Keir Starmer's time is up

[two sheds]

that fair?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

View attachment 413130
that fair?

Yes. The point that the SNP's position doesn't go nearly far enough, in that it doesn't call on the UK to withdraw military support from Israel, is also fair. I don't think we should cheer on feeble centrist positions too loudly, but the SNP have at least been consistent. Calling out collective punishment isn't quite the same as condemning genocide, but it's some way along that road.

As for the Labour leadership deserving nothing but total contempt? Well yeah, durr.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I guess the question here is how much damage today has done to Starmer. Surely it has done a fair bit. The man is going to be utterly lacking in any credibility before even taking office. Normally politicians wait until they're in power before showing themselves to be total shithouses. Starmer's quite a special case.

 

[PTK]

Sound and fury signifying what?
Reading the SNP motion, you would not suspect that the UK is a major world power.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Is the UK a major world power? It has a permanent seat on the UN security council, sure, but it is only semi-independent of the US in the UN and elsewhere, at best.

The UK is a fading power, which is probably better for the world (and us).

 

[PTK]

The UK certainly has more influence on the world than the Republic of Mongolia. It rakes in masses of capital from all round the world, and is one of the largest exporters of arms. It has much power that it could bring to bear on the State of Israel. It could cease exporting arms to that country, cease all military co-operation, and abrogate its treaty of military co-operation with the State of Israel. It could eject the Ambassador. It could put an embargo on trade.

 

[steveseagull]

Worth noting that because Labour wrecked the opposition day and vote, no Labour MP voted on a ceasefire this evening and none of them can claim they have, so if they think this shambles is going to calm down angry constituents, they are living in la la land.

 

[PTK]

Worth noting that because Labour wrecked the opposition day and vote, no Labour MP voted on a ceasefire this evening and none of them can claim they have, so if they think this shambles is going to calm down angry constituents, they are living in la la land.

Yes, and one Conservative MP, who resigned from the government last year because he called for a ceasefire, complained that without a vote his name would not be listed as voting for a ceasefire. An SNP MP made a similar point, and in her case she also had five proxy votes of absent MPs.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Is Starmer really still going to still be in charge when the election finally comes? He's possibly the most clueless politician I can think of. Sure Truss was clueless, but she at least made it to PM against the odds. Starmer's doing his best to fail to make it to PM as a racing certainty.

 

[PTK]

Yeah, Starmer is still going to be Leader of the Labour Party when the election comes. That is how it works. It is ghastly, like watching a slow motion car crash.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yeah, Starmer is still going to be Leader of the Labour Party when the election comes. That is how it works. It is ghastly, like watching a slow motion car crash.

If he is, and he wins, his government is going to be one fuck up after another. It is going to be utterly clueless from day one. Basic politics that you build alliances (and neutralise opposition that way). Even Blair knew that with Prescott, Mowlam, etc. Starmer doesn't do that. He alienates everyone who won't fall into line. He won't last.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Reading the SNP motion, you would not suspect that the UK is a major world power.

I still don't tbf.

 

[Ĝasper]

Yes. The point that the SNP's position doesn't go nearly far enough, in that it doesn't call on the UK to withdraw military support from Israel, is also fair. I don't think we should cheer on feeble centrist positions too loudly, but the SNP have at least been consistent. Calling out collective punishment isn't quite the same as condemning genocide, but it's some way along that road.

As for the Labour leadership deserving nothing but total contempt? Well yeah, durr.

The SNP wanted other parties to vote for their motion. It was sought to unify the HOC. If another party had made the motion, perhaps the SNP would make amendments to your liking. An SNP motion in Edinburgh would probably have been more to your liking.

 

[gosub]

The SNP wanted other parties to vote for their motion. It was sought to unify the HOC. If another party had made the motion, perhaps the SNP would make amendments to your liking. An SNP motion in Edinburgh would probably have been more to your liking.

Labour and the Speaker aiding SNP calls for its own foriegn policy ain't to my liking.

 

[Ĝasper]

So let's get this straight. It was SNP opposition day in parliament. They were allowed a day to set the agenda, and put forward a motion for a ceasefire, which circulated in the previous days. Starmer, Sunak, and the Speaker met up, agreed that nothing of the sort could pass, because the UK must support, or at least not obstruct Israeli war efforts. Labour, Tory and LibDem all made delete all amendments for a watered down "both as bad as each other" ceasefire. The speaker skipped over voting on the SNP's motion, and jumped straight to the Labour's amendment. The SNP complain, but go on to vote for Labour's amendment. Labour and Tory MPs stand around arguing, not even voting for their own amendments. No amendments pass. Or if they did pass, so much confusion had been created that people pretend nothing was passed or agreed. And it was all a tad late anyway as the UN security council already had its vote on a ceasefire the day before (Britain abstained, USA blocked, but all other member states supported).

 

[teqniq]

I don't think Sunak was involved in 'discussions' with Hoyle.

 

[Plumdaff]

What titans of the world stage! The days of Britain being that embarrassing doddery older relative are surely behind us when Keir takes the helm!

 

[Ĝasper]

I don't think Sunak was involved in 'discussions' with Hoyle.

Yeah I dunno. I guess we'll never know. Pictures circulated on c4 news of the three of them but may have been old pictures.

 

[Ĝasper]

Probably Sunak prefers nothing to pass than even the Tory amendment to pass. They get to seem as if they somewhat care, in the face of worldwide opposition to the war.

 

[redsquirrel]

Where are you getting this stuff?

The SNP wanted other parties to vote for their motion. It was sought to unify the HOC.

Rubbish. Yes the SNP line on Gaza has been better than Labour's. But to ignore that part of reason the SNP brought this motion was to create problems for Labour (and the Tories) is naive in the extreme.

Starmer, Sunak, and the Speaker met up, agreed that nothing of the sort could pass,

I've read reports that Starmer met with Hoyle, nothing about Sunak.

The speaker skipped over voting on the SNP's motion, and jumped straight to the Labour's amendment. The SNP complain, but go on to vote for Labour's amendment

Did they? I've seen reports that numerous SNP MPs left the chamber.

. Labour and Tory MPs stand around arguing, not even voting for their own amendments. No amendments pass.

No the motion, with the Labour amendment, passed without a division but with Labour MPs supporting it.

 

[andysays]

So let's get this straight. It was SNP opposition day in parliament. They were allowed a day to set the agenda, and put forward a motion for a ceasefire, which circulated in the previous days. Starmer, Sunak, and the Speaker met up, agreed that nothing of the sort could pass, because the UK must support, or at least not obstruct Israeli war efforts. Labour, Tory and LibDem all made delete all amendments for a watered down "both as bad as each other" ceasefire. The speaker skipped over voting on the SNP's motion, and jumped straight to the Labour's amendment. The SNP complain, but go on to vote for Labour's amendment. Labour and Tory MPs stand around arguing, not even voting for their own amendments. No amendments pass. Or if they did pass, so much confusion had been created that people pretend nothing was passed or agreed. And it was all a tad late anyway as the UN security council already had its vote on a ceasefire the day before (Britain abstained, USA blocked, but all other member states supported).

I think this and your previous post about the SNP wanting other parties to vote for their motion and seeking to unify the HOC are quite naive.

The original SNP motion was such that the Starmer leadership was never going to want Labour MPs to support it, and that motion was always likely to result in a split with some Labour MPs voting for it and others toeing the party line, whether through loyalty or cowardice. The motion could (I'm not saying was) have been deliberately written to achieve this end. That was what Starmer was so keen to avoid, and did in fact manage to avoid.

The idea that all the other parties conspired together to defeat the SNP's motion doesn't really hold water. There appears to have been a serious stitch up between the Labour leader and the Speaker, but it doesn't need to have included anyone else.

 

[gosub]

The seperatist Scottish Government has been pushing in the subject of Foriegn Policy (a non devolved matter) for sometime...having gone so far as opening Scottish Consel's on mainland Europe. Much to the ire of the British government. With regards Israel/Palastine though fair to acknowledge the First Minister does as result of of his wife's family have an intrest.
Tories appoint a Lord as as Foriegn Secretary that can't be questioned by SNP MPs and admonish Hamsa for overstepping the mark for liaising with Turks over Palastine...
SNP then does what it is allowed to do and raises one of it rare Opposition day motions only for it to be hijacked by their biggest political rivals Labour, aided by the Speaker, and to the formal objection of the Chief Clerk

This causes such an upset the Speaker apologises to the House at which point a Labour sees fit to try congratulate the House for passing Labour's amendment (without a vote)

 

[Ĝasper]

With regards Israel/Palastine though fair to acknowledge the First Minister does as result of of his wife's family have an intrest.

Yeah sure, it's only because of his wife, nothing to do with the electorate or party member's views.

 

[Ĝasper]

Where are you getting this stuff?

Rubbish.

Oh how dare I take a different interpretation of the marginalia. The SNP left, but then went to the 'Aye' antechamber to vote for the Labour delete all amendment. It may have passed but until Britain goes to the UN security council and says so, it's all pretty meaningless, isn't it.

 

[redsquirrel]

It may have passed but until Britain goes to the UN security council and says so, it's all pretty meaningless, isn't it.

Which would have also been the case if the SNP motion had passed unamended. You can't have it both ways.

 

[gosub]

Yeah sure, it's only because of his wife, nothing to do with the electorate or party member's views.

Nope not saying that.

 

[Ĝasper]

https://votes.parliament.uk/

Why's there nothing here about it?

 

[andysays]

https://votes.parliament.uk/

Why's there nothing here about it?

Because as, mentioned above, there was no formal division or vote.

 

[Ĝasper]

Because as, mentioned above, there was no formal division or vote.

Did it pass or not?

 

[redsquirrel]

Both the BBC and Guardian are reporting makes it hard to be absolutely clear (Guardian takes about a Labour motion when I think they mean amendment) but I think the below

After an often bitter Commons debate, Penny Mordaunt, the leader of the House of Commons, announced the government would not participate in the votes, paving the way for the Labour amendment to pass unopposed.

indicates the amended motion was passed