Viewing 40 posts - 21,041 through 21,080 (of 21,675 total)
  • Sir! Keir! Starmer!
  • imnotverygood
    Full Member

    Do you think a motion along the lines of the “The House calls for an immediate ceasefire as soon as Benjamin Netanyahu feels it is appropriate”

    Do you think a motion along the lines of “This House calls for an immediate ceasefire as this is all Israel’s fault.” would achieve very much.

    argee
    Full Member

    Do you think a motion along the lines of “This House calls for an immediate ceasefire as this is all Israel’s fault.” would achieve very much.

    Definitely, i believe that if the SNP vote had gone first, we would be seeing peace in Gaza this very moment, unfortunately that sociopath Starmers vote went through first and because it was successful, we’re all doomed.

    ernielynch
    Full Member

    “This House calls for an immediate ceasefire as this is all Israel’s fault.” would achieve very much.

    Very much? no. But something quite significant? Absolutely.

    International pressure is hugely important and the UK parliament playing a small part, along with the UN and a multitude of countries, would help to maximise that pressure.

    Unfortunately thanks to Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer the UK is not playing a significant role, it is just parroting Joe Biden’s position.

    Yesterday’s Netanyahu friendly motion was not put to a vote and only one party verbally agreed to it. The whole thing was a farce and an embarrassment. Thank you Starmer.

    Edit: Obviously not that deliberately provoking wording which you chose to use. But making Israel responsible for the thousands of innocent civilian deaths.

    mattyfez
    Full Member

    Hahah yeah, I don’t think anyone outside of the UK gives a flying fig about what an opposition uk party thinks.. or even what the UK govenment thinks to some extent any more… this is all just internal UK political optics…

    See also ‘Ceasefire’ Vs ‘Humanitarian pause’… it’s all just mealy mouthed semantics playing to an internal audiance.

    kimbers
    Full Member

    was not put to a vote and only one party verbally agreed to it.

    you mean it was passed unopposed

    ernielynch
    Full Member

    you mean it was passed unopposed

    Yup, 40,000 deaths and the whole thing was turned into a farce by Starmer.

    I am sure that he is very pleased with himself.

    Twodogs
    Full Member

    You really do say some weird stuff.

    mattyfez
    Full Member

    “Yup, 40,000 deaths and the whole thing was turned into a farce by Starmer.

    I am sure that he is very pleased with himself.”

    Eh?

    Ceasfire/humanitarian pause, it’s all mealy mouthed semantics from all sides of UK politicos.

    News flash: No one outside the UK fives a flying fig what UK opposition parties are talking about.

    Why shouldn’t the speaker of the house allow a a vote on an actual ceasefire? seems perfectly reasonable to me.

    Defying convention? Well, let’s have a look at conventions defied by the tories since the brexit vote, shall we?

    Pot-Kettle-Black

    kimbers
    Full Member

    Of course if the there had been a lengthy debate (as Hoyle has now offered the SNP) Israel would magically stop bombing the crap out of anything that moves in Gaza…..

    Flaperon
    Full Member

    I feel like I’m missing something obvious here, but why couldn’t Starmer just tell Labour MPs to support the SNP’s amendment calling for a ceasefire instead of lobbing his own grenade into the chamber?

    squirrelking
    Free Member

    Because it was a trap, obviously.

    A trap for what I have no idea but people seem to have lost their shit over it so it must be important.

    ernielynch
    Full Member

    I’ll tell you what’s weird twodogs, the usual suspects on here who always believe that Starmer is above any sort of criticism dismissing a Commons vote on a ceasefire as totally unimportant and inconsequential, despite the fact that their man clearly thinks that such a vote is enormously important and that the precise wording must be dictated by him.

    That’s really weird.

    I mean I agree with Starmer – what’s weird is how they cannot bring themselves to criticise Starmer for creating such a song and dance over a ceasefire motion.

    But they will criticise me for attaching any importance to it. Weird or what?

    Edit; See kimbers sarcastic comment above as an example.

    mattyfez
    Full Member

    For the record:

    I think Starmer is an idiot.

    I also think that there is no reason for any UK MP of any party or persuasion not to openly support an immediate ceasefire by voting for it in the commons, regardless of which party suggested it.

    argee
    Full Member

    I feel like I’m missing something obvious here, but why couldn’t Starmer just tell Labour MPs to support the SNP’s amendment calling for a ceasefire instead of lobbing his own grenade into the chamber?

    Came down to wording, SNP statement was pretty limited and Israel stopping, the Labour statement was more about the international community agreeing on a ceasefire on both sides, in short, the Labour wording was more diplomatic.

    The entire argument over the last day that’s overtaken and outshone the actual vote is because the SNP are upset their motion wasn’t voted on first, and now we’re getting ‘Starmer nobbled the speaker’, so they can whinge about Starmer even after he’s done something they wanted.

    somafunk
    Full Member

    Because starmer didn’t want the backlash of calling for an “immediate ceasefire” as called for by the SNP, the Labour motion had a number of caveats including “humanitarian ceasefire”

    SNP motion below, to the point with minimal wording and deals with the most pressing issue.

    That this House calls for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and Israel; notes with shock and distress that the death toll has now risen beyond 28,000, the vast majority of whom were women and children; further notes that there are currently 1.5 million Palestinians sheltering in Rafah, 610,000 of whom are children; also notes that they have nowhere else to go; condemns any military assault on what is now the largest refugee camp in the world; further calls for the immediate release of all hostages taken by Hamas and an end to the collective punishment of the Palestinian people; and recognises that the only way to stop the slaughter of innocent civilians is to press for a ceasefire now.

    Labour motion below, with numerous caveats and get out clauses.

    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 7th October cannot happen again; therefore supports diplomatic mediation efforts to achieve a lasting ceasefire; demands that rapid and unimpeded humanitarian relief is provided in Gaza; 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 be 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.

    mattyfez
    Full Member

    Ultimatley, I think an internationaly recognised Palestinian state is the only fair way out of this mess.

    ernielynch
    Full Member

    I had previously read the Labour motion in full but not the SNP’s.

    I can not see anything wrong with the SNP motion nor why Labour MPs should not vote for it.

    kelvin
    Full Member

    Because it doesn’t address the Hamas attacks, or seek an end to them, or a statement that a two state solution is needed. Peace requires steps towards a two state solution, not giving succour to the extremists (including the Israeli premier) who refuse to work towards a viable and safe Palestinian state or the other extremists (including the leaders of Hamas) who refuse to allow an Israeli state to exist in safety.

    somafunk
    Full Member

    As a UN lawyer mentioned yesterday “you call for an immediate ceasefire” as a matter of first principle then you begin to dig into the weeds over a matter of months or years in this case.

    ernielynch
    Full Member

    Because is doesn’t address the Hamas attacks

    Because the ongoing slaughter happening right now has nothing to do with what happened on Oct 7, although obviously Netanyahu is claiming that it has.

    The SNP motion was about what is happening right now, ie, hundreds of innocent civilians, half of them children, are dying every day.

    It was not concerned about the past nor the future, which is why it didn’t mention Oct 7, nor whether there should be a two state solution or a one state solution (are you for real that to stop the current daily slaughter of civilians there has to be a roadmap for the future?) but it did call for the release of those held by Hamas – which is a current situation.

    Btw Starmer’s motion didn’t mention the 75 years of Israeli oppression, don’t you think that is also relevant to the current situation?

    The SNP motion was not calling for peace, it was calling for a ceasefire.

    If you believe that you can’t have a ceasefire without a political solution then you obviously do not support a ceasefire.

    ernielynch
    Full Member

    Btw you really won’t ever criticise Starmer on any issue will you?

    From his ditching of the £28bn green pledge to his shameful record on Palestine.

    You defend him when he takes a position, and then again when he carries out a screeching handbrake turn and goes in the opposite direction.

    In Starmer you have apparently found the perfect politician who is never wrong, or so it would appear.

    Being uncritical of politicians really isn’t healthy you know.

    And I have always placed the bar far higher for Labour.

    I generally expect Tory politicians to be arseholes, Labour less so.

    somafunk
    Full Member

    I expect the tories/labour will now put forward a new bill to ban all protests if there is a chance of fear/intimidation whether that be real and credible or merely perceived by an individual/group of individuals.

    I give it two weeks before something is drawn up in haste

    It is year 2091 of our great lord and and master starmer-bot, as prescribed in the constitution it will be permitted to protest for no longer than a streeting unit of time in the proscribed area of reevian square on the anniversary day of the birth of our great lord born on 2nd may 2024, please collect your 10 second protest voucher as you exit the sanition shower. Any protest exceeding 10 seconds shall be terminated with prejudice.

    kelvin
    Full Member

    I have criticised Starmer. In this thread. Including on the green spending plans.

    As for Israel and Palestine, as you’re one of the people who thinks Israel shouldn’t exist at all as a homeland for the Jewish people, we’re unlikely to see eye to eye completely, even if we do agree that Israel should never have gone after Hamas because of the huge lose of innocent lives that entails.

    ernielynch
    Full Member

    Yeah but this isn’t about me, and the fact that like a growing number of people I believe in a free democratic and secular Palestine, for Palestinian Jews, Muslims, Christians, and those without any faith, a bit like the UK

    This is about Starmer and how you constantly support his ever changing positions.

    If Starmer opposes a motion calling for a ceasefire one week he is absolutely right, and if he supports a ceasefire a couple of weeks later he is also absolutely right.

    It makes him quite a remarkable politician. I mean, how many politicians do you know that get things right as often as Starmer?

    Although the weird thing is that Starmer always seems to be changing his mind – it’s almost as if he hasn’t managed to convince himself, despite convincing you!

    mattyfez
    Full Member

    Most UK MP’s are the same..
    So partisan… So tribal.. They’d vote to kill thier own mother sooner than voting for a motion or amendment that was suggested by any party other than thier own.

    They really are all just a bunch of pathetic children.

    frankconway
    Full Member

    And on and on ad infinitum…

    ernielynch
    Full Member

    Unlike the Sunak thread.

    Northwind
    Full Member

    mattyfez
    Full Member

    Most UK MP’s are the same..
    So partisan… So tribal.. They’d vote to kill thier own mother sooner than voting for a motion or amendment that was suggested by any party other than thier own.

    Some, sure. But this whole thing was about the impending Labour rebellion that was going to see a huge swathe of Labour MPs and most likely members of the shadow cabinet defy their leader to vote for an SNP motion. Labour hasn’t quite managed to rid itself completely of people with ideas of their own or a conscience or a backbone, it gives me a little hope tbh

    rone
    Full Member

    And I have always placed the bar far higher for Labour.

    I generally expect Tory politicians to be arseholes, Labour less so.

    This so much.

    O’Brien has done unbelievable Centrist gymnastics to paint Starmer as the good guy – and I guarantee if this was flipped he would be having a massive heart attack over the sort of behaviour if the Tories were acting as Labour recently.

    The Red team is meant to be the pathway to hope – it’s done nothing of sort and has gotten much worse recently.

    The long term damage by supporting Labour’s arguments on lack of green solutions , fiscal responsibility and damp squib policies is immense. It’s so much a Conservative policy  platform I can’t believe that it even needs saying.

    Why get excited by a poll lead of you’re simply just following this path?

    kerley
    Free Member

    So partisan… So tribal.. They’d vote to kill thier own mother sooner than voting for a motion or amendment that was suggested by any party other than thier own.

    Being in a party is always going to be partisan, especially with whipping on anything seen as important to the party.

    Saying that, I have probably agreed with something the tories have proposed maybe 2 times in the last 13 years so I would appear the same.

    BruceWee
    Full Member

    Why get excited by a poll lead of you’re simply just following this path?

    I think it’s telling that Sunak’s approval acts like an amplification of Starmer’s approval rather than a mirror. When one goes up they both go up. When one goes down they both go down (although Sunak’s goes down more).

    I guess this is to be expected given that Starmer is mostly saying the same things as Sunak and people don’t like what they hear no matter who is saying it.

    MoreCashThanDash
    Full Member

    Yeah but this isn’t about me

    If you’re happy making it about others, you can’t really try and squirm out of it if they turn that round on you.

    kimbers
    Full Member

    When one goes up they both go up. When one goes down they both go down (although Sunak’s goes

    down more).

    that’s not be really happening though starmer is creeping back up as Sunak continues to sink

    even if ront knows still win

    Twodogs
    Full Member

    I would imagine that Starmer wanted a more nuanced resolution to be voted on to head off any claims that Labour is anti-Semitic (which is exactly what the right wing press would do given half a chance).

    Twodogs
    Full Member

    Anyway, I’m out….can’t argue with people who believe you should hold Labour politicians to a higher standard than Tory….you should hold all politicians to the same standard (but may well be disappointed by the Tories morenoften than Labour, tho i doubt it really cos…well, politicians)

    timba
    Free Member

    A trap for what I have no idea but people seem to have lost their shit over it so it must be important

    The important thing is that panto overcame politics and an opportunity was missed

    Yes, it was probably an SNP trap, but the whole thing with the original motion and both amendments (Lab and Con) could have been debated and the middle-east would be closer to a ceasefire.

    Speaker Lindsay Hoyle made a decision that was ill-thought out, the Government amendment was withdrawn and it went downhill from there, explanation here… https://theconversation.com/speaker-lindsay-hoyle-sparks-chaos-five-steps-to-understanding-why-mps-stormed-out-of-parliament-during-gaza-vote-224134

    BillMC
    Full Member

    The Labour administration in Wales have made the worst offer in the UK to ‘junior’ doctors, 5%, a potent portent.

    ernielynch
    Full Member

    If you’re happy making it about others, you can’t really try and squirm out of it if they turn that round on you.

    The sum total of one post (which btw got a lot of likes) was :

    “You really do say some weird stuff”

    Nothing whatsoever to do with the subject matter, nor an attempt at providing an intelligent counter-argument. Just an attempt at personal ridicule by a poster who couldn’t think of anything else to say, backed up of course by a dozen or so other punters who also couldn’t think of anything intelligent to say.

    Then totally predictably you, MCTD, turn up and throw your penny’s worth of personal insults which have absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter.

    Some people need to get out in the real world and talk to normal people if they think what I have been saying is “weird”. There is nothing weird about opposing Starmer’s position on a ceasefire, in fact it is probably weirder to try to defend it.

    Not only are there a lot of non-weird people in the the real world (including outside Scotland) who were very strongly opposed to Starmer’s ceasefire position but it was estimated that approximately 100 of his own MPs were so strongly opposed to it that they were prepared to defy him and vote with the SNP. There are only 199 Labour MPs.

    I know that some people would much rather that this thread was like the Rishi Sunak thread, where basically everyone agrees that the Tories are beastly and everyone hates them, and repeat exactly the same pointless rhetoric and ranting every single day, but thankfully this thread still enjoys a variety of opinions.

    kimbers
    Full Member

    Yes, it was probably an SNP trap, but the whole thing with the original motion and both amendments (Lab and Con) could have been debated and the middle-east would be closer to a ceasefire

    ? was this sarcasm??

    I cant believe you think whatever was said in the commons would make the tiniest bit of difference to what the IDF are doing in Gaza

    rone
    Full Member

    I know that some people would much rather that this thread was like the Rishi Sunak thread, where basically everyone agrees that the Tories are beastly and everyone hates them, and repeat exactly the same pointless rhetoric and ranting every single day, but thankfully this thread still enjoys a variety of opinions.

    Speaks volumes.

    There was about a 6 hour gap on the Sunak thread the other day when Labour were shitting themselves all over parliament and thoughts were gathered ready to defend the red team for acting like crazy Tories.

    Also what’s Hoyle on about with a Terrorist attack?

Viewing 40 posts - 21,041 through 21,080 (of 21,675 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.