|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Feb 21, 2024 21:44:18 GMT
I'll tell you one thing that todays goings on in parliament have exposed - the Labour party are split down the middle.
Starmer and Gray were desperate to pressure the speaker into allowing their amendment because more than 100 (108 I think) Labour back benchers and shadow ministers were going to vote with the SNP. This would have exposed the fact that Labour are a party of two halves.
|
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Feb 21, 2024 21:48:13 GMT
It gets better. It's just been revealed that this morning the speaker was advised not to allow the Labour amendment, he was told 'all hell would brake loose'. He ignored the advice, and all hell did indeed brake loose, there was a vote that apparently may not have been legal and there are rumours of a vote of no confidence in the speaker. It's absolute chaos in the Hoc right now. Hoyle was a fool to allow the Labour amendment, and he knows it. Mightnot been legal why because he aLlowed The amendments to go though There democracy for yon Chaps |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 21, 2024 21:54:53 GMT
there's 20 opposition days per parliamentary term , the snp get a mere three and labour get 17. the snp set the agenda and debate on their days , not labour. the lack of respect for the westmsinter process , and convention by labour is sickening , not to mention wider issues in the Middle East. Thank You for informing me of something I allready knew, but you have not answered my point, which I think is VERY relevant. It very much looks like the SNP motion was purposely worded in such a way, that it would clearly split the Labour Party, and I was wondering why the SNP did this. Instead, they could have worded their motion so as to actually attract support instead As stated in my previous post, they were playing political games Of course they were but that is not their problem that is Labour's. The SNP had the right to frame the agenda and that was taken away from them. Labour did not like the frame and had it changed. Realistically wasting so much parliamentary time on that over which we have effectively no control is a bit futile but it does show how so many things are now polarised with intransigence being the order of the day. |
|
|
|
Post by witchfinder on Feb 21, 2024 22:08:27 GMT
The Parliament of the United Kingdom should not be used for playing political games, especially on such a very serious issue involving a humanitarian catastrophe, and where peoples lives are at risk.
The SNP purposely and knowingly put together a motion, so worded in such a way that it would NOT ATTRACT SUFFICIENT support. What is the point of playing such a game ? ANSWER: To deliberately cause a split in the Labour Party.
At least one Conservative MP stood up in Parliament and stated that he would have voted FOR the Labour motion, simply because he wanted his constituents to know that he supported a ceasefire, hoping that the hate messages and threats towards him would cease.
But the SNP motion was a step too far
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 21, 2024 22:14:07 GMT
The Parliament of the United Kingdom should not be used for playing political games, especially on such a very serious issue involving a humanitarian catastrophe, and where peoples lives are at risk. The SNP purposely and knowingly put together a motion, so worded in such a way that it would NOT ATTRACT SUFFICIENT support. What is the point of playing such a game ? ANSWER: To deliberately cause a split in the Labour Party. At least one Conservative MP stood up in Parliament and stated that he would have voted FOR the Labour motion, simply because he wanted his constituents to know that he supported a ceasefire, hoping that the hate messages and threats towards him would cease. But the SNP motion was a step too far Well it didn't stop starmer and his motly crew over partygate did it fiddles? How much parliamentary time was wasted over a slice of cake and a glass of wine? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 21, 2024 22:19:12 GMT
This is all rather OTT - there is no prospect of either side in the conflict in the Middle East taking the slightest bit of notice what Parliament says (or doesn't say). It is all performance for certain special interest groups and of no importance to the issues in the UK. I think you are right in as far as you go , but couldnt the same be said of any foreign policy debate on any issue the uk doesn't have much leverage on ? It still doesn't stop debates going ahead. I think this shows once again why the uk parliament needs constitutional reform , and why these wee conventions , and centuries old traditions that are only respected when it suits doesn't wash. Dont forget pacifico , starmer has form for trying to overturn precedent and norms. Remember it wasn't that long ago he was trying to overturn your vote regarding Brexit post 2016 and was still trying in 2019 behind Corbyn until the public had had enough and smashed his party and voted Johnson in with a landslide. Hoyle has disgraced himself and his position, while starmer once again sits smirking. Mordaunt of the tories and Flynn of the snp are saying it will take convincing that Hoyles position isnt now untenable. I agree that Hoyle has to go - but my issue is how we have got to this situation. The Speaker allowed the Lab amendment because so many Lab MPs were terrified of potential violence if they could not vote for the Labour motion from their Muslim constituents.. We have ended up in a situation where the Speaker of the HoC believes that bypassing the rules of the house is acceptable rather than confronting the threats of violence from one of the minority groups in this country. What does that say to everyone else - threaten violence and we change the rules to accomodate you.. ..that is going to work out well. |
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Feb 21, 2024 22:24:29 GMT
The Parliament of the United Kingdom should not be used for playing political games, especially on such a very serious issue involving a humanitarian catastrophe, and where peoples lives are at risk. The SNP purposely and knowingly put together a motion, so worded in such a way that it would NOT ATTRACT SUFFICIENT support. What is the point of playing such a game ? ANSWER: To deliberately cause a split in the Labour Party. At least one Conservative MP stood up in Parliament and stated that he would have voted FOR the Labour motion, simply because he wanted his constituents to know that he supported a ceasefire, hoping that the hate messages and threats towards him would cease. But the SNP motion was a step too far Well it didn't stop starmer and his motly crew over partygate did it fiddles? How much parliamentary time was wasted over a slice of cake and a glass of wine? What's over some one who broke law and a cease fire your kidding aren't you. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 21, 2024 22:26:46 GMT
Well it didn't stop starmer and his motly crew over partygate did it fiddles? How much parliamentary time was wasted over a slice of cake and a glass of wine? What's over some one who broke law and a cease fire your kidding aren't you. You may think its a fucking joke lefty old bean but the silent majority DO NOT.....One of these days some of these arseholes are going to have to reap what they have sown... |
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Feb 21, 2024 22:26:50 GMT
I think you are right in as far as you go , but couldnt the same be said of any foreign policy debate on any issue the uk doesn't have much leverage on ? It still doesn't stop debates going ahead. I think this shows once again why the uk parliament needs constitutional reform , and why these wee conventions , and centuries old traditions that are only respected when it suits doesn't wash. Dont forget pacifico , starmer has form for trying to overturn precedent and norms. Remember it wasn't that long ago he was trying to overturn your vote regarding Brexit post 2016 and was still trying in 2019 behind Corbyn until the public had had enough and smashed his party and voted Johnson in with a landslide. Hoyle has disgraced himself and his position, while starmer once again sits smirking. Mordaunt of the tories and Flynn of the snp are saying it will take convincing that Hoyles position isnt now untenable. I agree that Hoyle has to go - but my issue is how we have got to this situation. The Speaker allowed the Lab amendment because so many Lab MPs were terrified of potential violence if they could not vote for the Labour motion from their Muslim constituents.. We have ended up in a situation where the Speaker of the HoC believes that bypassing the rules of the house is acceptable rather than confronting the threats of violence from one of the minority groups in this country. What does that say to everyone else - threaten violence and we change the rules to accomodate you.. ..that is going to work out well. Sof you think it's democracy to vote on one rather than 2? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 21, 2024 22:55:53 GMT
I agree that Hoyle has to go - but my issue is how we have got to this situation. The Speaker allowed the Lab amendment because so many Lab MPs were terrified of potential violence if they could not vote for the Labour motion from their Muslim constituents.. We have ended up in a situation where the Speaker of the HoC believes that bypassing the rules of the house is acceptable rather than confronting the threats of violence from one of the minority groups in this country. What does that say to everyone else - threaten violence and we change the rules to accomodate you.. ..that is going to work out well. Sof you think it's democracy to vote on one rather than 2? I have absolutely no idea what you are waffling about here. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Feb 22, 2024 7:35:39 GMT
there's 20 opposition days per parliamentary term , the snp get a mere three and labour get 17. the snp set the agenda and debate on their days , not labour. the lack of respect for the westmsinter process , and convention by labour is sickening , not to mention wider issues in the Middle East. Thank You for informing me of something I allready knew, but you have not answered my point, which I think is VERY relevant. It very much looks like the SNP motion was purposely worded in such a way, that it would clearly split the Labour Party, and I was wondering why the SNP did this. Instead, they could have worded their motion so as to actually attract support instead As stated in my previous post, they were playing political games It's called politics, Witchy. What do you think Starmer was doing? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 22, 2024 7:59:46 GMT
The Parliament of the United Kingdom should not be used for playing political games, especially on such a very serious issue involving a humanitarian catastrophe, and where peoples lives are at risk. The SNP purposely and knowingly put together a motion, so worded in such a way that it would NOT ATTRACT SUFFICIENT support. What is the point of playing such a game ? ANSWER: To deliberately cause a split in the Labour Party. the SNP are fully entitled to discuss whatever they like on their allotted days. |
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Feb 22, 2024 8:11:42 GMT
I'll tell you one thing that todays goings on in parliament have exposed - the Labour party are split down the middle. Starmer and Gray were desperate to pressure the speaker into allowing their amendment because more than 100 (108 I think) Labour back benchers and shadow ministers were going to vote with the SNP. This would have exposed the fact that Labour are a party of two halves. I thought you was against the SNP What is by friend is my enemy.enemy |
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Feb 22, 2024 8:12:36 GMT
The Parliament of the United Kingdom should not be used for playing political games, especially on such a very serious issue involving a humanitarian catastrophe, and where peoples lives are at risk. The SNP purposely and knowingly put together a motion, so worded in such a way that it would NOT ATTRACT SUFFICIENT support. What is the point of playing such a game ? ANSWER: To deliberately cause a split in the Labour Party. the SNP are fully entitled to discuss whatever they like on their allotted days. But not labour it Seens |
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Feb 22, 2024 8:27:39 GMT
Thank You for informing me of something I allready knew, but you have not answered my point, which I think is VERY relevant. It very much looks like the SNP motion was purposely worded in such a way, that it would clearly split the Labour Party, and I was wondering why the SNP did this. Instead, they could have worded their motion so as to actually attract support instead As stated in my previous post, they were playing political games It's called politics, Witchy. What do you think Starmer was doing? Trying to stop a spit in his party like Cameron calling a Referendum Stanmer or the labour party done Nothing illegal |
|
