Jareth Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 5 minutes ago, blandy said: The whole uk parliamentary aspect is kind of a microcosm of democracy overall. What I mean is that one democracy (Israel and its current government) is committing atrocities and collective punishment on civilians. And they’re not remotely minded to pay any attention to anything anyone says in Westminster. Meanwhile the Westminster politicians are posturing and acting and pontificating and virtue signalling and playing games. Nothing any of them say or do in the HoC is remotely of any significance beyond their own small circles and electorates and donors. They don’t matter, these MPs in terms of being part of any solution. It’s just hot air and performative guff. They are not part of any solution and they kid themselves and us if they think or say they are. Yeah it's literally the oft used 'westminster bubble' - hulabaloo amongst them and comemtators last night, yet zero impact on anyone else in the world anywhere. Personally, I was never comfortable with Bercow doing what he often did and same goes for Hoyle now - clearly got pressured by Labour and we can't have the speaker being in anyone's pocket so he's got to go. But mostly he has to go for constantly saying to rowdy MPs that they need to go for a cup of tea - I want the next speaker to have a paintball gun for those situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 22 Moderator Share Posted February 22 1 minute ago, Jareth said: I want the next speaker to have a paintball gun for those situations. I’d go Taser, but you’re deffo on the right lines. As for Labour and their “act”. I guess they’re sticking to a kind of collective Western liberal democracy official in-step sort of line - saying the same things the UN, Canada, Aus, NZ, etc say. They got there late (IMO) but whether it the current government or the next one, probably a labour one, the only small impact they can have is via collective pressure with like minded allies all saying the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straggler Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 19 minutes ago, blandy said: I’d go Taser, but you’re deffo on the right lines. As for Labour and their “act”. I guess they’re sticking to a kind of collective Western liberal democracy official in-step sort of line - saying the same things the UN, Canada, Aus, NZ, etc say. They got there late (IMO) but whether it the current government or the next one, probably a labour one, the only small impact they can have is via collective pressure with like minded allies all saying the same thing. It's still an utter wet blanket of a position. We don't have to have the collective western liberal democracy view as our own UK objective. It is perfectly ok to have our own position and a collective bargaining position that differs slightly from it. It's like having indecisive Dave from the fast show incharge. They are supposed to be representing us in the international community, not the other way around. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 Remember, we should be voting for Starmer’s Labour because we can’t let perfect be the enemy of good. Then they needed a cleverly worded amendment to spell out that a ceasefire means both sides stop killing and now actually means as soon as convenient. Makes you wonder why they needed to cause such commotion on an SNP day when they get many more similar days of their own and they’ve had 5 months to make one about Palestine. Not least, when non of it actually makes any difference other than the optics for your potential voters. Luckily, they didn’t fall in to the SNP trap, well played, well played. Politics, eh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meregreen Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 Meanwhile, the country says who gives a f***k, and wonder how they’re going to pay their gas bill. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 22 Moderator Share Posted February 22 The whole debate was pointless anyway, it was an opposition day motion and literally meant eff all. The very definition of playing politics. The difference between Ceasefire, Humanitarian Ceasefire and Pause in the Fighting, with an added Hamas are bad (which was missing from the SNP motion I believe) Literally a game of micro-semantics of no consequence to anyone 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 Israel and Hamas would have been watching with baited breath, but there was an equally influential debate on the conflict at my local parish council which was previously scheduled. Sue thinks both sides should knock it off. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted February 22 Administrator Share Posted February 22 2 hours ago, bickster said: The whole debate was pointless anyway, it was an opposition day motion and literally meant eff all. The very definition of playing politics. The difference between Ceasefire, Humanitarian Ceasefire and Pause in the Fighting, with an added Hamas are bad (which was missing from the SNP motion I believe) Literally a game of micro-semantics of no consequence to anyone Especially as they were clearly looking for an armistice. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 It all came about because Hoyle was protecting the lives of MPs. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meregreen Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 Too many MPs in the Commons were playing politics and trying to embarrass other parties. Much ado about nothing. None of it will make a difference to the situation in Gaza. Grown adults behaving like toddlers. Not a good look. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 7 hours ago, Straggler said: It's like having indecisive Dave from the fast show incharge. That's Keir Starkers in a nutshell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 22 Moderator Share Posted February 22 12 hours ago, Straggler said: It's still an utter wet blanket of a position. ….. It's like having indecisive Dave from the fast show incharge. They are supposed to be representing us in the international community, not the other way around. Point of order, if I may. That would be the job of the Government, not the opposition. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straggler Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 8 hours ago, blandy said: Point of order, if I may. That would be the job of the Government, not the opposition. Technically correct, but there is a reason Starmer is getting to meet all the world leaders at the moment. They know what way the wind is blowing. Also, this is how Labour are representing how believe the UK should behave should they be in power. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 20 hours ago, bickster said: The whole debate was pointless anyway, it was an opposition day motion and literally meant eff all. The very definition of playing politics. The difference between Ceasefire, Humanitarian Ceasefire and Pause in the Fighting, with an added Hamas are bad (which was missing from the SNP motion I believe) Literally a game of micro-semantics of no consequence to anyone The thing I enjoy about British politics (as compared to other nations) is that there seems to be an element, most likely theatrical of course, of honour. Very few other politicians in other countries would face calls being sacked from their job in a similar circumstance, or call quits because they shouted some stuff while drunk in a bar. Of course you also have things like COVID parties on the other end of the spectrum. But, generally, you take a wrong step, and there is a good chance you might lose your job. And that's something that's rare in international politics. Some countries leaders run while "grabbing them by their pus**". In England I feel some of this stuff does not fly. But like I said, it might be mainly theatrical. It's an echo chamber of mates who went to ancient schools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 23 Moderator Share Posted February 23 51 minutes ago, Straggler said: Technically correct, but there is a reason Starmer is getting to meet all the world leaders at the moment. They know what way the wind is blowing. Also, this is how Labour are representing how believe the UK should behave should they be in power. Exactly. That’s what I meant by Labour aligning with the stance of other friendly nations. It’s a bit mealy mouthed for my taste, but it’s kind of the way the world of government works - agree a form of wording that allows discussions and diplomacy to take place, rather than calling a spade a spade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omariqy Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 Meanwhile another 160 innocent people are killed in the last 24 hours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 1 hour ago, omariqy said: Meanwhile another 160 innocent people are killed in the last 24 hours And all it would have taken to stop them dying was Labour voting for the SNP's Opposition Day motion. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 (edited) 5 hours ago, omariqy said: Meanwhile another 160 innocent people are killed in the last 24 hours I think you'll find that in the scope of things a lot more innocent people have died. Probably ten times that in Ukraine where Putin's bombed a hospital a day since 2022 (figuratively). Oppositional Labour's stance on what you're aiming at is completely irrelevant until they're in position, when they get into power I do hope they grow some balls and step on Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan, Myanmar and the Uighurs, until then what you're aiming at is a noisy part of real-politik, where one conflict is being hyped up above everything else, while many more innocent people die elsewhere in conflicts that aren't championed by a million people each weekend in London because it's popular. Edited February 23 by magnkarl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 I see that Israel are threatening to pull out of Eurovision if they aren’t allowed an exception to sing a political song. I see that lots of people are suggesting Israel shouldn’t be in Eurovision due to the on going ethnic cleansing and war crimes. Strikes me there’s an obvious happy solution for both teams. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted February 23 VT Supporter Share Posted February 23 1 hour ago, chrisp65 said: I see that Israel are threatening to pull out of Eurovision if they aren’t allowed an exception to sing a political song. I see that lots of people are suggesting Israel shouldn’t be in Eurovision due to the on going ethnic cleansing and war crimes. Strikes me there’s an obvious happy solution for both teams. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts