-
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.
aggi-
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?
slippers
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.