The SNP sponsored debate on its Gaza ceasefire motion has now begun in the House of Commons, but not before another row has developed.
As I noted earlier today, the SNP tabled this motion but Labour, the LibDems and the government all tabled amendments. What amendments might be debated is for the Speaker to decide but there are, of course, conventions that are usually followed.
Today the Speaker has decided that the Labour and government motions might be debated, and voted on in that order, before the substantive remaining motion is put to the House.
The consequence is that the SNP motion might be replaced by a Labour motion before the Government then gets the chance to replace the Labour motion with its own motion, which means that the Opposition party promoting this debate may never get the chance to have its own motion voted on. That is pretty much unprecedented. This Tweet explains that:
The Clerk of the House has objected to what Hoyle has done, which is heavily biased in Labour's interests.
So, why has he done that. My old university newspaper co-editor, Jon Craig, now at Sky News, has this to suggest:
Nick Watt of Newsnight confirms the view:
Labour blackmailed Hoyle and he caved in.
None of this says anything any good about Labour or the Speaker.
Meanwhile, the SNP's motion, which was the only one to really address the situation in Gaza, looks like it will never be voted on.
And we call this democracy.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
What real difference would passing the SNP motion make? Please show your working with comparison made to previous calls of this nature made historically both here and abroad.
It would change the UK position at the UN and that would have massive significance.
Was that really that hard to work out?
Would the British representative have to honour the vote if the SNP motion were carried? I can’t see Sunak et al respecting that, any more than Biden and Netanyahu respected the ICJ.
Of course, it should change – but as we have seen the international Rules as dictated by Western interests say otherwise. There might just be another outrageous flouting of the democratic process.
Oh my word, this really is bad stuff, the political process is not worth a light at the present.
This isn’t going to end well.
Thank you, you and your contributors.
An absolute disgrace. I don’t have much time for Lindsay Hoyle but this behaviour, if true, does not augur well for a Labour government in waiting.
If I’ve posted this here before, I apologise for reposting it, but what I want to post needs to be aired, even if it’s shot down in flames.
I regard Starmer as one of, if not the, most dangerous, politicians in the current Westminster bubble.
He fiingled his way into the Labour leadership by deceit (pretending to be “Continuity Corbyn”) deception (keeping his dodgy funders undisclosed until after the close of poll) and massive overfunding from those funders which would have invalidated and rendered null any statutory election.
He lost my support 2 hours into his election, when, in face of a deteriorating economy and the clearly developing pandemic, he hought his MAIN duty was to write a grovelling letter of fealty to the BoD (nuff said! More below), expressing – in mangled English! From a QC/KC??@@ – his intention to “tear out the poison of antisemitism” from the Labour Party (when data showed the incidence of antisemitism had declined under Corbyn, and was CERTAINLY lower than in the Tory Party – Just ask the former Speaker John Bercow on both points).
Surely one either “tears out a weed” or “squeezes out a poison”, but not “tears out a poison”??
So, I can honestly say I not only DON’T WANT SKS’S VILE FAUX-LABOUR PARTY TO SUCCEED AT THE NEXT GE, BUT I WANT IT HUMILIATED by failing to win as many votes (10.3m NB = 2m MORE than Brown in 2010, 1m more than Miliband 2015, &1m more EVEN than Blair in 2005!!) or seats (202) as Labour did in 2019.
Preferably, I’d hope they’d win fewer seats than a Left Wing Socialist offshoot Party.
Only Labour’s death – that of Starmer’s VILE Faux-Labour – can allow Labour’s resurrection.
If Starmer’s VILE Faux-Labour wins, Labour will die the death of Pasokification, deservedly so!
And on the BoD, Starmer spent his first months (weeks, actually) turning Labour into Faux-Labour.
Since then he has turned it into what I call the Hostage Party definition = bound hand & foot & gagged by the BoD, JLM & LFI, 3 illiberal racist (for their contempt for Palestinians) and antisemitic (for their “right kind of Jew/wrong kind of Jew” trope) bodies.
He has expelled more Jewish members of Party than all previous Leaders out together.
IMO Starmer must NOT be allowed to become PM.
He’s untrustworthy (see Peter Oborne on this https://www.doubledown.news/watch/2023/september/25/exposed-keir-starmer-liar-murdochs-man-candidate-mi5-peter-oborne)
and at least authoritarian (again see Peter Oborne on this
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/uk-labour-starmer-authoritarianism-alarm-bells-ringing).
Even.dictatorial, given his “little Keef Stalin” dismemberment of the Labour Party, which he’s turned into a Faux-Labour Party that, as I said, I now call the Hostage Party,.
The Labour Party has suffered a coup by a Right Wing Zionist 5th column, turning it into a clone of the Likud Party, and even of Israel’s neo-Fascist government, as Starmer’s shameful behaviour over the genocide being carried out in Gaza.
On which last, try this:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=138yLtTIFWg&si=nV5maU_hZWbM0Nta
I believe all progressives and progressive forces must do ALL they can to prevent him from becoming PM, where I believe he would be a “bought and sold” authoritarian (even dictatorial) neoliberal, flat-earther economist, TCP, austerity-enabling/continuing/intensifying disaster (who may even be a Security State asset – see
https://novaramedia.com/2021/03/02/keir-starmer-is-a-long-time-servant-of-the-british-security-state/)
I agree with every word.
But are we really surprised with what is happening?
This is the way Starmer & LINO operate & the way any LINO gov will operate.
I have no doubt that the Israeli gov are very happy with the outcome.
Is it me or has parliament just turned it on itself and created its own little world?
Also – and upon further reflection – this action hints strongly at outside pressure being brought into our democratic proceedings in a way that negates the Palestinian position?
When neo-liberals like Sunak and Starmer talk about Britain ‘being open for business’, it obviously is open to those with deep pockets and nothing is off the table.
Yanis Varoufakis says pretty much the same. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6H6tvVuGgo&t=0s
The Ceasefire now chant changed to No ceasefire no vote on Sunday.
Starmer needs to be careful, unless, of course, he doesn’t want to be PM.
Absolutely typical of our politics and politicians that such an important debate is being overshadowed by grubby behind-the-scenes shenanigans. One more reason not to vote Labour.
And, I suppose predictably, the whole thing has now descended into farce.
What must the rest of the world think of us?
Why do they need to timetable such a stupid long debate anyway? They all know which way they are going to vote.
I had hopes of Andrew Gwynn, until he said he was going to vote for labour’s amendment, because he agreed with David Lammy. Lammy had very little to say. You could tell because he spoke so slowly to pad out his speech.
There are about a dozen tory MPs in the chamber at the moment.
I can’t believe the number of people who begin with we all want a ceasefire. No, Netanyahu doesn’t. Nor do the IDF.
@ jenw,
“Why do they need to timetable such a stupid long debate anyway?…”
Because its an opposition day debate. There are 20 days set aside, annually, for opposition parties to debate what they want to debate; 17 for the official opposition and 3 for the 3rd largest party. Otherwise every parliament would have no room for anything other than the ruling party’s legislative agenda. It doesn’t matter what the opposition motion is, or what the outcome is likely to be; they have the right to pick whatever subject they choose.
In a system that doesn’t have a codified, readily accessible constitution, where much parliamentary business follows precedent and convention, it is important that the generally accepted, but unwritten, rules are followed.
Thanks
I know that. What I meant was why does there have to be such a LONG debate. If there had been a shorter debate the tories would not have been able to highjack it.
The confusion about the vote happened after Penny Mordaunt said that the government would withdraw their amendment.
That reduced it from 3 votes to 2.
When the votes were taken there was such confusion that most of them, even those tories who had returned, did not know that a vote was happening.
Most of those who shouted aye were dong so above a cacophony of noise which should never have been allowed by the deputy speaker. She accepted ayes on both votes even though she could not hear anything properly, and they did not know what they were voting on.
I expect Chris Bryant to call for a recount.
Many of the points of order were from MPs who were upset that they did not get the chance to vote with the SNP, even tory MPs. They also wanted to know how their constituents would know how they voted. The response was oh, I’m sure they will know. Of course we won’t! They never voted properly.
I am not sure the Tories hijacked it.
convention let them table a motion.
It was Labour that hijacked it.
Yes, the tories were allowed to table the amendment, but they highjacked it by Penny Mordaunt withdrawing the amendment and saying they were not going to take any more part in the vote.
The speaker did what he did to allow a vote on all three motions. That caused the confusion.
They withdrew because they could not be sure to win apparently
Sickening, isn’t it?
However, if what Chris Bryant said is true, they should call for a general election as their foreign policy is in tatters.
There is no way that this will be just allowed through, no matter how much the speaker tries to pacify all parties.
The tories have no foreign secretary in the commons to lead debates. It was Andrew Mitchell, who is responsible for Africa. The minister for state for the middle east is also in the lords.
Chris Bryant was talking nonsense in this occasion.
No one believes anything was fixed by yesterday’s debacle.
Do you know Bryant was talking rubbish, or do you just think he was?
Is he not supposed to be the chair of the committee on standards, or has he been kicked off that for disagreeing with Starmer over something?
He was talking political nonsense.
What happened could never be considered binding on the government given the way in which this was passed.
Are you ‘YES’ yet?
What does that mean?
Sorry, Richard, I thought you might recognise a Scottish Independinista slogan. All of your very enthusiastic Scottish audience will. We usually trot it out when Wastemonster (sic) behaves in an undemocratic way.
There is substantial anger in our community this afternoon, with more people than ever suggesting the SNP should withdraw from the ‘British’ parliament.
I think this is premature, but ultimately inevitable.
I recognise it in that context but needed to check what you meant here as a lot of people unfamilar with its meaning read these comments.
Are you suggesting the SNP withdraw as Sinn Fein do?
I am a simple man. What’s wrong with a simple one line motion –
“This House calls for a ceasefire”
The rest is party political squabbling. Shame on them.
Much too simople. Not enough interest groups pandered to in that.
Clive
Lots of politicians are lawyers- is the answer. A bit cynical but near the truth I feel.
Just thinking that Hoyle has actually helped the SNP. Labour are not going to get any more Scottish MPs by Starmer doing this to the SNP.
Anyone agree?
I would like to think both Labour and Tories are finished in Scotland. There is little difference between them. Neither does anything for Scotland. They raid our considerable resources to keep England afloat and leave too many of us living in poverty in a very wealthy, small country.
Having said that, I don’t underestimate the strange willingness amongst people to vote against their own interests. Many people did so at the Brexit referendum.
Most people would say that neither does anything for England either
Yesterday in another thread I wrote this: “I view the Labour amendment as no more than a tactical move to elbow aside the SNP’s 2nd Bill on the Gaza topic and ‘steal their thunder’”. Right now It looks like that was pretty accurate, but the chaos in the Commons today simply demonstrates that the UK political system is not fit for purpose (that’s quite aside from the Commons’ failure to act on a huminatarian cause that needs all the help it can get). The lack of a formal Constitution makes parliamentary process dependent on archaic conventions and facilitates backdoor financial inducements which corrupt MPs and Ministers. Labour’s attempts to convince us they didn’t pressurise the Speaker to alter the conventions (and thereby derail the SNP’s Opposition Day agenda in its entirety, not just its proposals re Gaza) looked utterly unconvincing. Hoyle’s car crash “explanation” on Channel 4 News just enhances that view.
I think JenW is right about today’s chaos “doing the SNP a favour”, but I’d stress that it’s the Scottish peoples’ views that will shift the pendulum towards secession from the UK and I’m sure that a majority of Scots will tonight feel profoundly let down by UK politics and angered by the contempt which has been shown to our elected representatives and the people of Gaza. Today’s shambles demonstrates yet again that we couldn’t make a bigger mess of running our own affairs than we see Westminster doing daily. It should have been about aiding the plight of the Gazan people and not about manipulating political precesses for personal and political advantage.
https://skwawkbox.org/2024/02/21/lavery-says-name-added-as-supporting-labours-weasel-gaza-motion-without-my-consent/
Interesting. I wonder how many other names added without consent.
Have I got this right?
There will be a vote on labour’s amendment first.
If MPs want a vote on the SNP vote they will have to vote for Starmer’s amendment first?
Then there will be a vote on whether they want Starmer’s ceasefire or SNP ceasefire?
But if labour MPs abstain on their own amendment there will be no vote on SNP.
There’s a big rally outside parliament at the moment, with Andrew Feinstein having just spoken.
To vote on the SNP motion they have to reject the Labour amendment first, then the Tory one.
The problem is that when they did vote the deputy speaker could not hear properly and the MPs were all milling around still not knowing what they were voting for or not.
It has to be seen to be believed.
I watched it and knew exactly what she was doing as she did it – in an instant
‘And we call this democracy.’
No, this is the westmonster dimocracy in action!
PSR it has always been this way. In its own little world.
It is by design. Performative Clobbers.
Democratic Representation does not work!
Unless it is about representing the highest bidder.
Elections are bogus.
Electronic Democracy. Email-Votes. Petitions, etc.
The People are sovereign and can override parliament any time they with a vote.
The People should be able to ‘discharge’ (by vote) a govt anytime they like.
The People should be able to vote the corrupt to jail anytime they like.
Not introducing quarantine in Jan 2020.
They serve us.
Not us serving them.
Lots of anger there.
But what are you actually proposing
I suspect, I am not the only one who is angry.
The People should be able to ‘discharge’ (by vote) a govt anytime they like.
Use the Petition system:
‘The Goverment must resign now.’
Just encourage everyone (‘The People’) to take it as seriously as an GE.
Use an old petition, even.
AND, OR
Email-Votes:
TO: hcenquiries@parliament.uk; enquires@gov.sct ; enquires@gov.wls ;enquires@gov.ni
‘The Goverment must resign now.’
To be clear, I made up the last three addresses. But equivalences exist. Others will know the real addresses.
A very small step away from dimocracy of London.
Again, Thatcher words. ‘Don’t referendise everything it takes all the fun out of politics.’
So do it. Parliament cannot be trusted.
Or we can sit on our hands and wait for the toryZ to grant ‘The People’ a GE.
Another proposal?
Jail Johnson for failing to quarantine in Jan 2020.
Permission to edit as you see fit.
Regards
The petition system does not work like that
I doubt such a petition would be accepted.
Scarlet
Just to be clear, you’re talking to someone who considers himself to be ‘post-democratic’.
Over the years of further education and experience I have a developed a distrust of words because of ‘democracy’ and a preference for more honest ‘other means’ has emerged. But although I ‘feel it’ I have not quite worked out what this ‘post democracy’ should look like or operate.
Having said that, my preference at the moment is to put my foot/feet firmly on the private funding streams that feed into our political processes and press very hard indeed.
That has to change. In short: private funding of politics has to stop. Dead.
I’m also in favour of aping some of the the behaviour that has got us thus far down this disreputable road. Progressives are far too nice – a hangover I’m afraid from Liberalism and its inherent intellectual weakness that has no idea at all about reconciling the individual with the collective because basically they worship individuality but are too self conscious to admit it.
What we need in a post-democratic world is a more robust system and a willingness I’m afraid to match brutality and working at the very edge of truth if necessary.
Politics is now at a point of being a new frontier with no rules. Old boy networks like parliament are finished.
In a nutshell, the old saying ‘Never wrestle with a pig because you’ll just get dirty and the pig likes it’?
Well I’ve got news for you – if we want things to change, those of us after that change are going to have to get absolutely filthy. We’re going to have to consider everything in ripping up the rule book and making something new. We may even to have get used to feeling uncomfortable with some of it.
In the mean time:
1. Save Democracy! Nationalise Political Party Funding NOW!
2. Tax the rich so that they have too little to fund think tanks, politicians, online lies etc., etc. The intellectual reasoning/case for this needs to be developed more as such funding is anti-democratic.
3. Full disclosure of funding for all those operators in policy communities who serve political policy just like it tells you on a packet of fags that they can give you cancer.
RM
‘I doubt such a petition would be accepted. ‘
If the petition reach 30-35 million petitioners?
PSR
Nearly all good proposals.
Votes not riots.
Regards
It won’t
Putting aside the frisson engendered by watching the self-righteous, not to say faux outrage of Tory MP’s over it, this is just another of the thousand cuts by which democracy in this country is dying. Any qualms I may have had about deciding not to vote Labour at a General Election for the first time since being eligible (1983) have gone for good as Starmer clearly represents as big a threat to democracy such as it is, in this country as the Tories.
Entirely agree that party funding should be provided solely by the state, as should MP’s and ministerial salaries and expenses. MP’s should have to go undergo thorough background checks similar to the ones those of us who have worked for suppliers into the defence industry have undergone, and should not be allowed to stand until cleared.
Accusations of unlawful behaviour should result in immediate suspension pending investigation, which should be time limited prior to findings handed to the Police as appropriate. There are many others that could be added but most important of all, the whole should be policed independently of political parties and their leadership/whip’s offices by a body with genuine powers to enforce the rules and take action against malefactors. It will be expensive, but surely worth every penny if it restores public faith in the parliamentary system by removing the clown show that we currently have to put up with.
If I may suggest.. “Against Eelections” by David van Reybrouck. It is a useful discussion on democrcy – as was (ancient greece) and as is. The problem is that apart from a vote every couple of years – most citizens/subjecst are not allowed any input into the political process. Thus do most politicos get a blank cheque that allows them/their party to do what it wants.
Debates on the subject (democracy & citizen participation) are noticeable by their absence – which is to be expected – after all – the current set up suits most politicos, who prefer to treat those commenting on this blog & elsewhere as, at best children.
Arguably, the rise of figures such as Trump is a reflection of an electorate, that is tired of being ignored & votes for something that will upset the system.
Accepted.
Voter disenfranchisement occurs because their very infrequent votes make no impact on policy,
leading to extreme candidates.
FPTP and the party system suit the politicos in their power grabs. The last thing they want is control by the people. It takes the all fun out of it, for them!
How many times have we heard a politician claim their policies are the will people?
They should get a vote on the specfic policy before claiming it is the will of people?
Easy to do in this electronic age.
You assume large numbers would vote
Look at by-elections. Your assumption is wrong.
And people do not vote on issues. They vote on sentiment. That is how we got Brexit.
Agreed Mike but the Trumps of this world are just another opportunistic iteration of what causes this in the first place – too much ‘back seat driver’ politics by rich and self interested actors in the back ground who use legal loop holes (America) or no constitution (the UK) to create their opportunities.
Again, I refer to Bernie Sanders on C4 news last night who openly referred to the ‘greed’ driving all this – compare that to a Labour party ‘intensely relaxed about people getting rich’ and cosying up to where greed lives in the UK – in the City of London. Compare that to what Starmer has had to say about all this. He hasn’t mentioned greed at all.
Because that is the status quo.
That’s his Daddy.
It is the money of the rich that is calling the shots at the moment, rich Christians, rich Jews, Muslims, men, women, atheists – you name it.
There is a petition about that, but they are on for six months by which time there should have been an election anyway.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/651503
Even the one asking for one on 2nd May has only got 544 signatures.
Moaning all.
Referendums, when allowed by, Parliament show significant numbers.
The brexitters did the that nazi thing of grabbing their 52/48 result. Calling it “The Will of people”. Even now. There should been another referendum, but no. It took two years(?) before that was declared illegal. Remember May’s smug, “Brexit means brexit” line.
Petitions.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/641904
“Call an immediate general election”
288,043 signatures
Closed by Parliament!
It had absolutely no MSM coverage! I wonder why?
If more people emailed on it now. The dishonorable few could be humiliated into reopening it.
Petitions are flawed in that you can only vote yes to the proposal.
Hence Email-votes where you can vote YES or NO.
And if an MP is not going to stand in the next GE. They should resign immediately, Not Cling on.
Regards
Scarlett, that petition was debated on 29th January, so it did get some coverage. Didn’t make the government change their minds, but Westminster debates rarely do.
No ‘Reply’ button on your last question, Richard: ‘Are you suggesting the SNP withdraw as Sinn Fein do’?
No, I am not, at least not just yet. But I think it will happen eventually. I do not think any government in Westminster will offer us another referendum, or any other mechanism to leave. The SNP’s lack of any strategy to achieve independence is painfully obvious. We have a functioning parliament that controls health, education, social services etc. in Edinburgh. Why are SNP MPs in Westminster, to be allowed a debate a couple of times a year on foreign or defence policy? How is that working out?
I am going to muse on this
Starmer at work again! Typical and entirely expected behaviour. Yuk!
Anyone watching Parliament TV?
Chaos in there.
Chris Bryant has said that if the government loses support for its foreign policy there should be an immediate general election.
Most tories and SNP walked out.
They are voting on whether they should sit in private now!!
A total farce…..
Channel 4 News:
Lisa Nandy has denied that any pressure was brought to bear on the Speaker.
She’s saying that the SNP motion was one sided and did not cover HAMAS.
As I understand it, it is not women, the elderly and children who attacked Israel last year but skilled HAMAS fighters.
What the hell is she talking about? The SNP motion was trying to stop the unwarranted killing and starving of children as Bernie Saunders – the most sensible voice on C4 news bless him pointed out – as well as other non-combatants.
Hearing Saunders speak, I went into a dream world where he was the Labour leader.
It was a wonderful thought – albeit too short.
So that’s democracy in the UK parliament.
What a corrupt and disgraceful show that was.
Tragically after eight years of Tory governments smirking as they lied and glorifying in their contempt for the truth the inability of Parliament to rise to the occasion was very predictable.
We appear to be spending billions on a complex plan to renew the physical fabric of Parliament, a small set of buildings in central London, so let us hope that the next government is prepared to put at least as much intellectual and financial effort into a plan to renew democracy throughout the UK.
https://skwawkbox.org/2024/02/21/commons-chaos-as-snp-tories-walk-out-over-hoyles-help-for-starmer-over-gaza/
For those who haven’t seen it yet. This is MPs walking out after Mordaunt said that the government were going to withdraw their amendment.
In constituency Labour Party meetings and in Union meetings I have attended amendments are always voted on before the main motion, which may then appear as amended if an amendment is passed.
However, it seems on opposition days in parliament this is not the custom and the snp motion would have normally been voted on first and if not passed then the Labour amendment and if that not passed the Tory one.
As the Tories have a majority and as Labour were whipped not to vote for the SNP motion it seems very unlikely that the SNP motion or even the Labour one could pass.
However it seems the proceedings were chaotic and uncontrolled which is very bad.
It is not trivial that the U.K. parliament takes a view as it helps influence Israel’s government and place our government’s view alongside other governments in the world.
The fact that we can only influence and not change Netanyahu’s actions easily is not the issue- we could try- that’s why many of us have been demonstrating support for Palestine as Gaza is bombed to bits by Israel.
If, as it appears, Starmer threatened Hoyle (with the loss of his job) then that needs investigating by the relevant Committee. Starmer’s actions, and Hoyle’s obvious weakness to pressure, has brought the House into disrepute.
Hoyle is clearly unfit to hold the Speaker’s position since he has clearly demonstrated that he’s susceptible to blackmail. He is no longer a trustworthy official and should resign immediately.
Additionally, Labour ought to give up 1 of its Opposition Days to the SNP to make up for the one Starmer hijacked for his own purpose i.e., to fend off an embarrassing rebellion by dozens of his own MPs who would have voted for the SNP’s unamended Motion on an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.
55 MPs so far signed a motion of no confidence in Hoyle.
How many should it take to get him to resign?