Chaos in the UK Parliament.

It almost fills me with Nostalgia about the Brexit era but this time it's about Gaza.

The SNP (Scottish National Party) to the left of Keir Starmer's labour and had a motion (bill) calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Because some labour MP's have a conscious and/or Muslin constituents, this was likely to severely divide the labour vote and force the party leadership to ponder the cost/benefit analysis of developing an actiual backbone.

Starmer had a meeting with the speaker of the house (the head administrator, for Americans) and asked him to change the bill to labour's watered down version. Starmer claimed that this was because labour MP's had received threats and would be in danger if the vote went ahead but this was nothing to do with Stamer not wanting the bill being voted on and dividing his party. No guv, not at all. The speaker relented and the SNP motion was dropped. The SNP stormed out and Gaza keeps burning.

Joy.

OliRos · 18-21, F

Sorry to let a little truth intrude into your parable, but the SNP motion, which called for a ceasefire and condemned Israeli action as collective punishment (a war crime), was put to the House and passed by acclamation (without a division).

The Labour Amendment, calling for a ceasefire but without the condemnation, was then put to the House and also passed by acclamation.

The government had earlier withdrawn their own amendment.

The deputy speaker, Rosie Winterton, seriously fucked up. Given the hubbub in the House at the time, she could not have heard if the cries were "Ayes" or "Noes" and she should have called for a division on both the motion and the amendment.

The SNP attempt to embarrass Labour was scuppered and they spat out their dummies. The government ran scared from a potential back bench revolt and the Speaker was exposed to unnecessary criticism.

Starmer and his team showed themselves to be astute political operators, which is, of course, a mortal sin to the left of the party, who prefer principled opposition to responsible power.

On the whole, it was the most embarrassing parliamentary event since Johnson's brexit high jinks. But at least it drowned the story of the nuclear deterrent failure. Rather as the Navy drowned the Trident.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@OliRos If you want to end a debate with someone, try agreeing to disagree instead of loading on another batch of contentious points that imply a lack of insight behind the other person's motivation. Just fyi. 😆

I don't want to fall out with you either and i think we have some mutual grudging respect. You are intelligent and very confident.

I've spent four years of my life campaigning to get a labour government elected. There is a balance between principle and pragmatism with all political decisions and I do think (for example that the 2017 manifesto is where labour should be aiming instead of the 2019 one. You have to pick your battles but sometimes you also have to fight them. To get any of the things I want anyway. You probably don't want the same, apart from kicking out the Tories

There are many reasons why the Corbyn project failed but - of those reasons - having policies that were too left wing for the British electorate was far from top of the list.

I could go into this in a LOT more detail if you like. If you don't want me to, that is fine and we can agree to disagree.

I'm still going to unapologetically criticise Starmer.

OliRos · 18-21, F

@Burnley123 I have always thought of "agreeing to disagree" as a wishy-washy get out.

We disagree fundamentally on certain matters, and probably agree on many more. I suspect our ends are more closely aligned than our means.

We could both provide a "lot more detail" to support our respective positions.

We will both criticise Starmer, but for different things. In doing so, we should both be careful not to open him up to the crazpirators like your new friend, kutee.