Agree wholeheartedly.
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
"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
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.
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?
They've tabled that amendment for some reason, I don't agree with it tbh because Israel (in my opinio)is collectively punishing.
Alas given the historical context and media sensationalism that Labour is a hotbed of antisemitism, and given that comment wouldn't have passed via the Tories either, to get the motion passed, it likely had to be removed and Labour understood this compromise was needed.
I imagine if they sided with the SNP, it wouldn't have passed at all and the Tories can go back to smearing Labour as AS peddlers and the client press will willfully jump aboard.
Or they wanted an amendment that calls for a ceasefire to actually have a chance of passing, and saw that as more important than commenting on Israel's actions?
Technically, the speaker is in situ until the next GE. But they can resign.
There isn't one. Once elected they are in place until the current parliament is desolved and a GE called. The next parliament then elects/re-elects the speaker. Even if they lose a no confidence vote.
Realistically though, you've lost all authority once you lose that vote so you're goimg to resign.
James O'Brien has just summed it up
The SNP are mad that their name isn't on it
The Tories are mad because their political trap was outplayed
Corbyn fans are mad because Starmer got a win
They all want to call for a ceasefire and are just mad because of politics
The SNP are mad that their name isn't on it
The Tories are mad because their political trap was outplayed
Corbyn fans are mad because Starmer got a win
They all want to call for a ceasefire and are just mad because of politics
Disappointed she didn't get 'woke' in the title.
That dust jacket quote from Boris Johnson sounds like it came at the end of a load of criticism of her reign.
I cannot understate how much I hate this ignorant, self awareness lacking cnut.
Yes. I don't know the number required to force a vote though.
Imagine if the Tories oust Hoyle and bring in someone that will actually hold them accountable for their shit.
Shows how performative and shallow the SNP position and morale grandstanding on Gaza is when they have hissy fits because it didn’t score the political capital they wanted
You would think a PM that lasted five minutes would hide in shame, never to be seen again.
They were trying to protect the leadership from political embarassement at the cost of preventing (by all means necessary) their MP's from expressing their freely held opinion. I'm not even that annoyed that Starmer tried it on, or that Labour's amendment was selected. I am a bit annoyed that the Speaker was persuaded to feck up the order though. That's the thing that makes it seem a bit like Stuart Atwell deciding it was indeed a red card for Maguire but only after consultation with Klopp.
As I see it Hoyle screwed up by putting the Labour amendment first. Order of precedence should have been: Original SNP motion >>> Labour amendment >>> Tory amendment. It's an opposition day so government comes last; it's SNP's opposition day so they get first dibs. That decision would have preserved the integrity of Hoyle's chair; protected the interests of the SNP, allowed for wider discussion and ended in the maximum number of votes. Sadly it would have meant Labour might have been politically embarrassed but from an objective standpoint that's not a good enough reason to change the order.