Saturday 28 October 2023

List of MPs Calling for a Ceasefire

Here are a list of MPs who are backing a ceasefire in Gaza, whether they've put their name to an EDM, spoke for one in the Commons, or have otherwise indicated their position. The list will be updated as more add their names to the call.

Crispin Blunt
Peter Bottomley
Paul Bristow

Debbie Abrahams
Tahir Ali
Rosena Allin-Khan
Paula Barker
Apsana Begum
Clive Betts
Olivia Blake
Karen Buck (added 29/10)
Richard Burgon
Dawn Butler
Ian Byrne
Liam Byrne
Dan Carden (added 29/10)
Sarah Champion
Marsha De Cordova
Stella Creasy
Jon Cruddas
Alex Cunningham (added 31/10)
Tan Dhesi (added 2/11)
Julie Elliot
Mary Foy
Barry Gardiner
Fabian Hamilton (added 2/11)
Mark Hendrick (added 30/10)
Kate Hollern
Rachel Hopkins
Rupa Huq
Imran Hussain
Kim Johnson
Afzal Khan
Ian Lavery
Kim Leadbeter
Emma Lewell-Buck
Clive Lewis
Tony Lloyd
Rebecca Long-Bailey
Andy McDonald
John McDonnell
Khalid Mahmood
Seema Malhotra (added 2/11)
Rachel Maskell
Ian Mearns
Navendra Mishra (added 6/11)
Grahame Morris
Kate Osamor
Kate Osborne
Taiwo Owatemi (added 30/10)
Sarah Owen
Jess Phillips
Yasmin Qureshi
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Naz Shah
Andy Slaughter
Cat Smith
Alex Sobel (added 30/10)
Zarah Sultana
Sam Tarry
Stephen Timms
Karl Turner
Jon Trickett
Valerie Vaz (added 29/10)
Matt Western (added 6/11)
Mick Whitley
Nadia Whittome
Beth Winter
Mohammed Yasin

Liberal Democrats
NB The Lib Dems have tabled their own 'humanitarian ceasefire' EDM. Interestingly, the only absent name is Tim Farron. This is probably why.
Alastair Carmichael
Wendy Chamberlain
Daisy Cooper
Ed Davey
Sarah Dyke
Richard Foord
Sarah Green
Wera Hobhouse
Christine Jardine
Layla Moran
Helen Morgan
Sarah Olney
Jamie Stone
Munira Wilson

Hannah Bardell
Mhairi Black
Kirsty Blackman (added 14/11)
Ian Blackford
Steven Bonnar
Deidre Brock
Alan Brown
Amy Callaghan
Douglas Chapman
Joanna Cherry
Ronnie Cowan
Angela Crawley
Martyn Day
Martin Docherty-Hughes
Dave Doogan
Allan Dorans
Marion Fellows
Stephen Flynn
Patricia Gibson
Patrick Grady
Peter Grant
Drew Hendry
Chris Law
David Linden
Stewart McDonald
Stuart McDonald
Anne McLaughlin
John McNally (added 14/11)
Carol Monaghan
Gavin Newlands
John Nicholson
Brendan O'Hara
Kirsten Oswald
Anum Qaisar
Tommy Sheppard
Alyn Smith
Chris Stephens
Alison Thewliss
Owen Thompson
Richard Thomson
Philippa Whitford
Pete Wishart

Diane Abbott (Ind)
Jeremy Corbyn (Ind)
Geraint Davies (Ind)
Colum Eastwood (SDLP)
Jonathan Edwards (Ind)
Stephen Farry (Alliance)
Claire Hanna (SDLP)
Neal Hanvey (Alba)
Ben Lake (Plaid Cymru)
Carolline Lucas (Green)
Kenny MacAskell (Alba)
Angus MacNeil (Ind)
Christina Rees (Ind)
Liz Saville Roberts (Plaid Cymru)
Claudia Webbe (Ind)
Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru)

Image Credit


David said...

Interesting, the Labour voices are by no means all the usual suspects.

PurplePete said...

I mean, seriously, it’s taken them a fortnight to buck the courage to call for an emergency motion for a ceasefire. What a craven lot they are. They have belatedly come to the conclusion that they were on the wrong side of world public opinion and will be judged to be on the wrong side of history.

Anonymous said...

Wow three Tories, three more than I thought having empathy and compassion.

Duncan said...

Surely the list here will be it, only a handful more perhaps. The Labour front bench have dug in (and dug into a hole), and much damage has been done.
Labour's history is full of imperial nonsense - 'a British bomb' in the late 1940s, supporting the foundation of the state of Israel, supporting the Falklands war (Michael Foot), and on it goes.
That's one of the reasons Corbyn was so exciting - anti imperialism and human rights at the centre of things.

Anonymous said...

A ceasefire would be justified to save civilian lives, along with an Israeli withdrawl and reconnection of amenities. Non-military action in the first place would have also been preferable for Israel, in that it seems unlikely it will achieve its objective (although that would not have stopped Hamas sympathisers celebrating a vicious pogrom against 1400 Jews).

Unfortunately, the terrorists knew this, and calculated Israel would hit back hard, and are perfectly happy to fight to the last Palestinian in order to further their dystopian dream (ie, the genocide of the Jews). However, it would be asking a lot of any state to step back in the face of such atrocities, which is precisely why they were so atrocious.

But it is disingenuous to pretend that many of these calls for a ceasefire are founded in a great deal of genuine compassion or geopolitical understanding, any more than support for Stalin was informed by any real self-reflection, let alone knowledge of his crimes. This is partly why commenters here are so very good at singing from the Soviet hymn book (imperialism, etc).

It's perfectly reasonable to be horrified by the situation unfolding in Gaza without taking sides (at least Palestinian/ Israeli, only a true cretin would support Hamas, right? Right?) but anti-Israeli prejudice seems so ingrained on what passes for the left that it goes without saying. I mean, it's been like this since Baader Meinhof, so it should come as no surprise. But it's not exactly what passes as debate.

Old Trot said...

Anyone interested in reading a , it seems to me, very detailed and comprehensive update as to where we all are in the race to disaster in the middle east today, I recommend the latest blog on the Simplicius the Thinker substack. Simplicius is no Leftwinger at all , but in this instance I think he nails it on the potentially catastrophic , almost pre 1914-style, looming 'disaster cascade' the world is facing in the combined middle east, Ukraine, and the ever-present China/Taiwan/US conflicts.

There seems no doubt, from numerous statements from senior figures in the Israeli hierarchy recently , including ever-growing biblical nonsense from its corrupt opportunist Prime Minister that the Israeli establishment and military intend to 'solve' the 'Palestinian problem' once and for all - by clearing the population of Gaza into the Sinai desert into a 'tent refugee city' . The current bombing and incursions aren't really expected to destroy Hamas - but is a cover for this ongoing carpet bombing and driving of the mass of Palestinians ever southwards to the Egyptian border fence. And the West Bank to be cleared (into Jordan ?) via the current ongoing pogroms too.

But what do we get from the huge pro Palestinian mass demonstrators worldwide en masse as a counter proposition to the definitely current genocidal plans of the Far Right Israeli government and military ? The slogans around " From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free ". This too is simply a genocidal chant , which is simply posturing , and offers no way forward without causing an all out Israeli Jew versus all-Arab war . The idea of a single , democratic, non sectarian, state of Arab and Jew in 'Palestine' is a pure pipedream today. The only chance of peace was the old 'Two States Solution', which had some viability thirty years ago . But the Israelis deliberately helped Hamas to grow in Gaza precisely to undercut the PLO and its commitment to this two states option. The Two States Solution might have never worked, but that ship has sailed forever now.

The most likely outcome now is the second, definitive, Nabka - and a 1914-style cascade of war from all sides . With US imperialism in terminal long term decline and behaving like a rabid dog, currently seeking to attack Iran and China (over Taiwan), in addition to its Ukraine proxy war, we are in the most dangerous international situation since the Cuban Missile Crisis. and the 'Left' has nothing useful to say, only vapid slogans !

Aimit Palemglad said...

@anonymous 21:35
So, calling for a ceasefire is "justified". But such calls, although according to your self, justified, are apparently not founded on compassion or "geopolitical understanding" . You go further, saying that it is "disingenuous" to suggest that compassion might be a factor. No indication why other than something about Stalin. Not someone in the forefront of most people under 70's thoughts when international politics are touched on, but clearly someone you believe is topical and relevant here.

You then tell us that it is "reasonable" - no, "perfectly reasonable" to be horrified. Thanks for the affirmation, I am sure most people were worrying if that would be the case. I mean, watching thousands die as their homes are blown to pieces - it's difficult to know what to feel, isn't it?

Then we get to the nub of what you really wanted to say. Those protesting against the massacre of thousands of ordinary people in Gaza (8305 so far, 3457 being children) are anti-Israeli prejudiced. Which, is code for we all know what.

Let me be clear, I am anti anyone who kills. I am particularly anti those who kill large numbers of civilians and non-combatants using the most advanced and deadly weapons in pursuit of peace and security for one set of people, at the expense of blood, death, injury, oppression and fear for another.

How do we compare the pain, injury, death and terror on either side of a conflict? Do we measure it by the numbers involved, by the relationships the victims had with those who might be implicated in inflicting it? Is it enough to be on the wrong side of a border for it to not matter? Does it only apply to those we side with? IF we try to measure it, is one victim on one side equivalent to 1 on the other, or 3, or 6, or 12? If we have to keep score, and we do, then 34 Israelis children versus 3,457 Palestinian ones (so far) suggests that even 100 to 1 is not enough.

So, Anon, you can feel smug because you were right about one thing. That people who use violence and fear for political gain are beneath contempt. Regardless if they wear a uniform or not. Regardless of what religion they profess, or which political system they claim. So, yes, only a cretin would support any group who visited death, destruction and terror on others for political reasons. But, that would include the Israeli government as well as Hamas, wouldn't it?

We should all be against an in-group who seek to slaughter as many of the out-group as they can, and always find a justification to tell you why they are right to do it. Even when they have been doing it for the past 75 years and show no signs of ever tiring of it, or of seeking a genuine alternative. Each time, there is a reason, and each time, more innocents die. And yes, you could apply that to either set of killers in this situation. But only one set has a state. Only one set has a state that has institutionalised Apartheid. Only one a state with an air force, tanks, and all the latest killing tech. Only one set occupies the land of the other, and builds Apartheid villages and roads and walls across it. Only one set has the power to exclude, exploit, expropriate and expel the other, and exercises that power continually. Only one set has the might of the richest and most powerful nation on earth supporting it. Only one set controls the resources. Only one set has fenced in and blockaded an entire population. That set is the one I blame for this, because if you hold all the cards, and refuse to use them to change things for the better, but instead use all that power and control to intimidate, oppress and subjugate, you should be called out. Israel is a racist, apartheid state, committing massive war crimes, and its leaders should all be prosecuted and imprisoned for the crimes against humanity they are directing.

Zoltan Jorovic said...


The comparison between the Lib Dem EDM (1719) and the earlier one by some labour MPS (EDM 1685) is interesting. The Lib Dems seem to want to have their cake - i.e. claims to being humanitarian and concerned - while also eating it ("affirms that Israel has a right to protect its citizens and target Hamas in line with international law;"). Although there is nothing in international law that allows the bombing of civilians in occupied territories, quite the opposite.

It seems that this is very much a case of wanting to have it both ways. Being tough on "Terrorisst" while also pandering to the concerns of many citizens about the nature of Israel's response. Their EDM came 8 days after the original, and the content is superficially similar, apart from the fence sitting and blame pointing. But what the EDM calls for is substantially weaker.

EDM 1685 says:
"... call for the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary to urgently press all parties to agree to an immediate de-escalation and cessation of hostilities, to ensure the immediate, unconditional release of the Israeli hostages, to end to the total siege of Gaza and allow for unfettered access of medical supplies, food, fuel electricity and water, to guarantee that international humanitarian law is upheld and that civilians are protected in accordance with those laws. "

While EDM 1719 says:
"urges the UK Government to lead calls for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire as a pause in hostilities which will facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid into Gaza and provide an opportunity to realise the release of the hostages".

They rather feebly plead that "the UK Government must redouble efforts to bring about a lasting peace and a two state solution." What efforts? Redoubling nothing means more of nothing.

It seems a cynical effort to placate an electorate that are very disturbed by what is happening, without saying anything that could be viewed as having an opinion on the rights and wrongs, or suggesting that perhaps this has gone a little bit beyond "self-defence".

Anonymous said...

Aimit, as you are apparently under 70 years old, you are also possibly unaware of the 1993 Oslo Accords or Camp David in 2000. I also presume, given your age, you are unaware of the three wars launched to exterminate Israel over the past "75 years". As you yourself remarked: "People like you are so blinkered and incapable of independent thought or analysis you have swallowed not just the cool aid, but the entire recipe book of self-justification for dummies. According to this the world is divided into goodies and baddies, and we get to decide who is which."

As I'm sure the you above would agree, life is rarely as simple as that, and while the Owen Jones Mini Me act might go down well among your cadre, those who know who Stalin was have seen it all before.

JN said...

There is no excuse for the rest of the of MPs in parliament, whether they're Tory or Labour or whatever.

Anonymous said...

In anon 19:00 simplistic, and rigid view, expressing solidarity to Palestinians is "supporting Hamas", questioning the Israeli governments narrative is "antisemitism", and in all the wars between Israel and the Arab states, the latter has not only been the aggressor, but also had the intention to "exterminate" Israel.

Aimit Palemglad said...

@Anon 19:00
I am aware of the history of the region, and you don't have to be over 70 to read books or watch documentaries.

The world isn't divided into goodies and baddies - but actions can be good or bad, and some people do more bad ones than others. However, those in positions of power have the responsibility to act wisely and in a way that causes the least harm possible. Of course, that rarely happens, but we can at least try to hold them to account when they fail to.

It's quite amusing to be compared to Owen Jones, given he is a lot younger than me, and I have read little of his work. It's fun to categorise people according to our prejudices, but we rarely get it right. I have no idea, or interest, in your political views or whose ideas you have absorbed. I just see what you have written and find I disagree with most of it.

As we both want to have the last word, I promise not to reply again to allow you the satisfaction. Also, I realise it must be tedious for everyone else.

Anonymous said...

We're is the Bootle MP, Peter Dowd, some socialists, needs evicting,