Great speeches have a long and admired history in the parliamentary tradition.
Sometimes, in the seriousness of the real work done in the House, words are spoken that bring to light a collective imperative that crosses the lines of partisanship.
There is a moment of pause when the well crafted words of a member of the House changes everything. Political speeches that are delivered with the right cadence and force can make individuals change their minds and their hearts.
Political speeches of this magnitude are rare.
On Wednesday, the British House of Commons heard 10 long hours of debate on a resolution to undertake airstrike action in Syria.
The debate was vigorous and complex. The vote was fascinating. Currently the British government is led by the Conservatives.
The leader is David Cameron and he has a majority in the House. It is not a substantial majority if you add up all the opposition party members. In fact the U.K. parliamentary website says that the working government majority is just 17 votes.
Cameron asked his MPs to vote with the party, which is a normal part of the parliamentary system. The Labour Party, whose leader is Jeremy Corbyn, allowed a "free vote."
A free vote means that MPs are allowed to vote their conscience rather than along party lines.
The British Labour Party pushed Corbyn to release them from party discipline. It is a rather unusual move to have only one party released from discipline but clearly many MPs wanted to be able to make a choice as to whether or not Britain should join the airstrike coalition.
And this is where the speech came in.
Hilary Benn is the shadow Foreign Secretary and a member of the Labour Party. Under normal circumstances his speech to the House would have supported the party's position to reject the bill. But these were not normal circumstances.
First, I would encourage you to listen to the whole speech which is compelling in both substance and cadence. You may not agree with his argument but the speech is crafted particularly well and his arguments are aimed at three audiences.
First, Benn notes the sincerity and passion of the arguments of the Labour leader who argued against the government and Benn chided Cameron for suggesting that those who may vote against the resolution are terrorist sympathizers.
The scold is effective because Benn's speech has come at the end of the 10-hour marathon debate in which individuals have given impassioned speeches about the significance of such a decision by Parliament.
Critical thinking should be the hallmark of parliamentary debate and votes.
Benn's second audience is the British public. Unlike the decision of Tony Blair to support the Iraq war without a UN resolution, Benn made it clear that this action was sanctioned by the United Nations.
The third audience is the British Labour Party itself: "Now, Mr. Speaker, I hope the House will bear with me if I direct my closing remarks to my Labour friends and colleagues on this side of the House."
And here was the moment when the oratory took flight.
In a compelling closing few minutes, Benn found a way to align the values of his left-wing colleagues with the call to bomb Syria.
Benn did not give an inch to the British Conservative Party but rather harkened back to a long history of "internationalism" by the Labour Party.
He said: "We never have and we never should walk by on the other side of the road."
And then he stirred the whole House by saying: "And we are here faced by fascists. Not just their calculated brutality, but their belief that they are superior to every single one of us here tonight, and all of the people that we represent. They hold us in contempt. They hold our values in contempt. They hold our belief in tolerance and decency in contempt. They hold our democracy, the means by which we will make our decision tonight, in contempt...."
The denouement: 66 members of the Labour Party voted in favour of the motion.
It is too early to tell if Hilary Benn's speech to the British Parliament will make its way into the history books but it is certainly causing a stir.
