The Labour Party

If MP's are being attacked or stalked and threatened by pro=Palestine supporters we need to sort them out, however the MP's are all cowards, if they can't follow morals they shouldn't be in the job.
I am a mere observer on this and personally think what has happened brings our Parliament down. However, back to being an observer again, these things are being used by the lay person as a way to beat others politically, and to protect their personal thoughts.

As for cowards, haven’t they now agreed that the UKs stance is for ceasefire? For me, if that is now the stance, at least we can move forward.
 
Yeah both of those are very worrying. The conservatives only pulled their vote because they didn’t have the numbers to succeed. That essentially means opposition parties are setting foreign policy which should really be an untenable position for a government to be in.

The other bit is if Hoyle is only allowing amendments in case of safety of MPs then that’s clearly a fucked up situation.

I'd suggest that no-one is actually setting policy today.
The vote tonight is meaningless as it'll be ignored.

The Speaker's role seems to me to be not understood properly, but it is indeed a mess of a day.
 
I'd suggest that no-one is actually setting policy today.
The vote tonight is meaningless as it'll be ignored.

The Speaker's role seems to me to be not understood properly, but it is indeed a mess of a day.

I’d agree in terms of actually setting policy, meant that more in terms of how anyone else would perceive it. That is now the UKs stated position on Israel and Gaza though.

The whole thing was meaningless ultimately, it was domestic politics being played on an international issue and made our whole parliament look like idiots.
 
I’d agree in terms of actually setting policy, meant that more in terms of how anyone else would perceive it. That is now the UKs stated position on Israel and Gaza though.

The whole thing was meaningless ultimately, it was domestic politics being played on an international issue and made our whole parliament look like idiots.


If it's that meaningless they could've just voted it through. It's a bullshit argument.
 
If it's that meaningless they could've just voted it through. It's a bullshit argument.

Who could have voted what through?

It was meaningless internationally in terms of it making any difference to the conflict. It meant something domestically to them which is why all the parties tied themselves in knots over it.

It’s perception rather than substance still.
 
Absolute disgrace while the slaughter goes on.

Not thar Israel nor Hamas take any notice of what is said in the UK..
 
Who could have voted what through?

It was meaningless internationally in terms of it making any difference to the conflict. It meant something domestically to them which is why all the parties tied themselves in knots over it.

It’s perception rather than substance still.
So why all the pantomime if it was meaningless? If Labour felt so strongly about their amendment why didn't they use their opposition days to try to force the government position earlier rather than forwarding motions on stuff like ....... MPs severance pay?

It was clearly anything but meaningless.
 
I think you need to look beyond the housing market because I'm not necessarily talking about houses, I'm talking about their value as an asset and how that feeds into everything else.

Wishing for housing market collapse is incredibly stupid because who do you think pays to develop those fancy new flats in Manchester that have gone up over the last 10 years? A lot think it's the Chinese or Russians but actually it's your pension funds invested in property so it's your pension that stands to lose from collapse.

The only people wishing for housing collapse are those who aren't on the ladder. Naturally though those same people will change that view very quickly once they get on the ladder. Any sane homeowner will therefore vote accordingly to their interests which will be to protect the housing market.
I get that, but there are large parts of society that aren't on the property ladder, and I'd guess that the majority of those also don't have a huge amount invested in a pension fund either, because after saving up for a deposit, paying for extortionate rent, utilities and transport, and possibly paying off a student loan that they were promised would lead to a high-paying job, they don't have a lot left to save for the future. And even their parents are now expected to use the one asset they could pass on to pay for their old-age care.

But equally, as fewer and fewer people are building a sizeable pension fund, the companies building the houses are less and less owned by the wider public, and more and more by a smaller number of ultra-rich investors. The idea of people being able to own their own homes is actually an anomaly in history. The number of houses has increased more than the population in the last ten years. The normal rules of supply and demand should say that prices should go down, and yet that hasn't happened, because there's a huge shift of wealth to the ultra rich, who use it to buy assets. House prices are artificially propped up by people who are buying them as an investment, and a correction is long overdue. But it won't happen, because effectively your young family is now competing with a hedge fund for property rather than other young families. And there's absolutely no reason to assume that this will correct itself as long as the flow of money keeps going from the poor to the ultra rich.

The main question for you would be, do you think house prices continuing to increase is a good thing? The average price is now 8.3 times the average annual salary. Do you think it would be a good thing if that went to 10 times, 15 times, 20 times? Or would it be better if it stayed the same or came down? Obviously a proper 2008-style crash would be a disaster for plenty of people with a mortgage, but a price reduction would involve at minimum a stagnation of house prices, to allow wages to increase faster that property, and everyone who owned a house would lose out on their 'investment.' You're not voting to 'protect' the housing market, you're voting to make it skyrocket in a way that you personally won't actually benefit from.

For most ordinary people, a house isn't really an investment, because you can only cash it in by selling it. It would be a bad thing for people who own more than one house, of course. It would also mean that people with a mortgage find that their house is only worth roughly the amount they paid for it, but then the same would apply to any house they wanted to move to, so again, for ordinary people who buy a house to live in, there's not a massive interest in how much the house is worth, because it's all relative. There's no point owning a flat that goes up from 150 grand to 200 grand if the house you wanted to sell it to buy goes from 200 grand to 275 grand in the same time.

But you get this all the time. Homeowners convinced to worry about the price of their house when in reality, it makes fuck all difference to someone who owns a single house. Who it does make a difference to is the huge investment funds buying up shitloads of property, and developers being able to charge a fortune. And yes, some of those developers might be owned by my pension fund, but call me old-fashioned, I'm not a huge fan of the idea that my pension fund gets record profits by pricing my own kids out of the housing market. Especially if it then leads to me having to gift them 10 or 20 grand towards a deposit anyway, which is what increasing numbers of middle class families are doing.
 
I think, in Scotland, the one party I wouldn’t be voting for would be SNP. Completely backfired for them today. And how didn’t they see it coming, Labour had been taking about the ‘ceasefire’ issue for a couple of weeks.

Probably didn’t notice, who listens to Labour anyway.
That’s not really true though, is it, with regard to the SNP not seeing it coming? If you’re being honest, that is.

I have no time at all for the SNP but if it’s their Opposition Day and they put forward a motion, then they have every right to expect their motion to be voted upon without amendment by another opposition party. Every right.

The only thing they didn’t see coming was Hoyle buckling under intense and likely undue pressure from Starmer, who couldn’t afford to have another mass rebellion on the issue after what’s happened over the past couple of weeks.

I’m afraid that when the Clerk of the House makes a statement like he did yesterday, then the gravity of the Speaker’s actions can’t be disputed, and the whole discussion was always going to be undermined and indeed overshadowed after that.

As others have said, Labour have had ample opportunity to present their own motion on the ceasefire issue in previous weeks but Starmer has dodged the issue, and only intervened as he did yesterday to avoid any further personal damage. The fact that Starmer pressured the Speaker into defying convention only serves to highlight how vulnerable he is on the issue.
 
That’s not really true though, is it, with regard to the SNP not seeing it coming? If you’re being honest, that is.

I have no time at all for the SNP but if it’s their Opposition Day and they put forward a motion, then they have every right to expect their motion to be voted upon without amendment by another opposition party. Every right.

The only thing they didn’t see coming was Hoyle buckling under intense and likely undue pressure from Starmer, who couldn’t afford to have another mass rebellion on the issue after what’s happened over the past couple of weeks.

I’m afraid that when the Clerk of the House makes a statement like he did yesterday, then the gravity of the Speaker’s actions can’t be disputed, and the whole discussion was always going to be undermined and indeed overshadowed after that.

As others have said, Labour have had ample opportunity to present their own motion on the ceasefire issue in previous weeks but Starmer has dodged the issue, and only intervened as he did yesterday to avoid any further personal damage. The fact that Starmer pressured the Speaker into defying convention only serves to highlight how vulnerable he is on the issue.
It would be interesting to see what was said between Starmer and Hoyle, and what pressure was placed on him. Surely that has to come out.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.