|
|
Post by supergas on Feb 22, 2024 11:35:00 GMT
So what is all the fuss on this one? I tried reading it last night but couldn't actually work out who had done what. The whole thing is pointless anyway. No matter what the UK Gov does, do they think Israel will give a damn? It's more politics and trying to look better than the other party. SNP had the right under procedures to table an opposition motion. Labour didn't like the wording and tabled theirs. Under the rules and convention Speaker should have not allowed Labour's motion. But he did. SNP withdrew theirs in a hissy fit and walked out. Tories sat on their hands and / or walked out. Labour motion passes. To the net result of zero. An utter disgrace. Of course the Tories, desperate for scraps of anything accused the Speaker of bending to the demands of Labour. As if any of this actually matters. A plague on all their houses. It matters in two ways. Firstly the Speaker made a huge mistake (using politics as a reason to go against both precedent and his officials' advice) - a mistake that could easily cost him his job. The Deputy Speaker also made a huge mistake waving the Labour amendment through without a full vote - there were clearly dissenting voices in the Chamber and she can't have failed to hear them. That's just what we know for sure happened. My second point is that if the well-sourced rumours are true and Starmer and/or the Labour Party Whips were involved in threatening the Speaker unless he agreed to the amendment then that's also a resignation matter for key Labour Party figures just ahead of the General Election. Does what Parliament actually 'decided' matter? No. But the fallout from this will run for weeks.... |
|
yattongas
Forum Legend
Posts: 15,504 
Member is Online
|
Post by yattongas on Feb 22, 2024 13:00:21 GMT
The other rumour doing the rounds is the conservatives didn’t have the numbers to win the vote and that’s why they pulled out .
|
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Feb 22, 2024 13:20:24 GMT
If true then Labour have some serious questions to answer. I can’t help but feel Starmer is too smart though, what’s the benefit/risk over a pointless amendment?
|
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Feb 22, 2024 16:45:55 GMT
If true then Labour have some serious questions to answer. I can’t help but feel Starmer is too smart though, what’s the benefit/risk over a pointless amendment? The Tories, being exposed on multiple fronts, hang on to anything. So they spread stories that Labour, under Starmer's direction, put pressure on the Speaker to allow their amendment. Anything than talk about their economic failures, nor about their Government putting pressure on the Post Office hierarchy to slow down compensation (somebody is blatantly lying here) or the fact we have yet another by-election because one of theirs effed up, again This smells like 1997, for god sake, just go. |
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Feb 22, 2024 16:47:22 GMT
SNP had the right under procedures to table an opposition motion. Labour didn't like the wording and tabled theirs. Under the rules and convention Speaker should have not allowed Labour's motion. But he did. SNP withdrew theirs in a hissy fit and walked out. Tories sat on their hands and / or walked out. Labour motion passes. To the net result of zero. An utter disgrace. Of course the Tories, desperate for scraps of anything accused the Speaker of bending to the demands of Labour. As if any of this actually matters. A plague on all their houses. It matters in two ways. Firstly the Speaker made a huge mistake (using politics as a reason to go against both precedent and his officials' advice) - a mistake that could easily cost him his job. The Deputy Speaker also made a huge mistake waving the Labour amendment through without a full vote - there were clearly dissenting voices in the Chamber and she can't have failed to hear them. That's just what we know for sure happened. My second point is that if the well-sourced rumours are true and Starmer and/or the Labour Party Whips were involved in threatening the Speaker unless he agreed to the amendment then that's also a resignation matter for key Labour Party figures just ahead of the General Election. Does what Parliament actually 'decided' matter? No. But the fallout from this will run for weeks.... Well sourced rumours😂 Aren't you in Australia? |
|
yattongas
Forum Legend
Posts: 15,504
Member is Online
|
Post by yattongas on Feb 22, 2024 20:16:33 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Feb 22, 2024 20:18:33 GMT
Oh dear Oh very effing dear What lovely people these Tory types are. |
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Feb 22, 2024 22:10:38 GMT
That's a very disingenuous headline from the Mirror and it clearly suggests Hart was going to unleash hell on the Speaker if he didn't get his way. That's not what he said. Disappointing from the sub editor.
|
|
|
|
Post by francegas on Feb 23, 2024 2:20:13 GMT
That's a very disingenuous headline from the Mirror and it clearly suggests Hart was going to unleash hell on the Speaker if he didn't get his way. That's not what he said. Disappointing from the sub editor. What more would you expect from that rag. |
|
|
|
Post by francegas on Feb 23, 2024 2:22:52 GMT
It matters in two ways. Firstly the Speaker made a huge mistake (using politics as a reason to go against both precedent and his officials' advice) - a mistake that could easily cost him his job. The Deputy Speaker also made a huge mistake waving the Labour amendment through without a full vote - there were clearly dissenting voices in the Chamber and she can't have failed to hear them. That's just what we know for sure happened. My second point is that if the well-sourced rumours are true and Starmer and/or the Labour Party Whips were involved in threatening the Speaker unless he agreed to the amendment then that's also a resignation matter for key Labour Party figures just ahead of the General Election. Does what Parliament actually 'decided' matter? No. But the fallout from this will run for weeks.... Well sourced rumours😂 Aren't you in Australia? What difference does being in Australia make. He has every right to comment on UK politics in the same way you have about Israel, Gaza and Iran and living in the UK. |
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Feb 23, 2024 6:06:32 GMT
Well sourced rumours😂 Aren't you in Australia? What difference does being in Australia make. He has every right to comment on UK politics in the same way you have about Israel, Gaza and Iran and living in the UK. Of course It was the "well sourced rumours" bit |
|
yattongas
Forum Legend
Posts: 15,504
Member is Online
|
Post by yattongas on Feb 23, 2024 6:49:11 GMT
That's a very disingenuous headline from the Mirror and it clearly suggests Hart was going to unleash hell on the Speaker if he didn't get his way. That's not what he said. Disappointing from the sub editor. What more would you expect from that rag. Speaks the man that watches GB news 🙄😂 |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Feb 23, 2024 9:06:10 GMT
What more would you expect from that rag. Speaks the man that watches GB news 🙄😂 And has referenced the sun and Mail. All tabloids are as bad as eachother |
|
|
|
Post by gashead79 on Feb 23, 2024 9:33:24 GMT
Well sourced rumours😂 Aren't you in Australia? What difference does being in Australia make. He has every right to comment on UK politics in the same way you have about Israel, Gaza and Iran and living in the UK. It makes no difference. It was a deflection from his argument being crushed. Massive hypocrite with a top hat on. |
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Feb 23, 2024 10:07:16 GMT
What difference does being in Australia make. He has every right to comment on UK politics in the same way you have about Israel, Gaza and Iran and living in the UK. Of course It was the "well sourced rumours" bit Well sourced from news websites like the BBC and Reuters....but rumours all the same, journalists reporting on what other people are claiming, not what they 100% know from direct evidence - which it why I reminded everyone those claims weren't factual...yet... Incidentally, Starmer had the perfect opportunity to clear it up yesterday on the media round - asked three times if he or one of his MPs warned Speaker Hoyle that he could lose Labour Party support after the election if the precedent wasn't broken and the Labour amendment wasn't allowed...The obvious answer is "No". But what he said (very carefully) was "... he didn’t put that kind of pressure on Hoyle...." If none of his colleagues made the alleged threats, why was that answer so carefully worded to a very specific question asking something else.... |
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Feb 23, 2024 10:08:47 GMT
What difference does being in Australia make. He has every right to comment on UK politics in the same way you have about Israel, Gaza and Iran and living in the UK. It makes no difference. It was a deflection from his argument being crushed. Massive hypocrite with a top hat on. What argument was being crushed? Hoyle (supposedly independent as Speaker) made a political decision that massively helped the Labour Party? None of that is being disputed... |
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Feb 23, 2024 10:24:02 GMT
It makes no difference. It was a deflection from his argument being crushed. Massive hypocrite with a top hat on. What argument was being crushed? Hoyle (supposedly independent as Speaker) made a political decision that massively helped the Labour Party? None of that is being disputed... I don't think he was referring to you Super, he has a problem with me, hence the use of aggressive language. Ignore. |
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Feb 23, 2024 10:29:29 GMT
Of course It was the "well sourced rumours" bit Well sourced from news websites like the BBC and Reuters....but rumours all the same, journalists reporting on what other people are claiming, not what they 100% know from direct evidence - which it why I reminded everyone those claims weren't factual...yet... Incidentally, Starmer had the perfect opportunity to clear it up yesterday on the media round - asked three times if he or one of his MPs warned Speaker Hoyle that he could lose Labour Party support after the election if the precedent wasn't broken and the Labour amendment wasn't allowed...The obvious answer is "No". But what he said (very carefully) was "... he didn’t put that kind of pressure on Hoyle...." If none of his colleagues made the alleged threats, why was that answer so carefully worded to a very specific question asking something else.... Perhaps Probably not worth arguing about. There were some good points raised on R4 Today programme this morning. Forgetting the politics of who said what whom, the issue of targeting elected officials in their homes and offices was properly raised. Given the murder of Jo Cox and David Amess we should all be alert to that. Targeting the domestic premises in particular is totally unacceptable, this drags families into it. I don't care what side of the political divide people are. |
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 12,564
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Feb 23, 2024 11:17:55 GMT
Well sourced from news websites like the BBC and Reuters....but rumours all the same, journalists reporting on what other people are claiming, not what they 100% know from direct evidence - which it why I reminded everyone those claims weren't factual...yet... Incidentally, Starmer had the perfect opportunity to clear it up yesterday on the media round - asked three times if he or one of his MPs warned Speaker Hoyle that he could lose Labour Party support after the election if the precedent wasn't broken and the Labour amendment wasn't allowed...The obvious answer is "No". But what he said (very carefully) was "... he didn’t put that kind of pressure on Hoyle...." If none of his colleagues made the alleged threats, why was that answer so carefully worded to a very specific question asking something else.... Perhaps Probably not worth arguing about. There were some good points raised on R4 Today programme this morning. Forgetting the politics of who said what whom, the issue of targeting elected officials in their homes and offices was properly raised. Given the murder of Jo Cox and David Amess we should all be alert to that. Targeting the domestic premises in particular is totally unacceptable, this drags families into it. I don't care what side of the political divide people are. Touched on yesterday too. Got missed amongst the hyperbole and point scoring. |
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 12,564
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Feb 23, 2024 11:21:00 GMT
Beth's take: Priti Patel "As this figure was bemoaning the horrors, as they saw it, of a Braverman leadership bid after the election, they told me that Priti Patel was at least someone on that wing of the party they could do business with. The former cabinet minister acknowledged that the right is likely to take the leadership crown after the election, given the leanings of the Conservative party members who get to choose, and that Patel looks, for now, the pick of an unpalatable bunch for Tory centrists." 'That' vote: The effect was to let Labour off the hook by avoiding a massive rebellion because it meant Starmer's MPs could vote for the Labour ceasefire amendment instead of having to defy the whip and support the SNP ceasefire motion. But the Speaker was clear his motive was all about MPs' safety. There are those in parliament - like Rishi Sunak - who believe strongly concerns over MPs' safety shouldn't ever influence business in the Commons, not least because it could set a dangerous precedent of MPs being intimidated in order to change what they debate and how they vote. But there is also a lot of chatter on some of the female MPs' WhatsApp groups about their experiences and concerns over threats, with some - particularly Labour women - having to deal with physical confrontations with protests over the Israel-Hamas conflict. One Conservative MP told me this week she was "riddled with anxiety" ahead of this week's vote over what to do. "I'm angry that we're being put in this position," she told me. "We get cast as either child murderers or antisemitic and I'm neither. I believe a nation has a right to defend itself against terrorists but I'm also a pacifist. "There is no nuance in [this] vote, which is totally irrelevant anyway, just a binary perception of whether you're for or against a ceasefire." news.sky.com/story/electoral-dysfunction-the-tory-leadership-hopeful-building-their-support-almost-entirely-hidden-from-view-13078699 |
|
