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?

I must admit to not being very politically minded but does it actually matter which party gets to call for an immediate cease fire when them calling for it actually means bog all in terms of if there will actually be a cease fire?

SNP are up against Labour in Scotland so of course would benefit from a Labour revolt.

I'm struggling to understand this as well

Because by their very nature they are politicians. They all are, and every motion or move has a short term aim and a long term game plan.

The ceasefire motion in its original form could never have united the house because of the collective punishment phrasing. Not to say we are not witnessing collective punishment, but just that that wording was always going to cause a significant divide. The two "major" parties are also always going to avoid outright censure of Israel without a 10 page soliloquy on Hamas first.

I dont disagree with the sentiment, but it was worded in such a way that half the labour MPs would have rebelled and there was no way Conservatives would be held to it.

Well I would much rather they focused more on domestic politics, yes. Neither Hamas or Israel's behaviour will be altered by anything that's happened here tonight.

The SNP don’t hate Labour that much

They voted the same way in Scotland

I find it ridiculous actually that this is on them at all

Labour, rather Starmer was weak and feared a rebellion

That was all

It could have done, the government amendment was a temp ceasefire to allow aid in. The labour amendment was immediate ceasefire but only if hamas stopped otherwise keep Israel should keep fighting.

all three amendments were for ceasefire ultimately. So the whole safety issue is nonsense, it was always going to be a ceasefire passed.

the issue is simply if Hoyle had not picked the labour amendment, starmers mps would have ignored his direction and revolted. Starmer and labour wished to avoid this, as optically it would have shown the party in turmoil and the labour mps didn’t wish to act as starmer directed. They could all have just voted for the goverment amendment.

ive no clue why they are voting on it though, its not like they can make it happen. It’s like me polling my family on if pigs should be enabled to fly to the moon. Totally irrelevant as we cant make that happen.

Who do you mean sorry? SNP, or all political parties in the UK?

You've hit the nail on the head!

Yes it just seems like posturing. Meanwhile, Gazans are starving and homeless, and Israeli hostages remain in peril. What was the actual point of today?

The SNP are likely to lose seats to Labour in the next General Election so are trying to cause trouble for Starmer and Labour.
Hamas and the Israeli govt will not take any notice of what happens in the UK parliament. It's all politicking.

@EasternStandard now come on you are a shrewd cookie I'm sure - it's pretty obvious that the SNP are on a downward trajectory in Scotland - Labour on the up there again - a strong Labour Party does the SNP no favours. They are a wily bunch of operators and this is the second time they have tried something to cause hassle in Labour given that Labour has a pretty broad reach of Mps from quite far left to far more centreist. If all they cared about was getting a ceasefire though they would just have accepted it and voted with it. If the Tory's thought they had the votes then why not just let the vote happen? It's got sod all to do with protocol, they realised they could well lose

I definitely don't get why this is so important to the SNP. They've shown strong support for the Palestinian cause and surely that was their main aim even if the wording was amended?

EasternStandard they may not hate Labour, but they definitely and logically need to chip at Labour support in Scotland. Labour is their main opposition in Scotland.

I think we ultimately agree, tonight was the result of backdoor dealing so that Labour could avoid a difficult vote. By the nature of opposition day, and the bias from the speaker that should not exist this should not have been allowed.

The SNP don’t need to word a motion for Starmer to avoid his party’s infighting

It’s bizarre that they should. Fuck that it’s their motion

I agree, it stinks, this strongly looks like Hoyle, picked the labour amendment so starmer could avoid a revolt.

Now why he did that needs to be investigated, as both scenarios on the table that labour apparently used against Hoyle to make it happen utterly stink and goes against everything in our parliamentary processes.

I think we all know the SNP were up to shenanigans because they're shit scared of Labour in Scotland. They didn't have to walk out. All three amendments could have been voted on but the SNP and the Tories preferred the drama. And after all this shitshow the vote in the HoC is meaningless anyway.

So it's less about Gaza and more about the SNP trying to cause disarray in Labour ranks, is that basically it?

Also, why is there not much discussion about how horrific it is that MP's lives are in danger? Who is in danger and from whom?

Absolutely, but this Really isn’t about snp. It’s about Hoyle picking something in addition to the goverment amendment , which is all he was supposed to pick. He picked labour to stop labour having a revolt. And it seems due to pressure labour put on him to do so.

The SNP motion wasn't voted on because of the Labour antics, and what was passed was a diluted/weakened version of what they wanted.

It's a political snub as well as a positional disappointment

No, it’s not about the snp. See my previous post. I think there are some hardcore labour supporters posting trying to take the blame away from labour. Factually whatever your politics, this is about what labour and Hoyle did tonight. Not the tories or snp.

What? Is this is smellier than Johnson proroguing parliament and JRM lying to the Queen? Remember all the shenanigans to 'Get Brexit Done'.

Exactly. Why would the SNP give much thought about the exact wording? It’s all pointing to a ceasefire but they are tangled in semantics.

Even Lammy dithered on Sunday and said he’d have to ‘read it carefully’

Labour folded and got round something that was difficult for them via the speaker

Yes, I was aware that Tories have been threatened in general (and Jews have been harassed and attacked too). My point was whether Tories went to the speaker warning of threats about this vote, which is what we’re being told Labour MPs did. And, if so, what he told them.

If Tories went to him why did he not say, “we can’t have a vote at all, it’s too dangerous” (not that he should have done that)? We are led to believe he decided to bend the rules but only for Labour.

And if reports of threats were made by Labour MPs, what persuades you they were genuine? If he was also pressured by being told he’d be opposed as speaker - which is also being rumoured - that makes the threat rumours even more suspiciously a PR job.

Plus, why has he not said anything about these threats?

The wording of the motion is of particular importance to Labour because accusations of anti semitism are constantly being levelled at Labour. They're stuck between a rock and a hard place - on one hand there was literally thousands of protestors supporting the Palestinians just outside. This potentially creates a security problem for MPs taking part in a vote about a call for ceasefire. On the other hand, if they vote for a motion with strong wording like the SNPs, they'll have pundits all over the place tomorrow speculating about their attitude towards Israel and anti semitism in the party.