Westminster Politics

Drainy said:
fecking hell, we're talking about the order in which motions are heard, that if one fails to pass the next will be and so on. The explanation provided was that without the intervention Labour's motion could not be heard under the convention regardless.

It's not proroguing of parliament, or voting to exclude parliament from having a vote on issues of particular importance, or wanting to change it so ministers can decide whether they are breaking the law etc.
Click to expand...

No, but it's still, effectively, denying the rights of a political party to have a position it deems important be put to the vote on a day supposedly allotted for precisely that. That you personally don't find the subject matter an issue of particular importance (!) is entirely irrelevant. It wasn't your opposition day and it's not your choice.

The daft thing is that without intervention Labour's amendment would not have been heard under the convention, but once convention was broken to allow it it was immediately fallen back upon in order to insist that Labour's amendment was heard first. Sorry, but that effectively subverts the rules to prevent a vote. Had the Speaker preserved the SNP's rights Labour's amendment would still have been voted on.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
No, but it's still, effectively, denying the rights of a political party to have a position it deems important be put to the vote on a day supposedly allotted for precisely that. That you personally don't find the subject matter an issue of particular importance (!) is entirely irrelevant. It wasn't your opposition day and it's not your choice.

The daft thing is that without intervention Labour's amendment would not have been heard under the convention, but once convention was broken to allow it it was immediately fallen back upon in order to insist that Labour's amendment was heard first. Sorry, but that effectively subverts the rules to prevent a vote. Had the Speaker preserved the SNP's rights Labour's amendment would still have been voted on.
Click to expand...

The government already have the ability to do that so it's a bit of a flat fart of a constitutional crisis, the speaker made a decision about the order based on the circumstances to move the Labour motion first for the reasons he stated regarding death threats due to politicking, the points that the SNP wanted to raise are in effect being raised, which is the point of opposition day, if the motion failed it would move to the next. Its overblown because of Starmers enemies not wanting to take the L
 
Drainy said:
The government already have the ability to do that so it's a bit of a flat fart of a constitutional crisis, the speaker made a decision about the order based on the circumstances to move the Labour motion first for the reasons he stated regarding death threats due to politicking, the points that the SNP wanted to raise are in effect being raised, which is the point of opposition day, if the motion failed it would move to the next. Its overblown because of Starmers enemies not wanting to take the L
Click to expand...

Utter bollocks. The speaker made decisions about the order based on standing order 31 (as the Deputy Speaker said when asked). His expressed intention as referenced in his address to the House once voting had concluded was that he intended for the SNP to get their vote. This did not occur.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
Utter bollocks. The speaker made decisions about the order based on standing order 31 (as the Deputy Speaker said when asked). His expressed intention as referenced in his address to the House once voting had concluded was that he intended for the SNP to get their vote. This did not occur.
Click to expand...

Why was that?
 
Ekkie Thump said:
They did not.
Click to expand...

So Labour voted for a ceasefire, and SNP didn't because they were politically upset.

I must ask do you think the SNP are getting death threats for this?

If Labour had done the same with the SNP motion, voting against due to perceived diplomatic damage of prejudging war crimes but didn't get to vote on something they were comfortable with you don't think this wouldn't be made out to be pro genocide and MPs would be threatened ?
 
Drainy said:
So Labour voted for a ceasefire, and SNP didn't because they were politically upset.

I must ask do you think the SNP are getting death threats for this?

If Labour had done the same with the SNP motion, voting against due to perceived diplomatic damage of prejudging war crimes but didn't get to vote on something they were comfortable with you don't think this wouldn't be made out to be pro genocide and MPs would be threatened ?
Click to expand...
No one voted. It went through unopposed.
 
Drainy said:
So Labour voted for a ceasefire, and SNP didn't because they were politically upset.

I must ask do you think the SNP are getting death threats for this?

If Labour had done the same with the SNP motion, voting against due to perceived diplomatic damage of prejudging war crimes but didn't get to vote on something they were comfortable with you don't think this wouldn't be made out to be pro genocide and MPs would be threatened ?
Click to expand...

They were upset because their democratic rights as an opposition party were curtailed and handed to Labour. They were denied the right to vote on their own motion - one that yes, used more forceful language. Those in the country (many) that agree with the content of that motion were also denied a vote on it. In the process and as a byproduct constituents were denied the ability to see where their representative's opinions lay. Democracy was not best served.

Now, MP's may well have been threatened. That's intolerable. Police should look into it. Ultimately, though, it shouldn't undermine the way the Commons executes its democratic duties; nor should MP's be able to hide behind threats of violence as a way for them to sidestep having their views placed on record through a vote.

Labour voting against the SNP motion would not be the same thing because, and I want you to understand this, the SNP did not vote against the Labour motion and it wasn't Labour's opposition day. If Labour had voted against the SNP motion they would still have got to vote on their amendment if the Speaker had determined they go second. If it was a Labour opposition day then they should get to vote on their motion first. If it passes then hard cheese to the SNP.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
They were upset because their democratic rights as an opposition party were curtailed and handed to Labour. They were denied the right to vote on their own motion - one that yes, used more forceful language. Those in the country (many) that agree with the content of that motion were also denied a vote on it. In the process and as a byproduct constituents were denied the ability to see where their representative's opinions lay. Democracy was not best served.

Now, MP's may well have been threatened. That's intolerable. Police should look into it. Ultimately, though, it shouldn't undermine the way the Commons executes its democratic duties; nor should MP's be able to hide behind threats of violence as a way for them to sidestep having their views placed on record through a vote.

Labour voting against the SNP motion would not be the same thing because, and I want you to understand this, the SNP did not vote against the Labour motion and it wasn't Labour's opposition day. If Labour had voted against the SNP motion they would still have got to vote on their amendment if the Speaker had determined they go second. If it was a Labour opposition day then they should get to vote on their motion first. If it passes then hard cheese to the SNP.
Click to expand...


It would have broken convention anyway if a Labour amendment had been selected. If it had been followed, the choice would have been between between the SNP and Conservative motions.
 
DanH said:
It would have broken convention anyway if a Labour amendment had been selected. If it had been followed, the choice would have been between between the SNP and Conservative motions.
Click to expand...

Yeah I get that. It's the selective use of convention that bothers me. Like I think we're best served in this instance by allowing as many opinions to be debated as possible, so I'm not that bothered that convention was broken to allow a vote on a Labour amendment. I'd rather they bring their own motion on their own day but....fine. What troubles me is that this undermined the integrity of the day by undermining the SNP's rights. Had the Speaker continued his break from convention and made special allowance ensuring that the SNP's right to a vote on their own proposition was preserved then I wouldn't really care.

Maybe the latter isn't under his power or something?
 
Superden said:
im not sure what this is getting at? if it is a dig at me pointing out the narrative against muslims - when it comes to the prevaricating around calling for a ceasefire, then i would suggest its actually quite offensive, and it makes my point, as no one would get away with saying similar if the concern was anti-semitism / lack of support for Israel re the 7th Oct attack / the fate of the hostages.
Click to expand...
Sorry pal only just seen this. Not a jibe at you at all, It was a reference to thousands of children dead and more being killed every single day along with other innocent civilians and all this shower of shite can do in the House of Commons is work out how a bill calling for a humanitarian cease fire can be manipulated into being an attack on them personally. It’s utterly depressing.
 
Pexbo said:
Sorry pal only just seen this. Not a jibe at you at all, It was a reference to thousands of children dead and more being killed every single day along with other innocent civilians and all this shower of shite can do in the House of Commons is work out how a bill calling for a humanitarian cease fire can be manipulated into being an attack on them personally. It’s utterly depressing.
Click to expand...
Ah, sorry, i jumped in at the deep end. It is odd that there is such a grave threat to the MPs - which has dominated the news agenda today but were not to be told about it, weve just got to take it on their word. And yet last night bombing on Rafa intensified. its so bloody depressing.
 
Dobba said:
Again, it's odd that for someone who doesn't think he decides international law he seemed more than keen to state he believes it doesn't apply to Israel and even more keen to ensure parliament wasn't given a chance to vote in such a way to express that it did yesterday.

And the excuse now is that he has to say and do that otherwise people would say things about him. But one day, feck knows when, he'll decide he no longer believes countries (well, one particular country anyway) get a mulligan on war crimes.
Click to expand...
Yeah, these two paragraphs, pure gibberish
 
Superden said:
The same James Heartfield who claimed that israelis have every right to lay siege to all the palestinians, as Israel is at war with them, and so have have no obligation to feed them...

This is why I dont understand Starmers position, unless he is completely supportive of Israel's actions, hes always going to be targeted by the Zionist lobby. and the likes of the Daily Mail will lap it up. So why not stick to his principles, instead of trying to fudge things.
Click to expand...
Targeted a lot less than Corbyn which basically nukes his entire opposition and electoral chances.

Principles? Pfft they're what you hold when you have feck all influence and power.

He needs to get elected first.

Every, I swear to god, everything else comes after.
 
Drainy said:
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
Click to expand...
I think that's true as far as it goes but you have to add that Starmer has miscalculated and handled it badly. As has the speaker.

Personally I think there are times when the best way for a leader to deal with substantial dissent in their own party is to allow a free vote on what is before them, no whips. I get that leaves them open to accusations of weakness but that's a lesser problem.
 
TheGame said:
UK politics - look at our shitshow

US Politics - hold my beer.

Click to expand...


I can't laugh much with the level of PMs in my country. But where the feck do you find yours? Johnson, Truss and Sunak... good lord.
 
4bars said:
I can't laugh much with the level of PMs in my country. But where the feck do you find yours? Johnson, Truss and Sunak... good lord.
Click to expand...
You know that politics in this country have gone to shit when you can look back at David Cameron and think "he was more ministerial than the folk who came after him", and he was a bullying prick of a man.
 
711 said:
I think that's true as far as it goes but you have to add that Starmer has miscalculated and handled it badly. As has the speaker.
Click to expand...

There is a point of view that he handled it perfectly. If , Starmer did influence Hoyle and that headed off a clash with a number of his back benchers... and then with the Speaker talking the heat, then that's a master-stroke, or he's just a lucky bas****, either way bodes well for a PM in waiting.
 
Maticmaker said:
There is a point of view that he handled it perfectly. If , Starmer did influence Hoyle and that headed off a clash with a number of his back benchers... and then with the Speaker talking the heat, then that's a master-stroke, or he's just a lucky bas****, either way bodes well for a PM in waiting.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. My first thought at looking at the bare faced racism of 'Islamists are controlling Parliament' this morning was what a genius Starmer was for launching that wrecking ball at the first domino.
 
Dobba said:
Absolutely. My first thought at looking at the bare faced racism of 'Islamists are controlling Parliament' this morning was what a genius Starmer was for launching that wrecking ball at the first domino.
Click to expand...

Is he becoming (or has he always been)... 'a wolf in sheep's clothing'... our Sir Keir? ;)
 
Maticmaker said:
Is he becoming (or has he always been)... 'a wolf in sheep's clothing'... our Sir Keir ;)
Click to expand...
He's simply a desperate man happy to throw as many people and communities under the bus as necessary to save himself from looking like he endorsed Israel dishing out collective punishment. He'll be delighted that it turns out the real people to blame for the farce in the Commons this week are those pesky Muslims again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.