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?

Oops forgot link the advice
https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1760302702225985662

Because of the order.
If he allowed a free vote his members would vote for the SNP amendment, which didn't mention Hamas, and then the Conservatives would make hay with "see! Labour are anti semitic! They support Hamas!"
A child could see that trap coming.
If the Labour MPs didn't vote for the SNP motion then that would fall and the Conservative motion ("humanitarian pause") would pass. A lot of MPs want a ceasefire so that's a shit outcome for them.....plus a lot got death threats for not backing a ceasefire last time.

Incidentally I read that the Conservatives pulled their amendment because they faced their own rebellion from MPs who wanted to back a ceasefire.

Hoyles job is to support the commons and all mps. In my opinion he did that.

Good point @AdamRyan

Also, its emerged that Conservative whip Simon Hart made threats to Hoyle, while there is no evidence whatsoever that Sue Gray put any pressure on. Classic Conservative DARVO.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/top-tory-simon-hart-warned-32189514

I also note some pro conservative posters using the tactic on this thread by talking about "but Boris" when we all know that the last election was won by But Jeremy Corbyn-ing and that's continued ever since.
It's laughable really.

Haha at nothing towards Starmer

Well its already established the May, Johnson and Truss all broke with convention.

So the reaction from Conservatives can't be about breaking convention because that makes absolutely no sense.

So I presume they must have disagreed with the wording of the motion.
What was wrong with it?

Starmer did his job, which was avoiding a very transparent trap laid by the SNP and Conservatives. Unfortunately those parties are both more interested than clinging on to power so are now mock outraged, rather than taking it on the chin as the cut and thrust of politics. And they are damaging democracy by smearing Hoyle in the way they are.

The fact of the matter is the majority opinion of MPs is clearly calling for an immediate ceasefire, condemning Hamas and (probably) supporting a two state solution. The only way that outcome could be reached in the debate was if the Labour amendment went first. Hoyle was being pragmatic and trying to steer the house through a controversial decision; rather than getting recognition for that he's getting smeared. It's disgusting and the SNP/Conservatives should be ashamed.

Oh dear. Starmer wanted to avoid his party’s own revolt because he didn’t want to face the music

Given your posts re you love him or whatever it’s probably best to leave you to it. No one is going to dislodge that level of loyalty

That makes no sense. What "face the music"?
Mordaunt also wanted to avoid revolt, so pulled her amendment because she knew loads of her MPs supported Labours motion more than the Conservative one and would rebel to vote for it. Why aren't you talking about that? It's the same thing.
The outcome is parliament passed an amendment that actually reflected the majority view. That's a good thing.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/speaker-gaza-snp-vote-labour-starmer-hoyle-cleverly-b1141045.html

It was also still not clear why Commons Leader Penny Mordaunt withdrew Tory support for the debate and votes late in the day, with the chaotic scenes then following.
Labour claimed she had done so to avoid a Tory revolt, with several Conservative MPs making it clear they would have voted for a ceasefire.

Music - A 100 MP revolt

He should have just gone with the SNP motion and let MPs vote

Instead of urging the speaker pre vote to change process

But multiple Conservative governments have broken with convention(s) so it's not about the convention.

It must be the substance of the motion. What is wrong with it?

I'm surprised you feel that because I know you are strongly pro-Israel so I would have thought you'd be sympathetic to MPs who support a ceasefire, but don't want to be forced to vote for a bill that doesn't condemn Hamas.

That's basically what it boils down to, regardless of the party those MPs belong to.

If we had grown up politics the SNP would have considered Labour's concerns and included condemnation of Hamas. Their bill would have passed easily, potentially with a few Tory rebels.

Why didn't they do that?

It’s interesting when posters try to summarise a position but I know my motivation to post on the Israel / Hamas situation and it’s not as you try to surmise

But no, it was the SNP motion not a proxy Labour one where they need to consider another party’s factions

That’s the point of it. Or it was until Starmer stepped in

This is what makes it rather confusing.

The SNP motion would fall due to not condemning Hamas. So the Conservatives amendment (humanitarian pause) would pass. The Labour amendment wouldn't be heard. Outcome is the UK government support a humanitarian pause.

That's not reflective of the majority view of MPs and not reflective of what most of the British population think, so how could that be perceived as a good outcome?

The only way is if you are prioritising process over results, which is never a good thing.

This isn’t substantiated and it’s not the reason even Hoyle gave

It’ll be relevant to, as it’s pretty much impossible for them to fuck up as much as he did. Are you still denying he’s an incompetent, lazy, lying cheat?

Even if that was what he said, how is that forcing Hoyle to do anything? As I said. Big boy. Long time politician.

This is off topic, but to say Drakeford ‘doesn’t like farmers’ is bloody silly. Grow up.

I do hope so!
I cannot comprehend what is going through Starmer's head lately. He is not looking his best here.
And this is the very beginning! The conflict between Israel and Gaza is not going anywhere before the next elections, and the other parties can play him at this endlessly, for the look of it.
I do not understand why he falls for it, instead of remaining calm and cool, with a calm and cool party behind him. Just stay calm, stick to your position and plans regarding issues. Avoid looking like micro-managing your MPs. There is no need.

What can he do though?

He's desperately trying to prevent to party from splitting and from alienating the muslim vote, which is quite considerable.

Staying calm and cool won't be enough.

All those things you say Labour should do - I think they’ve got a much better record on them than the Tories, this one event (and we still don’t really know what went on) aside. Do you agree?

Did I say that?