Speaker of the House of Commons

The debating in the house of commons has always been about political posturing, much more now than ever because most legislation contain very wide powers to make regulations that are delegated to ministers.
 
What I am missing about all this focus on Gaza, is that there is zero ability for anyone in the House of commons to pass any law to stop the war. It's unbelievable virtue signalling.
We do have a bit actually, Weapons and trade. On our own - not much effect which is why Starmer mentioned international aspects.
Similar situations have existed in 2 places I know of S Africa and Algeria especially Algeria. Shades of it in other African "states" in " due to colonial lines on maps which causes grief in a number of places.

But ok there is showboating as well for a variety of reasons that could easily be oversimplified.
 
Not many Ukrainians voting in the Rochdale by-election - or the GE later this year. The events in Gaza matter to Muslim and Jewish constituents.
And to people who are ideologically opposed to racism, apartheid and genocide.
 
What I am missing about all this focus on Gaza, is that there is zero ability for anyone in the House of commons to pass any law to stop the war. It's unbelievable virtue signalling.
Coming soon: MPs vote in House of Commons to ban bad weather
 
It looks like the SNP have hardened their stance since yesterday, and still want to use the emergency debate to create a dividing line with Labour.

Yesterday:

Mr Flynn added: "While the appalling spectacle at Westminster has been deeply unedifying, some progress has been made. Public and SNP pressure has forced the next prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, into a U-turn - now we need to work together to force the UK government to change its position too."

Today:

Flynn said: “We are keen to build as much consensus as possible, while recognising the need to substantially shift the dial on the positions of Sunak and Starmer, who have been too timid in their approach to securing an immediate ceasefire - and not forgetting the success the SNP has had in changing the terms of the debate by doggedly sticking by our principles and values.”

It seems they want to make the new dividing line about banning arms sales to Israel.
 
It looks like the SNP have hardened their stance since yesterday, and still want to use the emergency debate to create a dividing line with Labour.

Yesterday:



Today:



It seems they want to make the new dividing line about banning arms sales to Israel.
This was inevitable because of the much harsher nature of their original motion.
 
The Speaker has now refused the emergency debate. One of the reasons is that the government is making a statement on Gaza tomorrow. SNP not happy. Presumably they will have another go at causing division within Labour, on this matter, at their next Opposition Day.
 
Illuminate us by telling us what it said.
SNP

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.
 
The snp and labour amendments were chalk and cheese.
Yes

the SNP amendment included a claim that was not supported by international law, making it impossible for Labour to support it

there is a big difference between what a minority party with zero chance of becoming the government can choose to support versus Labour who are favourites to to win.
 
Back
Top