|
Post by knype on Feb 22, 2024 10:00:08 GMT
Your opinion means jack ! It was showed yesterday! What on earth are you banging on about now? That they are all the same and none can be trusted! Keep up old man
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Feb 22, 2024 10:24:48 GMT
What on earth are you banging on about now? That they are all the same and none can be trusted! Keep up old man And the fact is they are not all the same. Grow up.
|
|
|
Post by knype on Feb 22, 2024 10:47:34 GMT
That they are all the same and none can be trusted! Keep up old man And the fact is they are not all the same. Grow up. Dear me, your trust in the weasels is much higher than the majority of people.
|
|
|
Post by noustie on Feb 22, 2024 10:55:12 GMT
I'm politically homeless but probably have a slight bias towards the SNP mainly from nostalgic purposes. However, Labour trying to paint everyone else as being at fault for yesterday's shitshow is absolutely fucking wild! A foreign power has their leader dangling by the bollocks to the level that he shit the bed and went completely against parliamentary protocol leaving the Speaker's arse hanging out the window yet his party have the sheer temerity to question the conduct of others!
Fuck the circus - if this was France there would be folk in high-viz and V Masks trying to burn the corrupt fucking edifice to the ground!
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Feb 22, 2024 11:32:00 GMT
A brilliant piece of writing
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Feb 22, 2024 12:51:55 GMT
A number of people have recently on different threads expressed the view that UK should confine itself to Domestic matters only
After yesterday's Parlour Games I'm more sympathetic to that POV but I suspect for very different reasons
As the UK has voluntarily neutered itself to hold an Independent Foreign Policy in favour of adopting that of a Foreign Power it certainly advances that viewpoint
Yesterday's disgraceful scenes were about displacement making the issue all about UK Political ambition than taking a moral position on an International Conflict, whatever that position may be. Whether if the debate had reached its conclusion would have any practical influence is an entirely different question
It must be ironic to the more strident people who voted to so call restore Sovereignty of HoC to find its members have rejected the offer, that's if they do irony.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Feb 22, 2024 15:08:12 GMT
reminds me a bit of the dr david kelly issue in that someone who appears to be a decent and innocent person ( lindsay hoyle ) has fallen victim to labour political shenanigans just to preserve/appease their muslim supporters.I not sure what would lead you to this conclusion Isn't it far more likely that the Labour Party are much more concerned about distancing their Traditional Base who express Humanity towards the Women and Children of Gaza irrespective of Religion
|
|
|
Post by phileetin on Feb 22, 2024 16:36:08 GMT
reminds me a bit of the dr david kelly issue in that someone who appears to be a decent and innocent person ( lindsay hoyle ) has fallen victim to labour political shenanigans just to preserve/appease their muslim supporters.I not sure what would lead you to this conclusion Isn't it far more likely that the Labour Party are much more concerned about distancing their Traditional Base who express Humanity towards the Women and Children of Gaza irrespective of Religion i must admit , i haven't seen any evidence of that .
everything labour mp's /supporters do tends/appears to be pro hamas . Starmer gives a slight nod (via his amendments/announcements ) to the usa ( who are dictating general policy ie condeming certain actions and promoting certain course of action whilst still allowing israel to pursue its own agenda/timeline) but Starmers actions (reflected by some folks on here ) are still noticeably anti-israel.
i dont think i've said anything there that isn't accurate ?
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Feb 22, 2024 17:19:07 GMT
A brilliant piece of writing John Crace is brilliant
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Feb 22, 2024 17:36:00 GMT
I not sure what would lead you to this conclusion Isn't it far more likely that the Labour Party are much more concerned about distancing their Traditional Base who express Humanity towards the Women and Children of Gaza irrespective of Religion i must admit , i haven't seen any evidence of that .
everything labour mp's /supporters do tends/appears to be pro hamas . Starmer gives a slight nod (via his amendments/announcements ) to the usa ( who are dictating general policy ie condeming certain actions and promoting certain course of action whilst still allowing israel to pursue its own agenda/timeline) but Starmers actions (reflected by some folks on here ) are still noticeably anti-israel.
i dont think i've said anything there that isn't accurate ?
Labour's actions obviously have a purpose. I'm not saying your theory is wrong just that it's more likely dictated to appease their traditional base rather than trying to influence a handful of seats at best where the Muslim Vote may make a difference. Its not as if the Muslim Vote will switch to Conservatives I have to see any Political Party, UK MSM or posters on here say anything in support of Hamas, maybe you could explain what you mean I agree US is dictating Starmer and Government Policy towards Israel which far from Anti.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Feb 22, 2024 17:41:52 GMT
I not sure what would lead you to this conclusion Isn't it far more likely that the Labour Party are much more concerned about distancing their Traditional Base who express Humanity towards the Women and Children of Gaza irrespective of Religion i must admit , i haven't seen any evidence of that .
everything labour mp's /supporters do tends/appears to be pro hamas . Starmer gives a slight nod (via his amendments/announcements ) to the usa ( who are dictating general policy ie condeming certain actions and promoting certain course of action whilst still allowing israel to pursue its own agenda/timeline) but Starmers actions (reflected by some folks on here ) are still noticeably anti-israel.
i dont think i've said anything there that isn't accurate ?
I disagree, this is how I read it. 1. On 15th November a motion for a ceasefire was called and only 56/197 Labour MPs voted for it. 2. Yesterday a new motion to vote for a ceasefire was brought by the SNP on their opposition day. Procedures were broken because starmer didn't support SNPs ceasefire and his party should only have got to choose between SNPs motion or Conservstives ammendment. Of which he would have asked his members to abstain from. 3. What happened yesterday was not "pro hamas". (Pro hamas I'm guessing is your slur for anyone who thinks 30k dead civillians mostly children and women is too many). It was the opposite. Anyone "pro hamas" supports SNPs statement not Labours ammendment. What he's done is the opposite. 4. Hes basically been able to call for his own version of a ceasefire to try and save face. A "humantarian ceasefire" which also doesnt acknowledge the collective punishment of the palestine people plus more. I dont think any muslims will be celebrating starmers actions. Quite the opposite. I wouldn't call myself a labour supporter either but I admit I dislike them less than the last 14 years of the Conservatives. To add further context. The Labour party has 17 opposition days per year while SNP only get 3. The purpose of it is for smaller parties to set an agenda and raise motions for matters which are important to them. Labour have had and will have many opportunities to raise a motion on the position on gaza but haven't. The SNP on one of their only 3 days to set the agenda were left in a position where they didn't even get the chance to vote on their own motion. Basically leaving them with 2 opposition days and allowing labour to gatecrash and take over the SNPs to try and save face. This was anything but "pro hamas" as you describe though. Simply starmer breaking democracy to try and save face and look like he doesn't have a broken party. "Pro hamas" would be telling his members to vote for SNPs motion.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Feb 22, 2024 18:24:55 GMT
We had the chance to elect a PM of principle and humanity in 2017 and 2019. Sadly, people fell for the lies and the hate put across by the MSM. I'm not sure we'll ever get the opportunity again. Paul , A very significant amount of his traditional vote could not vote for him because of his ( party's) change of mind on Brexit ...an important principle .... whether you think his stance or his party's stance( whatever it actually was) was right or wrong. In my opinion. That's one of the reasons I couldn't vote for them. They hung the incumbent MP out to dry, essentially giving up on the people in that constituency for personal beef, not the fact they couldn't win the seat. They're not whiter than white, they're as grey as any other politician and it's disingenuous to say otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by dutchstokie on Feb 22, 2024 19:27:43 GMT
I've said on here before now stuff along the lines of 'politicians, they're all the same' and been told by the bleeding hearts that they're not, and there's some good ones out there but none of them are doing anything to change my way of thinking at the moment. Fucking charlatans the lot of them. You can’t teach stupidity to the stupid…..
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2024 19:34:00 GMT
I've said on here before now stuff along the lines of 'politicians, they're all the same' and been told by the bleeding hearts that they're not, and there's some good ones out there but none of them are doing anything to change my way of thinking at the moment. Fucking charlatans the lot of them. You can’t teach stupidity to the stupid….. One of the challenges is that to make it anywhere in politics requires you to be a sniveling, conniving wretch. Some of the backbenchers are alright though 😂
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Feb 22, 2024 19:51:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Feb 23, 2024 10:03:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by phileetin on Feb 23, 2024 10:46:45 GMT
i must admit , i haven't seen any evidence of that .
everything labour mp's /supporters do tends/appears to be pro hamas . Starmer gives a slight nod (via his amendments/announcements ) to the usa ( who are dictating general policy ie condeming certain actions and promoting certain course of action whilst still allowing israel to pursue its own agenda/timeline) but Starmers actions (reflected by some folks on here ) are still noticeably anti-israel.
i dont think i've said anything there that isn't accurate ?
Labour's actions obviously have a purpose. I'm not saying your theory is wrong just that it's more likely dictated to appease their traditional base rather than trying to influence a handful of seats at best where the Muslim Vote may make a difference. Its not as if the Muslim Vote will switch to Conservatives I have to see any Political Party, UK MSM or posters on here say anything in support of Hamas, maybe you could explain what you mean I agree US is dictating Starmer and Government Policy towards Israel which far from Anti. i suspect more than a handful of seats would be at risk in London , Bradford, Birmingham , leicester , peterborough etc if an independant pro hamas led palestine candidate was to enter the fray eg dianne abbot, corbyn
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Feb 26, 2024 12:24:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Feb 26, 2024 12:27:10 GMT
Safe to say Labour v SNP at the GE will see some drama SNP highly vulnerable to a collapse given the shenanigans up there of recent years Labour should stick the boot in if they want 20,30 seats back
|
|
|
Post by adri2008 on Feb 26, 2024 12:29:42 GMT
Labour doing its very best to give the SNP a boost in Scotland. This whole issue is a huge mistake by Starmer imo. For many people, one of the main reasons for removing the Tories (and the SNP in Scotland) is that the government is tainted by sleaze/scandal but here we have Labour busily tarnishing itself before it even reaches power.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Feb 26, 2024 20:04:54 GMT
NOt read the whole thread, sorry.
Please could someone explain why the decision was made by the Speaker for " reasons of safety " of the MPs?
What was the safety issue?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 26, 2024 22:14:03 GMT
NOt read the whole thread, sorry. Please could someone explain why the decision was made by the Speaker for " reasons of safety " of the MPs? What was the safety issue? There wasn't one, it was a lie concocted by Starmer and Hoyle, in an attempt to save the Speaker's bacon. British politics is in the gutter.
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Feb 26, 2024 22:16:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Feb 26, 2024 22:17:41 GMT
NOt read the whole thread, sorry. Please could someone explain why the decision was made by the Speaker for " reasons of safety " of the MPs? What was the safety issue? There wasn't one, it was a lie concocted by Starmer and Hoyle, in an attempt to save the Speaker's bacon. British politics is in the gutter. The Guardian would beg to differ.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 26, 2024 22:25:58 GMT
There wasn't one, it was a lie concocted by Starmer and Hoyle, in an attempt to save the Speaker's bacon. British politics is in the gutter. The Guardian would beg to differ. No shit.
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Feb 27, 2024 8:35:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Feb 27, 2024 8:39:41 GMT
NOt read the whole thread, sorry. Please could someone explain why the decision was made by the Speaker for " reasons of safety " of the MPs? What was the safety issue? There wasn't one, it was a lie concocted by Starmer and Hoyle, in an attempt to save the Speaker's bacon. British politics is in the gutter. What I wanted to know then Paul ( I just have not had time to keep up) ....what was the link that Hoyle wanted us to make?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 27, 2024 10:40:56 GMT
That's a separate discussion. BJR asked a question and I gave him the answer. Hoyle and Starmer concocted a story between them in attempt to get Hoyle off the hook. The reasons Hoyle gave originally in the HOC wete entirely different to the one he gave the next day. It was widely discussed in the media and extensively discussed on more than one thread on this message board. You surely must be aware of it? Oh and the Guardian was very much complicit in this new low for British politics.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2024 12:05:36 GMT
First, I don’t condone it. Second, MP’s bring it on themselves. MPs in Britain (right and left) have continuously used more and more populist tactics to win over their constituents. The very nature of these tactics are divisive and designed to sow anger into voters, which is why they are effective. Given that MPs are politicians (or previously had an interest in politics), I’d assume that they would be aware of this basic premise surrounding a tactic to win votes. They didn’t care when they employed them and now they want to play a victim. It’s akin to bullying someone’s friend at school and then running to the teacher when you get hit.
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Feb 27, 2024 12:11:16 GMT
That's a separate discussion. BJR asked a question and I gave him the answer. Hoyle and Starmer concocted a story between them in attempt to get Hoyle off the hook. The reasons Hoyle gave originally in the HOC wete entirely different to the one he gave the next day. It was widely discussed in the media and extensively discussed on more than one thread on this message board. You surely must be aware of it? Oh and the Guardian was very much complicit in this new low for British politics. Unfortunately like BJR above work often takes priority over sifting through these highly informative threads it's something that I thought about and parked hoping to get back to. I'll perhaps have a look at it from a variety of sources and make my own mind up about the motives of the Speaker and his boss?, the Leader of the opposition Interesting to see your comment on the separate discussion above because when it's been raised on various threads there doesn't seem to be any appetite to discuss the current level of threats to MPs from all political persuasions.
|
|