Apologies for interjecting but it’s also a result of the UK parliamentary system. One governing party, usually with a workable majority generally get what they want. The whip system also pushes MPs to tow the line whether they agree or not with what they’re being asked to vote for.
When you actually step back and look at it from afar it looks completely daft, old fashioned, out of touch, almost dictatorial, and will never really deliver a balanced state. Over time you basically end up flip flopping from one thing to another.
I’d also be in favour of some kind of system that’s adds some level of accountability to MPs. No wonder it attracts a bunch of wealthy fuckwits looking purely to increase their wealth. The system allows them to do just that.
Starmer has called for a pause. The amendment called for a ceasefire. Unless you are naive enough to believe that an Israeli ceasefire would be anything more than a temporary one - in other words a ‘pause’ - then it is entirely semantic.
SNP have played a blinder with this amendment vote,
made Labour look like proper chumps, who could lose a load of votes at the next election,
and made Stamer look spineless at the same time
if only he had got his party to back the amendment for the ceasfire,
instead of been scared to look antisemetic by voting against Israels actions in the Gaza strip
Labour just want to avoid another antisemitism row. Unfortunately, whilst the public realise that’s a bad thing, they seem to think it’s about criticising Israel rather than perpetuating hateful tropes about Jews.
You can understand why they don’t want to touch that one with a barge poll.
It’s bemuses me watching UK politicians bicker over Israel. Ceasefire. Temporary pause. It’s meaningless in that it won’t matter one jot to what is happening on the ground in Israel and Gaza.
How is this consequential, at all, to Netanyahu and the Israeli government?
Israel, and in particular Netanyahu’s government, have shown all along that they will do whatever they want to do. If America can’t stop them I don’t see how the finer points of a Labour Party squabble are going to have any bearing on it?
Unless the political wrangling in the UK is only intended to say what you think should happen, even if you don’t have any power to influence anything in Israel.
I’m just bemused following it, as the opposition party in the UK debating what they think should happen in Israel won’t affect what Israel does, at all.
By the same logic, how would MPs voting for green energy options make any difference when other countries do more polluting? Why make any ethical decision if it doesn’t change the world?
Because we actually have control of our energy production, and that’s before we get into issues like global leadership, exporting the technology, and providing the developing world with an option to leapfrog the fossil fuel phase.
Aside from the moral obligation I’d also like to believe that when you implement a drive in a certain technological direction, that particular technology develops quite quickly.
That gives opportunities to be leaders in that field.
The UK is really shit in that regard because it does not invest nearly anywhere near enough in anything for the future. We tend to be at least 2 years behind world leaders in most things.
I get what you are saying, but the UK does not have within its power any jurisdiction over Israel. So making ethical decisions, or arguing over who would do what, politically speaking, is largely irrelevant.
We demand a ceasefire. Or we demand a temporary pause. It’s irrelevant, other than to see how politicians stack up with the view of different members of the public.
The nearest mechanism we have to do anything is the United Nations. Israel has been ignoring them too, and numerous UN agents have been killed, and resolutions have been and gone without consequence.
