And it wouldn't have passed because it'd have included the bit about collective punishment that Starmer absolutely couldn't abide after green lighting all of it. We covered this hours ago just before you ignored my post asking you to defend your position and you realised you didn't have someone else's tweets to do your thinking for you.
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
Wait so Labour voted for a ceasefire and the SNP didn't and people are mad at Labour because of the politics?
Imagine it was the other way around
Imagine it was the other way around
No, I understand they went for a dick move and their comments about MP safety are hollow tbh.
But I see them reacting to parties trying to use the ceasefire to be political and hammer them in the run up to an election and I see labour being devious but actually getting a ceasefire motion passed.
Gotta hate Starmer at all costs.Wait so Labour voted for a ceasefire and the SNP didn't and people are mad at Labour because of the politics?
Imagine it was the other way around
You think the Tories are voting for it as well?!
"Giving over" what was their other motion about as there were two?
Oh that's right, green energy a week after Labour have been hammered in the press for "u-turning"
Israel are killing anyone that moves, snipers are targeting children, and our parliament spent their day playing politics over a vote for a ceasefire that will have no impact. Very embarrassing for them.
But at least it's on record!!!! That's the real quiz.
But at least it's on record!!!! That's the real quiz.
So the SNP were using their time to fist Labour, they fecked about and found out and are now running around to anyone who'll listen crying
he’s had years of watching tory shithouses cling on through scandal after scandal. he’s had no good examples to follow.
No better evidence for how utterly detached from reality our political class are (and I mean both politicians themselves and their pet ‘journalists’) than yesterday’s shenanigans.
Thousands of kids dying and MPs somehow contrived to make it all about them and their petty little debate about parliamentary procedure and made-up, unwritten rules.
The whole anachronistic, corrupt, self-serving institution needs reforming from top to bottom if you ask me.
Thousands of kids dying and MPs somehow contrived to make it all about them and their petty little debate about parliamentary procedure and made-up, unwritten rules.
The whole anachronistic, corrupt, self-serving institution needs reforming from top to bottom if you ask me.
Perfectly put.
Yep. Send them back to boarding school, turn Parliament into a museum and build a new one in Wolverhampton. Then you'll see who wants to be there
Agree wholeheartedly.
"It's the destruction of democracy!!!1"
Amen.
You think the Tories are voting for it as well?!
You have to remember to ignore maths when talking about the collapse of our democratic system and how it's all Starmer's fault.
If it's not Corbyn or some weird Novara Media-designed Labour, that promises everything so the left can feel like good student union campaigners, then they hate it. Winning elections so you can actually enact change is not of interest.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It reminds me of that episode of South Park with the brand management company.
Nationalist
Scottish
Socialist
Victim
It's entirely puerile politics. Labour played the game and walked away without taking a punch.
The fact that us writing a note into Hansard that a type of ceasefire is our position isn't going to create a ceasefire nor moving the SNP motion going to halt a potential ceasefire.
That will happen when Biden tells Israel, ceasefire now or we cut you off.
Until then, the rest of the countries are just posturing.
I didn't follow this much yesterday, but reading the Labour amendment today it goes a lot further than seems to be being generally discussed:
'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.'
An end to settlement expansion and a two-state solution. I'm not sure the latter was actually Labour policy before, perhaps those more knowledgeable can say, and after yesterday's vote I presume it is now the official British position, at least until the Tories propose and pass something else. Again, not sure it was before but happy to be educated. Not going to achieve anything at all in itself of course, but maybe attitudes are changing, just vey slowly.
'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.'
An end to settlement expansion and a two-state solution. I'm not sure the latter was actually Labour policy before, perhaps those more knowledgeable can say, and after yesterday's vote I presume it is now the official British position, at least until the Tories propose and pass something else. Again, not sure it was before but happy to be educated. Not going to achieve anything at all in itself of course, but maybe attitudes are changing, just vey slowly.
Why did Labour want amendments and what were those amendments please? In layman terms? Appreciate it.
Edit: just saw the post above mine. But still if you could summarise that would be great. So what did SNP bring and what did Labour want changed from that?
A two state solution is pretty much the stance for all of the Western world, the US included, and officially it pretty much always has been since the founding of the state of Israel. So yes Labour would have always had that stance. The debate was on how we'd get there. Israel's closest allies insist on it being an agreement arranged between Israel and the Palestinians (so nothing will get agreed essentially considering Israel keep adding ridiculous stipulations that rob Palestinians of any real autonomy, and now you have the Israeli government being adamant that there will no longer be such an agreement.)
The key difference between Labour's amendment and the SNP's motion was Labour specifying any ceasefire as "humanitarian". Labour also does not mention “collective punishment” of the Palestinians, whereas the SNP motion does. The difference between Labour's amendment and the government's was clearer, with the government calling for a "humanitarian pause" with a view towards "a permanent sustainable ceasefire" in Gaza.
No the motion doesn't have any weight in regards to official government policy. It's just a declaration made by the house, saying that the Tories/Cameron have gone further than this anyway.
The only outcome from yesterday was Labour avoiding it's own MPs rebelling. In doing so they've arguably made an even bigger storm but pushed the story on to the speaker.
So its a whole lot of pedantic nothing, coupled to absolving the Israelis of their actual crimes of collectively punishing the Palestinians?
Labour did also say that Israel continues to have a right to defend itself if Hamas continue attacking, from what I understand, while the SNP didn't
Cool thanks. I'm on SNP with the wording, though they can get screwed bringing it 30k+ deaths later. Labour and Starmer continue to be shit heads as expected, going for 'dem votes. We'll never forget.
and Labour not having a rebellion is why a lot of people are so angry.
Thanks for the replies, I've found the text of all the motions now. A lot I didn't know personally, even the Tories talk of 'a credible pathway to a two-state solution', I admit to being surprised by that but there you go. To avoid confusion I strongly agree.
Original SNP motion:
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.
All three of the proposed amendments delete everything after the first three words of the SNP motion, effectively replacing it in full.
Labour’s amendment reads:
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.
The Tory government’s amendment reads:
That this House supports Israel’s right to self-defence, in compliance with international humanitarian law, against the terror attacks perpetrated by Hamas; condemns the slaughter, abuse and gender-based violence perpetrated on 7 October 2023; further condemns the use of civilian areas by Hamas and others for terrorist operations; urges negotiations to agree an immediate humanitarian pause as the best way to stop the fighting and to get aid in and hostages out; supports moves towards a permanent sustainable ceasefire; acknowledges that achieving this will require all hostages to be released, the formation of a new Palestinian Government, Hamas to be unable to launch further attacks and to be no longer in charge in Gaza, and a credible pathway to a two-state solution which delivers peace, security and justice for both Israelis and Palestinians; expresses concern at the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and at the prospect of a military offensive in Rafah; reaffirms the urgent need to significantly scale up the flow of aid into Gaza, where too many innocent civilians have died; and calls on all parties to take immediate steps to stop the fighting and ensure unhindered humanitarian access.
And the LibDems’ amendment reads:
That this House expresses its devastation at the mounting humanitarian disaster in Gaza with tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians killed, millions displaced and thousands of homes destroyed; calls on the Prime Minister to oppose publicly and at the UN Security Council the proposed IDF offensive in Rafah; further urges Hamas to unconditionally and immediately release the over 100 hostages taken following the deplorable attacks on 7 October 2023; notes the unprecedented levels of illegal settler violence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories left unchecked by the Israeli Government; welcomes the recent sanctions by the UK Government against four extremist Israeli settlers who have committed human rights abuses against Palestinian communities in the West Bank; urges the UK Government to sanction all violent settlers and their connected entities; calls on the UK Government to uphold international law and the judgments of international courts under all circumstances; further notes that the only path to regional security is a two-state solution based on 1967 borders with Hamas not in power; condemns Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s repeated assertions that there is no future for a Palestinian state; and further urges the UK Government to call for an immediate bilateral ceasefire in Gaza, which will allow an end to the humanitarian devastation, get the hostages out and provide an opportunity for a political process leading to a two-state solution, providing security and dignity for all peoples in Palestine and Israel.
Original SNP motion:
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.
All three of the proposed amendments delete everything after the first three words of the SNP motion, effectively replacing it in full.
Labour’s amendment reads:
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.
The Tory government’s amendment reads:
That this House supports Israel’s right to self-defence, in compliance with international humanitarian law, against the terror attacks perpetrated by Hamas; condemns the slaughter, abuse and gender-based violence perpetrated on 7 October 2023; further condemns the use of civilian areas by Hamas and others for terrorist operations; urges negotiations to agree an immediate humanitarian pause as the best way to stop the fighting and to get aid in and hostages out; supports moves towards a permanent sustainable ceasefire; acknowledges that achieving this will require all hostages to be released, the formation of a new Palestinian Government, Hamas to be unable to launch further attacks and to be no longer in charge in Gaza, and a credible pathway to a two-state solution which delivers peace, security and justice for both Israelis and Palestinians; expresses concern at the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and at the prospect of a military offensive in Rafah; reaffirms the urgent need to significantly scale up the flow of aid into Gaza, where too many innocent civilians have died; and calls on all parties to take immediate steps to stop the fighting and ensure unhindered humanitarian access.
And the LibDems’ amendment reads:
That this House expresses its devastation at the mounting humanitarian disaster in Gaza with tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians killed, millions displaced and thousands of homes destroyed; calls on the Prime Minister to oppose publicly and at the UN Security Council the proposed IDF offensive in Rafah; further urges Hamas to unconditionally and immediately release the over 100 hostages taken following the deplorable attacks on 7 October 2023; notes the unprecedented levels of illegal settler violence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories left unchecked by the Israeli Government; welcomes the recent sanctions by the UK Government against four extremist Israeli settlers who have committed human rights abuses against Palestinian communities in the West Bank; urges the UK Government to sanction all violent settlers and their connected entities; calls on the UK Government to uphold international law and the judgments of international courts under all circumstances; further notes that the only path to regional security is a two-state solution based on 1967 borders with Hamas not in power; condemns Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s repeated assertions that there is no future for a Palestinian state; and further urges the UK Government to call for an immediate bilateral ceasefire in Gaza, which will allow an end to the humanitarian devastation, get the hostages out and provide an opportunity for a political process leading to a two-state solution, providing security and dignity for all peoples in Palestine and Israel.
Absolving? You think the HoC is a court like the ICJ?
So if Labour had gone further than the SNP statement and no one rebelled on that people would be angry? No
I'm sure if you keep trying you'll figure it out eventually.
The SNP one reads like an online blog, not a political party interested in diplomacy
All three are pathetic and transparent. Nothing happened yesterday other than the usual sheep getting fooled and excited at the same time.
What are you struggling to understand? the SNP one, and anything more strongly worded would have not had a chance to pass the House. But let's say that Labour had written a more strongly worded one - what exactly would that have achieved? What benefit would it have given to anyone in Gaza? As you said the government doesn't need to act on these, and even if it did they would have very limited influence.
So you, and others would rather a situation where the Conservative amendment had passed (as it would have), rather than an amendment which actually had a chance of passing, and while not focusing on war crimes (which is being investigated by a more appropriate body in the ICJ) does still call for an immediate ceasefire.
There is no point in performative failure. The outrage is ridiculous.
Breaking 50 MPs sign motion of no confidence in Speaker
The number MPs who have signed a motion of no confidence in Commons Speaker Lindsay Hoyle has now risen to 50.
Previously, 33 MPs had signed the motion, proposed by Tory MP William Wragg.
The number MPs who have signed a motion of no confidence in Commons Speaker Lindsay Hoyle has now risen to 50.
Previously, 33 MPs had signed the motion, proposed by Tory MP William Wragg.
So who's going to be the new speaker then?
Its a stance is it not, just like the two state solution and a ceasefire. By removing it from their amendment, isn't Labour essentially claiming they disagree with the notion that Israel are collectively punishing Palestinians, or that they don't want to risk upsetting them?
What's the magic number then for him to be removed? Would it have to be a parliamentary majority?