This doesn't seem correct but I've thought about it a fair bit and I remain very uncertain. You seem very certain, but that just makes me think you haven't given this very much thought.
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
This doesn't seem correct but I've thought about it a fair bit and I remain very uncertain. You seem very certain, but that just makes me think you haven't given this very much thought.
No. Hoyle should have chosen the SNP one, but chose Labour. The Government withdrew their motion in protest. The SNP were shafted here after Labour MPs lobbied the Speaker that their safety would be at risk if the SNP amendment was chosen.
You know, the party of Jo Cox obliquely alluding to what happened to Jo Cox if Starmer wasn't removed from this political jam.
When did Hoyle remove the SNP motion?
I don't get the 'security of MPs' thing. Are they saying parliament should surrender to threats from the public? What sort of precedent is that?
No polonium threats to MPs when they passed motions against Russia left, right and fecking centre. Genocidal Labour and Tory cnuts.
The reason I'm not on the same page here is something that the Deputy Speaker said when I was listening. I've just gone back in the broadcast to about 18:15 or so and she says the following in response to the SNP's point of order:
Dame Rosie Winterton said:
I understood the "three votes" to be the SNP motion and the two amendments. Clear as mud to me.
Frosty was incorrect is all. The Speaker did not disallow the SNP motion. The controversy is that he allowed the Labour amendment to that motion to be tabled.
If Labour hadn't tabled their amendment the government would have continued with their own amendment. The SNP motion would have been unlikely to pass unamended.
Hoyle should resign. The chicanery of Starmer smells like someone pulled back Johnson's hood.
Surely The Speakers position is untenable now
Hoyle is a disgrace. Its bad enough he went on a sponsored trip to Israel (deeply inappropriate for a speaker), and now this. He should be removed as speaker.
Starmer is just a cnut, but he's got away with it. Hopefully the voters who care deeply about this issue don't forget it come the polls.
Starmer is just a cnut, but he's got away with it. Hopefully the voters who care deeply about this issue don't forget it come the polls.
Of course, if the Speaker hadn't selected the Labour amendment, the SNP motion simply wouldn't have passed and there wouldn't be a record of Parliament wanting a ceasefire.
Sole intention was to focus on Labour, rather than get any votes for the ceasefireThe fecking state of these tweets.
They never seem keen to explain which bit of the SNP's original motion Starmer found so awful he couldn't show their oh so desired 'cross-party support' for it.
This is Labour's equivalent to The Conservative's prorogation of parliament. It's shameful. They're an absolute disgrace.
I recognise politicians making political points quite well tbhThis doesn't seem correct but I've thought about it a fair bit and I remain very uncertain. You seem very certain, but that just makes me think you haven't given this very much thought.
Farcical take.
Maybe they should face some uncomfortable truths rather than defile democracy.
Incorrect, by some distance.
Parliament has called for a ceasefire. That's on record.
If only British politicians showed as much passion for internal matters.
Good lord. Allow a party to use a ceasefire as cause to snipe at political opponents, knowing their amendments will never pass, so they're proposing this solely to try and attack labour. It backfired on them but a ceasefire notion was recorded in parliament.
Apparently only partial recognition since you fall for basic Labour party spin without due consideration of the politicking they've also been involved in today. I dunno man. Seems like manipulating the Speaker to undermine Commons rules should be frowned upon.
He went against 30 odd year precedent that opposition day motions get voted on first (introduced for this very reason) and that's your take
If denouncing Israels collective punishment of Palestinians meant the SNP motion didn't pass then the record would reflect the position of the MPs. Something Starmer was too scared to see through.
The only reason there was the chance for a ceasefire motion in the first place was the SNP giving over one of their own opposition days for its consideration.
They got a handful of opposition days a year to table what they want. You don't get to override that because it's politically inconvenient.
He went against 30 odd year precedent that opposition day motions get voted on first (introduced for this very reason) and that's your take
If denouncing Israels collective punishment of Palestinians meant the SNP motion didn't pass then the record would reflect the position of the MPs. Something Starmer was too scared to see through.
Yes, that's my take. I would rather a vote for a ceasefire passed than didn't. Even if I didn't get everything I wanted. I imagine others have their own motivations for wishing otherwise.
Our Parliament is a touch older than 30 years old, I imagine it will survive today's events.
Ok, but I'm still not comfortable that a vote wasn't held on the original motion tabled by the SNP before the Labour amendment was moved. That this motion might have been politically uncomfortable for members of the Labour Party isn't sufficient reason for me to completely shut off a party motion on their opposition day. Had this happened, the SNP motion would have been debated, defeated and the Labour Party amendment still been given its chance to pass.
What did anyone get exactly? I think you're a bit confused these votes are just motions they don't force the government to do anything.
They're for the opposition (of the day) to put a statement in front of the house, for MPs to declare their positions publically and then the government respond via their amendment. That's it.
All Labour has done is fail to use it's own opportunities to table a ceasefire motion (for which its had plenty of chances) so it could deny another party their right. Why? Because it's politically inconvenient.
You may as well be suggesting the Tories don't bother with opposition days because why bother if the opposition don't have the numbers as the smaller party. You'll probably clap along if Labour actually do that in power.
We got a motion confirming that the will of Parliament is for there to be a ceasefire. That's preferable to not having that on record, otherwise there would have been little point in raising the motion.
And it wouldn't have passed because it'd have included the bit about collective punishment that Starmer absolutely couldn't abide after green lighting all of it. We covered this hours ago just before you ignored my post asking you to defend your position and you realised you didn't have someone else's tweets to do your thinking for you.
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
Imagine it was the other way around
No, I understand they went for a dick move and their comments about MP safety are hollow tbh.
But I see them reacting to parties trying to use the ceasefire to be political and hammer them in the run up to an election and I see labour being devious but actually getting a ceasefire motion passed.
Gotta hate Starmer at all costs.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
You think the Tories are voting for it as well?!
"Giving over" what was their other motion about as there were two?
Oh that's right, green energy a week after Labour have been hammered in the press for "u-turning"
Israel are killing anyone that moves, snipers are targeting children, and our parliament spent their day playing politics over a vote for a ceasefire that will have no impact. Very embarrassing for them.
But at least it's on record!!!! That's the real quiz.
But at least it's on record!!!! That's the real quiz.
So the SNP were using their time to fist Labour, they fecked about and found out and are now running around to anyone who'll listen crying
he’s had years of watching tory shithouses cling on through scandal after scandal. he’s had no good examples to follow.
No better evidence for how utterly detached from reality our political class are (and I mean both politicians themselves and their pet ‘journalists’) than yesterday’s shenanigans.
Thousands of kids dying and MPs somehow contrived to make it all about them and their petty little debate about parliamentary procedure and made-up, unwritten rules.
The whole anachronistic, corrupt, self-serving institution needs reforming from top to bottom if you ask me.
Thousands of kids dying and MPs somehow contrived to make it all about them and their petty little debate about parliamentary procedure and made-up, unwritten rules.
The whole anachronistic, corrupt, self-serving institution needs reforming from top to bottom if you ask me.
Perfectly put.
Yep. Send them back to boarding school, turn Parliament into a museum and build a new one in Wolverhampton. Then you'll see who wants to be there