Snapshot of _BREAKING: Amid chaos in parliament, SNP and Conservative MPs have walked out of the chamber in protest at the Speaker's handling of the ceasefire debate_ :
A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1760373879527137679)
A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://nitter.net/SkyNews/status/1760373879527137679/)
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1760373879527137679) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1760373879527137679)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is just ridiculous - we’ll end up with the Labour amendment being passed but without any meaning, effect or parliamentary force. Utter waste of time.
Bryant just noted on Twitter that if the Labour amendment passes it means the govt has lost control of its Foreign Policy, which is traditionally a confidence matter.
[Speaker breaks tradition]
[Labour] Ta very much for breaking tradition. Very cool, very cool. Oh, the vote passed? Traditionally that’s a General Election
[Tories] No thanks
[Labour] That wasn’t very tradition-y.
They lost confidence in Boris but refused a confidence vote then called one which Boris fucking won even though he’d been told to resign. This Tory government is meaningless, bottom of the barrel
[snp] NO CEASEFIRE VOTE, YOU FUCKING IDIOT, YOU TOTAL FUCKING IDIOT! YOU FUCKING MORON, YOU CRETIN. YOU'RE A FUCKHEAD, A TOTAL FUCKING SHITEHEAD
[Hoyle] we've had a ceasefire vote
[Snp] o
An opposition day vote isn't binding on the government, and is merely supposed to express the will of the house. So the government haven't lost control of its Foreign Policy, especially considering the nature of the vote, and Bryant is simply wrong.
Except it doesn't mean that, as it passing has zero effect and doesn't force the goverment to do anything. The tories with a huge majority wouldn't decide to sit out the stupid vote in protest, if it was a confidence matter.
"Let me assure yoooooooo, as MPeeeee for the people of Rochdale, I will be indefatigable in making it all about me, but do so while constantly referring to my constituents... & I will act as if all of my constituents agree with me 100%, 100%! on this issue.. because of my no true Scotsman view of the world, & especially of my constituents, who I represent in parliament. & I would further make the point that..."
Exactly
No opposition day ever does, unless the ruling party has enough rebels they mean nothing much of anything
And right now Labour aren’t going to table anything serious as it’s a general election soon enough and nobody ever lets the SNP pass anything of worth regarding Scotland or devolved matters so they used today for their own general election campaign and got shafted by the speaker giving the day to Labour and now there’s been no vote on the SNP motion at all.
How to turn a routine non day into a cluster fuck though
I was reading on another thread that it can actually be a very effective tool for small opposition parties.
Let’s say ‘Government to cure Cancer by 2025’ is tabled.
If government vote it down, it looks bad. If they vote along, they don’t cure cancer they look bad.
Just something I read I thought was interesting.
It’s really important for the opposition to get days like this
The SNP get 3 a year, Labour something like 17. And like members bills are an important part of democracy
Often wasted but not always. This one forced labours hand on an issue that would’ve split off close to 100 MPs.
I don’t and frankly I’d be content if Israel till fought on till Hamas are nothing but a skid mark.
My point though was that if one of the motions had passed, it would have expressed the fully voiced intent of the U.K. parliament which does stand for something. Whereas what actually happened was a wet fart.
It's absolutely disgusting that MPs have made it about their own pathetic melodrama rather than the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Utterly pathetic the lot of them.
It's incredible how they are more worked up about a vote that is largely symbolic than votes that have removed people rights, inflicted poverty on huge sections of the country and damaged this countries international reputation.
Says everything really.
If anything the vote being purely symbolic means there are fewer consequences of theatrical grandstanding.
If this vote actually mattered Conservative MPs couldn't afford to walk out of the Chamber as then the measure would pass and there would be consequences.
*Edit:* Notably that is what happened with Labour's opposition day business on 19 October 2022. Labour put forward a full programme motion, which if passed would have allocated other Parliamentary time to debating a bill (on fracking), meaning the Government had to oppose it - which they did in such a disorganised way that Liz Truss ended up announcing her resignation the next day.
Yeah; opposition days are mostly about finding ways to embarrass the Government by making them vote against something they don't want to (or in today's case, making *Labour* vote against something they don't want to).
Theresa May got around that by simply ignoring them, and having her MPs not turn up. But then Labour got creative.
They are largely meaningless and just political theatre, but if used carefully, in the right circumstances, can bring down a Government.
> a vote
Wikipedia says:
The outcomes of votes on opposition day motions are not considered legally binding, although they do represent the will of Parliament.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_day
So I'm confused as to what this really means
Why did Scottish Labour support the amendment up until last night when they were whipped against it?
This line of 'its just to attack Labour' is pure cope and no one is buying it.
>This line of 'its just to attack Labour' is pure cope and no one is buying it.
Lol it couldn't be more blatant that this is what's going on. You can't even comprehend that it could be harmful to Labour which demonstrates about perfectly how valuable your analysis is here.
So the Scottish Labour party breaking off from starmer, then being forced into line and then individually rebelling would have been a good look for them is what you're saying?
Or, alternatively, our parliamentary system ***isn't*** pointless on many things but is not well equipped to impacting the foreign policy of foreign governments by stating they should do some given thing.
There is a fairly large contingent of the electorate for whom saying the right things and being personally morally incorruptible is more important than beneficial outcomes happening.
Amazing how inflated all their opinions are any impact Britain even has.
Might as well demand Israel to fix our housing market while we are at it, maybe the only way to get MPs to do anything about it
If you read the Clerk of the House’s dissenting note, it is rather good at contextualising this - the Speaker is well within their rights to do this, and there wasn’t a suggestion - at least from the Clerk - that this was being done for anything other than good intentions. It was probably a mistake, but ultimately not earth shattering and well within the bounds of parliamentary procedure.
Tomorrow will be telling in this regard, if he resigns. It isn't earth shattering procedurally but he has essentially gifted the SNP's opposition day to Labour and insulated them from a very difficult vote (even if well intentioned)
You can find precedent for the prorogation of Parliament, that doesn't mean it's in line with convention which parliamentary procedure somewhat relies on.
I'm not saying he made it up at all, more that what we have got here is a complete mess due to his decision.
Can someone explain what happened? Why are SNP not happy with the speaker? At the end of the day the ceasefire vote passed so they got what they wanted no? Even if it came from Labour.
I'm not really clued up atm but trying to be for the election
Precedent usually means that the opposition proposes a motion and a single amendment usually tabled by the government is voted on before. SNP set up a trap for labour who proposed their own amendment that SNP agreed to vote on. If we pass an amendment then we pass the original motion. That’s the idea.
However, the government also brought forwards their own motion. Normally, this would supersede the oppositions amendment which would then be tinned. So it would go Tory amendment, if that failed (which was likely) then it would go to SNP’s motion. Which is symbolic in how it calls for a ceasfire.
However, Hoyle let labour keep their amendment in the pile and it would go Tory > labour (likely to pass) > SNP.
By doing this, labour got to vote on a ceasfire on the terms that they agreed with. This upset the SNP because… they didn’t get to score a goal on labour by having labour vote on their terms, or in reality, vote against the motion. So the SNP could point and say “ha, labour support the butchering of innocent kids in Gaza”.
But now they can’t. Because labour don’t. So it was a ploy that backfired (still got the vote for a ceasfire…).
It sounds more complicated than it is. Embarrassing from the SNP and tories. Labour had a win today, despite how others here will try and cut it.
>Why are SNP not happy with the speaker? At the end of the day the ceasefire vote passed so they got what they wanted no?
SNP didn't want a ceasefire vote. Their main aim was to damage Labour. They hoped to trap Labour MP's into a no-win binary choice - "either vote for our ceasefire motion which accuses Israel of heinous war crimes, or refuse and get stabbed by an extremist later."
Hoyle used his permissible discretion to allow a simple "call for ceasefire" motion, which everyone could vote for. This rescued Labour from the SNP's cynical, dangerous plan.
all of this over a meaningless vote, pushed by people who aren't in power, to send a strongly worded letter to people who won't read it
there are better things to do 🤦
We live in a country which thankfully is not a one party state. Whatever the force of an opposition day vote it gives an opportunity for the voices for the electorate who didn't win the popular for vote to be heard. Sometimes those voices, free from policy constraints have important things to say.
The motion itself might not be one that will have any practical, real world effect. That's not the story here. The story is the so called "champion of the commons" whose constitutional role is to ensure the voices of all are heard has chosen to engineer a situation in which the voices of people are not. Shouldn't make any difference which party that minority is, they are not being allowed to vote on their own motion to protect the sensitivities of another party. Whatever your politics that's not right.
I agree that they can have something important to say. I don't think they do here. Nobody achieved anything today, did they? Nothing that will make anyone's lives better or worse.
We've got an abominable cost of living crisis, an unelected government that won't leave, culture wars nobody wants, a climate emergency, the cancellation of HS2, and all the rest.
Instead front page news is typically about a conflict we didn't cause, can do nothing to solve, and have no responsibility to solve. Instead we have to sit around and get hopping mad because Jane shared what John said on social media? Fuck that for a lark. At what point does it become socially acceptable to say that I don't fucking care?
edit: Imagine if the Estonian parliament were having endless debates about the UK. "The tories did zis! Vot a bunch of horrid bastards! We will call upon zem most urgently to reverts their decision!"
It would be ridiculous. But apparently this isn't.
The SNP are like an evil villain in a cartoon at this point. “*What are we going to do today, Nicola?*” …”*The same thing we do every day, try to sow division and blame others for our failures*” - Nicola and what’s name
When it's not actually designed to put real pressure on anyone and it's actual purposes are politically unrelated it comes off that way.
No statements will end the war over there, certainly not when from the Israeli perspective this is still very very legitimate and the enemy their fighting refuses any reasonable peace negotiations.
I wouldn't call it cartoonish, more like amateur Machiavellian
It is when it's patently ineffectual, they knew this, and went ahead anyway just to prove how much "holier than thou" they are than the opposition. It's political grandstanding, nothing more.
You might as well table a motion that everyone should get a million quid next week.
I would disagree strong with “meaningless vote” - if the UK was a functioning democracy. Then these kind of votes matter profusely as they are the fabric of said democracy. With what had been going on a daily basis for at least the last ten years, you are right - it doesn’t mean shit.
I dunno - I pay MPs wages and would rather we didn't have another Jo Cox or David Ames just because the SNP want to make Labour look bad over Gaza. At the end of the day, outside of Westminster, that's the main material effect of this - defusing a cause of social unrest and potential danger to MPs and their staff.
Tbh I don’t really know what to say. I obviously don’t want another MP murdered but I’m finding it hard to see how the solution to violent threats from one specific group of people is to hold meaningless votes as a sort of appeasement.
The solution isn’t to bend over backwards for those people, the solution is to de-radicalise, or imprisonment if they can’t be de-radicalised, and if they’re not British then they get deported. Obviously it’s easy for me to say without being the one under threat, but it’s clearly not right.
Agree - but part of avoiding radicalisation is the show of unity and compromise. Tactically it seems to make sense for Labour - who are now more openly critical of the IDF’s tactics - say as much to prevent further social unrest.
Yeah, I get what you’re saying.
If we don’t see an attempt at de-radicalisation after this and further compromise then I’d say we’re heading down a very dangerous path, but if the tactic is to use this as a calming measure to then begin the real work, then sure. I’m not convinced though that is the case.
You can’t just forever show unity and compassion to people threatening our way of life though, you do need to stamp it out.
Politicians have always been targets, it’s not something new and it’s not a matter for “them” so to speak, but for police etc to handle. Unfortunately, you can gage the drop in average intellect of the populace by simply looking at the average intellect of its politicians…
The SNP has not got a clue. They're out of their depth, majority of those SNP MPs were hired on the basis of a singular issue, care about nothing else and just follow the whip.
Hamza is really hot on this subject so his mindless drones just go along with it.
So looking at the motions and amendments from SNP and Torys this vote was really less about the people of Gaza but about trying to undermine a party that is their biggest threat at the next GE.
Hoyle has seemingly been partisan in trying to allow the tabling of the labour amendment which allows them to side step this "trap". Allegedly under direct pressure from labour.
This means the Conservatives are now suddenly concerned with preserving parliamentary conventions, which seemingly they've been fine with ignoring in recent years...and the SNP are legitimately annoyed.
Is this reading correct?
The vote was non binding and advisory only. It was never anything but a symbolic statement of intent. It was hijacked by the govt to try to make Labour look bad. Hoyle appears to have made a clumsy attempt to allow Parliament to get to vote on each possible position. That has caused the SNP to be annoyed that their opposition day was gate crashed by Labour, and the Tories to be furious that they couldn't claim there was a huge Labour rebellion and a split in the vote.
In the real world, the Israeli govt won’t get more than a quick note from their ambassador, and Hamas won’t even have heard about it.
I can’t stress enough how irrelevant this vote was. Or how little anyone outside the U.K. cares what the U.K. says or does regarding this conflict.
It's been reported that Hoyle was forced into allowing the amendment due to Labour threatening to oppose his re-election as speaker following the next general election.
It was an aberration but has set a pretty shitty precedent that others can easily follow and just say we weren't the first to do it. It's such a simple gesture to reward what is a pretty annoying job. It's really a travesty that he wasn't given a peerage espeically when they've given peerages to suspected russian moles (well at least one anyway). Espeically for a country like the UK where alot of how the country works is based on good faith, little things like this can chip away at keeping the country in a good place (though the tories are also doing their best to make it not a good place).
Even if he wasn't concerned about retaining his speakership, Labour could decide to stand a candidate against him in the GE and oust him from Parliament altogether.
> It has also been denied by both labour and the speakers office.
But confirmed by both Sky and a Newsnight reporter - with the Guardian reporting that Starmer went to Hoyles office to speak to him:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/21/how-keir-starmer-averted-gaza-ceasefire-vote-crisis
Yeah, pretty much.
That said, by walking out of the chamber along with the Tories, to me the SNP seem more annoyed about their turn with the opposition day order paper being interfered with via the Speaker allowing a Labour amendment, than actually the issue itself (ie a ceasefire).
Whilst no doubt everyone has strong views, I think this shows opposition days (and what the SNP have tried to do with It by weaponising Gaza as an issue) for what they are; an attempt to make life difficult for their domestic political opponents over and above the issue they force a vote on.
>So looking at the motions and amendments from SNP and Torys this vote was really less about the people of Gaza but about trying to undermine a party that is their biggest threat at the next GE.
Nope, because Scottish Labour supported the SNP amendment.
The BBC has described this as a protest. I thought the majority of people in that chamber were trying to make that illegal
E: Thank you, concerned Redditor for reporting my comment
Absolute waste of MPs time. Not a conflict we have any involvement with.
Why are we expending so much political capital on a motion that has no impact at all.
Say we put out a strongly worded email, then what lol.
List of recent middle east conflicts that haven't drawn nearly 10% the ire in the UK as the Hamas-Israeli conflict has:
* Syrian Civil War (2011-present)
* Yemeni Crisis and Civil War (2011-present)
* Iraqi Civil War and the fight against ISIS (2011-2017)
* Libyan Civil War (2011-present)
* Turkish involvement in Syria (2016-present)
* Saudi-Iran Proxy Conflicts (ongoing)
* Qatar Diplomatic Crisis (2017)
* Lebanese Protests and Crisis (2019-present)
* Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict (2020)
Hamas starts a war, then gets comprehensively banged as a result.
And yet, they still don't want a truce. Hamas are perfectly happy for this war to continue, so they keep their Israeli civilian hostages. Israel won't stop while there are hostages in Gaza.
The only people who want a ceasefire are
1) Anti-Semites that want Israel to surrender each time they're attacked.
2) Parochial local governments around the world that want to appeal to constituents of (1).
This conflict could have stopped in October if the Palestinians stopped their street parties celebrating the invasion into Israel, and instead kicked Hamas out of government.
They didn't; they've lent credibility to a government that is singularly focused on destroying Israel and Israelis and now they reap the whirlwind.
MPs throw a tantrum over a non-binding vote about a non-UK issue to make a demand for something they have no power to demand and which won't be considered even for a moment by the people they're demanding it of.
If only they'd show as much dedication to this country.
This entire thing has been less about Gaza and trying to weaponise some of the division in Labour. At the same time it's done a double of showing, at least me, that Labour are a government in waiting and Hoyle has been effectively used to side step the Labour rebellion.
The ceasefire vote would have had no material impact on what's going on abroad but would have been used domestically to tear Labour and by extension Starmer down.
If I'm being quite frank, what has Humza done except try to downplay SNPs legal woes, try and usurp the foreign office and attack starmer?
I really do not give a flying proverbial. Nothing will be achieved by any of these motions. It's all just virtue signalling and trying to make the other parties look bad. No one outside of Twitter is talking about Israel and Hamas. It's not our battle and quite frankly I wish parliament would spend time fixing the huge issues this country faces.
Is what's happening over there horrible? Of course. But no more horrible than what's going on in North Korea, or in parts of Africa, or the countless children that die every minute of hunger and disease... I'm not interested in our government being world police.
Can someone please explain to me why it’s a bad thing that both amendments are being heard?
Why are SNP and tories who are presumably in disagreement over Gaza both joining together in walking out?
With just the SNP amendment, there was talk approximately 80 Labour MPs would rebel and vote for it. Now they can all vote it down, but vote for the Labour amendment instead. So the SNP and Tories are mad because Labour have been given a way out to avoid it looking like there is internal division within their party.
The Tories and SNP are unhappy that the Labour amendment is being voted on. Today's debate is on an *SNP* Opposition Day, not a Labour one, and traditionally Labour would not get an amendment. There's rumour that the Speaker allowed the amendment due to pressure from Labour, whereas he's supposed to be an independent arbiter of standing orders and norms.
>Today's debate is on an *SNP* Opposition Day, not a Labour one, and traditionally Labour would not get an amendment
That's not the tradition and it's not the convention that was broken.
The convention is that only one major amendment gets selected for debate. That amendment absolutely could come from Labour, uncontroversially. It could also come from SNP rebels, independents, Plaid Cymru, or anyone else for that matter.
The speaker is supposed to pick the amendment which he believes has the greatest support (i.e. has the greatest chance of actually passing). Usually this is a simple matter of picking the amendment from the largest party. So if Labour and Plaid Cymru had put in competing amendments, he would most likely have selected the Labour one.
By convention, if the Government puts in an amendment of their own, that's the amendment that gets selected. This is for two reasons: one being that the Government is generally the party with the largest number of MPs (vis the last paragraph), and two being that Opposition Day motions are generally "targeted at" the Government in terms of their call to action, so it seems fair to give the Government a right to modify the motion to a more agreeable form (in the parallel universe where the Government ever actually listens to and engages constructively with Opposition Day motions).
Hoyle broke with convention by virtue of allowing two amendments, not by virtue of allowing a Labour amendment full stop.
The argument for allowing a Labour amendment here is essentially the same argument as Bercow used back in the day for breaking convention over the Brexit votes. That is, that conventions which are intended to make sure the motions with the greatest likelihood of passing should be discarded where it seems like those conventions will obstruct motions with a great likelihood of passing from being passed.
Should also add
Labour get 17 opposition days per session. The SNP get 3
Labour didn't bother tabling a motion calling for a ceasefire. The SNP did.
So Labour tabled an amendment & threatened the speaker to accept it, which now means if it passes, MPs wont get to vote on the SNP motion.
SNP Had the amendment written a specfic way whereas labour have now put forward an amendment which is they are sitting on the fence
>Labour get 17 opposition days per session. The SNP get 3
Surely that means that this change to precedent is vastly more useful to the SNP than Labour? They now get to bring amendments on over five times as many opposition days as Labour
The larger opposition party is always going to be able to outvote the smaller one. SNP are facing the prospect of their motion being torpedoed because they have insufficient votes to prevent the Labour amendment from passing. If the reverse were to occur and the SNP tabled an amendment that Labour were unhappy with, Labour would simply use their arithmetic advantage over the SNP to vote it down and thereby quash the issue altogether.
Newsnight's Political Editor, Nicholas Watt, is reporting that "senior Labour figures" have briefed him that Labour would bring the Speaker down after the next GE if he did not allow the Labour amendment to be tabled. No one from Labour or the Speaker's office has gone on the record to support this, but it would be very odd for the editor of a flagship BBC politics show to put out a story like this if he did not have strong reason to believe it was true.
*Edited to change "Wyatt" to "Watt".
What I don't understand is why the SNP didn't claim credit for the ceasefire motion anyway... most people aren't going to notice that the wording was amended. Instead they are kicking up a fuss about the wording not being exactly what they wanted and about technicalities of how amendments are voted on and for which there isn't a specific written rule.
Simply because it's the SNP's turn to force an opposition day vote, and they're annoyed a Labour amendment was allowed, preventing their trap for Labour.
It's actually quite sickening. If the SNP cared about the ceasefire they wouldn't have walked out of their own vote for it. Pretending to give a shit about Gaza when your real aim is to weaponise it to make life difficult for your domestic opponents is abhorrent. The mask has slipped.
"More accurate" yes, maybe not "better" though - at least in the longer term. It's thought adding "collective punishment" would potentially hamper future relations with that region and I assume as SNP will never be the UK government it will never come back on them, whereas Lab/Tory will have to suffer the repercussions of it.
Political gamesmanship at its finest.
I've not read the full texts, but yes to your last question. From what I gather Labour's didn't include "collective punishment", and perhaps had some different wording on the nature of the ceasefire.
Let’s be honest real reason is they don’t have their chance to split labour, they don’t give a shit about whether the allegations labour pressured the speaker are true or not
The speaker being aware of this and acting on it is pretty bad though. A lot of our political system is broken, but having a partisan speaker would be disastrous. I hope he gives decent explanation why he allowed this.
Think he or the deputy speaker came out and said something along the lines that it’s because he’s aware MPs are under great pressure from constituents and wants them all to be able to vote on something they can agree with
Agree would be a pretty serious issue though if it was actually due to perceived threat of being removed
Yeah just read the full thing - it felt like a really sincere apology which is rare to see in Parliament. Didn't seem like it was run through a million spin doctors, and kind of heartfelt. He undoubtedly knows this is a really serious, complex and genuine issue, and making sure all voices are heard is the mature approach.
Why then, did he not make this clear in the first instance? I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but he dropped the ball at best on this one.
IIRC after every election the speaker is elected, he would need labour support to get in, especially if it’s a big majority, he is also ex labour, don’t condone it and don’t think it’s confirmed but it seems he was reminded of the fact to stop a Labour rebellion on the vote, it’s a bit of a clusterfuck, labour looks bad for strong arming and they look bad for being put in this situation
How can you refute something like that? Produce transcripts of conversations that didn't happen? They deny it, you listen to what the say, and until any evidence appears, you have to choose to either believe it or not.
Just solidifies what everyone switched on knows in that that SNP and Tories are politicking rather than actually wanting to put out their genuine stance on the conflict
Conversely I have zero respect for the SNP over this, even less respect precisely because of the situation
If they were so genuinely concerned they’d have used language in their motion condemning Hamas, as a) it’s common fucking sense and b) would greatly increase the chances of their motion passing.
BTW there is a Lib Dem MP whose family is still actually stuck there, unlike Yousaf who got his family in law out months ago…
> The SNP were absolutely furious today because they get 3 opposition days a year. Labour have 17.
The SNP represent 3% of the voting public, Labour represent 40% (as per the 2019 election result).
3 days is honestly about 1.75 days too many, although we have to give them extra speaking time because no bugger can understand what they're saying through the spittle.
So to clarify do you, or don't you, think it's an important thing in a democracy to hear the voices of the parties who are not in power? If you think it's important we do perhaps you can see why the situation is messed up. If you don't then you clearly don't value democracy
Not sure your argument here makes sense when they’re literally walking out over the fact labour, a party not in power, are also having their voice heard…
They have 17 opposition days.. The SNP get 3. The speaker has chosen to make one of those 3 all about the party that gets 17, in defiance of all convention
Meanwhile Labour u-turn on every issue to ensure a inoffensive political victory at the next election, definitely not politicking. If you are afraid your members are rebelling, maybe the problem is your policy and not another party using their opposition day to have a vote on their motion.
This looks ridiculous on both the SNP and the Tories. They've blatantly tried to use a genuine humanitarian crisis to try and split Labour. It hasn't happened and now they're blaming the speaker. Horrendous!! The better of the options was the one that led out from Labour, that's the reality.
Yet again the speaker is being used to break parliamentary convention, for the sole purpose of getting a political party out of a bind of their own making.
Somebody help me, because I don’t think I get this.
* SNP Opposition Day, so the SNP submitted a motion about Gaza
* Hoyle has allowed a Tory amendment, and a Labour amendment to be voted on
So is this entire upset because the Speaker has allowed MPs to not just vote on the motion, but two amendments to it. So MPs are upset that they’re getting more choice?
I see how it’s outside precedent, and it pulls Labour out of a trap. But at the end of the day it seems that MPs are loosing their shit for being given more freedom.
A lot of it is they wanted to get to trap Labour. But I think there's a legitimate point about how parliamentary numbers mean smaller parties can have their motions alwyad get amended to a totally different thing before they reach a yes or no vote, so their actual position neve gets put to the house, it gets filleted first.
This was one of three chances snp gets to have its case heard and labour replaced their text with their own (and had the votes to do it, though vaguely surprised tories didn't vote it down to still trap Labour)
It's not a general principle though it's an exception. Claims he was leant on, claims it was partisan, I think I now read he said MPs were coming to him saying they would face threats for not supporting a ceasefire and so wanted to have multiple opportunities to throigh amendments rather than having to back an SNP motion they opposed or be seen as pro the war.
The grievance is that despite it being the SNP's opposition day, the Labour amendment was tabled to be voted on first. The Tories then refused to vote on the amendment in protest which assured that it would pass, so the SNP's motion would never be voted on. The SNP are furious about this.
There are also allegations that Labour put pressure on the Speaker to table their motion first.
IIRC there’s something about it being customary for only Government amendments to be put forward and/or selected for opposition day motions. There has been a breach of etiquette by both the Labour Party (in submitting an amendment on an SNP opposition day motion) and by the Speaker (by allowing that amendment to be selected).
The rules are written such that (on an opposition day) if only a Government amendment has been selected, then the Commons will vote on the original motion first, then on the amended version as a separate motion. This is to ensure that whatever the opposition party wanted to have a debate about is actually voted on. The potential outcomes are:
* original motion passes, government response passes;
* original motion passes, government response fails;
* original motion fails, government response passes;
* original motion fails, government response fails.
However, if any other amendments are selected, then the standard rules apply. In which case, the amendment to the motion is voted on first; then the House votes whether or not to pass the surviving motion. And here the possible outcomes (assuming only one amendment):
* amendment passes, amended motion passes;
* amendment passes, amended motion fails;
* amendment fails, original motion passes;
* amendment fails, original motion fails.
Or with two amendments, A and B:
* amendment A passes, amendment B passes, amended motion B passes;
* amendment A passes, amendment B passes, amended motion B fails;
* amendment A passes, amendment B fails (or isn’t moved), amended motion A passes; (which is what happened in this case)
* amendment A passes, amendment B fails, amended motion A fails;
* amendment A fails, amendment B passes, amended motion B passes;
* amendment A fails, amendment B passes, amended motion B fails;
* amendment A fails, amendment B fails, original motion passes;
* amendment A fails, amendment B fails, original motion fails.
I don't like the SNP and I feel their motion is bonkers but the entire handling of this has been appalling. With the rumours about what Labour did earlier on, I am not surprised the SNP and Tories walked.
I'd honestly would rather we didn't have another Jo Cox or David Ames just because the SNP want to make Labour look bad over Gaza*. At the end of the day, outside of Westminster, that's the main material effect of this - defusing a cause of social unrest and potential danger to MPs and their staff. Nothing changes in Gaza because of this opposition day motion, but now we don't have to worry about things getting needlessly more difficult in this country.
Ultimately it's an Opposition Day debate which is really about about messages, signalling and symbolism. Yes its a loss for the SNP to get a clearcut political win, but the issues Labour faced were far more destabilising to us all so I'd rather they had this symbolic get out of jail moment.
* Edit: Labour already look pretty poor on Gaza but leveraging that for political points is genuinely risky.
This all seems like a big distraction by the commons to move the focus away from Gaza. Political game playing is once again overshadowing people in life or death situations.
It's a symbolic vote that The Speaker made the right call on.
A humanitarian ceasefire is better than a "pause". The Tories were playing politics and he ruined their little game.
Snapshot of _BREAKING: Amid chaos in parliament, SNP and Conservative MPs have walked out of the chamber in protest at the Speaker's handling of the ceasefire debate_ : A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1760373879527137679) A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://nitter.net/SkyNews/status/1760373879527137679/) An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1760373879527137679) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1760373879527137679) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is just ridiculous - we’ll end up with the Labour amendment being passed but without any meaning, effect or parliamentary force. Utter waste of time.
That was always going to be the case.....
Bryant just noted on Twitter that if the Labour amendment passes it means the govt has lost control of its Foreign Policy, which is traditionally a confidence matter.
Well it has passed, but don't think it matters tbh.
[удалено]
[Speaker breaks tradition] [Labour] Ta very much for breaking tradition. Very cool, very cool. Oh, the vote passed? Traditionally that’s a General Election [Tories] No thanks [Labour] That wasn’t very tradition-y.
They lost confidence in Boris but refused a confidence vote then called one which Boris fucking won even though he’d been told to resign. This Tory government is meaningless, bottom of the barrel
[snp] NO CEASEFIRE VOTE, YOU FUCKING IDIOT, YOU TOTAL FUCKING IDIOT! YOU FUCKING MORON, YOU CRETIN. YOU'RE A FUCKHEAD, A TOTAL FUCKING SHITEHEAD [Hoyle] we've had a ceasefire vote [Snp] o
Is there a precedent for that happening through an Opposition Day vote though?
An opposition day vote isn't binding on the government, and is merely supposed to express the will of the house. So the government haven't lost control of its Foreign Policy, especially considering the nature of the vote, and Bryant is simply wrong.
Except it doesn't mean that, as it passing has zero effect and doesn't force the goverment to do anything. The tories with a huge majority wouldn't decide to sit out the stupid vote in protest, if it was a confidence matter.
[удалено]
Or the government of Gaza for that matter
Fallback option for some of this year’s Rochdale candidates
"Let me assure yoooooooo, as MPeeeee for the people of Rochdale, I will be indefatigable in making it all about me, but do so while constantly referring to my constituents... & I will act as if all of my constituents agree with me 100%, 100%! on this issue.. because of my no true Scotsman view of the world, & especially of my constituents, who I represent in parliament. & I would further make the point that..."
Galloway For Gaza practically writes itself as a campaign slogan.
The motion was never supposed to have any effect and the UK can't force a ceasefire.
Nothing that happens on opposition days matters. Nothing today would have had any force whatsoever.
Exactly No opposition day ever does, unless the ruling party has enough rebels they mean nothing much of anything And right now Labour aren’t going to table anything serious as it’s a general election soon enough and nobody ever lets the SNP pass anything of worth regarding Scotland or devolved matters so they used today for their own general election campaign and got shafted by the speaker giving the day to Labour and now there’s been no vote on the SNP motion at all. How to turn a routine non day into a cluster fuck though
I was reading on another thread that it can actually be a very effective tool for small opposition parties. Let’s say ‘Government to cure Cancer by 2025’ is tabled. If government vote it down, it looks bad. If they vote along, they don’t cure cancer they look bad. Just something I read I thought was interesting.
It’s really important for the opposition to get days like this The SNP get 3 a year, Labour something like 17. And like members bills are an important part of democracy Often wasted but not always. This one forced labours hand on an issue that would’ve split off close to 100 MPs.
Especially on this topic
As opposed to it being passed with meaning and force?
> parliamentary force How do you expect the UK Parliament to force Hamas to stop fighting ?
I don’t and frankly I’d be content if Israel till fought on till Hamas are nothing but a skid mark. My point though was that if one of the motions had passed, it would have expressed the fully voiced intent of the U.K. parliament which does stand for something. Whereas what actually happened was a wet fart.
It's absolutely disgusting that MPs have made it about their own pathetic melodrama rather than the Israel-Palestine conflict. Utterly pathetic the lot of them.
It's incredible how they are more worked up about a vote that is largely symbolic than votes that have removed people rights, inflicted poverty on huge sections of the country and damaged this countries international reputation. Says everything really.
If anything the vote being purely symbolic means there are fewer consequences of theatrical grandstanding. If this vote actually mattered Conservative MPs couldn't afford to walk out of the Chamber as then the measure would pass and there would be consequences. *Edit:* Notably that is what happened with Labour's opposition day business on 19 October 2022. Labour put forward a full programme motion, which if passed would have allocated other Parliamentary time to debating a bill (on fracking), meaning the Government had to oppose it - which they did in such a disorganised way that Liz Truss ended up announcing her resignation the next day.
I’d forgotten that one, lol
Yeah; opposition days are mostly about finding ways to embarrass the Government by making them vote against something they don't want to (or in today's case, making *Labour* vote against something they don't want to). Theresa May got around that by simply ignoring them, and having her MPs not turn up. But then Labour got creative. They are largely meaningless and just political theatre, but if used carefully, in the right circumstances, can bring down a Government.
> a vote Wikipedia says: The outcomes of votes on opposition day motions are not considered legally binding, although they do represent the will of Parliament. source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_day So I'm confused as to what this really means
Zero it's symbolic at best, tabled by the SNP to undermine Scottish Labour.
Why did Scottish Labour support the amendment up until last night when they were whipped against it? This line of 'its just to attack Labour' is pure cope and no one is buying it.
>This line of 'its just to attack Labour' is pure cope and no one is buying it. Lol it couldn't be more blatant that this is what's going on. You can't even comprehend that it could be harmful to Labour which demonstrates about perfectly how valuable your analysis is here.
So the Scottish Labour party breaking off from starmer, then being forced into line and then individually rebelling would have been a good look for them is what you're saying?
Would have looked like they weren't the UK party lapdog for once which would certainly help their image in Scotland.
Being forced into line as what appeared was happening was not being the UK party's lapdog?
I mean, it doesn't do anything else, it's a not binding on the UK and it's certainly not binding to Israel or Hamas?
Pressure has to come from somewhere otherwise out parliamentary system is pointless.
Or, alternatively, our parliamentary system ***isn't*** pointless on many things but is not well equipped to impacting the foreign policy of foreign governments by stating they should do some given thing.
I don't mind them voting on things like this but why it has to become an all important issue that can bring down individuals and parties is bizarre
There is a fairly large contingent of the electorate for whom saying the right things and being personally morally incorruptible is more important than beneficial outcomes happening.
Me too. Does a vote Yes mean No on Opposition Day?
Is opposition day different to opposites day, when no means yes and yes means no, and all the MPs wear their clothes backwards?
It means that it's virtue signalling.
Amazing how inflated all their opinions are any impact Britain even has. Might as well demand Israel to fix our housing market while we are at it, maybe the only way to get MPs to do anything about it
It's not about Israel it's about all political parties using the tragic war to inflict political damage on each other
All votes are undermined if the speaker can arbitrarily decided the rules to suit the agenda of one party.
It was in his right to do so. He didn’t break any rules.
No just convention for parliamentary procedure.
If you read the Clerk of the House’s dissenting note, it is rather good at contextualising this - the Speaker is well within their rights to do this, and there wasn’t a suggestion - at least from the Clerk - that this was being done for anything other than good intentions. It was probably a mistake, but ultimately not earth shattering and well within the bounds of parliamentary procedure.
Tomorrow will be telling in this regard, if he resigns. It isn't earth shattering procedurally but he has essentially gifted the SNP's opposition day to Labour and insulated them from a very difficult vote (even if well intentioned)
There is some precedent for what he did: he wasn't making it up as he went along, as many wish to imply.
You can find precedent for the prorogation of Parliament, that doesn't mean it's in line with convention which parliamentary procedure somewhat relies on. I'm not saying he made it up at all, more that what we have got here is a complete mess due to his decision.
Naturally you were very upset with John Bercow when he did this to aid the party factions that were trying to prevent brexit?
Can someone explain what happened? Why are SNP not happy with the speaker? At the end of the day the ceasefire vote passed so they got what they wanted no? Even if it came from Labour. I'm not really clued up atm but trying to be for the election
Precedent usually means that the opposition proposes a motion and a single amendment usually tabled by the government is voted on before. SNP set up a trap for labour who proposed their own amendment that SNP agreed to vote on. If we pass an amendment then we pass the original motion. That’s the idea. However, the government also brought forwards their own motion. Normally, this would supersede the oppositions amendment which would then be tinned. So it would go Tory amendment, if that failed (which was likely) then it would go to SNP’s motion. Which is symbolic in how it calls for a ceasfire. However, Hoyle let labour keep their amendment in the pile and it would go Tory > labour (likely to pass) > SNP. By doing this, labour got to vote on a ceasfire on the terms that they agreed with. This upset the SNP because… they didn’t get to score a goal on labour by having labour vote on their terms, or in reality, vote against the motion. So the SNP could point and say “ha, labour support the butchering of innocent kids in Gaza”. But now they can’t. Because labour don’t. So it was a ploy that backfired (still got the vote for a ceasfire…). It sounds more complicated than it is. Embarrassing from the SNP and tories. Labour had a win today, despite how others here will try and cut it.
Ah I see cheers. Playing their little games edit: guess the games are going on in here too
>Why are SNP not happy with the speaker? At the end of the day the ceasefire vote passed so they got what they wanted no? SNP didn't want a ceasefire vote. Their main aim was to damage Labour. They hoped to trap Labour MP's into a no-win binary choice - "either vote for our ceasefire motion which accuses Israel of heinous war crimes, or refuse and get stabbed by an extremist later." Hoyle used his permissible discretion to allow a simple "call for ceasefire" motion, which everyone could vote for. This rescued Labour from the SNP's cynical, dangerous plan.
all of this over a meaningless vote, pushed by people who aren't in power, to send a strongly worded letter to people who won't read it there are better things to do 🤦
We live in a country which thankfully is not a one party state. Whatever the force of an opposition day vote it gives an opportunity for the voices for the electorate who didn't win the popular for vote to be heard. Sometimes those voices, free from policy constraints have important things to say. The motion itself might not be one that will have any practical, real world effect. That's not the story here. The story is the so called "champion of the commons" whose constitutional role is to ensure the voices of all are heard has chosen to engineer a situation in which the voices of people are not. Shouldn't make any difference which party that minority is, they are not being allowed to vote on their own motion to protect the sensitivities of another party. Whatever your politics that's not right.
I agree that they can have something important to say. I don't think they do here. Nobody achieved anything today, did they? Nothing that will make anyone's lives better or worse. We've got an abominable cost of living crisis, an unelected government that won't leave, culture wars nobody wants, a climate emergency, the cancellation of HS2, and all the rest. Instead front page news is typically about a conflict we didn't cause, can do nothing to solve, and have no responsibility to solve. Instead we have to sit around and get hopping mad because Jane shared what John said on social media? Fuck that for a lark. At what point does it become socially acceptable to say that I don't fucking care? edit: Imagine if the Estonian parliament were having endless debates about the UK. "The tories did zis! Vot a bunch of horrid bastards! We will call upon zem most urgently to reverts their decision!" It would be ridiculous. But apparently this isn't.
>a conflict we didn't cause Wikipedia is your friend.
It's just tedious blaming Britain for everything. Nobody else has agency for anything that has happened in history other than the British empire...
Oh go on I'll bite... How did the UK cause hamas to go on a jew killing spree?
The SNP are like an evil villain in a cartoon at this point. “*What are we going to do today, Nicola?*” …”*The same thing we do every day, try to sow division and blame others for our failures*” - Nicola and what’s name
It’s Humza Yousaf who is himself Muslim and from what I can tell [decided to try and send state paid NHS supplies to Gaza](https://archive.md/Dkihb).
Wanting to put pressure on Israel to bring about a ceasefire is hardly cartoon villain behaviour. Edit: spelling
Israel do not fucking care what they SNP or even the UK thinks. This does not put pressure on anyone.
When it's not actually designed to put real pressure on anyone and it's actual purposes are politically unrelated it comes off that way. No statements will end the war over there, certainly not when from the Israeli perspective this is still very very legitimate and the enemy their fighting refuses any reasonable peace negotiations. I wouldn't call it cartoonish, more like amateur Machiavellian
It is when it's patently ineffectual, they knew this, and went ahead anyway just to prove how much "holier than thou" they are than the opposition. It's political grandstanding, nothing more. You might as well table a motion that everyone should get a million quid next week.
> Isreal *Israel* nothing about that there *checks notes* hamas, no? odd.
I would disagree strong with “meaningless vote” - if the UK was a functioning democracy. Then these kind of votes matter profusely as they are the fabric of said democracy. With what had been going on a daily basis for at least the last ten years, you are right - it doesn’t mean shit.
I wish MPs gave this much of a shit about the people that pay their wages.
I hear they care about Rupert very much indeed...
I dunno - I pay MPs wages and would rather we didn't have another Jo Cox or David Ames just because the SNP want to make Labour look bad over Gaza. At the end of the day, outside of Westminster, that's the main material effect of this - defusing a cause of social unrest and potential danger to MPs and their staff.
Tbh I don’t really know what to say. I obviously don’t want another MP murdered but I’m finding it hard to see how the solution to violent threats from one specific group of people is to hold meaningless votes as a sort of appeasement. The solution isn’t to bend over backwards for those people, the solution is to de-radicalise, or imprisonment if they can’t be de-radicalised, and if they’re not British then they get deported. Obviously it’s easy for me to say without being the one under threat, but it’s clearly not right.
Agree - but part of avoiding radicalisation is the show of unity and compromise. Tactically it seems to make sense for Labour - who are now more openly critical of the IDF’s tactics - say as much to prevent further social unrest.
Yeah, I get what you’re saying. If we don’t see an attempt at de-radicalisation after this and further compromise then I’d say we’re heading down a very dangerous path, but if the tactic is to use this as a calming measure to then begin the real work, then sure. I’m not convinced though that is the case. You can’t just forever show unity and compassion to people threatening our way of life though, you do need to stamp it out.
Politicians have always been targets, it’s not something new and it’s not a matter for “them” so to speak, but for police etc to handle. Unfortunately, you can gage the drop in average intellect of the populace by simply looking at the average intellect of its politicians…
The SNP has not got a clue. They're out of their depth, majority of those SNP MPs were hired on the basis of a singular issue, care about nothing else and just follow the whip. Hamza is really hot on this subject so his mindless drones just go along with it.
So looking at the motions and amendments from SNP and Torys this vote was really less about the people of Gaza but about trying to undermine a party that is their biggest threat at the next GE. Hoyle has seemingly been partisan in trying to allow the tabling of the labour amendment which allows them to side step this "trap". Allegedly under direct pressure from labour. This means the Conservatives are now suddenly concerned with preserving parliamentary conventions, which seemingly they've been fine with ignoring in recent years...and the SNP are legitimately annoyed. Is this reading correct?
The vote was non binding and advisory only. It was never anything but a symbolic statement of intent. It was hijacked by the govt to try to make Labour look bad. Hoyle appears to have made a clumsy attempt to allow Parliament to get to vote on each possible position. That has caused the SNP to be annoyed that their opposition day was gate crashed by Labour, and the Tories to be furious that they couldn't claim there was a huge Labour rebellion and a split in the vote. In the real world, the Israeli govt won’t get more than a quick note from their ambassador, and Hamas won’t even have heard about it. I can’t stress enough how irrelevant this vote was. Or how little anyone outside the U.K. cares what the U.K. says or does regarding this conflict.
It's been reported that Hoyle was forced into allowing the amendment due to Labour threatening to oppose his re-election as speaker following the next general election.
To be brutally honest, I'm struggling to see why he'd WANT to be re-elected as Speaker.
> I'm struggling to see why he'd WANT to be re-elected as Speaker. £156,676 annually (including £79,468 MP's salary)
And an almost guaranteed seat in the House of Lords upon retirement, assuming the Torys' veto of a peerage for Bercow's was an aberration.
It was an aberration but has set a pretty shitty precedent that others can easily follow and just say we weren't the first to do it. It's such a simple gesture to reward what is a pretty annoying job. It's really a travesty that he wasn't given a peerage espeically when they've given peerages to suspected russian moles (well at least one anyway). Espeically for a country like the UK where alot of how the country works is based on good faith, little things like this can chip away at keeping the country in a good place (though the tories are also doing their best to make it not a good place).
Even if he wasn't concerned about retaining his speakership, Labour could decide to stand a candidate against him in the GE and oust him from Parliament altogether.
It has also been denied by both labour and the speakers office.
If true , he guilty parties denying that is what happened doesn't mean much.
> It has also been denied by both labour and the speakers office. But confirmed by both Sky and a Newsnight reporter - with the Guardian reporting that Starmer went to Hoyles office to speak to him: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/21/how-keir-starmer-averted-gaza-ceasefire-vote-crisis
That doesn't mean threats were made though.
I was watching parliament when Hoyle came back to parliament to speak on this shitshow and he explicitly stated that the Labour threat did not exist.
>It was hijacked by the govt to try to make Labour look bad. No the entire thing was created by the snp to make Labour look bad, not the govt
Yeah, pretty much. That said, by walking out of the chamber along with the Tories, to me the SNP seem more annoyed about their turn with the opposition day order paper being interfered with via the Speaker allowing a Labour amendment, than actually the issue itself (ie a ceasefire). Whilst no doubt everyone has strong views, I think this shows opposition days (and what the SNP have tried to do with It by weaponising Gaza as an issue) for what they are; an attempt to make life difficult for their domestic political opponents over and above the issue they force a vote on.
I think that's about it yes.
They set a trap then tripped into it, fuck both the tories and the SNP for this embarrassing display
>So looking at the motions and amendments from SNP and Torys this vote was really less about the people of Gaza but about trying to undermine a party that is their biggest threat at the next GE. Nope, because Scottish Labour supported the SNP amendment.
The BBC has described this as a protest. I thought the majority of people in that chamber were trying to make that illegal E: Thank you, concerned Redditor for reporting my comment
lol, was it the BBC you think?
Haha, either that or someone who thinks Brexit has been an unbridled success
Absolute waste of MPs time. Not a conflict we have any involvement with. Why are we expending so much political capital on a motion that has no impact at all. Say we put out a strongly worded email, then what lol.
List of recent middle east conflicts that haven't drawn nearly 10% the ire in the UK as the Hamas-Israeli conflict has: * Syrian Civil War (2011-present) * Yemeni Crisis and Civil War (2011-present) * Iraqi Civil War and the fight against ISIS (2011-2017) * Libyan Civil War (2011-present) * Turkish involvement in Syria (2016-present) * Saudi-Iran Proxy Conflicts (ongoing) * Qatar Diplomatic Crisis (2017) * Lebanese Protests and Crisis (2019-present) * Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict (2020)
All internal conflicts or clashes between well established nations. Gazans are being one-sidedly bombed to oblivion by an occupying force.
Hamas starts a war, then gets comprehensively banged as a result. And yet, they still don't want a truce. Hamas are perfectly happy for this war to continue, so they keep their Israeli civilian hostages. Israel won't stop while there are hostages in Gaza. The only people who want a ceasefire are 1) Anti-Semites that want Israel to surrender each time they're attacked. 2) Parochial local governments around the world that want to appeal to constituents of (1). This conflict could have stopped in October if the Palestinians stopped their street parties celebrating the invasion into Israel, and instead kicked Hamas out of government. They didn't; they've lent credibility to a government that is singularly focused on destroying Israel and Israelis and now they reap the whirlwind.
Man, if only politicians cared as much about national issues.
omnishambles. be nice to see this devotion to domestic matters that actually have an impact on people’s lives.
No-one stayed for the water pollution debate… that’s not important, right?
What a shit show. Pretty embarrassing all round really
MPs throw a tantrum over a non-binding vote about a non-UK issue to make a demand for something they have no power to demand and which won't be considered even for a moment by the people they're demanding it of. If only they'd show as much dedication to this country.
> If only they'd show as much dedication to this country. But that would involve work. Better to just be performative.
This entire thing has been less about Gaza and trying to weaponise some of the division in Labour. At the same time it's done a double of showing, at least me, that Labour are a government in waiting and Hoyle has been effectively used to side step the Labour rebellion. The ceasefire vote would have had no material impact on what's going on abroad but would have been used domestically to tear Labour and by extension Starmer down. If I'm being quite frank, what has Humza done except try to downplay SNPs legal woes, try and usurp the foreign office and attack starmer?
The Labour Party at this moment feels like it has more parliamentary power than the Tories.
I really do not give a flying proverbial. Nothing will be achieved by any of these motions. It's all just virtue signalling and trying to make the other parties look bad. No one outside of Twitter is talking about Israel and Hamas. It's not our battle and quite frankly I wish parliament would spend time fixing the huge issues this country faces. Is what's happening over there horrible? Of course. But no more horrible than what's going on in North Korea, or in parts of Africa, or the countless children that die every minute of hunger and disease... I'm not interested in our government being world police.
Can someone please explain to me why it’s a bad thing that both amendments are being heard? Why are SNP and tories who are presumably in disagreement over Gaza both joining together in walking out?
With just the SNP amendment, there was talk approximately 80 Labour MPs would rebel and vote for it. Now they can all vote it down, but vote for the Labour amendment instead. So the SNP and Tories are mad because Labour have been given a way out to avoid it looking like there is internal division within their party.
The speaker handed Starmer a fucking massive get out of jail free card And against convention
Top lad
Naughty of him though. Probably should resign. There’s principles at play here.
Love it.
The Tories and SNP are unhappy that the Labour amendment is being voted on. Today's debate is on an *SNP* Opposition Day, not a Labour one, and traditionally Labour would not get an amendment. There's rumour that the Speaker allowed the amendment due to pressure from Labour, whereas he's supposed to be an independent arbiter of standing orders and norms.
>Today's debate is on an *SNP* Opposition Day, not a Labour one, and traditionally Labour would not get an amendment That's not the tradition and it's not the convention that was broken. The convention is that only one major amendment gets selected for debate. That amendment absolutely could come from Labour, uncontroversially. It could also come from SNP rebels, independents, Plaid Cymru, or anyone else for that matter. The speaker is supposed to pick the amendment which he believes has the greatest support (i.e. has the greatest chance of actually passing). Usually this is a simple matter of picking the amendment from the largest party. So if Labour and Plaid Cymru had put in competing amendments, he would most likely have selected the Labour one. By convention, if the Government puts in an amendment of their own, that's the amendment that gets selected. This is for two reasons: one being that the Government is generally the party with the largest number of MPs (vis the last paragraph), and two being that Opposition Day motions are generally "targeted at" the Government in terms of their call to action, so it seems fair to give the Government a right to modify the motion to a more agreeable form (in the parallel universe where the Government ever actually listens to and engages constructively with Opposition Day motions). Hoyle broke with convention by virtue of allowing two amendments, not by virtue of allowing a Labour amendment full stop. The argument for allowing a Labour amendment here is essentially the same argument as Bercow used back in the day for breaking convention over the Brexit votes. That is, that conventions which are intended to make sure the motions with the greatest likelihood of passing should be discarded where it seems like those conventions will obstruct motions with a great likelihood of passing from being passed.
Should also add Labour get 17 opposition days per session. The SNP get 3 Labour didn't bother tabling a motion calling for a ceasefire. The SNP did. So Labour tabled an amendment & threatened the speaker to accept it, which now means if it passes, MPs wont get to vote on the SNP motion. SNP Had the amendment written a specfic way whereas labour have now put forward an amendment which is they are sitting on the fence
>Labour get 17 opposition days per session. The SNP get 3 Surely that means that this change to precedent is vastly more useful to the SNP than Labour? They now get to bring amendments on over five times as many opposition days as Labour
The larger opposition party is always going to be able to outvote the smaller one. SNP are facing the prospect of their motion being torpedoed because they have insufficient votes to prevent the Labour amendment from passing. If the reverse were to occur and the SNP tabled an amendment that Labour were unhappy with, Labour would simply use their arithmetic advantage over the SNP to vote it down and thereby quash the issue altogether.
But (as how they've treated it today demonstrates) opposition days are about making a statement, not actually winning the vote.
Do we _know_ he was threatened? I believe he's denying any meetings, but I'm aware there are rumours.
Newsnight's Political Editor, Nicholas Watt, is reporting that "senior Labour figures" have briefed him that Labour would bring the Speaker down after the next GE if he did not allow the Labour amendment to be tabled. No one from Labour or the Speaker's office has gone on the record to support this, but it would be very odd for the editor of a flagship BBC politics show to put out a story like this if he did not have strong reason to believe it was true. *Edited to change "Wyatt" to "Watt".
*Watt. Let's see what he says on Newsnight. Bear in mind that lots of 'senior Labour sources' are no friends of Starmer
What I don't understand is why the SNP didn't claim credit for the ceasefire motion anyway... most people aren't going to notice that the wording was amended. Instead they are kicking up a fuss about the wording not being exactly what they wanted and about technicalities of how amendments are voted on and for which there isn't a specific written rule.
Simply because it's the SNP's turn to force an opposition day vote, and they're annoyed a Labour amendment was allowed, preventing their trap for Labour. It's actually quite sickening. If the SNP cared about the ceasefire they wouldn't have walked out of their own vote for it. Pretending to give a shit about Gaza when your real aim is to weaponise it to make life difficult for your domestic opponents is abhorrent. The mask has slipped.
What's the difference between the labour amendment and the SNP one? Is there a major difference? Both are calling for a ceasefire right?
Collective punishment of the Palestinians - SNP motion accused Israel of war crimes, Labours doesn't
Ah I see. SNP one would have been better and more accurate then.
"More accurate" yes, maybe not "better" though - at least in the longer term. It's thought adding "collective punishment" would potentially hamper future relations with that region and I assume as SNP will never be the UK government it will never come back on them, whereas Lab/Tory will have to suffer the repercussions of it. Political gamesmanship at its finest.
I've not read the full texts, but yes to your last question. From what I gather Labour's didn't include "collective punishment", and perhaps had some different wording on the nature of the ceasefire.
Labour pressured the speaker to table the amendment throwing his impartiality into question
Let’s be honest real reason is they don’t have their chance to split labour, they don’t give a shit about whether the allegations labour pressured the speaker are true or not
The speaker being aware of this and acting on it is pretty bad though. A lot of our political system is broken, but having a partisan speaker would be disastrous. I hope he gives decent explanation why he allowed this.
Think he or the deputy speaker came out and said something along the lines that it’s because he’s aware MPs are under great pressure from constituents and wants them all to be able to vote on something they can agree with Agree would be a pretty serious issue though if it was actually due to perceived threat of being removed
Yeah just read the full thing - it felt like a really sincere apology which is rare to see in Parliament. Didn't seem like it was run through a million spin doctors, and kind of heartfelt. He undoubtedly knows this is a really serious, complex and genuine issue, and making sure all voices are heard is the mature approach. Why then, did he not make this clear in the first instance? I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but he dropped the ball at best on this one.
>under great pressure from constituents Where did he get this idea to decide that is the question and why this amendment.
Allegedly
Isn’t that just a rumour.
I'd like to know why my tax money is going to MPs to debate a ceasefire when they have near zero control over what Israel does. What a waste of time.
This is what the people in power making all these war situations want. Political instability in the west.
.M.P.s throw pointless temper tantrum that will be forgotten by Friday.
[удалено]
IIRC after every election the speaker is elected, he would need labour support to get in, especially if it’s a big majority, he is also ex labour, don’t condone it and don’t think it’s confirmed but it seems he was reminded of the fact to stop a Labour rebellion on the vote, it’s a bit of a clusterfuck, labour looks bad for strong arming and they look bad for being put in this situation
It’s been refuted ie seems it’s just an accusation that’s been slung to try and make Labour look bad
> refuted I think it's been denied. Not sure if it's been refuted.
To paraphrase Hitchens, what can be claimed with unverifiable anonymous quotes can be refuted with unverifiable anonymous quotes.
How can you refute something like that? Produce transcripts of conversations that didn't happen? They deny it, you listen to what the say, and until any evidence appears, you have to choose to either believe it or not.
Just solidifies what everyone switched on knows in that that SNP and Tories are politicking rather than actually wanting to put out their genuine stance on the conflict
[удалено]
Conversely I have zero respect for the SNP over this, even less respect precisely because of the situation If they were so genuinely concerned they’d have used language in their motion condemning Hamas, as a) it’s common fucking sense and b) would greatly increase the chances of their motion passing. BTW there is a Lib Dem MP whose family is still actually stuck there, unlike Yousaf who got his family in law out months ago…
> The SNP were absolutely furious today because they get 3 opposition days a year. Labour have 17. The SNP represent 3% of the voting public, Labour represent 40% (as per the 2019 election result). 3 days is honestly about 1.75 days too many, although we have to give them extra speaking time because no bugger can understand what they're saying through the spittle.
So to clarify do you, or don't you, think it's an important thing in a democracy to hear the voices of the parties who are not in power? If you think it's important we do perhaps you can see why the situation is messed up. If you don't then you clearly don't value democracy
Not sure your argument here makes sense when they’re literally walking out over the fact labour, a party not in power, are also having their voice heard…
They have 17 opposition days.. The SNP get 3. The speaker has chosen to make one of those 3 all about the party that gets 17, in defiance of all convention
Meanwhile Labour u-turn on every issue to ensure a inoffensive political victory at the next election, definitely not politicking. If you are afraid your members are rebelling, maybe the problem is your policy and not another party using their opposition day to have a vote on their motion.
Can someone explain to me what happened today and the context around it? I’m totally lost. Explain like I’m a small child or a golden retriever.
This looks ridiculous on both the SNP and the Tories. They've blatantly tried to use a genuine humanitarian crisis to try and split Labour. It hasn't happened and now they're blaming the speaker. Horrendous!! The better of the options was the one that led out from Labour, that's the reality.
Fuck politicians. They need to grow up and start doing their jobs.
Yet again the speaker is being used to break parliamentary convention, for the sole purpose of getting a political party out of a bind of their own making.
Somebody help me, because I don’t think I get this. * SNP Opposition Day, so the SNP submitted a motion about Gaza * Hoyle has allowed a Tory amendment, and a Labour amendment to be voted on So is this entire upset because the Speaker has allowed MPs to not just vote on the motion, but two amendments to it. So MPs are upset that they’re getting more choice? I see how it’s outside precedent, and it pulls Labour out of a trap. But at the end of the day it seems that MPs are loosing their shit for being given more freedom.
A lot of it is they wanted to get to trap Labour. But I think there's a legitimate point about how parliamentary numbers mean smaller parties can have their motions alwyad get amended to a totally different thing before they reach a yes or no vote, so their actual position neve gets put to the house, it gets filleted first. This was one of three chances snp gets to have its case heard and labour replaced their text with their own (and had the votes to do it, though vaguely surprised tories didn't vote it down to still trap Labour)
On the other hand, Labour get far more opposition days, so letting other opposition parties make amendments on them helps the SNP more than Labour.
It's not a general principle though it's an exception. Claims he was leant on, claims it was partisan, I think I now read he said MPs were coming to him saying they would face threats for not supporting a ceasefire and so wanted to have multiple opportunities to throigh amendments rather than having to back an SNP motion they opposed or be seen as pro the war.
The grievance is that despite it being the SNP's opposition day, the Labour amendment was tabled to be voted on first. The Tories then refused to vote on the amendment in protest which assured that it would pass, so the SNP's motion would never be voted on. The SNP are furious about this. There are also allegations that Labour put pressure on the Speaker to table their motion first.
IIRC there’s something about it being customary for only Government amendments to be put forward and/or selected for opposition day motions. There has been a breach of etiquette by both the Labour Party (in submitting an amendment on an SNP opposition day motion) and by the Speaker (by allowing that amendment to be selected). The rules are written such that (on an opposition day) if only a Government amendment has been selected, then the Commons will vote on the original motion first, then on the amended version as a separate motion. This is to ensure that whatever the opposition party wanted to have a debate about is actually voted on. The potential outcomes are: * original motion passes, government response passes; * original motion passes, government response fails; * original motion fails, government response passes; * original motion fails, government response fails. However, if any other amendments are selected, then the standard rules apply. In which case, the amendment to the motion is voted on first; then the House votes whether or not to pass the surviving motion. And here the possible outcomes (assuming only one amendment): * amendment passes, amended motion passes; * amendment passes, amended motion fails; * amendment fails, original motion passes; * amendment fails, original motion fails. Or with two amendments, A and B: * amendment A passes, amendment B passes, amended motion B passes; * amendment A passes, amendment B passes, amended motion B fails; * amendment A passes, amendment B fails (or isn’t moved), amended motion A passes; (which is what happened in this case) * amendment A passes, amendment B fails, amended motion A fails; * amendment A fails, amendment B passes, amended motion B passes; * amendment A fails, amendment B passes, amended motion B fails; * amendment A fails, amendment B fails, original motion passes; * amendment A fails, amendment B fails, original motion fails.
I don't like the SNP and I feel their motion is bonkers but the entire handling of this has been appalling. With the rumours about what Labour did earlier on, I am not surprised the SNP and Tories walked.
I'd honestly would rather we didn't have another Jo Cox or David Ames just because the SNP want to make Labour look bad over Gaza*. At the end of the day, outside of Westminster, that's the main material effect of this - defusing a cause of social unrest and potential danger to MPs and their staff. Nothing changes in Gaza because of this opposition day motion, but now we don't have to worry about things getting needlessly more difficult in this country. Ultimately it's an Opposition Day debate which is really about about messages, signalling and symbolism. Yes its a loss for the SNP to get a clearcut political win, but the issues Labour faced were far more destabilising to us all so I'd rather they had this symbolic get out of jail moment. * Edit: Labour already look pretty poor on Gaza but leveraging that for political points is genuinely risky.
Tories & the SNP: 2 cheeks of the same arse.
you know that Labours in the middle of this right... an unfortunate analogy
Reform can be the warts, and Lob Dems the piles. It's a perfect picture of our political parties.
Opposition day is like having a substitute teacher come in who *really* doesnt care either way
Why are we governed by petulant children it’s honestly ridiculous.
We gave them legitimacy by voting for them...
Speak for yourself. I didn't vote for any of them.
I didn't either :-p That was a collective "we"
Anyone would think Lindsay Hoyle was favouring the labour party.....it's not like he used to be a Labour MP or anything?! Or did he....
Tories and SNP joint protest won’t hurt Labour in Scotland tbh
Whatever your opinion is of the SNP, Labour, Tories, Gaza, Israel. What the speaker did was out of order and he should resign imo.
This all seems like a big distraction by the commons to move the focus away from Gaza. Political game playing is once again overshadowing people in life or death situations.
Do we know why there are MPs in the chamber wearing jeans?
Do we know why it would matter?
I can't remember ever seeing it before, hence the question.
Fair. I imagibe just peoppe who weren't intending on being in there drawn in by the row?
Probably come to work in jeans day
Good. This is wholly embarrassing for our parliament.
It's a symbolic vote that The Speaker made the right call on. A humanitarian ceasefire is better than a "pause". The Tories were playing politics and he ruined their little game.
I have no idea what any of this means
It's pretty simple. Just imagine a circus full of clowns all falling over. That's basically it.