In the news

Like I said, I think it's more a south east issue, where housing costs are far higher

No, no it's not.

If your test are not successful it's not longer a deterrent so best not test. If it all kicks off it won't matter to us if it fires or not, we'll be too busy being dead or living like mad max.

Mother of parliaments, my once-bony arse.

What the actual fuck is going on in the Houses of Parliament?

I’m tempted to randomly shout “aha” in a meeting tomorrow, will be interested in how that works (and will probably be a relief from my usual “not my tempo”)

Hansard says no

If the speaker hadn’t allowed the Labour amendment, then the SNP motion would’ve been defeated by the Tories (regardless of how Labour voted), and the government amendment calling for a ‘humanitarian pause’ would’ve passed.

But the commons has now voted for an immediate ceasefire, and yet everyone who wanted a ceasefire is furious. Is it possible they were actually more interested in scoring points against the Labour front bench?

Is it possible they were actually more interested in scoring points against the Labour front bench?

This is it isn't it?

The SNP's first attempt at weaponising the cease fire was incredibly effective. It's vital for them to reduce Labour's electoral chances, so why not have another crack? Especially with the Rochdale Antisemitism story still in the air and another byelection to go.

It was the most intense reality TV I've ever seen.

Mr Speaker left Ms Speaker to take the flack after his unprecedented decision to allow an opposition ammendment, to an opposition motion.

Mr Speaker looked broken after being forced to return to the house

He's toast

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.

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.

Ian Dunt on it:

https://iandunt.substack.com/p/commons-chaos-these-partisan-halfwits

Even a braindead, functionally useless government can, sometimes, make a correct decision:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/22/uk-quits-treaty-that-lets-fossil-fuel-firms-sue-governments-over-climate-policies

This is great.

One of my first reactions to "the speaker can't do this because of presedent", was that isn't binding and things become presedent by being done. It's not a static process.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/21/liz-truss-deep-state-cpac-far-right

Grifter mode enabled... Britain’s ‘deep state’ thwarted my plans, Liz Truss tells US far-right summit

Also, surely she has constituent shit to be doing, not grifting in the US to sell her no-doubt, culture war themed new book

I want to put on record my thanks to the deep state if they had anything to do with thwarting Liz Truss

Why is everyone misspelling Star?

Got to say that image properly cracks me up.

With time and space from her premiership (lol), it's easy to forget what a fucking shambles and catastrophic joke she and her side kick were/are.

I feel that her name should forever be suffixed with reference to that lettuce.

Anyone worried house prices were getting to affordable? /s
Don't worry, the chancellor has a plan
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1760614551521812610?t=Nh1nEGx5Cyr0-63c5P2p9A&s=19

Failed to stem the rise of right wingers in your middling size European country?
Resigned because representative democracy is just too difficult?
At a loose end because serious commercial organisations need a failed politician like a hole in the head?
Contact Falling Upwards for exciting career opportunities.

The full text of the motion and each of the amendments: https://www.thenational.scot/news/24134333.read-snps-gaza-ceasefire-motion-labours-amendment---full/

There have been a few comments about the SNP motion being designed to hurt a fractured Labour party, but to be honest it reads like the most simple and straightforward of the lot, with little specificity other than to press for a ceasefire. Dunt and friends are getting wrapped up in the show of it all, as ever.

Labour's amendment is much more specific in describing the outcomes and process, and for that it's a genuinely good amendment. I'm not sure their watering down of conditions is really any different to "press for a ceasefire" either.

But if this all hinges on the mention of collective punishment, which it clearly is by any reasonable definition, why are Labour unable to say it? Is it really controversial at this point given the number of non-combatants killed?

Is it more important to

1. Get the ceasefire, or
   
2. Get the ceasefire while pontificating from your soapbox about the reasons for Israeli government policy, to make sure everyone knows how virtuous you are?
   
   

The "collective punishment" bit isn't going to convince anyone to vote for the ceasefire who wasn't already, but it might deter some people who don't want to get into an argument about Zionism with the ADL.

Edit: I obviously mean "get (a clear call for) a ceasefire", since we can't just impose one.