UK Politics

[pink_triangle]

13 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

He cares about Gaza but of course it was, in part, aimed at causing Labour problems..........

and Labour's amendment was aimed at causing problems for SNP and Tory.........

and Tory amendment was aimed at causing problems for Labour and SNP............

If they all truly cared about the real matter that we should be discussing then they would have had a motion agreed behind closed doors that they could all vote for. Been done before when they wanted on other matters.

This whole thing was party political theatre.

You’re right they could have done something behind closed doors. However once SNP decided to play politics, I’m not sure there was a response labour could make without playing politics.

[Ozanne]

1 minute ago, pink_triangle said:

You’re right they could have done something behind closed doors. However once SNP decided to play politics, I’m not sure there was a response labour could make without playing politics.

I agree, the SNP could’ve discussed this with all parties beforehand to form a consensus but they decided to start playing politics so Labour played them right back.

We did get to Parliament agreeing to a ceasefire in the end though. 

[Nobody Interesting]

4 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

You’re right they could have done something behind closed doors. However once SNP decided to play politics, I’m not sure there was a response labour could make without playing politics.

There is always a non party political response available but the main parties just play games so much that they seem to have forgotten how to negotiate and compromise and instead the default is ridicule and belittle

[Neil]

Man utd begging for public money so that the richest club in the country owned by Britain's richest tax avoider can live it up on govt handouts.its embaressing.

Edited February 22 by Neil

[Neil]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

 

We should Just send the mad fish to broadmoor for the criminally insane.

[pink_triangle]

20 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

There is always a non party political response available but the main parties just play games so much that they seem to have forgotten how to negotiate and compromise and instead the default is ridicule and belittle

There are non political game responses , but in this case I’m not sure what was available once SNP had intentionally set the wording to cause issues for labour.

However as I have said previously for all the political drama yesterday will likely make no impact on Israel/Hamas or the average voter in this country.

 

[steviewevie]

What the SNP have done is to help move Labour's position, only a few days ago they were refusing to say the word ceasefire.... although I think was heading that way anyway with this whole Rafah thing putting everyone in a panic.

[Nobody Interesting]

38 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

We did get to Parliament agreeing to a ceasefire in the end though. 

No we didn't.

The Labour motion passed as there was no objection as nobody else was there - that motion is meaningless as the Government withdrew from the debate.

All we got yesterday was hot air and  a meaningless piece of paper which I am sure someone will wave in the air telling us it means peace in our time.

The coffee pot is on and smell nice, time to get a whiff of it,

[steviewevie]

7 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

No we didn't.

The Labour motion passed as there was no objection as nobody else was there - that motion is meaningless as the Government withdrew from the debate.

All we got yesterday was hot air and  a meaningless piece of paper which I am sure someone will wave in the air telling us it means peace in our time.

The coffee pot is on and smell nice, time to get a whiff of it,

Yes, got that instead of a SNP motion that didn't pass and a load of bad headlines for Labour...so if there's any winners from yesterday it is Starmer.

[steviewevie]

What he says

 

[Nobody Interesting]

30 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Yes, got that instead of a SNP motion that didn't pass and a load of bad headlines for Labour...so if there's any winners from yesterday it is Starmer.

How can Starmer be  a winner if there were a load of bad headlines for Labour?

[fraybentos1]

2 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

How can Starmer be  a winner if there were a load of bad headlines for Labour?

Cause he got away with even worse headlines as there would have been a big rebellion if Hoyle hadn't done what he done.

20 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

What he says

 

agree with this aye, just for once might have been nice to see cross party consensus and working together, instead it looks embarrassing for us as per. What a rabble

[fraybentos1]

All I know is Starmer has had some huge slices of luck during his tenure as leader. He will obviously be PM but that's a different ball game.

 

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

How can Starmer be  a winner if there were a load of bad headlines for Labour?

no, I mean that if SNP motion had been voted on and loads of Labour MPs had gone against whip and voted for it that would have been the bad headlines for Labour...but that didn't happen, and so it is a good result for Starmer, and those Labour MPs under pressure to vote for a ceasefire.

[lazyred]

11 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

How can Starmer be  a winner if there were a load of bad headlines for Labour?

There were no resignations. Most peopje looking on just see chaos in parliament

[steviewevie]

...and as for Hoyle...as far as I know he didn't break any rules, just did something that was against convention...and it looks like he may actually have support from most Tories, it is the SNP who want him gone cause they're sulking about losing their big chance to f**k Labour...but maybe if they don't like it they can just f**k off...oh that's right, they can't 😃

Hoyle isn't the greatest speaker we've ever had...but he seems ok to me.

[steviewevie]

I guess this is where PR could improve things.

[steviewevie]

7 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

...and as for Hoyle...as far as I know he didn't break any rules, just did something that was against convention...and it looks like he may actually have support from most Tories, it is the SNP who want him gone cause they're sulking about losing their big chance to f**k Labour...but maybe if they don't like it they can just f**k off...oh that's right, they can't 😃

Hoyle isn't the greatest speaker we've ever had...but he seems ok to me.

actually Tory MPs are voting to kick him out too...

 

[lazyred]

19 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

...and as for Hoyle...as far as I know he didn't break any rules, just did something that was against convention...and it looks like he may actually have support from most Tories, it is the SNP who want him gone cause they're sulking about losing their big chance to f**k Labour...but maybe if they don't like it they can just f**k off...oh that's right, they can't 😃

Hoyle isn't the greatest speaker we've ever had...but he seems ok to me.

The SNP didnt complain when speaker Bercow broke convention in the Brexit debates. 

[pink_triangle]

The SNP had the chance to speak to labour and put together a wording that both sides could support. Instead they chose to put together a bill to try and pit themselves against  Tory’s and labour, giving them something to put on their election material and trying to cause problem for their main rival. They are now sulking because their political game didn’t pay off and it’s hard to have sympathy.

[fraybentos1]

4 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

The SNP had the chance to speak to labour and put together a wording that both sides could support. Instead they chose to put together a bill to try and pit themselves against  Tory’s and labour, giving them something to put on their election material and trying to cause problem for their main rival. They are now sulking because their political game didn’t pay off and it’s hard to have sympathy.

True to an extent but on the other hand parliamentary convention was broken and it looks very dodgy. Labour have got away with one and if they have put pressure on the speaker then that's outrageous no?

[steviewevie]

I think if Hoyle says that he wanted to take the heat out of such an emotive issue where MPs are feeling threatened then that is fair enough. Trouble is it is probably having the opposite effect.

[pink_triangle]

8 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

True to an extent but on the other hand parliamentary convention was broken and it looks very dodgy. Labour have got away with one and if they have put pressure on the speaker then that's outrageous no?

This is politics and the speaker is elected by politicians. I think it would be naive to think conversations don’t go on behind closed doors.

[steviewevie]

 

[lazyred]

17 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

True to an extent but on the other hand parliamentary convention was broken and it looks very dodgy. Labour have got away with one and if they have put pressure on the speaker then that's outrageous no?

Yes, Hoyle should have told Labour to get stuffed It's not his job to manage Labour party unity. The BBC's Nicholas Watt is sticking by his story that Labour threatened to withdraw their support for him next Parliament. Also Chris Bryant was involved in delaying proceedings whilst Starmer put pressure on the Speaker.