Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Oboogie wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 5:48 pm Netanyahu's sole motivation is keeping himself out of prison.

Indeed. and the bastard doesn’t seem to care how many innocent people he slaughters in pursuit of that end.

Killer Whale wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 8:19 am Nakedly playing politics with an horrific situation. The SNP have proposed what is basically an Israeli surrender motion that Labour can't possibly support, so Labour have proposed an amendment calling for a meaningful ceasefire from both sides. Cynically, the Government have now put in their own amendment (which will, following tradition, supersede the Labour amendment) in a pincer movement to make Labour MPs choose between two unacceptable extremes or abstain like they don't care.
All of this for absolutely no effect on the crisis on the ground either way. Performative bollocks.

The SNP can manage quite exceptional unpleasantness when they set their minds to it.

So - essentially the SNP tabled an amendment that, if Labour didn't support it they could say showed that Labour was against a ceasefire, but if they did support it would alienate anyone with any sympathy for Palestinians. The 'when did you stop beating your wife' question.

Hoyle, believing that if the Labour amendment calling on both sides to cease fire would mean that the safety of MPs would be greater - that if the SNP amendment were carried MPs would be endangered.

He's now explaining to the house.

Honestly, Hoyle is as weak as piss. He’s the Speaker of the House, for pity’s sake, and he can select whatever amendments he sees fit to, and the hell with precedent. He should be sticking by his decision, instead of making mealy-mouthed, grovelling apologies from the chair simply because the fucking Tories and the SNP have decided to throw their toys out the pram. Fuck the SNP. Just fuck them. I won’t accuse them of not giving a fuck about Gaza/Palestine, as that’s somewhat unfair to some genuinely principled Scot Nat MPs, but they have cynically, and shamefully, exploited an appalling human tragedy for the sake of petty political point scoring that, as has been noted, will make precisely fuck all difference to the reality of the Gaza atrocities. They should be hanging their heads in shame. Stephen Flynn is a despicable shit.

The man's a cunt.

(And even Sturgeon wouldn't have done this)

I've fast come to the conclusion that a lot of the ceasefire now never really wanted a ceasefire just for Israel to essentially surrender and a victory for Hamas.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 7:57 pm I've fast come to the conclusion that a lot of the ceasefire now never really wanted a ceasefire just for Israel to essentially surrender and a victory for Hamas.

I don't know about victory for Hamas - I don't think they've thought that far ahead, but yes, a lot of them don't want Israel to be safe, they don't want a two state solution, and they don't care how much having no place of ultimate sanctuary utterly terrifies many, many Jews worldwide.

By victory for Hamas I mean them being allowed to remain in place.

Quite so:

Meanwhile Pro-Palestinians think they go and intimadate anyone who dares to disagree with them.

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 7:08 pm

Oh well, back to square one.

You’re too busy fighting your irrelevant battles
To see what’s going on in your own backyard
You’re too busy fighting your irrelevant battles
To see what’s going on in your own backyard
‘Cause some of us are having a hard, hard time.

Patrik Fitzgerald, 1978.

I'm still a little bit bewildered as to why the Tories decided to chuck their toys out the pram and the SNP walked out and took their ball home.

Okay, it was one of the SNP's opposition days of which they only get three every session, but they had nevertheless tabled their motion for debate. As I understand it, the way a parliamentary debate proceeds is that the original motion is proposed and debated on, then various amendments to the original motion are taken, debated, and voted on. The amendments then either fall, or are taken on board and applied to the original motion. Then either the substantive original motion, or the motion as amended, is voted on by the whole house and either passes or fails.

The speaker chose to select for debate two amendments to the SNP motion, one proposed by the government and one proposed by Labour, in order to facilitate the widest possible debate on the matter. That seems eminently fair and reasonable to me, whether it's in line with precedent or not. It is the speaker's responsibility and function to do precisely this.

So why were the SNP bleating that they would not have been able to vote for their own motion? Clearly, they could vote and probably would have voted against both Labour's and the government's amendment, either of which may have passed, and they would also have been able to vote for or against the final substantive motion, either as amended or not. Similarly, the Tories were not being prevented from voting on any aspect of the motion or on their own, or Labour's amendment.

So, what should have happened that would have kept the Scot Nats and their baldy twat of a parliamentary leader happy? I use the word "happy" advisedly.

My take:

Nats wanted to isolate Labour and position themselves as holier than thou and whatnot.

Tories wanted to exploit Labour divisions - "Oh look, it's Labour and antisemitism again!".

Labour managed to steer a course between them both*.

Nats realised they'd been outflanked on the inside, so had a strop.

Tories assumed this could only be due to dirty tricks, so suggested Starmer (or Sue Grey, who is rapidly turning into M as played by Judi Dench) had nobbled Hoyle, because he's supposed to be in their pocket.

Bats and balls were claimed as Nats and Tories departed homeward.

*Reminds me of an episode of comic series "The Authority", in which semi-regular character Kev Hawkins (a British government assassin and former SAS guy) is ambushed by two hit squads simultaneously - "IRA, meet UVF!", and ducks as carnage ensues.

@Abernathy
I believe the amendments would be taken before the main motion, therefore if either had succeeded it would have been applied to it in advance of the substantive vote. If as likely either passed the original motion would be amended and therefore they would not be voting on their motion but a different one.

Flynn isn't the operator he thinks he is.

What a detached viewer would see is all three parties pointing at the others.
Claiming "I was right, those two were wrong".
And everybody agreeing it was a shitshow.

Biases confirmed all around.
The floating voter will hear the story from Kuenssberg, her Tufton guests, and some geriatric life peer.

It'll play well to the "Worse with Labour" and "They're all the same" demographics.

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 10:26 am @Abernathy
I believe the amendments would be taken before the main motion, therefore if either had succeeded it would have been applied to it in advance of the substantive vote. If as likely either passed the original motion would be amended and therefore they would not be voting on their motion but a different one.

Yeah, that's how I understand it, If your motion is amended, then the motion as amended is what you finally vote for (or don't, as the case may be). Are Flynn and his self-righteous crew claiming that every opposition day motion should sail through unamended? Because surely that's bollocks?

It seems they are.

As ever, John Crace well worth a read :

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/ ... -ceasefire

Everyone holier than thou. Sanctimony on their side. Everyone wanted a ceasefire. Only they wanted their own ceasefire, not anyone else’s ceasefire.