This Lindsay Hoyle business

I have already said I will no longer take part in this debate Scrote. I don't like the way it is heading and how it ignores the reality of the situation in Gazza.
And yet you've been happy to defend the people who took what was a simple vote on the issue - which would have had the amendments they wanted added by the governement - into the farce which took away from the reality of the situation in Gaza.
 
Politicians and activist posters playing politics, who would have thought it eh?

And meanwhile the killing goes on…
The killing is going on regardless. The SNP listened to their constiuents and used the small amount of parliamentary time allocated to them to make a statement about it.

If that's playing politics then we might as well just not bother with any future elections and have the current lot in charge forever. Anything else would just be "playing politics".
 
The SNP worded their motion based on their belief that it reflected the views of the majority of their constituents, in Scotland. I'd argue that it probably represents the views of a reasonable majority of English voters too..

All fine and good for SNP to be throwing around phrases like “collective punishment” but for a party looking to form a Government I doubt it’d serve well calling out an ally as war criminals. (Whether you personally agree with this or not is irrelevant).

Article 33 - Individual responsibility, collective penalties, pillage, reprisals. No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited. Pillage is prohibited.
 
All fine and good for SNP to be throwing around phrases like “collective punishment” but for a party looking to form a Government I doubt it’d serve well calling out an ally as war criminals. (Whether you personally agree with this or not is irrelevant).

Pretty much sums up why the country is the way it is, and why we'll likely carry on this trajectory regardless of which party forms the next government. We hate politicians if they tell the truth or want to improve anything. We love the ones who'll prove their seriousness credentials by committing to continuous decline and pretending it's an act of defence to kill thousands of children.
 
Pretty much sums up why the country is the way it is, and why we'll likely carry on this trajectory regardless of which party forms the next government. We hate politicians if they tell the truth or want to improve anything. We love the ones who'll prove their seriousness credentials by committing to continuous decline and pretending it's an act of defence to kill thousands of children.
It’s called leadership and has always been so. Howling at the moon achieves nothing other than alienation. Actively trying to keep diplomacy going where possible has to be the best course of action to achieve meaningful outcomes.

There are examples of this throughout history.

If you think Starmer should have come out swinging and denounced Israel as war criminals fine. I don’t think it needs to be explained again why that would be a ludicrous position.
 
The SNP listened to their constiuents and used the small amount of parliamentary time allocated to them to make a statement about it.

It was also helpful to put Labour on the spot. Currently the SNP are still polling ahead, but Labour are making inroads on that lead. SNP are now between 5-9% ahead Depending on which areas, Labour lead on the NHS and economy. Independence yes vote still around 53%
It’s just politics.
 
Or they worded it to try to put Labour in a bind because they know they are haemorrhaging voters to Labour
The SNP have been consistent in this affair just as they were during the Iraq invasion. Humsa Yousaf's wife is half Palestinian and his brother in law is a doctor in Gaza. However they only get three opportunities a session to bring motions whereas Labour get 17 so the two main parties have had ample opportunity to bring similar motions forward but haven't done so. On the contrary, the two main parties have tended tended to support Israel as far as they could and Labour have defended Israel's right to cut off water and power and have whipped their members to abstain on previous occasions.

I think that trying to blame the SNP for these political shenanigans is a weak argument.
 
It was also helpful to put Labour on the spot. Currently the SNP are still polling ahead, but Labour are making inroads on that lead. SNP are now between 5-9% ahead Depending on which areas, Labour lead on the NHS and economy. Independence yes vote still around 53%
It’s just politics.
Or they worded it to try to put Labour in a bind because they know they are haemorrhaging voters to Labour
But that reinforces the point about Labour having had plenty of time to do something to prevent this from happening (again). They chose not to and then out-Toried the Tories to rescue a bad situation. If you're happy with that then I'm glad for you. You'll get the government you want and will have no complaints when they continue on the same trajectory.

It’s called leadership and has always been so.
It only ever counts as leadership when it leads us further right.
 
But that reinforces the point about Labour having had plenty of time to do something to prevent this from happening (again). They chose not to and then out-Toried the Tories to rescue a bad situation. If you're happy with that then I'm glad for you. You'll get the government you want and will have no complaints when they continue on the same trajectory.


It only ever counts as leadership when it leads us further right.
This situation really doesn’t have anything to do with trajectories. It was just a touch of Real Politik. The trap that was set for Labour was obvious. The way out was perhaps cynical but well executed. Why do you think the opposition lost their, somewhat performative s**t.
The Tories thought they had Labour on the rack…then suddenly they didn’t.
Like I said it’s only politics, something needed to be done. It doesn’t change anything.
Except the Tories got turned over. Oh BTW I will never get the government I want with this outdated undemocratic system. Give me nudge when Proportional Representation comes around.
 
The SNP have been consistent in this affair just as they were during the Iraq invasion. Humsa Yousaf's wife is half Palestinian and his brother in law is a doctor in Gaza. However they only get three opportunities a session to bring motions whereas Labour get 17 so the two main parties have had ample opportunity to bring similar motions forward but haven't done so. On the contrary, the two main parties have tended tended to support Israel as far as they could and Labour have defended Israel's right to cut off water and power and have whipped their members to abstain on previous occasions.

I think that trying to blame the SNP for these political shenanigans is a weak argument.
If I lived in Scotland I would be asking the SNP leadership if they thought there were better uses of their limited number of motions than trying to set Labour traps over a conflict over which the U.K. has very little influence?
 
If I lived in Scotland I would be asking the SNP leadership if they thought there were better uses of their limited number of motions than trying to set Labour traps over a conflict over which the U.K. has very little influence?
Opposition day motions are not legally binding but you may as well use them if you have them because the result represents the will of Parliament and their motion represented the will of the majority of Scots But in any case I don't think it was a trap. I believe that the SNP are the innocent parties in this farce. Let's not forget that on Tuesday when Labour announced it's own amendment to the SNP motion, that was the first time they had actually backed an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. Until then Starmer had been calling for a “sustainable” end to the conflict" and whipping his party to abstain on a ceasefire.
 
Opposition day motions are not legally binding but you may as well use them if you have them because the result represents the will of Parliament and their motion represented the will of the majority of Scots But in any case I don't think it was a trap. I believe that the SNP are the innocent parties in this farce. Let's not forget that on Tuesday when Labour announced it's own amendment to the SNP motion, that was the first time they had actually backed an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. Until then Starmer had been calling for a “sustainable” end to the conflict" and whipping his party to abstain on a ceasefire.
I do think the Scottish have bigger issues in their own country though and have little influence in the Gaza conflict.

With regard to Starmer I can fully understand why people are saying he should have always backed a ceasefire but if he had he would have immediately been labelled anti semitic and racist by the right wing of the U.K. who don’t care about anything or anybody except their own self interest so it is understandable why he would want to tread carefully around that elephant trap.

Any normal human wants an end to the Gaza bloodbath.
 
There are plenty of "normal humans" taking part in the killing.

The centrists are the people that Martin Niemoller was addressing.
I’m not sure they are normal but that’s another debate.

Surely you accept there is a critical requirement to get rid of the very right wing government currently in power in the U.K. and that is what Starmer is trying to do, the right wing alliances are turning it into a game of chess, because keeping power is what they are good at.
 
Surely you accept there is a critical requirement to get rid of the very right wing government currently in power in the U.K. and that is what Starmer is trying to do, the right wing alliances are turning it into a game of chess, because keeping power is what they are good at.
I suppose that largely depends on whether you think Starmer is a part of that right-wing alliance or not.

I want rid of the Tories because of the things they stand for, not because of who the people are. Changing the people without changing what they stand for and support is a futile exercise, in my opinion.

Simple question. Do you think the Israeli army are currently engaged in a genocide against the citizens of Gaza?
 
I suppose that largely depends on whether you think Starmer is a part of that right-wing alliance or not.

I want rid of the Tories because of the things they stand for, not because of who the people are. Changing the people without changing what they stand for and support is a futile exercise, in my opinion.

Simple question. Do you think the Israeli army are currently engaged in a genocide against the citizens of Gaza?
First point - yes I do understand that you think Starmer may be just a right wing plant but for me as the only possible alternative, and despite the polls in my view even that is still against the odds, we must give him a chance.

Second point, yes I think what the Israelis are doing is genocide and it is land grab as well, absolutely appalling. The western right wing cabals and media have been exposed badly over their attitude towards this compared to a similar situation in the Ukraine.
 
you think Starmer may be just a right wing plant
I don't think Starmer is a right-wing plant. More likely to have been identified by Blair, Mandelson etc. although I don't believe they're left-wing in any traditional sense. The Labour party is now positioned where a more prominent Liberal party would ususally sit. Very much centre-right economically with very little in the way of left-wing social politcs. Starmer is the figurehead for that but the main body of Labour MPs have been pushing that way for some time.

On Gaza, I firmly believe that the Labour party has a duty to show solidarity with the civilians being bombarded. Where I tend to disgree with other posters on here is that I do think the UK has enough clout internationally to make a difference, and with a Labour government looming I don't see how anyone can argue that calling out genocide for what it is can ever be a bad political play.
 
I don't think Starmer is a right-wing plant. More likely to have been identified by Blair, Mandelson etc. although I don't believe they're left-wing in any traditional sense. The Labour party is now positioned where a more prominent Liberal party would ususally sit. Very much centre-right economically with very little in the way of left-wing social politcs. Starmer is the figurehead for that but the main body of Labour MPs have been pushing that way for some time.

On Gaza, I firmly believe that the Labour party has a duty to show solidarity with the civilians being bombarded. Where I tend to disgree with other posters on here is that I do think the UK has enough clout internationally to make a difference, and with a Labour government looming I don't see how anyone can argue that calling out genocide for what it is can ever be a bad political play.
I don’t think I’m as into it all as you but I would say Labour are positioned where they think they have a genuine chance of winning an election in a country where the electorate have been conditioned by the right wing media to think in a certain way. It is what it is.

My view, again without detailed knowledge, is that the USA have all the influence with Israel, the U.K. may have a little influence with the Palestinians. I acknowledge I may be wrong in that view.
 
Back
Top