Forum menu
Sarah Jones has zero chance of losing her seat next general election, how does supporting a ceasefire affect her?
She would have the whip withdrawn and be deselected
She would have the whip withdrawn and be deselected
No, Starmer has stated that anyone on the Labour front bench calling for a ceasefire will not be disciplined (she is a shadow minister)
Although he has now said that they will be sacked if they back the SNP amendment.
There is no chance at all of Sarah Jones being deselected, she is keen on a ministerial career though. I actually quite like her and I have talked to her face to face on many occasions - I have made it clear that I can't support her because of Starmer. Her not supporting a ceasefire is actually quite a disappointment for me, although I don't think she was very comfortable doing so.
Although to be fair I don't think Chris Philp was either.
No, Starmer has stated that anyone on the Labour front bench calling for a ceasefire will not be disciplined
Would you like to bet your career on that?
About 19 Labour frontbenchers have so far publicly called for a ceasefire. None have been sacked.
Edit:
They will be sacked though if they back the SNP amendment. Apparently about 10 have said that they are prepared to be sacked.
Edit 2 : That Telegraph headline is misleading, about 60 Labour MPs, well over a quarter, have called for a ceasefire, 19 are frontbenchers.
Fair enough. I expect those folk might be sacked in a reshuffle perhaps? Response to the SNP amendment is going to be interesting as is PMQs of course
If the US can't get Israel to do a ceasefire i doubt any other country has much hope, it's not helped by Hamas continually stating they wouldn't be part of a ceasefire and no movement on hostages either, personally think the US/UK/EU need to push for longer 'pauses', so at least Hamas aren't required to sign up to any of that.
If the US can’t get Israel to do a ceasefire
Of course they can! Israel is totally dependent on the United States, it just accepts that occasionally a US president has to publicly rap their knuckles.
it’s not helped by Hamas continually stating they wouldn’t be part of a ceasefire and no movement on hostages either
In 2018, Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar sent a note in Hebrew to Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, suggesting he take a “calculated risk” by agreeing a long-term truce. While Netanyahu agreed to some easing of pressure on Gaza, he was unwilling to accept Hamas’s long-term demands, including a large-scale prisoner swap, lifting the siege by opening the international border crossing, and establishing a port and airport in Gaza. After 16 years of siege and several catastrophic rounds of war, in which thousands of Gaza residents have been killed, Hamas may be hoping to break the deadlock.
The whole point of Hamas holding hostages is to have something to bargain over.
The whole point of Hamas holding hostages is to have something to bargain over.
And the point of why Starmer's position is the correct one.
Okay
Yayha Sinwar has made a fair few statements since 2018, and they've mainly centred around the removal of Israel and so on!
The whole point of Hamas holding hostages is to have something to bargain over.
Like a ceasefire perhaps, but they're not asking for one?
But a ceasefire would need to be at the very least a formal political agreement between Hamas and Netanyahu, and currently neither are interested. Both are looking no further than military action as both sides are convinced that they can 'win' this time It would involve Israel govt. agreeing to stop bombing the shit of of anything that moves in Gaza (v unlikely), and Hamas to commit to the release of hostages (also v unlikely given what the IDF are doing currently) It would probably need to cover the whole region as well, for obvious reason and that's unlikely also. It might send a message to the Israeli Govt, but it would be one that they could ignore easily, and that neither side will treat seriously.
Which is not true of things like cessation of hostilities or humanitarian pauses, or any number of other less formal things they may well be able to achieve in the meantime...
The whole point of Hamas holding hostages is to have something to bargain over.
Like a ceasefire perhaps, but they’re not asking for one?
The whole crux of Starmer's argument for not supporting an immediate ceasefire is that it would simply benefit Hamas (supporters of a ceasefire claim that it would benefit children and innocent civilians) so it must be hard to also argue that Hamas don't want a ceasefire, no?
That Guardian article is worth reading.
Hamas appear to be using a scorched earth policy, they carried out a horrific attack that provided Israel with all the justification and backing they could want to eradicate Hamas. If Hamas wanted to protect Palestinians, they have the hostages, hopefully still alive, and could use them to get a ceasefire without anyone losing face, they could also stop using Palestinian areas such as hospitals and schools to hide command centres, which several third parties have highlighted as well recently.
As per Starmer, i'd guess he means a ceasefire without any sign up by Hamas is only of benefit to Hamas in terms of the two antagonists involved.
they could also stop using Palestinian areas such as hospitals and schools to hide command centres, which several third parties have highlighted as well recently.
Wtf?!? Whether Hamas uses a hospital as a command centre or not doesn't justify destroying it and killing the patients, ffs.
Would your moral compass have said that it was justified to shell and destroy hospitals and schools in Republican areas of Northern Ireland because of IRA activity in those areas?
It seems to me that some people attach very low value to the lives of Palestinian children and civilians.
I don't really understand why Starmerhas made this a sacking matter - supporting the SNP amendment. Its just creating a perception of division and lack of discipline assuming some front benchers do vote for it. No 3 line whip no issue. Its poor politics
This makes grim reading, and from a highly reliable source I would have thought:
https://www.rte.ie/news/middle-east/2023/1115/1416673-al-shifa-hospital/
I can't really get my head around this:
Dr El Mokhallalati said inside the hospital, there is no electricity in the ICU department or the operating theatre and no water or oxygen supply.
"We are losing at least five patients every day from the ICU as we have no oxygen."
He said doctors are performing life-threatening cases only, but cannot offer general anesthesia as it requires oxygen.
It must be terrifying for both patients and staff.
I don’t really understand why Starmerhas made this a sacking matter – supporting the SNP amendment.
It's also giving the Tories something to point at rather than leaving them floundering in their own mire.
Wtf?!? Whether Hamas uses a hospital as a command centre or not doesn’t justify destroying it and killing the patients, ffs.
Would your moral compass have said that it was justified to shell and destroy hospitals and schools in Republican areas of Northern Ireland because of IRA activity in those areas?
It seems to me that some people attach very low value to the lives of Palestinian children and civilians.
I'm not saying anything like that, i'm saying if Hamas cared about Palestinian children and civilians (is there a difference between the two?), then why are they using areas such as the hospital to hide command centres, that allows Israel the justification to search and damage them?
As for the IRA, i'm not sure i remember the UK shelling Northern Ireland schools or hospitals, i also don't remember the IRA not being all about the destruction of the UK and not entering peace talks or agreeing ceasefires where it was beneficial to both parties.
exactly Martin. Its poor politics. Sure if he left it unwhipped and labour members voted for it the Tories could also call them out but he could just say its irrelevant posturing and its a complex situation with all MPs having different views
Okay so Hamas don’t care. How the **** does that justify killing civilians, destroying hospitals, and generally committing war crimes???
Mainly due to the terrorist attack they carried out, and the fact they continue to state they will continue to do these attacks, and not enter talks for the hostages, and many other things.
I'm still puzzled about why this is all in Starmers thread, it's not as if the opposition leader in the UK has any sway over anyone, especially someone as militant to the opposite side as Netanyahu!
I’m still puzzled about why this is all in Starmers thread
Really? You haven't heard that Starmer has said that any frontbencher who votes in favour of the SNP amendment calling for a ceasefire this evening will be sacked??
You apparently dismiss the importance of the position which the soon-to-be in government Labour Party takes over the issue Starmer on the other hand believes it is so important that he is prepared to sack colleagues who won't tow the line.
His unqualified support for Israel is just about the only thing he hasn't done a U-turn on.
"We know that eventually there will be a ceasefire in this current crisis – every war ends with a cessation of hostilities. The question is not if there will be a ceasefire but when. For the people of Palestine, every minute, every hour, every day we wait is another orphan, another grieving mother and another family wiped out.”
He's on the wrong side of this I fear.
Its not so much he is on the wrong side as he has made a huge political misjudgement giving the tories and their tame press an easy target for tomorrows papers. He should have made this a non issue. " we are a board church, I believe its not the right time to call for a ceasefire, others in the party have different views and I respect that. We all want the same thing - and end to the violence"
I was inclined to agree with you, TJ, before I saw the results. Right position, but wrong call on the vote.
Now we’ve got a PM threatening to leave the ECHR and a divided opposition.
Let’s see who the names are and how bad it is.
Sir Keir Starmer has suffered a major rebellion over his stance on the Israel-Gaza war, with 56 of his MPs voting for an immediate ceasefire.
Jess Phillips, Afzal Khan and Yasmin Qureshi were among shadow ministers backing an SNP motion in the House of Commons.
Labour had ordered its MPs to abstain, with frontbenchers facing the sack for supporting it.
Link to full article... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67432393
8 shadow minsters. 50 odd mps. Thats big. Good statement tho in the grauniad
His unqualified support for Israel is just about the only thing he hasn’t done a U-turn on
Well observed!
BTW Jess Phillips has gone up in my estimation.
I’m still puzzled about why this is all in Starmers thread, it’s not as if the opposition leader in the UK has any sway over anyone, especially someone as militant to the opposite side as Netanyahu!
Why?
Subjects tend to overlap in politics and have heavy context such as this one.
I have always been a huge admirer of Jess. Hard working, principled and true to her constituency. She has advocated so strongly for domestic abuse victims. <br /><br />
Labour needs more people like her in senior positions, not less
She threw her job of domestic abuse & safeguarding shadow minister to fall for an SNP trap that had no hope of passing and wouldn’t have made a difference if it had.
He’s on the wrong side of this I fear.
If you fear he’ll lose the next election over it I wouldn’t worry too much - the general electorate will have forgotten about it well before then.
It would be a travesty if she didn’t but even so they dropped the ball on this - what a bit of a mess
If you had heard Jess on R4 the other day then you’d have seen there was absolutely no way on earth she would have done anything else tonight - to put her and the others in this situation took an astonishing lack of judgement.
If you fear he’ll lose the next election over it I wouldn’t worry too much – the general electorate will have forgotten about it well before then.
i think there is a significant danger that the labour GE victory is reported as so nailed on they may not succeed through apathy on the part of voters. i don't fear they'll lose over this but principles matter. i'm pleased many labour MPs felt that too. total votes cast was pretty thin. clearly a lot of MPs didn't think it very important.
She threw her job of domestic abuse & safeguarding shadow minister to fall for an SNP trap that had no hope of passing and wouldn’t have made a difference if it had.
it's called principles, they can be a bitch sometimes. I'm not that surprised that people don't recognise them anymore.
I know JP has principles. It was her wisdom I was criticising.
But like kimbers said, she’ll likely be back at some point.
I hope she is.
to put her and the others in this situation took an astonishing lack of judgement
I agree. TJ’s post nails it for me.
Does Starmer own shares in a company doing the feasibility studies for the Ben Gurion Canal?
I think those dissenting Labour MPs need to have a long hard think about what they've done. They are supposed to represent the interests of people in the UK first and foremost. Grandstanding at the current time given what the Tories are doing is unforgiveable, especially as they were splitting hairs ceasefire vs pause in hostilities. All for a vote they were going to lose and even if they won it would have had next to no impact in Gaza. Agreed though Starmer has handled this very badly, fell right into the SNP trap.
She threw her job of domestic abuse & safeguarding shadow minister to fall for an SNP trap
So a politician deeply concerned about domestic violence votes in favour of ending the killing of thousands of innocent women and children?
Who would have thought it??
The SNP did not move an amendment calling for an immediate ceasefire to 'trap the Labour Party', they did it in the hope that it would help to put pressure on Israel to stop the slaughter.
If it has divided the Labour Party that is not the fault of the SNP. Starmer has no one to blame but himself - he chose to make it a three-line whip.
And yet despite that he didn't even have the courage of his own conviction - he instructed Labour MPs to 'abstain' rather than to vote against the amendment. Morally bankrupted spineless fence-sitting.
They are supposed to represent the interests of people in the UK first and foremost.
How terribly UKIP/Tory