Civilians they see on their TV each night to stop. The SNP Motion is the only one that reflects that position Labour did nothing wrong amending the motion. The lib dems did too but their amendment wasn’t picked. Labour oressured the speaker into picking theres. Has there ever been any vote in Parliament where the speaker hasn’t been pressured by someone? I doubt it. Labour shouldn’t have amended and neither should have the tories. Everyone wants a ceasefire. I bet the SNP don’t want a ceasefire not respected by both sides. An immediate ceasefire not respected by both parties isn’t a cease fire. It is all petty semantics and makes no difference to anything. Nobody should have amended the original motion. Even if the motion had been voted through, how would anyone enforce the ceasefire!? It was an utterly pointless vote. It is like voting for world peace, or a solution to climate change, or that Rwanda is a safe country, or that Stoke stay up! It is meaningless and achieves nothing whatsoever. It Matters to UK Government to show US it is subservient to US regarding Middle East Policy. By extension it Matters to Starmer to show US if Elected PM he would continue this Policy It Matters to UK Citizens that Government has an unequivocal Policy amid the rampant rise of Antisemitism and Islamophobia on our Streets It Matters Internationally where the Shambolic Events were Reported and possibly Misrepresented in all corners of the World I doubt we'll agree on the substantive issue so I'll leave it there.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2024 12:44:31 GMT
The Speaker broke the Rules/Convention, we both agree on that. You think he was right to do so, he says he was wrong and has apologised, twice. I agree with him, he was wrong. The SNP Motion wasn't happening to hurt Labour, it was the same position/Motion SNP took in November in which 56 Labour MPs voted for. You're completely wrong that the Government filed a Motion only to hurt Labour. It would be extraordinary if the Government didn't file a Motion setting out its position on such an important matter for the House to decide which has most support. Labour on the other had were the ones to break Convention by amending an Opposition Motion which they hoped its MPs would hold their nose and Vote for rather than the SNP Motion I agree with you that Labour should have voted for the SNP Motion but Starmer doesn’t have the Moral Fibre to take that position and now we don't know how many Labour MPs agree or disagree with him. You are deluded if you think all 3 Motions were identical. The SNP Motion called for an Immediate Ceasefire no ifs buts or maybes, the Labour Motion finally used the word Ceasefire but it was caveated with so many conditions for this to happen it was virtually meaningless. The SNP Motion called for a stop to the Collective Punishment of the people of Gaza, a War Crime, the Labour Motion had no such wording. The Government Motion was further watered down but close to the Labour Motion. I think in someways the Cowardly actions of Labour, in effectively supporting the Government, has shone a light on the hypothetical position of Government who continue to supply Military Equipment to Israel yet pretend to be even handed in the Conflict and sit on their hands at UN. 75% of UK people support an Immediate Ceasefire. I doubt many if any support Hamas. They just want the Carpet Bombing of Gaza and the slaughter of Innocent Civilians they see on their TV each night to stop. The SNP Motion is the only one that reflects that position Labour did nothing wrong amending the motion. The lib dems did too but their amendment wasn’t picked. Labour oressured the speaker into picking theres. Has there ever been any vote in Parliament where the speaker hasn’t been pressured by someone? I doubt it. Labour shouldn’t have amended and neither should have the tories. Everyone wants a ceasefire. I bet the SNP don’t want a ceasefire not respected by both sides. An immediate ceasefire not respected by both parties isn’t a cease fire. It is all petty semantics and makes no difference to anything. Nobody should have amended the original motion. Even if the motion had been voted through, how would anyone enforce the ceasefire!? It was an utterly pointless vote. It is like voting for world peace, or a solution to climate change, or that Rwanda is a safe country, or that Stoke stay up! It is meaningless and achieves nothing whatsoever. If they took the stance of immediate ceasefire, they could have taken that stance to Israel and said “we won’t provide you with more taxpayer funded bombs to kill Palestinian refugees, so perhaps you should stop”? They could go to the UN and call out the hypocrisy of other nations who continue to do it. They could make their efforts front page news and embarrass other countries, who may also then take a step forwards and do the same. They could start levying high tariffs on Israel and encouraging other countries to do the same.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Feb 25, 2024 13:09:54 GMT
This sounds a bit woke. Suspended for criticising a mayor. Can you not criticise MPs now? Nevermind just realised this is due to Lee Andersons islamaphobia. The bbc headline gives the impression all he did was criticise them. Can't say I'm one bit surprised.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Feb 25, 2024 13:15:36 GMT
The SNP put forward the motion because they do care about the people of Gaza and believe an immediate ceasefire is in their interests. Their motion only put Labour in the doo doo because Labours position is mealey mouthed and they are desperately trying to come over as not being anti-Semitic by towing the official government line that the UK supports Israel's right to protect its people - even if it means murdering thousands of innocent Palestinians. It is Labour who behaved dishonourably in order to try and defeat an honourable motion by the SNP. The SNP did nothing wrong - the fact that Labour have come out of this covered in shit is entirely down to Labour and a Speaker too weak and impartial for that office. The SNP are motivated by hurting labour. What a load of bollocks. If you bother to watch prime minister questions you'll find the SNP have been hammering Westminster on this for weeks. No ifs or buts they've been campaigning and supporting a ceasefire in palastine for a long time. You are absolutely mental if you think the SNP had a crystal ball and knew after raising the motion that: 1. Starmer would do his 27th u turn and suddenly also want a ceasefire. 2. That the speaker would break decades long convention and completely change the rules. 3. That this would result in the SNP having no opportunity to vote on their own motion on their own opposition day. Was Boris breaking covid rules a labour stitch up to hurt Boris? Or is it only Starmer who gets stitched up when he's corrupt?
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Feb 25, 2024 13:41:22 GMT
Why do you think the SNP put forward the motion? It was to try and put Starmer in deep doo doo (as you say). It wasn’t about the people in Gaza, that’s for sure. Starmer should have just backed the ceasefire motion, calling the SNP’s bluff. The tory amendment was pretty much exactly the same as the labour one. They only put it forward to try and put Starmer in deep doo doo. It was nothing about Gaza. Hoyle saw through the political doo doo and said he would allow votes on both of those amendments to give everyone a say. That seemed the logical thing to do, but for an old convention that says otherwise. Then the SNP and Tories faked indignation and walked out. The biggest irony of the lot is had they simply backed the ceasefire, it wouldn’t have done anything other than show that on a moral issue, our elected officials can actually come together and do the right thing. They all want a ceasefire. If you read the original motion and amendments, the lib dem one was the best. But they all pretty much say the same thing. We have entitled children in Parliament unfortunately. Nobody cones off well. In my opinion the Speaker came off best of all, even though he broke the rules! I expect we must agree to disagree. You can agree to disagree if you like but there isn't a shred of doubt in my mind, that if Johnson had pulled a similar stunt, then you would be completely (and rightfully) apoplectic about it. I’d be as angry as I am now about all 3 parties.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Feb 25, 2024 13:43:50 GMT
Labour did nothing wrong amending the motion. The lib dems did too but their amendment wasn’t picked. Labour oressured the speaker into picking theres. Has there ever been any vote in Parliament where the speaker hasn’t been pressured by someone? I doubt it. Labour shouldn’t have amended and neither should have the tories. Everyone wants a ceasefire. I bet the SNP don’t want a ceasefire not respected by both sides. An immediate ceasefire not respected by both parties isn’t a cease fire. It is all petty semantics and makes no difference to anything. Nobody should have amended the original motion. Even if the motion had been voted through, how would anyone enforce the ceasefire!? It was an utterly pointless vote. It is like voting for world peace, or a solution to climate change, or that Rwanda is a safe country, or that Stoke stay up! It is meaningless and achieves nothing whatsoever. If they took the stance of immediate ceasefire, they could have taken that stance to Israel and said “we won’t provide you with more taxpayer funded bombs to kill Palestinian refugees, so perhaps you should stop”? They could go to the UN and call out the hypocrisy of other nations who continue to do it. They could make their efforts front page news and embarrass other countries, who may also then take a step forwards and do the same. They could start levying high tariffs on Israel and encouraging other countries to do the same. None of them have ever suggested not selling weapons to Israel or place sanctions on them. There doesn’t need to be a ceasefire to adopt that position though.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Feb 25, 2024 13:48:51 GMT
The SNP are motivated by hurting labour. What a load of bollocks. If you bother to watch prime minister questions you'll find the SNP have been hammering Westminster on this for weeks. No ifs or buts they've been campaigning and supporting a ceasefire in palastine for a long time. You are absolutely mental if you think the SNP had a crystal ball and knew after raising the motion that: 1. Starmer would do his 27th u turn and suddenly also want a ceasefire. 2. That the speaker would break decades long convention and completely change the rules. 3. That this would result in the SNP having no opportunity to vote on their own motion on their own opposition day. Was Boris breaking covid rules a labour stitch up to hurt Boris? Or is it only Starmer who gets stitched up when he's corrupt? Boris broke the law he made. Labour just tried to amend a motion that the tories and lib dems also put down amendments for which is normal for all opposition day motions. As normal, the speaker was pressurised. It was the Speaker than broke convention, not Labour. The SNP wanted to put Labour in a difficult position and succeeded. The SNP didn’t need a crystal ball to know Starmer would have his knickers in a twist over it. Perhaps we should accept it is just politics. For me, nobody should amended the motion and everyone should have voted it through. Nothing would have changed, except we would have a slightly leas dim view of our politicians.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 25, 2024 14:02:18 GMT
What a load of bollocks. If you bother to watch prime minister questions you'll find the SNP have been hammering Westminster on this for weeks. No ifs or buts they've been campaigning and supporting a ceasefire in palastine for a long time. You are absolutely mental if you think the SNP had a crystal ball and knew after raising the motion that: 1. Starmer would do his 27th u turn and suddenly also want a ceasefire. 2. That the speaker would break decades long convention and completely change the rules. 3. That this would result in the SNP having no opportunity to vote on their own motion on their own opposition day. Was Boris breaking covid rules a labour stitch up to hurt Boris? Or is it only Starmer who gets stitched up when he's corrupt? For me, nobody should amended the motion and everyone should have voted it through. So why do you think, bearing in mind that over a hundred of his MP's had already said publicly, that they WOULD vote with the SNP, Starmer did ammend the motion, even though he was fully aware what the fallout would be for the speaker if he did do? What was the point?
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Feb 25, 2024 14:05:30 GMT
For me, nobody should amended the motion and everyone should have voted it through. So why do you think, bearing in mind that over a hundred of his MP's had already said publicly, that they WOULD vote with the SNP, Starmer did ammend the motion, even though he was fully aware what the fallout would be for the speaker if he did do? What was the point? He was worried that he could be seen as siding with Hamas and being accused of antisemitism if he backed the motion. A completely misguided view in my opinion. But also a fear that he would be accused of another U turn and seen to be weal and unable to control his party.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 25, 2024 14:12:33 GMT
So why do you think, bearing in mind that over a hundred of his MP's had already said publicly, that they WOULD vote with the SNP, Starmer did ammend the motion, even though he was fully aware what the fallout would be for the speaker if he did do? What was the point? He was worried that he could be seen as siding with Hamas and being accused of antisemitism if he backed the motion. A completely misguided view in my opinion. But also a fear that he would be accused of another U turn and seen to be weal and unable to control his party. So at best he was misguided and working in his own self interest then?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 25, 2024 14:24:16 GMT
This sounds a bit woke. Suspended for criticising a mayor. Can you not criticise MPs now? Nevermind just realised this is due to Lee Andersons islamaphobia. The bbc headline gives the impression all he did was criticise them. Can't say I'm one bit surprised. That BBC headline is absolutely shocking and surely brings into question their impartiality here.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Feb 25, 2024 14:36:45 GMT
He was worried that he could be seen as siding with Hamas and being accused of antisemitism if he backed the motion. A completely misguided view in my opinion. But also a fear that he would be accused of another U turn and seen to be weal and unable to control his party. So at best he was misguided and working in his own self interest then? 100%
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Feb 25, 2024 14:43:56 GMT
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 Apologies that I did not explain myself enough for you to understand Wannabee.... but if you follow this part of the thread , I was asking a question about future trends. You quote 6.5% as the National figtre for the Muslim Vote.....I was not talking Nationally but in specific working class constituencies.....for example....Bradford 33.4%. Interesting though that you quote National figures. As I understand it, in terms of the UK, I believe the proportions for Northern Irish is 2.9% and Scottish *.2 %. ( I do understand That I am comparing Nationalities and ethnic groups , I think most people can understand the figures, as given).....So the category " MUslims " is relatively significant in the UK. It seems reasonable to me that if I new party were to emerge that emphasised " policies " that appealed to the " Muslim Vote".....that party may well attract the " Muslim vote"......after all it would appear on the oAtcake, very few of us have a Party which we can believe in, why should Muslims be different. I agree to an extent that Gaza is the stimulus for this question and for the National political discussion ....BUt... unfortunatelty Islam will be the major issue in SOME constuituencies for the forseeable future ....and it won't matter to some of those in the constituencies whether thay are giving their allegiance based upon local, national ofr global isses....the main issue will be Islam ( IMO). ( The Electoral Commision did rejecta new Muslim Party , straight after the Hamas attack in October )Apologies that I did not use the corect wording for single issue party , I perhaps could be forgiven for expecting someone as intelligent as you to understand. What I meant was the SNP and Sinn Fein clearly have ONE main purpose and intention (The clue is in their name). Clearly, they are not UK National parties. I don't think the SNP will be putting up a candidate in Hampshire or Sinn Fein have much interest in Stoke on Trent. And of course political parties evolve a things change...hence UKIP largely became Reform....again a party that at least tries to address current issues. Just going out for a walk. Great weather, Spring is on the way. all the best.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Feb 25, 2024 15:11:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Feb 25, 2024 15:13:06 GMT
Truss has the looks though.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2024 15:50:54 GMT
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 Apologies that I did not explain myself enough for you to understand Wannabee.... but if you follow this part of the thread , I was asking a question about future trends. You quote 6.5% as the National figtre for the Muslim Vote.....I was not talking Nationally but in specific working class constituencies.....for example....Bradford 33.4%. Interesting though that you quote National figures. As I understand it, in terms of the UK, I believe the proportions for Northern Irish is 2.9% and Scottish *.2 %. ( I do understand That I am comparing Nationalities and ethnic groups , I think most people can understand the figures, as given).....So the category " MUslims " is relatively significant in the UK. It seems reasonable to me that if I new party were to emerge that emphasised " policies " that appealed to the " Muslim Vote".....that party may well attract the " Muslim vote"......after all it would appear on the oAtcake, very few of us have a Party which we can believe in, why should Muslims be different. I agree to an extent that Gaza is the stimulus for this question and for the National political discussion ....BUt... unfortunatelty Islam will be the major issue in SOME constuituencies for the forseeable future ....and it won't matter to some of those in the constituencies whether thay are giving their allegiance based upon local, national ofr global isses....the main issue will be Islam ( IMO). ( The Electoral Commision did rejecta new Muslim Party , straight after the Hamas attack in October )Apologies that I did not use the corect wording for single issue party , I perhaps could be forgiven for expecting someone as intelligent as you to understand. What I meant was the SNP and Sinn Fein clearly have ONE main purpose and intention (The clue is in their name). Clearly, they are not UK National parties. I don't think the SNP will be putting up a candidate in Hampshire or Sinn Fein have much interest in Stoke on Trent. And of course political parties evolve a things change...hence UKIP largely became Reform....again a party that at least tries to address current issues. Just going out for a walk. Great weather, Spring is on the way. all the best. One of my questions about the “Muslim vote” is, what do you think it would be? Many people left Muslim countries because they didn’t like those countries’ policies. Others are born in the UK and probably have as diverse viewpoint on general politics as any other ethnicity.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Feb 25, 2024 16:14:34 GMT
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 Apologies that I did not explain myself enough for you to understand Wannabee.... but if you follow this part of the thread , I was asking a question about future trends. You quote 6.5% as the National figtre for the Muslim Vote.....I was not talking Nationally but in specific working class constituencies.....for example....Bradford 33.4%. Interesting though that you quote National figures. As I understand it, in terms of the UK, I believe the proportions for Northern Irish is 2.9% and Scottish *.2 %. ( I do understand That I am comparing Nationalities and ethnic groups , I think most people can understand the figures, as given).....So the category " MUslims " is relatively significant in the UK. It seems reasonable to me that if I new party were to emerge that emphasised " policies " that appealed to the " Muslim Vote".....that party may well attract the " Muslim vote"......after all it would appear on the oAtcake, very few of us have a Party which we can believe in, why should Muslims be different. I agree to an extent that Gaza is the stimulus for this question and for the National political discussion ....BUt... unfortunatelty Islam will be the major issue in SOME constuituencies for the forseeable future ....and it won't matter to some of those in the constituencies whether thay are giving their allegiance based upon local, national ofr global isses....the main issue will be Islam ( IMO). ( The Electoral Commision did rejecta new Muslim Party , straight after the Hamas attack in October )Apologies that I did not use the corect wording for single issue party , I perhaps could be forgiven for expecting someone as intelligent as you to understand. What I meant was the SNP and Sinn Fein clearly have ONE main purpose and intention (The clue is in their name). Clearly, they are not UK National parties. I don't think the SNP will be putting up a candidate in Hampshire or Sinn Fein have much interest in Stoke on Trent. And of course political parties evolve a things change...hence UKIP largely became Reform....again a party that at least tries to address current issues. Just going out for a walk. Great weather, Spring is on the way. all the best. I see your point and hope to God/Allah, although I believe in neither, it doesn't happen, but accept it might I think the last thing we need in this Country is further polarisation I'm sure you know there was the Islamic Party of Britain 1989/2006 It fielded Candidates in the 3 Bradford Constituencies in 1992 GE and received less than 1% in each. The Party of Islam you mention was rejected by the Electoral Commission due to structural issues in its application, who knows they may correct it. The problem Political Parties based upon Religious ideology is that not all Muslims have the same Monolithic beliefs. No more than all Anglicans or Catholics Muslims who believe in Cultural Liberalism have tended to support Labour. Muslims that support Cultural Conservatism have tended to support Conservatives. Therefore the pool an Ideological Muslim Party would attract would be Fundamentalists. That's not to say in a situation like now in Gaza, a single issue, wouldn't attract Voters from Labour/Conservative Muslim Voters Of course SNP and Sinn Fein are not UK National Parties, they are not attempting to win Hearts and Minds in England or Wales but have a broad Manifesto to demonstrate competency in Government of their respective Countries in pursuit of their underlying objective of Independence Hope you enjoyed your walk
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Feb 25, 2024 19:26:41 GMT
I think this last week has been a huge eye opener in Westminster.
The Labour party used sleeze and corruption while bowing down to the Israeli lobby's intimidation.
The conservative party while polling at historic lows double downed on labours excuse and are seemingly backing them rather than attacking them.
It's like standing in front of an open goal and purposely putting the ball out for a goalkick.
I won't use the same language as Mr Anderson because of the IHRA definition. But if there is any minority which is running London or indeed the country, its certainly not Islam.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 25, 2024 21:31:41 GMT
Well that's at least one promise he can tick off his to do list! 😁
|
|