Speaker of the House of Commons

Local council down here had some meeting
All the minutes were recorded

Subject weather to spend 30 quid on a new wheel barrow for the part time church yard gardener

Jeez us wept if all the fruit cakes who attended the meeting had chucked in a couple of quid it would have been sorted in a minute
 
Sponsored Links
blup said:
Shameful politicisation
Click to expand...
Yes by the SNP
This debate had nothing to do with the people dying in Palestine, it was entirely to do with the SNP and Tories trying to give Labour a headache and create division. Both SNP and Tories are set to lose seats to Labour.





The SNP tabled amendment (which they didn’t publish beforehand to minimise chance for it to be looked at) included a specific line which made it impossible for Labour to back it: “the people of Palestine have been subjected to,collective punishment” A term which has specific legal meaning as it is a breach of art 33 of the Geneva convention, no court has deemed Israel is guilty of such a breach and no serious political party can support a motion that hasn’t been supported in law.

You are looking at the wrong party
 
An MP noticed a threat on social media. Man from Yorkshire said he was going to go down to London and duff him up. The police tracked him down to London arrested him and he was sectioned. Few months later MP gets a phone call, He's out and in London. The MP is very careful about what he does even on tube platforms. An MP who was killed did live near him. He has also been punched. Offices have been set on fire. Another MP had crowd show up outside his house. Police when they came kept them away via parked cars.

You may have heard that there has been a big increase in Jewish people having problems rather recently. Guess what same for moslems.

An MP who holds a surgery near where I live. Held one with a group who then blocked him from his car and became threatening. The police had to be called. ;) The assistant that goes around with him is a big bloke.

People who think this sort of things don't go on must be nuts. The country seems to getting more like a football match where trouble does crop up now and again. It's interesting to note it took Trump to reach the peak of this sort of thing in the US.
 
fixitflav said:
It's all ridiculous anyway, the Israelis aren't interested in what UK political parties, or Prince William, thinks about a ceasefire. They might take some notice of the US, but that's about it.
Click to expand...
because they have blackmailed them for so long LOL....Zionists don't care because...... they own them
oy vey
 
Sponsored Links
Notch7 said:
I’m not sure this really true, there was very little difference in the wording between SNP, Labour or Conservative.
Click to expand...
Notch7 said:
It was hardly any different

Unilateral….what’s the point in that, It won’t happen


It’s student politics……principle for the point of principle.
Click to expand...
Notch7 said:
The SNP tabled amendment (which they didn’t publish beforehand to minimise chance for it to be looked at) included a specific line which made it impossible for Labour to back it: “the people of Palestine have been subjected to,collective punishment” A term which has specific legal meaning as it is a breach of art 33 of the Geneva convention, no court has deemed Israel is guilty of such a breach and no serious political party can support a motion that hasn’t been supported in law.

You are looking at the wrong party
Click to expand...
A number of internal inconsistencies in your own posts on this thread.
 
JonathanM said:
Why did the government withdrawing their amendment mean that the SNP motion couldn't be voted on? It's widely reported, but I've not found anything yet which actually explains this.
Click to expand...
Because the SNP had left the chamber nd could not formally move and second it. It was just a piece of paper up until then.
JonathanM said:
It gets more mysterious! It seems that the reason Penny Mordant withdrew the government from the debate was not because of any matter of principle. It was simply that the Tories were worried that too many of their own MPs would support the Labour amendment and that would be embarrassing for the Tories :LOL:

So, the chronology is. SNP put forward their motion. Labour put forward their amendment. In order to cause Labour embarrassment, the government put forward their own amendment. This would normally stop the Labour amendment being voted on. But the speaker goes against precedent and says he is going to change the rules for future debates. He allows both amendments. The government realises that the Labour amendment is actually really popular with MPs, including their own. As a result, they withdraw from the debate to stop their MPs voting for Labour and causing them the embarrassment they had been wanting to inflict on Labour. Which means the Labour amendment now has enough votes to pass because there are no Tories to vote against it. As a result of the Labour amendment passing, there can't be a vote on the SNP motion.
Click to expand...
I don't buy that, the tories calculated that the labour vote was acceptable politically, but left because of the Speakers antics. The Speaker remains completely out of order. It was the least worst option in the light of the Speakers decision which was final. The Clerk advise the Speaker in advance that the SNP motion might not get to a vote.
 
blup said:
A number of internal inconsistencies in your own posts on this thread.
Click to expand...
I did a bit more digging…and got to the real reason.

The ceasefire vote passed, so SNP should’ve been happy….but they were furious because their trap for Labour failed.

You don’t like Starmer so you don’t want to believe it. That’s between you and your cognitive bias
 
blup said:
I don't buy that, the tories calculated that the labour vote was acceptable politically, but left because of the Speakers antics
Click to expand...
No

They left with faux outrage because they wanted to get at Hoyle and Labour.

It’s known as the nasty party for a reason
 
More rubbish and lies from notchy. Starmers henchmen got at the speaker because they feared the worst that half their front bench and countless mps were set to vote with the snp on a ceasefire.
 
LOL Crackpots. The commons some how will decide what happens with the speaker issue so it doesn't matter an f what people on here think. Actually he's getting some strong support.

There is also a view that if the SNP stick with their view he will resign what ever others think.
 
It's appalling that with this story dominating the headlines, there is not a single comprehensive, coherent explanation of what actually happened in any media source. I've been doing my best to piece it together from various sources

blup said:
Because the SNP had left the chamber and could not formally move and second it. It was just a piece of paper up until then.
Click to expand...

I think the above is wrong, though. From reading Hansard, it seems Penny Mordaunt's hand grenade left everyone confused. With the government withdrawing their own amendment, nobody really seemed to know what would happen next. The SNP ask several times for a clear explanation from the Deputy Speaker. In the end she seeks clarification herself and then tells the SNP that the Labour amendment will be voted on first, and if the Labour motion passes, then there will be no vote on the SNP motion. It is clear that after hearing that explanation, the SNP walk out, because another MP then refers to the fact that they have left.

blup said:
I don't buy that, the tories calculated that the labour vote was acceptable politically, but left because of the Speakers antics. The Speaker remains completely out of order. It was the least worst option in the light of the Speakers decision which was final. The Clerk advise the Speaker in advance that the SNP motion might not get to a vote.
Click to expand...

The only way that the SNP motion wouldn't get a vote would be if the Labour motion passed. It was Penny Mordaunt who ensured that would happen!! I don't think anybody knows why she chose to do this after the debate had finished and just before the first vote was due. It seems petty and spiteful. If it really was such an important point of principle, they should have withdrawn their amendment before the debate started. Not lead everyone up the garden path and do it at the last second.
 
Last edited:
He wanted to involve Labour, Cons and SNP in the debate because of gatherings at MPs houses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top