Westminster Politics

William Windsor enters the Israel-Hamas debate, gets chewed out by all of the…Monarchists!?!?!?






 
Drainy said:
Wasn't performatively drinking milk an alt-right dogwhistle at one point?
Click to expand...

The milk glass thing is I think. There was an MP who carried a bottle of milk around for a bit as well, but I don't think that was a dogwhistle.
 
WTF is going on in the Commons? Absolute shitshow right now. Everybody's a fecking baboon.

SNP have apparently walked out. Half the Tories have walked out. Everyone left is shouting at everyone else. Nobody seems clear what motions are capable of being voted on. Speaker's objectivity is being questioned. It's pretty entertaining, but a complete disgrace.

Edit: There is now a vote to enable the Commons to sit in private (ie hide this embarrassment). BBC: "If successful the public galleries will be emptied and the cameras for broadcasting will be turned off". :lol:
 
Last edited:
Dobba said:
Starmer blowing up holes in (what passes for) British democracy to save himself from having parliament vote to describe the things he said Israel had the right to do as collective punishment :lol:
Click to expand...


Is a stupid take.
 
He's a terrible speaker and the decision and justification makes no sense. Whole thing is a pantomime though.
 
DanH said:
Again, drivel.
Click to expand...
Come on then, explain to us all what actually happened? Because to my clearly untrained eye Labour have had multiple Opposition Days to table anything calling for an immediate ceasefire and instead spent the entire time saying they didn't support one because it'd help Hamas. Then all of a sudden the SNP use their Opposition Day to table a motion calling for a ceasefire and not only do the Starmer Party announce they won't be supporting it (though they go from abstain to voting against and back again a few times) they suddenly care enough table an amendment that gets rid of the piece in the SNP's that correctly calls out Israel's actions (which Starmer famously believes Israel has the right to do) as being collective responsibility/punishment. Then, completely coincidentally and nothing to do with the reports that he was threatened with the loss of post-GE support in the role if he didn't do so, the speaker goes against all previous conventions and not only calls Starmer's amendment but ensures that it'll be voted on first, all but ensuring the SNP (whose actual Opposition Day it is), wouldn't get their motion even voted on at all.

But please do inform us all how it really went down.
 
Last edited:
DanH said:
There is a clear issue with the SNP, in that the optics make it seem that the goal of embarrassing Starmer was more important than getting to a ceasefire.
Click to expand...
Which is why Lammy was announcing to every outlet who'd put him on air how he was bravely going to overlook who tabled the motion to support it regardless, because calling for a ceasefire is more important than political grandstanding

It was that or that he couldn't vote for it because of it being an election year. One of the two.
 
Dobba said:
Come on then, explain to us all what actually happened? Because to my clearly untrained eye Labour have had multiple Opposition Days to table anything calling for an immediate ceasefire and instead spent the entire time saying they didn't support one because it'd help Hamas. Then all of a sudden the SNP use their Opposition Day to table a motion calling for a ceasefire and not only do the Starmer Party announce they won't be supporting it (though they go from abstain to voting against and back again a few times) they suddenly care enough table an amendment that gets rid of the piece in the SNP's that correctly calls out Israel's actions (which Starmer famously believes Israel has the right to do) as being collective responsibility. Then, completely coincidentally and nothing to do with the reports that he was threatened with the loss of post-GE support in the role if he didn't do so, the speaker goes against all previous conventions and not only calls Starmer's amendment but ensures that it'll be voted on first, all but ensuring the SNP (whose actual Opposition Day it is), wouldn't get their motion even voted on at all.

But please do inform us all how it really went down.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what happened today.
 
Dobba said:
Come on then, explain to us all what actually happened? Because to my clearly untrained eye Labour have had multiple Opposition Days to table anything calling for an immediate ceasefire and instead spent the entire time saying they didn't support one because it'd help Hamas. Then all of a sudden the SNP use their Opposition Day to table a motion calling for a ceasefire and not only do the Starmer Party announce they won't be supporting it (though they go from abstain to voting against and back again a few times) they suddenly care enough table an amendment that gets rid of the piece in the SNP's that correctly calls out Israel's actions (which Starmer famously believes Israel has the right to do) as being collective responsibility/punishment. Then, completely coincidentally and nothing to do with the reports that he was threatened with the loss of post-GE support in the role if he didn't do so, the speaker goes against all previous conventions and not only calls Starmer's amendment but ensures that it'll be voted on first, all but ensuring the SNP (whose actual Opposition Day it is), wouldn't get their motion even voted on at all.

But please do inform us all how it really went down.
Click to expand...

Obviously you have been talking nonsense.

Apart from the fact the BBC are reporting the same.

"Senior Labour figures told BBC Newsnight Sir Lindsay was left in no doubt Labour was prepared to see him replaced as Speaker after the next general election unless he selected the party's ceasefire amendment for a vote."

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68357080
 
Frosty said:
Obviously you have been talking nonsense.

Apart from the fact the BBC are reporting the same.

"Senior Labour figures told BBC Newsnight Sir Lindsay was left in no doubt Labour was prepared to see him replaced as Speaker after the next general election unless he selected the party's ceasefire amendment for a vote."

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68357080
Click to expand...

The Speaker denied it, the party denied it. Unless the argument is the Speaker took a decision, knowing it could cause him to lose his position now, in order to avoid potentially losing it after a general election.

Of course, for some it has to be the fault of Starmer.
 
DanH said:
The Speaker denied it, the party denied it. Unless the argument is the Speaker took a decision, knowing it could cause him to lose his position now, in order to avoid potentially losing it after a general election.

Of course, for some it has to be the fault of Starmer.
Click to expand...
Starmer denied saying stuff he'd said not just in an on-air radio studio but one fitted with cameras recording him saying it.

I know Dan what are we like believing that this fella was put up to visiting Hoyle personally by Keir Starmer, just because that fella was Starmer himself?
 
Dobba said:
I know Dan what are we like believing that this fella was put up to visiting Hoyle personally by Keir Starmer, just because that fella was Starmer himself?
Click to expand...

What does this mean? Do you mean that Starmer visited the Speaker?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.