Did your MP vote for a ceasefire?

[BoohooWoohoo]

https://votes.parliament.uk/votes/commons/division/1666

Aye = ceasefire
No = no ceasefire

My MP is a Tory so toed the party line and said no 😡

^ yes and the Greens have published a handy list of all those who voted against 🙄

Yes. They aren't all spineless, at least. I would have been ashamed and surprised if it had been a no, they have always come across as someone decent and genuinely caring.

I don’t understand this. What is the point of them having a vote? It’s nothing to do with the UK and we don’t get to have a say anyway?

It isn't nothing to do with us, to cut a long story short.
However, if the UK were being targeted by an oppressive force killing hundreds of thousands of civilians after decades of oppression and abuse, I'd hope other countries didn't sit back and let it happen.
Evil triumphs when good men do nothing, as we have seen.

Graham Stringer. Large Jewish community. Didn’t vote.

Hear hear

Of course there should be a real ceasefire, both sides, on an enduring basis.

However Neither Hamas nor Netanyahu want a ceasefire, neither will listen to outside influence, especially us!

They might listen to the U.S or Iran, their funders and arms dealers, but it seems ridiculous to me for our parliament and community to descend into yet more destructive chaos in pursuit of a unicorn.

Then we need to stand warships across the Med, not sit in the comfort of Parliament and our honest bleating ‘ceasefire’

Mine did. I also know him as his child goes to a hobby with my child, so this makes me feel more comfortable 🙃

They may not listen to us, but we do tend to see the snowball effect in international politics.

No - he's a Tory in a dicey Tory seat including lots of Jewish voters (I'm a Jewish voter, albeit not one that would vote for him). He was never going to risk rocking the boat because Jewish Tory voters are more likely to be anti-ceasefire.

Aren't warships defeating the point of a ceasefire?

I got an email from my Mp :

I voted for the Labour amendment (here), which: while condemning the Hamas attack, acknowledges that Israel’s response in Gaza is disproportionate and, importantly, criticises Israel’s activities in the West Bank; recognises the jurisdiction of the ICC in the OPTs (which the Government does not), and its role in determining whether war crimes have been committed; calls for a lifting of the blockade and says that humanitarian pauses, while welcome, must be extended, to allow for getting aid into Gaza at the scale that’s needed, followed by an “enduring cessation of fighting” and “a credible, diplomatic and political process to deliver the lasting peace of a two-state solution”. Unfortunately, this amendment was defeated, with nearly 300 MPs voting against.

i didn’t realise there was a labour one. Thought there was a SNP one

she’s a shadow member and I think she absteined on that one

Can someone please explain to me why they voted? What's it suppose to change?

Not being goady. Genuinely don't understand the reasoning.

Apparently 11000 dead and god knows how many injured isnt enough.
My labour mp abstained. Shame on her. Keir is getting this quite wrong.

Futile and pointless waste of parliamentary time and resources.

I haven't cared to check. Why? No amount of calling for cessation will make any impact.

For those saying "it's nothing to do with us".... Apart from common humanity, are you not aware that it was the Balfour Declaration that legitimised the whole idea of a Jewish state, and that Britain played a pivotal role in the creation of Israel? Which was founded on the theft of Palestinian land. Hence all the wars and acts of 'terrorism' ever since. And here we are, 75 years later, with the Zionists more entrenched and unwilling to contemplate any kind of settlement - other than illegal, settlements... - than ever.

Horse has bolted.

No-Tory. It's rare I agree with him but I do on this.
Calling for a ceasefire is nothing more than virtue signalling when neither of the parties fighting will agree to it

No, tory. I'm not surprised

For me, I think it's extremely important that there is a record of powerful people making their feelings known about genocide.

It is to every country in the world shame that no one acted faster, during the holocaust. Balkan war, falklands etc It would have been very very helpful for history indeed if we knew the feelings/motivations/votes of those who hold power over us.

Also it tells the world including those in the war zone that they are not unnoticed or uncared for.

It's extremely important & it's political ignorance to think otherwise.

My MP voted yes. Thanks goodness. She has my vote.

Good. It's public information anyway. But a handy ready reckoner is ideal.

Yes. Labour.

According to Jess Philips the Labour whipping was very light touch - the Labour Whips essentially recognised the strength of feeling and accepted that Members would want to vote with their own consciences. From her point of view there were no threats about sackings, just an understanding that shared responsibility within the Shadow Cabinet means if you don’t toe the Party line you step back.

Also important to remember that the “rebels” voted in favour of Labour’s motion, which called for a humanitarian pause. It is just that they then voted for the SNP motion which called for a ceasefire (and seems to have been deliberately worded to find cracks in the Labour Party - as the Left always seems better at fighting the Left than it does fighting the Right).

Personally I’m not even sure what the difference is, it feels like semantics to me.