Labour : please stop fighting once we agree with Israels script and don’t get seen as antisemites by the tory press.
Conservatives : just stop long enough to feed the people who will be murdered once it starts again.
Labour : because its the SNPs perogative here, and because we can’t let the Labour membership and ranks vote for the SNPs take on the matter and embarrass our pro Israeli boss, we will have to blackmail the speaker into changing the rules to shut the jock rabble up and save our skin.
Doesn’t parliament have to debate amendments before voting on the motion? Labour and the tories put forward amendments to the SNP motion – from my understanding the actual controversial part is that the speaker selected both the governments amendment: whereas usually only the governments amendment is selected. The Tories then pulled their amendment – stating under protest about this procedure and then the SNP and Tories walked out.
So when the amendment was being voted on in parliament, there was no dissention and it passed unopposed. As this reworded the SNP motion there was no need to vote on it. Since the government pulled their bill we hada single proposed amendment and the original motion. Didn’t this same thing happen to labour where the Tories tabled an amendment to rewrite the motion and they just withdrew it?
From my understanding, if the SNP didn’t like the labour wording and wanted their own wording in place – isn’t the correct procedure be vote down the amendment? Since they motioned with a ceasefire, no one can argue that they are voting against it – just labours stance.
Outside of the UK are there other countries seeing this kind of political conflict over what’s going on in Gaza ?
Teacup and storm come to mind.
None of the parties meaningfully disagree. The motion will have *no* impact on the conflict.
The SNP and Tories were just mad they didn’t make Labour waste time having an argument with itself.
Long story short, long-standing procedure was NOT followed.
So that the language could be tweaked to be more palatable to Israel.
Mr Starmer spoke with the Israeli president, then pressured the Commons Speaker, who was able to ensure that long-standing procedure could be subverted.
All to ensure that language could be made more acceptable. To Israel.
5 comments
SNP : for gods sake stop fighting and murdering.
Labour : please stop fighting once we agree with Israels script and don’t get seen as antisemites by the tory press.
Conservatives : just stop long enough to feed the people who will be murdered once it starts again.
Labour : because its the SNPs perogative here, and because we can’t let the Labour membership and ranks vote for the SNPs take on the matter and embarrass our pro Israeli boss, we will have to blackmail the speaker into changing the rules to shut the jock rabble up and save our skin.
Doesn’t parliament have to debate amendments before voting on the motion? Labour and the tories put forward amendments to the SNP motion – from my understanding the actual controversial part is that the speaker selected both the governments amendment: whereas usually only the governments amendment is selected. The Tories then pulled their amendment – stating under protest about this procedure and then the SNP and Tories walked out.
So when the amendment was being voted on in parliament, there was no dissention and it passed unopposed. As this reworded the SNP motion there was no need to vote on it. Since the government pulled their bill we hada single proposed amendment and the original motion. Didn’t this same thing happen to labour where the Tories tabled an amendment to rewrite the motion and they just withdrew it?
From my understanding, if the SNP didn’t like the labour wording and wanted their own wording in place – isn’t the correct procedure be vote down the amendment? Since they motioned with a ceasefire, no one can argue that they are voting against it – just labours stance.
Outside of the UK are there other countries seeing this kind of political conflict over what’s going on in Gaza ?
Teacup and storm come to mind.
None of the parties meaningfully disagree. The motion will have *no* impact on the conflict.
The SNP and Tories were just mad they didn’t make Labour waste time having an argument with itself.
Long story short, long-standing procedure was NOT followed.
So that the language could be tweaked to be more palatable to Israel.
Mr Starmer spoke with the Israeli president, then pressured the Commons Speaker, who was able to ensure that long-standing procedure could be subverted.
All to ensure that language could be made more acceptable. To Israel.