Israel / Palestine

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
Location
South Tyneside
I think you've missed the point. Traditionally the labour party have taken the Muslim vote for granted. Now they've alienated large swathes by running scared of the Israeli lobby and being shoot scared of being called antisemitic.
Even if the Muslim vote was a block, that might not be a big enough factor in itself to swing the election given current feeling among the electorate. But Keith has been scared enough to go running around constituencies trying to reassure Muslim groups he's a decent chap.

I was not really commenting on the current situation in Rochdale, although, that situation has sort of "shone a light" on the issue. Nor was I suggesting that there is a "block vote" (by any group) at present, but, more fearing the possibility of such a development.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R
https://www.thenational.scot/politi...aviour-reveals-brutal-truth-british-politics/

It seems that Starmer is not above a bit of blackmail. From the above article...

Yet parliamentary protocol meant only a government amendment would be selected for a vote on the SNP motion. Starmer’s biggest parliamentary rebellion beckoned – perhaps upwards of 100, triggering multiple resignations. His refusal to back the SNP’s clear motion would leave him exposed to colossal anger from natural Labour voters. Imagine everyone’s surprise when the Speaker then defied parliamentary precedent, and the clear advice of the Clerk of the House, to select Labour’s amendment, ensuring there wouldn’t even be a vote on the SNP’s motion on their own – rare – Opposition Day.

How could flagrant contempt for democracy happen? Labour sources briefed BBC Newsnight political editor, Nicholas Watt, that the party leadership had told the Speaker that unless he did what they said, when they inevitably won the next election, they would remove him. In common parlance, this would be known as blackmail. It was also claimed that Starmer told the Speaker that MPs’ security was at risk if Labour’s amendment was not selected. In other words: Do what I want, or you will endanger the lives of politicians.

Can we just stop to process this a moment? In order to protect Israel from the charge of collective punishment, and head off an internal revolt which would damage his leadership, Starmer allegedly blackmailed the Speaker by threatening to end his political career, and further suggested he would endanger politicians’ lives, unless he broke parliamentary protocol.


But, yeah, it's all the SNPs fault. :rolleyes:
 

multitool

Guest

Nice neutral source, that :laugh:

The National is the SNP's tabloid propaganda rag.

But, yeah, it's all the SNPs fault. :rolleyes:

It's everybody's fault.

If you understood anything at all about the workings of the UK parliamentary system you'd understand that, but let's just add it to the list of things about which you are clueless.

Most ridiculous is your unwillingness to learn and insistence on repeatedly running headfirst into a wall.

You could have done some research on what Opposition Day is. You could have found out how it is generally used, and how the SNP motion fits exactly into that MO. You could have researched govt responses to Opposition Day motions and discovered that since Theresa May they are generally ignored. You could have asked yourself what the general MO of the SNP in Westminster is, what their intentions are, why they are considered ridiculous and generally ignored and viewed their Opposition Day motion in that light.

But no. You are sticking to your simplistic naive binary view of good/bad, with no understanding of the fascinating complexities and manoeuvring of Westminster politics.

The fact remains that the SNP's sole purpose was to try and cause a rift within Labour and embarrass Starmer, for no other reason than their own cynical exploitation of Palestinian suffering for their own political gain in Scotland, because they are frightened that Labour are closing the gap between them in Scotland.

The SNP on Gaza sound remarkably like George Galloway, don't they? No coincidence since let's not forget the SNP is essentially the Scottish version of the Brexit party. Utter populist chancers.

So Starmer blackmailed Hoyle?

Good. Shows he's got some balls, and is willing to fight dirty just like everyone else. He saw off the SNP's little manoeuvre and now they are tantrumming.

If you think this is bad, wait until you find out how the Whips operate.
 
Last edited:

multitool

Guest
Of course it is, how dare they table a motion that would require Starmer to actually take a definite position on something.

The SNP and Labour motions were near-identical.

The only significant difference was the exclusion of the notion of 'collective punishment'.

If the aim of the motion was to influence Israeli behaviour then this was probably a good thing.

(Quite clearly to almost everyone the real aim of the motion was nothing to do with Israel or Gaza)
 
Nice neutral source, that :laugh:

The National is the SNP's tabloid propaganda rag.



It's everybody's fault.

If you understood anything at all about the workings of the UK parliamentary system you'd understand that, but let's just add it to the list of things about which you are clueless.

Most ridiculous is your unwillingness to learn and insistence on repeatedly running headfirst into a wall.

You could have done some research on what Opposition Day is. You could have found out how it is generally used, and how the SNP motion fits exactly into that MO. You could have researched govt responses to Opposition Day motions and discovered that since Theresa May they are generally ignored. You could have asked yourself what the general MO of the SNP in Westminster is, what their intentions are, why they are considered ridiculous and generally ignored and viewed their Opposition Day motion in that light.

But no. You are sticking to your simplistic naive binary view of good/bad, with no understanding of the fascinating complexities and manoeuvring of Westminster politics.

The fact remains that the SNP's sole purpose was to try and cause a rift within Labour and embarrass Starmer, for no other reason than their own cynical exploitation of Palestinian suffering for their own political gain in Scotland, because they are frightened that Labour are closing the gap between them in Scotland.

The SNP on Gaza sound remarkably like George Galloway, don't they? No coincidence since let's not forget the SNP is essentially the Scottish version of the Brexit party. Utter populist chancers.

So Starmer blackmailed Hoyle?

Good. Shows he's got some balls, and is willing to fight dirty just like everyone else. He saw off the SNP's little manoeuvre and now they are tantrumming.

If you think this is bad, wait until you find out how the Whips operate.

I have been listening to a lot about this procedure today and what occurred last night was unusual hence the kick off.

So, you think that Starmer, or indeed any party leader, threatening the Speaker with the loss of his job unless they did what they demanded, against all conventions, is an acceptable way to do things? I don't. And many people don't either.

The SNP being equivalent to the Brexit party is the most ludicrous thing you've said on this forum, and that's despite stiff competition.
 
Last edited:
The SNP and Labour motions were near-identical.

The only significant difference was the exclusion of the notion of 'collective punishment'.

If the aim of the motion was to influence Israeli behaviour then this was probably a good thing.

(Quite clearly to almost everyone the real aim of the motion was nothing to do with Israel or Gaza)

So, why does Liebour have such a problem with the term 'Collective Punishment' even though every legal expert in this field have called it exactly that?

The aim of the motion was to get the UK to call for a ceasefire so it had everything to do with Gaza/Israel sadly, Starmer scuppered it by blackmailing the Speaker therefore saving Stamer's neck as many MPs would've voted for the SNP Motion. The Red Tories only have themselves to blame as they've changed position on this, and everything else, so many times I'm surprised they know which way is up.

Your fanboying of Starmer is just pathetic now. He now has to face the Privileges Committee regarding his behaviour.

Again, do remind me why this is the SNPs fault?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: C R

multitool

Guest
So, you think that Starmer, or indeed any party leader, threatening the Speaker with the loss of his job unless they did what they demanded, against all conventions, is an acceptable way to do things? I don't. And many people don't either.

I think you are unbelievably naive if you think that this is in any way unusual.

The SNP being equivalent to the Brexit party is the most ludicrous thing you've said on this forum, and that's despite stiff competition.

Nationalist party? Tick
Wants to break away from a union because they think they can do better outside? Tick
Focuses on historical grudges? Tick
Likely to fùck own country? Tick
Populist? Tick
Based on emotion rather than logic? Tick
Supported by annoying whiny pricks? Tick

So, you tell me...what are the tangible differences. :laugh:
 
It is unusual. Many Parliamentary experts have said it was unusual. That's fact, not populist nonsense by pricks.

Also, your childish insults say more about you than me. It tells me that you have no evidence to refute what I posted or to answer the question, what has the SNP done wrong?

You've already thrown a temper tantrum once already, yesterday, are you throwing another one because many of us see Starmer for what he is and will say so? A Red Tory happy to blackmail the Speaker to get what he wants? Why else would the Privileges Committee become interested in his behaviour? Would you hold the same opinion if Sunak had done similar?

Everything I posted has been backed up by evidence. I have more sources if you want them. You have posted not one syllable of evidence, just a load of insults and a flounce.

Grow the f*^k up!
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R

multitool

Guest
So, why does Liebour have such a problem with the term 'Collective Punishment' even though every legal expert in this field have called it exactly that?

The last part of your sentence is just not true. I happen to think it is collective punishment, however.

The aim of the motion was to get the UK to call for a ceasefire so it had everything to do with Gaza/Israel sadly,

No, the SNP's aim was to pit Labour MPs against Starmer, make him look weak and the Labour party split in the hope of dissuading Scottish voters from voting Labour
Starmer scuppered it

No he didnt. It was scuppered by the Tories who walked (and the SNP). There was no vote because of them, not because of Labour

by blackmailing the Speaker therefore saving Stamer's neck as many MPs would've voted for the SNP Motion. .

Your fanboying of Starmer

Language like this just makes you look a prick

is just pathetic now. He now has to face the Privileges Committee regarding his behaviour.

No he doesn't.

Neale Hanvey, an Alba Party MP (who?) has written to Harman. That doesn't mean Starmer has to face the committee.

Again, do remind me why this is the SNPs fault?

By exploiting the Gazans' suffering for their own petty political advantage
 

multitool

Guest
It is unusual. Many Parliamentary experts have said it was unusual. That's fact, not populist nonsense by pricks.

You are now conflating two entirely different posts. I really can't be arsed with somebody who can't hold two thoughts in their head, researches retrospectively (ie. AFTER having stated a position) uses puerile rhetoric, and is somewhat of a tit

Im out.
 
You are now conflating two entirely different posts. I really can't be arsed with somebody who can't hold two thoughts in their head, researches retrospectively (ie. AFTER having stated a position) uses puerile rhetoric, and is somewhat of a tit

Im out.

Flounce no2 because you can’t handle that Starmer’s not the messiah? I’m not conflating 2 different posts, just repeating what you posted, with no evidence, just insults because I questioned Starmer’s motives.

To be expected really from someone who has drank the Starmer Kool-aid.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: C R

multitool

Guest
Flounce no2 because you can’t handle that Starmer’s not the messiah? I’m not conflating 2 different posts, just repeating what you posted, with no evidence, just insults because I questioned Starmer’s motives.

To be expected really from someone who has drank the Starmer Kool-aid.

It's not a flounce.

I just can't be bothered arguing with a teenager.
 
Top Bottom