Cool thanks. I'm on SNP with the wording, though they can get screwed bringing it 30k+ deaths later. Labour and Starmer continue to be shit heads as expected, going for 'dem votes. We'll never forget.
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran are here to talk about a frustrating 2 points dropped at Crystal Palace. They then discuss the regeneration of Old Trafford. Finally, Nik is joined by special guest Michael Statham from the Football Oranje podcast - who gives us a more in depth look at our EL opposition FC Twente, and then runs through the (many) Dutch connections currently at United.
Cool thanks. I'm on SNP with the wording, though they can get screwed bringing it 30k+ deaths later. Labour and Starmer continue to be shit heads as expected, going for 'dem votes. We'll never forget.
Thanks for the replies, I've found the text of all the motions now. A lot I didn't know personally, even the Tories talk of 'a credible pathway to a two-state solution', I admit to being surprised by that but there you go. To avoid confusion I strongly agree.
Original SNP motion:
That this House calls for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and Israel; notes with shock and distress that the death toll has now risen beyond 28,000, the vast majority of whom were women and children; further notes that there are currently 1.5 million Palestinians sheltering in Rafah, 610,000 of whom are children; also notes that they have nowhere else to go; condemns any military assault on what is now the largest refugee camp in the world; further calls for the immediate release of all hostages taken by Hamas and an end to the collective punishment of the Palestinian people; and recognises that the only way to stop the slaughter of innocent civilians is to press for a ceasefire now.
All three of the proposed amendments delete everything after the first three words of the SNP motion, effectively replacing it in full.
Labour’s amendment reads:
That this House believes that an Israeli ground offensive in Rafah risks catastrophic humanitarian consequences and therefore must not take place; notes the intolerable loss of Palestinian life, the majority being women and children; condemns the terrorism of Hamas who continue to hold hostages; supports Australia, Canada and New Zealand’s calls for Hamas to release and return all hostages and for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, which means an immediate stop to the fighting and a ceasefire that lasts and is observed by all sides, noting that Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence and that Israelis have the right to the assurance that the horror of 7 October 2023 cannot happen again; therefore supports diplomatic mediation efforts to achieve a lasting ceasefire; demands that rapid and unimpeded humanitarian relief is provided in Gaza; further demands an end to settlement expansion and violence; urges Israel to comply with the International Court of Justice’s provisional measures; calls for the UN Security Council to meet urgently; and urges all international partners to work together to establish a diplomatic process to deliver the peace of a two-state solution, with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state, including working with international partners to recognise a Palestinian state as a contribution to rather than outcome of that process, because statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and not in the gift of any neighbour.
The Tory government’s amendment reads:
That this House supports Israel’s right to self-defence, in compliance with international humanitarian law, against the terror attacks perpetrated by Hamas; condemns the slaughter, abuse and gender-based violence perpetrated on 7 October 2023; further condemns the use of civilian areas by Hamas and others for terrorist operations; urges negotiations to agree an immediate humanitarian pause as the best way to stop the fighting and to get aid in and hostages out; supports moves towards a permanent sustainable ceasefire; acknowledges that achieving this will require all hostages to be released, the formation of a new Palestinian Government, Hamas to be unable to launch further attacks and to be no longer in charge in Gaza, and a credible pathway to a two-state solution which delivers peace, security and justice for both Israelis and Palestinians; expresses concern at the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and at the prospect of a military offensive in Rafah; reaffirms the urgent need to significantly scale up the flow of aid into Gaza, where too many innocent civilians have died; and calls on all parties to take immediate steps to stop the fighting and ensure unhindered humanitarian access.
And the LibDems’ amendment reads:
That this House expresses its devastation at the mounting humanitarian disaster in Gaza with tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians killed, millions displaced and thousands of homes destroyed; calls on the Prime Minister to oppose publicly and at the UN Security Council the proposed IDF offensive in Rafah; further urges Hamas to unconditionally and immediately release the over 100 hostages taken following the deplorable attacks on 7 October 2023; notes the unprecedented levels of illegal settler violence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories left unchecked by the Israeli Government; welcomes the recent sanctions by the UK Government against four extremist Israeli settlers who have committed human rights abuses against Palestinian communities in the West Bank; urges the UK Government to sanction all violent settlers and their connected entities; calls on the UK Government to uphold international law and the judgments of international courts under all circumstances; further notes that the only path to regional security is a two-state solution based on 1967 borders with Hamas not in power; condemns Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s repeated assertions that there is no future for a Palestinian state; and further urges the UK Government to call for an immediate bilateral ceasefire in Gaza, which will allow an end to the humanitarian devastation, get the hostages out and provide an opportunity for a political process leading to a two-state solution, providing security and dignity for all peoples in Palestine and Israel.
Original SNP motion:
That this House calls for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and Israel; notes with shock and distress that the death toll has now risen beyond 28,000, the vast majority of whom were women and children; further notes that there are currently 1.5 million Palestinians sheltering in Rafah, 610,000 of whom are children; also notes that they have nowhere else to go; condemns any military assault on what is now the largest refugee camp in the world; further calls for the immediate release of all hostages taken by Hamas and an end to the collective punishment of the Palestinian people; and recognises that the only way to stop the slaughter of innocent civilians is to press for a ceasefire now.
All three of the proposed amendments delete everything after the first three words of the SNP motion, effectively replacing it in full.
Labour’s amendment reads:
That this House believes that an Israeli ground offensive in Rafah risks catastrophic humanitarian consequences and therefore must not take place; notes the intolerable loss of Palestinian life, the majority being women and children; condemns the terrorism of Hamas who continue to hold hostages; supports Australia, Canada and New Zealand’s calls for Hamas to release and return all hostages and for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, which means an immediate stop to the fighting and a ceasefire that lasts and is observed by all sides, noting that Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence and that Israelis have the right to the assurance that the horror of 7 October 2023 cannot happen again; therefore supports diplomatic mediation efforts to achieve a lasting ceasefire; demands that rapid and unimpeded humanitarian relief is provided in Gaza; further demands an end to settlement expansion and violence; urges Israel to comply with the International Court of Justice’s provisional measures; calls for the UN Security Council to meet urgently; and urges all international partners to work together to establish a diplomatic process to deliver the peace of a two-state solution, with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state, including working with international partners to recognise a Palestinian state as a contribution to rather than outcome of that process, because statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and not in the gift of any neighbour.
The Tory government’s amendment reads:
That this House supports Israel’s right to self-defence, in compliance with international humanitarian law, against the terror attacks perpetrated by Hamas; condemns the slaughter, abuse and gender-based violence perpetrated on 7 October 2023; further condemns the use of civilian areas by Hamas and others for terrorist operations; urges negotiations to agree an immediate humanitarian pause as the best way to stop the fighting and to get aid in and hostages out; supports moves towards a permanent sustainable ceasefire; acknowledges that achieving this will require all hostages to be released, the formation of a new Palestinian Government, Hamas to be unable to launch further attacks and to be no longer in charge in Gaza, and a credible pathway to a two-state solution which delivers peace, security and justice for both Israelis and Palestinians; expresses concern at the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and at the prospect of a military offensive in Rafah; reaffirms the urgent need to significantly scale up the flow of aid into Gaza, where too many innocent civilians have died; and calls on all parties to take immediate steps to stop the fighting and ensure unhindered humanitarian access.
And the LibDems’ amendment reads:
That this House expresses its devastation at the mounting humanitarian disaster in Gaza with tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians killed, millions displaced and thousands of homes destroyed; calls on the Prime Minister to oppose publicly and at the UN Security Council the proposed IDF offensive in Rafah; further urges Hamas to unconditionally and immediately release the over 100 hostages taken following the deplorable attacks on 7 October 2023; notes the unprecedented levels of illegal settler violence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories left unchecked by the Israeli Government; welcomes the recent sanctions by the UK Government against four extremist Israeli settlers who have committed human rights abuses against Palestinian communities in the West Bank; urges the UK Government to sanction all violent settlers and their connected entities; calls on the UK Government to uphold international law and the judgments of international courts under all circumstances; further notes that the only path to regional security is a two-state solution based on 1967 borders with Hamas not in power; condemns Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s repeated assertions that there is no future for a Palestinian state; and further urges the UK Government to call for an immediate bilateral ceasefire in Gaza, which will allow an end to the humanitarian devastation, get the hostages out and provide an opportunity for a political process leading to a two-state solution, providing security and dignity for all peoples in Palestine and Israel.
Absolving? You think the HoC is a court like the ICJ?
So if Labour had gone further than the SNP statement and no one rebelled on that people would be angry? No
I'm sure if you keep trying you'll figure it out eventually.
The SNP one reads like an online blog, not a political party interested in diplomacy
All three are pathetic and transparent. Nothing happened yesterday other than the usual sheep getting fooled and excited at the same time.
What are you struggling to understand? the SNP one, and anything more strongly worded would have not had a chance to pass the House. But let's say that Labour had written a more strongly worded one - what exactly would that have achieved? What benefit would it have given to anyone in Gaza? As you said the government doesn't need to act on these, and even if it did they would have very limited influence.
So you, and others would rather a situation where the Conservative amendment had passed (as it would have), rather than an amendment which actually had a chance of passing, and while not focusing on war crimes (which is being investigated by a more appropriate body in the ICJ) does still call for an immediate ceasefire.
There is no point in performative failure. The outrage is ridiculous.
Breaking 50 MPs sign motion of no confidence in Speaker
The number MPs who have signed a motion of no confidence in Commons Speaker Lindsay Hoyle has now risen to 50.
Previously, 33 MPs had signed the motion, proposed by Tory MP William Wragg.
The number MPs who have signed a motion of no confidence in Commons Speaker Lindsay Hoyle has now risen to 50.
Previously, 33 MPs had signed the motion, proposed by Tory MP William Wragg.
So who's going to be the new speaker then?
Its a stance is it not, just like the two state solution and a ceasefire. By removing it from their amendment, isn't Labour essentially claiming they disagree with the notion that Israel are collectively punishing Palestinians, or that they don't want to risk upsetting them?
What's the magic number then for him to be removed? Would it have to be a parliamentary majority?
They've tabled that amendment for some reason, I don't agree with it tbh because Israel (in my opinio)is collectively punishing.
Alas given the historical context and media sensationalism that Labour is a hotbed of antisemitism, and given that comment wouldn't have passed via the Tories either, to get the motion passed, it likely had to be removed and Labour understood this compromise was needed.
I imagine if they sided with the SNP, it wouldn't have passed at all and the Tories can go back to smearing Labour as AS peddlers and the client press will willfully jump aboard.
Or they wanted an amendment that calls for a ceasefire to actually have a chance of passing, and saw that as more important than commenting on Israel's actions?
Technically, the speaker is in situ until the next GE. But they can resign.
There isn't one. Once elected they are in place until the current parliament is desolved and a GE called. The next parliament then elects/re-elects the speaker. Even if they lose a no confidence vote.
Realistically though, you've lost all authority once you lose that vote so you're goimg to resign.
James O'Brien has just summed it up
The SNP are mad that their name isn't on it
The Tories are mad because their political trap was outplayed
Corbyn fans are mad because Starmer got a win
They all want to call for a ceasefire and are just mad because of politics
The SNP are mad that their name isn't on it
The Tories are mad because their political trap was outplayed
Corbyn fans are mad because Starmer got a win
They all want to call for a ceasefire and are just mad because of politics
Disappointed she didn't get 'woke' in the title.
That dust jacket quote from Boris Johnson sounds like it came at the end of a load of criticism of her reign.
I cannot understate how much I hate this ignorant, self awareness lacking cnut.
Yes. I don't know the number required to force a vote though.
Imagine if the Tories oust Hoyle and bring in someone that will actually hold them accountable for their shit.
You would think a PM that lasted five minutes would hide in shame, never to be seen again.
They were trying to protect the leadership from political embarassement at the cost of preventing (by all means necessary) their MP's from expressing their freely held opinion. I'm not even that annoyed that Starmer tried it on, or that Labour's amendment was selected. I am a bit annoyed that the Speaker was persuaded to feck up the order though. That's the thing that makes it seem a bit like Stuart Atwell deciding it was indeed a red card for Maguire but only after consultation with Klopp.
As I see it Hoyle screwed up by putting the Labour amendment first. Order of precedence should have been: Original SNP motion >>> Labour amendment >>> Tory amendment. It's an opposition day so government comes last; it's SNP's opposition day so they get first dibs. That decision would have preserved the integrity of Hoyle's chair; protected the interests of the SNP, allowed for wider discussion and ended in the maximum number of votes. Sadly it would have meant Labour might have been politically embarrassed but from an objective standpoint that's not a good enough reason to change the order.
Far left will shit on starmer at all costs, pragmatism be damned.Wait so Labour voted for a ceasefire and the SNP didn't and people are mad at Labour because of the politics?
Imagine it was the other way around
She’s a narcissist lacking any self awareness. I went to Uni with a guy who was exactly the same. Dumb as a bag of rocks but had this bizarre self confidence despite constantly making an idiot of himself with the nonsense he would spout.
He now has a YouTube channel and has posted hundreds of videos, all of which get about 8 views. I can’t fathom how these people exist, it must be some sort of mental illness where they are so deluded and their ego doesn’t let them rationalise anything which suggests they might actually have an IQ of about 47.
Liz Truss blaming Trans Activists for her failure.
I'm lost for words
I'm lost for words
Eh? She seemed to pin most of the blame on quangos or the 'deep state'. Basically blamed everybody but herself.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/21/liz-truss-deep-state-cpac-far-right
Forex and gilt markets have always been woke.
Yeah but the deep state is full of activists, apparently..
I imagined they're annoyed that a precedent has just been set for all their future motions on opposition days to be ignored.
They have feck all power at Westminster as it is and forcing a vote on their motions a few times a year is the most direct power they do have.
It's funny we've got the same people arguing it was pointless then saying it was crucial for Labour to amend it so it could pass
I get this, but let's say Labour didn't do this. SNP get to table motions (that don't pass) and then make noise at Labours expense.
Instead Labour played politics (rightly and wrongly) and got a motion passed calling for a ceasefire.
What changes...?
Truss is clearly trying to carve a career grifting in the US, so its no surprise she's latched onto the whole 'deepstate' conspiracy nonsense and culture war hot takes. They love those hysterics on that side of the pond. I'd expect we'd see quite a few (soon to be ex) Tory MPs and ministers following through too in the next step in their careers.
Its also of course a convenient way for her to excuse her absolutely disastrous stint as PM where she essentially single-handedly tanked our economy. Much easier to blame it on phantom entities like the deepstate trans-affiliated Soros illuminati than admit she was shit and completely out of her depth. Hopefully she fizzles out like a damp fart much like the Hopkins and Yiannopoulos types.
Its also of course a convenient way for her to excuse her absolutely disastrous stint as PM where she essentially single-handedly tanked our economy. Much easier to blame it on phantom entities like the deepstate trans-affiliated Soros illuminati than admit she was shit and completely out of her depth. Hopefully she fizzles out like a damp fart much like the Hopkins and Yiannopoulos types.
Lack of confidence in The Speaker.
Think he’ll step down.
Think he’ll step down.
Because Starmer went on LBC and told everyone that Israel has the right to do the very things that the SNP have correctly termed collective punishment. He couldn't risk Parliament voting to attribute those things as a war crime.
As Stephen Flynn said, he'd love to know what Starmer considers collective punishment if Israel's actions don't meet that criteria
Personally I can't wait for the lettuce's book.
Do you guys understand the concept of politics? Like genuinely, in the context of the previous labour guy gifting the massive majority which enabled the Tory scumbags enough leverage to ride roughshot over this country?
You think he should just walk into every trap set for him?
Like I can tell why the left suck at politics and never get elected.
Guys, if he says anything remotely critical, away from the status quo, it'll be "same old labour" all across the broadsheets and tabloids. Weeks of news night talking about how labour is infested with antisemitism.
What bit was the 'Tory trap', was it getting him to reveal he believes Israel has the right to commit war crimes in an on-air and on-camera radio studio? On a radio station he chose, on a show he chose and a host he chose for his monthly radio phone-ins.
Was it sending over a group of his party's MPs to Israel to pose for photos with the guy who'd just been photographed autographing bombs to be dropped on Gaza?
Or was it having the Ambassador of Israel to the United Kingdom tear up the idea of two-state solution and then have Starmer and Lammy turn up to pose for photos alongside her hours later?
Luckily for him, Parliament wouldn't have passed that motion. For clarity, there are 650 seats in the House of Commons - 349 of which are Conservative. Unless people seriously think that A) All other political parties would have unanimously voted for the SNP motion, while simultaneously enough Conservative MPs would have defied the government whip to side with the motion. It just wasn't happening. To suggest contrary is either an error or a lie.
Besides that, after all the shit we've seen in British politics in the past few years, this is the thing that makes you lose your marbles, then it's no wonder the Tories were given 14 years to ruin this country. People are very selective about their outrage.
This is hilarious, this was a motion that had absolutely zero chance of passing and anyone who thought it would is an idiot. But also Starmer desperately had to politic his way to try and ensure it wouldn't get voted on and even if it somehow did, he'd have already kneecapped the bit that could lead him looking like he'd greenlit actions that the British Parliament considers war crimes.
Bring back the glory days when ripping up Parliamentary convention to get what you want was indefensible because it was Johnson and the Tories doing it.