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
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
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:
Your first paragraph is unfortunately quite fair off.
Are we any closer to you letting us know how Israel's actions don't meet the criteria for collective punishment, to the point that Starmer couldn't tolerate the suggestion of it featuring in an Opposition Day motion, yet?
I genuinely can't believe this isn't satire. My gob is thoroughly smacked.
Labour's motion shouldn't have been heard, they get vote not a veto on an SNP opposition day. The idea is Labour raises issues it finds critically important on it's own days, nothing stopped Labour doing so it's had plenty of opportunities.
Let's reverse this and say the government or the SNP get to amend (and by amend it can a complete reversal) all Labour motions and their amendments go first. You think that's fine? Can't see an issue how it blocks parliamentary democracy? The government just says the opposite and it passes via majority without Labour motions ever tabled to put ministers on the record.
If the house had a sensible and flexible set of rules then fine, they could have tabled SNP, Labour, Government in that order. Sadly parliament doesn't and the security reason here was clearly bullshit.
Did you just ignore what I said, he is not going to say anything that can lead to more of this stuff.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Spot on.
Those parroting the 'oh but Labour's amendment called for a ceasefire anyway, won't impact ICJ etc' argument are wildly missing the point. Parliamentary convention was broken by Labour, aided by a hapless speaker simply to make amendments that would help Starmer prevent a rebellion and avoid some hard talking points. Call it a Starmer masterstroke all you like, but I feel like the uncharacteristic nature of how it all unfolded, coupled to the amendment going out of its way to remove wording that protects the aggressor from condemnation, leaves plenty for us to object to. The speaker breaking impartiality obligations to pander to the opposition leader at the behest of his own internal struggles isn't some trivial nitpicking. Its not just some reductionist 'far-left Corbynistas want Starmer to fail at any cost' take.
How old is the convention, if you know?
So he doesn't actually believe Israel has the right to commit war crimes, he's just pretending he does because otherwise people might say things about him.
At what point during his time as PM does this stop and he decides international law applies to everyone, or does this excuse transfer from needing to do it to get power over to needing to do it in order to keep it?
I obviously don't know, and why it does it matter. It clearly wasn't usual parliamentary proceedings. I'd wager you'd find it equally distasteful if it were a Corbyn-led Labour government, choosing to add far more harsh language towards condemning Israel in an amendment for another opposition party's initial draft, abetted by Jon Bercow.
He's not PM but isn't the complaint of all politicians is that they say stuff to get elected and then go back on that. It's always the complaint....
No, there's no required number. He's in the role until the next election unless he resigns.
Again, he doesn't decide international law. This is like student union politics, like he is responsible for Israels crimes in Gaza. It's all so weird.
im not sure what this is getting at? if it is a dig at me pointing out the narrative against muslims - when it comes to the prevaricating around calling for a ceasefire, then i would suggest its actually quite offensive, and it makes my point, as no one would get away with saying similar if the concern was anti-semitism / lack of support for Israel re the 7th Oct attack / the fate of the hostages.
Again, it's odd that for someone who doesn't think he decides international law he seemed more than keen to state he believes it doesn't apply to Israel and even more keen to ensure parliament wasn't given a chance to vote in such a way to express that it did yesterday.
And the excuse now is that he has to say and do that otherwise people would say things about him. But one day, feck knows when, he'll decide he no longer believes countries (well, one particular country anyway) get a mulligan on war crimes.
The same James Heartfield who claimed that israelis have every right to lay siege to all the palestinians, as Israel is at war with them, and so have have no obligation to feed them...
This is why I dont understand Starmers position, unless he is completely supportive of Israel's actions, hes always going to be targeted by the Zionist lobby. and the likes of the Daily Mail will lap it up. So why not stick to his principles, instead of trying to fudge things.
Starmer should send a cease and desist letter to Mr Heartfield for stealing his rhetoric.
This is his principle. He's a self proclaimed 'Zionist without qualification'.
By Zionist do you mean believes in a state of Israel?
No, but it's still, effectively, denying the rights of a political party to have a position it deems important be put to the vote on a day supposedly allotted for precisely that. That you personally don't find the subject matter an issue of particular importance (!) is entirely irrelevant. It wasn't your opposition day and it's not your choice.
The daft thing is that without intervention Labour's amendment would not have been heard under the convention, but once convention was broken to allow it it was immediately fallen back upon in order to insist that Labour's amendment was heard first. Sorry, but that effectively subverts the rules to prevent a vote. Had the Speaker preserved the SNP's rights Labour's amendment would still have been voted on.
Without qualification. Their current government would argue that their actions are to ensure the continuation and future of the state of Israel so ooopsie words have done for Starmer again.
We're not worthy. Literally.
The government already have the ability to do that so it's a bit of a flat fart of a constitutional crisis, the speaker made a decision about the order based on the circumstances to move the Labour motion first for the reasons he stated regarding death threats due to politicking, the points that the SNP wanted to raise are in effect being raised, which is the point of opposition day, if the motion failed it would move to the next. Its overblown because of Starmers enemies not wanting to take the L
Utter bollocks. The speaker made decisions about the order based on standing order 31 (as the Deputy Speaker said when asked). His expressed intention as referenced in his address to the House once voting had concluded was that he intended for the SNP to get their vote. This did not occur.
Why was that?
Because Labour's amendment passed and thus the order of votes excluded it.
How did the SNP vote?
They did not.
Edit: In fact not one individual voted on anything other than whether the House should sit in private.
Last edited:
So Labour voted for a ceasefire, and SNP didn't because they were politically upset.
I must ask do you think the SNP are getting death threats for this?
If Labour had done the same with the SNP motion, voting against due to perceived diplomatic damage of prejudging war crimes but didn't get to vote on something they were comfortable with you don't think this wouldn't be made out to be pro genocide and MPs would be threatened ?
No one voted. It went through unopposed.