Chaos in the Commons. Will the Speaker survive?

Originally Posted by jfman

Likewise if the Government passed a vote.

It doesn’t stop many pointless virtue signalling statements or motions, from Government or opposition parties, being made day in and day out in the chamber.

Indeed only yesterday Rishi Sunak, Sir Kier and Stephen Flynn all paid tribute to Russian dissident and probable western intelligence asset Alexei Navalny who, despite dying last week, is only marginally less likely to hold public office in the future than he was the week before last.

Nice to see you spreading the Party line, tovarisch…

https://tass.com/politics/1207373

[jfman]

No other line worth peddling in that story, comrade.

Originally Posted by jfman

It’s hardly “games” to use their allotted time to discuss an issue that they’ve been vocal about, in Holyrood and at Westminster, for months.

It’s one of biggest global issues at present and one that the SNP disagree fundamentally with the Government. The calendar may have given the SNP some luck.

The game is designing a motion that the Labour leadership can't vote for in the hope their backbenchers would rebel. If they wanted the motion to pass they could have addressed the concerns of the Labour Party and the Lib Dems to come up with a motion that had cross-party appeal. The Lib Dems tried to work with them, but the SNP rejected it.

All three parties were playing politics trying to cause issues for each other. The Tories and SNP were essentially trying to snooker Labour into an awkward position, the speaker bailed them out.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Damien

The game is designing a motion that the Labour leadership can't vote for in the hope their backbenchers would rebel. If they wanted the motion to pass they could have addressed the concerns of the Labour Party and the Lib Dems to come up with a motion that had cross-party appeal. The Lib Dems tried to work with them, but the SNP rejected it.

All three parties were playing politics trying to cause issues for each other. The Tories and SNP were essentially trying to snooker Labour into an awkward position, the speaker bailed them out.

I think it’s disingenuous to suggest or imply the SNP were gaming the system to make things difficult for Labour.

The fact it was difficult for Labour is due to Starmer’s lack of backbone on the Israel issue - which has had shadow Ministers resign and was increasingly untenable. His need to qualify every statement to satisfy the pro-Israel lobby put him in that position and no-one else.

I agree the Speaker bailed them out however it was entirely improper for him to do so.

Would he do the same for Starmer as PM? I suggest we will never find out.

Originally Posted by jfman

I think it’s disingenuous to suggest or imply the SNP were gaming the system to make things difficult for Labour.

I am not saying they were 'gaming' the system. I am saying they designed a motion designed to trip Labour up which is why I don't feel a great deal of sympathy for them that it went wrong.

The fact it was difficult for Labour is due to Starmer’s lack of backbone on the Israel issue - which has had shadow Ministers resign and was increasingly untenable. His need to qualify every statement to satisfy the pro-Israel lobby put him in that position and no-one else.

It was difficult for Labour because Labour wanted to include more onus on the fact that Hamas also have to abide by any ceasefire. If the SNP had included that and taken out of the collective punishment bit then Labour would have voted for the position. The Lib Dems pretty much asked for the same thing and were denied.

It's politics and all the parties play it.

The speaker shouldn't have selected Labour's motion but I am not buying the SNP's pearl-clutching here.

[jfman]

I’m not convinced a straightforward motion in line with their own stance calling for a ceasefire which the Government and opposition could then vote for or against is “designed” to do anything other than what it said on the tin.

I’m equally unconvinced that your dismissal of objecting to not following established process as “pearl clutching” is motivated by anything other than your own political bias.

The SNP aren’t obliged to water their motions down to suit the Labour Party or anyone else. The Speaker had a choice to follow established process or go rogue. He chose the latter. Labour and Hoyle have damaged our democratic institutions for no good reason other than to save Starmer from embarrassment. You might think that’s a worthwhile reason, I however do not.

I do agree all parties “play politics” however it was up to Starmer to find a way out within the rules, not to ride roughshod all over them.

Originally Posted by jfman

No other line worth peddling in that story, comrade.

[nomadking]

The real issue is that Starmer interfered with and overtly influenced the supposedly impartial Speaker. Think of the situation in a court case, where either the prosecution or defence did that. If Starmer actually wanted to raise a point, then is should be made in the open and able to be criticised or possibly supported.

Originally Posted by denphone

Parliament at its worse.

Or at it's best..

---------- Post added at 08:41 ---------- Previous post was at 08:39 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr K

All irrelevant twaddle. If any of the rest of us got up and walked out on our jobs.. Load of prima donnas looking for any distraction from the crap job they're not doing.

---------- Post added at 08:42 ---------- Previous post was at 08:41 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

Labour certainly seem to have got up to some Parliamentary skullduggery yesterday but it's hard to feel sorry for the SNP who were playing their own games as well.

---------- Post added at 08:49 ---------- Previous post was at 08:42 ----------

I'm frankly sick of the vast majority of all MPs supposedly representing their constituents but enjoying a nice comfy working lifestyle that their constituents would love to be available to them but find their daily circumstances decree otherwise.

Originally Posted by jfman

I’m not convinced a straightforward motion in line with their own stance calling for a ceasefire which the Government and opposition could then vote for or against is “designed” to do anything other than what it said on the tin.

Of course, it is.

If you're the third largest party and you genuinely want a motion to pass then you need to build cross-party consensus. The SNP knew, and were told, that a motion that didn't also mention that Israel has a right to defend itself and didn't condemn Hamas violence wasn't going to pass.

It was a motion designed to be defeated so they could grandstand after the fact.

They even left the chamber for the actual vote!

I’m equally unconvinced that your dismissal of objecting to not following established process as “pearl clutching” is motivated by anything other than your own political bias.

I agree with you that the Labour motion shouldn't have been selected and Labour were playing politics. I just disagree the SNP had pure intentions.

You seem to have a level of cynicism you suspend the moment the line being delivered to you is presented as an alternative take to the establishment. Labour/Tories bad, SNP Good. The West bad, Kremlin good.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Damien

I am not saying they were 'gaming' the system. I am saying they designed a motion designed to trip Labour up which is why I don't feel a great deal of sympathy for them that it went wrong.



It was difficult for Labour because Labour wanted to include more onus on the fact that Hamas also have to abide by any ceasefire. If the SNP had included that and taken out of the collective punishment bit then Labour would have voted for the position. The Lib Dems pretty much asked for the same thing and were denied.

It's politics and all the parties play it.

The speaker shouldn't have selected Labour's motion but I am not buying the SNP's pearl-clutching here.

Exactly this. The SNP motion had the term ‘collective punishment’ in it that no serious party of government or potential government could sign up to without some serious strong evidence. Basically, you don’t accuse nation states of war crimes unless you are really sure if you want to be taken seriously as a government.

The SNP only stood to gain from labour and indeed the Conservatives not voting for the motion from a political point of view.

It’s pretty shoddy using a desperate international situation to further your domestic political ambitions.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Exactly this. The SNP motion had the term ‘collective punishment’ in it that no serious party of government or potential government could sign up to without some serious strong evidence. Basically, you don’t accuse nation states of war crimes unless you are really sure if you want to be taken seriously as a government.

The SNP only stood to gain from labour and indeed the Conservatives not voting for the motion from a political point of view.

It’s pretty shoddy using a desperate international situation to further your domestic political ambitions.

Red herring alert.

Whether the SNP motion was credible or otherwise is an irrelevance. 600 MPs could have stood there and voted it down, leaving Stephen Flynn howling into the abyss.

And it would have followed the correct process.

The SNP had the right to stand there and put forward a motion that the earth is flat, against all credible scientific evidence, should they so wish.

The rules were broken to give Starmer, and by proxy Israel, cover and deny the SNP their right to put their motion before Parliamentarians first.

The fact that a significant number of Labour MPs, and a small number of Conservatives have publicly said they would have voted for it suggests the accusations are not as incredible as you propose.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Maggy

<SNIP>
I'm frankly sick of the vast majority of all MPs supposedly representing their constituents but enjoying a nice comfy working lifestyle that their constituents would love to be available to them but find their daily circumstances decree otherwise.

What's your alternative suggestion?

I get it, you're disappointed with the MPs - all parties and especially the political games they play for no public benefit. But what can be practically done about it? The whole political system with whips, loyalty, etc is a difficult one to break.

Unless the nasties trying to usurp democracy eventually gain power.


---------- Post added at 09:54 ---------- Previous post was at 09:51 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Red herring alert.

Whether the SNP motion was credible or otherwise is an irrelevance. 600 MPs could have stood there and voted it down, leaving Stephen Flynn howling into the abyss.

And it would have followed the correct process.

The SNP had the right to stand there and put forward a motion that the earth is flat, against all credible scientific evidence, should they so wish.

The rules were broken to give Starmer, and by proxy Israel, cover and deny the SNP their right to put their motion before Parliamentarians first.

Correct - apart from the greyed-out phrase. We must keep 7-Oct in mind and also consider what is a proportional response to roasted babies.

[jfman]

It’s clearly giving Israel cover. Rather than discussing how many of our Parliamentarians are accusing them of collective punishment when they bomb hospitals or have snipers gun down children.

Instead we are discussing some relatively frivolous matter while Labour’s mealy mouthed proposal to semi-justify Israeli alleged war crimes went through on the nod following a Government boycott.

It makes a mockery of the process. Everyone knows it.

[nomadking]

The SNP had the Parliamentary right to bring the motion. Doesn't matter whether you agree with it or not. Convention is that if the Government brings an amendment, then no other opposition party amendment can be brought.
Starmer didn't openly bring the amendment, he just discussed it with the Speaker.