terror bill passed by a single vote
- Thread starter belboid
- Start date
Fedayn said:Oh well that's ok then, he is going to vote to increase state repression, garnish it however you like.
You condemned Galloway for not voting for the last amdt. Where's your logic?
Either you know you are talking complete bollocks or you need someone to take you through it in words of one syllable and in easy steps.
Fedayn,
I think my qualifications as an anti-Galloway type are pretty good, but your logic is pretty questionable here. By voting for the Winnick amendment, Galloway would be voting to *reduce* the state repression in the Bill. As long as he doesn't vote FOR the final Bill as amended, then this stance is perfectly respectable. If, however, he takes the position that the Winnick amendment is adequate to buy his support for the Bill, then your position is valid...but I don't think he will.
Seriously, anti-Galloway people have enough rope to hang him with without inventing flimsy reasons to do so. I'm sure many people on this board would condemn him if he *didn't* vote for the Winnick amendment, since it makes the Bill less bad....and they'd be right to, in my opinion.
Matt
I think my qualifications as an anti-Galloway type are pretty good, but your logic is pretty questionable here. By voting for the Winnick amendment, Galloway would be voting to *reduce* the state repression in the Bill. As long as he doesn't vote FOR the final Bill as amended, then this stance is perfectly respectable. If, however, he takes the position that the Winnick amendment is adequate to buy his support for the Bill, then your position is valid...but I don't think he will.
Seriously, anti-Galloway people have enough rope to hang him with without inventing flimsy reasons to do so. I'm sure many people on this board would condemn him if he *didn't* vote for the Winnick amendment, since it makes the Bill less bad....and they'd be right to, in my opinion.
Matt
I understand GGs logic in voting for an amendment to reduce the proposed time limit and then voting against the whole bill anyway.
However, putting a 90 day proposal to the house is more likely to fail than putting a 28 day proposal to the house, so in that sense he might inadvertantly be helping the bill to succeed.
However, putting a 90 day proposal to the house is more likely to fail than putting a 28 day proposal to the house, so in that sense he might inadvertantly be helping the bill to succeed.
TAE,
Again, to be fair to Galloway (<shudders> musn't let this get to be a habit) as a single MP without a whipping operation or many friends in the House, he can't really know what is going to happen - so the best bet for him is surely to vote for anything that will lead to the *least number* of days without trial - ideally 14, but 28 rather than 90, certainly. Otherwise he would be gambling on the predelictions of 600 other MPs, whom he can't control...
Matt
Again, to be fair to Galloway (<shudders> musn't let this get to be a habit) as a single MP without a whipping operation or many friends in the House, he can't really know what is going to happen - so the best bet for him is surely to vote for anything that will lead to the *least number* of days without trial - ideally 14, but 28 rather than 90, certainly. Otherwise he would be gambling on the predelictions of 600 other MPs, whom he can't control...
Matt
TAE said:
That's not a totally unreasonable point of view. It was the position I adopted re the previous amdt.
However, whilst I considered that the other amdt. would not have substantially altered the Bill, whilst making it potentially more palatable to some MPs, I do think 28 days is significantly less bad as compared to 90 days. I also think my earlier position was probably wrong and that Galloway should have voted for the Amdt. Blair is looking shaky and any defeats in Parliament now will bring his end nearer.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Groucho said:
Whatever the tactics on the amendments, and I'm still not convinced they should be supported, it remains untrue that Galloway missed a vote against the Bill last week, as has been mistakenly claimed in numerous posts on this and other threads.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
thank you! enfin!Groucho said:
(point I made repeatedly earlier)
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
you mean, paid-for, prawn sanger-friendly, celeb-lovein 'an audience with...' type events? That's real rabble-rousing, that is!rebel warrior said:
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
Groucho said:
Who is Galloway bashing?? I suggest you either explain your remarks or withdraw them. My opposition to GG is on THIS issue. Elsewhere I have and will continue to defend him against the witchhunt of which he is a target for. So perhaps youshould think a bit before you make sweeping assertions.
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
Groucho said:
Care to refresh my memory? I seem to remember pointing out he missed the vote. I didn't condemn him for it.
Have a look http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3779589&postcount=177
Wouldn't it be ironic if this bill was passed by five or fewer votes, and then ends up being used against catholic suspects in Northern Ireland.
I'm thinking of the five votes SF have but won't use. Everyone is giving GG stick,but what about them? Aren't they just as much to blame?
I'm thinking of the five votes SF have but won't use. Everyone is giving GG stick,but what about them? Aren't they just as much to blame?
Similar threads
