Chaos in the UK Parliament.

It almost fills me with Nostalgia about the Brexit era but this time it's about Gaza.

The SNP (Scottish National Party) to the left of Keir Starmer's labour and had a motion (bill) calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Because some labour MP's have a conscious and/or Muslin constituents, this was likely to severely divide the labour vote and force the party leadership to ponder the cost/benefit analysis of developing an actiual backbone.

Starmer had a meeting with the speaker of the house (the head administrator, for Americans) and asked him to change the bill to labour's watered down version. Starmer claimed that this was because labour MP's had received threats and would be in danger if the vote went ahead but this was nothing to do with Stamer not wanting the bill being voted on and dividing his party. No guv, not at all. The speaker relented and the SNP motion was dropped. The SNP stormed out and Gaza keeps burning.

Joy.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

OliRos · 22-25, F

Sorry to let a little truth intrude into your parable, but the SNP motion, which called for a ceasefire and condemned Israeli action as collective punishment (a war crime), was put to the House and passed by acclamation (without a division).

The Labour Amendment, calling for a ceasefire but without the condemnation, was then put to the House and also passed by acclamation.

The government had earlier withdrawn their own amendment.

The deputy speaker, Rosie Winterton, seriously fucked up. Given the hubbub in the House at the time, she could not have heard if the cries were "Ayes" or "Noes" and she should have called for a division on both the motion and the amendment.

The SNP attempt to embarrass Labour was scuppered and they spat out their dummies. The government ran scared from a potential back bench revolt and the Speaker was exposed to unnecessary criticism.

Starmer and his team showed themselves to be astute political operators, which is, of course, a mortal sin to the left of the party, who prefer principled opposition to responsible power.

On the whole, it was the most embarrassing parliamentary event since Johnson's brexit high jinks. But at least it drowned the story of the nuclear deterrent failure. Rather as the Navy drowned the Trident.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@OliRos I am literally a labour party member so this feels contradictory but ok.

I don't see how condemning Israel's actions in Gaza should be contentious but hey.

What you haven't said is that that labour motion called for a ceasefire with lots of caveats.

For example, that the October attack could never happen again. Netanyahu would argue that the October attack could happen anytime without full destruction of Hamas, which could mean a full destruction of Gaza. You gotta be sure, right?

The whole point of the labour motion was to look like it was calling for a ceasefire but to remove any impact or consequences

OliRos · 22-25, F

@Burnley123 First, the SNP were looking to stitch up Labour - as a party member you should be aware of this and angered by it but, as is not atypical for Labour, you would rather have a fight with your own side.

(You really are a strange lot. The eternal civil war that is the British Labour party is an inexhaustible, and exhausting, field of study.)

The SNP were also proposing to put down a motion calling for the next government to spend £28 billion annually on a green investment programme!

Both the SNP motions were designed to attract votes from Labour, maybe even from front benchers. While, at the same time, SNP could go back to Scotland and say, "Look! Labour won't vote for a ceasefire!"

You are a party member. Do you want your party to be damaged in that way?

Starmer and his team did the only thing they could. Against all odds, they persuaded the Speaker to accept an amendment from them, calling for a ceasefire, with, as you say, certain caveats that kept Party policy in line with Britain's major international allies - the correct course of action for a prospective government.

The whole point of the Labour amendment was to ensure that Labour MPs had a ceasefire motion to vote for, circumventing the SNP trap.

Politics is a dirty game. No motion passed in Westminster is going to make any difference in Gaza. It's a whole lot of posing to make the Left feel better, to salve their consciences.

Israel does not give a fuck what the UK says. Nor does Hamas or Iran. Wednesday's whole shitshow was about the left wing chattteratti licking one another's arses and feeling oh-so-good about themselves.

And I speak as one convinced that the only hope for this country is a secure Labour government, as soon as possible.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@OliRos Of course the SNP was trying to embarrass labour a wedge them with their supporters. Of course this is strategy and I'm not sure how you think I wouldn't know.

They want to hold Scotland in the gen and to depress the labour vote The question is: Why did they think that this is a strategy that would work on Scottish labour/SNP voters

It's because at this point, most left-leaning people have come to the conclusion that what Israel is doing in Gaza is a genocide and should be stopped. As a side note, the green energy bill was popular and the one major progressive policy not yet gutted from the Corbyn years

Did starmer do well in this situation? He will think he has and he celebrating. After threaten by the speaker with moving against them and deliberately exaggerating threats to MPs, he got the result he wanted. Which is to avoid taking any decisive position against a US ally committing genocide.

I know more than most that politics is a dirty game because I'm part of a faction that has had people kicked out and deselected on mostly false accusations of anti-Semitism. I'm not supporting a party line that is immoral and by people who themselves are functionally against all socialists

OliRos · 22-25, F

@Burnley123 So, you are in the wrong party, or you would rather remain out of power and leave the country to the tender mercies of the Tories.

No wonder Labour struggles to be seen as a natural party of government.

Do you think that any ceasefire resolution passed in Westminster will have any effect on the ground? Will the Israelis stop killing Gazan civilians? Will Hamas put up their weapons?

It's willy waving. Gesture politics. It's only purpose is to make its advocates feel morally better about themselves.

I know you are not stupid and you have strongly held views. But surely you can be honest enough with yourself to admit that.

This issue is being used by enemies of the country to drive a wedge between Muslim and non-Muslim communities, Jewish and non-Jewish communities.

Who benefits?

I think we both know the answer to that.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@OliRos I'm still in the party but much less active than I was. I'm doing canvassing for the first time in ages because my friend is up for re-election.

Under a FPTP electoral system to you have few other options. It's almost like telling someone to not be a democrat if they criticise Joe Biden.

On the factionalism thing: the labour left actually accepted starmer as labour leader and wanted to work with him. As a reward, we've seen our leaders MPs get de-selected and removed in an ongoing purge. As this happened, starmer has abandoned all ten of the pledges he stood on to get elected as labour leader. So, no: I feel zero guilt in criticising him now. I want a labour government but anyone who thinks that this will be anymore than nominally different to Sunak is flat-out wrong. I wish I could believe differently.

On the difference made to Gaza: a friend (from the centre-right of labour) made the same argument to me a week ago.

Obviously what the Biden whitehouse does is much more central. However, a change in position from one of their allies would add to the internal pressure they are facing on this issue. It's not nothing. If it was nothing, there would be no cost starmer would just cave to the pressure from within his own party and support a ceasefire. If he did, they fear it would annoy the Biden whitehouse by creating a problem for them.

OliRos · 22-25, F

@Burnley123 This discussion could go on for ever. We both know that Starmer ditched the left, and it's policies, to make Labour electable.

You despise him for that, I admire him.

Brown lost, Ed Miliband lost, Corbyn lost - all to austerity-driven fuck-you Tory operations who could barely govern themselves.

Is that really what you want? Labour pure in spirit, in perpetual opposition? For fuck's sake, man, do you care so little for the country, its people and the public services?

As for putting pressure on the US government, get real.

Anyway... enough of this, I don't want to fall out with you, unless I really have to. Like, for instance, if I decide you must be a Tory agent working to undermine Starmer's election chances.

til the next time

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@OliRos If you want to end a debate with someone, try agreeing to disagree instead of loading on another batch of contentious points that imply a lack of insight behind the other person's motivation. Just fyi. 😆

I don't want to fall out with you either and i think we have some mutual grudging respect. You are intelligent and very confident.

I've spent four years of my life campaigning to get a labour government elected. There is a balance between principle and pragmatism with all political decisions and I do think (for example that the 2017 manifesto is where labour should be aiming instead of the 2019 one. You have to pick your battles but sometimes you also have to fight them. To get any of the things I want anyway. You probably don't want the same, apart from kicking out the Tories

There are many reasons why the Corbyn project failed but - of those reasons - having policies that were too left wing for the British electorate was far from top of the list.

I could go into this in a LOT more detail if you like. If you don't want me to, that is fine and we can agree to disagree.

I'm still going to unapologetically criticise Starmer.

OliRos · 22-25, F

@Burnley123 I have always thought of "agreeing to disagree" as a wishy-washy get out.

We disagree fundamentally on certain matters, and probably agree on many more. I suspect our ends are more closely aligned than our means.

We could both provide a "lot more detail" to support our respective positions.

We will both criticise Starmer, but for different things. In doing so, we should both be careful not to open him up to the crazpirators like your new friend, kutee.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@OliRos not my friend lol.

I think most criticisms of the left being anti- Semitic are false or greatly exaggerated but I will criticise it when I do see it.

See you soon.