Jump to content

UK Politics


kalifire
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

maybe he has that right, I have no idea...but he needs to explain clearly why he did it. If he wanted to take heat out of it because it's a hugely inflammatory issue and MPs are getting all sorts of threats these days then I can understand that...but he needs to say. I don't think anyone has come out of this well.

The amended SNP motion has passed so a ceasefire motion has been successful, that’s a good thing isn’t it?

I don’t think Starmer has to do anything, their amendment explains things and I think the Labour Party have explained it before. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ryan1984 said:

Can someone explain what’s gone on this evening to me like I’m 5 years old?

The yellow people said Stop Fighting! The red people then said Yes Stop Fighting and Make Friends!. The blue people said whatever. It was yellow people's day, but the boss man said everyone can have a go and the yellow people said NO! and then the blue people said NO! and the red people won. But they didn't Stop Fighting. 

Edited by steviewevie
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, clarkete said:

I saw something about it several years ago and from what they covered it seemed to have some credibility, hence I'm equally as wary of those like yourself who clearly have their own agenda. 

 

1 hour ago, Neil said:

thats you falling for assange's propaganda

Sorry to be a woke lefty but I still strongly believe in the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Neil said:

never before have the grown up parties let the snp play with the big boys

Can't put my finger on it, but I'm sure it's something to do with folk voting for them. 

 

And "the grown up parties?" You watched any of this? I've had more grown up parties for my kids' birthdays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

 

Unless Hoyle allowed the Labour amendment to come to a vote, they said, he would be forcing them to remain loyal to their party or put their own safety at risk. Several told him of the threats they had faced since abstaining on the SNP motion last time.

 

or just vote for the SNP amendment?....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, fraybentos1 said:

Unless Hoyle allowed the Labour amendment to come to a vote, they said, he would be forcing them to remain loyal to their party or put their own safety at risk. Several told him of the threats they had faced since abstaining on the SNP motion last time.

 

or just vote for the SNP amendment?....

Because of threats?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Because of threats?

call me a cynic but I think the 'threats' thing seems a bit of a cop out for Hoyle to do what he really shouldn't do and go against parliamentary convention.

Also even if they got threats for not voting for the SNP amendment last time then why would it be a threat for them to do the opposite this time? Maybe I am misunderstanding things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, LJS said:

Can't put my finger on it, but I'm sure it's something to do with folk voting for them. 

 

And "the grown up parties?" You watched any of this? I've had more grown up parties for my kids' birthdays.

Very childish of the snp to walk out on their own motion.

Folk voted for them on a false basis according to a well known commentaryon Scottish politics ( that you've gone off ever since it started publishing inconvenienttruths

Edited by Neil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, stuie said:

 

Sorry to be a woke lefty but I still strongly believe in the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law. 

Me too but I also accept that as a decision based on evidence.and that you don't need to be a genius to consider the evidence yourself in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The threat thing is real. Two MPs have been killed recently. Sadiq Khan needs round the clock protection for him a d his family. They often receive death threats. Angela Rayner was talking recently about the threats she receives,she just doesn't go out anymore. It is getting worse and should not be played down or belittled. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

The threat thing is real. Two MPs have been killed recently. Sadiq Khan needs round the clock protection for him a d his family. They often receive death threats. Angela Rayner was talking recently about the threats she receives,she just doesn't go out anymore. It is getting worse and should not be played down or belittled. 

I wonder if this has anything to do with "will of the people" rhetoric and trying to inflame hatred and focus on ad hominem attacks against the opposition, instead of actually.... defending policies?

Edited by kaosmark2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share




×
×
  • Create New...