|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 22, 2024 16:50:02 GMT
the reasons about `safety ` dont really stack up though do they witch finder.? All labour had to do was either back the snp motion , or abstain. Surely the only risk from islamic extremism if that's whats being hinted at would have been if they had backed the governments motion of being against a ceasefire? No, Labour could not back the SNP motion, and you know fine well why The SNP motion was too hard line against Israel, and in a climate where Labour are WRONGLY but constantly accused of been "antisemitic", it would have attracted much criticism. The Labour motion was more balanced, it criticised Hamas, called for a ceasefire, and stated that all sides should work towards a peaceful solution. Most Conservatives would never have backed the SNP motion, many Labour MPs would not have backed it, so again I ask the question, what was the point of the SNP motion. ( I allready know the answer ) we have talked the last day or so about the politics , and procedure being cast to the wind , but you aren't answering my question. Im referring to your lame excuse in your earlier post as to why the speaker cast aside convention , you were hinting about threats . Why would labour be threatened by islamic extremists by backing the snp calls for a ceasefire , or abstaining , unless they back the government motion of being against a ceasefire ? Please answer the question . |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Feb 22, 2024 17:04:00 GMT
They dont have anything on Starmer, absolutely nothing Starmer listened to the concerns of MPs who had been on the recieving end of bullying and threats from the public and constituents, and he lobbied The Speaker based upon those concerns. These were totaly valid reasons for asking The Speaker to consider the TONED DOWN motion as put together by the Labour Party. Unless anyone can prove anything otherwise, this is the version we have to accept, and its as simple as that, no conspiracy theories, no crystal balls, no suppositions. Surely it is wrong for the Speaker, or any party leader, whip, MP or official to attempt to adapt (tone down?) the business of the house for fear or threat of terrorism and violence outside?
Should the business of the Commons then be altered or convention ignored by the person able to do so without full agreement, it is a misjudgement that's too serious to overlook...
|
|
|
|
Post by witchfinder on Feb 22, 2024 18:01:38 GMT
This line here in the SNP motion an end to the collective punishment of the Palestinian people which many believe suggests that Israel has committed some kind of war crime.
The Israelis would no doubt reject any such accusation, and MOST Tories would not support this wording, neither would many Labour MPs.
Any motion, in order to have even the slightest bit of influence, must avoid making wider accusations, and stick to the principle that too many innocents are been killed in Israels pursuit of those responsible for the October 7th terror attack, and Hamas in general.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 22, 2024 18:04:52 GMT
There is no evidence what so ever that Starmer bullied anyone, its all in your mind The Speaker has made it clear his reasons for choosing the Labour motion, and they are legitimate and valid reasons, so no more conspiracy theories unless there is proof / evidence. Obviously they are not that legitimate and valid as the speaker has apologised and said he should not have taken the decision he did. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 22, 2024 18:06:38 GMT
There is no evidence what so ever that Starmer bullied anyone, its all in your mind The Speaker has made it clear his reasons for choosing the Labour motion, and they are legitimate and valid reasons, so no more conspiracy theories unless there is proof / evidence. Obviously they are not that legitimate and valid as the speaker has apologised and said he should not have taken the decision he did. poor auld witch finder....  something seems to have rattled labours cage......... |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 22, 2024 18:07:08 GMT
the reasons about `safety ` dont really stack up though do they witch finder.? All labour had to do was either back the snp motion , or abstain. Surely the only risk from islamic extremism if that's whats being hinted at would have been if they had backed the governments motion of being against a ceasefire?
That is a decision for the Labour MP's - it's not up to the SNP to deliver a motion that the Labour Party feel comfortable with. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 22, 2024 18:11:37 GMT
No, Labour could not back the SNP motion, and you know fine well why
That is a decision for the Labour MP's - it's not up to the SNP to deliver a motion that the Labour Party feel comfortable with. guido reporting 68 mps now calling for Hoyle to go........ Pressure mounting. If he stays this is going to linger on and on , much to starmers dismay . |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Feb 22, 2024 18:15:05 GMT
That is a decision for the Labour MP's - it's not up to the SNP to deliver a motion that the Labour Party feel comfortable with. guido reporting 68 mps now calling for Hoyle to go........ Pressure mounting. If he stays this is going to linger on and on , much to starmers dismay . No point delaying the inevitable, the man can't be trusted, he's clearly in the pocket of Labour, I hope it was worth it. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 22, 2024 19:06:17 GMT
That is a decision for the Labour MP's - it's not up to the SNP to deliver a motion that the Labour Party feel comfortable with. guido reporting 68 mps now calling for Hoyle to go........ Pressure mounting. If he stays this is going to linger on and on , much to starmers dismay . Oh dear.....LOL |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 22, 2024 19:08:03 GMT
This line here in the SNP motion an end to the collective punishment of the Palestinian people which many believe suggests that Israel has committed some kind of war crime. The Israelis would no doubt reject any such accusation, and MOST Tories would not support this wording, neither would many Labour MPs. Any motion, in order to have even the slightest bit of influence, must avoid making wider accusations, and stick to the principle that too many innocents are been killed in Israels pursuit of those responsible for the October 7th terror attack, and Hamas in general. Keep up the good work fiddles you are one of the tories greatest assets... |
|
|
|
Post by borchester on Feb 22, 2024 20:32:55 GMT
Read the thread titled Should Hoyle resign? Doofus . Thats all we are going to get for the next wee while is labour supporters running around forums trying to deflect from labours hoylegate. It certainly looks at the minute though starmer may have overplayed his hand. There seems to be quite a backlash. On the forums Tommy, but no one gives a toss about them and most folk don't understand what the fuss is about anyway.
But you are right about Starmer. There are no votes in foreign affairs and Sir Stodge is probably waiting for the fuss to blow over.
|
|
|
|
Post by witchfinder on Feb 22, 2024 21:54:26 GMT
When it comes to bullying ( the accusation leveled at Starmer ) the only bullying taking place is the bullying of Lindsay Hoyle.
The Speaker listened carefuly to the legitimate concerns of MPs, many of whom have been targeted by protesters, some threatned, some the targets of vandalism, and in one instance firebombed.
I fail to understand why the reasons given are not accepted, other than for political posturing, and I am afraid that for the lame duck Prime Minister to claim that "we must not be intimidated" is astonishing, bearing in mind that MP's have actually lost their lives because of their political positions.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 22, 2024 22:17:37 GMT
When it comes to bullying ( the accusation leveled at Starmer ) the only bullying taking place is the bullying of Lindsay Hoyle. The Speaker listened carefuly to the legitimate concerns of MPs, many of whom have been targeted by protesters, some threatned, some the targets of vandalism, and in one instance firebombed. I fail to understand why the reasons given are not accepted, other than for political posturing, and I am afraid that for the lame duck Prime Minister to claim that "we must not be intimidated" is astonishing, bearing in mind that MP's have actually lost their lives because of their political positions.  |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 22, 2024 22:55:17 GMT
When it comes to bullying ( the accusation leveled at Starmer ) the only bullying taking place is the bullying of Lindsay Hoyle. The Speaker listened carefuly to the legitimate concerns of MPs, many of whom have been targeted by protesters, some threatned, some the targets of vandalism, and in one instance firebombed. I fail to understand why the reasons given are not accepted, other than for political posturing, and I am afraid that for the lame duck Prime Minister to claim that "we must not be intimidated" is astonishing, bearing in mind that MP's have actually lost their lives because of their political positions. Are you seriously suggesting that violent threats against individual MP's are a valid reason to ignore convention and pressure the Commons to vote a certain way? |
|
|
|
Post by witchfinder on Feb 22, 2024 23:13:07 GMT
When it comes to bullying ( the accusation leveled at Starmer ) the only bullying taking place is the bullying of Lindsay Hoyle. The Speaker listened carefuly to the legitimate concerns of MPs, many of whom have been targeted by protesters, some threatned, some the targets of vandalism, and in one instance firebombed. I fail to understand why the reasons given are not accepted, other than for political posturing, and I am afraid that for the lame duck Prime Minister to claim that "we must not be intimidated" is astonishing, bearing in mind that MP's have actually lost their lives because of their political positions. Are you seriously suggesting that violent threats against individual MP's are a valid reason to ignore convention and pressure the Commons to vote a certain way? Yes I am, and why not, the SNP motion was so worded as to divide the Labour Party ( purposely done ), if anyone was playing political games, it was the SNP. This is a moral issue, and leading MPs from all parties could have met to try and work out a united front from the British Parliament. Instead the Tories and SNP made it a political game |
|
