Forum menu
My takeaway from tonight’s The Thick Of It reconstruction:
Hoyle a a * (not really news to anyone who watches his spineless actions every week)
Starmer is a * (genocide supporter so no surprise he’s happy to subvert parliamentary process to water down criticism of Israel)
The tories are ** (no surprise there)
The SNP are ** for indulging in parliamentary theatre with the tories.
They’re all ***** basically.
Meanwhile another dozen kids have probably died whilst I was typing that.
The Labour Party have 17 opposition days whilst the SNP have 3, the Labour Party/Starmer could have called the motion on any of the 17 days allocated to them yet decided to call it on the day that a significant amount of Labour mp’s were going to rebel against the party whip and vote for the SNP motion.
Why today I wonder?
Newsnight reported that Lindsay Hoyle was threatened with loosing his peerage after they kick him out next year unless he broke with parliamentary procedures to intervene on the vote on Labour/Starmers behalf.
I doubt Newsnight would report such if they were unsure of its veracity and I expect a pile of no confidence letters are going to come in regarding his position as Speaker of the House.
The SNP/Stephen Flynn have repeatedly called for a ceasefire since the assault on Gaza began over 4 months ago.
Meanwhile another dozen kids have probably died whilst I was typing that.
Yeah but the great news is that Starmer avoided "a trap" by the SNP, which could have led to about 100 Labour MPs rebelling.
So despite Starmer's supporters on here claiming that any vote concerning Gaza is completely pointless all those shenanigans going on yesterday in parliament were really really important.
And Labour's amendment basically puts the blame for 13,000 dead Palestinian children on Hamas, which is exactly Israel's position - Israel can't be expected to stop slaughtering innocent civilians if Hamas doesn't stop fighting.
Starmer must be very pleased with himself.
Starmer must be very pleased with himself
Well those “Friends of Israel” donations aren’t for nothing, you know.
technically it went through unopposed, but was amended by the labour cal
aka replaced by it.
Given how much effort Starmer put into getting his version in it seems a bit odd to try the snp version passed.
Got to admire him. Johnson had to wait until he was in office before messing with parliamentary conventions.
And Labour’s amendment basically puts the blame for 13,000 dead Palestinian children on Hamas,
it really doesn't say that it actually says...
That this House believes that an Israeli ground offensive in Rafah risks catastrophic humanitarian consequences and therefore must not take place; notes the intolerable loss of Palestinian life, the majority being women and children; condemns the terrorism of Hamas who continue to hold hostages; supports Australia, Canada and New Zealand’s calls for Hamas to release and return all hostages and for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, which means an immediate stop to the fighting and a ceasefire that lasts and is observed by all sides, noting that Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence and that Israelis have the right to the assurance that the horror of 7 October 2023 cannot happen again; therefore supports diplomatic mediation efforts to achieve a lasting ceasefire; demands that rapid and unimpeded humanitarian relief is provided in Gaza; further demands an end to settlement expansion and violence; urges Israel to comply with the International Court of Justice’s provisional measures; calls for the UN Security Council to meet urgently; and urges all international partners to work together to establish a diplomatic process to deliver the peace of a two-state solution, with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state, including working with international partners to recognise a Palestinian state as a contribution to rather than outcome of that process, because statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and not in the gift of any neighbour.
and as for saying
Meanwhile another dozen kids have probably died whilst I was typing that.
thats probably true, but if you think anything passed in the commons would make any sort of difference to israel , ive got a bridge to sell you
that Israelis have the right to the assurance that the horror of 7 October 2023 cannot happen again;
ie that Israel can continue doing whatever it wants as long as it pretends the victims are “terrorists”
I wonder if we have actually reached a tipping point beyond which a Palestinian state is not viable, or will that point have been reached after the inevitable expulsion of Gazans into Egypt ?
Johnson had to wait until he was in office before messing with parliamentary conventions
Ha ha. The Tory thread was suspiciously quiet on all this you could take this point over to there and light the fuse ?
thats probably true, but if you think anything passed in the commons would make any sort of difference to israel , ive got a bridge to sell you
Side point: doesn't the UK sell arms to Israel?
Blimey the naivety displayed on this thread is astonishing 😂. Anyone who really believes the SNP's motion was driven by pure altruism, and not by a desire to embarrass their main threat in the next election, needs to give their head a wobble. It's politics...that's how it works.
Side point: doesn’t the UK sell arms to Israel?
No weapons are sold to Israel from UK, predominantly they get them through US, their own arms industry and other industries, the UK does has sub-contractors who supply to these companies with items such as electronics and so on.
As for the whole pantomime yesterday, it was depressing start to finish, the fact the vote went through unopposed was largely forgotten, so that politicians could shout and be angry about other stuff, that pretty much summed up the whole gameplay around these votes.
so that politicians could shout and be angry
One Tory politician was quoted as saying "We're not really that angry" The whole thing just became just a bit "Westminster panto"
noting that Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence
Indiscriminant killing of women and children (70% of deaths) isn't "fighting" Hamas.
Starmer's amendment was designed to shift the blame away from the IDF and onto Hamas. Basically exactly the same line as Netanyahu and his far-right government.
One Tory politician was quoted as saying “We’re not really that angry” The whole thing just became just a bit “Westminster panto”
Yeah, it was the likes of Flynn i was on about, for me the biggest problem with the SNP is how they've downgraded leaders in Edinburgh and London, Blackford could understand how arguments were won and lost in parliament, Flynn just seems to try and be clever and it just never works for him.
Still, it's all over over now, the vote has gone through and a ceasefire will be occurring very soon.
Still, it’s all over over now, the vote has gone through and a ceasefire will be occurring very soon.
Of course since it is Starmers amendment that got passed and we know the glorious leader will have come up with the perfect solution to all the worlds problems.
It would have been amusing to see what the new new labour supporters would have been saying if Sunak had pulled the same trick.
Still I guess conventions dont really matter if its your side breaking them right?
The entire raft of text after the bit you quoted contradicts your point.
Not really since the “raft” of worthy requests is contingent upon the part that I quoted, viz, that Israel can do what they want in the meantime.
Starmer's spineless u-turn on a ceasefire is disgusting, because it's now clearly obvious that he's only doing it for political reasons, and not because he actually cares about human lives lost in this insane genocide.
No weapons are sold to Israel from UK
Incredible. Fortunately, such lies and misinformation are very easily disproven:
https://caat.org.uk/data/exports-uk/overview?region=Israel
Selective editing again... they said...
the UK does has sub-contractors who supply to these companies with items such as electronics
And the report you link to shows that is the case.
components for military radars
278
components for targeting equipment
147
components for military aircraft head-up/down displays
85
components for unmanned air vehicles
81
components for submarines
80
components for military support aircraft
67
components for electronic warfare equipment
188
components for combat aircraft
59
components for military training aircraft
62
general naval vessel components
46
So the UK does supply weapons to Israel then. I'm glad we've confirmed that fact.
Starmer’s spineless u-turn on a ceasefire is disgusting, because it’s now clearly obvious that he’s only doing it for political reasons, and not because he actually cares about human lives lost in this insane genocide.
I can't help but feel that SKS probably does care about the lives lost - but the reality is, as seen yesterday, this is all politics and IMO he has to do what ever it takes to get the Tories out.
I can’t help but feel that SKS probably does care about the lives lost
What evidence do you have to support this idea?
It seems pretty obvious that regardless of what actually happened in the Commons yesterday, the bleating, braying, faux-outrage and general hysteria from all MPs implies that it was never about Gaza in the first place and every party is jumping on the bandwagon to make a political point that has nothing to do with humanitarian reasons.
All it's actually served do it is increase my loathing of most of our politicians.
and IMO he has to do what ever it takes to get the Tories out
I cannot see anything in the way he has handled this as assisting in getting the tories out. In fact it looks like he has picked a side in the conflict and is sticking to it whatever the results. Starmer has dug a hole and allowed labour to fall into it, claiming the hole he dug is a trap by others is just plain ****ing nonsense.
The claim that he shouldn't commit because it is pointless, is also rather contradicted by the time, effort and political capital burnt avoiding committing, not just by Starmer but by those seeking to defend him.
So the UK does supply weapons to Israel then. I’m glad we’ve confirmed that fact.
Again, no they don't, there are companies within the UK who are sub-contracted to supply components to companies who produce the final products.
You're wording is incorrect, the UK only provide export licenses where required, they do not supply Israel with weapons.
The UK does supply Ukraine with weapons, out of our stockpile, that is yet again, manufactured elsewhere of course.
What evidence do you have to support this idea?
Really!? You want me to provide you some hard evidence of how my opinions are formed - Bore off and find someone else to have an argument with
so sampled before the intense bout of Westminster bubble navel-gazing over the vote yesterday
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1760644651793436907?t=DcpXHnQL6tNMOMtK7mLA7g&s=19
You want me to provide you some hard evidence of how my opinions are formed
Just showing your working would be helpful, yes. Baseless opinions don't tend to be considered much.
Again, no they don’t
Again; they do.
there are companies within the UK who are sub-contracted to supply components to companies who produce the final products.
Which are weapons. Israel isn't taking random UK made items like sewing machines, or farm trailers, and turning them into machine guns and tanks. 'Components' are still parts of weapons, regardless of where final assembly takes place.
You’re wording is incorrect, the UK only provide export licenses where required, they do notsupply Israel with weapons
You're attempting to obfuscate by claiming some nonsense about the UK not supplying Israel with weapons. Have a think about this; under the firearms act, if you supply even a part of a gun to someone, you'll get done. You'll have no defence of 'oh but I didn't supply a weapon'. You'll be going to jail. These UK companies aren't making cheese graters or pencil cases; remember the Iraqi 'supergun' scandal? Ergo; UK companies are complicit in genocide, however you choose to spin it to yourself. Innocent kids are being murdered, and you're trying to argue semantics?? Wow.
"the bleating, braying, faux-outrage"
Faux outrage? Have you been living under a stone for the last three months?
It might be hard to believe but some people are actually outraged by stuff like this:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68261286
Faux outrage? Have you been living under a stone for the last three months?
You have - once again - read a comment and jumped to entirely the wrong conclusion.
I'm unhappy with the behaviour of the House of Commons (all of them) because it appears that they're not arguing about the relative merits of calling a ceasefire (which I think is long overdue given the appalling death toll of children in Gaza) but who gets to put the motion forward, and I think that is pathetic.
“the bleating, braying, faux-outrage”
A pretty fair description of the behaviour of many MPs yesterday, from all parties.
This was an ideal opportunity for the whole of the House of Commons to vote for a call for a ceasefire, together. All of them. That would have been a strong and clear message. And what do we have in parliament instead? Noise, squabbling, shouting and walk outs.
You’re attempting to obfuscate by claiming some nonsense about the UK not supplying Israel with weapons. Have a think about this; under the firearms act, if you supply even a part of a gun to someone, you’ll get done. You’ll have no defence of ‘oh but I didn’t supply a weapon’. You’ll be going to jail. These UK companies aren’t making cheese graters or pencil cases; remember the Iraqi ‘supergun’ scandal? Ergo; UK companies are complicit in genocide, however you choose to spin it to yourself. Innocent kids are being murdered, and you’re trying to argue semantics?? Wow.
No obfuscating here, the UK do not supply weapons to Israel, you were the one obfuscating by stating 'the UK supply weapons to Israel', which implies that UK government supplies, i note you've changed this above to UK companies, again probably not accurate as they're mainly multinationals headquartered in the US, so the UK based arm of these companies would be more accurate.
As for the 'part of a gun' argument, i could supply you with a sight i buy off amazon tomorrow, does that mean we all go to jail, the illegal parts are stated in the appropriate sections of the firearms act, also the Iraq Super Gun project resulted in zero charges or jail terms i believe in countries that supplied parts (UK, Germany, etc).
Again, innocent kids are being murdered is what pretty much everyone on this thread has agreed they want to stop, the 'semantics' being argued are by the likes of you trying to apportion blame for these deaths to people who have no real power to stop it.
Starmer’s position is not for shifting, unless he has 100+ members about to vote for the SNP motion so he pays a visit to Hoyle.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/21/how-keir-starmer-averted-gaza-ceasefire-vote-crisis?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitterThanks for that, a really interesting article. It certainly gives an insight into how we can expect the incoming Labour government to govern - among other things procedural shenanigans.
The very thing which many on here have spent so much time denouncing the Tories for.
Edit: I loved how he tried to scare the Speaker by claiming that there were protesters outside the Commons.
[Mod] All, please stay on topic. Thanks.
under the firearms act, if you supply even a part of a gun to someone, you’ll get done.
No, because a sight is an accessory, not a component part of a weapon. Try buying a gun barrel or firing pin off Amazon. Let me know how you get on
Complete aside from this serious subject, so apologies, but you might want to use a different analogy as your knowledge of firearms law is a bit off. Most component parts of a firearm don't require a licence. Firing pins, triggers, sears, springs, forearms, stocks, pistol grips, barrel shrouds etc. even magazines can be bought without a licence. Maybe not on Amazon, but that's down to their corporate policy, not UK law. There are plenty of places where you can buy them, legally, without a licence. It is only specific 'pressure bearing' parts which require a licence such as bolts, breech blocks, and yes barrels - but even then not always. You can for example buy a barrel for a rifle which is rifled but has not had a chamber cut without a licence.
Apols again for sidetracking....
Complete aside from this serious subject, so apologies, but you might want to use a different analogy as your knowledge of firearms law is a bit off. Most component parts of a firearm don’t require a licence. Firing pins, triggers, sears, springs, forearms, stocks, pistol grips, barrel shrouds etc. even magazines can be bought without a licence. Maybe not on Amazon, but that’s down to their corporate policy, not UK law. There are plenty of places where you can buy them, legally, without a licence. It is only specific ‘pressure bearing’ parts which require a licence such as bolts, breech blocks, and yes barrels – but even then not always. You can for example buy a barrel for a rifle which is rifled but has not had a chamber cut without a licence.
Apols again for sidetracking….
No need for apologising, happy to be enlightened on that. Thanks for taking the time to provide the info. I've learned something, so it's all good. My point was more about the relevant part of the government's guide to firearms licensing law:
Of course this was in the context of complicity of murder and genocide. I'm sure most people got my point anyway; if you supply weapons knowing how they will be used, then you are complicit in that crime. The UK as a nation can't just turn around and go 'oh nothing to do with is', when it actually is. We all need to take responsibility for what is happening in our name, and take steps to ensure we are not complicit ourselves as individuals, even if there's nothing else we can feasibly do. Starmer, as leader of a major political party whose members largely do not want this genocide to continue, has a duty to listen to those members and act accordingly. That it's taken the US president to speak out to actually spur him into any kind of action, is utterly pathetic. He is not acting according to the interests and demands of the members of the party he was elected to lead, and therefore is not fit to hold that position.
"A pretty fair description of the behaviour of many MPs yesterday, from all parties."
I don't think there was anything "false" about the outrage that the SNP expressed yesterday - why do you think that it was false?
If you read somafunk's link you will see that the SNP had every reason to be outraged.
In the same way that you undoubtedly would have been outraged if it had been a Tory leader putting unacceptable pressure on the Speaker of the House of Commons. I can just imagine the ranting that would have caused.
It is precisely this sort of hypocritical partisan party point scoring, as so often displayed on here, which puts people off politics.
The Speaker of the House of Commons has apologised btw. Quite why he would have done so if no one was genuinely outraged isn't clear.
The SNP have every reason to be outraged because of what...? I mean, they do have good reason, their rare opposition day hasn't gone the way you'd normally expect... and they can consider their treatment by the speaker unfair. But it has nothing to with the people suffering today in Gaza, and everything to do with party politics. That's why I consider much of yesterday's mess, by SNP MPs as well as Tory and Labour MPs as “bleating, braying, faux-outrage”... the SNP walked out because they consider they have been mistreated as a party by the speaker making an unusual decision. They, and the other parties, should have organised a vote together that tells the world that the UK parliament calls for a ceasefire. Together. All parties. Instead we have all three parties fighting for party political interest in parliament instead of working together to send a common message to Israel and Palestine, both to its leaders and to the people who live there.
It is precisely this sort of hypocritical partisan party point scoring
Tbf, the SNP started the hypocritical partisan point scoring by putting the motion in the first place...
They, and the other parties, should have organised a vote together that tells the world that the UK parliament calls for a ceasefire
Isn’t their point that the Tories and Starmerites don’t actually want to call for a ceasefire except phrased in a manner that may as well have been drafted by Netanyahu, and their vote was an opportunity to hold feet to the fire in the hope that when wiggle room was eliminated MPs might locate their consciences?
No, their only reason was to try and trap/embarrass Starmer by provoking a rebellion to weakan Labour support in Scotland
Isn’t their point that the Tories and Starmerites don’t actually want to call for a ceasefire except phrased in a manner that may as well have been drafted by Netanyahu, and their vote was an opportunity to hold feet to the fire in the hope that when wiggle room was eliminated MPs might locate their consciences?
All SNP MPs voted for it yesterday
“TwodogsFull Member
No, their only reason was to try and trap/embarrass Starmer by provoking a rebellion to weakan Labour support in Scotland”
Are you sure?, the snp have been raising the ceasefire issue at every opportunity, and their motion in Nov was whipped by Starmer.
"Tbf, the SNP started the hypocritical partisan point scoring by putting the motion in the first place…"
So you know for a fact that all SNP MPs are hypocrites because they don't actually give a monkeys about a ceasefire? Have you got something to back up that claim?
And your theory rests on the bizarre certainty by the SNP that Keir Starmer would not support their ceasefire motion. What if he had called their bluff and supported it? After all he had spent the previous few days publicly calling for an immediate ceasefire, and he has been known to very occasionally perform U-turns.
The other thing that your theory rests on is the supposition that a ceasefire is quite an important issue for the people of Scotland.
After all there wouldn't be much of a point setting a trap over an issue which no one gave a monkeys about, would there?
That part of your theory I like and agree with.
their motion in Nov was whipped by Starmer.
Cos Starmer is trying, rightly or wrongly, to present grown up policies, keeping Labour in step with the countries who might actually be able to influence Israel, and when/if he's in power that will be noticed by those countries. Unlike the SNP who can play silly party politics because no one (as in, other countries) gives a toss what they say.
Following his attendance at the security conference, Starmer knows other significant countries are shifting their positions, hence the change in Labour's. Like it or not, that's how politics works.
I’ll have some of that kool-aid.
The other thing that your theory rests on is the supposition that a ceasefire is quite an important issue for the people of Scotland.
I'm sure it is important to some in Scotland, probably exactly the same proportion of the population of England and Wales (NI is a special case). If SNP can get some votes from those people by painting Starmer as a genocide supporter then they'll be happy.
I’ll have some of that kool-aid
Excellent refutation of my argument 😂
What are grown-up policies?
"We've got some ideas to protect the failing status-quo by mostly doing nothing about it failing."
It's a crock.
"I’m sure it is important to some in Scotland, probably exactly the same proportion of the population of England and Wales"
If that's the case that "some" is a helluva lot of people in Scotland. A YouGov poll claimed that 75% of voters in the UK support a ceasefire and only 8% actually opposed one. That was a few weeks ago in which time support for a ceasefire has almost certainly grown.
So this is an issue on which the SNP are very clearly on the right side of public opinion.
So maybe leave it there and let the voters decide who the "hypocrites" are?
I'd say it's more like 100% want a ceasefire, if it works, if it's just a statement being made to Netanyahu then it'll fall on deaf ears, as many other requests have.
Going on about the 'weapons the UK supply', as i said a fair few pages back, i'd rather see sanctions on Israel, such as embargos, as the one thing UK PLC can do is remove the export licenses, but that's not even being raised just now, just some fruitless day in parliament where they go on about ceasefires, then ignore it the second it's voted through and start talking about Hoyle.
"Yeah, just imagine what would have happened if Starmer had actually supported the SNP motion rather than letting it “embarrass” him…"
It's possible to support a ceasefire without completely agreeing with the SNP motion.
Did the Labour motion that was passed yesterday call for a ceasefire?
You seem to be suggesting that as long as the motion calls for "a ceasefire" that's okay.
Obviously that is nonsense - something which Keir Starmer clearly agrees with me on.
Which is precisely why Starmer really desperately needed his own heavily caveated motion calling for a ceasefire, and why he put such unprecedented pressure on the Speaker of the House of Commons. Otherwise he would have just supported the SNP motion!
Do you think a motion along the lines of the "The House calls for an immediate ceasefire as soon as Benjamin Netanyahu feels it is appropriate" would be acceptable because it calls for a ceasefire?
Do you think a motion along the lines of the “The House calls for an immediate ceasefire as soon as Benjamin Netanyahu feels it is appropriate”
Do you think a motion along the lines of “This House calls for an immediate ceasefire as this is all Israel’s fault.” would achieve very much.
Do you think a motion along the lines of “This House calls for an immediate ceasefire as this is all Israel’s fault.” would achieve very much.
Definitely, i believe that if the SNP vote had gone first, we would be seeing peace in Gaza this very moment, unfortunately that sociopath Starmers vote went through first and because it was successful, we're all doomed.
“This House calls for an immediate ceasefire as this is all Israel’s fault.” would achieve very much.
Very much? no. But something quite significant? Absolutely.
International pressure is hugely important and the UK parliament playing a small part, along with the UN and a multitude of countries, would help to maximise that pressure.
Unfortunately thanks to Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer the UK is not playing a significant role, it is just parroting Joe Biden's position.
Yesterday's Netanyahu friendly motion was not put to a vote and only one party verbally agreed to it. The whole thing was a farce and an embarrassment. Thank you Starmer.
Edit: Obviously not that deliberately provoking wording which you chose to use. But making Israel responsible for the thousands of innocent civilian deaths.
Hahah yeah, I don't think anyone outside of the UK gives a flying fig about what an opposition uk party thinks.. or even what the UK govenment thinks to some extent any more... this is all just internal UK political optics...
See also 'Ceasefire' Vs 'Humanitarian pause'... it's all just mealy mouthed semantics playing to an internal audiance.
was not put to a vote and only one party verbally agreed to it.
you mean it was passed unopposed
you mean it was passed unopposed
Yup, 40,000 deaths and the whole thing was turned into a farce by Starmer.
I am sure that he is very pleased with himself.
"Yup, 40,000 deaths and the whole thing was turned into a farce by Starmer.
I am sure that he is very pleased with himself."
Eh?
Ceasfire/humanitarian pause, it's all mealy mouthed semantics from all sides of UK politicos.
News flash: No one outside the UK fives a flying fig what UK opposition parties are talking about.
Why shouldn't the speaker of the house allow a a vote on an actual ceasefire? seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Defying convention? Well, let's have a look at conventions defied by the tories since the brexit vote, shall we?
Pot-Kettle-Black
Of course if the there had been a lengthy debate (as Hoyle has now offered the SNP) Israel would magically stop bombing the crap out of anything that moves in Gaza.....
I feel like I’m missing something obvious here, but why couldn’t Starmer just tell Labour MPs to support the SNP’s amendment calling for a ceasefire instead of lobbing his own grenade into the chamber?
Because it was a trap, obviously.
A trap for what I have no idea but people seem to have lost their shit over it so it must be important.
I'll tell you what's weird twodogs, the usual suspects on here who always believe that Starmer is above any sort of criticism dismissing a Commons vote on a ceasefire as totally unimportant and inconsequential, despite the fact that their man clearly thinks that such a vote is enormously important and that the precise wording must be dictated by him.
That's really weird.
I mean I agree with Starmer - what's weird is how they cannot bring themselves to criticise Starmer for creating such a song and dance over a ceasefire motion.
But they will criticise me for attaching any importance to it. Weird or what?
Edit; See kimbers sarcastic comment above as an example.
For the record:
I think Starmer is an idiot.
I also think that there is no reason for any UK MP of any party or persuasion not to openly support an immediate ceasefire by voting for it in the commons, regardless of which party suggested it.
I feel like I’m missing something obvious here, but why couldn’t Starmer just tell Labour MPs to support the SNP’s amendment calling for a ceasefire instead of lobbing his own grenade into the chamber?
Came down to wording, SNP statement was pretty limited and Israel stopping, the Labour statement was more about the international community agreeing on a ceasefire on both sides, in short, the Labour wording was more diplomatic.
The entire argument over the last day that's overtaken and outshone the actual vote is because the SNP are upset their motion wasn't voted on first, and now we're getting 'Starmer nobbled the speaker', so they can whinge about Starmer even after he's done something they wanted.
Because starmer didn’t want the backlash of calling for an “immediate ceasefire” as called for by the SNP, the Labour motion had a number of caveats including “humanitarian ceasefire”
SNP motion below, to the point with minimal wording and deals with the most pressing issue.
That this House calls for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and Israel; notes with shock and distress that the death toll has now risen beyond 28,000, the vast majority of whom were women and children; further notes that there are currently 1.5 million Palestinians sheltering in Rafah, 610,000 of whom are children; also notes that they have nowhere else to go; condemns any military assault on what is now the largest refugee camp in the world; further calls for the immediate release of all hostages taken by Hamas and an end to the collective punishment of the Palestinian people; and recognises that the only way to stop the slaughter of innocent civilians is to press for a ceasefire now.
Labour motion below, with numerous caveats and get out clauses.
That this House believes that an Israeli ground offensive in Rafah risks catastrophic humanitarian consequences and therefore must not take place; notes the intolerable loss of Palestinian life, the majority being women and children; condemns the terrorism of Hamas who continue to hold hostages; supports Australia, Canada and New Zealand’s calls for Hamas to release and return all hostages and for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, which means an immediate stop to the fighting and a ceasefire that lasts and is observed by all sides, noting that Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence and that Israelis have the right to the assurance that the horror of 7th October cannot happen again; therefore supports diplomatic mediation efforts to achieve a lasting ceasefire; demands that rapid and unimpeded humanitarian relief is provided in Gaza; demands an end to settlement expansion and violence; urges Israel to comply with the International Court of Justice’s provisional measures; calls for the UN Security Council to be meet urgently; and urges all international partners to work together to establish a diplomatic process to deliver the peace of a two-state solution, with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state, including working with international partners to recognise a Palestinian state as a contribution to rather than outcome of that process, because statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and not in the gift of any neighbour.
Ultimatley, I think an internationaly recognised Palestinian state is the only fair way out of this mess.
I had previously read the Labour motion in full but not the SNP's.
I can not see anything wrong with the SNP motion nor why Labour MPs should not vote for it.
Because it doesn’t address the Hamas attacks, or seek an end to them, or a statement that a two state solution is needed. Peace requires steps towards a two state solution, not giving succour to the extremists (including the Israeli premier) who refuse to work towards a viable and safe Palestinian state or the other extremists (including the leaders of Hamas) who refuse to allow an Israeli state to exist in safety.
As a UN lawyer mentioned yesterday “you call for an immediate ceasefire” as a matter of first principle then you begin to dig into the weeds over a matter of months or years in this case.
Because is doesn’t address the Hamas attacks
Because the ongoing slaughter happening right now has nothing to do with what happened on Oct 7, although obviously Netanyahu is claiming that it has.
The SNP motion was about what is happening right now, ie, hundreds of innocent civilians, half of them children, are dying every day.
It was not concerned about the past nor the future, which is why it didn't mention Oct 7, nor whether there should be a two state solution or a one state solution (are you for real that to stop the current daily slaughter of civilians there has to be a roadmap for the future?) but it did call for the release of those held by Hamas - which is a current situation.
Btw Starmer's motion didn't mention the 75 years of Israeli oppression, don't you think that is also relevant to the current situation?
The SNP motion was not calling for peace, it was calling for a ceasefire.
If you believe that you can't have a ceasefire without a political solution then you obviously do not support a ceasefire.
Btw you really won't ever criticise Starmer on any issue will you?
From his ditching of the £28bn green pledge to his shameful record on Palestine.
You defend him when he takes a position, and then again when he carries out a screeching handbrake turn and goes in the opposite direction.
In Starmer you have apparently found the perfect politician who is never wrong, or so it would appear.
Being uncritical of politicians really isn't healthy you know.
And I have always placed the bar far higher for Labour.
I generally expect Tory politicians to be arseholes, Labour less so.
I expect the tories/labour will now put forward a new bill to ban all protests if there is a chance of fear/intimidation whether that be real and credible or merely perceived by an individual/group of individuals.
I give it two weeks before something is drawn up in haste
It is year 2091 of our great lord and and master starmer-bot, as prescribed in the constitution it will be permitted to protest for no longer than a streeting unit of time in the proscribed area of reevian square on the anniversary day of the birth of our great lord born on 2nd may 2024, please collect your 10 second protest voucher as you exit the sanition shower. Any protest exceeding 10 seconds shall be terminated with prejudice.