Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...



Is it PotG?

Is it PotG?

Thrifty non-licker
Feb 20, 2017
23,399
Sussex by the Sea
ROSM said:
The whole issue of yesterday is that politicians of all hues were playing games with a serious issue. Some were worse than others.

The snp motion went beyond calling for a ceasefire it aimed to apportion blame. Knowing this would be problematic for both tories and labour. More the latter as the former are shameless.

The tories were not planning to offer an amendment as they saw labour as the only losers in this debate. Labour then did offer an amendement which in normal circs would have been ok. Labour's amendment took blame out and did explain a ceasefire needs work from bot sides and did offer a what next element. Ironically thos is where france, nz, australia and canada alreay are as states national policy and US are moving there too. Should labour have got there quicker? Yes definitely

Tories then offer an amendment as they could see the snp trap has failed. Playing the system as it were.

Hoyle did break convention but he didnt break the rules or indeed precedent. As the letter above explains

Tories then pulled their amendment because they knew they would be subject to a rebellion of their own as many on their party would back the labour position (indeed many in snp do too). Point is their amendment never had the votes and was only put forward to try and stop the labour amendment being debated. That was trying to use the convention for party political games.

But rather than just losing they decided to take their ball home too. Snp then walked out too.

If tories hadnt offered an amendment there wouldn't have been the issue we had yesterday. As for tories ditching Hoyle? He has been ineffective at pmq's so they need to be careful what they wish for as the replacement could be a lot worse for them
Click to expand...
Certainly ONE version of events.

What do you make of the story that Labour figures had admitted that Hoyle was pressured to change the rules, which a top official warned “represents a departure from the long-established convention for dealing with such amendments on opposition days” and that "Senior Labour figures tell me that The Speaker was left in no doubt that Labour would bring him down after the General Election unless he called Labour’s Gaza amendment."
 






MJsGhost

MJsGhost

Oooh Matron, I'm an
NSC Patron
Jun 26, 2009
4,502
East
BBassic said:
I sometimes wonder if Liz Truss just can't eat lettuce now.

Does she recoil in fear at the sight of our leafy green vegetable, never again to enjoy the simple pleasure of a well made BLT?
Click to expand...

chickens said:
A Bloody Liz Truss?

The bacon represents pork markets.
The lettuce invokes memories of her short lived reign.
The tomato is a reminder to vote for the Labour Party at the next election.
Click to expand...
Bacon sandwiches are off limits to MPs after what happened to Milliband

IMG_2651.jpeg
 








beorhthelm

beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,316
ROSM said:
....

The tories were not planning to offer an amendment as they saw labour as the only losers in this debate. Labour then did offer an amendement which in normal circs would have been ok. Labour's amendment took blame out and did explain a ceasefire needs work from bot sides and did offer a what next element. Ironically thos is where france, nz, australia and canada alreay are as states national policy and US are moving there too. Should labour have got there quicker? Yes definitely
...
Click to expand...
seems unlikely government wouldn't offer an amendment on such an important issue, especially as the motion was worded to go against their policy.
 


Nobby Cybergoat

Nobby Cybergoat

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2021
7,031
A1X said:
Considering the initial scandal had basically nothing to do with her, she seems hell bent on placing herself at the heart of it (and not in a good way)

Her political instincts are terrible
Click to expand...
I'm less sure.

I think she wants the sack. I think she knows that the post office scandal will be yesterdays chip paper in 6 months time.

What she doesn't want is association with the calamitous tory defeat she knows is coming. She wants to be able to be able to plausibly say that Sunak botched the campaign and she can do better
ROSM said:
The whole issue of yesterday is that politicians of all hues were playing games with a serious issue. Some were worse than others.

The snp motion went beyond calling for a ceasefire it aimed to apportion blame. Knowing this would be problematic for both tories and labour. More the latter as the former are shameless.

The tories were not planning to offer an amendment as they saw labour as the only losers in this debate. Labour then did offer an amendement which in normal circs would have been ok. Labour's amendment took blame out and did explain a ceasefire needs work from bot sides and did offer a what next element. Ironically thos is where france, nz, australia and canada alreay are as states national policy and US are moving there too. Should labour have got there quicker? Yes definitely

Tories then offer an amendment as they could see the snp trap has failed. Playing the system as it were.

Hoyle did break convention but he didnt break the rules or indeed precedent. As the letter above explains

Tories then pulled their amendment because they knew they would be subject to a rebellion of their own as many on their party would back the labour position (indeed many in snp do too). Point is their amendment never had the votes and was only put forward to try and stop the labour amendment being debated. That was trying to use the convention for party political games.

But rather than just losing they decided to take their ball home too. Snp then walked out too.

If tories hadnt offered an amendment there wouldn't have been the issue we had yesterday. As for tories ditching Hoyle? He has been ineffective at pmq's so they need to be careful what they wish for as the replacement could be a lot worse for them
Click to expand...
This is exactly how I see it.

SNP are the big losers here. They look like (because they were) they are taking their removal; of some parliamentary advantage as a more serious matter than the war in Gaza. They were obviously setting traps and have been caught.

The Tories don't look amazing. Their actions are initially confusing to understand. But it very much looks like they were trying to avoid their MP's not backing it.

Labour are provisionally the ones who come out of this looking not too bad. With the proviso that they are now open to accusations, whether true or not of bullying the speaker. It's also unclear if they benefit or lose from the general degredation of parliament we saw last night. Probably lose. but there's an opportunity here. They can go into the election on a platform of parliamentary reform. Really make a play of throwing out all the anachronisms
 


Randy McNob

Randy McNob

Now go home and get your f#cking Shinebox
Jun 13, 2020
4,464
wellquickwoody said:
I did the staying up thing when Kinnock was expected to win. Young, heart on sleeve, and rather unaware of how economics need to work in those days. I felt heartbroken when it all went tits up.

Now having voted Tory ever since Blair was ousted I will certainly not be doing so this time around. Either Labour or not bother, probably the former as I do like a strong government.
Click to expand...
So you gave John Major the thumbs down but austerity and brexit a big thumbs up?
 




aolstudios

aolstudios

Well-known member
Nov 30, 2011
4,533
brighton
ROSM said:
The whole issue of yesterday is that politicians of all hues were playing games with a serious issue. Some were worse than others.

The snp motion went beyond calling for a ceasefire it aimed to apportion blame. Knowing this would be problematic for both tories and labour. More the latter as the former are shameless.

The tories were not planning to offer an amendment as they saw labour as the only losers in this debate. Labour then did offer an amendement which in normal circs would have been ok. Labour's amendment took blame out and did explain a ceasefire needs work from bot sides and did offer a what next element. Ironically thos is where france, nz, australia and canada alreay are as states national policy and US are moving there too. Should labour have got there quicker? Yes definitely

Tories then offer an amendment as they could see the snp trap has failed. Playing the system as it were.

Hoyle did break convention but he didnt break the rules or indeed precedent. As the letter above explains

Tories then pulled their amendment because they knew they would be subject to a rebellion of their own as many on their party would back the labour position (indeed many in snp do too). Point is their amendment never had the votes and was only put forward to try and stop the labour amendment being debated. That was trying to use the convention for party political games.

But rather than just losing they decided to take their ball home too. Snp then walked out too.

If tories hadnt offered an amendment there wouldn't have been the issue we had yesterday. As for tories ditching Hoyle? He has been ineffective at pmq's so they need to be careful what they wish for as the replacement could be a lot worse for them
Click to expand...
This ^
All of it
 










R

ROSM

Well-known member
Dec 26, 2005
6,224
Just far enough away from LDC
beorhthelm said:
seems unlikely government wouldn't offer an amendment on such an important issue, especially as the motion was worded to go against their policy.
Click to expand...
The May govt simply refused to divide the house. They didnt put amendments up. They initially indicated the same on this case. Then changed when labour did put forward an amendment
 






beorhthelm

beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,316
ROSM said:
The May govt simply refused to divide the house. They didnt put amendments up. They initially indicated the same on this case. Then changed when labour did put forward an amendment
Click to expand...
every opposition motion under May was unopposed? that would be a surprise. all the commentry of proceedings yesturday was highlighting the change of procedure to allow two amendments, not saying the government doing so was against procedure.
 


keaton

keaton

Big heart, hot blood and balls. Big balls
Nov 18, 2004
9,665
The Tories only now caring about the legality of Commons behaviour while not raising issues with the vast amounts of lies Ministers have told, illegal prorogation or when policies were leaked to the press prior to be brought there
 


Guinness Boy

Guinness Boy

Tofu eating wokerati
Helpful Moderator
NSC Patron
Jul 23, 2003
34,229
Up and Coming Sunny Portslade
ROSM said:
The whole issue of yesterday is that politicians of all hues were playing games with a serious issue. Some were worse than others.

The snp motion went beyond calling for a ceasefire it aimed to apportion blame. Knowing this would be problematic for both tories and labour. More the latter as the former are shameless.

The tories were not planning to offer an amendment as they saw labour as the only losers in this debate. Labour then did offer an amendement which in normal circs would have been ok. Labour's amendment took blame out and did explain a ceasefire needs work from bot sides and did offer a what next element. Ironically thos is where france, nz, australia and canada alreay are as states national policy and US are moving there too. Should labour have got there quicker? Yes definitely

Tories then offer an amendment as they could see the snp trap has failed. Playing the system as it were.

Hoyle did break convention but he didnt break the rules or indeed precedent. As the letter above explains

Tories then pulled their amendment because they knew they would be subject to a rebellion of their own as many on their party would back the labour position (indeed many in snp do too). Point is their amendment never had the votes and was only put forward to try and stop the labour amendment being debated. That was trying to use the convention for party political games.

But rather than just losing they decided to take their ball home too. Snp then walked out too.

If tories hadnt offered an amendment there wouldn't have been the issue we had yesterday. As for tories ditching Hoyle? He has been ineffective at pmq's so they need to be careful what they wish for as the replacement could be a lot worse for them
Click to expand...
This. With the addition that the SNP really didn't need to table a Gaza debate at all. They were moaning themselves that they only get three chances a year, you'd think they'd want the subjects to be Scottish specific with so few opportunities.

I very much doubt that Netanyahu would care a jot about a ceasefire resolution drafted by the global equivalent of a Parish Council. It was simply a desperate governing party in trouble playing politics.
 


S

Since1982

Well-known member
Sep 30, 2006
1,493
Burgess Hill
keaton said:
The Tories only now caring about the legality of Commons behaviour while not raising issues with the vast amounts of lies Ministers have told, illegal prorogation or when policies were leaked to the press prior to be brought there
Click to expand...
Rank hypocrisy on their part. Their walk out last night was petulant and indicative of a party putting self before country and the suffering in Gaza.
 




R

ROSM

Well-known member
Dec 26, 2005
6,224
Just far enough away from LDC
beorhthelm said:
every opposition motion under May was unopposed? that would be a surprise. all the commentry of proceedings yesturday was highlighting the change of procedure to allow two amendments, not saying the government doing so was against procedure.
Click to expand...
Due to their wafer thin majority and expectations of losing they simply didnt put forward amendments to opposition motions. In effect making them adjournmemt debates.

Govts dont have to offer amendments. They indicated initially on this they wouldnt. They only did when they realised labours amendment might get significant tory support

Yesterday wasnt against procedure (standing order 31 doesnt preclude it), it also wasnt against precedent (happened before in 92 and 98) but it was against convention
 


T

TomandJerry

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2013
11,535
A coalition of Ukrainian human rights groups has written to Rishi Sunak, calling on him to “end the impasse” over using funds from the sale of Chelsea to help victims of war in the country.

Nearly two years after Roman Abramovich had sanctions imposed by the United Kingdom, the £2.5bn generated from Chelsea’s sale remains frozen in a UK bank account despite a commitment to use the proceeds for humanitarian purposes. Last month the European affairs committee of the House of Lords said it was “incomprehensible” that the money was untouched.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here