Maybe they should face some uncomfortable truths rather than defile democracy.
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
Maybe they should face some uncomfortable truths rather than defile democracy.
Incorrect, by some distance.
Parliament has called for a ceasefire. That's on record.
If only British politicians showed as much passion for internal matters.
Good lord. Allow a party to use a ceasefire as cause to snipe at political opponents, knowing their amendments will never pass, so they're proposing this solely to try and attack labour. It backfired on them but a ceasefire notion was recorded in parliament.
Apparently only partial recognition since you fall for basic Labour party spin without due consideration of the politicking they've also been involved in today. I dunno man. Seems like manipulating the Speaker to undermine Commons rules should be frowned upon.
He went against 30 odd year precedent that opposition day motions get voted on first (introduced for this very reason) and that's your take
If denouncing Israels collective punishment of Palestinians meant the SNP motion didn't pass then the record would reflect the position of the MPs. Something Starmer was too scared to see through.
The only reason there was the chance for a ceasefire motion in the first place was the SNP giving over one of their own opposition days for its consideration.
They got a handful of opposition days a year to table what they want. You don't get to override that because it's politically inconvenient.
He went against 30 odd year precedent that opposition day motions get voted on first (introduced for this very reason) and that's your take
If denouncing Israels collective punishment of Palestinians meant the SNP motion didn't pass then the record would reflect the position of the MPs. Something Starmer was too scared to see through.
Yes, that's my take. I would rather a vote for a ceasefire passed than didn't. Even if I didn't get everything I wanted. I imagine others have their own motivations for wishing otherwise.
Our Parliament is a touch older than 30 years old, I imagine it will survive today's events.
Ok, but I'm still not comfortable that a vote wasn't held on the original motion tabled by the SNP before the Labour amendment was moved. That this motion might have been politically uncomfortable for members of the Labour Party isn't sufficient reason for me to completely shut off a party motion on their opposition day. Had this happened, the SNP motion would have been debated, defeated and the Labour Party amendment still been given its chance to pass.
What did anyone get exactly? I think you're a bit confused these votes are just motions they don't force the government to do anything.
They're for the opposition (of the day) to put a statement in front of the house, for MPs to declare their positions publically and then the government respond via their amendment. That's it.
All Labour has done is fail to use it's own opportunities to table a ceasefire motion (for which its had plenty of chances) so it could deny another party their right. Why? Because it's politically inconvenient.
You may as well be suggesting the Tories don't bother with opposition days because why bother if the opposition don't have the numbers as the smaller party. You'll probably clap along if Labour actually do that in power.
We got a motion confirming that the will of Parliament is for there to be a ceasefire. That's preferable to not having that on record, otherwise there would have been little point in raising the motion.
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.
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.
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?
Please make it stop.
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