Speaker of the House of Commons

Brigadier said:
They were supposed to be debating - albeit a pointless one - a situation in which tens of thousands have died.

In other words, get it into perspective, you tart.
Click to expand...
Perspective is achieved by getting the instrument set up correctly in the first place, not clocking the the car
 
Sponsored Links
It's curious there has been no mention of another factor. I did listen to the debates. ;) Sometimes I do things like that.
Labour went to some length to try and get the house to declare one stance backed by all. Perhaps the speaker thought give the house a chance. There are similarities between all however Labour's mention the need for an eventual solution. Starmer stated this was needed weeks ago mentioning international effort. Well folks that is what various countries are trying to achieve. The omission of this aspect was why they were not happy with the SNP's none bill.

Tory. I switched off a bit. Long preamble about how terrible HAMAS is and etc and a pause. Not much to do with the subject and all know this anyway. I understand Tory said none of this is binding and they will stick to whatever they do. Which isn't that clear anyway.

However what would happen if some Tory voted for the Labour none bill and that one won? Actually is that really what the trouble is about?

It was a quiet debate.
 
blup said:
Perspective is achieved by getting the instrument set up correctly in the first place, not clocking the the car
Click to expand...

It was all a faux session in the first place : an emasculated stage for a bunch of narcissists to have their moment in the sun.

Waste of the heating and lighting.
 
The other aspect is a ceasefire or pause what ever each group might call it. Immediate just isn't possible it can only occur when the sides involved agree to one. So why don't all state everywhere as soon as possible. That would match the reality of the situation.

So why do some say that the word immediate must be included? The only outfit that may be able to force that is the US and it looks like they are not currently interested in doing this. HAMAS anyway would need to agree.
 
Sponsored Links
blup said:
I doubt the bear trap as you call it will be materially different if/when the snp get another bite of the cherry, or that labour will be better prepared. In fact it could harm them more because of imminence of the election.
Click to expand...

It looks like the SNP are following my suggestion ;) I am willing to admit that perhaps some of the wise old heads in Parliament may also have had a hand in it.

According to the Guardian, the SNP are working with the Speaker on a motion for an emergency debate. It looks like it will be a less divisive motion, which Labour may be able to vote for. Their leader is quoted below. Presumably if it comes about, this won't make you happy, as it might be seen as a victory for Labour's tactics. But stepping back, and looking at the big picture, this is how grown ups would have handled it in the first place.

“While the appalling spectacle at Westminster has been deeply unedifying, some progress has been made. Public and SNP pressure has forced the next prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, into a U-turn – now we need to work together to force the UK government to change its position too.”
Click to expand...
 
Brigadier said:
It was all a faux session in the first place : an emasculated stage for a bunch of narcissists to have their moment in the sun.

Waste of the heating and lighting.
Click to expand...
Proverbial nail on the head.

If I was the speaker I'd say 'bye, I'm off to chill in a bungalow at the seaside with my parrot.'
 
blup said:
I don't buy that, on the narrow and very specific basis that it implies centrist Labour can't be guilty
Click to expand...
Guilty of what?

I hope you aren’t going to start claiming Starmer supports genocide?

The Labour left have always been ideologically supportive of Palestine and sadly there are also some who gloss over Hamas terrorism. Jeremy Corbyn literally referred to Hezbollah and Hamas as “our friends”.
 
I think blup is a type of troll - determined to keep a thread going with posts that are total garbage.
 
Perhaps he will still be trying to make a fuss after everyone else has lost interest in this unimportant point-scoring political squabble...


...which is, about now.
 
ajohn said:
I think blup is a type of troll - determined to keep a thread going with posts that are total garbage.
Click to expand...
Blup is anti Keir Starmer so is keen to blame him

Unfortunately those on the left are more interested in attacking Labour than they are Conservative
 
Notch7 said:
It’s hardly a secret that the harder leftists in Labour are ideologically supportive of Palestine ( ideological because they hate Israel being a successful capitalist country with strong ties to USA) …..and they are screaming for Starmer to call a ceasefire (despite it making zero practical difference)
Click to expand...
It's more to do with Israel building illegal settlements in the West Bank and the murderous oppression of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
 
Some people are ideologically opposed to racism, apartheid and genocide, and the murder of journalists.

Others claim such people are antisemitic jew haters.

They must have a low opinion of Jewish and other Semitic people, such as the Palestinians.
 
Last edited:
JonathanM said:
Presumably if it comes about, this won't make you happy, as it might be seen as a victory for Labour's tactics.
Click to expand...
Neither happy nor unhappy, my point has only ever been about due process.
 
Notch7 said:
Blup is anti Keir Starmer so is keen to blame him

Unfortunately those on the left are more interested in attacking Labour than they are Conservative
Click to expand...
Starmy seems to be a competent administrative type of politician, his shenanigans with the speaker have shown him in a different light.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top