We solved that problem a long time ago.
You just move Australia a little bit east, and you cover everywhere.
Or was it West?
2 Likes
West wasnât it?
Would it not be the issue covering the whole Pacific?
Covering what? The only thing weâd ever need to protect there would be the carriers themselves.
Eurasian Times is not an unbiased (certainly not pro Western) source
1 Like
Any single source has its issues: this one just happens to be saying what Iâve been thinking since those strikes went in. It cites The Telegraph, but I havenât checked the original article.
Everywhere, itâs apocryphal:
1 Like
A surprise this hasnât happened sooner, given the volume of recent proxy attacks, but 3 US service personnel have been killed by a drone strike in Jordan.
Itâll be interesting to see not only how the US responds to this, but also how the Jordanians do too.
I donât think we need a discussion on the rights and wrongs of each of the party motions and amendments put forward to the House of Commons today regarding the Israel/Gaza conflict, so letâs not permit this thread to deteriorate as others have on this site.
But doesnât it speak volumes about our MPs from across the floor that so many of them are more offended and concerned at the perception of a deviation from traditional procedures (one that the Speaker is technically entitled to make) than attempting to provide a united British voice to end civilian casualties and further deaths?
3 Likes
Having watched the last hour of that debate, it was a disgrace in how all sides of the House conducted themselves.
The interesting point is that an MP read out a tweet from Nick Watts of Newsnight that in effect the Speaker was warned by senior Labour MPs that they would in effect âdo his kneecapsâ at the next election.
The whole thing is a farce. The SNP were pushing the whole thing more to do over Labour than to actually achieve a ceasefire. Then Labour having to try to amend it, more to stop them all from fracturing than to actually achieve a ceasefire, and the government throwing in their own amendment, just because they know it would trump Labourâs, and cause Labour issues, than actually achieve a ceasefire.
Then the government and SNP storming off because the house might actually pass a vote on having a ceasefire, rather than doing over Labour. (Which was, of course, the real point of the day.)
And at the end of the day, the odds of it having any impact on actually achieving a ceasefire: Nil.
2 Likes
And Labour in effect threatening the Speaker about their amendment to get Starmer of a very nasty hook. Last time there was a vote, 56 Labour MPs rebelled against Starmer.
"Senior Labour figures told BBC Newsnight Sir Lindsay was left in no doubt Labour was prepared to see him replaced as Speaker after the next general election unless he selected the partyâs ceasefire amendment for a vote.
They said it was made clear to the Speaker he would need Labour votes to be re-elected and this might not be forthcoming".
"
1 Like
The Labour party wanted the amendment because many of the MPs who stuck with the party line last time, and didnât back the calls for a ceasefire. (Which was also the government position at the time), have been receiving death threats. Because, well, thatâs the reasonable reaction to everything these days.
By other accounts, it was Sir Keirâs pleas on that basis that helped convince Sir Lindsey.
The Labour Amendment is also in line with exactly the same calls made by key allies such as Australia and Canada.
But again, today wasnât about a ceasefire. It was about doing over Labour, and that aim failed, and thereâs a lot of schadenfreude in that.
The moment you can really tell that was the real point was when the Labour Shadow Leader of the House pointed out that the house had in effect passed a motion calling for a ceasefire (which apparently everyone wanted) and no one from the Government or SNP cared.
2 Likes
And, like the last one, not binding on the House or Government.
The SNP motion never IIRC mentioned the hostages imprisoned by Hamas, which the Labour one did.
1 Like
Ngl I always assumed the Speaker was chosen by the majority party so in Lindseyâs case, heâs a Tory MP.
Maybe I just got that impression from the previous speaker thoughâŚ
All irrelevant really.
None of this was about a ceasefire. Itâs about the Tories and SNP being scared of Labour, the only thing they have in common now.
1 Like
Actually, he was/is Labour.
1 Like
The Speaker is chosen by a vote of the whole House following candidates putting themselves forward and in recent timesâ hustings taking place.
Lindsey Hoyle is a Labour MP same as Rosie Winterton one of the Deputies, Elanor Lang the other Deputy is a Conservative MP.
1 Like
It works in much the same way as who become Prime Minister.
Usually, this is the person who leads the largest party, but the only actual requirement is that the Prime Minister commands the respect of the majority of the members of the House. So theoretically, the Conservatives could be the largest party but we could have a Green Prime Minister. Realistically it will never happen, but it could.
But as mentioned above, the Speakerships are elected. Normally, their seats as MPs are not contested at elections (allowing automatic reelection) but the Tories have threatened to stand against him in Chorley as a result of tonight.
1 Like
It will probably come to nothing. One Tory minister apparently has said off record that theyâre not as mad as theyâre pretending to be.
Also, talk about empty threats!