Forum menu
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.
I wouldn't be too sure about that. Its a bit of political grandstanding. Its aimed in part at the scottish audience - everything to make the "two cheeks of the same arse" stick. Not perhaps the total reason but I am fairly sure its a part of it. It really does not put any pressure on Israel
Edit - you have to view everything the SNP do at westminster thru the lens of "what does this mean in Scotland"
This kind of reminds me of how Blair seemed mortally afraid of New Labour being seen as weak on defence or not fully committed to the "special relationship" so he dragged the party into backing everything the US wanted to do after the September 11th attacks. Starmer seems incredibly afraid that any whiff of him not seeming to be completely on Israel's side will be manufactured by the Tories and the media into an election-ruining antisemitism scandal that he's alienating many supporters and his own MPs trying to avoid it.
So a politician deeply concerned about domestic violence votes in favour of ending the killing of thousands of innocent women and children?
The hubris behind this statement, honestly, do you think for one second that if this vote is successful, and that's a big if with the tory majority, that a call from the UK for a ceasefire will do anything with a Netanyahu led Israeli government, the international work being carried out, outside of the guise of political posturing across western nations, will hopefully lead to an extended pause in hostilities, as long as politics stay out of it.
I also don't think folk in this country understand how little sway the UK holds over Israel, or in the region anymore.
I agree as well.
Starmer put himself in a pointless corner with this vote, but is still right to be seeking an international approach (yes, that is mostly code for dragging the USA along) towards Israel.
The debate in parliament this week on insisting that the Israeli government be legally accountable for their actions shows the real gulf between the Labour and Conservative benches on the path forward, even if most on both are still* taking the “pauses” first approach to stopping the violence against civilians going on right now, rather than trying to tell Israel they have no right at all to go after Hamas after the attacks in October.
[ * for now… more and more will move on this if Israel doesn’t change tactics in the next few days, allowing in far more aid and support for civilians, and shifting to a far more targeted approach towards Hamas, the current impact on innocent Palestinians is intolerable ]
I would say however that from what i have read the palestinians to take comfort from support shown - in demonstrations etc and I would guess in this sort of gesture as well
do you think for one second that if this vote is successful, and that’s a big if with the tory majority, that a call from the UK for a ceasefire will do anything with a Netanyahu led Israeli government
Would you put that question to Keir Starmer, whose determination to impose a three-line whip you obviously feel is very necessary to support?
I find it quite astonishing to hear people claim that how a vote goes is of no importance at all, which why everyone must vote in a certain way. I can't quite figure out if they are taking the piss.
The more western governments and political parties stand "shoulder-to-shoulder" with Netanyahu and his far-right government the more they will feel that they have a carte blanche to do whatever they fancy.
"The scale and virulence of the global condemnation from Arab and western governments raised questions about how much longer Israel can continue with its offensive in the face of waning international support."
"Israel relented by announcing it would allow an unlimited number of aid convoys through the Rafah crossing on the Egyptian border. Aid convoys have been limited to as few as 30 trucks a day when the UN said it needed hundreds to relieve starvation."
International law is only for our enemies, apparently.
If Russia were bombing Red Cross ambulances, raving about Nazis, and sending commandos into ICUs, the outcry would be deafening.
Sicking hypocrisy, as usual.
If Russia were bombing Red Cross ambulances, raving about Nazis, and sending commandos into ICUs, the outcry would be deafening
Well exactly.
Moral vantage points have gone out of the window in favour of being aligned with uncomplex views.
Everything has been reduced to "do you condemn Hamas."
Seems my prediction on labour contriving to miss an open goal is coming true.
I also don’t think folk in this country understand how little sway the UK holds over Israel
Or anything else. The carried over arrogance means the UK think they have but that went a long time ago. We are not in the empire days anymore, and just another little country with a crappy government and no idea.
They are supposed to represent the interests of people in the UK first and foremost.
How terribly UKIP/Tory
Now you are just trolling, thats exactly what MPs are supposed to do, thats why they are elected by their constituents. As repeated above this vote was relatively meaningless in what it could achieve so why back it causing a public split in the Labour party. These MPs priority should be to get the Tories out so the real work of working on behalf of their constituents, repairing the damage to everyones lives inflicted by the Tories, can start. To put it bluntly 10 years of Tory rule has killed many more people in this country than the IDF has in Gaza. That should be their priority. If the vote on ceasefires actually had a chance of making a difference to the miserable situation the Palestians are in it would have made more sense for the MPs to behave as they did.
Papers haven’t run with it, but BBC leading with the Labour revolt story rather than "PM to pass law to state white is actually black".
D'oh!
thats why they are elected by their constituents.
Exactly, their first responsibility (should be) to their constituents, not the party.
In most constituencies people support a ceasefire.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/11/15/672b8/3
All Labour MPs should have rebelled.
I also don’t think folk in this country understand how little sway the UK holds over Israel, or in the region anymore.
I think people do, which in itself argument against for standing so firmly by the hard right Israeli government, but also recognise thats not a reason not to at least protest.
Starmer has handled this badly. Should have been a free vote. I can see the arguments for and against a ceasefire, it's not black and white and should have let MPs vote with what they think and accept that there is a difference of opinion in how to stop the deaths.
But, there are lots of people revelling in trying to make out that Labour MPs (but not Tories bizarrely) are pro genocide for voting against a ceasefire. Clearly this is bollocks it's like saying pro ceasefire people are Hamas supporters, again bollocks.
It's all very sad,
this vote was relatively meaningless in what it could achieve so why back it causing a public split in the Labour party.
Because Starmer thought this "relatively meaningless" vote was so hugely important that it deserved a three-line whip, and that any frontbencher not abstaining from this meaningless vote should be sacked, instead of allowing a free vote.
It wasn't the SNP who forced Starmer to announce a three-line whip over the vote, he decided to do that himself.
To put it bluntly 10 years of Tory rule has killed many more people in this country than the IDF has in Gaza.
Of all the pathetic excuses for not condemning Israel's relentless slaughter of innocent men women and children that must surely be the most ridiculous. And you actually accused me of trolling?? ffs
I think the cease fire issue highlights the difficulties that both Starter and Sunak have because they only came to politics late. Much as we disparage career politicians who've never had a real world job, the nuances that they pick up from a lifetime of working their way through PTA committees, parish councils, town councils etc. are invaluable in knowing that it's better to say the wrong thing at the right time than to say the right thing at the wrong time.
Go Corbyn!
I think the cease fire issue highlights the difficulties that both Starter and Sunak have because they only came to politics late.
I would say the information they are getting on a daily basis from international partners and people working behind the scenes will be more to the point of why they aren't calling for a ceasefire, or why any country in the west isn't doing it, the french PM came out personally stating it, but then after a march in Paris and so on, he's backtracking now.
For me there's more going on behind the scenes, for someone like Starmer, it would be an easy one to stand up and ask for a ceasefire, because it's popular and opposes the tories, but something is keeping him from doing this, and as he's been brought in to the meetings and briefing on the subject by the likes of Cleverly, i'm going to say there's something bigger occurring out of sight.
something is keeping him from doing this
So he's not being totally honest about why he is opposed to a ceasefire?
the likes of Cleverly
Utter morons, you mean ?
So he’s not being totally honest about why he is opposed to a ceasefire?
What if his reasons are based on classified information?
but something is keeping him from doing this
Fear of being labelled antisemitic as happened to Corbyn. IMO thats all it is along with poor political instincts. Hopefully he will learn from this and not pick pointless fights with the parliamentary party in future. If he hadn't whipped this vote it would have been a non story
If he hadn’t whipped this vote it would have been a non story
Yes. although TBH, it's already a non-story.
Fear of being labelled antisemitic as happened to Corbyn
This gets banded about every time, but what exactly would label him 'antisemitic' by calling for a ceasefire to stop the killing of civilians, Corybn et al were labelled via evidence of antisemitism through an intensive review spanning quite a time period, there's a hell of a difference, and in popular politics, calling for a ceasefire would gain favour with millions in the UK, and maybe quite a lot of the 250k Jewish population in the UK as well.
If Keir Starmer had called for a ceasefire, when every other party and their backers in thee press had stood against it they would have been hammered in the press.
Now we all know the press are mostly right wing, but the public do read these rags and this close to a general election he really needs to stay away from being controversial.
.
Labour knows where its voter base is. So I think this 'revolt' is an engineered situation. Those MP's calling for a ceasefire will appeal to those voters, the leadership sticking to the right of blah blah appeals to the center ground of people who could swing away from tory to vote labour. A gammon will always be a gammon on these issues, so he doesnt want to rock that boat too much.
Im reminded of that line in Braveheart.
"Support it from your lands in the north, while condemning it from your lands in the south"
I think this is a similar scenario.
What if his reasons are based on classified information?
Well based on what happened in the run up to the Iraq War he should do what a previous Labour leader did and say "trust me, I've seen a secret dossier".
It convinced a lot of people.
Ireland Belgium and Spain have all called for a ceasefire and they are EU member states
And France now. Sort of. Things are moving fast. The Israeli government needs to change tactics, even faster.
Fear of being labelled antisemitic as happened to Corbyn
I don’t think so, certainly in the case of not calling for a ceasefire.
I think it’s about being seen as a potential leader, appealing to the centre, and principles.
But work will definitely be happening in the background. The US and others with Israel and Qatar and others with Hamas. This just yesterday:
And France now. Things are moving fast.
Having PM's for countries standing in front of a camera and saying they back a ceasefire isn't the most difficult thing to do, having those countries actually do something other than make empty statements is what is required.
Ireland Belgium and Spain have all called for a ceasefire and they are EU member states
As have France.
My heart goes out to the Israelis affected by the Hamas attack, but the Isreali government is breaking international law in it's response, and our failure to call it out, compared to Russias actions in Ukraine, exposes our hypocrisy.
I understand the strategic reasons for wanting pauses rather than a ceasefire, but there will have to be a ceasefire at some point, we are arguing about timing.
It also needs a grown up somewhere in the room to explain to the hard of thinking that criticising the Israeli government is not being anti-semetic. Starmer has again missed the chance to demonstrate leadership in an attempt to pander to the bottom, instead of raising the debate and informing people.
I agree argee.
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
The job of an MP is to represent their constituents in Parliament. Not to kowtow to the orders of the party elite. Starmer has failed to unite the party over this issue, because he instead prefers to stand in support of a murderous far-right wing regime. That's his choice, but he cannot expect others to abandon their principles simply because he has none. He hasn't listened at all to party members or other MPs. A clear sign that he cares for little more than his own greed for power.
I think it’s about being seen as a potential leader, appealing to the centre, and principles.
What principles?
What principles?
You can read his full speech here, but it comes down to not doing anything which would aid a terrorist tyranny to continue its attacks.
”Hamas would be emboldened and start preparing for future violence immediately”
our failure to call it out, compared to Russias actions in Ukraine, exposes our hypocrisy.
Look at the civilian deaths caused by the Russians over a much longer period. Particularly the deaths of children.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293492/ukraine-war-casualties/
but there will have to be a ceasefire at some point, we are arguing about timing.
No, the Israeli's are arguing about how many hostages Hamas are willing to give up, and Hamas are arguing about how long it'll last for. Netanyahu's backed himself into a corner, and I don't think for a minute that it'll be an easy thing to get him to agree ceasefire terms, even if the US are pushing him.
This whole thing sucks.
Sucks for Labour as I believe they'll lose potential votes over this.
Who seriously supports what Isreal are doing? I'm sure the majority of people don't, yet are afraid, like Kier, to call the Israelis out for what they're doing.
This gets banded about every time, but what exactly would label him ‘antisemitic’ by calling for a ceasefire to stop the killing of civilians, Corybn et al were labelled via evidence of antisemitism through an intensive review spanning quite a time period, there’s a hell of a difference, and in popular politics, calling for a ceasefire would gain favour with millions in the UK, and maybe quite a lot of the 250k Jewish population in the UK as well.
Corbyn 'et al' were labelled because of baseless smears, not actual 'evidence'. The failures under Corbyn's leadership to deal effectively with antisemitism were present under previous leaders, yet ignored and not weaponised. Starmer has failed to address antisemitism within the party effectively; nothing has actually changed. What he has done is expel a number of Jewish Labour party members for speaking out against the weaponisation of antisemitism to prevent criticism of the Labour elite's support for the far-right wing Israeli regime. Starmer has also failed to effectively address issues of sexism, racism and Islamophobia within the party. So let's not pretend he's too concerned with stamping out xenophobia. The only thing he really is concerned about, is appealing to the corporate power-brokers of Western Capitalism, which relies on the perpetuation of Western Imperialism through coercion, the undermining of democracy and of course, war. He simply wants to be part of that vision of Western imperialism, a shining white knight of ideological righteousness. Like Blair, he wants his place in history, and is determined to get it, no matter what the political cost.
You can read his full speech here, but it comes down to not doing anything which would aid a terrorist tyranny to continue its attacks.
”Hamas would be emboldened and start preparing for future violence immediately”
This is a line parroted mostly by pro-Israel factions, although some more 'neutral' commentators have voiced concern. Whilst there is of course a huge risk of Hamas not conforming to any Western mandated ceasefire, that would then put Hamas in a difficult position, and lose them support in Palestine. If they become a barrier to the cessation of Palestinian suffering, then they will become pariahs, and not 'freedom fighters' as they want to be seen. Israel would then have a much stronger moral argument for 'defending' itself. And the truth is that the Israeli regime doesn't want a ceasefire; its aims are to destroy Palestine and annex yet more land. So the line about Hamas gaining strength from a ceasefire is very convenient for those who want to continue with war and genocide.
can only assume he's using a focus group of daily fail bots, he's gonna look awfully ****ing stupid when Sunak beats him to the punch! :/