Jump to content

UK politics - not inspiring but effective


BigFatCoward
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have no idea what happened in Westminster yet. I need to read about how it all went down. But what is clear is that this lot are an absolute shower of cunts. On both sides of the House.

Edited by Spockydog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Spockydog said:

I have no idea what happened in Westminster yet. I need to read about how it all went down. But what is clear is that this lot are an absolute shower of cunts. On both sides of the House.

People in Scotland (at least from what I've seen online) are not happy because the SNP basically lost one of its three annual 'opposition days'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Spockydog said:

I have no idea what happened in Westminster yet. I need to read about how it all went down. But what is clear is that this lot are an absolute shower of cunts. On both sides of the House.

Summary: a shitshow of gigantic proportions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I wonder why anyone would believe politicians aren't largely cowards when it comes to their own personal safety? They are [mostly] only brave when it's other people's lives at stake.

Given the murder of David Arness I'm not sure it has anything to do with cowardice.

Edited by Heartofice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Heartofice said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/21/commons-speaker-issues-apology-after-gaza-ceasefire-debate-descends-into-chaos

This bit seems to have just gone unnoticed in the reporting. How can we be in a situation where MPs are voting out of fear for their lives? 

Poor precedent to set, if true - you should be going after the people threatening MPs not bending parliament to their will

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not entirely clear to me why, even if it is true that MPs faced credible threats, the only solution to that would be to take the Labour amendment. I doubt anyone making threats would be mollified by a call for an 'immediate humanitarian ceasefire' instead of an 'immediate ceasefire for all combatants'.

I think what happened here is that Starmer (or his team) played on Hoyle's anxieties and manipulated Hoyle into taking a decision based an emotional desire to do something, without stopping to think about whether it would actually be a good idea. Hoyle has never really impressed me as a Speaker, though.

Anyway, Starmer has been the big winner in this. Worked out beautifully for him. Well played.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The wisdom of Liz Truss on a variety of topics, including economics - since she's such an expert. 

Spoiler alert: the FMI & the Bank of England are too woke. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

@Ran What's up with the autoplaying youtube videos all of a sudden? Is this happening for you, too?

 

Nope. May be a setting you have for YouTube itself, vaguely recall there's something about it.

What device are you using, and browser?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, mormont said:

Anyway, Starmer has been the big winner in this. Worked out beautifully for him. Well played.

Well played? His handling of the entire affair has been pathetic. 

He might even lose Scotland over this. But, like all Tories, Starmer doesn't give a fuck about Scotland.

 

Edited by Spockydog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ran said:

Nope. May be a setting you have for YouTube itself, vaguely recall there's something about it.

What device are you using, and browser?

Windows desktop, Chrome. I'll have a fiddle in the settings.

Edited by Spockydog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Well played? His handling of the entire affair has been pathetic. 

He might even lose Scotland over this. But, like all Tories, Starmer doesn't give a fuck about Scotland.

Look, if you want to assess whether this was 'well played' in the sense I meant, all you need to ask yourself is: are the press currently consumed with stories about Labour divisions over Gaza and what a challenge this is for Starmer's leadership?

As for 'losing Scotland', that battle is exactly why the SNP proposed this motion (that, and to address their own internal pressures). They hoped to exacerbate Labour splits to benefit from that. Again, we're not now talking about that, are we?

Now, my personal political views should be reasonably well known after more than two decades on this forum. But I can't see a way in which anyone can deny that Starmer's in a better position now than he was on Monday. Whether I approve of what happened or not (I think I was clear that I don't), and whether I would rather he take a different policy position on Gaza or not, are not really what I'm talking about. I'm just (not altogether seriously) acknowledging that he comes out of this a winner, tactically speaking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, mormont said:

As for 'losing Scotland', that battle is exactly why the SNP proposed this motion (that, and to address their own internal pressures). They hoped to exacerbate Labour splits to benefit from that.

Not denying they hoped to benefit from the Labour split but the SNP position re ceasefire has also been pretty consistent for months. They only get 3 opposition days, labour has 17 and didn't bother with ceasefire motion in any of theirs so far (as far as I am aware) plus Scottish Labour previously said they would back the SNP motion (as far as I am aware).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...