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?

We obviously lost a war that no one bothered to tell us about.

It’s over - we’re finished. The only people who can restore order are too afraid of being beheaded to do so.

Thanks ismu. I'm still not sure why the SNP wasn't to be voted on and the Labour one potentially was. Was it because the SNP one was linked to the government one ?

It makes you wonder how many MPs are being blackmailed. Most, I bet.

From what I understand the original motion was from the SNP. By precedence the govt could have presented their amendment. Unusually labour also did that. LH was going to allow both amendments. But the Tories then the SNP flounced so nobody could vote.

Is that right?

No.

Helpful. Perhaps you could put your version then?

This in spades. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

My version would also be inaccurate. Other posters have explained much better than I can. Or try the BBC.

How the row over Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle unfolded - BBC News

Well the Tories flounced yes
The SNP didn't flounce or walk out.
The SNp put forward a motion . Labour put forward an amendment to that motion. Labours amendment practically ,(in view) reworded the whole SNP motion .
Labours amendment was seemingly voted in and therefore superceded the original motion . Which I understand , if and amendment is approved it changes the original proposition.
One of the things I don't understand is that I don't think there actually was a vote taken for the Labour amendment.
I think there was shouting and it was assumed it was accepted .
I read that somewhere but it might be wrong, hopefully someone will know.

I can't abide Thatcher but she'd never allow intimidation and threats to supersede parliament.

Margaret Thatcher (and her shadow cabinet/cabinet and their families) faced a lot worse than mere threats.

In view = in my view

https://www.gbnews.com/politics/mark-francois-praised-for-speech-in-the-commons

Mark Francois speech re the Speaker. Horror of horrors though...it's a GB News link!

It's because SNP put forward the original motion. Labour were suggesting a change to that motion ("amendment").

MPs are first invited to change the motion, then to pass whichever version becomes the final version.

Normally, this is a straight fight between the government and whichever opposition proposed it, but because Labour's amendment was also selected, it's possible (and in fact, the outcome) that the Labour amendment passed, so there was never going to be an opportunity for an SNP vs Government vote (even if the Gov hadn't pulled their amendment).

The sequence would be:

1. Vote on Labour amendment

1a) If the amendment passes, the motion changes to the Labour version; then

1. Vote on whether to pass that version (basically the same as vote 1).

If that passes, the Labour version carries.

Another possible outcome:

1. Vote on Labour amendment

1b) Labour amendment fails.

1. Vote on the original SNP version

If that passes, the SNP motion carries.

Another possible outcome:

1. Vote on Labour amendment

1b) Labour amendment fails

1. Vote on SNP motion

2b) SNP version fails.

1. Vote on government amendment

3a) If that passes, the government version carries.

Another possible outcome:

1. Labour version fails
2. SNP version fails
3. Government version fails

The motion fails.

Thanks for the BBC link. Think I get it now, Labour got the opportunity for a vote as it was an amendment to the SNP motion, and because the Labour amendment got through on the loud 'Ayes' a vote on the SNP motion wasn't then 'needed'.

Thanks BookwormDadUK, I get it now.

@BookwormDadUK has explained that much better than me @Violetparis ! Thank you.
I watched the "vote" and I really couldn't tell what was happening. I thought they were just protesting about the private session motion falling.
Westminster is ridiculous. They had electronic votes during covid, they should have kept them. Every other democratic process ensures a secret ballot and if MPs are worried about being identified by terrorists that's the simple solution.

No, I think for government transparency and accountability, people need to be able to see MPs’ voting records.

Oh look, there’s another hopelessly optimistic Tory. You’re an endangered species.

Yes. They were literally blown up. In Brighton, by the IRA.

John Major's Downing Street was attacked with mortars, in an attempt to assassinate them. Also by the IRA.

Now, imagine they had something with actual effect to agree to and vote on!
All this for a cease fire statement!
I cannot comprehend what is going through Starmer head regarding Israel- Gaza. He is making a great effort to present himself as a bully, unable to lead and utter chaos lover. Basically, the same same thing we already have with the tories.
I think, at this point, Labour should start looking into replacing him pronto. Or they will actually lose, as unbelievable as that is!

Interesting that you assume my voting habits. 🙄 You are wrong btw.

In my opinion it is. But disagree if you want to. Freedom of choice and all that.....

It was a perfectly reasonable and logical assumption. If not Tory definitely something right wing. I should have said that.

@noblegiraffe I think electronic votes are recorded and published, if you're keen to see them, but there's slightly more anonymity in the moment for MPs, which definitely reduces the risk of opportunistic attacks?

What? Who is finished? Who is going to behead anyone?