DanH's latest activity

and Labour not having a rebellion is why a lot of people are so angry.

You have to remember to ignore maths when talking about the collapse of our democratic system and how it's all Starmer's fault.

We got a motion confirming that the will of Parliament is for there to be a ceasefire. That's preferable to not having that on record, otherwise there would have been little point in raising the motion.

Yes, that's my take. I would rather a vote for a ceasefire passed than didn't. Even if I didn't get everything I wanted. I imagine others have their own motivations for wishing otherwise. Our Parliament is a touch older than 30 years old, I...

Of course, if the Speaker hadn't selected the Labour amendment, the SNP motion simply wouldn't have passed and there wouldn't be a record of Parliament wanting a ceasefire.

Frosty was incorrect is all. The Speaker did not disallow the SNP motion. The controversy is that he allowed the Labour amendment to that motion to be tabled. If Labour hadn't tabled their amendment the government would have continued with their...

When did Hoyle remove the SNP motion?

That would have less influence on the Speaker. I can't imagine Starmer or the Chief Whip choosing to leak to the BBC that they threatened the Speaker.

I imagine he went there to try and advance the Labour party position.

Meeting the Speaker isn't rare

What does this mean? Do you mean that Starmer visited the Speaker?

The Speaker denied it, the party denied it. Unless the argument is the Speaker took a decision, knowing it could cause him to lose his position now, in order to avoid potentially losing it after a general election. Of course, for some it has to...

There is a clear issue with the SNP, in that the optics make it seem that the goal of embarrassing Starmer was more important than getting to a ceasefire.

Again, drivel.

Labours motion has passed without a vote.