Westminster Politics

Labour have a massive lead so as random individuals on a football forum the impact is meaningless. And both Labour and Tory agree on economic policy(More austerity)so it doesn’t really matter anyway.

Voting in the next election isn’t important. Personally I’m not going walk to a voting booth in the pissing rain so guardian readers can feel happy about cutting disability benefits.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
Avoid the 2 major parties.

Or at the very least accept that there is barely any difference between them and Starmer is more right wing than David Cameron was in 2010.
Click to expand...
That risks 5 more years under the Tories. Labour will do better than that and there isn't really an alternative
 
GuybrushThreepwood said:
The Tories focusing on culture wars and stoking divisions, seems to be failing and back-firing.

It's only shining a light on their own record re immigration, and their huge failure to come close to meeting their own repeated, cast-iron pledges to drastically cut net migration. That in turn is angering more and more people on the right of the political spectrum and / or who are socially conservative, and persuading them to switch to Reform, stay at home or maybe even in some cases return to Labour if they switched in 2017 or 2019.

When they bang on about 'stopping the boats', many members of the 'target audience' are simply responding that they've been in power for 14 years, and are questioning why they've failed to 'tackle' that issue, why net migration has increased under their watch, and why they've repeatedly broken their own promises (they stupidly set completely unfeasible targets to keep their back-benchers, swivelled-eye loon party members and the right wing media outlets happy) to drastically cut it.

And they can't get away with blaming the 'woke, lefty opposition' (to quote their standard claptrap) for scuppering their plans, given the size of their comfortable working parliamentary majorities since 2019, on top of the fact they've been in power for since 2010.

And of course their credibility re managing the economy has been shot to pieces. So they've complely snookered themselves.
Click to expand...
I absolutely love this, I love the idea that they’ve embraced the ‘sew division and social discord’ tactic, which is deplorable in its own right….but its divided their party on just how nasty they should be
 
Mart1974 said:
Vs what exactly? If Austerity is required at least Labour won't be robbing the poor to pay the rich.
Click to expand...
:lol:

The party that invented imaginary wheelchairs because too many people were failing the work capability assessments, with a would-be Chancellor who the last time she had any power boasted about how she'd be "tougher than the Tories on welfare" and how hers wasn't the party to even be seen to (nevermind actually do it) represent anyone in receipt of benefits.
 
Last edited:
Giggsyking said:
No she is not referring to online communities.
Anti Zionism is now a crime?
Click to expand...

You say that, and I assume you believe she was referring to Muslim communities? Did you have any evidence to support that position, though?

I thought she was referring to anti semitism and there is an issue with anti semitism online (online being one example, I'm sure there could be others). In reference to anti-zionism, it is a valid belief to hold but there can be a bleed through to anti Semitic thought in how it's expressed.
 
Last edited:
DanH said:
You say that, and I assume you believe she was referring to Muslim communities? Did you have any evidence to support that position, though?

I thought she was referring to anti semitism and there is an issue with anti semitism online (online being one example, I'm sure there could be others). In reference to anti-zionism, it is a valid belief to hold but there can be a bleed through to anti Semitic thought in how it's expressed.
Click to expand...
Do you think it's reasonable for a politician to say the police will do anything in their power to hold people responsible for anti-zionism and anti-israeli feeling?
 
Mogget said:
Do you think it's reasonable for a politician to say the police will do anything in their power to hold people responsible for anti-zionism and anti-israeli feeling?
Click to expand...

I think people are entitled to their beliefs so it would depend on the actions taken due to their beliefs. I also believe it's tricky to draw too much from a 30 second clip.

*To clarify, I wouldn't think it acceptable for a politician to ask for police action solely based on beliefs.
 
DanH said:
You say that, and I assume you believe she was referring to Muslim communities? Did you have any evidence to support that position, though?

I thought she was referring to anti semitism and there is an issue with anti semitism online (online being one example, I'm sure there could be others). In reference to anti-zionism, it is a valid belief to hold but there can be a bleed through to anti Semitic thought in how it's expressed.
Click to expand...

So you agree with her, that police need to knock on every Muslim door and take them to prison because they think Israel is committing war crimes.
 
Eyepopper said:


..... and then everyone stood up and clapped sort of vibes.
Click to expand...

Imagine for a second that this entirely made up story was actually true; that dickhead would still claim the cost of that pint on his expenses.
 
DanH said:
I think people are entitled to their beliefs so it would depend on the actions taken due to their beliefs. I also believe it's tricky to draw too much from a 30 second clip.

*To clarify, I wouldn't think it acceptable for a politician to ask for police action solely based on beliefs.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but when you look at this 30 second clip in combination with Labour's previous stance and statements on the conflict it starts to look rather concerning.

Especially when you consider the powers police now have to curb protest.
 
DanH said:
You say that, and I assume you believe she was referring to Muslim communities? Did you have any evidence to support that position, though?

I thought she was referring to anti semitism and there is an issue with anti semitism online (online being one example, I'm sure there could be others). In reference to anti-zionism, it is a valid belief to hold but there can be a bleed through to anti Semitic thought in how it's expressed.
Click to expand...
Has anyone ever referred to Twitter as a "community" in that literal sense? Come on now...

If the context of that speech was hatred and the outcomes of that hatred leading to tangible impacts beyond feelings being hurt, then those communities wouldn't be existing online...
 
rotherham_red said:
Has anyone ever referred to Twitter as a "community" in that literal sense? Come on now...

If the context of that speech was hatred and the outcomes of that hatred leading to tangible impacts beyond feelings being hurt, then those communities wouldn't be existing online...
Click to expand...

Hi, yes Twitter is a social media platform in which communities form via interactions. It even has a tab for "Communities", although it would not need to be officially formed to be treated as such. TikTok, Facebook etc all host communities.

I'm not sure if you are arguing that the only tangible harm that can come online is through 'hurt feelings', or if I may have misconstrued? I do believe that tangible harms can be caused by online activities though. Defamation, harassment, stalking are things the courts have dealt with in recent years and yet sites and groups who allow those things still exist.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
Imagine for a second that this entirely made up story was actually true; that dickhead would still claim the cost of that pint on his expenses.
Click to expand...
This is Sue I'd say

qSjrBTrRXLd7bHVI.jpg:large
 
DanH said:
Hi, yes Twitter is a social media platform in which communities form via interactions. It even has a tab for "Communities", although it would not need to be officially formed to be treated as such. TikTok, Facebook etc all host communities.

I'm not sure if you are arguing that the only tangible harm that can come online is through 'hurt feelings', or if I may have misconstrued? I do believe that tangible harms can be caused by online activities though. Defamation, harassment, stalking are things the courts have dealt with in recent years and yet sites and groups who allow those things still exist.
Click to expand...
No, I'm talking about communities in the sense of living and breathing things. Not the corporate speak of Twitter/"X".

In the context of Rachel Reeves' speech, I'm not sure any of the above things are relevant. Which is why I'm asking, who the "some communities" she's referring to? By the by, and I'm sure it's a coincidence, but a passing greyhound was howling when I played the clip in the quoted tweet.
 
DanH said:
No, and I think that post is a nonsense comment.
Click to expand...

You either agree with her clear nonsense comment about cracking down on communities (plural) with police force for anyone who has anti Israel /anti zionism opinions or not.

Where do you stand?
 
rotherham_red said:
No, I'm talking about communities in the sense of living and breathing things. Not the corporate speak of Twitter/"X".

In the context of Rachel Reeves' speech, I'm not sure any of the above things are relevant. Which is why I'm asking, who the "some communities" she's referring to? By the by, and I'm sure it's a coincidence, but a passing greyhound was howling when I played the clip in the quoted tweet.
Click to expand...



We all know what she means by "some communities" but if anyone wants to be deliberately disingenuous, do, whatever makes you sleep at night.
 
Being anti-Israeli is considered a crime now? How much more are they going to move the goal posts? Will the Palestinian flag soon be considered a hate symbol?
 
From the BBC:

In other news, we're now hearing that the Speaker of the House, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, has rejected a bid by the Scottish National Party (SNP) for an emergency debate on the situation in Gaza.

Sir Lindsay says that under Commons rules, an emergency debate has to be on an issue for which ministers have responsibility, and that there is no other way that MPs can discuss it.

He told MPs the SNP application didn't meet the criteria, adding that there was a "probability" of a government statement on Gaza tomorrow.

He was speaking after the SNP Westminster leader, Stephen Flynn, asked for an explanation of why the emergency debate was being denied them - especially since Sir Lindsay first raised the possibility of one himself.

It all follows an uproar in the Commons last week, when Sir Lindsay allowed MPs to vote on a Labour amendment to the SNP's ceasefire motion.

It meant the SNP motion was not voted on, prompting the party to say Sir Lindsay should quit as Speaker.

----

There are parliamentary rules which must be followed, you see.
 
Frosty said:
From the BBC:

In other news, we're now hearing that the Speaker of the House, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, has rejected a bid by the Scottish National Party (SNP) for an emergency debate on the situation in Gaza.

Sir Lindsay says that under Commons rules, an emergency debate has to be on an issue for which ministers have responsibility, and that there is no other way that MPs can discuss it.

He told MPs the SNP application didn't meet the criteria, adding that there was a "probability" of a government statement on Gaza tomorrow.

He was speaking after the SNP Westminster leader, Stephen Flynn, asked for an explanation of why the emergency debate was being denied them - especially since Sir Lindsay first raised the possibility of one himself.

It all follows an uproar in the Commons last week, when Sir Lindsay allowed MPs to vote on a Labour amendment to the SNP's ceasefire motion.

It meant the SNP motion was not voted on, prompting the party to say Sir Lindsay should quit as Speaker.

----

There are parliamentary rules which must be followed, you see.
Click to expand...
How they can sit there and say the SNP, whose leader's family were trapped in Gaza, were "playing politics" is beyond contempt
 
Frosty said:
He was speaking after the SNP Westminster leader, Stephen Flynn, asked for an explanation of why the emergency debate was being denied them - especially since Sir Lindsay first raised the possibility of one himself.
Click to expand...

Here's Hoyle saying the SNP can have an SO 24 (that's the standing order that governs emergency debates). It's at 0.56 if I haven't cued it properly.



Here's Standing Order 24

Here's the clause that Hoyle's denying it under:

Standing Order 24: Clause 5 said:
(5) In determining whether a matter is proper to be discussed the Speaker shall have regard to the extent to which it concerns the administrative responsibilities of Ministers of the Crown or could come within the scope of ministerial action. In determining whether a matter is urgent the Speaker shall have regard to the probability of the matter being brought before the House in time by other means.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.