Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: naturalman1975

That’s not an answer. Who would judge the government as “panicking” if they moved to suppress a vote on the state of Palestine?

Letting the Labour Party run amuck bespeaks an abandonment of rule of law. The significance is not lost on Britain’s allies.


34 posted on 10/13/2014 11:59:10 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]


To: Olog-hai
That’s not an answer. Who would judge the government as “panicking” if they moved to suppress a vote on the state of Palestine?

I've given you my answer. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but it is my answer.

People who understand the British Parliamentary system like me, for example, would see the government as panicking. Because they would be treating this vote as if it was important when it actually means virtually nothing substantive at all. The only reason I could see them doing that was if David Cameron had lost his marbles and nobody in his Cabinet was daring to try and stop him. It would be a sign of a government in disarray that didn't have a clue how to do its job.

Letting the Labour Party run amuck

The Labor Party is the Opposition. They don't have the right to set policy. They certainly have the right to raise matters in Parliament. Doing so is not running amuck. It's what they are supposed to do.

And letting them in this case, sends a clear message to the British voters that Labor is pro-Palestinian. They can't hide from that. They can't deny it. And the voters can make their own decision as to whether or not they want to vote for that.

I think Labor has just reduced its chance of winning the next General Election. I certainly hope they have.

35 posted on 10/14/2014 12:13:21 AM PDT by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

To: Olog-hai
Letting the Labour Party run amuck

Actually, I'll address this just a little further.

It is a feature of the British system - deliberately built into it - that Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition (the formal term) gets twenty days a session in Parliament to present its ideas for discussion. This reflects the fact that a large number of people did vote for them and deserve representation. And Labor didn't use those days for that debate. That's because the Labor Party leadership didn't want this debate.

Instead, it's come up in one of the "Backbench day" when Backbench MPs from any party who can't get their leaders to support them in raising an issue have the chance to do so. And that's forced Labor into taking a stand on the issue that they really didn't want to take electorally. I'm not saying the Government wanted this debate - but politically, there's a lot of advantages in it for the supporters of Israel, because Labor has had to nail its colours to the mast and shown that they cannot be trusted on that issue.

36 posted on 10/14/2014 12:19:38 AM PDT by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson