Far left will shit on starmer at all costs, pragmatism be damned.Wait so Labour voted for a ceasefire and the SNP didn't and people are mad at Labour because of the politics?
Imagine it was the other way around
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
She’s a narcissist lacking any self awareness. I went to Uni with a guy who was exactly the same. Dumb as a bag of rocks but had this bizarre self confidence despite constantly making an idiot of himself with the nonsense he would spout.
He now has a YouTube channel and has posted hundreds of videos, all of which get about 8 views. I can’t fathom how these people exist, it must be some sort of mental illness where they are so deluded and their ego doesn’t let them rationalise anything which suggests they might actually have an IQ of about 47.
Liz Truss blaming Trans Activists for her failure.
I'm lost for words
I'm lost for words
Eh? She seemed to pin most of the blame on quangos or the 'deep state'. Basically blamed everybody but herself.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/21/liz-truss-deep-state-cpac-far-right
Forex and gilt markets have always been woke.
Yeah but the deep state is full of activists, apparently..
I imagined they're annoyed that a precedent has just been set for all their future motions on opposition days to be ignored.
They have feck all power at Westminster as it is and forcing a vote on their motions a few times a year is the most direct power they do have.
It's funny we've got the same people arguing it was pointless then saying it was crucial for Labour to amend it so it could pass
I get this, but let's say Labour didn't do this. SNP get to table motions (that don't pass) and then make noise at Labours expense.
Instead Labour played politics (rightly and wrongly) and got a motion passed calling for a ceasefire.
What changes...?
Truss is clearly trying to carve a career grifting in the US, so its no surprise she's latched onto the whole 'deepstate' conspiracy nonsense and culture war hot takes. They love those hysterics on that side of the pond. I'd expect we'd see quite a few (soon to be ex) Tory MPs and ministers following through too in the next step in their careers.
Its also of course a convenient way for her to excuse her absolutely disastrous stint as PM where she essentially single-handedly tanked our economy. Much easier to blame it on phantom entities like the deepstate trans-affiliated Soros illuminati than admit she was shit and completely out of her depth. Hopefully she fizzles out like a damp fart much like the Hopkins and Yiannopoulos types.
Its also of course a convenient way for her to excuse her absolutely disastrous stint as PM where she essentially single-handedly tanked our economy. Much easier to blame it on phantom entities like the deepstate trans-affiliated Soros illuminati than admit she was shit and completely out of her depth. Hopefully she fizzles out like a damp fart much like the Hopkins and Yiannopoulos types.
Lack of confidence in The Speaker.
Think he’ll step down.
Think he’ll step down.
Because Starmer went on LBC and told everyone that Israel has the right to do the very things that the SNP have correctly termed collective punishment. He couldn't risk Parliament voting to attribute those things as a war crime.
As Stephen Flynn said, he'd love to know what Starmer considers collective punishment if Israel's actions don't meet that criteria
Personally I can't wait for the lettuce's book.
Do you guys understand the concept of politics? Like genuinely, in the context of the previous labour guy gifting the massive majority which enabled the Tory scumbags enough leverage to ride roughshot over this country?
You think he should just walk into every trap set for him?
Like I can tell why the left suck at politics and never get elected.
Guys, if he says anything remotely critical, away from the status quo, it'll be "same old labour" all across the broadsheets and tabloids. Weeks of news night talking about how labour is infested with antisemitism.
What bit was the 'Tory trap', was it getting him to reveal he believes Israel has the right to commit war crimes in an on-air and on-camera radio studio? On a radio station he chose, on a show he chose and a host he chose for his monthly radio phone-ins.
Was it sending over a group of his party's MPs to Israel to pose for photos with the guy who'd just been photographed autographing bombs to be dropped on Gaza?
Or was it having the Ambassador of Israel to the United Kingdom tear up the idea of two-state solution and then have Starmer and Lammy turn up to pose for photos alongside her hours later?
Luckily for him, Parliament wouldn't have passed that motion. For clarity, there are 650 seats in the House of Commons - 349 of which are Conservative. Unless people seriously think that A) All other political parties would have unanimously voted for the SNP motion, while simultaneously enough Conservative MPs would have defied the government whip to side with the motion. It just wasn't happening. To suggest contrary is either an error or a lie.
Besides that, after all the shit we've seen in British politics in the past few years, this is the thing that makes you lose your marbles, then it's no wonder the Tories were given 14 years to ruin this country. People are very selective about their outrage.
This is hilarious, this was a motion that had absolutely zero chance of passing and anyone who thought it would is an idiot. But also Starmer desperately had to politic his way to try and ensure it wouldn't get voted on and even if it somehow did, he'd have already kneecapped the bit that could lead him looking like he'd greenlit actions that the British Parliament considers war crimes.
Bring back the glory days when ripping up Parliamentary convention to get what you want was indefensible because it was Johnson and the Tories doing it.
Yes, it would have been better for Starmer to have been shown up as supporting war crimes in a failed vote, than any kind of motion calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza to have passed.
Starmer has had multiple Opposition Days to table anything calling for an immediate ceasefire and he hasn't done so, instead he and his lackeys have spent months going as far as saying they were against a ceasefire as it 'would only help Hamas'. Completely coincidentally as the SNP use their opposition day to table a motion containing the term 'collective punishment', he decides that day is the day to call put forward an amendment calling for a ceasefire...but that bit about collective punishment needs to be removed at all costs.
so its perfectly acceptable for senior right wingers in the UK (like Farage and Truss) to mix with known antisemites like Bannon (as they are doing this week at CPAC in the states). But someone on the left so much as walks past someone who once said bad things about a person who may have been jewish and all hell breaks loose.
What are you unhappy with in the Labour motion?
The bit that removes Israel's collective punishment of the people of Gaza, in order to protect their war crime apologist leader.
If you disagree with that, maybe you'll finally be the person on here who explains to me how Israel's actions don't meet that criteria.
Yep. That's the state of play.
In what sense? I guess people might feel a little more represented. Labour could have used one of its own opposition days in order to forward their own motion; instead they had to be spurred into action by the SNP. Let's not pretend Starmer's amendment was provoked by an overriding concern for the Palestinian people. SNP aren't exactly new born babes either but their motion reflects a widely held view and represents a position that is deserving of a vote in its own right. By denying a vote on this more strongly worded statement constituents were denied an opportunity to explicitly see where their representatives stood. Instead the section of the population who's opinions the SNP statement reflects feel even further shut off from institutional representation.
As I say I'm not particularly scandalised by the content of Labour's amendment itself or the fact that Hoyle took it up. It's a fairly lame statement motivated by Starmer protecting his own backside but it also needed to be that lame in order to peel off enough Tories to pass. It also reflects a widely held position in the coutnry that is deserving of a vote in its own right. Fine, take it up! What I think is scandalous is that this position was essentially allowed to gazump the SNP one and the Speakers decision denied the SNP its parliamentary rights, made a mockery of the debate and embarrassed the fecking country - leaving whatever motion was actually passed buried beneath equal parts anger and laughter. Like yeah, at least it got passed but it's not exactly covered in glory and might well have passed anyway, and with more dignity, if SNP precedence had been observed.
listening to all the chatter in westminster, there certainly seems an agenda that somehow pro-Palestinian / 'islamist' (?) groups are a threat to democracy, and specifically responsible for a significant number of death threats to MPs.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37888849
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37888849
Worra surprise. And the charade goes on. How many more babies dying today in the meantime? No one's falling for these games. Not us voters anyway.
The motion passed calling for a ceasefire, in case that passed you by, not that we have much influence on things
this is another talking about pushed by many anti-ceasefire / pro zionist voices on social media, that its pointless to debate these foreign issues as their impact is limited. imagine if someone said that on Oct 7th in parliment. expressed condolences and then said we should focus on british issues and not waste parlimentary time. instead many senior parlimentarians (including the speaker) actually visited Israel to express their solidarity etc.
but 30,000 Palestinians dead, hundreds of thousands injured and millions facing starvation. Uk supplies arms and military support. lets not waste any parliamentary time on them.
just reveals the dehumanisation of the Palestinians.
The motion passed, in case that passed you by, I guess we'll see what impact it has. Similar to when people have been saying it previously, I imagine
Absolutely, we're in exactly the same place as we were before yesterday. That Starmer doesn't consider collective punishment to be collective punishment if it's Israel doing it, because he believes they have the right to do those things.
Previously we just had his LBC reveal of those views, yesterday we saw the lengths he'll go to protect them.
That line of argument only holds up when we see you not having double standards. (I personally didn't defend Labour for what they did yesterday, just pointing out that we've not seen the same disdain for politicking for quite some time now).
The commentariat quite rightly lost its collective marbles when Johnson did it get his way and that it was an affront to the conventions of Parliament. Today Starmer is a genius for 'skilfully avoiding a trap' and who cares if it undermines Parliament moving forward? Only dullards worry about conventions anyway.
A don't remember a parliamentart walkout and 5 pages on this thread devoted to it, can you point me towards them?
When Johnson fudged the rules to try and keep his cronies in positions of power he rightly lost his job over it. Now Starmer does the same to save himself a bloody nose, and everybody is what's all the fuss about breaching convention.
Slight difference is that in this case, the Tories and the SNP are politicking jsut as well as Labour with this motion.
fecking hell, we're talking about the order in which motions are heard, that if one fails to pass the next will be and so on. The explanation provided was that without the intervention Labour's motion could not be heard under the convention regardless.
It's not proroguing of parliament, or voting to exclude parliament from having a vote on issues of particular importance, or wanting to change it so ministers can decide whether they are breaking the law etc.
It's not proroguing of parliament, or voting to exclude parliament from having a vote on issues of particular importance, or wanting to change it so ministers can decide whether they are breaking the law etc.
So it's a good thing a motion calling for an immediate ceasefire passed?
The entire parliament walked out on account of it being suspended at Johnson's request.
I can't do 5 pages of this thread, but will 18 pages in a thread devoted to it do?
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/government-will-attempt-to-prorogue-parliament.450174/
Last edited: