This Lindsay Hoyle business

Scrote said:
All of the political shenanigans are wholly the responsibility of the Labour party.
Click to expand...
Well that depends if you think the wording of the snp statement was political shenanigans aimed at pressuring Labour to vote against it for political gain rather than because of wanting a ceasefire
 
SuperStu said:
I don't think so HC. Are you implying Corbyn with former Labour MPs? I really don't think anyone would describe him as a senior Labour figure. And lets be honest he didn't have a clue what conversations were going on behind closed doors when he was leading the party, why would he now?

If you're wanting to suggest the sources have mislead Watt, I'd think the more likely answer would be someone in the shadow cabinet with leadership ambitions.
Click to expand...
Nah, senior Labour figures could mean anyone in my opinion, proper vague media speak that.

And no I wasn’t implying Corbyn, but it might be someone close to him, who knows?

Anyway, on another matter, what do you think about the bloodshed and lives ruined in Palastine, is that not more important to concentrate on than tittle tattle about Starmer? Not that this country has much influence of course, it’s all about the USA in that part of the world.
 
Scrote said:
Labour aren't supposed to table amendments on an SNP Opposition Day. Doing so was shady. The fact the Speaker allowed it, despite the furore it could, and then did, cause, is shadier still - the fact you believe he did it with no outside pressure makes it look even worse.

Are you also suggesting that the Tories only decided to table an amendment after Labour had tabled theirs? This is factually incorrect. Both amendments were tabled in the same session and Hoyle, against precedent, allowed the Labour amendment to be heard. The Tory amendment was just following accepted protocol.

You're obviously struggling to follow parliamentary procedure which makes me wonder if you actually understand what has happened.

The Labour leadership were worried about a repeat of the revolt in November, when their MPs voted in favour of another SNP motion on Gaza. Labour have had the best part of four months to come up with their own motion on Gaza which could have been voted on favourably by other parties. They haven't. Now they're sabotaging the SNP for political, not humanitarian, purposes.

All of the political shenanigans are wholly the responsibility of the Labour party.
Click to expand...
You are right convention says Labour shouldn't take amendments. However it has been done previously, by the tories.

However, as I have said on numerous occasions and you haven't addressed, Labour could not vote for the snp's motion as it stood and to be frank neither should the snp nor the tories. The fact that they were speaks volumes.
Labour tabled their amendment before the tories that is a statement of fact. That they were both done in the same session it's neither here nor there. There is a timeline in a single season of parliament.

Labour were worried that a motion would be passed that superceded international law. They couldn't vote for that and quite rightly so.

You know what, carry on scrote, it's a pointless argument. You haven't nor will you address the points I have raised.
 
HolgateCorner said:
Nah, senior Labour figures could mean anyone in my opinion, proper vague media speak that.

And no I wasn’t implying Corbyn, but it might be someone close to him, who knows?

Anyway, on another matter, what do you think about the bloodshed and lives ruined in Palastine, is that not more important to concentrate on than tittle tattle about Starmer? Not that this country has much influence of course, it’s all about the USA in that part of the world.
Click to expand...
I find it amazing that this 3rd hand rumour is taken over two people's first hand accounts.

Heresay isn't allowed in court for a very good reason it's unreliable.

Anyone who believes watt over statements made by the 2 people involved need to ask themselves why.

Where is the evidence? There isn't any.

Senior political figures could mean no one too.
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
Are you honestly saying that you've never known a politician to lie?
Click to expand...
I think it's your absolute desire to believe 2nd or 3rd hand info over information directly from both involved.

I get you dislike Starmer but your desire to believe anything to paint him in a negative light is affecting your ability to consider that he and Lindsay Hoyle just might be telling the truth.

To suggest @Laughing is the one with tunnel vision is somewhat ironic coming from you BBG.
 
WeeGord said:
I think it's your absolute desire to believe 2nd or 3rd hand info over information directly from both involved.
Click to expand...
So which version of Hoyle's story does Laughing believe, the one about wanting all voices heard or the one about acting on the safety of the MP's in the house?
WeeGord said:
I get you dislike Starmer but your desire to believe anything to paint him in a negative light is affecting your ability to consider that he and Lindsay Hoyle just might be telling the truth.
Click to expand...
You don't think Laughing's admiration of Starmer is influencing his argument?
WeeGord said:
To suggest @Laughing is the one with tunnel vision is somewhat ironic coming from you BBG.
Click to expand...
Tunnel vision has appeared on this thread 17 times but never from me. Has your own bias tripped you up here?
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
So which version of Hoyle's story does Laughing believe, the one about wanting all voices heard or the one about acting on the safety of the MP's in the house?
Click to expand...
They can both be genuine reasons, and can both be linked, they don't need to be mutually exclusive.
BlindBoyGrunt said:
You don't think Laughing's admiration of Starmer is influencing his argument?
Click to expand...
Having read this thread and multiple other political threads I'd say it's very clear your dislike of Starmer is far more obvious that Laughings supposed admiration of him.
BlindBoyGrunt said:
Tunnel vision has appeared on this thread 17 times but never from me. Has your own bias tripped you up here?
Click to expand...
My own bias? I'd be very interested to hear what you think that is @BlindBoyGrunt
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
Are you honestly saying that you've never known a politician to lie?
Click to expand...
Is that your argument, politicians lie occassionally? Have you ever known a reporter to lie?

The evidence says that Starmer did not threaten Lidsey Hoyle. Both the alleged victim and the perpetrator said it didn't happen. Look to see if you can find any evidence supported by the BBC, Watt's employer. There isn't any. All this completely ignores the fact that Starmer, probably, wouldn't have threatened hoyle in front of anyone else, nor made it public that was what he was going to do.

Your supposition would have us believe that the former head of the CPS committed a crime.

As for my admiration of Starmer, I don't even like him and have said so on numerous occassions. I just don't approach every political event like a child looking for a reason to castigate Starmer.

It doesn't matter which statement from Hoyle I believe, neither supports your point of view.

For a bunch of folks who wanted a ceasefire called for, you don't seem very happy that we have that motion, now passed. You seem much more incensed with Starmer. You might forgive me for thinking the ceasefire isn't centermost in your mind.

For my part I am happy that the UK parliament has a formal position on a ceasefire in gazza that doesn't crap all over international law. Not sure what position the Starmer haters are taking on this, mainly because it has been lost entirely in the rush to ridicule Starmer.

You can carry on without me from here on in. I find the attitudes a little unedifying.
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
"Having read this thread" you nevertheless concluded that I had accused Laughing of tunnel vision. I didn't
Click to expand...
You specifically questioned whether his admiration of Starmer was influencing his view. Is that not tunnel vision?

Also, I'll ask again - what do you consider my own bias to be?
 
WeeGord said:
You specifically questioned whether his admiration of Starmer was influencing his view. Is that not tunnel vision?
Click to expand...
I did yes, but after, and in answer to you wrongly stating that I had accused Laughing of tunnel vision so why did you accuse me of it?

WeeGord said:
Also, I'll ask again - what do you consider my own bias to be?
Click to expand...
Throughout this thread SuperStu and I have been making basically the same argument. Stu and Laughing have both accused each other of tunnel vision more than once. You came on here and said that it was ironic that I should accuse Laughing of tv. When I pointed out that I had not done this, instead of acknowledging that you were wrong you attempted to slip in something that I said after your original comment as somehow proving you right. Your bias therefore, is against me.
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
I did yes, but after, and in answer to you wrongly stating that I had accused Laughing of tunnel vision so why did you accuse me of it?


Throughout this thread SuperStu and I have been making basically the same argument. Stu and Laughing have both accused each other of tunnel vision more than once. You came on here and said that it was ironic that I should accuse Laughing of tv. When I pointed out that I had not done this, instead of acknowledging that you were wrong you attempted to slip in something that I said after your original comment as somehow proving you right. Your bias therefore, is against me.
Click to expand...
I have no bias against you whatsoever BBG, that is frankly a ridiculous thing to state? Why would I have a bias against you?

As I've said to @SuperStu, I think you're a very good poster on this board and I enjoy reading your posts. To suggest I've some sort of bias or agenda against you is crazy.
 
WeeGord said:
have no bias against you whatsoever BBG, that is frankly a ridiculous thing to state? Why would I have a bias against you?
Click to expand...
Then why have you accused me of something i didn't do and instead of recognising your mistake you doubled down and attempted to use as evidence something I said later. We all make mistakes but when you dig your heels in instead of acknowledging yours, and when you attempt to use something i said later as evidence to back your initial accusation, it comes across as bias.
 
Laughing said:
For my part I am happy that the UK parliament has a formal position on a ceasefire in gazza that doesn't crap all over international law. Not sure what position the Starmer haters are taking on this, mainly because it has been lost entirely in the rush to ridicule Starmer.
Click to expand...
I haven't heard anyone else use the legality argument, not even Starmer himself. Quite the opposite in fact. Starmer wanted all the motions to be considered, including the one that you say is illegal, and he even urged the speaker to include it.
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
Then why have you accused me of something i didn't do and instead of recognising your mistake you doubled down and attempted to use as evidence something I said later. We all make mistakes but when you dig your heels in instead of acknowledging yours, and when you attempt to use something i said later as evidence to back your initial accusation, it comes across as bias.
Click to expand...
An absolutely ludcirous suggestion! *WHY* would I have any sort of bias against you?

I made it clear that I took this, AND other posts into account when suggesting you've tunnel vision against Keir Starmer. It's very clear and obvious.

As I've already said, I think you're for some reason misreading me especially when you throw ridiculous statements around like I have some sort of bias against you yet refused to say WHY I have a suppsed bias against you. It really is ludicours, and all the crazier becuase as with SuperStu, I am largely very close to where you are politically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top