What happened in the House of Commons tonight?

[Bookridden]

I'm struggling to understand what is going on and would be grateful is someone can explain to me in simple terms.

Why were Labour worried about the safety of MPs?

Why were the SNP unhappy?

Why were the Tories unhappy?

What's likely to happen next?

Are MPs who don't take a Pro-Palestinian stance really putting their lives at risk?

I'm seeing similar on twitter but struggling to work out what has happened

Not listened to this yet but newscast is super clear and helpful for this sort of thing usually:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0hd9g51?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

I'll listen now and update in the morning if someone hasn't answered by then!

From the beeb:

2421:24
In summary... what happened today in the Commons
We are preparing to close this live page, so let's try to unpick what happened today, and what it actually means.
What's the one clear takeaway?
Labour's call for an "immediate humanitarian ceasefire" in Gaza was approved.
What was supposed to happen today?
It was opposition day, when opposition parties can set the agenda in the Commons. It was the Scottish National Party's turn today, and they wanted the Commons to vote to demand an "immediate ceasefire" in Gaza.
The governing Conservatives put through an amendment, and so did Labour. Opposition parties very, very rarely get to amend other opposition parties' propositions.
So why all the chaos?
Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle accepted both - breaking with established precedent and sending the House into meltdown. Tory and SNP MPs walked out. That left only the Labour amendment standing.
Hoyle apologised, but several MPs called for his resignation.
What, ultimately, does the proposition passed today mean?
It does add to calls for a ceasefire in Gaza, but ultimately neither Hamas nor Israel will pay it any attention.

The speaker should have picked only the government amendment due to convention, literally only the government amendment. If he did so, labour mps would have revolted against starmer.

So he picked the labour amendment too. Which meant no revolt for starmer.

the speaker should not be trying to aid one side and should be unbiased. It is rumoured he met with labour leaders before hand. And that they threatened to get him out of position if he didn’t, the speaker should not bow to threats.

the snp amendment wasn’t picked.

it’s very clear he tried to sway it for starmer. His own advisors told him he could not do it, but he did.

All because starmer didn’t wish the public to see his mps revolt against him and understand the parties signficant turmoil

the speaker. Sir Lesley will likely loose his position. He cannot bow down to threats from any party.

An accurate summary.

Expect more of this chaos if you choose to make Starmer PM.

So why would Hoyle bow to this pressure? Why did he believe it was a matter of MP's safety?

Also, why would the SNP be focused on the conflict in Gaza (which the government here can't affect) rather than stuff going on in Scotland?

Because they wanted to make life difficult for Starmer to deflect from their own problems.

I explained it above, the rumour is labour threatened to have him removed from his position. Lose his job.

the safety thing is a red herring.

What?

The SNP wanted to make life difficult for Starmer to deflect from their own problems. Why they thought they needed to do that who knows, Starmer is so dull light avoids him.

This government has no respect for parliamentary convention, as demonstrated several times during the past miserable 13½ years. They now have no right to complain about others defying convention while observing the rule.

There does seem to be suggestions that Labour MPs were raising fears re their safety and so the Labour amendment was needed. Hoyle went against convention to make that happen.

Hoyle will probably lose his position as speaker and its very concerning if the reports re MPs safety are true.

im not sure if you’ve misunderstood what’s happened? Hoyle should only have picked the government amendment for the vote. He picked the labour one too, thus preventing the labour mps revolt against starmer.

they think labour leaders threatened him with loss of job if he didn’t.

they walked out because Hoyle picked the labour amendment against convention to enable starmer not to have a revolt on his hands.

Can you link to this? Because that’s not what I am reading or witnessed.

I watched it unfold. The 'vote' was a shambles..it was really unclear that it was 'the vote' ....there will not be a record of how MPs voted. Hoyle left the Deputy to sort it out then came out with crocodile tears. It was the snps day( opposition day) I have no idea what the heck Hoyle was thinking.....Labour are not going to come out of this well either I don't think. We have had over a decade of Tory hideousness but I have a feeling that with the help of the Media and Labour itself that Labour is not guaranteed a win in the election.

SNP added 'collective punishment' Labour did not have that in theirs.

I haven't misunderstood.

Are you a die hard labour supporter who can’t accept what happened and trying to mitigate? I can’t work out why you’re writing what you’re writing.

@Lampslights has explained well

https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1760306065634124018

On the matter on pressure on Speaker. Am told that many MPs made a personal pleas to Sir Lindsay about amendments. MPs' have growing concerns for personal safety after incidents of confrontations & protests over the Israel-Hamas war.

Because it is what we saw happening.

The SNP put down two motions deliberately designed to make Starmer's life difficult. They are now upset that they got ambushed in the process.

I guess it is an acknowledgement of what we all know about who the next Prime Minsiter will be that the SNP didn't use the opposition day to further their own policies or attack the governments as would be more normal.

My understanding is that Labour were going to be whipped to abstain on the SNP motion because of concern of the wording and there were serious concerns that this would then risk their personal safety because a mob who have already trashed MPs offices and issued death threats would be whipped up against them as 'not having voted for a ceasefire'.

Having the Labour amendment put forward as well meant that everyone would have a ceasefire motion that they were able to vote for.

Isn’t there also the situation that the Tories didn’t want the Labour amendment to be successful, so are outraged that the Labour amendment was selected. They also delayed returning to the Chamber for the vote, resulting in more chaos. Tories also ‘politic-ing’.

Jess Philip’s tweeted about it.

Chris Bryant has has a decent thread unrolled on X too.

Not sure what I'm missing but how does allowing the Labour amendment stop a revolt for Starmer from his own mps?

Also heard this on Andrew Marr.