Let me summarise what I think happened in the House of Commons yesterday.
The SNP tabled an opposition day debate calling for a permanent ceasefire in Gazza. It is the second time that it has done this. The sentiments that it expressed, I very strongly suspect, reflect those of the vast majority of people in the UK, leaving all politics aside.
Labour's leadership, who had enjoyed many opportunities to table their own motions on this issue at almost any time they chose, were horrified at the prospect of this motion being put before the House because they knew that many of their own MPs would wish to back it unless Labour could offer an alternative motion.
The problem for Labour was that it is exceptional for the Speaker of the House of Commons to allow an opposition party, like Labour, to have a motion amending an opposition day motion from another party, like the SNP, debated in the House of Commons. The convention has always been that the opposition party proposing a motion has that motion debated and voted upon, and then, even if that motion is accepted, the government might then propose an amendment to that it, which basically lets the government neuter whatever the opposition party has proposed.
For reasons that are not clear but which are not to its credit, the government chose not to table an amendment to the SNP motion until the Labour Party had already done so. When it did, there was little difference between its motion and that from Labour. Both called for a ceasefire that imposed considerable conditions on the Palestinians whilst permitting the continued collective punishment of the civilian Palestinian population by Israeli forces for issues that were beyond their control, contrary to the requirements of international law.
For reasons that again are not clear, but which do appear to be very heavily related to intense lobbying from the Labour Party, Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons, decided soon after lunch yesterday that contrary to convention, the Labour Party motion amending the SNP motion would be debated by parliament, and voted upon.
Uproar then ensued for two reasons. First, this meant that the SNP motion would, inevitably, be replaced by the Labour motion before there was any chance for the SNP motion as tabled to be voted upon by the House of Commons. As a result, one of the rare opportunities that the SNP had to bring an issue before parliament was being totally taken over by Labour, which, unsurprisingly, the SNP found unacceptable.
There were also complaints from Conservative benches. Some were from the Tory MPs who actually wished to vote for the SNP motion. There may not have been many of them, but they existed, including Paul Bristow, the MP for Peterborough. They were not happy.
There was, however, another reason why the Tories panicked. Their whips realised that the government's own motion was so close to Labour's that it was highly likely That Tory MP would not vote down the Labour motion and replace it with the government's, granting Labour a victory on an SNP opposition day motion, which, which was the last thing that government whips wanted. This, it would seem, was the true reason why the leader of the House of Commons, Penny Mordaunt, withdrew the government motion shortly after 6 pm last night. She did not wish the government to suffer the ignominy of losing on a vote.
However, this disruption from the government simply heightened tension in the Commons, leading to an exceptional resolution being tabled moving that the House move into private session. There was no serious chance of this happening. It was tabled as a protest as tempers got heated.
Worse still though, when that motion was inevitably lost, the deputy speaker of the House of Commons, Rosie Winterton MP (who is, I should add, a Labour MP) then asked from the chair if there were any objections to the Labour amendment to the SNP motion, and declared that she heard none, and therefore declared it passed, unanimously by the House. She then moved immediately on to ask if there were then any objections to the revised SNP motion, which was now the Labour motion, being approved by the House. She again claimed that she heard no such objections, although the House was in tumult at this point, in anger at what had gone on beforehand. It would have been entirely reasonable to presume that such noise represented an objection to the motion being carried and that a vote was being called for, but she inexplicably declared the now Labour motion passed as well.
In all this, it has to be noted that the plight of the people of Gazza was terribly overlooked.
Labour, meanwhile, is now claiming that the SNP motion was only tabled to embarrass them. That is absurd. Of course the SNP tabled a motion that Labour did not like. As an opposition party in their own right, they are perfectly entitled to disagree with Labour and present motions that it does not support. It is ludicrous that Labour object to that when that is precisely what the SNP is in parliament to do, and what those who vote for it expect. Nothing that Labour has said on this issue is edifying in any way, nor was its motion, as I have made clear in previous comments on this blog.
Nor was anything that the government did yesterday edifying in any way. If anyone played politics, they did, and it was their panic when they realised that they had completely misunderstood the sentiments of their own members that led to the chaos that erupted in the House of Commons at around 7 pm last night. They might be angry with the Speaker, but if they are, it is only because his actions revealed their own inability to manage this situation properly. If they had tabled their motion before Labour did, there is little doubt that Labour's motion would never have been called.
Then there are the actions of the Speaker to consider. His own senior advisor, the clerk of the House of Commons, wrote to him to point out the folly of his decision very soon after he had made it. Lindsay Hoyle stuck with that decision. He got it very wrong, and admitted so after the votes, looking to be close to tears in the House when doing so. I have long felt him to be utterly incompetent. Just watch Prime Minister's Question Time and the number of stupid comments he has made suggesting that he will send members to the tea room to calm down, which has never, in fact, done, and his weakness is readily apparent. It was all too clear yesterday.
Hoyle disappearance from the house during the debate, leaving Rosie Winterton to take the flak, is also exceptionally hard to understand.
But then, so too, is her decision to force through the Labour amendment to the SNP motion whilst claiming that no one had opposed it when that suggestion is completely ludicrous.
Calls for Lindsey Hoyle to resign are clearly appropriate.
Rosie Winterton also needs to be sacked as a deputy speaker: her actions last night were disgraceful.
It should be no surprise to anyone that the government was unable to manage this situation. It seems incapable of managing anything, anymore.
As readers of my comments in the National newspaper in Scotland will know, I am not the biggest fan of the SNP. They have their merits, but also many faults, but whatever Labour likes to say about them and their actions yesterday, they acted wholly within their rights to present what I think was a genuine and honest statement of their desire to the House of Commons, seeking that it be voted upon, as was there right.
That, then, leaves the actions of Labour to be considered. Their denial that there was lobbying before Lindsay Hoyle made his decision is absurd. It would be extraordinary if they had not lobbied him. Lindsay Hoyle said that he had not met with Sue Gray, Labour chief executive, but he did not deny meeting anyone else from Labour. I am sure that he did, and that undue pressure was brought to bear on him.
The impression that is left is of a Labour Party willing to bully in pursuit of its aims, and willing to demand changes to democratic conventions to achieve that goal to save itself the embarrassment of having many of its members support an SNP motion that clearly matched their own mood on the subject of Gaza. If anyone failed to understand the need of the day, and to appreciate the appropriate way in which this matter should have been discussed, it was the Labour leadership. It was them who played politics on an issue of ethical concern.
I have had increasing doubts about the Labour leadership's attitudes over the last two years. After the debacle of last night, it is hard to see them as anything but grubby power-grabbers intent on achieving their personal goal of office irrespective of who is harmed as a consequence.
What we can say is one thing. We have been put on notice of what a Labour Party government will look like when in office. It is not a welcome prospect.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Labour can offer no good reason for seeking an amendment to the simple SNP motion for the House to vote for an immediate ceasefire if they genuinely seek to prevent Israel committing genocide. Starmer knows that backing this motion would send an unequivocal signal to the United States government to pursue an immediate ceasefire. This signal was especially needed because in a recent UN Security Council meeting the USA voted against an immediate ceasefire resolution and Britain abstained. Starmer by pushing his amendment with its qualifications affecting the chance of an immediate ceasefire unqualifyingly and finally reveals himself to be a lickspittle politician with no conscience!
I am going to ask for forgiveness before I post here on this topic. And also remind you that I class myself as a ‘progressive’ – I’m no fan of Trump etc.
I think what bothers me more is what the aims and objectives of yesterday’s debacle was all about – not the way it was done. Yesterday achieved it seems nothing and that will greatly please those not in the chamber and maybe even residing elsewhere (the Israeli capital?). It also means that MPs can say to their Muslim or pro-Palestine voters ‘It wasn’t me guv’.
If yesterday’s debacle had resulted in something that I approved of, then all the shenanigans might have been worth it.
If Labour prorogued parliament to get green policies underway, increase taxes on the rich or banned private party funding, reform companies house – so what? It would make a refreshing change.
But no, un-democracy can only be used to tip us into the abyss – not lead us to a better world apparently. Hmmm…..
You cannot reason with unreason – especially an unreason that has been allowed to grow this last 40-50 years on the promise of ‘trickle down’. For it is truly tumescent as it is now.
We have to roll up our sleeves and meet it head on, like for like. That’s the only way in my view.
Labour have been stabbed in the back before by the rich after having arrived at some sort of cod ‘understanding’ with capital; and they’ll be stabbed in the back again.
Greed is form of extremism. You could not argue with the Nazi’s; you could not argue with Islamic State.
And English democracy is just for show isn’t it? I mean its so ephemeral at the end of the day. So, we can make our rules up like ‘they’ do or just use their rules. Our state basically encourages the hoarding of money at one end of the social strata and too little to no money at the other end where most of the people are.
Is that democracy? Does it actually exist?
I offer this for consideration only in picking things apart to start again.
Agree with all the points. We do not have a democracy. We have a system that, mostly, ensures that only the “right” people get elected. Obvs there are exceptions but most of the time, you end up with “safe pairs of hands”. Which leaves the open question: what is to be done?
The Gaza vote farce shows that “parliament” as currently constituted cannot respresent the will of the people.
“You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately … In the name of God, go!”
You may not like Cromwell, the man or his actions – but the words certainly apply now – & not just to the tories but to LINO as well. Most of them are as best follow-my-leader regardless of who that is – in the hope that one day “we will win and I will get a ministerial position , limmo and evetually lots of money in private industry.” One is reminded of the world’s oldest profession .
PSR said:
“Yesterday achieved it seems nothing and that will greatly please those not in the chamber and maybe even residing elsewhere (the Israeli capital?).”
I confess that a similar thought had floated through my mind – “orchestrated” was the word that suggested itself, though I suspect that might be getting into conspiracy theory territory. But certainly, nobody with real power and influence has been inconvenienced by what happened, because in the end, nothing did happen.
With a number of quite senior Labour MPs in receipt of significant donations from pro-Israel groups and individuals (such as LFoI amongst others) they would have been left in something of an unpleasant quandry as to how to vote – had Hoyle an iota of backbone and refused to capitulate.
Thanks Richard; a neat (and impressively concise) summation; given the arcana involved.
I hope it linked to frequently, I predict a lot of nonsense will be spouted across the web today.
Yes, many thanks Richard. This seems to me to be a far better account than that in the Guardian, which barely mentions the government’s role in the debacle. An unnamed Labour MP in quoted as saying that Starmer’s authority has been enhanced by this episode. Maybe I suppose, if you are a spineless backbencher, but what about the voters?
I have long thought that Lindsay Hoyle was a waste of space, but am disappointed by David Lammy who had previously seemed to me to be a man of integrity.
Thank you, Sue.
David Lammy! Are you sure?
I gave up on Lammy some time ago. After having dinner with him, to be honest.
You may be right in your criticism of Winterton choosing not to have a vote but this could ultimately be a good thing as it prevents Labour MPs from being able to use it as cover in the event of a vote on an actual ceasefire. At the very least the SNP should be allowed to have their unamended motion voted on. If that happens, or if there is some other vote on an actual ceasefire, then if Labour MPs had been able to vote last night they could abstain on the actual ceasefire vote and claim that they had already voted for a ceasefire with the Labour amendment. However, now they won’t be able to do that. Now, if they abstained on such a vote they would not be able to claim they had already voted for a ceasefire.
The Tories and SNP may not have realised it at the time but walking out made tactical sense. Labour certainly didn’t realise this, because if they did they would have had someone shout an objection, forcing a vote, so they could get their cover.
At the very least, even if another vote on a ceasefire doesn’t take place, those Labour MPs who abstained on the last ceasefire vote won’t be able to use this as cover to pretend they have voted for a ceasefire because they never actually voted on it.
SNP didn’t walk out. They went to the “Aye” lobby expecting to vote for an immediate ceasefire.
See Joanna Cherry’s account (& others’ comments) on X:
“So, @theSNP MPs disgusted by what appears to have been Labour’s nobbling of the Speaker walked out to occupy the Aye lobby poised to vote for a #CeaseFire. Then a Tory moved for House to sit in private. We’re abstaining as we believe in open democracy.”
Labour’s unseemly animosity to the SNP has been an unedifying sight for quite a while. Arguably it even contributed to the Tories’ ability to push through Brexit: recall Labour’s refusal to support Joanna Cherry’s SNP motion in 2019… https://www.thenational.scot/news/17543220.labour-whip-support-brexit-motions-except-joanna-cherrys/
Starmer was shadow Brexit secretary at the time.
There is now a huge effort being made to blame the SNP for the debacle; and an attempt to hide the activities of the Labour Party. The careless lack public knowledge about the working of Parliament, and the casually dismissive attitude toward Standing Orders is simply a dreadful display of lazy public ignorance. That is itself an indictment of Britain; notably the education curriculum.
The SNP motion reflected a general opinion about Palestine in Scotland, including I suspect Scottish Labour opinion. The Speaker’s decisions, against Standing Orders and the Clerk’s technical advice led to the Labour Party effectively taking over the debate and turning it into an Official Opposition debate, led by David Lammy into a private discussion between Government and Opposition, with the SNP effectively excluded from its own debate (on of the few it can choose). The Labour Party could have had its own debate, with more choice of days to select from than the SNP. They didn’t take that opportunity when it could count, because Starmer needs the Press to tell him what policy to approve.
The SNP were deprived of the ability to vote for their own motion, on their debate day; an outcome that the Clerk had implicitly warned the Speaker could happen because of his impetuous decision. The disgraceful Penny Mordaunt delivered the coup de grâce to the SNP by pulling the Conservative motion.
What does this tell us. Parliament has failed. Again. It is a now a political anachronism., not fit for the 21st century. Critically, and more immediately; yesterday reminded us that there is simply no honourable place left for Scotland in this Union. The debate was a calculated exclusion of Scotland’s elected voice. That is the simple fact.
We are also being told that the Speaker was right to overturn Standing Orders in the middle of a debate, because of the threats to MPs. Such threats are appalling and totally unacceptable; but where does that leave Parliament? Where does that take us?
Threats are obviously unacceptable.
But should we allow parliamentary democracy to be threatened so that Labour can support the collective punishment of Palestiniian people?
Clearly not. I understand Hoyle’s anguish, but we can’t have threats determining what people say in Parliament, or how they vote. If so, we are back in the seventeenth century.
I should say, I think Stephen Flynn’s position is understandable, and effective; but while I think his point has been well made, in pursuing the Speaker to a vote, he is probably now in danger of overplaying his hand. Hoyle erred, and acknowledges it. The wise move here is conciliation; but then, I am no supporter of the SNP (I systematically distrust all political parties).
Flynn is allowing himself to be deflected from the core of the problem – Starmer; whose explanation this morning, for a skilled barrister looks extremely wobbly. Examine Starmer’s clrealy carefully chosen words, and deconstruct what they do not capture.
I might add, I am a little surprised about the media (even media I have had time for), that seems to be trying to spin this as the SNP politicising the vote, and being cynical. This was the SNP’s motion day. It was what they wanted to say, in their chosen language. This is being dismissed as unusable politics, and cynical; yet the reason the day descended into chaos was because it was not expected, following Standing Orders, that the Speaker would allow the Labour amendment to stand. It is not as if the Labour Party have not have had much more opportunity to bring forward their own motion, on an Opposition day. They have had months to fix this.
The Speaker choosing to follow the rules (and not discard the entitlement of the third Party for the Official Opposition) would have meant it was likely many Labour MPs would vote with their conscience, and for the SNP motion. Even some Conservative MPs may have voted for the SNP motion; so, the SNP motion was , clearly not that unusable: but it was unusable for the established Conservative-Labour political cartel, which clearly determines what British policy will be, by any means, whatever anyone thinks; and even who will have a vote, or even be heard. The SNP motion may well have been defeated, but those electors who thought the SNP’s motion alone actually represented their views would at least have seen their opinion expressed, and voted on in Parliament; rather than brushed aside as waste material.
I completely agree.
The letter from the CEO of the Post Office, Nick Read to the Government, mentioned by the ex-Chairman of the PO, Henry Staunton. Read argues that the PO would seek to oppose 369 convictions (I think perhaps half the convictions). This is extraordinary.
The core problem is instantly revealed. How on earth can you both defend the prosecutions and convictions; and at the same manage, oversee and supervise the whole compensation process? This is a conflict of interest.
The Government shoul not have left the Post Office in charge of compensation. The reason it has done so is to deflect attention from the real responsible body, and ultimately, the culprit; Government and Parliament. The Post Office is nothing more than a tethered scapegoat. There is a scandal, all by itself – shining like a beacon.
I was watching this unfold and one of the things that really struck me was how illogical and nonsensical our whole governmental processes are. I assume there are good reasons for having the various processes for debate and motions being as they are, or at least that they seemed good at the time.
But when you decide that one party gets to direct the topic of debate, but you can overrule that at any time to neuter their discussion; when you have a prevailing attitude that jeering is an appropriate response during a debate and derail and delay it; when you have a speaker that has to follow rules, but can “innovate” whenever they please; when you have a speaker that comes to apologise, but only when it is too late to actually hear grievances and revert poor decisions; when you have to clear a whole room to vote, or even resort to asking people to yell loudly, in an age where recording a members public vote can be done at the push of a button…
At what point do you admit that the entire thing is a pantomime farce? These houses and the members within are in charge of the whole country. And in cases like this may vote on issues which could affect people far beyond our own borders. It’s embarrassing.
Thanks for the write-up, this helps to try and make sense of some of what happened.
“The impression that is left is of a Labour Party willing to bully in pursuit of its aims, and willing to demand changes to democratic conventions to achieve that goal to save itself the embarrassment of having many of its members support an SNP motion that clearly matched their own mood on the subject of Gaza.”
Well, they’ve copied the present government in many other respects, economics included. So perhaps they feel they ought to ape them in this respect as well.
The politics of foreign policy and treaties possesses a distinctive constitutional character; watching this unravelling of procedure in the House of Commons unfold, i had an unsettling sense of an offstage presence of the State, that in the presiding chaos was almost unintentionally, publicly revealed (but not quite); the operation of what is, in the old-fashioned terminology, referred to as ‘Crown Prerogative’; a State operation of policy outside the trifling scope of mere debate, and ensuring a seamless continuity in (for example) foreign policy, no matter the mere inclinations or consciences of politicians.
This is from
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/09/un-court-has-ruled-on-gaza-genocide-case-heres-what-happens-now.html
and I read this “The ICJ has ordered Israel to submit a report this month describing how it’s complying with the court’s orders and to keep evidence of any acts of genocide.” It must be due this Friday. A month after the ruling. It is obvious Israel has made no attempt to comply with the ruling.
As I see it, there is an issue if our govt. -and others- do not back any further judgement from the ICJ . I haven’t seen anyone discuss what the UK should do if it pronounces against Israel.
As a signatory to the 1948 Genocide Convention, the UK carries a responsibility to prevent acts of genocide, wherever they occur. In fact, the UK, along with US, is aiding and abetting genocide, by continuing to supply arms and other help to Israel.
The political manoeuvres to avoid any kind of denunciation of Israel’s actions, both by the UK government and the leader of His Majesty’s Opposition is, in my opinion, grounds for them to be arraigned before the ICC for war crimes.
This did not happen to Blair after Iraq, and I don’t suppose it will happen this time either. I’m ashamed to be British and can’t wait for Scotland, where I live, to be independent. The Scottish Parliament called for a ceasefire back in November 2023.
Blair is pulling the strings, and has been for a long time.
I also live in Scotland and am impatient to be rid of Westminster. My main argument for independence has long been that Westminster is corrupt, undemocratic and not fit for purpose. There is more and more evidence of this every day. Moreover, Scottish independence would be a good thing for England as they would be forced to sort out their constitutional mess.
Might take a while though.
Richard
If you’ve had dinner with Lammy (or is it ‘Lemme (make lots of money)?’, then I hope you didn’t pay.
It was at a person’s home.
We were the invited guests.
Late to this thread today, but there is one point that surely needs to be remembered above all in relation to the facts of yesterday’s events in the Commons. It is this. The only reason that the House has ever debated the ending of the Gaza ‘war’ is that the SNP has – alone – insisted on raising the need for a ceasefire. There would have been NO debate yesterday – NOR in November – without the SNP scheduling one.
Labour tribalist apologists – like a shamelessly amnesiac Polly Toynbee in today’s Grauniad – should reflect on that and own up to who has really been playing games, while Gaza burned and Israel slid into increasing insecurity.
I do wonder just how much of this ugly parliamentary man playing was a choreographed attempt by both Labour and Conservatives to create a story which places the SNP (and by extension all Scots calling for independence) as troublemakers in the minds of the largely ill informed British public. I suspect we shall be witnessing more deceit and bullying from both parties regarding Scottish politicians as the call for Scottish independence strengthens and threatens the British ruling class desire to keep Scotland in the Union.
Congratulations on the well written piece. If there is a rule, written or otherwise, that a comment should not exceed in length the original post then I failed miserably, so this is the edited version.
The crux of the first draft was to express my frustration at Westminster’s continued inability to resolve so many pressing domestic issues whilst still believing that Parliament has a role to play in overseas politics, especially after the Iraqi war experience, and at the same time as we see scandal pile upon mismanagement upon injustice. Horizon IT, Windrush, Covid-19 procurement, WASPI, Grenfell Tower, Factor 8, most of which were sown, tended and harvested by Westminster. Don’t they have enough to fix?
The principle of recognizing spheres of control, influence and concern and adapting behaviours and actions accordingly is sadly lacking amongst our posturing political schemers. If there is a role for Britain to play in stopping the slaughter in Gaza then I suspect it will be done with private diplomacy not public debate.
However well intentioned, the allocation of time in the UK Parliament to debate world events increasingly looks like it contributes to solving the world’s issues in the same way that playing board games on the last day of school contributes to children’s exam results.
Surely it is time to rethink how we govern the UK? Whilst something worth governing remains.