I don't know about that, but it's certainly going to cost Labour some votes at the general election. And it looks as though there will be another debate on Gaza in the Commons, so Labour needs to figure out a plan to avoid further embarrassment.
This Lindsay Hoyle business
- Thread starter Legz
- Start date
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
Whether or not a country such as ours can have a direct influence, I think it's important to state your position, add your name to the list of like minded people who oppose genocide and collective punishment and perhaps be the catalyst which emboldens more to do likewise and then who knows, perhaps a tipping point will be reached.
Without voices there can be no consensus.
HolgateCorner
Well-known member
I think you are right as far as individuals are concerned but, you know, not everybody in this country will agree with you and the right wing of the U.K.(and for me the SNP are a right wing nationalist party ) don’t care about anything or anybody other than remaining in power.
They will be happy for Labour to be public about being principled about ending the bloodshed and all that if they think they can play the racist card and portray the party as anti semitic terrorist sympathisers so that your average middle England cap doffer has an excuse to go out and vote Tory yet again.
You can see the traps being set unfortunately and it’s not about Tories or SNP trying to influence anything at all on the Gaza Strip it’s about keeping power in the hands of the right wing.
The SNP right wing? Nooooo. You are wrong. Nationalists, including here in Scotland are wedded to the concept of their state as the best way for the people to organize and govern themselves. People can be nationalists without being fascists. People here are extremely tolerant of all sorts of groups that wouldn't be tolerated in a right wing state. The domestic policies being pursued by the SNP are centre, or just left of centre on the political scale.
People here are fairly resistant to change but want progress. Up until the mid 1950s the Tories held sway here but since those days the Scottish Conservatives have pretty much moved away from Westminster Conservatives. Ruth Davidson - ex leader - was pregnant in a same sex marriage when she resigned. That would never ever happen in Westminster.
The Tories (such as they are) will be wiped out at the election. There's no appetite for Reform, or Alba, so it's a fight over the middle and slightly left of middle ground between SNP, Labour and Libdems. Labour will certainly gain seats but needs to avoid another screw up over Gaza. It's unlikely the SNP motion would have passed but it would have been nice to have it voted on. Next time I'm assuming Labour won't screw up, if only to stop the Tories getting a free pass.
HolgateCorner
Well-known member
I understand your post but there is too much flag waving, anti English culture war waging and downright lack of respect for a neighbouring and very friendly country for me to be convinced that, at heart, they aren’t an extremist party.
LessoftheLip
Well-known member
This will really disappoint a few on here.
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
I wouldn't put too much store into anything this man says. He's a raging Zionist who, as a journalist has had to pay out substantial damages for libeling a Muslim labour councilor as an antisemite and, as political editor of the Jewish Chronicle has fallen foul of the IPSO on several occasions. That he would defend Keir Starmer goes without saying.
WeeGord
Well-known member
You're very keen on calling out people as disingenuous and dismissing what they say if it doesn't fit your anti Starmer agenda BBG.
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
Are you disagreeing with my assessment of Lee Harpin?
WeeGord
Well-known member
Did I say that? Why are you putting words in my mouth?
That's going to pi$$ on a few people's chips lol.
Mick Lynch says voters must ‘grow up’ and see Starmer is only alternative
RMT boss says getting rid of Tories is his ‘number one priority’ but he will not give a Labour government a ‘free pass’www.theguardian.com
you're absolutely desperate to get one over on folk on here aren't you Lessof? You interpret the world entirely through a prism of sticking it to socialists.Re: the tweet itself, that's crazy there was 6 other clerks there. I wonder why Hoyle and Starmer didn't mention that before now.
another odd choice similar to Hoyle originally saying he wanted a wide debate before revealing his decision had been for safety reasons all along. 
Scrote
Well-known member
"behaved like the lawyer he is" isn't the most ringing endorsement either. The claim was that Starmer put no pressure on Hoyle. Why were his lawyerly skills required if he wasn't trying to persuade Hoyle to abandon convention and allow the Labour amendment?
Re: the tweet itself, that's crazy there was 6 other clerks there. I wonder why Hoyle and Starmer didn't mention that before now.
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
Nice try Weegord, but I didn't put words into your mouth, I merely inquired if you disagreed with my assessment of Lee Harpin.
However, when you said on Friday "To suggest @Laughing is the one with tunnel vision is somewhat ironic coming from you BBG."
you really were putting words into my mouth and despite my objection, you still haven't retracted that falsity, so on the subject of misrepresentation there is really no room for you to censure me.
So, to get back on track, do you disagree with my assessment of Lee Harpin?
HolgateCorner
Well-known member
You worry me about Starmer Superstu, you seem to have an unhealthy obsession with him.
Re: the tweet itself, that's crazy there was 6 other clerks there. I wonder why Hoyle and Starmer didn't mention that before now.
WeeGord
Well-known member
I didn't put words in your mouth, I stated that from this and other threads you'd shown an anti-Starmer agenda.
In regards to Lee Harpin that wasn't the point that was being made. He has stated there were 6 clerks there as well as the speaker, Starmer and Alan Campbell.
You disregarded the word of Starmer and Hoyle themselves, and also the statement from Harpin that clearly says that Alan Campbell was also present in order to believe the 2nd or 3rd hand Chinese whispers from earlier in the thread.
Your anti-Starmer bias is in full view. You're perfectly entitled to hold your views on him, and some would say legitimate views. However, you're so desperate to believe Starmer is a blackmailer and a bully that you'll refute anything to the contrary.
Bit of a weird comment to make HC. Can you elaborate? Unhealthy how? What are you worried about exactly?
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
Yes you did allude to the fact that I dislike Starmer, that is not in question, i do dislike Starmer. But then you said, "To suggest @Laughing is the one with tunnel vision is somewhat ironic coming from you BBG."
To save time and effort, show me where this accusation of tunnel vision came from me. Put up the quote.
The other day I suggest you were showing a bias against me and as evidence of your lack of bias you kindly informed me of how you regarded Superstu as a good poster
. Well thanks for that.However, for a couple of days over a couple of pages Laughing and SuperStu were arguing about which of them was more guilty of tunnel vision. You had no words to say to Laughing, no words to say to Superstu but instead attributed it to me.
Once again, if you have any evidence that I have accused anyone of having double vision, show me.
LessoftheLip
Well-known member
Blimey you don't see anything from people for days. Nothing about Boro or Lee Anderson or a Jewish baby's birth certificate being defaced. Then all of a sudden 
WeeGord
Well-known member
You have tunnel vision regarding Starmer for goodness sake! Are you really suggesting you don't?Yes you did allude to the fact that I dislike Starmer, that is not in question, i do dislike Starmer. But then you said, "To suggest @Laughing is the one with tunnel vision is somewhat ironic coming from you BBG."
To save time and effort, show me where this accusation of tunnel vision came from me. Put up the quote.
The other day I suggest you were showing a bias against me and as evidence of your lack of bias you kindly informed me of how you regarded Superstu as a good poster
However, for a couple of days over a couple of pages Laughing and SuperStu were arguing about which of them was more guilty of tunnel vision. You had no words to say to Laughing, no words to say to Superstu but instead attributed it to me.
Once again, if you have any evidence that I have accused anyone of having double vision, show me.
You also accuse me of having some agenda against you which is quite plainly ridiculous. You've not explained on what basis I supposedly have an agenda against you it's plain daft.
You're really arguing with the wrong person here too, I'm not some right wing loon or Tory shill. I'm a left-wing socialist who occupies similar ideological territory to you.
That doesn't mean I can't recognise that you've tunnel vision when it comes to Starmer and as I pointed out in my previous message (which you ignored), you'd rather believe *anything* negative about Starmer even when there is evidence to the contrary.
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
I have never complained about people accusing me of tunnel vision. At the start of this argument you did not accuse me of having tunnel vision and I never said that you did, so stop twisting things .You're just trying to muddy the water. with this.
I have explained it more than once; read back. Then today you went further and accused me of putting words into your mouth which I clearly didn't do. It's just another misrepresentation you've failed to address.