They want a ceasefire so much they'll apparently have a 3 line whip to vote against a ceasefire.
Of course I don't want a tory election win. I'm so anti-tory I don't even like their policies when other parties adopt them.
Another Starmer U turn
- Thread starter 1finny
- Start date
They want a ceasefire so much they'll apparently have a 3 line whip to vote against a ceasefire.
Of course I don't want a tory election win. I'm so anti-tory I don't even like their policies when other parties adopt them.
Alzi
Well-known member
But they aren’t voting against a ceasefire. You are being deliberately obtuse as you want a stick to hit Starmer with.
Ultimately SNP and Labour both want a ceasefire but are squabbling over their preferred wording of said ceasefire. I just find it all a bit petty.
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
That's not signaling their beliefs though is it? It's leaning the way the wind blows.
For clarification, are you saying that collective punishment isn't happening, or that Labour would get hammered for being against collective punishment.
Then why table an amendment to change the wording.
Alzi
Well-known member
We will have to agree to disagree on this one. And no for clarity I didn’t give a personal view about “collective punishment” but I suspect you know that. My point was very much about the impact on Labour if they went along with the SNP wording. You’d be extremely naive to think it wouldn’t be damaging, in my opinion.
I guess we will see how it all pans out shortly. Not that it matters a jot for the real victims in all of this.
1finny
Well-known member
To some, sadly, the reason for the amendment is immaterial.
Scrote
Well-known member
So to clarify, someone starts a post congratulating Starmer for doing the 'right thing' and then, when it turns out he's actually fallen for a "6th form" level political trap, it suddenly becomes a lefty pile-on.
Starmer could have just done the 'right thing' himself, weeks ago, but chose not to, for political reasons.
He's brought everything that gets thrown at him onto himself. Much the same as you keep telling us Corbyn did. What's good for the goose and all that.
If Labour haemorrhage votes because Starmer backs a ceasefire in Gaza then maybe the country deserves the Tories. The fact you think that might happen speaks volumes about how you perceive the nation.
I prefer to think that people are generally 'good' and want the best for others.
The right-wing pushing various narratives that get extensive media coverage is a reason for Labour politicians to stand up for what they believe in - assuming the things they actually believe in are the 'right things'. The problems occur when the Labour MPs actually believe the right-wing narratives.
Alzi
Well-known member
Starmer had said he wants a ceasefire. That doesn’t mean he has to dance to SNPs tune around the specific wording of that.
I imagine he is better informed than you and I to make such a decision and understand the ramifications.
LessoftheLip
Well-known member
Labour's amendment will be voted on. Still won't be good enough for some I suspect.
And it will be telling how many Labour MPs now presented with the option they crave actual vote for it
And it will be telling how many Labour MPs now presented with the option they crave actual vote for it
Alzi
Well-known member
Owen Thompson, the SNP chief whip, rises to make a point of order. He complains that this is unfair on the SNP.Labour's amendment will be voted on. Still won't be good enough for some I suspect.
And it will be telling how many Labour MPs now presented with the option they crave actual vote for it
boohoo.
LessoftheLip
Well-known member
And the SNP has complained that Labour’s amendment has also been selected. Its opportunism is so transparent it would be laughable if it wasn't for the gravity of the issue.
LessoftheLip
Well-known member
Good.
Chris_Boro
Well-known member
Labour are ahead of the SNP in Scottish polling, their existence as a political entity, is under threat. The only reason this ammendment exists.
Political opportunism, it's not the first time the SNP have tried it and it won't be the last.
Political opportunism, it's not the first time the SNP have tried it and it won't be the last.
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
The motion is the SNP's, he amendments are Tory and Labour but you may be right in that the amendments are for political opportunism. If the labour amendment omits the line 'collective punishment' i'm sure that will please those who fund him.
Chris_Boro
Well-known member
The ammendments exist because the SNP knew the wording would guarantee it.
Now they've soiled themselves because Labour's ammendment has been picked by the Speaker and now the SNP want him removed. As I said, opportunism only. Nothing to do with Gaza.
Alzi
Well-known member
Who does fund him? Also do you mean Starmer personally or the Labour Party?
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
The speaker has gone totally against precedent in allowing both amendments. He's done Starmer a favour here, possibly saving him from a big revolt.
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
Labour's biggest donor right now to the tune of £5m is Israel lobbyist Gary Lubner, who profited from South African apartheid.
The following (and there are others) all received the following amounts from Israel lobbyist Trevor Chinn.
TOM WATSON £66,475
KEIR STARMER £50.000
DAVID LAMMY £30.000
IVAN LEWIS £30.000
OWEN SMITH £27.000
ANGELA RAYNER £25,000
IAN AUSTIN £22,500
RUTH SMEETH £10.000
LAM BYRNE £10.000
DAN JARVIS £10.000
RACHEL REEVES £9.840
Chris_Boro
Well-known member
Yes and he said why, do you not believe all the voices should be heard on this issue? Or just the ones that are clearly motivated to hurt one political party?
The SNP and Tories relied on precedent to trap Labour and it's failed. Now they are throwing their toys out the pram, pure politics all round and absolutely none of it helps the people of Gaza.