Scrutable

Well Starmer's f.cked this up. The most inconsequential vote you could imagine, and he turns it into a storm about words and procedures.

Has he? Sounds like Lindsay Hoyle is the one who f.cked it.

Starmer’s walked away with a victory and the Tories and SNP voted no together against a ceasefire amendment.

Tbh can't see this cutting through all that much

lpm wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 21, 2024 7:03 pm

Well Starmer's f.cked this up. The most inconsequential vote you could imagine, and he turns it into a storm about words and procedures.

It is all about words.

And saying that Israel cannot be expected to halt the fighting if Hamas continues violence seems like a reasonable addition.

El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 21, 2024 9:50 pm

Tbh can't see this cutting through all that much

Not with voters. But Labour needs friends in the Commons - to exploit Tory infighting.

And when they win they need a helpful Speaker - especially if a tiny majority or minority government.

Apparently the Tories are thinking about unseating him by standing against him at the election.

Lads, he's the MP for Chorley. In Lancashire. Where the Tories haven't won for over 30 years. And everyone hates you.

lpm wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 22, 2024 8:30 am

El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 21, 2024 9:50 pm

Tbh can't see this cutting through all that much

Not with voters. But Labour needs friends in the Commons - to exploit Tory infighting.

And when they win they need a helpful Speaker - especially if a tiny majority or minority government.

Lindsay Hoyle has been helpful for Labour?

You learn something new everyday.

jimbob wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 22, 2024 8:01 am

lpm wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 21, 2024 7:03 pm

Well Starmer's f.cked this up. The most inconsequential vote you could imagine, and he turns it into a storm about words and procedures.

It is all about words.

And saying that Israel cannot be expected to halt the fighting if Hamas continues violence seems like a reasonable addition.

Labour also added a demand to end "settlement" expansion and violence [my quotation marks], which doesn't seem unreasonable either.

This is why, if I'm trying to reach a written agreement with someone, I nearly always prefer to get in first and draft it myself.

jimbob wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 22, 2024 8:01 am

lpm wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 21, 2024 7:03 pm

Well Starmer's f.cked this up. The most inconsequential vote you could imagine, and he turns it into a storm about words and procedures.

It is all about words.

And saying that Israel cannot be expected to halt the fighting if Hamas continues violence seems like a reasonable addition.

It is indeed a lot about words. People call for ceasefires without saying what they mean. And now when Labour has tried to add clarity to this - ceasefire means bilateral ceasefire - they go, noooooo, we don't want that clarity. We just want the moral superiority of calling for a ceasefire that is as ill-defined as possible. We don't want to say what we mean at all. We just want to solve our own internal problem.

I asked some months ago, are these ceasefire calls for bilateral or unilateral ceasefires? And some people said, well, ceasefires, they are bilateral, aren't they? That's what they must mean. But now when someone tries to clarify that it means a bilateral ceasefire, we see that actually there are many don't want that clarity.

And some might think as jimbob does, that it is reasonable for it to be bilateral. And others might think that Israel should unilaterally ceasefire. But kudos at least to Labour for being clear what they mean when others refused.

When first ceasefire calls came, I thought a bilateral ceasefire was unachievable, because I didn't think Hamas would stop. And then we did in fact have a temporary bilateral ceasefire, so I was wrong. And just recently Hamas set out some terms for a ceasefire. And people will vary as to whether they think Netanyahu's "in your dreams" response was reasonable or unreasonable. But personally I think what Hamas asked for was a reasonable starting point for a negotiation.

I found this interview clip with the SNP's Stephen Flynn funny: clicky

Stephen Flynn: "We need to know what Starmer and Hoyle said in their meeting."

Beth Rigby: "What did you talk about in your meeting?"

Stephen Flynn: "It was a private meeting, it would be unfair to talk about that."

During the last 24 hours the SNP have reminded us all to be grateful that Sinn Fein don't take their seats in Westminster.

Who needs tantrums from a bunch of MP's who don't actually want to be there?

monkey wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 22, 2024 4:20 pm

I found this interview clip with the SNP's Stephen Flynn funny: clicky

Stephen Flynn: "We need to know what Starmer and Hoyle said in their meeting."

Beth Rigby: "What did you talk about in your meeting?"

Stephen Flynn: "It was a private meeting, it would be unfair to talk about that."

Hard to disagree with your assessment