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?

MPs from all sides seem to be rallying round Hoyle. Well maybe not the SNP.

It’s not hard to find Starmer quote on it

"I simply urged to ensure that we have the broadest possible debate.’

If no confidence takes Hoyle out it’s due to Starmer

I think Hoyle will keep his job.

He did indeed say there was nothing wrong with the Government proroguing Parliament, even when it was ruled unlawful

He also thinks drinking skimmed milk is for liberals and full fat milk will nourish your inner Tory

I think to acknowledge that explicitly is an indictment of our democracy : that threats of violence, rather than being addressed by the police and justice system (which might involve addressing failings in lack of funding in them) can succeed in subverting our democratic processes

Can you provide links to those quotes?

Thanks to the PP who mentioned this.

While people die in Gaza, the UK parliament goes to war over the ceasefire | John Crace | The Guardian

https://x.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1760243914244563018?s=20

Ofcourse

Proroguiging Parliament
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jacob-reesmogg-government-did-nothing-wrong-by-proroguing-parliament-a4250271.html

Milk
https://twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1760243914244563018

I have no doubt to political nerds all this matters. My only question is exactly how much attention would either side in the Middle East pay to a resolution of the House of Commons however it was worded?

Helpful ink about proroguing Parliament here -

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/decision-of-the-supreme-court-on-the-prorogation-of-parliament/

It is impossible for us to conclude, on the evidence which has been put before us, that there was any reason – let alone a good reason – to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks, from 9th or 12th September until 14th October. We cannot speculate, in the absence of further evidence, upon what such reasons might have been. It follows that the decision was unlawful.’ [para. 61]

Say what you want about JRM but he has an almost encyclopaedic knowledge about ancient and fusty parliamentary processes! He’s also very far right of the party they say. If he’s satisfied he was impartial I think people should take heed.

Nothing wrong with lying to The Queen on the subject either, Mr Mogg?

But how would you fact check JRM's knowledge without your own being encyclopedic ? Which I'm sure most of ours isn't.

It’s been made the topic of the thread by people who ignore worse from Tories. That there is an issue/disagreement/split amongst Labour MPs (and supporters) over this is a factor, yes. But all the faux ‘Oo how terrible for a party to be split on an issue how will they ever govern without chaos’ posts from people ignoring Tory chaos are something else entirely.

Do you get how threads work?

The thread title shows what the topic is. If it’s not what you want to discuss why bother clicking it?

No one is forcing you

Oh ffs.
You just aren’t worth debating with.
Ignorant and stubborn in the face of facts.
And while yes, I’m a Labour supporter and yes, I think Starmer would make a pretty good PM (despite me disagreeing with him in some issues) what I actually want is for the PM not to be Tory anymore.

Do you even understand what I wrote? Because your reply makes no sense.

I mean I can’t personally but I’m guessing if he went around just making it up someone would have noticed. Although I do like the idea that he just says any old bunkum in a posh voice and no one is any the wiser!

I don't think Starmer has it in him to win this next election, despite it being handed to him on a plate.

He comes out, yet again, looking weak, indecisive and engulfed by ludicrous ideology.

It’s been made the topic of the thread.. because that’s what the thread is about not whatever you wrote

It’s like opening a thread on puppies and getting annoyed because it’s on puppies

No. T(e topic if the thread is not that Labour would be a shit government because they have a split in a foreign policy issue. It’s about why there was an issue last night. That was, in part, because of a Labour split being weaponised by the other parties. Which is what you (and others) are doing here. Suggesting this one split didn’t just help explain last night but means Labour would create chaos in government.
Stop pretending you don’t know what I’m saying or that it’s not immensely hypocritical to do what you are doing.

Haha at the last line

But yes Starmer was facing a large rebellion over the SNP vote

Do you think that wasn’t the case?

Saw a report about Tory MPs being instructed to take a 'long time' signing in and entering the chamber so others don't have time to vote. Said they were openly discussing it and laughing.

Apparently Sunak knew there were a large number of Tory rebels prepped to vote to support Labour's ceasefire call, which could have triggered a vote of no confidence. Hence the in-fighting, stalled entry shenanigans and slanging matches with the Speaker - they just wanted to mess the whole vote up, basically.

Not a day to be proud of for British politics.

Humour is wasted on some people.