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?

Maria Caulfield was on R4 this morning saying that Hoyle’s decision to allow the Labour amendment put Conservative safety at risk because they then would be the only ones not voting for an immediate ceasefire.

So the safety implications of the vote were concerning Tories too. This is a massive threat to democracy.

There will have been many threats from different sources motivated by different causes against different MPs.

We don’t change Parliamentary procedure because of that.

Of course. The gov will have threats

You can’t change the process due to it

Yes. All the more reason not to subvert democracy and proper process because of it.

So has the Leader of the Green party. And Starmer's wife is Jewish. And the Tory Party have been happy to collude with Netanyahu and selling arms to Israel for decades. Every single politician is a human being, with a family, a past, etc. They are not robots.

I think this should force the issue that it is clearly not being dealt with effectively.

MPs should not be fearing for their personal safety based on votes (or for any other reason but this is the pertinent one right now).

Well the SNP should be able to focus on Gaza just the same as the UK parliament or the French one, the US one etc. So that's not a problem.
But they are also focussing on external to Scotland matters as it's such a howling mess up here (prev Scottish leaders all under questioning by Police for possibly stealing Party Funds plus the mess of Coivd whatsapp msgs missing, plummeting educational standards, devolved NHS disaster, more Police issues..)

Cue the SNP howling about 'Westmonster' not listening to them etc etc etc.

Certainly it was unedifying all around.

An agreed call for 'a humanitarian ceasefire' is probably the best solution.
But its an echo chamber: it won't make any difference at all to the situation in Palestine / Isreal where so many are suffering on both 'sides'.

Agree. And the main motivation for Starmer was to avoid a rebellion

You can't just give in to the mob

Say what you like about Thatcher but she would never give in to threats and intimidation.

Come off it, not a single person in Labour’s ranks is a Hamas supporter. Nor is antisemitism alive and well in the Labour Party. Such utter pigswill

All this hoo ha, posturing while Hamas causing issues in the red sea, Ukraine seemingly out of fashion. Israel is a Goliath compared to Palestine. Hamas puppets for Iran. America has taken their ball home, going their own way.

What a mess all round

That’s a matter for looking at policing, intelligence gathering, prosecution, sentencing, and public order and public assembly laws.

It is not a reason for hiding Starmer’s embarrassment at significant numbers of antisemites on the Labour benches who could not be stopped from voting for a motion that unequivocally condemned Israel, including by omitting any recognition of Israel’s right to defend itself.

Why the pressure from Labour for unprecedented breaking of Parliamentary convention then? Why would Labour MPs rebel against a whip that they abstain from the SNP motion?

Of course the party’s got a problem with antisemitism and support for anything anti-Israeli, including appalling violence. It’s fucking obvious.

If we are going to assume that Hoyle picked the amendment for the worst possible reason (because Labour wanted to avoid a revolt) and not because, as he said, he was concerned for the safety of MPs then perhaps we should also assume the worst reason for the Conservatives walking out - because they were concerned that their own MPs would rebel and vote with Labour for a full ceasefire and not, as stated, because they were concerned about the SNP not getting their motion voted on properly.

Of course it was for Starmer to avoid a revolt. It was a huge problem for him

If safety is an issue expect pre vote meetings with the speaker every time because all MPs are subject to threats

May as well hand over the keys to mob rule

If Hoyle goes, and the number of no confidence letters will mean it happens, Starmer is the cause

That's one version of events. I've heard others.

No point in arguing with you when you clearly believe this nonsense. But you bend the very grave issue of antisemitism out of all meaning when you attempt to use it to prevent criticism of the actions of this Israeli government and you know it. Cynical and dangerous.

You didn’t answer the question about Labour MPs rebelling against abstention. Why not?

Because I’m not going to get anywhere arguing with someone who uses islamophobic and racist phrases such as ‘crazed islamists ‘ to make their argument. Beneath contempt.

If anyone is actually interested in the difference in wording between the motions they are linked to within this -

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-the-lindsay-hoyle-gaza-ceasefire-vote-row-between-snp-conservatives-and-labour-explained

the Labour amendment to the SNP motion which, as well as describing the “loss of Palestinian life” as “intolerable”, calls for an “immediate stop to the fighting and a ceasefire” that “lasts and is observed by all sides”.

The Labour wording spells out explicitly a concern that some commentators sympathetic to Israel have raised in response to pro-Palestinian activists demanding a ceasefire. The Labour motion “not[es] that Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence and that Israelis have the right to the assurance that the horror of 7 October 2023 cannot happen again”.

Sorry? Who’s making these alleged threats then?

That's confidential information for intelligence services and police obviously

You have no idea who might have been making death threats to Labour MPs about support for Israel? You think that’s a mystery?

I am being naive I think...

SNP's motion called for an immediate ceasefire and stopped one step shy of accusing Israel of war crimes by using the term 'collective punishment'? They may or may not have done this to trigger Labour to have to vote FOR something that seems to criticise Israel, thus falling into the anti-semetic question or AGAINST a ceasefire which may appear to the casual observer like they support the violence?

Starmer didn't want his MPs voting on that - why not? Because he thought they would for FOR it and that would make them seem anti-semetic by voting for something that appears to criticise Israel?

So Labour put forward an amendment that called for an immediate ceasefire but recognised that could only take place if both sides ceased and that Israel could not be expected to cease if Hamas didn't. He did this so that his MPs could vote for a ceasefire but with wording he felt was 'safer'. Is that right?

The Tories then put forward an amendment that called for a ceasefire but recognised that Israel has the right to defend itself and get their hostages back, which may require further military action. Why did they do that? Did they want a motion that was worded a bit more kindly to Israel or did they just not want MPs voting for opposition motions so needed one of their own?