-
There was an admission in another Guardian article that the Tory anger was artificial, from an unnamed minister.
-
Still not sure I understand why if the labour amendment was not called they could not offer to support the SNP motion, or a free vote, it being quite similar to the labour amendment and closer to their new position than the government amendment.
I can't remember the exact wording but in the SNP motion there was something about Israel imposing collective punishment on the Palestinian people which was controversial.
-
Still not sure I understand why if the labour amendment was not called they could not offer to support the SNP motion, or a free vote, it being quite similar to the labour amendment and closer to their new position than the government amendment
Starmer, in order to look like the next PM, had to keep within the parameters of what UK allies (Aus, Canada) were saying.
The SNP motion went too far
-
Still not sure I understand why if the labour amendment was not called they could not offer to support the SNP motion, or a free vote, it being quite similar to the labour amendment and closer to their new position than the government amendment.
Because the Tories would have voted down the SNP motion, and their own amendment would have passed. The Labour amendment was able to gain the support of the SNP, despite how furious they were, and was drawing in enough Tories as well (hence why the Tories took their ball home - to save embarrassment).
The Labour amendment was able to pull together a majority for ‘ceasefire’, the SNP motion wasn’t.
You are reading a single comment by @Scrabble and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
andyp
aggi
skydancer
rodan
@Scrabble
Decent run down of how we got here.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/21/how-keir-starmer-averted-gaza-ceasefire-vote-crisis
Still not sure I understand why if the labour amendment was not called they could not offer to support the SNP motion, or a free vote, it being quite similar to the labour amendment and closer to their new position than the government amendment.
The main thing seems to be how inadequate a process this type of parliamentary process is. You had the spectre of a political party being seen to be fractured when in reality it seemed they now broadly to agree.
This is a debate where precise language is important, yet we're using some massively complex and weaponised process to determine 'parliament's postion'.
Shambles. I have massive sympathy for the speaker in trying to work out the best approach given what appears the very real prospect of danger to sitting MPs. World's gone mad.