• Hello and welcome to PNE Online.

    Why not get the most out of the forum, join in the debate and access a whole range of additional benefits?

    We are AD Free and open to all, but by becoming a member you can also find out how you can support us to stay online.

    Simply click "register" at the top of the page.

UK Politics

Portishead said:
Theres a cigarette paper's width of distance between the language of the various motions. Theyre all guilty of politicking on an issue over which they have little or no influence. Sad that they are so self important and pompous when the rest of the country is wrestling with the consequences of the domestic turmoil that they actually are responsible for and could influence..
Click to expand...
It doesn't really matter if there wasn't much difference between the motions, Labour had no right to try and get an amendment added to the SNP motion. and the speaker had no right to accept it. If labour had wanted to have their version of the motion debated and voted on they could have used one of their 17 opposition days to introduce it, not try and hijack the SNP's to try and save Starmer's skin.
 
How about they debate something more relevant to the UK as a whole.
There's other more powerful countries, institutions and bodies who make equally fine-sounding statements: the Israeli Government ignores those too.

It's because of the disproportionate influence
of the peoples who ancestors lived in the Middle East and are now UK voting citizens who are entitled to make representations to their MP's that there's been a whole debate on what wording the UK Govt. seemingly 'has' to inform Israel.
Who believes it's a disproportionate influence? The apathy shown by the absence of any real Tory turnout at the 2 by-elections is a bit of an indication. How many people with sympathies for any Palestinian cause are Tories ? Of course from a purely humanitarian pov there's some - but when it comes down to putting sanctions on the Israel's- that's "going a bit too far".

Labour votors made up the majority of those by-elections because they know the Tories are doomed- but so do the Tory voters.

The whole debate on the debate about mere wording is tiresome and a waste of MP's time. There's issues in this country that need more debate by our 'Learned Friends '.
 
noelpne said:
How about they debate something more relevant to the UK as a whole.
There's other more powerful countries, institutions and bodies who make equally fine-sounding statements: the Israeli Government ignores those too.

It's because of the disproportionate influence
of the peoples who ancestors lived in the Middle East and are now UK voting citizens who are entitled to make representations to their MP's that there's been a whole debate on what wording the UK Govt. seemingly 'has' to inform Israel.
Who believes it's a disproportionate influence? The apathy shown by the absence of any real Tory turnout at the 2 by-elections is a bit of an indication. How many people with sympathies for any Palestinian cause are Tories ? Of course from a purely humanitarian pov there's some - but when it comes down to putting sanctions on the Israel's- that's "going a bit too far".

Labour votors made up the majority of those by-elections because they know the Tories are doomed- but so do the Tory voters.

The whole debate on the debate about mere wording is tiresome and a waste of MP's time. There's issues in this country that need more debate by our 'Learned Friends '.
Click to expand...

I think you’re largely wrong on your central premise. The muslim vote is one of several secondary factors - but that’s not the main reason that our small country is heavily involved in Israeli/ Palestinian politics.
It’s our historical connection and influence over the current borders in those lands. Our former empire. And position as a permanent member of the UN security council. And anyway - we still hope we have a semblance of moral fibre and compassion.
 
'Palestine' was never in our Empire. A mere political 'protectorate' won from the Ottoman Empire
Our long-gone Empire that's just a memory now & even the 'Commonweath' is just a romantic vision held together mainly by QE11 and only relevant to the former Foreign Office & Home Office in how quotas of economic migrants can resettle here. And
meanwhile issues like how China treats the People of Hong Kong aren't debated-because that former colony has been reabsorbed into the rest of the mainland, and yet there were conditions the UK attached to it's reabsorption like genuine democracy principles that weren't debated in the House to anything like this this Middle East Crisis .

Issues like the continued division of Cyprus haven't been debated much , yet that Island was illegally invaded by the Turks back in the 1970's. I'd argue this issue is relevant to British people because of the levels of tourism and the number of British people who have chosen to live out there, plus Britain continuing to run a strategic Air Base from the Island. A fragile peace does exist there, kept by UN forces.
However the UN has been conspicuous by it's absence in relation to practical peacekeeping in the Gaza conflict. And in relation to resolutions against various Israeli Governments about eg Settlers & the West Bank, - they can pass resolutions but it doesn't make any difference to how the remaining Palestinians are/were treated.
Having as much influence as a much larger country at the UN doesn't seem to have made any difference as to how China as above or Turkey as above are vetoed by an other nation large or small . Has it made any difference to how those 2 countries treat Hong Kong or the other half of Cyprus ? Possibly to do with amount of trade & tourism we have with those countries?
The main worry for the UK is that shipping, including UK registered gets through the Red Sea without being sunk.

Q. Should people today in the UK (still) feel justifiably apologist over how these Middle East lands , formerly administered by Ottoman/Turkey, France etc , going back maybe as far as what- the Crusades? the Roman Empire ? in the days of those Countries having Empires, there ?
A. No more than people today in Turkey, France, Britain, Italy should.
By all means send food and medical supplies to any ear zone - there's charities for the individual to donate personally.

The whole discussion about wording is imo waste of time and scarce resources in relation to what practical use in terms of protecting + basic humanitarian rights for the people of Gaza. Is aid from the UK getting through?
 
raefil said:
Really? plain and simply the Starmer leaned on him just as hes leaned on his own MPs who dont toe his centre right line.

Hoyle is my MP and Ive been more than happy with him as my constituency MP, hes done a lot of good for chorley.

starmer has destroyed a decent guys career, Hoyle now has to go, just as hes destroyed many decent Labour MPs careers.

I was a member of Chorley CLP for so many years that I learnt how they worked, if starmer approached them they will not campaign, as last time, for Hoyles re-election to parliament.
Click to expand...

Yeah, like any boss does in any work place. Sorry, I don't love Starmer either but he is a leader and is showing that here. It's not lovely but it gets him where he is.

As for Hoyle, there is where the fault lies here. I'm not judging him as an MP, just as a speaker and he's fucking awful. If he was the man of integrity many of his fans point to he would have simply said 'don't re elect me then' and followed procedure. Is it particularly decent or good of him to wilt like that to secure his own position?
 
noelpne said:
How about they debate something more relevant to the UK as a whole.
There's other more powerful countries, institutions and bodies who make equally fine-sounding statements: the Israeli Government ignores those too.

It's because of the disproportionate influence
of the peoples who ancestors lived in the Middle East and are now UK voting citizens who are entitled to make representations to their MP's that there's been a whole debate on what wording the UK Govt. seemingly 'has' to inform Israel.
Who believes it's a disproportionate influence? The apathy shown by the absence of any real Tory turnout at the 2 by-elections is a bit of an indication. How many people with sympathies for any Palestinian cause are Tories ? Of course from a purely humanitarian pov there's some - but when it comes down to putting sanctions on the Israel's- that's "going a bit too far".

Labour votors made up the majority of those by-elections because they know the Tories are doomed- but so do the Tory voters.

The whole debate on the debate about mere wording is tiresome and a waste of MP's time. There's issues in this country that need more debate by our 'Learned Friends '.
Click to expand...

I totally agree.
 
Ando60 said:
Did Hoyle make a mistake or was he looking after his Labour buddies ?
Click to expand...
Personally, I think he was trying to do the decent thing. An attempt, that clearly backfired, to stop party political point scoring over an issue that needs resolving.
 
The Cottam one said:
It doesn't really matter if there wasn't much difference between the motions, Labour had no right to try and get an amendment added to the SNP motion. and the speaker had no right to accept it. If labour had wanted to have their version of the motion debated and voted on they could have used one of their 17 opposition days to introduce it, not try and hijack the SNP's to try and save Starmer's skin.
Click to expand...

It does matter. There is little difference between the words but the parties are desperately trying to show that there is a difference for political ends. They could have just united to make a common humanitarian statement in support of a resolution to the conflict. Especially given they have no influence over that resolution, whatever the words. But clearly they consider their collective political skins are more important than the suffering in the ME. Some SNP MSP stated on Politics live yesterday that his constituency correspondance was predominantly about the crisis. I just dont believe him.
 
Durutti said:
Yeah, like any boss does in any work place. Sorry, I don't love Starmer either but he is a leader and is showing that here. It's not lovely but it gets him where he is.

As for Hoyle, there is where the fault lies here. I'm not judging him as an MP, just as a speaker and he's fucking awful. If he was the man of integrity many of his fans point to he would have simply said 'don't re elect me then' and followed procedure. Is it particularly decent or good of him to wilt like that to secure his own position?
Click to expand...
As I say, and I really do mean it, ive a lot of time for Hoyle, a very good MP for the area and, on a personal level, a very likeable chap to converse with but, I fear, his position is now completely untenable.
 
Mr S said:
Do we know that he wanted to be re elected?
Click to expand...

It's bizarre behaviour it he doesn't. Why not just maintain a shred of personal dignity?

If Hoyle is replaced I hope it's an absolutely joyless, hateful bastard who comes in and chucks about a quarter of the wankers out of the chamber on day one for behaving like a naughty class.
 
Mr S said:
Personally, I think he was trying to do the decent thing. An attempt, that clearly backfired, to stop party political point scoring over an issue that needs resolving.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I think it's highly naive if that's the case. The result is the same, he needs to go now.
 
I really don't think it's Hoyle who is trying to save his job. The SNP present a divisive motion intended to cause a division within the Labour ranks, thereby maximising their chances of being re elected in Scotland. The Conservative Party present a motion, that further polarises the issue, intended to maximise the damage to the Labour Party., thereby maximising their chances of being re=elected. Call me naive, but this was never about a grown up debate into the Israeli / Palestine conflict it was one big charade to protect personal interests. Sadly, a good and honourable man will do the honourable thing and resign.
 
Mr S said:
I really don't think it's Hoyle who is trying to save his job. The SNP present a divisive motion intended to cause a division within the Labour ranks, thereby maximising their chances of being re elected in Scotland. The Conservative Party present a motion, that further polarises the issue, intended to maximise the damage to the Labour Party., thereby maximising their chances of being re=elected. Call me naive, but this was never about a grown up debate into the Israeli / Palestine conflict it was one big charade to protect personal interests. Sadly, a good and honourable man will do the honourable thing and resign.
Click to expand...
The SNP have been very consistent on their stance over Israel. Starmer has flip flopped all the way through.
 
Back
Top