Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
I am not saying they were 'gaming' the system. I am saying they designed a motion designed to trip Labour up which is why I don't feel a great deal of sympathy for them that it went wrong.
It was difficult for Labour because Labour wanted to include more onus on the fact that Hamas also have to abide by any ceasefire. If the SNP had included that and taken out of the collective punishment bit then Labour would have voted for the position. The Lib Dems pretty much asked for the same thing and were denied.
It's politics and all the parties play it.
The speaker shouldn't have selected Labour's motion but I am not buying the SNP's pearl-clutching here.
|
Exactly this. The SNP motion had the term ‘collective punishment’ in it that no serious party of government or potential government could sign up to without some serious strong evidence. Basically, you don’t accuse nation states of war crimes unless you are really sure if you want to be taken seriously as a government.
The SNP only stood to gain from labour and indeed the Conservatives not voting for the motion from a political point of view.
It’s pretty shoddy using a desperate international situation to further your domestic political ambitions.