FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Parliament at it’s finest
Parliament at it’s finest
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What happened?" TLDR version SNP opposition day debate on gaza.. SNP put forward a motion Conservative put up an amendment… Well.. this is what normally happens… Speaker puts up the SNP motion… the conservatives motion… and the Labour motion (which is unheard of on an opposition day!) Basically labour has been twisting in the wind about not supporting the SNP motion… and were likely to probably lose a few front benchers tonight for going against official Labour Party policy at the moment Basically the speaker let starmer off the hook! So… SNP walk out… pull there motion, conservatives pull their motion as well Have a vote to hold parliament in private (only mps, no journalists present.. no tv cameras) Whilst this is happening labour’s motion because it was the only one left is waived through basically without a vote!!! I think the speaker is going to face a vote of confidence…. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What happened? TLDR version SNP opposition day debate on gaza.. SNP put forward a motion Conservative put up an amendment… Well.. this is what normally happens… Speaker puts up the SNP motion… the conservatives motion… and the Labour motion (which is unheard of on an opposition day!) Basically labour has been twisting in the wind about not supporting the SNP motion… and were likely to probably lose a few front benchers tonight for going against official Labour Party policy at the moment Basically the speaker let starmer off the hook! So… SNP walk out… pull there motion, conservatives pull their motion as well Have a vote to hold parliament in private (only mps, no journalists present.. no tv cameras) Whilst this is happening labour’s motion because it was the only one left is waived through basically without a vote!!! I think the speaker is going to face a vote of confidence…. " Isn't the speaker a Labour MP? This sounds bad, let's see what unfolds. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shambles ,speaker has to step down" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What happened? TLDR version SNP opposition day debate on gaza.. SNP put forward a motion Conservative put up an amendment… Well.. this is what normally happens… Speaker puts up the SNP motion… the conservatives motion… and the Labour motion (which is unheard of on an opposition day!) Basically labour has been twisting in the wind about not supporting the SNP motion… and were likely to probably lose a few front benchers tonight for going against official Labour Party policy at the moment Basically the speaker let starmer off the hook! So… SNP walk out… pull there motion, conservatives pull their motion as well Have a vote to hold parliament in private (only mps, no journalists present.. no tv cameras) Whilst this is happening labour’s motion because it was the only one left is waived through basically without a vote!!! I think the speaker is going to face a vote of confidence…. Isn't the speaker a Labour MP? This sounds bad, let's see what unfolds. " We don’t want him! He’s fucking useless! Bercow was far better at managing both sides. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Snp played politics with their wording which they knew would damage Labour, and it wasn't getting through as Tories weren't supporting it.. Standard really and they all go it .. But today was a complete fuck up procedurally and reflects badly on the Speaker.. It looks like until Biden stiffens up his language then Sunak and Labour will still be wooly on theirs.. Some MPs are getting threats but more importantly innocents are being killed daily.. " I normally agree with you… on this occasion I don’t From the beginning the SNP position has always been to call for an immediate unilateral ceasefire…. That is what they put in the opposition motion In this case it has been the Labour Party that have been fudging the wording of there position.. and changing it literally about 10 days ago It’s not the obligation of the SNP to change the wording to suit labour… that is a problem between starmer and his backbenchers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Snp played politics with their wording which they knew would damage Labour, and it wasn't getting through as Tories weren't supporting it.. Standard really and they all go it .. But today was a complete fuck up procedurally and reflects badly on the Speaker.. It looks like until Biden stiffens up his language then Sunak and Labour will still be wooly on theirs.. Some MPs are getting threats but more importantly innocents are being killed daily.. I normally agree with you… on this occasion I don’t From the beginning the SNP position has always been to call for an immediate unilateral ceasefire…. That is what they put in the opposition motion In this case it has been the Labour Party that have been fudging the wording of there position.. and changing it literally about 10 days ago It’s not the obligation of the SNP to change the wording to suit labour… that is a problem between starmer and his backbenchers" That's ok.. Labour do have a problem with the issue and their constituencies and yes they've been fannying around because of that instead of simply coming out and having a firm position and saying ceasefire now weeks ago they made a rod for their own back.. Snp knowing that set a trap, as I said politics.. But the whole lot of them now look silly as does the Speaker who has weakened his own position.. Tories should have supported the SNP one instead of amended it to try and make it weaker.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What happened? TLDR version SNP opposition day debate on gaza.. SNP put forward a motion Conservative put up an amendment… Well.. this is what normally happens… Speaker puts up the SNP motion… the conservatives motion… and the Labour motion (which is unheard of on an opposition day!) Basically labour has been twisting in the wind about not supporting the SNP motion… and were likely to probably lose a few front benchers tonight for going against official Labour Party policy at the moment Basically the speaker let starmer off the hook! So… SNP walk out… pull there motion, conservatives pull their motion as well Have a vote to hold parliament in private (only mps, no journalists present.. no tv cameras) Whilst this is happening labour’s motion because it was the only one left is waived through basically without a vote!!! I think the speaker is going to face a vote of confidence…. Isn't the speaker a Labour MP? This sounds bad, let's see what unfolds. We don’t want him! He’s fucking useless! Bercow was far better at managing both sides." Bercow is a fucking narcissistic twat. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What happened? TLDR version SNP opposition day debate on gaza.. SNP put forward a motion Conservative put up an amendment… Well.. this is what normally happens… Speaker puts up the SNP motion… the conservatives motion… and the Labour motion (which is unheard of on an opposition day!) Basically labour has been twisting in the wind about not supporting the SNP motion… and were likely to probably lose a few front benchers tonight for going against official Labour Party policy at the moment Basically the speaker let starmer off the hook! So… SNP walk out… pull there motion, conservatives pull their motion as well Have a vote to hold parliament in private (only mps, no journalists present.. no tv cameras) Whilst this is happening labour’s motion because it was the only one left is waived through basically without a vote!!! I think the speaker is going to face a vote of confidence…. Isn't the speaker a Labour MP? This sounds bad, let's see what unfolds. We don’t want him! He’s fucking useless! Bercow was far better at managing both sides. Bercow is a fucking narcissistic twat." He was a good speaker. As good as Boothroyd | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Regardless of who is right or wrong in the conflict, what is most tragic is that the actual issue that requires addressing takes a back seat and is seen to take a back seat while being driven by party politics. " This.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Snp played politics with their wording which they knew would damage Labour, and it wasn't getting through as Tories weren't supporting it.. Standard really and they all go it .. But today was a complete fuck up procedurally and reflects badly on the Speaker.. It looks like until Biden stiffens up his language then Sunak and Labour will still be wooly on theirs.. Some MPs are getting threats but more importantly innocents are being killed daily.. I normally agree with you… on this occasion I don’t From the beginning the SNP position has always been to call for an immediate unilateral ceasefire…. That is what they put in the opposition motion In this case it has been the Labour Party that have been fudging the wording of there position.. and changing it literally about 10 days ago It’s not the obligation of the SNP to change the wording to suit labour… that is a problem between starmer and his backbenchers That's ok.. Labour do have a problem with the issue and their constituencies and yes they've been fannying around because of that instead of simply coming out and having a firm position and saying ceasefire now weeks ago they made a rod for their own back.. Snp knowing that set a trap, as I said politics.. But the whole lot of them now look silly as does the Speaker who has weakened his own position.. Tories should have supported the SNP one instead of amended it to try and make it weaker.." The opposition parties get 20 opposition days per parliamentary session ( a year) Labour gets 17 of these The SNP gets 3……. Per year! They aren’t even legally binding, they don’t relate to making laws… But there is no point in a 3rd party having any days if the main opposition can just ride over them! Opposition gets to ask the question, government get to amend it or vote against it! It was bad form by Labour to do what they did. and the speaker should not have done what he did! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It was bad form by Labour to do what they did. and the speaker should not have done what he did! " It probably was and unprecedented etc which the tories and their friends in the media will harp on about but it's still politics.. Agreed.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What a waste of time, uk has zero influence over what happens in Gaza. " This 
Only one country has a hope in hell of stopping the Israelis. The USA. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What a waste of time, uk has zero influence over what happens in Gaza. This
Only one country has a hope in hell of stopping the Israelis. The USA." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What a waste of time, uk has zero influence over what happens in Gaza. This
Only one country has a hope in hell of stopping the Israelis. The USA."Agree but I'm wondering if Netanyahu wants to prolong it as if it's over or paused, hostages released etc he's under the spotlight and looking at being removed .. Not sure Biden can pull the plug in military support as a last resort to get a ceasefire let alone talks on a two state solution at any time in a presidents term of office let alone an election year with the strength of the Jewish lobby.. And Ramadan is what, 14th March? IDF testing Rafa apart then isn't going down well at all in many parts of the region.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What a waste of time, uk has zero influence over what happens in Gaza. This
Only one country has a hope in hell of stopping the Israelis. The USA.
Agree but I'm wondering if Netanyahu wants to prolong it as if it's over or paused, hostages released etc he's under the spotlight and looking at being removed ..
Not sure Biden can pull the plug in military support as a last resort to get a ceasefire let alone talks on a two state solution at any time in a presidents term of office let alone an election year with the strength of the Jewish lobby..
And Ramadan is what, 14th March?
IDF testing Rafa apart then isn't going down well at all in many parts of the region..
"Isreal has been seeing how much they can get away with internationally in my opinion.. and as said it's only the USA that can do anything. Getting back to the thread, these politicians will be getting paid for the fiasco they put on.. waste if taxpayer's money | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure I agree with any of this. It’s just politics and SNP played with fire and got themselves burned. Everyone in Parliament yesterday wanted the same outcome - a ceasefire in Gaza and the Labour motion for a ceasefire was carried. The only exception that I do take to it all is that so much hot air is being generated over a vote that is completely meaningless in the greater context." The SNP weren't playing with anything. It was their opposition day. This is squarely on Starmer (I'm not even blaming the party as a whole) and Hoyle. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour are on the verge of imploding it seems. Due to their stance on Gaza a stance they cannot change no matter what their M.Ps think. Meanwhile we wait till Ramadan so forces can complete the slaughter. " Do you believe if Starmer changed his view the IDF would stop all its objectives? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure I agree with any of this. It’s just politics and SNP played with fire and got themselves burned. Everyone in Parliament yesterday wanted the same outcome - a ceasefire in Gaza and the Labour motion for a ceasefire was carried. The only exception that I do take to it all is that so much hot air is being generated over a vote that is completely meaningless in the greater context. The SNP weren't playing with anything. It was their opposition day. This is squarely on Starmer (I'm not even blaming the party as a whole) and Hoyle. " What is squarely on Starmer and Hoyle? It’s just a load of hot air. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It was bad form by Labour to do what they did. and the speaker should not have done what he did! It probably was and unprecedented etc which the tories and their friends in the media will harp on about but it's still politics.. Agreed.." Omitted to mention this last night so forgive me for saying this twice.. The wording of the SNP in stating that Israel has carried out collective punishment was there solely because they knew labour wouldn't support it even as many labour MPs have said the same and many of us on here too.. What they didn't have was any mention of Hamas letting the hostages go nor any mention of the atrocities of the 7th October by Hamas.. As I said they set a trap purely to damage labour in Scotland because they are the SNPs biggest threat in the GE.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Meanwhile we wait till Ramadan so forces can complete the slaughter. " The SNP leadership could instead leverage their connections within Gaza (not saying they have any within Hamas) to influence the release of the kid-napped hostages. That would arguably achieve more in terms of violence reduction than the precise wording of an unenforceable viewpoint or position. There are two sides who can stop Israeli armed action. Israel, by changing tactics, and Hamas, by releasing hostages and surrendering. The thinking is that if they're were enough pressure on Israel, politically, they might change their mind. This in turn emboldens Hamas who then have less incentive to perform actions that would stop the war - they're happy to let the international community continue to apply pressure. This is why victims actually work in their favour. Nobody counted on an Israeli PM willing to commit this much sustained human damage. That's not to say that there should not be international pressure for damage minimisation, ceasefire, etc. But the SNP is uniquely placed as far as UK governing bodies go to influence Gazan life through personal connections and as having a measure of respect. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It was bad form by Labour to do what they did. and the speaker should not have done what he did! It probably was and unprecedented etc which the tories and their friends in the media will harp on about but it's still politics.. Agreed.. Omitted to mention this last night so forgive me for saying this twice.. The wording of the SNP in stating that Israel has carried out collective punishment was there solely because they knew labour wouldn't support it even as many labour MPs have said the same and many of us on here too.. What they didn't have was any mention of Hamas letting the hostages go nor any mention of the atrocities of the 7th October by Hamas.. As I said they set a trap purely to damage labour in Scotland because they are the SNPs biggest threat in the GE.." This is basically the politics of it. The Palestinians are just being used as a political football by the SNP, just like by everyone else. Literally nobody is actually looking out for what is in the best interests of the Palestinians themselves without a very selfish agenda. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour MP's are saying there is a fear for their own safety because the choices didn't go wide enough. Is this the state of the nation now, intimidation of our MP's?" There's been the arson attack on the offices of Tory MP Mike Freer,who is pro Israeli and has now said he's not prepared to potentially put his family at risk so is standing down at the GE.. The office of the labour Shadow Welsh Secretary was vandalized after one of the votes late last year and graffiti saying she has blood on her hands.. 'Independents' in London who are allegedly pro Palestinian are said by the media to be organising to defeat MPs over the war.. We've had MPs killed, it's not a good situation nor is it acceptable.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour MP's are saying there is a fear for their own safety because the choices didn't go wide enough. Is this the state of the nation now, intimidation of our MP's?" The footballification of politics. A recent and unwelcome phenomenon. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour are on the verge of imploding it seems. Due to their stance on Gaza a stance they cannot change no matter what their M.Ps think. Meanwhile we wait till Ramadan so forces can complete the slaughter. Do you believe if Starmer changed his view the IDF would stop all its objectives?" No I believe that Labour cannot change its stance, how can they, even with their own M.Ps on the edge of revolt as their voters will no longer vote for them. Thats what I call a catch 22. This has been going on for weeks now Labour will experience new pressure politically in their muslim seats as they lose the muslim vote, this incident has highlighted for me that fact (skullduggery at its finest) And meanwhile the slaughter continues, with or without SK view it means nothing to Israel I agree they do what they wish including mass murder. With all the confusion distraction causes, I remember that people are being mudered en mass and the discussion was with regard to that with regard to a ceasefire. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour MP's are saying there is a fear for their own safety because the choices didn't go wide enough. Is this the state of the nation now, intimidation of our MP's? The footballification of politics. A recent and unwelcome phenomenon." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Meanwhile we wait till Ramadan so forces can complete the slaughter. The SNP leadership could instead leverage their connections within Gaza (not saying they have any within Hamas) to influence the release of the kid-napped hostages. That would arguably achieve more in terms of violence reduction than the precise wording of an unenforceable viewpoint or position. There are two sides who can stop Israeli armed action. Israel, by changing tactics, and Hamas, by releasing hostages and surrendering. The thinking is that if they're were enough pressure on Israel, politically, they might change their mind. This in turn emboldens Hamas who then have less incentive to perform actions that would stop the war - they're happy to let the international community continue to apply pressure. This is why victims actually work in their favour. Nobody counted on an Israeli PM willing to commit this much sustained human damage. That's not to say that there should not be international pressure for damage minimisation, ceasefire, etc. But the SNP is uniquely placed as far as UK governing bodies go to influence Gazan life through personal connections and as having a measure of respect." I understand. So I do not have to wait as it is not going to happen are you saying. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What is squarely on Starmer and Hoyle? It’s just a load of hot air." It’s probably is that because of the way the speaker dealt with it A) because of the way it was laid out.. even though the motion was brought by the SNP, the original motion would never have been voted upon……. Basically it was a labour hijack B) there would be no point in any 3rd party opposition day if the main opposition can hijack there day at will….. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I doubt if the SNP are really concerened about the situation in Gaza except for popularist reasons. They wanted a distraction from their shit show in Hollyrood and yet another reason to crow about independence by showing how useless Westminister is. They got a slam dunk by the looks of it. "awe you ragin lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nick Watt reports that Sir Knight threatened not to support Hoyle as speaker after next election, so he agreed to break procedural rules and hijack one of only three days awarded to the SNP for framing the debate. Labour, Starmer and Hoyle come out of this with a nasty stench. This issue could wreck Labour at the next election. It's time for a truly progressive alternative. That's not Labour. Starmer has made them tory-lite." It won't wreck their chances at election. Have you seen he spin put on this by Labour and their supporters  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour MP's are saying there is a fear for their own safety because the choices didn't go wide enough. Is this the state of the nation now, intimidation of our MP's? The footballification of politics. A recent and unwelcome phenomenon." It is and I agree, but the way I'm reading the this, labour MP's were calling on Starmer to call for a ceasefire or face a possible rebellion. Reasons given were fear for their safety, if this is correct we have entered a new and worrying phase in mob rule. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Meanwhile we wait till Ramadan so forces can complete the slaughter. The SNP leadership could instead leverage their connections within Gaza (not saying they have any within Hamas) to influence the release of the kid-napped hostages. That would arguably achieve more in terms of violence reduction than the precise wording of an unenforceable viewpoint or position. There are two sides who can stop Israeli armed action. Israel, by changing tactics, and Hamas, by releasing hostages and surrendering. The thinking is that if they're were enough pressure on Israel, politically, they might change their mind. This in turn emboldens Hamas who then have less incentive to perform actions that would stop the war - they're happy to let the international community continue to apply pressure. This is why victims actually work in their favour. Nobody counted on an Israeli PM willing to commit this much sustained human damage. That's not to say that there should not be international pressure for damage minimisation, ceasefire, etc. But the SNP is uniquely placed as far as UK governing bodies go to influence Gazan life through personal connections and as having a measure of respect." What connections do the snp have in gaza?and what infuence do they have over the release of hostages ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What connections do the snp have in gaza?and what infuence do they have over the release of hostages ?" Very little influence, but more than the UK generally. The people of Gaza generally dislike the UK (current government specifically, as well as the US) but feel a strong connection with Scotland (and Ireland, even more so) due to both family connections within the party to (presumably completely innocent civilian and victim) family members in Gaza, an anti-UK/colonial stance and support of similar demographic to Palestinians generally. There are some countries that have respect (and therefore an audience who might listen) and some who don't. Scotland is in the former. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What connections do the snp have in gaza?and what infuence do they have over the release of hostages ? Very little influence, but more than the UK generally. The people of Gaza generally dislike the UK (current government specifically, as well as the US) but feel a strong connection with Scotland (and Ireland, even more so) due to both family connections within the party to (presumably completely innocent civilian and victim) family members in Gaza, an anti-UK/colonial stance and support of similar demographic to Palestinians generally. There are some countries that have respect (and therefore an audience who might listen) and some who don't. Scotland is in the former." And did the ppl of gaza tell you this?does other parties have family members in palestine? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The SNP motion was part acceptable, but if the aim was to try and get a consensus around a ceasefire/pause it was definitely not going to with it's accusations about collective punishment, technically a war crime.. It said nothing about the hostages.. Why put forward a motion to stop the killing that is so one sided and doomed to fail which essentially undermines what they the SNP claim they wanted to achieve? Or is it a case of they know it's not going to get through so let's word it to damage our biggest threat at the GE?" They knew what they were doing, it was loaded and it backfired spectacularly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The SNP motion was part acceptable, but if the aim was to try and get a consensus around a ceasefire/pause it was definitely not going to with it's accusations about collective punishment, technically a war crime.. It said nothing about the hostages.. Why put forward a motion to stop the killing that is so one sided and doomed to fail which essentially undermines what they the SNP claim they wanted to achieve? Or is it a case of they know it's not going to get through so let's word it to damage our biggest threat at the GE? They knew what they were doing, it was loaded and it backfired spectacularly. " The SNP? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The SNP motion was part acceptable, but if the aim was to try and get a consensus around a ceasefire/pause it was definitely not going to with it's accusations about collective punishment, technically a war crime.. It said nothing about the hostages.. Why put forward a motion to stop the killing that is so one sided and doomed to fail which essentially undermines what they the SNP claim they wanted to achieve? Or is it a case of they know it's not going to get through so let's word it to damage our biggest threat at the GE? They knew what they were doing, it was loaded and it backfired spectacularly. " They and pretty much no one would have foreseen how it went.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And did the ppl of gaza tell you this?does other parties have family members in palestine?" That's not really the point, is it? That's just getting into semantics. It's that the SNP squandered an opportunity in order to score points against Labour for their own selfish aims, whereas they could really have leveraged their position to try to do good for the people of Gaza. The point about influence was underscoring that they quite possibly have MORE of a voice and influence within Gaza than the UK government (are you disputing this?) and therefore have more of a chance to do good. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The SNP motion was part acceptable, but if the aim was to try and get a consensus around a ceasefire/pause it was definitely not going to with it's accusations about collective punishment, technically a war crime.. It said nothing about the hostages.. Why put forward a motion to stop the killing that is so one sided and doomed to fail which essentially undermines what they the SNP claim they wanted to achieve? Or is it a case of they know it's not going to get through so let's word it to damage our biggest threat at the GE? They knew what they were doing, it was loaded and it backfired spectacularly. The SNP? " I believe both the SNP and Labour, now I have read some more about it. A loaded in the statement here: Crucially, and in opposition to Labour, it also condemned the “collective punishment” of Palestinians, a technical term that amounts to a war crime". The way Labour forced their opposition in, it was all point scoring. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I believe both the SNP and Labour, now I have read some more about it. A loaded in the statement here: Crucially, and in opposition to Labour, it also condemned the “collective punishment” of Palestinians, a technical term that amounts to a war crime". The way Labour forced their opposition in, it was all point scoring. " Labour was not specifically looking to score points here, but the SNP made it an issue or survival for them. So Labour did pretty much the only thing they could. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The SNP motion was part acceptable, but if the aim was to try and get a consensus around a ceasefire/pause it was definitely not going to with it's accusations about collective punishment, technically a war crime.. It said nothing about the hostages.. Why put forward a motion to stop the killing that is so one sided and doomed to fail which essentially undermines what they the SNP claim they wanted to achieve? Or is it a case of they know it's not going to get through so let's word it to damage our biggest threat at the GE?" Well labour have 17 opposition days through out the year to have brought it up… but the only 2 days there have truly been a debate on where parliament actually stands with motions are the 2 opposition days where the SNP have brought it up to be debated If labour truly wanted their position to be debated.. it’s not like they have not had opportunity to.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The SNP motion was part acceptable, but if the aim was to try and get a consensus around a ceasefire/pause it was definitely not going to with it's accusations about collective punishment, technically a war crime.. It said nothing about the hostages.. Why put forward a motion to stop the killing that is so one sided and doomed to fail which essentially undermines what they the SNP claim they wanted to achieve? Or is it a case of they know it's not going to get through so let's word it to damage our biggest threat at the GE? Well labour have 17 opposition days through out the year to have brought it up… but the only 2 days there have truly been a debate on where parliament actually stands with motions are the 2 opposition days where the SNP have brought it up to be debated If labour truly wanted their position to be debated.. it’s not like they have not had opportunity to.." This is where I stand on it. I can't blame the SNP for this shambles. If Labour and the Tories didn't like the wording then let it be debated. Don't jump in and pressure the speaker to let you get up there first, I can fully understand why the SNP are pissed, and I agree with them on very little. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The SNP motion was part acceptable, but if the aim was to try and get a consensus around a ceasefire/pause it was definitely not going to with it's accusations about collective punishment, technically a war crime.. It said nothing about the hostages.. Why put forward a motion to stop the killing that is so one sided and doomed to fail which essentially undermines what they the SNP claim they wanted to achieve? Or is it a case of they know it's not going to get through so let's word it to damage our biggest threat at the GE? Well labour have 17 opposition days through out the year to have brought it up… but the only 2 days there have truly been a debate on where parliament actually stands with motions are the 2 opposition days where the SNP have brought it up to be debated If labour truly wanted their position to be debated.. it’s not like they have not had opportunity to.. This is where I stand on it. I can't blame the SNP for this shambles. If Labour and the Tories didn't like the wording then let it be debated. Don't jump in and pressure the speaker to let you get up there first, I can fully understand why the SNP are pissed, and I agree with them on very little. " We don’t agree on much.. but I do with you on this… strange bedfellows!! I don’t see how one of the minor parties can have another opposition day if it can be hijacked by the main opposition…. The fact the speaker was warned about what would happen by the most senior clerks… and he ignored it…. Made his position untenable for me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The SNP motion was part acceptable, but if the aim was to try and get a consensus around a ceasefire/pause it was definitely not going to with it's accusations about collective punishment, technically a war crime.. It said nothing about the hostages.. Why put forward a motion to stop the killing that is so one sided and doomed to fail which essentially undermines what they the SNP claim they wanted to achieve? Or is it a case of they know it's not going to get through so let's word it to damage our biggest threat at the GE? Well labour have 17 opposition days through out the year to have brought it up… but the only 2 days there have truly been a debate on where parliament actually stands with motions are the 2 opposition days where the SNP have brought it up to be debated If labour truly wanted their position to be debated.. it’s not like they have not had opportunity to.." They can do, I'm not disputing that.. The SNP worded a motion designed to fail simply to trap their biggest threat domestically, they wasted one of their three days when they could have sought a consensus which 'might' have gotten support .. They used the current plight of the population of Gaza as a political football.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The SNP motion was part acceptable, but if the aim was to try and get a consensus around a ceasefire/pause it was definitely not going to with it's accusations about collective punishment, technically a war crime.. It said nothing about the hostages.. Why put forward a motion to stop the killing that is so one sided and doomed to fail which essentially undermines what they the SNP claim they wanted to achieve? Or is it a case of they know it's not going to get through so let's word it to damage our biggest threat at the GE? Well labour have 17 opposition days through out the year to have brought it up… but the only 2 days there have truly been a debate on where parliament actually stands with motions are the 2 opposition days where the SNP have brought it up to be debated If labour truly wanted their position to be debated.. it’s not like they have not had opportunity to.. This is where I stand on it. I can't blame the SNP for this shambles. If Labour and the Tories didn't like the wording then let it be debated. Don't jump in and pressure the speaker to let you get up there first, I can fully understand why the SNP are pissed, and I agree with them on very little. We don’t agree on much.. but I do with you on this… strange bedfellows!! I don’t see how one of the minor parties can have another opposition day if it can be hijacked by the main opposition…. The fact the speaker was warned about what would happen by the most senior clerks… and he ignored it…. Made his position untenable for me" Fabio, can you confirm my understanding that there wouldn't have been a vite in the tory ammendment and then the motion, but voting against the government effectively means voting for the original motion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And did the ppl of gaza tell you this?does other parties have family members in palestine? That's not really the point, is it? That's just getting into semantics. It's that the SNP squandered an opportunity in order to score points against Labour for their own selfish aims, whereas they could really have leveraged their position to try to do good for the people of Gaza. The point about influence was underscoring that they quite possibly have MORE of a voice and influence within Gaza than the UK government (are you disputing this?) and therefore have more of a chance to do good." its my point though,why would the snp possibly have a voice of infuence in gaza ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" its my point though,why would the snp possibly have a voice of infuence in gaza ?" Have it your way. Perhaps they don't. Happy? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And did the ppl of gaza tell you this?does other parties have family members in palestine? That's not really the point, is it? That's just getting into semantics. It's that the SNP squandered an opportunity in order to score points against Labour for their own selfish aims, whereas they could really have leveraged their position to try to do good for the people of Gaza. The point about influence was underscoring that they quite possibly have MORE of a voice and influence within Gaza than the UK government (are you disputing this?) and therefore have more of a chance to do good.its my point though,why would the snp possibly have a voice of infuence in gaza ?" Exactly, global Britain pmsl | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" its my point though,why would the snp possibly have a voice of infuence in gaza ? Have it your way. Perhaps they don't. Happy?" very  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sky news this morning had a Tory MP I think saying how the viewing public would be shocked to see yesterday's shenanigans.... having watched plenty of pmqs and the like over the years I can honestly say I expect it these days! " Things will get worse as it gets closer to election | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And did the ppl of gaza tell you this?does other parties have family members in palestine? That's not really the point, is it? That's just getting into semantics. It's that the SNP squandered an opportunity in order to score points against Labour for their own selfish aims, whereas they could really have leveraged their position to try to do good for the people of Gaza. The point about influence was underscoring that they quite possibly have MORE of a voice and influence within Gaza than the UK government (are you disputing this?) and therefore have more of a chance to do good.its my point though,why would the snp possibly have a voice of infuence in gaza ? Exactly, global Britain pmsl " The position of the UK government is just that, if enough countries make a call for a ceasefire it adds pressure, and shows a solidarity of views from many is how see the relevance of such things. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Fabio can you confirm my understanding that there wouldn't have been a vite in the tory ammendment and then the motion, but voting against the government effectively means voting for the original motion. " This is my explainer to anyone who has asked me what happened yesterday ( funny enough a lot have.. apparently I am known as the political wonk in my friends group! lol) On a normal day of business what would happen is that the government would put their motion as the original motion for a vote . and the opposition can put up amendments to that motion… So the order would be a vote on conservative motion then vote on labour amendment (if any of those amendments are accepted then technically you would have another vote.. but this would go through on the nod) On opposition days… the roles are reversed so what normally happen by convention would have been votes on opposition motion first then government amendment Simple enough normally… What happened yesterday is that both labour and the speaker broke with normal convention/ettiquette… but one could not work without the other So the SNP put up their motion as “the opposition” and the conservatives amendment “as the government” But labour also asked the speaker to add an amendment in their name to the motion…. The speaker had to option not to call their amendment to vote.. as was advised by the most senior clerk If he had not… then normal rules apply.. and it would have been up to labour mps to decide if they wanted to vote on the SNP motion (the leader would have likely have ordered mps to abstain, but there probably would have been a huge labour backbencher rebellion and vote with the SNP) But he did….. So the order of votes would have been… snp on the original motion, then labour voting to the amendment the original motion If the SNP motion had been voted against (because there would be no incentive for labour mps to vote for the SNP) , but the labour motion voted for (because SNP and some tories would have voted for that because they don’t agree with the government position) then the government would be voting to amend the labour motion The SNP basically having their opposition day hijacked because their original motion in effect would never be voted for in the main vote And that is why you have seen both labour and the speaker being really sheepish today In effect there would be no point in any 3rd party having an opposition day again.. which is why all the smaller parties went ballistic! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Fabio can you confirm my understanding that there wouldn't have been a vite in the tory ammendment and then the motion, but voting against the government effectively means voting for the original motion. This is my explainer to anyone who has asked me what happened yesterday ( funny enough a lot have.. apparently I am known as the political wonk in my friends group! lol) On a normal day of business what would happen is that the government would put their motion as the original motion for a vote . and the opposition can put up amendments to that motion… So the order would be a vote on conservative motion then vote on labour amendment (if any of those amendments are accepted then technically you would have another vote.. but this would go through on the nod) On opposition days… the roles are reversed so what normally happen by convention would have been votes on opposition motion first then government amendment Simple enough normally… What happened yesterday is that both labour and the speaker broke with normal convention/ettiquette… but one could not work without the other So the SNP put up their motion as “the opposition” and the conservatives amendment “as the government” But labour also asked the speaker to add an amendment in their name to the motion…. The speaker had to option not to call their amendment to vote.. as was advised by the most senior clerk If he had not… then normal rules apply.. and it would have been up to labour mps to decide if they wanted to vote on the SNP motion (the leader would have likely have ordered mps to abstain, but there probably would have been a huge labour backbencher rebellion and vote with the SNP) But he did….. So the order of votes would have been… snp on the original motion, then labour voting to the amendment the original motion If the SNP motion had been voted against (because there would be no incentive for labour mps to vote for the SNP) , but the labour motion voted for (because SNP and some tories would have voted for that because they don’t agree with the government position) then the government would be voting to amend the labour motion The SNP basically having their opposition day hijacked because their original motion in effect would never be voted for in the main vote And that is why you have seen both labour and the speaker being really sheepish today In effect there would be no point in any 3rd party having an opposition day again.. which is why all the smaller parties went ballistic! " I still don’t agree lol The Israel/Gaza situation is very polarising and the SNP motion was an extreme view that no ‘reasonable’ U.K. political party could support. Starmer is alleged to have bullied Hoyle, whereas the truth is now coming out that he only suggested that because of the very volatile and polarising nature of the subject, he should allow the widest possible debate and in the end the very British compromise of a middle ground was voted on, and carried. It’s all very well having rigid and immobile traditions and precedents, but this would preclude common sense taking over when it needs to. Wednesdays parliamentary action simply displayed that Britain is still great at working through difficult situations and coming out on the other side with a compromise that every can live with and which hurts no-one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Fabio can you confirm my understanding that there wouldn't have been a vite in the tory ammendment and then the motion, but voting against the government effectively means voting for the original motion. This is my explainer to anyone who has asked me what happened yesterday ( funny enough a lot have.. apparently I am known as the political wonk in my friends group! lol) On a normal day of business what would happen is that the government would put their motion as the original motion for a vote . and the opposition can put up amendments to that motion… So the order would be a vote on conservative motion then vote on labour amendment (if any of those amendments are accepted then technically you would have another vote.. but this would go through on the nod) On opposition days… the roles are reversed so what normally happen by convention would have been votes on opposition motion first then government amendment Simple enough normally… What happened yesterday is that both labour and the speaker broke with normal convention/ettiquette… but one could not work without the other So the SNP put up their motion as “the opposition” and the conservatives amendment “as the government” But labour also asked the speaker to add an amendment in their name to the motion…. The speaker had to option not to call their amendment to vote.. as was advised by the most senior clerk If he had not… then normal rules apply.. and it would have been up to labour mps to decide if they wanted to vote on the SNP motion (the leader would have likely have ordered mps to abstain, but there probably would have been a huge labour backbencher rebellion and vote with the SNP) But he did….. So the order of votes would have been… snp on the original motion, then labour voting to the amendment the original motion If the SNP motion had been voted against (because there would be no incentive for labour mps to vote for the SNP) , but the labour motion voted for (because SNP and some tories would have voted for that because they don’t agree with the government position) then the government would be voting to amend the labour motion The SNP basically having their opposition day hijacked because their original motion in effect would never be voted for in the main vote And that is why you have seen both labour and the speaker being really sheepish today In effect there would be no point in any 3rd party having an opposition day again.. which is why all the smaller parties went ballistic! I still don’t agree lol The Israel/Gaza situation is very polarising and the SNP motion was an extreme view that no ‘reasonable’ U.K. political party could support. Starmer is alleged to have bullied Hoyle, whereas the truth is now coming out that he only suggested that because of the very volatile and polarising nature of the subject, he should allow the widest possible debate and in the end the very British compromise of a middle ground was voted on, and carried. It’s all very well having rigid and immobile traditions and precedents, but this would preclude common sense taking over when it needs to. Wednesdays parliamentary action simply displayed that Britain is still great at working through difficult situations and coming out on the other side with a compromise that every can live with and which hurts no-one." What were the snp extreme veiws? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Layla Moran was interviewed yesterday and said the Lib Dems had asked for support for a two state solution in the SNP motion but they refused, she also said (she's part Palestinian) in her view their motion was designed to create divisions and did nothing for the very people in Gaza that it was meant to be about.. The SNP are on the record weeks ago in calling for a globally recognised two state solution as a possible means to bring peace in the region yet they didn't seem it important enough this week.. " Pretty much this. The "Palestinian Issue" had been used as a political tool for many decades. Nothing to do with helping on the ground. What is needed is for governments to get together and start thinking "what is the best outcome for the Palestinian humans suffering right now and in the future". Instead, it's an oven-ready political tool for all sides around the world, from the USA to North Korea, from Russia to South Africa to Qatar to the UK. The SNP is very happy to be able to invoke moral outrage in order to destroy Labour. But this isn't the best outcome for Palestinians and it's a squandered opportunity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Fabio can you confirm my understanding that there wouldn't have been a vite in the tory ammendment and then the motion, but voting against the government effectively means voting for the original motion. This is my explainer to anyone who has asked me what happened yesterday ( funny enough a lot have.. apparently I am known as the political wonk in my friends group! lol) On a normal day of business what would happen is that the government would put their motion as the original motion for a vote . and the opposition can put up amendments to that motion… So the order would be a vote on conservative motion then vote on labour amendment (if any of those amendments are accepted then technically you would have another vote.. but this would go through on the nod) On opposition days… the roles are reversed so what normally happen by convention would have been votes on opposition motion first then government amendment Simple enough normally… What happened yesterday is that both labour and the speaker broke with normal convention/ettiquette… but one could not work without the other So the SNP put up their motion as “the opposition” and the conservatives amendment “as the government” But labour also asked the speaker to add an amendment in their name to the motion…. The speaker had to option not to call their amendment to vote.. as was advised by the most senior clerk If he had not… then normal rules apply.. and it would have been up to labour mps to decide if they wanted to vote on the SNP motion (the leader would have likely have ordered mps to abstain, but there probably would have been a huge labour backbencher rebellion and vote with the SNP) But he did….. So the order of votes would have been… snp on the original motion, then labour voting to the amendment the original motion If the SNP motion had been voted against (because there would be no incentive for labour mps to vote for the SNP) , but the labour motion voted for (because SNP and some tories would have voted for that because they don’t agree with the government position) then the government would be voting to amend the labour motion The SNP basically having their opposition day hijacked because their original motion in effect would never be voted for in the main vote And that is why you have seen both labour and the speaker being really sheepish today In effect there would be no point in any 3rd party having an opposition day again.. which is why all the smaller parties went ballistic! I still don’t agree lol The Israel/Gaza situation is very polarising and the SNP motion was an extreme view that no ‘reasonable’ U.K. political party could support. Starmer is alleged to have bullied Hoyle, whereas the truth is now coming out that he only suggested that because of the very volatile and polarising nature of the subject, he should allow the widest possible debate and in the end the very British compromise of a middle ground was voted on, and carried. It’s all very well having rigid and immobile traditions and precedents, but this would preclude common sense taking over when it needs to. Wednesdays parliamentary action simply displayed that Britain is still great at working through difficult situations and coming out on the other side with a compromise that every can live with and which hurts no-one. What were the snp extreme veiws?" i suspect it was the call to end collective punishment/slaughter or innocents Which effectively say it is happening and therefore implies the House believes there are ware crimes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Fabio can you confirm my understanding that there wouldn't have been a vite in the tory ammendment and then the motion, but voting against the government effectively means voting for the original motion. This is my explainer to anyone who has asked me what happened yesterday ( funny enough a lot have.. apparently I am known as the political wonk in my friends group! lol) On a normal day of business what would happen is that the government would put their motion as the original motion for a vote . and the opposition can put up amendments to that motion… So the order would be a vote on conservative motion then vote on labour amendment (if any of those amendments are accepted then technically you would have another vote.. but this would go through on the nod) On opposition days… the roles are reversed so what normally happen by convention would have been votes on opposition motion first then government amendment Simple enough normally… What happened yesterday is that both labour and the speaker broke with normal convention/ettiquette… but one could not work without the other So the SNP put up their motion as “the opposition” and the conservatives amendment “as the government” But labour also asked the speaker to add an amendment in their name to the motion…. The speaker had to option not to call their amendment to vote.. as was advised by the most senior clerk If he had not… then normal rules apply.. and it would have been up to labour mps to decide if they wanted to vote on the SNP motion (the leader would have likely have ordered mps to abstain, but there probably would have been a huge labour backbencher rebellion and vote with the SNP) But he did….. So the order of votes would have been… snp on the original motion, then labour voting to the amendment the original motion If the SNP motion had been voted against (because there would be no incentive for labour mps to vote for the SNP) , but the labour motion voted for (because SNP and some tories would have voted for that because they don’t agree with the government position) then the government would be voting to amend the labour motion The SNP basically having their opposition day hijacked because their original motion in effect would never be voted for in the main vote And that is why you have seen both labour and the speaker being really sheepish today In effect there would be no point in any 3rd party having an opposition day again.. which is why all the smaller parties went ballistic! " to get to the labour ammendedment being the one voted on, the Tories would have needed to line up behind the labour one. I'm not sure in practice that would have happened. Btw, wasn't the labour ammendment the only vote that happened? Or was there a bite in Snp motion ? Either which way I'd disagree labour hijacked the day. the SNP set the agenda for the day. It's an agenda labour didn't want. Labour ammended allowed the house to agree on a less polarised view. But the subject was still debated as SNP wanted. There's probably different views on the point of oppo days. After all, a motion is unlikely to be approved. And while this was against convention it's not (I believe) unprecedented. Some argue that opposition days shouldnt be used to attack the other opposition. And that SNP may have been trying this with their wording. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Fabio can you confirm my understanding that there wouldn't have been a vite in the tory ammendment and then the motion, but voting against the government effectively means voting for the original motion. This is my explainer to anyone who has asked me what happened yesterday ( funny enough a lot have.. apparently I am known as the political wonk in my friends group! lol) On a normal day of business what would happen is that the government would put their motion as the original motion for a vote . and the opposition can put up amendments to that motion… So the order would be a vote on conservative motion then vote on labour amendment (if any of those amendments are accepted then technically you would have another vote.. but this would go through on the nod) On opposition days… the roles are reversed so what normally happen by convention would have been votes on opposition motion first then government amendment Simple enough normally… What happened yesterday is that both labour and the speaker broke with normal convention/ettiquette… but one could not work without the other So the SNP put up their motion as “the opposition” and the conservatives amendment “as the government” But labour also asked the speaker to add an amendment in their name to the motion…. The speaker had to option not to call their amendment to vote.. as was advised by the most senior clerk If he had not… then normal rules apply.. and it would have been up to labour mps to decide if they wanted to vote on the SNP motion (the leader would have likely have ordered mps to abstain, but there probably would have been a huge labour backbencher rebellion and vote with the SNP) But he did….. So the order of votes would have been… snp on the original motion, then labour voting to the amendment the original motion If the SNP motion had been voted against (because there would be no incentive for labour mps to vote for the SNP) , but the labour motion voted for (because SNP and some tories would have voted for that because they don’t agree with the government position) then the government would be voting to amend the labour motion The SNP basically having their opposition day hijacked because their original motion in effect would never be voted for in the main vote And that is why you have seen both labour and the speaker being really sheepish today In effect there would be no point in any 3rd party having an opposition day again.. which is why all the smaller parties went ballistic! to get to the labour ammendedment being the one voted on, the Tories would have needed to line up behind the labour one. I'm not sure in practice that would have happened. Btw, wasn't the labour ammendment the only vote that happened? Or was there a bite in Snp motion ? Either which way I'd disagree labour hijacked the day. the SNP set the agenda for the day. It's an agenda labour didn't want. Labour ammended allowed the house to agree on a less polarised view. But the subject was still debated as SNP wanted. There's probably different views on the point of oppo days. After all, a motion is unlikely to be approved. And while this was against convention it's not (I believe) unprecedented. Some argue that opposition days shouldnt be used to attack the other opposition. And that SNP may have been trying this with their wording. " I don't see it as an attack, i see it as politics after they are sitting in a house purposely built for the stuff.   | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Fabio can you confirm my understanding that there wouldn't have been a vite in the tory ammendment and then the motion, but voting against the government effectively means voting for the original motion. This is my explainer to anyone who has asked me what happened yesterday ( funny enough a lot have.. apparently I am known as the political wonk in my friends group! lol) On a normal day of business what would happen is that the government would put their motion as the original motion for a vote . and the opposition can put up amendments to that motion… So the order would be a vote on conservative motion then vote on labour amendment (if any of those amendments are accepted then technically you would have another vote.. but this would go through on the nod) On opposition days… the roles are reversed so what normally happen by convention would have been votes on opposition motion first then government amendment Simple enough normally… What happened yesterday is that both labour and the speaker broke with normal convention/ettiquette… but one could not work without the other So the SNP put up their motion as “the opposition” and the conservatives amendment “as the government” But labour also asked the speaker to add an amendment in their name to the motion…. The speaker had to option not to call their amendment to vote.. as was advised by the most senior clerk If he had not… then normal rules apply.. and it would have been up to labour mps to decide if they wanted to vote on the SNP motion (the leader would have likely have ordered mps to abstain, but there probably would have been a huge labour backbencher rebellion and vote with the SNP) But he did….. So the order of votes would have been… snp on the original motion, then labour voting to the amendment the original motion If the SNP motion had been voted against (because there would be no incentive for labour mps to vote for the SNP) , but the labour motion voted for (because SNP and some tories would have voted for that because they don’t agree with the government position) then the government would be voting to amend the labour motion The SNP basically having their opposition day hijacked because their original motion in effect would never be voted for in the main vote And that is why you have seen both labour and the speaker being really sheepish today In effect there would be no point in any 3rd party having an opposition day again.. which is why all the smaller parties went ballistic! to get to the labour ammendedment being the one voted on, the Tories would have needed to line up behind the labour one. I'm not sure in practice that would have happened. Btw, wasn't the labour ammendment the only vote that happened? Or was there a bite in Snp motion ? Either which way I'd disagree labour hijacked the day. the SNP set the agenda for the day. It's an agenda labour didn't want. Labour ammended allowed the house to agree on a less polarised view. But the subject was still debated as SNP wanted. There's probably different views on the point of oppo days. After all, a motion is unlikely to be approved. And while this was against convention it's not (I believe) unprecedented. Some argue that opposition days shouldnt be used to attack the other opposition. And that SNP may have been trying this with their wording. I don't see it as an attack, i see it as politics after they are sitting in a house purposely built for the stuff. "all* . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Fabio can you confirm my understanding that there wouldn't have been a vite in the tory ammendment and then the motion, but voting against the government effectively means voting for the original motion. This is my explainer to anyone who has asked me what happened yesterday ( funny enough a lot have.. apparently I am known as the political wonk in my friends group! lol) On a normal day of business what would happen is that the government would put their motion as the original motion for a vote . and the opposition can put up amendments to that motion… So the order would be a vote on conservative motion then vote on labour amendment (if any of those amendments are accepted then technically you would have another vote.. but this would go through on the nod) On opposition days… the roles are reversed so what normally happen by convention would have been votes on opposition motion first then government amendment Simple enough normally… What happened yesterday is that both labour and the speaker broke with normal convention/ettiquette… but one could not work without the other So the SNP put up their motion as “the opposition” and the conservatives amendment “as the government” But labour also asked the speaker to add an amendment in their name to the motion…. The speaker had to option not to call their amendment to vote.. as was advised by the most senior clerk If he had not… then normal rules apply.. and it would have been up to labour mps to decide if they wanted to vote on the SNP motion (the leader would have likely have ordered mps to abstain, but there probably would have been a huge labour backbencher rebellion and vote with the SNP) But he did….. So the order of votes would have been… snp on the original motion, then labour voting to the amendment the original motion If the SNP motion had been voted against (because there would be no incentive for labour mps to vote for the SNP) , but the labour motion voted for (because SNP and some tories would have voted for that because they don’t agree with the government position) then the government would be voting to amend the labour motion The SNP basically having their opposition day hijacked because their original motion in effect would never be voted for in the main vote And that is why you have seen both labour and the speaker being really sheepish today In effect there would be no point in any 3rd party having an opposition day again.. which is why all the smaller parties went ballistic! I still don’t agree lol The Israel/Gaza situation is very polarising and the SNP motion was an extreme view that no ‘reasonable’ U.K. political party could support. Starmer is alleged to have bullied Hoyle, whereas the truth is now coming out that he only suggested that because of the very volatile and polarising nature of the subject, he should allow the widest possible debate and in the end the very British compromise of a middle ground was voted on, and carried. It’s all very well having rigid and immobile traditions and precedents, but this would preclude common sense taking over when it needs to. Wednesdays parliamentary action simply displayed that Britain is still great at working through difficult situations and coming out on the other side with a compromise that every can live with and which hurts no-one. What were the snp extreme veiws?i suspect it was the call to end collective punishment/slaughter or innocents Which effectively say it is happening and therefore implies the House believes there are ware crimes. " Is implying war crimes,extreme veiws? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At it's crux, the SNP was aiming to put forward a statement that others were forced to either agree with or disagree with as a whole. Like "do you agree that trees are green and you should give me £100". And if someone says "no", you can then have a go at them for saying that trees aren't green. In this case, SNP members could then stand up with righteous fury and say "but children are dying!". Labour put forward an amendment, basically saying "we won't agree to all of that, but here's a statement we can get behind". It sounds reasonable enough in that context, but the rules and protocols is parliament were stretched to enable this. Under possibly sinister pressure (or maybe not). The SNP tried to either put words in the mouths of anyone voting for the motion, or lay a trap for anyone voting against it. And they're pissed off that they got called out on it and it didn't work. It's 100% their right to waste everyone's time with petty politics, and they did. Playing semantics with the lives of the people they purport to want to help for their own ends. Good luck to them." i think we all know what happened | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Is implying war crimes,extreme veiws?" For the UK parliament to agree this, yes, it is extreme. It would shake international diplomacy. Especially since it is wholly one-sided ("release the hostages" implies no crime or judgement, whereas it does against Israel). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"i think we all know what happened" No. Hence many questions. But it makes your uncomfortable to see it in black and white. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"i think we all know what happened No. Hence many questions. But it makes your uncomfortable to see it in black and white." The only question ive asked is what are the snp extreme veiws | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"i think we all know what happened No. Hence many questions. But it makes your uncomfortable to see it in black and white. The only question ive asked is what are the snp extreme veiws" Not your questions. Everyone's questions. Surely you were speaking for "we all", right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Fabio can you confirm my understanding that there wouldn't have been a vite in the tory ammendment and then the motion, but voting against the government effectively means voting for the original motion. This is my explainer to anyone who has asked me what happened yesterday ( funny enough a lot have.. apparently I am known as the political wonk in my friends group! lol) On a normal day of business what would happen is that the government would put their motion as the original motion for a vote . and the opposition can put up amendments to that motion… So the order would be a vote on conservative motion then vote on labour amendment (if any of those amendments are accepted then technically you would have another vote.. but this would go through on the nod) On opposition days… the roles are reversed so what normally happen by convention would have been votes on opposition motion first then government amendment Simple enough normally… What happened yesterday is that both labour and the speaker broke with normal convention/ettiquette… but one could not work without the other So the SNP put up their motion as “the opposition” and the conservatives amendment “as the government” But labour also asked the speaker to add an amendment in their name to the motion…. The speaker had to option not to call their amendment to vote.. as was advised by the most senior clerk If he had not… then normal rules apply.. and it would have been up to labour mps to decide if they wanted to vote on the SNP motion (the leader would have likely have ordered mps to abstain, but there probably would have been a huge labour backbencher rebellion and vote with the SNP) But he did….. So the order of votes would have been… snp on the original motion, then labour voting to the amendment the original motion If the SNP motion had been voted against (because there would be no incentive for labour mps to vote for the SNP) , but the labour motion voted for (because SNP and some tories would have voted for that because they don’t agree with the government position) then the government would be voting to amend the labour motion The SNP basically having their opposition day hijacked because their original motion in effect would never be voted for in the main vote And that is why you have seen both labour and the speaker being really sheepish today In effect there would be no point in any 3rd party having an opposition day again.. which is why all the smaller parties went ballistic! I still don’t agree lol The Israel/Gaza situation is very polarising and the SNP motion was an extreme view that no ‘reasonable’ U.K. political party could support. Starmer is alleged to have bullied Hoyle, whereas the truth is now coming out that he only suggested that because of the very volatile and polarising nature of the subject, he should allow the widest possible debate and in the end the very British compromise of a middle ground was voted on, and carried. It’s all very well having rigid and immobile traditions and precedents, but this would preclude common sense taking over when it needs to. Wednesdays parliamentary action simply displayed that Britain is still great at working through difficult situations and coming out on the other side with a compromise that every can live with and which hurts no-one. What were the snp extreme veiws?i suspect it was the call to end collective punishment/slaughter or innocents Which effectively say it is happening and therefore implies the House believes there are ware crimes. Is implying war crimes,extreme veiws?" as on official Houde position, I would accusing a country of war crimes is an extreme position. I get that it is individuals views. But the House has needs to meet a higher standard before making such an accusation. If not extreme it is a polarising view. And as I understand it, in oppo day, if the government amendment loses, the original text is automatically adopted. Labour are forced to pick a camp. Either back the Tory view or back the SNP view. Neither of which may be palatable. And IMO the apryoes knew this and laid the cards accordingly | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"i think we all know what happened No. Hence many questions. But it makes your uncomfortable to see it in black and white. The only question ive asked is what are the snp extreme veiws Not your questions. Everyone's questions. Surely you were speaking for "we all", right?" wrong i was speaking for myself,wanting the person who made the comment to answer | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Fabio can you confirm my understanding that there wouldn't have been a vite in the tory ammendment and then the motion, but voting against the government effectively means voting for the original motion. This is my explainer to anyone who has asked me what happened yesterday ( funny enough a lot have.. apparently I am known as the political wonk in my friends group! lol) On a normal day of business what would happen is that the government would put their motion as the original motion for a vote . and the opposition can put up amendments to that motion… So the order would be a vote on conservative motion then vote on labour amendment (if any of those amendments are accepted then technically you would have another vote.. but this would go through on the nod) On opposition days… the roles are reversed so what normally happen by convention would have been votes on opposition motion first then government amendment Simple enough normally… What happened yesterday is that both labour and the speaker broke with normal convention/ettiquette… but one could not work without the other So the SNP put up their motion as “the opposition” and the conservatives amendment “as the government” But labour also asked the speaker to add an amendment in their name to the motion…. The speaker had to option not to call their amendment to vote.. as was advised by the most senior clerk If he had not… then normal rules apply.. and it would have been up to labour mps to decide if they wanted to vote on the SNP motion (the leader would have likely have ordered mps to abstain, but there probably would have been a huge labour backbencher rebellion and vote with the SNP) But he did….. So the order of votes would have been… snp on the original motion, then labour voting to the amendment the original motion If the SNP motion had been voted against (because there would be no incentive for labour mps to vote for the SNP) , but the labour motion voted for (because SNP and some tories would have voted for that because they don’t agree with the government position) then the government would be voting to amend the labour motion The SNP basically having their opposition day hijacked because their original motion in effect would never be voted for in the main vote And that is why you have seen both labour and the speaker being really sheepish today In effect there would be no point in any 3rd party having an opposition day again.. which is why all the smaller parties went ballistic! I still don’t agree lol The Israel/Gaza situation is very polarising and the SNP motion was an extreme view that no ‘reasonable’ U.K. political party could support. Starmer is alleged to have bullied Hoyle, whereas the truth is now coming out that he only suggested that because of the very volatile and polarising nature of the subject, he should allow the widest possible debate and in the end the very British compromise of a middle ground was voted on, and carried. It’s all very well having rigid and immobile traditions and precedents, but this would preclude common sense taking over when it needs to. Wednesdays parliamentary action simply displayed that Britain is still great at working through difficult situations and coming out on the other side with a compromise that every can live with and which hurts no-one. What were the snp extreme veiws?i suspect it was the call to end collective punishment/slaughter or innocents Which effectively say it is happening and therefore implies the House believes there are ware crimes. Is implying war crimes,extreme veiws?as on official Houde position, I would accusing a country of war crimes is an extreme position. I get that it is individuals views. But the House has needs to meet a higher standard before making such an accusation. If not extreme it is a polarising view. And as I understand it, in oppo day, if the government amendment loses, the original text is automatically adopted. Labour are forced to pick a camp. Either back the Tory view or back the SNP view. Neither of which may be palatable. And IMO the apryoes knew this and laid the cards accordingly " and is impying war crimes extreme veiws?also putting the 2 other parties in an awkward position is politics | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" also putting the 2 other parties in an awkward position is politics " Exactly. It's their right, on opposition day, to squander an opportunity to do good and play semantics about a tragedy to score points for their own ends. It's politics. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" also putting the 2 other parties in an awkward position is politics Exactly. It's their right, on opposition day, to squander an opportunity to do good and play semantics about a tragedy to score points for their own ends. It's politics." Their motion would still be heard and voted on | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Fabio can you confirm my understanding that there wouldn't have been a vite in the tory ammendment and then the motion, but voting against the government effectively means voting for the original motion. This is my explainer to anyone who has asked me what happened yesterday ( funny enough a lot have.. apparently I am known as the political wonk in my friends group! lol) On a normal day of business what would happen is that the government would put their motion as the original motion for a vote . and the opposition can put up amendments to that motion… So the order would be a vote on conservative motion then vote on labour amendment (if any of those amendments are accepted then technically you would have another vote.. but this would go through on the nod) On opposition days… the roles are reversed so what normally happen by convention would have been votes on opposition motion first then government amendment Simple enough normally… What happened yesterday is that both labour and the speaker broke with normal convention/ettiquette… but one could not work without the other So the SNP put up their motion as “the opposition” and the conservatives amendment “as the government” But labour also asked the speaker to add an amendment in their name to the motion…. The speaker had to option not to call their amendment to vote.. as was advised by the most senior clerk If he had not… then normal rules apply.. and it would have been up to labour mps to decide if they wanted to vote on the SNP motion (the leader would have likely have ordered mps to abstain, but there probably would have been a huge labour backbencher rebellion and vote with the SNP) But he did….. So the order of votes would have been… snp on the original motion, then labour voting to the amendment the original motion If the SNP motion had been voted against (because there would be no incentive for labour mps to vote for the SNP) , but the labour motion voted for (because SNP and some tories would have voted for that because they don’t agree with the government position) then the government would be voting to amend the labour motion The SNP basically having their opposition day hijacked because their original motion in effect would never be voted for in the main vote And that is why you have seen both labour and the speaker being really sheepish today In effect there would be no point in any 3rd party having an opposition day again.. which is why all the smaller parties went ballistic! I still don’t agree lol The Israel/Gaza situation is very polarising and the SNP motion was an extreme view that no ‘reasonable’ U.K. political party could support. Starmer is alleged to have bullied Hoyle, whereas the truth is now coming out that he only suggested that because of the very volatile and polarising nature of the subject, he should allow the widest possible debate and in the end the very British compromise of a middle ground was voted on, and carried. It’s all very well having rigid and immobile traditions and precedents, but this would preclude common sense taking over when it needs to. Wednesdays parliamentary action simply displayed that Britain is still great at working through difficult situations and coming out on the other side with a compromise that every can live with and which hurts no-one. What were the snp extreme veiws?i suspect it was the call to end collective punishment/slaughter or innocents Which effectively say it is happening and therefore implies the House believes there are ware crimes. Is implying war crimes,extreme veiws?as on official Houde position, I would accusing a country of war crimes is an extreme position. I get that it is individuals views. But the House has needs to meet a higher standard before making such an accusation. If not extreme it is a polarising view. And as I understand it, in oppo day, if the government amendment loses, the original text is automatically adopted. Labour are forced to pick a camp. Either back the Tory view or back the SNP view. Neither of which may be palatable. And IMO the apryoes knew this and laid the cards accordingly and is impying war crimes extreme veiws?also putting the 2 other parties in an awkward position is politics " it's extreme in as much as only some people have it. I've explained more above. And others have articulated it better. I won't continue to repeat myself to a question already asked. Going after the other opposition on opposition day isn't really part of the deal afaik. If we are calling out convention than there's a case here to see SNP went outside of convention. Lib Dems did do this in 99. And the conservatives were allowed to table an amendment. Which also passed (LD was more targeted tbf. But it shows why we have a convention not a codified rule) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Fabio can you confirm my understanding that there wouldn't have been a vite in the tory ammendment and then the motion, but voting against the government effectively means voting for the original motion. This is my explainer to anyone who has asked me what happened yesterday ( funny enough a lot have.. apparently I am known as the political wonk in my friends group! lol) On a normal day of business what would happen is that the government would put their motion as the original motion for a vote . and the opposition can put up amendments to that motion… So the order would be a vote on conservative motion then vote on labour amendment (if any of those amendments are accepted then technically you would have another vote.. but this would go through on the nod) On opposition days… the roles are reversed so what normally happen by convention would have been votes on opposition motion first then government amendment Simple enough normally… What happened yesterday is that both labour and the speaker broke with normal convention/ettiquette… but one could not work without the other So the SNP put up their motion as “the opposition” and the conservatives amendment “as the government” But labour also asked the speaker to add an amendment in their name to the motion…. The speaker had to option not to call their amendment to vote.. as was advised by the most senior clerk If he had not… then normal rules apply.. and it would have been up to labour mps to decide if they wanted to vote on the SNP motion (the leader would have likely have ordered mps to abstain, but there probably would have been a huge labour backbencher rebellion and vote with the SNP) But he did….. So the order of votes would have been… snp on the original motion, then labour voting to the amendment the original motion If the SNP motion had been voted against (because there would be no incentive for labour mps to vote for the SNP) , but the labour motion voted for (because SNP and some tories would have voted for that because they don’t agree with the government position) then the government would be voting to amend the labour motion The SNP basically having their opposition day hijacked because their original motion in effect would never be voted for in the main vote And that is why you have seen both labour and the speaker being really sheepish today In effect there would be no point in any 3rd party having an opposition day again.. which is why all the smaller parties went ballistic! I still don’t agree lol The Israel/Gaza situation is very polarising and the SNP motion was an extreme view that no ‘reasonable’ U.K. political party could support. Starmer is alleged to have bullied Hoyle, whereas the truth is now coming out that he only suggested that because of the very volatile and polarising nature of the subject, he should allow the widest possible debate and in the end the very British compromise of a middle ground was voted on, and carried. It’s all very well having rigid and immobile traditions and precedents, but this would preclude common sense taking over when it needs to. Wednesdays parliamentary action simply displayed that Britain is still great at working through difficult situations and coming out on the other side with a compromise that every can live with and which hurts no-one. What were the snp extreme veiws?i suspect it was the call to end collective punishment/slaughter or innocents Which effectively say it is happening and therefore implies the House believes there are ware crimes. Is implying war crimes,extreme veiws?as on official Houde position, I would accusing a country of war crimes is an extreme position. I get that it is individuals views. But the House has needs to meet a higher standard before making such an accusation. If not extreme it is a polarising view. And as I understand it, in oppo day, if the government amendment loses, the original text is automatically adopted. Labour are forced to pick a camp. Either back the Tory view or back the SNP view. Neither of which may be palatable. And IMO the apryoes knew this and laid the cards accordingly and is impying war crimes extreme veiws?also putting the 2 other parties in an awkward position is politics it's extreme in as much as only some people have it. I've explained more above. And others have articulated it better. I won't continue to repeat myself to a question already asked. Going after the other opposition on opposition day isn't really part of the deal afaik. If we are calling out convention than there's a case here to see SNP went outside of convention. Lib Dems did do this in 99. And the conservatives were allowed to table an amendment. Which also passed (LD was more targeted tbf. But it shows why we have a convention not a codified rule) " got to disagree,when hospitals get bombed and also refugee camps id say most ppl in the real world would say its a war crime,so why cant labour or the tories ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" got to disagree,when hospitals get bombed and also refugee camps id say most ppl in the real world would say its a war crime,so why cant labour or the tories ?" Turn that around and ask why the SNP cannot acknowledge that Hamas is continuing their unambiguous war crimes of actually and literally indiscriminate attacks into residential areas of Israel as part of this "two party ceasefire". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" got to disagree,when hospitals get bombed and also refugee camps id say most ppl in the real world would say its a war crime,so why cant labour or the tories ? Turn that around and ask why the SNP cannot acknowledge that Hamas is continuing their unambiguous war crimes of actually and literally indiscriminate attacks into residential areas of Israel as part of this "two party ceasefire"." I dont think hamas are bombing hospitals ect and commiting war crimes,what they done on 7th oct was a crime against humanity and jm sure everyone agrèes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Fabio can you confirm my understanding that there wouldn't have been a vite in the tory ammendment and then the motion, but voting against the government effectively means voting for the original motion. This is my explainer to anyone who has asked me what happened yesterday ( funny enough a lot have.. apparently I am known as the political wonk in my friends group! lol) On a normal day of business what would happen is that the government would put their motion as the original motion for a vote . and the opposition can put up amendments to that motion… So the order would be a vote on conservative motion then vote on labour amendment (if any of those amendments are accepted then technically you would have another vote.. but this would go through on the nod) On opposition days… the roles are reversed so what normally happen by convention would have been votes on opposition motion first then government amendment Simple enough normally… What happened yesterday is that both labour and the speaker broke with normal convention/ettiquette… but one could not work without the other So the SNP put up their motion as “the opposition” and the conservatives amendment “as the government” But labour also asked the speaker to add an amendment in their name to the motion…. The speaker had to option not to call their amendment to vote.. as was advised by the most senior clerk If he had not… then normal rules apply.. and it would have been up to labour mps to decide if they wanted to vote on the SNP motion (the leader would have likely have ordered mps to abstain, but there probably would have been a huge labour backbencher rebellion and vote with the SNP) But he did….. So the order of votes would have been… snp on the original motion, then labour voting to the amendment the original motion If the SNP motion had been voted against (because there would be no incentive for labour mps to vote for the SNP) , but the labour motion voted for (because SNP and some tories would have voted for that because they don’t agree with the government position) then the government would be voting to amend the labour motion The SNP basically having their opposition day hijacked because their original motion in effect would never be voted for in the main vote And that is why you have seen both labour and the speaker being really sheepish today In effect there would be no point in any 3rd party having an opposition day again.. which is why all the smaller parties went ballistic! I still don’t agree lol The Israel/Gaza situation is very polarising and the SNP motion was an extreme view that no ‘reasonable’ U.K. political party could support. Starmer is alleged to have bullied Hoyle, whereas the truth is now coming out that he only suggested that because of the very volatile and polarising nature of the subject, he should allow the widest possible debate and in the end the very British compromise of a middle ground was voted on, and carried. It’s all very well having rigid and immobile traditions and precedents, but this would preclude common sense taking over when it needs to. Wednesdays parliamentary action simply displayed that Britain is still great at working through difficult situations and coming out on the other side with a compromise that every can live with and which hurts no-one. What were the snp extreme veiws?i suspect it was the call to end collective punishment/slaughter or innocents Which effectively say it is happening and therefore implies the House believes there are ware crimes. Is implying war crimes,extreme veiws?as on official Houde position, I would accusing a country of war crimes is an extreme position. I get that it is individuals views. But the House has needs to meet a higher standard before making such an accusation. If not extreme it is a polarising view. And as I understand it, in oppo day, if the government amendment loses, the original text is automatically adopted. Labour are forced to pick a camp. Either back the Tory view or back the SNP view. Neither of which may be palatable. And IMO the apryoes knew this and laid the cards accordingly and is impying war crimes extreme veiws?also putting the 2 other parties in an awkward position is politics it's extreme in as much as only some people have it. I've explained more above. And others have articulated it better. I won't continue to repeat myself to a question already asked. Going after the other opposition on opposition day isn't really part of the deal afaik. If we are calling out convention than there's a case here to see SNP went outside of convention. Lib Dems did do this in 99. And the conservatives were allowed to table an amendment. Which also passed (LD was more targeted tbf. But it shows why we have a convention not a codified rule) got to disagree,when hospitals get bombed and also refugee camps id say most ppl in the real world would say its a war crime,so why cant labour or the tories ?" until it's been proved in courts they should imo be careful in saying Israel ARE committing war crimes. They may say they may be, or they believe them to be. The wording was saying like asking whether you agree that dom viol is bad and that Mr Loverfun should stop hitting his wife. Yes or No? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Fabio can you confirm my understanding that there wouldn't have been a vite in the tory ammendment and then the motion, but voting against the government effectively means voting for the original motion. This is my explainer to anyone who has asked me what happened yesterday ( funny enough a lot have.. apparently I am known as the political wonk in my friends group! lol) On a normal day of business what would happen is that the government would put their motion as the original motion for a vote . and the opposition can put up amendments to that motion… So the order would be a vote on conservative motion then vote on labour amendment (if any of those amendments are accepted then technically you would have another vote.. but this would go through on the nod) On opposition days… the roles are reversed so what normally happen by convention would have been votes on opposition motion first then government amendment Simple enough normally… What happened yesterday is that both labour and the speaker broke with normal convention/ettiquette… but one could not work without the other So the SNP put up their motion as “the opposition” and the conservatives amendment “as the government” But labour also asked the speaker to add an amendment in their name to the motion…. The speaker had to option not to call their amendment to vote.. as was advised by the most senior clerk If he had not… then normal rules apply.. and it would have been up to labour mps to decide if they wanted to vote on the SNP motion (the leader would have likely have ordered mps to abstain, but there probably would have been a huge labour backbencher rebellion and vote with the SNP) But he did….. So the order of votes would have been… snp on the original motion, then labour voting to the amendment the original motion If the SNP motion had been voted against (because there would be no incentive for labour mps to vote for the SNP) , but the labour motion voted for (because SNP and some tories would have voted for that because they don’t agree with the government position) then the government would be voting to amend the labour motion The SNP basically having their opposition day hijacked because their original motion in effect would never be voted for in the main vote And that is why you have seen both labour and the speaker being really sheepish today In effect there would be no point in any 3rd party having an opposition day again.. which is why all the smaller parties went ballistic! I still don’t agree lol The Israel/Gaza situation is very polarising and the SNP motion was an extreme view that no ‘reasonable’ U.K. political party could support. Starmer is alleged to have bullied Hoyle, whereas the truth is now coming out that he only suggested that because of the very volatile and polarising nature of the subject, he should allow the widest possible debate and in the end the very British compromise of a middle ground was voted on, and carried. It’s all very well having rigid and immobile traditions and precedents, but this would preclude common sense taking over when it needs to. Wednesdays parliamentary action simply displayed that Britain is still great at working through difficult situations and coming out on the other side with a compromise that every can live with and which hurts no-one. What were the snp extreme veiws?" Read Hansard… The introduction to the SNP motion by Brendan O’Hara called for the end of collective punishment, sexual violence, extra-judicial murder (thus implying that factually this was happening) In a broader sense, the motion called for an “immediate ceasefire” (which of course is good) but did not spell out exactly how Hammas would be required to cease firing, only that Israel should. No motion can be singularly one-sided like that and expect not to be challenged. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" got to disagree,when hospitals get bombed and also refugee camps id say most ppl in the real world would say its a war crime,so why cant labour or the tories ? Turn that around and ask why the SNP cannot acknowledge that Hamas is continuing their unambiguous war crimes of actually and literally indiscriminate attacks into residential areas of Israel as part of this "two party ceasefire". I dont think hamas are bombing hospitals ect and commiting war crimes,what they done on 7th oct was a crime against humanity and jm sure everyone agrèes" A motion worded towards gaining support and a consensus in the house might have at least noted the part Hamas have had and called for the hostages to be released but the motion wasn't intended for that, the war in Gaza instead being used as a way to hurt Labour.. Which is politics.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Fabio can you confirm my understanding that there wouldn't have been a vite in the tory ammendment and then the motion, but voting against the government effectively means voting for the original motion. This is my explainer to anyone who has asked me what happened yesterday ( funny enough a lot have.. apparently I am known as the political wonk in my friends group! lol) On a normal day of business what would happen is that the government would put their motion as the original motion for a vote . and the opposition can put up amendments to that motion… So the order would be a vote on conservative motion then vote on labour amendment (if any of those amendments are accepted then technically you would have another vote.. but this would go through on the nod) On opposition days… the roles are reversed so what normally happen by convention would have been votes on opposition motion first then government amendment Simple enough normally… What happened yesterday is that both labour and the speaker broke with normal convention/ettiquette… but one could not work without the other So the SNP put up their motion as “the opposition” and the conservatives amendment “as the government” But labour also asked the speaker to add an amendment in their name to the motion…. The speaker had to option not to call their amendment to vote.. as was advised by the most senior clerk If he had not… then normal rules apply.. and it would have been up to labour mps to decide if they wanted to vote on the SNP motion (the leader would have likely have ordered mps to abstain, but there probably would have been a huge labour backbencher rebellion and vote with the SNP) But he did….. So the order of votes would have been… snp on the original motion, then labour voting to the amendment the original motion If the SNP motion had been voted against (because there would be no incentive for labour mps to vote for the SNP) , but the labour motion voted for (because SNP and some tories would have voted for that because they don’t agree with the government position) then the government would be voting to amend the labour motion The SNP basically having their opposition day hijacked because their original motion in effect would never be voted for in the main vote And that is why you have seen both labour and the speaker being really sheepish today In effect there would be no point in any 3rd party having an opposition day again.. which is why all the smaller parties went ballistic! I still don’t agree lol The Israel/Gaza situation is very polarising and the SNP motion was an extreme view that no ‘reasonable’ U.K. political party could support. Starmer is alleged to have bullied Hoyle, whereas the truth is now coming out that he only suggested that because of the very volatile and polarising nature of the subject, he should allow the widest possible debate and in the end the very British compromise of a middle ground was voted on, and carried. It’s all very well having rigid and immobile traditions and precedents, but this would preclude common sense taking over when it needs to. Wednesdays parliamentary action simply displayed that Britain is still great at working through difficult situations and coming out on the other side with a compromise that every can live with and which hurts no-one. What were the snp extreme veiws? Read Hansard… The introduction to the SNP motion by Brendan O’Hara called for the end of collective punishment, sexual violence, extra-judicial murder (thus implying that factually this was happening) In a broader sense, the motion called for an “immediate ceasefire” (which of course is good) but did not spell out exactly how Hammas would be required to cease firing, only that Israel should. No motion can be singularly one-sided like that and expect not to be challenged. " Was it about the motion, or was it about labour taking the SNP day for debate and hijacking it so that labour M.Ps wouldn't need to revolt, and vote with the SNP. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" got to disagree,when hospitals get bombed and also refugee camps id say most ppl in the real world would say its a war crime,so why cant labour or the tories ? Turn that around and ask why the SNP cannot acknowledge that Hamas is continuing their unambiguous war crimes of actually and literally indiscriminate attacks into residential areas of Israel as part of this "two party ceasefire". I dont think hamas are bombing hospitals ect and commiting war crimes,what they done on 7th oct was a crime against humanity and jm sure everyone agrèes" Hammas continue to lob rockets and missiles into civilian settlements. Asking Israel to permanently ceasefire is one thing, getting Hammas (who are sworn to remove Israel from the map) to permanently ceasefire is something quite different. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" got to disagree,when hospitals get bombed and also refugee camps id say most ppl in the real world would say its a war crime,so why cant labour or the tories ? Turn that around and ask why the SNP cannot acknowledge that Hamas is continuing their unambiguous war crimes of actually and literally indiscriminate attacks into residential areas of Israel as part of this "two party ceasefire". I dont think hamas are bombing hospitals ect and commiting war crimes,what they done on 7th oct was a crime against humanity and jm sure everyone agrèes" They are actively and currently firing rockets into civilian areas of Israel (not disputed territories). That is a clear cut war crime. Now the scale of the victims might be smaller, but in terms of definitions, it is one and it is currently happening. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" got to disagree,when hospitals get bombed and also refugee camps id say most ppl in the real world would say its a war crime,so why cant labour or the tories ? Turn that around and ask why the SNP cannot acknowledge that Hamas is continuing their unambiguous war crimes of actually and literally indiscriminate attacks into residential areas of Israel as part of this "two party ceasefire". I dont think hamas are bombing hospitals ect and commiting war crimes,what they done on 7th oct was a crime against humanity and jm sure everyone agrèes They are actively and currently firing rockets into civilian areas of Israel (not disputed territories). That is a clear cut war crime. Now the scale of the victims might be smaller, but in terms of definitions, it is one and it is currently happening." May I add the rockets are fired by people in civilian clothes not combats, and if they are killed in retaliation they are classed as civilian on the death cert. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Fabio can you confirm my understanding that there wouldn't have been a vite in the tory ammendment and then the motion, but voting against the government effectively means voting for the original motion. This is my explainer to anyone who has asked me what happened yesterday ( funny enough a lot have.. apparently I am known as the political wonk in my friends group! lol) On a normal day of business what would happen is that the government would put their motion as the original motion for a vote . and the opposition can put up amendments to that motion… So the order would be a vote on conservative motion then vote on labour amendment (if any of those amendments are accepted then technically you would have another vote.. but this would go through on the nod) On opposition days… the roles are reversed so what normally happen by convention would have been votes on opposition motion first then government amendment Simple enough normally… What happened yesterday is that both labour and the speaker broke with normal convention/ettiquette… but one could not work without the other So the SNP put up their motion as “the opposition” and the conservatives amendment “as the government” But labour also asked the speaker to add an amendment in their name to the motion…. The speaker had to option not to call their amendment to vote.. as was advised by the most senior clerk If he had not… then normal rules apply.. and it would have been up to labour mps to decide if they wanted to vote on the SNP motion (the leader would have likely have ordered mps to abstain, but there probably would have been a huge labour backbencher rebellion and vote with the SNP) But he did….. So the order of votes would have been… snp on the original motion, then labour voting to the amendment the original motion If the SNP motion had been voted against (because there would be no incentive for labour mps to vote for the SNP) , but the labour motion voted for (because SNP and some tories would have voted for that because they don’t agree with the government position) then the government would be voting to amend the labour motion The SNP basically having their opposition day hijacked because their original motion in effect would never be voted for in the main vote And that is why you have seen both labour and the speaker being really sheepish today In effect there would be no point in any 3rd party having an opposition day again.. which is why all the smaller parties went ballistic! I still don’t agree lol The Israel/Gaza situation is very polarising and the SNP motion was an extreme view that no ‘reasonable’ U.K. political party could support. Starmer is alleged to have bullied Hoyle, whereas the truth is now coming out that he only suggested that because of the very volatile and polarising nature of the subject, he should allow the widest possible debate and in the end the very British compromise of a middle ground was voted on, and carried. It’s all very well having rigid and immobile traditions and precedents, but this would preclude common sense taking over when it needs to. Wednesdays parliamentary action simply displayed that Britain is still great at working through difficult situations and coming out on the other side with a compromise that every can live with and which hurts no-one. What were the snp extreme veiws? Read Hansard… The introduction to the SNP motion by Brendan O’Hara called for the end of collective punishment, sexual violence, extra-judicial murder (thus implying that factually this was happening) In a broader sense, the motion called for an “immediate ceasefire” (which of course is good) but did not spell out exactly how Hammas would be required to cease firing, only that Israel should. No motion can be singularly one-sided like that and expect not to be challenged. Was it about the motion, or was it about labour taking the SNP day for debate and hijacking it so that labour M.Ps wouldn't need to revolt, and vote with the SNP." I don't get why itbwas hijacked. The debate happened. The issue, as you suggest, is labour MPs weren't forced to vote. But arguing that can be argued that it makes it look like SNP made oppo day about labours position not then government. Imagine if labour tabled "The house believes that Scottish independence is a good thing and that it would be right to allow it of Scotland gave all oil rights to tej UK". Tories anmend with "the house believes Scottish independence is a bad thing" SNP would be screwed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Imagine if labour tabled "The house believes that Scottish independence is a good thing and that it would be right to allow it of Scotland gave all oil rights to tej UK". Tories anmend with "the house believes Scottish independence is a bad thing" SNP would be screwed." Why? The SNP could just refuse to take part in the debate, like they did on Wednesday. MPs aren't forced to vote on every issue, they can abstain if they want to, which is why allowing Wednesday's Labour amendment was such a bad idea. It gave Labour MPs a get-out clause to avoid embarrassment, something which the SNP are not given on Labour opposition days. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Fabio can you confirm my understanding that there wouldn't have been a vite in the tory ammendment and then the motion, but voting against the government effectively means voting for the original motion. This is my explainer to anyone who has asked me what happened yesterday ( funny enough a lot have.. apparently I am known as the political wonk in my friends group! lol) On a normal day of business what would happen is that the government would put their motion as the original motion for a vote . and the opposition can put up amendments to that motion… So the order would be a vote on conservative motion then vote on labour amendment (if any of those amendments are accepted then technically you would have another vote.. but this would go through on the nod) On opposition days… the roles are reversed so what normally happen by convention would have been votes on opposition motion first then government amendment Simple enough normally… What happened yesterday is that both labour and the speaker broke with normal convention/ettiquette… but one could not work without the other So the SNP put up their motion as “the opposition” and the conservatives amendment “as the government” But labour also asked the speaker to add an amendment in their name to the motion…. The speaker had to option not to call their amendment to vote.. as was advised by the most senior clerk If he had not… then normal rules apply.. and it would have been up to labour mps to decide if they wanted to vote on the SNP motion (the leader would have likely have ordered mps to abstain, but there probably would have been a huge labour backbencher rebellion and vote with the SNP) But he did….. So the order of votes would have been… snp on the original motion, then labour voting to the amendment the original motion If the SNP motion had been voted against (because there would be no incentive for labour mps to vote for the SNP) , but the labour motion voted for (because SNP and some tories would have voted for that because they don’t agree with the government position) then the government would be voting to amend the labour motion The SNP basically having their opposition day hijacked because their original motion in effect would never be voted for in the main vote And that is why you have seen both labour and the speaker being really sheepish today In effect there would be no point in any 3rd party having an opposition day again.. which is why all the smaller parties went ballistic! I still don’t agree lol The Israel/Gaza situation is very polarising and the SNP motion was an extreme view that no ‘reasonable’ U.K. political party could support. Starmer is alleged to have bullied Hoyle, whereas the truth is now coming out that he only suggested that because of the very volatile and polarising nature of the subject, he should allow the widest possible debate and in the end the very British compromise of a middle ground was voted on, and carried. It’s all very well having rigid and immobile traditions and precedents, but this would preclude common sense taking over when it needs to. Wednesdays parliamentary action simply displayed that Britain is still great at working through difficult situations and coming out on the other side with a compromise that every can live with and which hurts no-one. What were the snp extreme veiws? Read Hansard… The introduction to the SNP motion by Brendan O’Hara called for the end of collective punishment, sexual violence, extra-judicial murder (thus implying that factually this was happening) In a broader sense, the motion called for an “immediate ceasefire” (which of course is good) but did not spell out exactly how Hammas would be required to cease firing, only that Israel should. No motion can be singularly one-sided like that and expect not to be challenged. Was it about the motion, or was it about labour taking the SNP day for debate and hijacking it so that labour M.Ps wouldn't need to revolt, and vote with the SNP.I don't get why itbwas hijacked. The debate happened. The issue, as you suggest, is labour MPs weren't forced to vote. But arguing that can be argued that it makes it look like SNP made oppo day about labours position not then government. Imagine if labour tabled "The house believes that Scottish independence is a good thing and that it would be right to allow it of Scotland gave all oil rights to tej UK". Tories anmend with "the house believes Scottish independence is a bad thing" SNP would be screwed. " It was hijacked because it was the SNPs day to lobby the government which are the tories, not labour so labour putting forward a motion as well is not the way and the speaker was told that fact. But he went ahead anyway giving labour M.Ps a chance to vote with labour, instead of the SNP in short labour had no business doing what it did. This also caused or gave an excuse you choose for the tories to withdraw leaving there position on Gaza unchanged. The people who have been wronged here is the part of the electorate that were calling for a ceasefire, this farse is how they got out of it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Fabio can you confirm my understanding that there wouldn't have been a vite in the tory ammendment and then the motion, but voting against the government effectively means voting for the original motion. This is my explainer to anyone who has asked me what happened yesterday ( funny enough a lot have.. apparently I am known as the political wonk in my friends group! lol) On a normal day of business what would happen is that the government would put their motion as the original motion for a vote . and the opposition can put up amendments to that motion… So the order would be a vote on conservative motion then vote on labour amendment (if any of those amendments are accepted then technically you would have another vote.. but this would go through on the nod) On opposition days… the roles are reversed so what normally happen by convention would have been votes on opposition motion first then government amendment Simple enough normally… What happened yesterday is that both labour and the speaker broke with normal convention/ettiquette… but one could not work without the other So the SNP put up their motion as “the opposition” and the conservatives amendment “as the government” But labour also asked the speaker to add an amendment in their name to the motion…. The speaker had to option not to call their amendment to vote.. as was advised by the most senior clerk If he had not… then normal rules apply.. and it would have been up to labour mps to decide if they wanted to vote on the SNP motion (the leader would have likely have ordered mps to abstain, but there probably would have been a huge labour backbencher rebellion and vote with the SNP) But he did….. So the order of votes would have been… snp on the original motion, then labour voting to the amendment the original motion If the SNP motion had been voted against (because there would be no incentive for labour mps to vote for the SNP) , but the labour motion voted for (because SNP and some tories would have voted for that because they don’t agree with the government position) then the government would be voting to amend the labour motion The SNP basically having their opposition day hijacked because their original motion in effect would never be voted for in the main vote And that is why you have seen both labour and the speaker being really sheepish today In effect there would be no point in any 3rd party having an opposition day again.. which is why all the smaller parties went ballistic! I still don’t agree lol The Israel/Gaza situation is very polarising and the SNP motion was an extreme view that no ‘reasonable’ U.K. political party could support. Starmer is alleged to have bullied Hoyle, whereas the truth is now coming out that he only suggested that because of the very volatile and polarising nature of the subject, he should allow the widest possible debate and in the end the very British compromise of a middle ground was voted on, and carried. It’s all very well having rigid and immobile traditions and precedents, but this would preclude common sense taking over when it needs to. Wednesdays parliamentary action simply displayed that Britain is still great at working through difficult situations and coming out on the other side with a compromise that every can live with and which hurts no-one. What were the snp extreme veiws? Read Hansard… The introduction to the SNP motion by Brendan O’Hara called for the end of collective punishment, sexual violence, extra-judicial murder (thus implying that factually this was happening) In a broader sense, the motion called for an “immediate ceasefire” (which of course is good) but did not spell out exactly how Hammas would be required to cease firing, only that Israel should. No motion can be singularly one-sided like that and expect not to be challenged. Was it about the motion, or was it about labour taking the SNP day for debate and hijacking it so that labour M.Ps wouldn't need to revolt, and vote with the SNP.I don't get why itbwas hijacked. The debate happened. The issue, as you suggest, is labour MPs weren't forced to vote. But arguing that can be argued that it makes it look like SNP made oppo day about labours position not then government. Imagine if labour tabled "The house believes that Scottish independence is a good thing and that it would be right to allow it of Scotland gave all oil rights to tej UK". Tories anmend with "the house believes Scottish independence is a bad thing" SNP would be screwed. It was hijacked because it was the SNPs day to lobby the government which are the tories, not labour so labour putting forward a motion as well is not the way and the speaker was told that fact. But he went ahead anyway giving labour M.Ps a chance to vote with labour, instead of the SNP in short labour had no business doing what it did. This also caused or gave an excuse you choose for the tories to withdraw leaving there position on Gaza unchanged. The people who have been wronged here is the part of the electorate that were calling for a ceasefire, this farse is how they got out of it." "which means an immediate stop to the fighting and a ceasefire that lasts and is observed by all sides". There are caveats about hamas behaviour after this. But the ceasefire voice is heard. I agree that oppo day is when there is a chance to lobby the government. The argument is that the nature of the motion was more to split labour than to lobby the Tories. Some may agree with this view. Some may disagrew with that. Imo all sides are playing games and trying to win pointsbor protect votes. Which given the nature of the subject is awful. Because both the SNP and Tories have tables amendments to other oppositions motions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was hijacked because both parties real leaders are in Tel-Aviv. Just like both parties in the USA. The UK is just as occupied as Palestine is. " welcome back Suella. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" got to disagree,when hospitals get bombed and also refugee camps id say most ppl in the real world would say its a war crime,so why cant labour or the tories ? Turn that around and ask why the SNP cannot acknowledge that Hamas is continuing their unambiguous war crimes of actually and literally indiscriminate attacks into residential areas of Israel as part of this "two party ceasefire". I dont think hamas are bombing hospitals ect and commiting war crimes,what they done on 7th oct was a crime against humanity and jm sure everyone agrèes They are actively and currently firing rockets into civilian areas of Israel (not disputed territories). That is a clear cut war crime. Now the scale of the victims might be smaller, but in terms of definitions, it is one and it is currently happening. May I add the rockets are fired by people in civilian clothes not combats, and if they are killed in retaliation they are classed as civilian on the death cert." The 70000 Children and women between dead and maimed were firing rockets? Did't the jews in WW2 and the French fight the Nazi Germans in civilian clothes? Looks like you're justifying the Holocaust. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was hijacked because both parties real leaders are in Tel-Aviv. Just like both parties in the USA. The UK is just as occupied as Palestine is. welcome back Suella. " Thank you Margaret | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" got to disagree,when hospitals get bombed and also refugee camps id say most ppl in the real world would say its a war crime,so why cant labour or the tories ? Turn that around and ask why the SNP cannot acknowledge that Hamas is continuing their unambiguous war crimes of actually and literally indiscriminate attacks into residential areas of Israel as part of this "two party ceasefire". I dont think hamas are bombing hospitals ect and commiting war crimes,what they done on 7th oct was a crime against humanity and jm sure everyone agrèes They are actively and currently firing rockets into civilian areas of Israel (not disputed territories). That is a clear cut war crime. Now the scale of the victims might be smaller, but in terms of definitions, it is one and it is currently happening. May I add the rockets are fired by people in civilian clothes not combats, and if they are killed in retaliation they are classed as civilian on the death cert. The 70000 Children and women between dead and maimed were firing rockets? Did't the jews in WW2 and the French fight the Nazi Germans in civilian clothes? Looks like you're justifying the Holocaust." How do you distinguish between a civilian and a combatant.? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was hijacked because both parties real leaders are in Tel-Aviv. Just like both parties in the USA. The UK is just as occupied as Palestine is. welcome back Suella. Thank you Margaret " been called right wing. Finally. I feel like I've made it.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" got to disagree,when hospitals get bombed and also refugee camps id say most ppl in the real world would say its a war crime,so why cant labour or the tories ? Turn that around and ask why the SNP cannot acknowledge that Hamas is continuing their unambiguous war crimes of actually and literally indiscriminate attacks into residential areas of Israel as part of this "two party ceasefire". I dont think hamas are bombing hospitals ect and commiting war crimes,what they done on 7th oct was a crime against humanity and jm sure everyone agrèes They are actively and currently firing rockets into civilian areas of Israel (not disputed territories). That is a clear cut war crime. Now the scale of the victims might be smaller, but in terms of definitions, it is one and it is currently happening. May I add the rockets are fired by people in civilian clothes not combats, and if they are killed in retaliation they are classed as civilian on the death cert. The 70000 Children and women between dead and maimed were firing rockets? Did't the jews in WW2 and the French fight the Nazi Germans in civilian clothes? Looks like you're justifying the Holocaust. How do you distinguish between a civilian and a combatant.?" Is that you're excuse for a genocide? The many helicopters that emptied their bellies on every car and moving human being on the 7th of October couldn't distinguish between Israelis and Hamas militants. They ended up killing 100's of Israelis. We know for sure the pilots weren't civilians. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was hijacked because both parties real leaders are in Tel-Aviv. Just like both parties in the USA. The UK is just as occupied as Palestine is. welcome back Suella. Thank you Margaret been called right wing. Finally. I feel like I've made it.
"Been called a Hindu. Finally next time someone call me "Pedo supporter" I don't get banned from the forum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" got to disagree,when hospitals get bombed and also refugee camps id say most ppl in the real world would say its a war crime,so why cant labour or the tories ? Turn that around and ask why the SNP cannot acknowledge that Hamas is continuing their unambiguous war crimes of actually and literally indiscriminate attacks into residential areas of Israel as part of this "two party ceasefire". I dont think hamas are bombing hospitals ect and commiting war crimes,what they done on 7th oct was a crime against humanity and jm sure everyone agrèes They are actively and currently firing rockets into civilian areas of Israel (not disputed territories). That is a clear cut war crime. Now the scale of the victims might be smaller, but in terms of definitions, it is one and it is currently happening. May I add the rockets are fired by people in civilian clothes not combats, and if they are killed in retaliation they are classed as civilian on the death cert. The 70000 Children and women between dead and maimed were firing rockets? Did't the jews in WW2 and the French fight the Nazi Germans in civilian clothes? Looks like you're justifying the Holocaust. How do you distinguish between a civilian and a combatant.? Is that you're excuse for a genocide? The many helicopters that emptied their bellies on every car and moving human being on the 7th of October couldn't distinguish between Israelis and Hamas militants. They ended up killing 100's of Israelis. We know for sure the pilots weren't civilians. " If Hamas fighters are in civilian clothes and they are maimed or killed they are classed as civilian, on the death cert the coroner will state they were civilian because they were in civilian clothes even thou they may of been combatants. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" got to disagree,when hospitals get bombed and also refugee camps id say most ppl in the real world would say its a war crime,so why cant labour or the tories ? Turn that around and ask why the SNP cannot acknowledge that Hamas is continuing their unambiguous war crimes of actually and literally indiscriminate attacks into residential areas of Israel as part of this "two party ceasefire". I dont think hamas are bombing hospitals ect and commiting war crimes,what they done on 7th oct was a crime against humanity and jm sure everyone agrèes They are actively and currently firing rockets into civilian areas of Israel (not disputed territories). That is a clear cut war crime. Now the scale of the victims might be smaller, but in terms of definitions, it is one and it is currently happening. May I add the rockets are fired by people in civilian clothes not combats, and if they are killed in retaliation they are classed as civilian on the death cert. The 70000 Children and women between dead and maimed were firing rockets? Did't the jews in WW2 and the French fight the Nazi Germans in civilian clothes? Looks like you're justifying the Holocaust. How do you distinguish between a civilian and a combatant.? Is that you're excuse for a genocide? The many helicopters that emptied their bellies on every car and moving human being on the 7th of October couldn't distinguish between Israelis and Hamas militants. They ended up killing 100's of Israelis. We know for sure the pilots weren't civilians. If Hamas fighters are in civilian clothes and they are maimed or killed they are classed as civilian, on the death cert the coroner will state they were civilian because they were in civilian clothes even thou they may of been combatants." You wouldn't make such silly justifications for genocide if it were people you consider human beings that are being mass murdered. Basically according to your logic the 70000 Women and Children between dead and maimed (not counting those under the rubble) is totally justified? Even we assume every adult male in Gaza is a Combatant. Is that justified? 99% collateral damage is justified? If the 99% were British? Isn't that the ideology of suicide bombers? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" got to disagree,when hospitals get bombed and also refugee camps id say most ppl in the real world would say its a war crime,so why cant labour or the tories ? Turn that around and ask why the SNP cannot acknowledge that Hamas is continuing their unambiguous war crimes of actually and literally indiscriminate attacks into residential areas of Israel as part of this "two party ceasefire". I dont think hamas are bombing hospitals ect and commiting war crimes,what they done on 7th oct was a crime against humanity and jm sure everyone agrèes They are actively and currently firing rockets into civilian areas of Israel (not disputed territories). That is a clear cut war crime. Now the scale of the victims might be smaller, but in terms of definitions, it is one and it is currently happening. May I add the rockets are fired by people in civilian clothes not combats, and if they are killed in retaliation they are classed as civilian on the death cert. The 70000 Children and women between dead and maimed were firing rockets? Did't the jews in WW2 and the French fight the Nazi Germans in civilian clothes? Looks like you're justifying the Holocaust. How do you distinguish between a civilian and a combatant.? Is that you're excuse for a genocide? The many helicopters that emptied their bellies on every car and moving human being on the 7th of October couldn't distinguish between Israelis and Hamas militants. They ended up killing 100's of Israelis. We know for sure the pilots weren't civilians. If Hamas fighters are in civilian clothes and they are maimed or killed they are classed as civilian, on the death cert the coroner will state they were civilian because they were in civilian clothes even thou they may of been combatants. You wouldn't make such silly justifications for genocide if it were people you consider human beings that are being mass murdered. Basically according to your logic the 70000 Women and Children between dead and maimed (not counting those under the rubble) is totally justified? Even we assume every adult male in Gaza is a Combatant. Is that justified? 99% collateral damage is justified? If the 99% were British? Isn't that the ideology of suicide bombers? " I have never said it is justified. one side want hostages back and the other side don't want to give the hostages back. Until the hostages are released I can not see weekend protests or debates in the house is going to change the fact, no one gets left behind. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" got to disagree,when hospitals get bombed and also refugee camps id say most ppl in the real world would say its a war crime,so why cant labour or the tories ? Turn that around and ask why the SNP cannot acknowledge that Hamas is continuing their unambiguous war crimes of actually and literally indiscriminate attacks into residential areas of Israel as part of this "two party ceasefire". I dont think hamas are bombing hospitals ect and commiting war crimes,what they done on 7th oct was a crime against humanity and jm sure everyone agrèes They are actively and currently firing rockets into civilian areas of Israel (not disputed territories). That is a clear cut war crime. Now the scale of the victims might be smaller, but in terms of definitions, it is one and it is currently happening. May I add the rockets are fired by people in civilian clothes not combats, and if they are killed in retaliation they are classed as civilian on the death cert. The 70000 Children and women between dead and maimed were firing rockets? Did't the jews in WW2 and the French fight the Nazi Germans in civilian clothes? Looks like you're justifying the Holocaust. How do you distinguish between a civilian and a combatant.? Is that you're excuse for a genocide? The many helicopters that emptied their bellies on every car and moving human being on the 7th of October couldn't distinguish between Israelis and Hamas militants. They ended up killing 100's of Israelis. We know for sure the pilots weren't civilians. If Hamas fighters are in civilian clothes and they are maimed or killed they are classed as civilian, on the death cert the coroner will state they were civilian because they were in civilian clothes even thou they may of been combatants. You wouldn't make such silly justifications for genocide if it were people you consider human beings that are being mass murdered. Basically according to your logic the 70000 Women and Children between dead and maimed (not counting those under the rubble) is totally justified? Even we assume every adult male in Gaza is a Combatant. Is that justified? 99% collateral damage is justified? If the 99% were British? Isn't that the ideology of suicide bombers? I have never said it is justified. one side want hostages back and the other side don't want to give the hostages back. Until the hostages are released I can not see weekend protests or debates in the house is going to change the fact, no one gets left behind." Yeah right, you're not justifying genocide. You're just saying Israeli Army can't distinguish between combatants and civilians and therefore it's not their fault they are committing a genocide. There are different ways of saying the same thing. Hamas released hostages before. It didn't stop Israel from killing 1000's of palestinians every year. It didn't stop them from grabbing more lands and making more Palestinians refugees in their own land. It didn't stop Israel from jailing 1000's more Palestinian Children and women. It didn't stop Israel from turning mosques into pubs of a war zone inside occupied Palestine. It didn't end the Open air centration camp/Prison called Gaza. It didn't end the ethnic cleansing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was hijacked because both parties real leaders are in Tel-Aviv. Just like both parties in the USA. The UK is just as occupied as Palestine is. " So... Your very first post upon coming back: The evil Jews secretly run the world and pull the strings of their US and UK puppets. You're obsessed. Why? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" got to disagree,when hospitals get bombed and also refugee camps id say most ppl in the real world would say its a war crime,so why cant labour or the tories ? Turn that around and ask why the SNP cannot acknowledge that Hamas is continuing their unambiguous war crimes of actually and literally indiscriminate attacks into residential areas of Israel as part of this "two party ceasefire". I dont think hamas are bombing hospitals ect and commiting war crimes,what they done on 7th oct was a crime against humanity and jm sure everyone agrèes They are actively and currently firing rockets into civilian areas of Israel (not disputed territories). That is a clear cut war crime. Now the scale of the victims might be smaller, but in terms of definitions, it is one and it is currently happening. May I add the rockets are fired by people in civilian clothes not combats, and if they are killed in retaliation they are classed as civilian on the death cert. The 70000 Children and women between dead and maimed were firing rockets? Did't the jews in WW2 and the French fight the Nazi Germans in civilian clothes? Looks like you're justifying the Holocaust. How do you distinguish between a civilian and a combatant.? Is that you're excuse for a genocide? The many helicopters that emptied their bellies on every car and moving human being on the 7th of October couldn't distinguish between Israelis and Hamas militants. They ended up killing 100's of Israelis. We know for sure the pilots weren't civilians. If Hamas fighters are in civilian clothes and they are maimed or killed they are classed as civilian, on the death cert the coroner will state they were civilian because they were in civilian clothes even thou they may of been combatants. You wouldn't make such silly justifications for genocide if it were people you consider human beings that are being mass murdered. Basically according to your logic the 70000 Women and Children between dead and maimed (not counting those under the rubble) is totally justified? Even we assume every adult male in Gaza is a Combatant. Is that justified? 99% collateral damage is justified? If the 99% were British? Isn't that the ideology of suicide bombers? I have never said it is justified. one side want hostages back and the other side don't want to give the hostages back. Until the hostages are released I can not see weekend protests or debates in the house is going to change the fact, no one gets left behind. Yeah right, you're not justifying genocide. You're just saying Israeli Army can't distinguish between combatants and civilians and therefore it's not their fault they are committing a genocide. There are different ways of saying the same thing. Hamas released hostages before. It didn't stop Israel from killing 1000's of palestinians every year. It didn't stop them from grabbing more lands and making more Palestinians refugees in their own land. It didn't stop Israel from jailing 1000's more Palestinian Children and women. It didn't stop Israel from turning mosques into pubs of a war zone inside occupied Palestine. It didn't end the Open air centration camp/Prison called Gaza. It didn't end the ethnic cleansing. " Hamas are holding hostages, Israel are holding prisoners in known locations, were are the hostages being held or are they even alive, no one gets left behind. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was hijacked because both parties real leaders are in Tel-Aviv. Just like both parties in the USA. The UK is just as occupied as Palestine is. So... Your very first post upon coming back: The evil Jews secretly run the world and pull the strings of their US and UK puppets. You're obsessed. Why?" I never mentioned Jews. You did. Israel is a nationality. Not a race or a religion. There are races from alover the world in Israel. You're lucky if Israelis have 1% ancient Israelites DNA. Palestinians have much much more ancient Israeli DNA than Israelis. The Pashtuns in Afghanistan have more ancient DNA than Israelis. If by Jew you mean, followers of the Jewish religion, half the Israelis are Atheists, and Tel-Aviv is the World's capital of LGBTQIA+. That's anti Jewish. On top of that there are 100000's of Jews who are protesting against Israel. Besides all that, what I am saying is as clear as the sun. If you chose to twist it to make saying "The sun exist" a crime to say, you're just offended by facts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was hijacked because both parties real leaders are in Tel-Aviv. Just like both parties in the USA. The UK is just as occupied as Palestine is. So... Your very first post upon coming back: The evil Jews secretly run the world and pull the strings of their US and UK puppets. You're obsessed. Why? I never mentioned Jews. You did. Israel is a nationality. Not a race or a religion. There are races from alover the world in Israel. You're lucky if Israelis have 1% ancient Israelites DNA. Palestinians have much much more ancient Israeli DNA than Israelis. The Pashtuns in Afghanistan have more ancient DNA than Israelis. If by Jew you mean, followers of the Jewish religion, half the Israelis are Atheists, and Tel-Aviv is the World's capital of LGBTQIA+. That's anti Jewish. On top of that there are 100000's of Jews who are protesting against Israel. Besides all that, what I am saying is as clear as the sun. If you chose to twist it to make saying "The sun exist" a crime to say, you're just offended by facts. " Oh. So you meant the Muslim Arabs in Tel Aviv. Cool. Apologies for misunderstanding your intent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are some people who think that they have very cleverly sidestepped being able to be labelled anti-Semitic by deciding to criticise the State of Israel and/or Zionists. It is absolutely fine to criticise either. Both have many flaws. But that's not really what is happening. When one tries to de-legitimise Jews by repeating the false narrative about them being mass European converts... When one conveniently forgets about Eastern Jews and blames them or "Zionists" for their expulsion from pretty much the entire Arab and Middle Eastern world... When one proclaims that Jews were happier living as dhimmis and suggests that as a desirable outcome for them... When one has clearly swallowed anti-Semitic tropes (which are prevalent in anti-Semitic subcultures and arguments) hook, line and sinker, then regurgitates them... Then it is crystal clear what we're dealing with. The trope about Jews controlling politicians, the economy, the weather (!), etc. have been around for centuries. They are the fuel with which pogroms have been sustained in countless countries. You may be able to stay within the law with many of these statements. You may even be able to stay within forum rules. But you will be known by many for what you are, however cleverly you phrase yourself, or even if you actually believe your own lies. Even if you believe them, knowing that they fuel actual violence against Jews should be a reason to pause and think twice about repeating them. Someone who dredges up the Holocaust cannot be ignorant of the horrors that follow in the wake of such propaganda. Many views expressed in many threads are abhorrent, unethical, misogynist, homophobic and downright evil. There are people who pollute the environment that accepts them with gross intolerance, who abuse the very liberal mindset that allows them to exist amongst those people. These people believe in absoluteness of their own rights whilst seeking to trample the rights of others. Who seek to enjoy the same freedoms that they decry as decadent and evil. We don't buy it." Nobody is selling anything to you. Mr Self proclaimed spokesman for the ICJ. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was hijacked because both parties real leaders are in Tel-Aviv. Just like both parties in the USA. The UK is just as occupied as Palestine is. " Been quiet without you here! McDonald’s profits increased too. Now do you agree with 13yr old girls being married to adult males often many years older than them in Iran? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Been quiet without you here! McDonald’s profits increased too. Now do you agree with 13yr old girls being married to adult males often many years older than them in Iran?" Do you remember when you told us to let you know if you were picking on people? Well you are. It's unfair to summarise an entire thread in one sentence and then follow someone around the forum, constantly asking them to answer the question. Let it go. He'll soon say something else you can disagree with. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Been quiet without you here! McDonald’s profits increased too. Now do you agree with 13yr old girls being married to adult males often many years older than them in Iran? Do you remember when you told us to let you know if you were picking on people? Well you are. It's unfair to summarise an entire thread in one sentence and then follow someone around the forum, constantly asking them to answer the question. Let it go. He'll soon say something else you can disagree with." I am not picking on him because what he has said over multiple threads is abhorrent, although maybe I should? I am trying to get an answer to my question! P. S. Whose following him? I posted in this thread first and will likely post in others before or after. Hardly following. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Been quiet without you here! McDonald’s profits increased too. Now do you agree with 13yr old girls being married to adult males often many years older than them in Iran? Do you remember when you told us to let you know if you were picking on people? Well you are. It's unfair to summarise an entire thread in one sentence and then follow someone around the forum, constantly asking them to answer the question. Let it go. He'll soon say something else you can disagree with. I am not picking on him because what he has said over multiple threads is abhorrent, although maybe I should? I am trying to get an answer to my question! P. S. Whose following him? I posted in this thread first and will likely post in others before or after. Hardly following." Jesus Christ, let it go. What is this, the 4th thread? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Been quiet without you here! McDonald’s profits increased too. Now do you agree with 13yr old girls being married to adult males often many years older than them in Iran? Do you remember when you told us to let you know if you were picking on people? Well you are. It's unfair to summarise an entire thread in one sentence and then follow someone around the forum, constantly asking them to answer the question. Let it go. He'll soon say something else you can disagree with. I am not picking on him because what he has said over multiple threads is abhorrent, although maybe I should? I am trying to get an answer to my question! P. S. Whose following him? I posted in this thread first and will likely post in others before or after. Hardly following. Jesus Christ, let it go. What is this, the 4th thread?" Not going to  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was hijacked because both parties real leaders are in Tel-Aviv. Just like both parties in the USA. The UK is just as occupied as Palestine is. " I don't know about that, but there is some influence over certain countries including the UK an influence that one cannot speak against Israeli actions on matter how many they kill. Any action action against them non violent action is seen as anti Semitic any comments that is not the narrative anti Semitic. Lucky for me I am not on social media neither am I a politician so I can say and feel how I want without influence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was hijacked because both parties real leaders are in Tel-Aviv. Just like both parties in the USA. The UK is just as occupied as Palestine is. I don't know about that, but there is some influence over certain countries including the UK an influence that one cannot speak against Israeli actions on matter how many they kill. Any action action against them non violent action is seen as anti Semitic any comments that is not the narrative anti Semitic. Lucky for me I am not on social media neither am I a politician so I can say and feel how I want without influence." At this point the herd will zealously believe the Sun doesn't exist if Israel told them it's antisemitic to say it does. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was hijacked because both parties real leaders are in Tel-Aviv. Just like both parties in the USA. The UK is just as occupied as Palestine is. I don't know about that, but there is some influence over certain countries including the UK an influence that one cannot speak against Israeli actions on matter how many they kill. Any action action against them non violent action is seen as anti Semitic any comments that is not the narrative anti Semitic. Lucky for me I am not on social media neither am I a politician so I can say and feel how I want without influence. At this point the herd will zealously believe the Sun doesn't exist if Israel told them it's antisemitic to say it does. " You honestly think that? Who are “the herd”? Is that everyone who isn’t Muslim? It’s rather insulting to say that so many people lack critical reasoning and can’t see beyond a binary view of the world! Personally I condemn the actions of Hamas AND the actions of the Israeli government. I think too many innocent people have died over the years on both sides. The UN and UK completely fucked up in 47/48. Why nobody could foresee the danger being stoked is beyond me. I could ask my running question again but it seems a couple of woke snowflakes ( ) on here won’t like it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was hijacked because both parties real leaders are in Tel-Aviv. Just like both parties in the USA. The UK is just as occupied as Palestine is. I don't know about that, but there is some influence over certain countries including the UK an influence that one cannot speak against Israeli actions on matter how many they kill. Any action action against them non violent action is seen as anti Semitic any comments that is not the narrative anti Semitic. Lucky for me I am not on social media neither am I a politician so I can say and feel how I want without influence. At this point the herd will zealously believe the Sun doesn't exist if Israel told them it's antisemitic to say it does. You honestly think that? Who are “the herd”? Is that everyone who isn’t Muslim? It’s rather insulting to say that so many people lack critical reasoning and can’t see beyond a binary view of the world! Personally I condemn the actions of Hamas AND the actions of the Israeli government. I think too many innocent people have died over the years on both sides. The UN and UK completely fucked up in 47/48. Why nobody could foresee the danger being stoked is beyond me. I could ask my running question again but it seems a couple of woke snowflakes ( ) on here won’t like it "The masses marching against the ongoing genocide in Western capitals are majority non Muslims. 100000's of them even Honorable decent Jews. Ireland that has just announced a Military and economic sanctions on Israel are not Muslims. The 99% of UN Members who have been calling for a ceasefire just to vetoed by the US are majority non Muslims. The herd are the brainwashed people who keep repeating the Zionist narrative about this conflict with a racist colonial mindset that brings in mind the mentality the conquistadors, inquisitors and crusaders. With a modern mask. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was hijacked because both parties real leaders are in Tel-Aviv. Just like both parties in the USA. The UK is just as occupied as Palestine is. I don't know about that, but there is some influence over certain countries including the UK an influence that one cannot speak against Israeli actions on matter how many they kill. Any action action against them non violent action is seen as anti Semitic any comments that is not the narrative anti Semitic. Lucky for me I am not on social media neither am I a politician so I can say and feel how I want without influence. At this point the herd will zealously believe the Sun doesn't exist if Israel told them it's antisemitic to say it does. You honestly think that? Who are “the herd”? Is that everyone who isn’t Muslim? It’s rather insulting to say that so many people lack critical reasoning and can’t see beyond a binary view of the world! Personally I condemn the actions of Hamas AND the actions of the Israeli government. I think too many innocent people have died over the years on both sides. The UN and UK completely fucked up in 47/48. Why nobody could foresee the danger being stoked is beyond me. I could ask my running question again but it seems a couple of woke snowflakes ( ) on here won’t like it "There is a thread concerning wokeness I read and look here it is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was hijacked because both parties real leaders are in Tel-Aviv. Just like both parties in the USA. The UK is just as occupied as Palestine is. I don't know about that, but there is some influence over certain countries including the UK an influence that one cannot speak against Israeli actions on matter how many they kill. Any action action against them non violent action is seen as anti Semitic any comments that is not the narrative anti Semitic. Lucky for me I am not on social media neither am I a politician so I can say and feel how I want without influence. At this point the herd will zealously believe the Sun doesn't exist if Israel told them it's antisemitic to say it does. You honestly think that? Who are “the herd”? Is that everyone who isn’t Muslim? It’s rather insulting to say that so many people lack critical reasoning and can’t see beyond a binary view of the world! Personally I condemn the actions of Hamas AND the actions of the Israeli government. I think too many innocent people have died over the years on both sides. The UN and UK completely fucked up in 47/48. Why nobody could foresee the danger being stoked is beyond me. I could ask my running question again but it seems a couple of woke snowflakes ( ) on here won’t like it
There is a thread concerning wokeness I read and look here it is.
"And you will realise that the ( ) was an indicator it was a joke in full realisation of that thread and aimed at specific people who like to argue what woke actually is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was hijacked because both parties real leaders are in Tel-Aviv. Just like both parties in the USA. The UK is just as occupied as Palestine is. I don't know about that, but there is some influence over certain countries including the UK an influence that one cannot speak against Israeli actions on matter how many they kill. Any action action against them non violent action is seen as anti Semitic any comments that is not the narrative anti Semitic. Lucky for me I am not on social media neither am I a politician so I can say and feel how I want without influence. At this point the herd will zealously believe the Sun doesn't exist if Israel told them it's antisemitic to say it does. You honestly think that? Who are “the herd”? Is that everyone who isn’t Muslim? It’s rather insulting to say that so many people lack critical reasoning and can’t see beyond a binary view of the world! Personally I condemn the actions of Hamas AND the actions of the Israeli government. I think too many innocent people have died over the years on both sides. The UN and UK completely fucked up in 47/48. Why nobody could foresee the danger being stoked is beyond me. I could ask my running question again but it seems a couple of woke snowflakes ( ) on here won’t like it
The masses marching against the ongoing genocide in Western capitals are majority non Muslims. 100000's of them even Honorable decent Jews. Ireland that has just announced a Military and economic sanctions on Israel are not Muslims. The 99% of UN Members who have been calling for a ceasefire just to vetoed by the US are majority non Muslims. The herd are the brainwashed people who keep repeating the Zionist narrative about this conflict with a racist colonial mindset that brings in mind the mentality the conquistadors, inquisitors and crusaders. With a modern mask. "It was rhetorical. I want to know who AandE thinks the “herd” is. I don’t need you to answer for him and miss the point | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 100000's of them even Honorable decent Jews. " It's statements like that one. When you call out "Honorable decent Jews", the implication is that Jews are not typically honourable or decent. Imagine "we like our cleaner Ahmed, he's one of the good Muslims who doesn't want to blow himself up". Or "Nick is one of the good blacks, he doesn't steal from us when he comes by". Or "Raj is great for a Hindu, he actually doesn't smell". Your bigotry is so ingrained that you don't even realise it's there. *This* is the origin of the term woke. It's waking up from the ingrained bigotry, realising that you have the problem within you, working on yourself to eradicate it. Wake up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was hijacked because both parties real leaders are in Tel-Aviv. Just like both parties in the USA. The UK is just as occupied as Palestine is. I don't know about that, but there is some influence over certain countries including the UK an influence that one cannot speak against Israeli actions on matter how many they kill. Any action action against them non violent action is seen as anti Semitic any comments that is not the narrative anti Semitic. Lucky for me I am not on social media neither am I a politician so I can say and feel how I want without influence. At this point the herd will zealously believe the Sun doesn't exist if Israel told them it's antisemitic to say it does. You honestly think that? Who are “the herd”? Is that everyone who isn’t Muslim? It’s rather insulting to say that so many people lack critical reasoning and can’t see beyond a binary view of the world! Personally I condemn the actions of Hamas AND the actions of the Israeli government. I think too many innocent people have died over the years on both sides. The UN and UK completely fucked up in 47/48. Why nobody could foresee the danger being stoked is beyond me. I could ask my running question again but it seems a couple of woke snowflakes ( ) on here won’t like it
The masses marching against the ongoing genocide in Western capitals are majority non Muslims. 100000's of them even Honorable decent Jews. Ireland that has just announced a Military and economic sanctions on Israel are not Muslims. The 99% of UN Members who have been calling for a ceasefire just to vetoed by the US are majority non Muslims. The herd are the brainwashed people who keep repeating the Zionist narrative about this conflict with a racist colonial mindset that brings in mind the mentality the conquistadors, inquisitors and crusaders. With a modern mask.
It was rhetorical. I want to know who AandE thinks the “herd” is. I don’t need you to answer for him and miss the point "Oops just realised it was AandE answering. My mistake. Can’t multi-task. I will leave that to all those amazing women
So you think anyone who condemns Israel is not part of the herd but if you do not then you are part of the herd? What if you condemn both Israel and Hamas? Are you in or out of herd? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 100000's of them even Honorable decent Jews. It's statements like that one. When you call out "Honorable decent Jews", the implication is that Jews are not typically honourable or decent. Imagine "we like our cleaner Ahmed, he's one of the good Muslims who doesn't want to blow himself up". Or "Nick is one of the good blacks, he doesn't steal from us when he comes by". Or "Raj is great for a Hindu, he actually doesn't smell". Your bigotry is so ingrained that you don't even realise it's there. *This* is the origin of the term woke. It's waking up from the ingrained bigotry, realising that you have the problem within you, working on yourself to eradicate it. Wake up. " Or may be you're projecting. You are on a mission to assassinate my character for 2 weeks, by any means because you hate my world view. So instead of making a rational argument about each subject at hand, you'd rather crucify my character even at the cost of deflecting. You don't even differentiate between A Jew, A Zionist, an Israeli or an Israelite. Please educate yourself on the meaning of the above first before you jump on meaningless personal attacks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 100000's of them even Honorable decent Jews. It's statements like that one. When you call out "Honorable decent Jews", the implication is that Jews are not typically honourable or decent. Imagine "we like our cleaner Ahmed, he's one of the good Muslims who doesn't want to blow himself up". Or "Nick is one of the good blacks, he doesn't steal from us when he comes by". Or "Raj is great for a Hindu, he actually doesn't smell". Your bigotry is so ingrained that you don't even realise it's there. *This* is the origin of the term woke. It's waking up from the ingrained bigotry, realising that you have the problem within you, working on yourself to eradicate it. Wake up. Or may be you're projecting. You are on a mission to assassinate my character for 2 weeks, by any means because you hate my world view. So instead of making a rational argument about each subject at hand, you'd rather crucify my character even at the cost of deflecting. You don't even differentiate between A Jew, A Zionist, an Israeli or an Israelite. Please educate yourself on the meaning of the above first before you jump on meaningless personal attacks. " given this, can I ask you confirm how Israel has such influence. While you differentiate on the surface, you may need to clarify the detail, as it may look like you are conflating groups under the surface. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"AandE I think it is a bit rich complaining about personal attacks when you regularly accuse people on here of being “supporters of genocide”. Maybe you need the mirror and take a good hard look at yourself. Try engaging without hyperbole and see where the conversation goes!" I have seen many here outraged and conducting a Hyenas style gang attack on me because I argued against feminism. With a ferocious outrage as if I murdered their mothers. Yet as soon I cry out about the Palestinian women and children being subjugated to mass murderer, famine as a weapon of war, degradation and sexual abuse at a mass scale. I get accused of being anti-Semite. My accusation against such people of racism, hypocrisy and support for genocide is well based and well placed. Because as we speak this is happening. It's the least I can do. And it's the least every decent human being can do. I cry watching a documentary about the Aztech genocide that happened 100's of years ago, to a people I have zero connection with except my humanity. Somattitudes I witness here is simply | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 100000's of them even Honorable decent Jews. It's statements like that one. When you call out "Honorable decent Jews", the implication is that Jews are not typically honourable or decent. Imagine "we like our cleaner Ahmed, he's one of the good Muslims who doesn't want to blow himself up". Or "Nick is one of the good blacks, he doesn't steal from us when he comes by". Or "Raj is great for a Hindu, he actually doesn't smell". Your bigotry is so ingrained that you don't even realise it's there. *This* is the origin of the term woke. It's waking up from the ingrained bigotry, realising that you have the problem within you, working on yourself to eradicate it. Wake up. Or may be you're projecting. You are on a mission to assassinate my character for 2 weeks, by any means because you hate my world view. So instead of making a rational argument about each subject at hand, you'd rather crucify my character even at the cost of deflecting. You don't even differentiate between A Jew, A Zionist, an Israeli or an Israelite. Please educate yourself on the meaning of the above first before you jump on meaningless personal attacks. given this, can I ask you confirm how Israel has such influence. While you differentiate on the surface, you may need to clarify the detail, as it may look like you are conflating groups under the surface. " Sometimes it's hopeless when someone ask you questions like: "Does the sun exist?" Or "Is the UK's Media, Politics, economy, military dominated by people who put the interests of Zionist Apartheid 1st?" May be you can ask that question to Jeremy Corbin. He knows about it first hand. Or ask Julian Assange who's been tortured for 10 years to shut him up and making him example for journalists who dare to uncover the truths about genocidal wars in the mena for the interests of Israel's dominance of the region. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 100000's of them even Honorable decent Jews. It's statements like that one. When you call out "Honorable decent Jews", the implication is that Jews are not typically honourable or decent. Imagine "we like our cleaner Ahmed, he's one of the good Muslims who doesn't want to blow himself up". Or "Nick is one of the good blacks, he doesn't steal from us when he comes by". Or "Raj is great for a Hindu, he actually doesn't smell". Your bigotry is so ingrained that you don't even realise it's there. *This* is the origin of the term woke. It's waking up from the ingrained bigotry, realising that you have the problem within you, working on yourself to eradicate it. Wake up. Or may be you're projecting. You are on a mission to assassinate my character for 2 weeks, by any means because you hate my world view. So instead of making a rational argument about each subject at hand, you'd rather crucify my character even at the cost of deflecting. You don't even differentiate between A Jew, A Zionist, an Israeli or an Israelite. Please educate yourself on the meaning of the above first before you jump on meaningless personal attacks. given this, can I ask you confirm how Israel has such influence. While you differentiate on the surface, you may need to clarify the detail, as it may look like you are conflating groups under the surface. Sometimes it's hopeless when someone ask you questions like: "Does the sun exist?" Or "Is the UK's Media, Politics, economy, military dominated by people who put the interests of Zionist Apartheid 1st?" May be you can ask that question to Jeremy Corbin. He knows about it first hand. Or ask Julian Assange who's been tortured for 10 years to shut him up and making him example for journalists who dare to uncover the truths about genocidal wars in the mena for the interests of Israel's dominance of the region. " I asked you how you think Israel is able to control rich powerful countries like the US. It was your claim. I can't see how Tel Aviv does this. I think you may be saying it is not the multi cultural Israel that is influencing, but non Israelis that support "the Zionist Apartheid". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It was your claim. I can't see how Tel Aviv does this. I think you may be saying it is not the multi cultural Israel that is influencing, but non Israelis that support "the Zionist Apartheid". " When someone states that something does not need to be demonstrated or explained because it is as obvious as the existence of the sun, referring to a shadowy group of "Zionists", then it's as plain as day (!) that it is a "truth" that was given with mother's milk, culturally indoctrinated to the point that it's received fact. Or that someone has fallen deeply down a rabbit hole of hate and angst. When someone jumps into a discussion about the workings of the UK parliament to decry that "Tel Aviv" *controls* (the "real leaders", not just influencers) both main parties in the UK and US, it's not really adding to the political dialogue. It's pointing a finger at a cabal of Jews. It's one thing to discuss the Jewish and/or Zionist lobby, considering their influence in politics in conjunction with voter demographics and competing lobby groups and interests, but statements about the shadowy puppet masters are at best a lazy retelling of the same propaganda that fueled the Dreyfus Affair, the Holocaust and many pogroms. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It was your claim. I can't see how Tel Aviv does this. I think you may be saying it is not the multi cultural Israel that is influencing, but non Israelis that support "the Zionist Apartheid". When someone states that something does not need to be demonstrated or explained because it is as obvious as the existence of the sun, referring to a shadowy group of "Zionists", then it's as plain as day (!) that it is a "truth" that was given with mother's milk, culturally indoctrinated to the point that it's received fact. Or that someone has fallen deeply down a rabbit hole of hate and angst. When someone jumps into a discussion about the workings of the UK parliament to decry that "Tel Aviv" *controls* (the "real leaders", not just influencers) both main parties in the UK and US, it's not really adding to the political dialogue. It's pointing a finger at a cabal of Jews. It's one thing to discuss the Jewish and/or Zionist lobby, considering their influence in politics in conjunction with voter demographics and competing lobby groups and interests, but statements about the shadowy puppet masters are at best a lazy retelling of the same propaganda that fueled the Dreyfus Affair, the Holocaust and many pogroms." Your replies are the perfect demonstration of bigoted prejudice. Which you then project outwardly to accuse others what you are guilty of. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It was your claim. I can't see how Tel Aviv does this. I think you may be saying it is not the multi cultural Israel that is influencing, but non Israelis that support "the Zionist Apartheid". When someone states that something does not need to be demonstrated or explained because it is as obvious as the existence of the sun, referring to a shadowy group of "Zionists", then it's as plain as day (!) that it is a "truth" that was given with mother's milk, culturally indoctrinated to the point that it's received fact. Or that someone has fallen deeply down a rabbit hole of hate and angst. When someone jumps into a discussion about the workings of the UK parliament to decry that "Tel Aviv" *controls* (the "real leaders", not just influencers) both main parties in the UK and US, it's not really adding to the political dialogue. It's pointing a finger at a cabal of Jews. It's one thing to discuss the Jewish and/or Zionist lobby, considering their influence in politics in conjunction with voter demographics and competing lobby groups and interests, but statements about the shadowy puppet masters are at best a lazy retelling of the same propaganda that fueled the Dreyfus Affair, the Holocaust and many pogroms. Your replies are the perfect demonstration of bigoted prejudice. Which you then project outwardly to accuse others what you are guilty of. " I think the same accusation could easily be labelled at you from the other angle. Can you not see the irony? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It was your claim. I can't see how Tel Aviv does this. I think you may be saying it is not the multi cultural Israel that is influencing, but non Israelis that support "the Zionist Apartheid". When someone states that something does not need to be demonstrated or explained because it is as obvious as the existence of the sun, referring to a shadowy group of "Zionists", then it's as plain as day (!) that it is a "truth" that was given with mother's milk, culturally indoctrinated to the point that it's received fact. Or that someone has fallen deeply down a rabbit hole of hate and angst. When someone jumps into a discussion about the workings of the UK parliament to decry that "Tel Aviv" *controls* (the "real leaders", not just influencers) both main parties in the UK and US, it's not really adding to the political dialogue. It's pointing a finger at a cabal of Jews. It's one thing to discuss the Jewish and/or Zionist lobby, considering their influence in politics in conjunction with voter demographics and competing lobby groups and interests, but statements about the shadowy puppet masters are at best a lazy retelling of the same propaganda that fueled the Dreyfus Affair, the Holocaust and many pogroms. Your replies are the perfect demonstration of bigoted prejudice. Which you then project outwardly to accuse others what you are guilty of. " I'm trying to keep an open mind what you mean as your posts are quite unstructured and indirect. I still don't understand how you think Israel/Zionists control the western superpowers. Imo more clarity here would head off any accusations you are unhappy with. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It was your claim. I can't see how Tel Aviv does this. I think you may be saying it is not the multi cultural Israel that is influencing, but non Israelis that support "the Zionist Apartheid". When someone states that something does not need to be demonstrated or explained because it is as obvious as the existence of the sun, referring to a shadowy group of "Zionists", then it's as plain as day (!) that it is a "truth" that was given with mother's milk, culturally indoctrinated to the point that it's received fact. Or that someone has fallen deeply down a rabbit hole of hate and angst. When someone jumps into a discussion about the workings of the UK parliament to decry that "Tel Aviv" *controls* (the "real leaders", not just influencers) both main parties in the UK and US, it's not really adding to the political dialogue. It's pointing a finger at a cabal of Jews. It's one thing to discuss the Jewish and/or Zionist lobby, considering their influence in politics in conjunction with voter demographics and competing lobby groups and interests, but statements about the shadowy puppet masters are at best a lazy retelling of the same propaganda that fueled the Dreyfus Affair, the Holocaust and many pogroms. Your replies are the perfect demonstration of bigoted prejudice. Which you then project outwardly to accuse others what you are guilty of. I'm trying to keep an open mind what you mean as your posts are quite unstructured and indirect. I still don't understand how you think Israel/Zionists control the western superpowers. Imo more clarity here would head off any accusations you are unhappy with. " There is not point debating the obvious. If you can't see how the west is controlled by Zionists, it's Media, Banking secotr, bought politicians and how they're destroying it's identity, common sense and even sanity, you're choosing to be blind and in denial. Keep trysting in the system until there is nothing worthy of saving is left to be saved. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It was your claim. I can't see how Tel Aviv does this. I think you may be saying it is not the multi cultural Israel that is influencing, but non Israelis that support "the Zionist Apartheid". When someone states that something does not need to be demonstrated or explained because it is as obvious as the existence of the sun, referring to a shadowy group of "Zionists", then it's as plain as day (!) that it is a "truth" that was given with mother's milk, culturally indoctrinated to the point that it's received fact. Or that someone has fallen deeply down a rabbit hole of hate and angst. When someone jumps into a discussion about the workings of the UK parliament to decry that "Tel Aviv" *controls* (the "real leaders", not just influencers) both main parties in the UK and US, it's not really adding to the political dialogue. It's pointing a finger at a cabal of Jews. It's one thing to discuss the Jewish and/or Zionist lobby, considering their influence in politics in conjunction with voter demographics and competing lobby groups and interests, but statements about the shadowy puppet masters are at best a lazy retelling of the same propaganda that fueled the Dreyfus Affair, the Holocaust and many pogroms. Your replies are the perfect demonstration of bigoted prejudice. Which you then project outwardly to accuse others what you are guilty of. I'm trying to keep an open mind what you mean as your posts are quite unstructured and indirect. I still don't understand how you think Israel/Zionists control the western superpowers. Imo more clarity here would head off any accusations you are unhappy with. There is not point debating the obvious. If you can't see how the west is controlled by Zionists, it's Media, Banking secotr, bought politicians and how they're destroying it's identity, common sense and even sanity, you're choosing to be blind and in denial. Keep trysting in the system until there is nothing worthy of saving is left to be saved. " The venn diagram just became a circle! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It was your claim. I can't see how Tel Aviv does this. I think you may be saying it is not the multi cultural Israel that is influencing, but non Israelis that support "the Zionist Apartheid". When someone states that something does not need to be demonstrated or explained because it is as obvious as the existence of the sun, referring to a shadowy group of "Zionists", then it's as plain as day (!) that it is a "truth" that was given with mother's milk, culturally indoctrinated to the point that it's received fact. Or that someone has fallen deeply down a rabbit hole of hate and angst. When someone jumps into a discussion about the workings of the UK parliament to decry that "Tel Aviv" *controls* (the "real leaders", not just influencers) both main parties in the UK and US, it's not really adding to the political dialogue. It's pointing a finger at a cabal of Jews. It's one thing to discuss the Jewish and/or Zionist lobby, considering their influence in politics in conjunction with voter demographics and competing lobby groups and interests, but statements about the shadowy puppet masters are at best a lazy retelling of the same propaganda that fueled the Dreyfus Affair, the Holocaust and many pogroms. Your replies are the perfect demonstration of bigoted prejudice. Which you then project outwardly to accuse others what you are guilty of. I'm trying to keep an open mind what you mean as your posts are quite unstructured and indirect. I still don't understand how you think Israel/Zionists control the western superpowers. Imo more clarity here would head off any accusations you are unhappy with. There is not point debating the obvious. If you can't see how the west is controlled by Zionists, it's Media, Banking secotr, bought politicians and how they're destroying it's identity, common sense and even sanity, you're choosing to be blind and in denial. Keep trysting in the system until there is nothing worthy of saving is left to be saved. " when did this Zionist influence take over these sectors and starting it's destruction ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Bringing me to the topic of parliament and their attempt at debate on this issue of ceasefire, the major parties have failed us who wanted a ceasefire debate and positions regarding a ceasefire made clear, but influence has them running about afraid to say a word." Actually, despite the drama, the debate was had, the positions were outlined and the following statement was voted upon and carried: That this House believes that an Israeli ground offensive in Rafah risks catastrophic humanitarian consequences and therefore must not take place; notes the intolerable loss of Palestinian life, the majority being women and children; condemns the terrorism of Hamas who continue to hold hostages; supports Australia, Canada and New Zealand’s calls for Hamas to release and return all hostages and for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, which means an immediate stop to the fighting and a ceasefire that lasts and is observed by all sides, noting that Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence and that Israelis have the right to the assurance that the horror of 7 October 2023 cannot happen again; therefore supports diplomatic mediation efforts to achieve a lasting ceasefire; demands that rapid and unimpeded humanitarian relief is provided in Gaza; further demands an end to settlement expansion and violence; urges Israel to comply with the International Court of Justice’s provisional measures; calls for the UN Security Council to meet urgently; and urges all international partners to work together to establish a diplomatic process to deliver the peace of a two-state solution, with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state, including working with international partners to recognise a Palestinian state as a contribution to rather than outcome of that process, because statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and not in the gift of any neighbour. The issue with the process in parliament is a completely separate drama to this. It was parties playing politics (chiefly the SNP). Nevertheless, the position of all three major parties was made crystal clear. Do you disagree with the outcome? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not including the last poster but, PILE ON. I hear that is a fact when 3 pile on 1." You mean, when one person makes abhorrent comments, a maximum of two people may object? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not including the last poster but, PILE ON. I hear that is a fact when 3 pile on 1." I think most people on here are open to a respectful discussion supported by evidence and avoiding hyperbole. But the poster in question has openly accused people who ask questions that challenge their views of being genocide supporters (across multiple threads). They also openly espouse misogynistic views and attack feminism (which is unlikely to win many friends on a swinger website). To have a civilised debate people need to be civil. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not including the last poster but, PILE ON. I hear that is a fact when 3 pile on 1." Blatantly lying and making up shit should be pretty much opposed by anyone who can see the issue is much more complex and that bad things have been carried out by both sides.. Funny enough you don't seem to be able to see the latter point either.. That's not to say that some of what Israel has done is acceptable by any stretch since Hamas butchered innocent men, women and children then went and hid behind their own innocent people knowing what the response would be.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not including the last poster but, PILE ON. I hear that is a fact when 3 pile on 1." I'm going to defend myself here. The poster made a statement that looked problematic. I've looked to give them the opportunity to clarify their meaning. I've kept it specific to this thread and this and their comments here. I don't feel you can have people making suspicious comments and let it lie, simply because others may also have concerns. If this was all a miss understanding it could have been put to bed with one explanation. Unfortunately we've got more abstract answers and that's not helped anyone. However, you are probably right that I have got to a place where I'm moving from trying to get someone to challenge their own views, to simply offering them rope. I will tap out of this one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
