[kreuzberger]

Keir Starmer is in SERIOUS trouble. Even before last night's Gaza debate, he could've allowed a free vote of his MPs on the SNP motion.

I have knocked back a flagging of this post. As long as disagreement or general deviation from the otherwise consensus view remains constructive, I presume that that is the preferred course of action.

A touch of the theatricals is generally fine.

[Abernathy]

Well, yes. There’s deviation from the consensus, and there is the comically wrong. Mr/Ms TheSweeper’s contributions thus far have certainly fallen into the latter category, with more than a touch of the theatricals. Ridicule and mockery will do for now to counter the bull. (S)he IS a troll, though. They may even be a junior doctor with a thing about beardy old incompetents. Keep an eye out.

[Oboogie]

@NevTheSweeper sweeper

I fail to to see where this "serious trouble" is going to come from.
The bottom line is that the UK Parliament unanimously voted for a ceasefire.
Do the SNP oppose that? Not according to their motion.
Do the Tories oppose that? Not according to their amendment.
Ok, the SNP and Tories didn't vote for a ceasefire, but do you seriously think there's political capital for them to do a volte- face and oppose a ceasefire now just because Labour voted for one?
The only people that I know of who definitely oppose a ceasefire are Hamas and Netanyahu and neither of them give a monkey's what the UK government says.
Last night's vote won't, of course, save a single life in Gaza - but it's crystal clear that the SNP weren't thinking about Palestinian lives when they drafted their motion.

[Crabcakes]

Yes, I can totally imagine how Keir Starmer, a former head of the CPS and known for his forensic approach, currently 20+ points clear in the polls, would risk it all by threatening the speaker.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I'm quite sceptical of The Independent, but this would be nice if it was true.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Always assuming that the speaker is amenable to being threatened.

Warned that MPs feel in danger, however, is another matter.

[Tubby Isaacs]

My take on yesterday.

I think the SNP in putting forward their motion, Labour in putting forward their amendment and approaching Hoyle, and Hoyle himself can all clalim they were acting honorably. We can alattribute dishonourable motives to all or none of them, that doesn't matter.

But beyond that the SNP spectacularly messed up. They did a victory lap when they saw Labour's motion. We forced Labour to U-turn etc. So when the Speaker makes his decision, surely the rational reaction is "Process here isn't right at all, and we prefer our stronger motion for reasons x,y,z but we'll vote for Labour's amendment". And trying to get rid of Hoyle with a load of Tories is an extremely bad look indeed.

Some Tories have been pretty sensible re Hoyle, I see. "We don't like it, but he's apologised" (and it's not always been the Tories you'd expect). More generally, hard to see what they're particularly upset about beyond seeing Sir Keir get out of a jam. The SNP really don't want to be going along with the Tories who are being silly.

[davidjay]

How many times is it now that Starmer HAS to resign?

[Oboogie]

The reason I'm suspicious of the SNP's intentions is that we've been here before. The SNP instigated a vote on a ceasefire in November. It didn't pass. At that point Labour were not in favour and were whipped to abstain. 56 Labour MPs voted in favour of the SNP's amendment. The SNP's response focussed less on sorrow that their amendment had failed, instead they were delighted by Labour's split.

Yesterday the SNP forwarded a motion which referred to "collective punishment" by Israel. "Collective punishment" is defined as a war crime under the Geneva Convention, so passing that motion would mean that the UK government is declaring that Israel is guilty of a war crime.
There's one small problem with that, there is not a court in the world which has reached that conclusion.
Notably, The UN, with all it's international lawyers, stopped short of that.
So, a vote for the SNP motion would mean a chamber of politicians, most of whom have no legal training (let alone being experts in international law) declaring that they know better than the international judiciary.

So, what do we call politicians who ignore the rule of law and overrule courts?

If that's not on Malcolm's list of The 14(?) Signs of Fascism (I can't find it), it bloody well should be.

It would be naïve in the extreme to believe that the SNP didn't know all this when they drafted their motion. That line was included specifically and exclusively to trap Labour as they knew that Starmer (the best qualified lawyer currently in the Commons) could not possibly allow his MPs to vote for a motion which, at the very least, implies contempt for international law.

If the SNP's primary concern was getting a ceasefire, they would have voted for the Labour amendment and would be delighted that it has delivered what they allegedly wanted. Instead they're furious because their plan failed.

[Oboogie]

How many times is it now that Starmer HAS to resign?

I've lost count, I just know that it's every time he chalks up another success.

[Youngian]

Yes, I can totally imagine how Keir Starmer, a former head of the CPS and known for his forensic approach, currently 20+ points clear in the polls, would risk it all by threatening the speaker.

Neither can you see Starmer appointing overzealous henchmen who’d do this stuff for him.

[Andy McDandy]

Ah but they're an easily nobbled lot. Remember Wor Ange distracting razor sharp intellect Boris by flashing her minge? Through her trousers? With a massive desk in between them?

[Bones McCoy]

Yes, I can totally imagine how Keir Starmer, a former head of the CPS and known for his forensic approach, currently 20+ points clear in the polls, would risk it all by threatening the speaker.

However last night's late press DID report the Tory cabinet threatening to unseat/dethrone/impeach the speaker.

Expect our free and fearless press to tell us how that's perfectly OK.
Nothing personal, just business.

[Abernathy]

@OBoogie.: Nail on the head, Winston. Nail right on the head.

[Abernathy]

This is just nice to read. Probably not for Nev the Sweeper, though.

https://www.labourtogether.uk/news-even ... illomoment

A ‘Portillo moment’ could happen anywhere

[Oboogie]

@OBoogie.: Nail on the head, Winston. Nail right on the head.

I think so.
Any other interpretation assumes an extraordinary level of ignorance on the part of the SNP which I simply do not believe, they are not that stupid.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Yesterday the SNP forwarded a motion which referred to "collective punishment" by Israel. "Collective punishment" is defined as a war crime under the Geneva Convention, so passing that motion would mean that the UK government is declaring that Israel is guilty of a war crime.
There's one small problem with that, there is not a court in the world which has reached that conclusion.

Notably, The UN, with all it's international lawyers, stopped short of that.

The court didn't say they hadn't committed war crimes either. Think it's hard to say that they haven't. I don't think you can criticise the SNP for wanting to say it, especially on an opposition day when the vote isn't binding.

[Tubby Isaacs]

It also doesn't make much sense for the SNP to complain about Hoyle breaking precedent and for then to try and get rid of him on what looks like a party line vote. I think they'd be much better to accept his apology and move on. Then again without being at war with "Westminster" there's not all that much for SNP MPs to do, as they don't vote on devolved matters (I think they're wrong about that, as it happens).

[Abernathy]

I think Hoyle 's job as Speaker is safe. The entire SNP parliamentary party might have signed that EDM, but it's going to make no difference to whether Hoyle stays or has to go.

What the whole shameful debacle also shows is something deeper. It's the massive chip on the SNP's collective shoulder. They think that they, and by extension (though not in truth) the Scots nation , are regarded and treated at Westminster as second class citizens.

They aren't, of course, but PG Wodehouse's famous observation in respect of a Scotsman with a grievance certainly is on the money with respect to that twat Flynn.

[Oboogie]

Yesterday the SNP forwarded a motion which referred to "collective punishment" by Israel. "Collective punishment" is defined as a war crime under the Geneva Convention, so passing that motion would mean that the UK government is declaring that Israel is guilty of a war crime.
There's one small problem with that, there is not a court in the world which has reached that conclusion.

Notably, The UN, with all it's international lawyers, stopped short of that.

The court didn't say they hadn't committed war crimes either. Think it's hard to say that they haven't. I don't think you can criticise the SNP for wanting to say it, especially on an opposition day when the vote isn't binding.

Whether you or I think Israel has committed war crimes is entirely irrelevant. Parliament's position must be based on the law and the fact remains, no court has convicted Israel of war crimes. That isn't opinion.
By what authority do the SNP get to overrule the courts and declare they got it wrong? Because that is precisely what the SNP were asking Parliament to do.
And yes, I can and do exercise my right to criticise the SNP for prioritising presumed electoral advantage over the deaths of thousands of Palestinians. I expect that behaviour of the Tories, we've known they have no moral compass for years. On Wednesday the SNP proved they are no better.