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?

Lamplights summary seems about right to me.

If it turns out that Hoyle did his previous party a massive favour he’ll have to go.

If it turns out that Labour MPs were threatening to oust Hoyle as speaker (in the almost certain event of a Labour win at the GE) he’ll have to go.

If if turns out that Labour MPs were saying that parliamentary process had to be abandoned because they were being threatened, they should all resign.

(What’s so unbelievable about threats to Labour MPs is that the threats could only have been on the basis that the MPs weren’t being critical enough of Israel. So why diluting the SNP’s condemnation of the gov position would stave off threats god only knows. If true, the only beneficiary was Starmer, who avoided a revolt with some weasel words in the amendment.)

This is the smelliest thing that’s happened in parliament for decades.

Because Labour were going to be whipped to abstain on the SNP motion but they may have voted for it anyway in order to vote for a ceasefire. Given a Labour motion for a ceasefire, they'd be able to abstain from the SNP one and vote for the Labour one.

If if turns out that Labour MPs were saying that parliamentary process had to be abandoned because they were being threatened, they should all resign.

It wasn't parliamentary process being abandoned, merely convention not being observed.

But that’s not why the tories walked out. It’s a red herring. Normal politics.

Many thanks.

Thanks, that to be seems a ploy to get their amendment picked so there wasn’t a revolt. It was a ceasefire which ever way you cut it.

That is the same thing. Parliament makes its own rules. They are non-justiciable as being Parliament’s own procedure, not the enactment of law.

Having sat and listened to the news this is my takeaway too.

I certainly think it's possible if not probable that there was significant pressure on Hoyle to do this. That doesn't necessarily show anyone in a good light but this is an complex and emotive issue.

I also think opposition days are designed for two party politics: if we only had two parties then they would both have had their say. It's only because we're shifting towards a more pluralistic arrangement that this situation even exists. I don't think hearing more amendments is a bad thing and I don't see why the conservatives needed to refuse to vote.

Agree, and it seems like Hoyle was indeed put under a lot of pressure by labour to pick their amendment, so there wasn’t a revolt.

Do you think, in the light of MPs murdered in recent years and the death threats and attacks, that the personal safety concerns weren't valid?

the snp amendment wasn’t picked.

It was the SNP's motion that labour's amendment applied to. There was no SNP amendment.

Labour's amendment being voted through meant that there was no vote on the SNP motion, because when there is just one amendment (as in this case) a vote for the amendment is considered a vote for the amended motion as a whole, so they don't bother voting for the motion if the amendment passes.

I suspect they were bogus. And if they weren’t, this is a wholly unjustifiable way of addressing them.

So I'm not sure how the conservative moron was worded but the SNP one didn't condemn Hamas in the motion itself and said that Israel was collectively punishing Palestinians. That is a war crime so voting for it is indirectly accusing Israel of a war crime. Labour leadership feel as they'll have to work with Israel they need to not accuse them of war crimes, but do wish to be able to call for a ceasefire.

Sir Lindsay, not Sir Lesley, chose to push both major party's preferred agenda rather than the SNP one even though under convention it was their turn to at least have their opinion voted on.

So, at this point the Speaker isn't impartial and no fucker politician or party is following protocol. Great.

Given that MPs have actually been murdered, why do you think any death threats are bogus?

So bad

I listened earlier. I couldn’t believe it

Starmer just comes across like he has no control over his party. He needs to get a grip, they'll be in power soon. He looks like a wet wipe flip flopper with no principles at the moment. Not great, only projected to win because the tories are in an even worse state.

I'm the OP. I'm still struggling to understand:

Why aren't all the parties now focused on what is going on here?

Is there a threat to Labour MPs who don't adopt a specifically pro-Palestinian position?

Why can't all parties agree on a humanitarian ceasefire that prioritizes getting aid in whilst avoiding calling anyone a war criminal art the moment?

The pro Palestine mobs are ridiculously out of hand. No MP should be in fear of their safety.

The SNP knowing they will never be in government and so will never have any responsibilities can put in the bit about war crimes knowing it will cause problems for Labour.

Assuming the warnings of threats were made - they may not have been - why should I understand the warnings to be true?

But assuming they were made and are true, why should parliament change its procedures? This would be a job for the police and security services, not procedural shenanigans that benefits a particular party.

Is there any suggestion that Tories have been threatened? Their party supports Israel.

From what I understand, all three votes could have happened, but the Tories caused chaos so that this didn’t happen. It’s not without precedence to have an opposition amendment.

I agree with another poster that the wording and premise of the original motion was designed to exploit the split in the labour position but I don't understand your comment about why the SNP would even raise it?

Surely by that logic the Conservatives and Labour would have no reason to discuss Gaza/Israeli activity either?

Why would the SNP care about exploiting a split in Labour?

They just wanted a ceasefire motion to unite the house

It was Labour who played games to avoid their own massive issue

Yes, Tories have been threatened too.

e.g. https://news.sky.com/story/ministers-urge-police-to-make-robust-use-of-powers-over-safety-fears-13074909

"In a letter to chief constables, seen by Sky News, security minister Tom Tugendhat and policing minister Chris Philp said the demonstration outside the home of Conservative MP Tobias Ellwood* *was an example of "unacceptable" actions that risk having a "chilling effect on democracy".
More than 60 people, some holding Palestinian flags and leading chants, gathered at the Bournemouth East MP's home last Monday."

"This month Conservative MP Mike Freer announced he would quit parliament after a series of death threats and an arson attack on his office.".

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/my-pro-israel-views-have-left-me-fearing-for-my-life-reveals-mp-mike-freer-a2vh0f5t

These threats are real, and are not just a Labour fabrication.