[Andy McDandy]

Something something the UN as far as I can tell.

[Tubby Isaacs]

The case didn't decide whether Israel had committed war crimes though. It certainly didn't clear them of it. And anyway, it was nearly a month ago. The situation has worsened massively since then. You don't have to assume that the SNP were acting for bad motives and more than you have to assume Starmer or Hoyle were. There's a logic to all their positions, and it really doesn't get anybody anywhere to say that the bad motive must be the real one.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

I think we can safely assume that the SNP's actions were motivated by the chance of getting an advantage over Labour in Scotland. Their subsequent behaviour highlights that.

And the point that the UN has not accused Israel of war crimes is substantial, and current. It can't be waved away because we feel like it.

[Oboogie]

The case didn't decide whether Israel had committed war crimes though.

Precisely. No court has yet ruled that Israel has committed war crimes. And that is why no MP who respects the rule of law could support the SNP motion. In democracies politicians don't decide guilt and innocence, courts do.

[Tubby Isaacs]

The ICJ didn't clear Israel. The idea you have to wait for a court to put something in a motion is ridiculous anyway. We wouldn't do that in other cases. It's not like there's contempt of court to worry about here.

I actually think the way I'm putting the subject is better for Labour than going after the SNP's motives with the motion. If you do that, it all gets lost in "everybody's got corrupt motives, Starmer and Hoyle obviously cooked up blah blah". Let the SNP punch themselves on that. Go after them for being stupid and inconsistent, and having a row (on the side of lots of Tories) over something nobody cares about.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Precisely. No court has yet ruled that Israel has committed war crimes. And that is why no MP who respects the rule of law could support the SNP motion. In democracies politicians don't decide guilt and innocence, courts do.

A dometic criminal case, sure, there's contempt of court. Not with this though. The example of Russia-Ukraine isn't the same as Israel-Palestine, of course, but it's a clear example of what I'm talking about. We can call Russian war crimes out as soon as they happen. Nobody goes on TV or stands up in Parliament and says "There might be a case about this, so can't say".

[The Weeping Angel]

On another forum someone whinged that Starmer went on national television and justified Israel commiting war crimes.

[Oboogie]

We can call Russian war crimes out as soon as they happen. Nobody goes on TV or stands up in Parliament and says "There might be a case about this, so can't say".

Well actually Corbyn has consistently denied Russian war crimes and he's not alone. He claims Russia is defending itself against NATO aggression, rather like Israel says it is defending itself against Hamas aggression.

But of course, if you don't accept the supremacy of international law over national governments, there's no such thing as a war crime anyway so the argument becomes academic.

The Russian and Israeli governments deny that they're committing war crimes. Many people around the world disagree. That's why we need international courts to judge these cases.

[Spoonman]

Let's see how opinion polling is going for that loser Starmer...

[Abernathy]

I think we can safely assume that the SNP's actions were motivated by the chance of getting an advantage over Labour in Scotland. Their subsequent behaviour highlights that.

And the point that the UN has not accused Israel of war crimes is substantial, and current. It can't be waved away because we feel like it.

Plus of course, it isn’t only that. Keir Starmer expects to be Prime Minister before the year is out. As PM, he will be expected to engage in diplomatic relations at the highest level with (among others) the Israeli regime. It really won’t help, to put it mildly, his endeavours in that regard if only months previously, he has permitted MPs from his party to vote for a resolution that unambiguously accuses Israel of actual war crimes. Had the SNP resolution omitted the reference to collective punishment of the Palestinian people, which is defined expressly as a war crime under international law, from the resolution, there would have been no issue, and Labour MPs could conceivably have voted for the SNPs resolution. With it there, absolutely no chance. Which is precisely why the SNP included the wording in their opposition day resolution.

[Tubby Isaacs]

She's good.

[davidjay]

Yeahbut... that PROVES he's a Tory.

[Bones McCoy]

That thread shows the futility of arguing on twitter.

[The Weeping Angel]

Oh nos not 5 years in prison for thuggery

[davidjay]

So apart from anything else, within twelve months of becoming Prime Minister Starmer will have introduced a new and extremely controversial law, got it through the Lords, abolished trial by jury or indeed any trial at all, suspended Habeas Corpus and the rule of law and got a load of new prisons built, staffed and opened. He's going to be busy.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

I blame that Sadiq Khan, bringing all those thuggees from India, coming over here and stealing our horses. And strangling random passers-by.

[Tubby Isaacs]

There's no way this could end badly in the current climate. If reports are correct that Labour have forced the government to tax oil more, that would be quite spectacularly silly timing too.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Just Stop Oil being spectacularly silly? Never...

(What is Tory Oil, plz?)

[Abernathy]

(What is Tory Oil, plz?)

I think Michael Gove uses it on his hair.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Right. I heard he always went in dry.