|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 22, 2024 8:28:48 GMT
If Keir Starmer browbeats the Speaker into breaching Parliamentary rules because he fears Muslim extremists will attack his MPs, what would he do in office to appease the same mob? Ban cartoons of Muhammad? Make disrespecting the Quran a hate crime? Repeal the Terrorism Act?
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 22, 2024 9:30:02 GMT
Question: If the devious SNP REALLY wanted their motion to pass, or at the very least to attract a substantial number of votes, then why did they word their motion in such a hardline way, heavily biased towards Palestine, and heavily critical of Israel. ? They must surely know that virtualy no Tories would back it, and more importantly they also know that FEWER Labour MPs would support it. The devious bastards knew what they were doing, it was all a political game to them to save themselves and an attempt to create divisions in the party that most threatens them - The Labour Party. If the SNP were remotely serious about pushing through a motion FOR a ceasefire, they would have had different wording in order to attract support from all parties, anyone with an ounce of intelligence can clearly see what they have been up to. Lmfao. Isnt it funny the least bit of scrutiny or someone doing what the Labour Party dont want , and the mask slips , and the snp , who earlier witch finder was calling part of the progressive three parties , are now `devious bastards`. The snp didnt blackmail the speaker witch finder. The only devious bastards as you put it were starmer and his party. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 22, 2024 9:33:20 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 The snp position has not changed for as long as I can remember on this issue. The fact that position is different from your scummy party is your problem , not anyone else's. Is the snp holding a gun to 100 labour mps over the Gaza situation and forcing them to hold views contrary to the labour leadership? How dare anyone in or out of your stalineque party hold a view that might upset keir. I think we can see starmer is going to be a very authoritarian prime minister. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 22, 2024 9:44:24 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. do you honestly believe this pacifico? I ask because you seem switched on to labour and their wee games. Plenty of politicians past and present have been subject to violence , or threats. Labour have done what corrupt labour do , they were in a bind of their own making , threatened the speaker with blackmail , and when it came out , ran away squealing they had no choice because they were terrified of violence. Even if this is true , and it isnt , then as you correctly point out , we are now in the situation of labours making where any group can threaten violence and some excuse will be made to throw convention or rules out the window to justify doing so. Starmer has climbed out of one hole , and created an even bigger one for himself. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 22, 2024 10:27:45 GMT
If Keir Starmer browbeats the Speaker into breaching Parliamentary rules because he fears Muslim extremists will attack his MPs, what would he do in office to appease the same mob? Ban cartoons of Muhammad? Make disrespecting the Quran a hate crime? Repeal the Terrorism Act? There is a labour politician in scotland called Paul sweeny pacifico. only yesterday , he made a claim that his Labour Party Glasgow constituency office had been stormed by Gaza protestors . Police scotland investigated , and have rejected his claims . The truth isnt in them pacifico. Fears of extremism and lies that they had to blackmail people for the own safety is right out the Labour Party ladybird book of corrupt politics. www.thenational.scot/news/24135758.police-respond-claim-labour-glasgow-office-stormed/ |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 22, 2024 10:30:56 GMT
The other thing that this farce has overshadowed is the fact that the pro palastinians were demonstrating outside the HOC at the time...
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 22, 2024 10:46:08 GMT
The other thing that this farce has overshadowed is the fact that the pro palastinians were demonstrating outside the HOC at the time... arguably starmer has created an even bigger story for his party by blackmailing the speaker , then running around like a headless chicken using every excuse under the sun to justify it. There are always professional demonstrators demonstrating about something. Personally I dont believe it justifies labours behaviour. Great watching though for all the political geeks. |
|
|
|
Post by witchfinder on Feb 22, 2024 11:32:44 GMT
Question: If the devious SNP REALLY wanted their motion to pass, or at the very least to attract a substantial number of votes, then why did they word their motion in such a hardline way, heavily biased towards Palestine, and heavily critical of Israel. ? They must surely know that virtualy no Tories would back it, and more importantly they also know that FEWER Labour MPs would support it. The devious bastards knew what they were doing, it was all a political game to them to save themselves and an attempt to create divisions in the party that most threatens them - The Labour Party. If the SNP were remotely serious about pushing through a motion FOR a ceasefire, they would have had different wording in order to attract support from all parties, anyone with an ounce of intelligence can clearly see what they have been up to. Lmfao. Isnt it funny the least bit of scrutiny or someone doing what the Labour Party dont want , and the mask slips , and the snp , who earlier witch finder was calling part of the progressive three parties , are now `devious bastards`. The snp didnt blackmail the speaker witch finder. The only devious bastards as you put it were starmer and his party. I enjoy political debate based upon facts, but I am not keen on supposition or conspiracy theories, there is not a shred of evidence that the Speaker Of The House was "blackmailed", but of course it does fit in with your political perspective. It is perfectly normal and totaly acceptable for the leader of any party to discuss business with the Speaker, and the reasons as put forward by several MPs from both sides of the House make perfect sense. In actual fact the Labour motion was a "Bridge" the ONLY motion which could have been acceptable to MPs on all sides, it was the one motion which had the best chances of attracting most votes, UNLIKE THE SNP MOTION. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2024 11:34:10 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. The dangerous subtext is that Islamists are coercing Members of Parliament over the Gazan situation. This must stop. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 22, 2024 11:41:06 GMT
I see the lefty press and their media moguls are concentrating on starmers bioghraphy in their attemp at diverting the present issue... Keir Starmer: Key revelations from the new biography of the Labour leader...
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Feb 22, 2024 11:42:28 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. The dangerous subtext is that Islamists are coercing Members of Parliament over the Gazan situation. This must stop. Yes, they've infiltrated Parliament, so now we have the Islamic state ruling over our Parliament, although this has been a long time predicted. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 22, 2024 11:57:40 GMT
Lmfao. Isnt it funny the least bit of scrutiny or someone doing what the Labour Party dont want , and the mask slips , and the snp , who earlier witch finder was calling part of the progressive three parties , are now `devious bastards`. The snp didnt blackmail the speaker witch finder. The only devious bastards as you put it were starmer and his party. I enjoy political debate based upon facts, but I am not keen on supposition or conspiracy theories, there is not a shred of evidence that the Speaker Of The House was "blackmailed", but of course it does fit in with your political perspective. It is perfectly normal and totaly acceptable for the leader of any party to discuss business with the Speaker, and the reasons as put forward by several MPs from both sides of the House make perfect sense. In actual fact the Labour motion was a "Bridge" the ONLY motion which could have been acceptable to MPs on all sides, it was the one motion which had the best chances of attracting most votes, UNLIKE THE SNP MOTION.It's not up to you, Keir Starmer or anyone else to tell the SNP what they can discuss on their allotted opposition day. If other MP's want to support the SNP motion that is an issue for them - it is not the responsibility of the SNP to facilitate moves to prevent them being embarrassed. Labour have had 4 opposition days this year so far when they could have put forward their own motion on Gaza - they chose not to and preferred to discuss Children not in school register and ministerial leaving payouts. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 22, 2024 12:34:00 GMT
Lmfao. Isnt it funny the least bit of scrutiny or someone doing what the Labour Party dont want , and the mask slips , and the snp , who earlier witch finder was calling part of the progressive three parties , are now `devious bastards`. The snp didnt blackmail the speaker witch finder. The only devious bastards as you put it were starmer and his party. I enjoy political debate based upon facts, but I am not keen on supposition or conspiracy theories, there is not a shred of evidence that the Speaker Of The House was "blackmailed", but of course it does fit in with your political perspective. It is perfectly normal and totaly acceptable for the leader of any party to discuss business with the Speaker, and the reasons as put forward by several MPs from both sides of the House make perfect sense. In actual fact the Labour motion was a "Bridge" the ONLY motion which could have been acceptable to MPs on all sides, it was the one motion which had the best chances of attracting most votes, UNLIKE THE SNP MOTION. facts are something we are not going to get from dyed in the wool Labour Party supporters. You aren't very good at spin , but however you try and spin , the speaker set aside established precedent last night and chaos ensued. The allegations at this stage of threats of blackmail from the labour leader and his minions are very serious indeed , and hopefully this will be thoroughly investigated and the truth rather than Labour Party spin comes out. |
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Feb 22, 2024 13:06:29 GMT
Question: If the devious SNP REALLY wanted their motion to pass, or at the very least to attract a substantial number of votes, then why did they word their motion in such a hardline way, heavily biased towards Palestine, and heavily critical of Israel. ? They must surely know that virtualy no Tories would back it, and more importantly they also know that FEWER Labour MPs would support it. The devious bastards knew what they were doing, it was all a political game to them to save themselves and an attempt to create divisions in the party that most threatens them - The Labour Party. If the SNP were remotely serious about pushing through a motion FOR a ceasefire, they would have had different wording in order to attract support from all parties, anyone with an ounce of intelligence can clearly see what they have been up to. Lmfao. Isnt it funny the least bit of scrutiny or someone doing what the Labour Party dont want , and the mask slips , and the snp , who earlier witch finder was calling part of the progressive three parties , are now `devious bastards`. The snp didnt blackmail the speaker witch finder. The only devious bastards as you put it were starmer and his party. How did starmer blackmail the speaker See a lot of aqusastion but no prove Talk about devious lol |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Feb 22, 2024 13:13:06 GMT
I enjoy political debate based upon facts, but I am not keen on supposition or conspiracy theories, there is not a shred of evidence that the Speaker Of The House was "blackmailed", but of course it does fit in with your political perspective. It is perfectly normal and totaly acceptable for the leader of any party to discuss business with the Speaker, and the reasons as put forward by several MPs from both sides of the House make perfect sense. In actual fact the Labour motion was a "Bridge" the ONLY motion which could have been acceptable to MPs on all sides, it was the one motion which had the best chances of attracting most votes, UNLIKE THE SNP MOTION. facts are something we are not going to get from dyed in the wool Labour Party supporters. You aren't very good at spin , but however you try and spin , the speaker set aside established precedent last night and chaos ensued. The allegations at this stage of threats of blackmail from the labour leader and his minions are very serious indeed , and hopefully this will be thoroughly investigated and the truth rather than Labour Party spin comes out. We can only hope that the Tories get off their useless backsides and make sure Hoyle and Labour are thoroughly investigated, this is pay back time, I have no idea why the Tories aren't make more of a meal of this, Labour would have lapped this up if it was the other way round, the Tories need a swift kick up the arse to liven them up. |
|
