*
"The least pain in our little finger gives us more concern and uneasiness, than the destruction of millions of our fellow-beings."
William Hazlitt, American Literature - Dr Channing
*
Over at Prospect, and at the last moment, we swapped my intended article this week (that was going to be on international law) for a shorter piece on the parliamentary fiasco of the Gaza votes.
You may have thought that as a constitutional and process geek, I would have been happy for the focus to have been on a dispute about arcane parliamentary procedure.
A dispute on a point of disorder so esoteric that it evokes the quotation usually attributed to Lord Palmerston:
"Only three people have ever really understood the Schleswig-Holstein business – the Prince Consort, who is dead – a German professor, who has gone mad – and I, who have forgotten all about it."
But such geekiness seemed out of place.
Yes, parliamentary procedure, like constitutional law, should not be exciting; it should be dull.
And sometimes it really should not be important at all.
This is not a foreign policy blog, and it offers no special expertise or insight in what is going on in Gaza.
But there should be an informed public debate, led by politicians, on the extent (if any) there any justification for what Israel is doing - and on what the United Kingdom should be doing in response.
Yet the news coverage of the debate, and the rows in parliament the day after, focused entirely on the procedural issue rather than the substantial one.
It seemed, as with Hazlitt’s immortal quote above, that an error by the Speaker caused more concern and unease than the sufferings of tens of thousands - and more - of our fellow-beings.
Seems like multidimensional chess - but the players got nervous about one outcome on one dimension and turned over the board scattering the pieces - a useful diversion but no significant damage done.
At one level a question of who is allowed to break wind first - important to parliamentarians if no one else.
Then we come to 'don't mention the war'. Not only not allowed to be spoken of but a potential nightmare when any unwise (or candid) remark is liable to be used against you and your party in an election year. Too dangerous, not allowed. So the board was turned over and debate successfully thwarted.
Probably a good thing, well behaved politicians know their place and know the real influence is elsewhere and what is said here is of no importance. The stench will die down and normal service will resume. Pecunia non olet.