Labour's amendment, though it genuinely reflected some shifting position, was designed to head off any further rebellion. The Tories added what they knew was a wrecking amendment just to muddy the water and is almost unheard of by a governing party to an opposition motion. And although the SNP like to claim the moral high ground, the main purpose of the motion (the substance of which they'd already put forward a few weeks earlier) was to use as leverage against Labour in Scotland. This is patently obvious to those of us who live north of the border. And there is a wider point – grandstanding about motions in Parliament, Council chamber or constituency party might make the participants feel better, but it's largely performative in its (non) effects on the actual parties to the conflict. I am not saying do nothing. I want an immediate ceasefire, but let's have some sense of proportion and realism about what can actually bring it about.
but this speaker thing
it seems the SNP are butt hurt because Labour got an amendment that was worded a bit better ?
and by the speaker allowing it and a tory amendment to be voted on he went against convention, not law, just convention
are the snp just whinging because they know they are in decline
general election cant come soon enough
are labour perfect
NO
but fucking hell, compared to the rest its a no brainer
Responses