Just so - thank you. And to see it carrying on this morning when they’ve all had a chance to calm down is even more dispiriting. I think Hoyle made a mistake in apologising - that will never calm a baying mob.
I quite agree I'd even go further as to say I fail to see what Hoyle had to apologise for? It's exposed his weakness as a speaker, I was never a fan to be frank but I see no issue with his decision that he has the freedom to make and I understand the rationale behind it. I fear the apology has bought him time but realistically he will never regain the respect of the house I'm afraid.
The best explanation I've seen of what went on last night. Having spent some time in Parliament, I'd agree with your observations about the clerks and staff who run the place, despite the worst efforts of many MPs.
That said, in amongst the noise, there were genuine efforts by some MPs to represent the interests of those who are suffering appallingly in Gaza. Worth a look at TheyWorkForYou to see what was being said. I'd highlight David Lammy and Layla Moran. Sadly lost in the noise and the politicking.
Thank you for pointing out the role of the speaker and how he was merely taking responsibility for providing the widest choice on a difficult subject. What’s needed is reform, but with such partisan knuckheads in power, who are more interested in self-service than civil service, it will never happen.
Thank you Ian. I listened to the debate whilst driving back home. There were some reasonable speeches, and I expected that the vote would reflect the opinions expressed. I was utterly gob smacked when I switched on UK TV to discover that the entire proceedings had disintegrated into what would be called farce if the fundamental issue was not so serious. Then I went on Twitter to see even more of the same bollocks. Have we completely lost our capacity to take serious events seriously? is our parliament actually incapable of looking at tragedy unfolding before us and to see it without the prism of their party political view? Dear God, I hope that Keir Starmer can do something to reestablish the gravitas that is lacking from our political institutions. I’m frightened it might be too late.
Thank you so much for this explanation. I’ve been trying to find a source of news this morning that explains what happened yesterday, and there is nothing but partisan bilge and irrelevant whataboutery.
This really hit the spot.
Now the challenge is: what can we (ordinary citizens) do about changing the system?
Thanks for this, Ian. It’s still quite difficult to get a clear picture of what’s going on through the fog and noise of partisan claim and counter-claim. We have become so riven with division since Brexit (or since the Eton mob took over) that it seems impossible to achieve any kind of consensus on anything.
Excellent summary Ian. Hard to disagree with any of it. One question though: you mention the dangers to MPs as a reason for widening the debate yesterday. Does that not then incentivise outside interference (or worse) into parliamentary business?
That's a fair point. But the concession to that danger is simply to give MPs more options, which should be happening anyway. Would be a very different matter, and much more complex, if it led to restricting their voice.
Thank you, helpful assessment. We continue to be let down by all those stating loudly and repeatedly that they speak for us. Parties and party whips mean they don’t often directly do so, but here, they could have transcended all of that to try and reach an actual consensus as you suggest. Sad.
Agreed in full. Can't wait for the citizens' assembly Labour have promised to look into Parliamentary reform. I suspect they won't want to stop at Lords reform once they start digging.
We are still being ruled by a privileged class of people brought up to believe that they are leaders and movers of society.
Until we bury that whole legacy of belief that surreptitiously accords power and privilege to a cultural elite we can never move forward as a democratically responsible society .…it’s not a new problem…
I read this, then immediately afterwards read Stephen Bush's piece in the FT. The latter provided a much clearer explanation of what happened, why it happened and the significance of the Speaker's decision. Less performative outrage, more cogent analysis. I would recommend it to Ian Dunt and his readers
If outrage is genuine, then it is not performative. I am as certain as I can be without having actually met him that Ian’s outrage was not in anyway confected. Not to disparageStephen Bush, who is an excellent journalist, but I read more than one commentator, because different commentators provide different insights. In this Instance, I was grateful to lan for putting intowords my own fury that our political system has been reduced to such a shabby level. Steven s article are always extremely informative, and exactly what I would expect when I choose to read the FT.
Yes. I didn't think Ian Dunt's take on this issue was particular insightful whereas I thought Stephen Bush's take was, which was my point. If you're only interested in Ian Dunt's take then no need to read anything else.
Fair enough, but I think the pieces are doing different things. Bush’s is more of an “explainer” of the specifics of the motions etc, whereas Ian’s is making the point that the whole debacle is symptomatic of the rot in Parliament and strengthens the argument for constitutional reform.
Quite unfair to state that this article is jot insightful! I think Ian has been quite objective in his analysis. There is no need for comparison as each writer enriches the arguments based on their perspective and depth of knowledge of the subject matter. I would argue this was quite a comprehensive analysis.
Sorry Ian but I genuinely think you are being unfair in saying the SNPs motion was designed to hurt Labour. The Scottish parliament has called for an immediate ceasefire, the overwhelming majority of Scots are sickened by what is happening in Gaza and SNP MPs have been consistently calling for an immediate ceasefire for a considerable time That they chose one of their 3 opposition days to raise this shows the strength of feeling about this issue. I find it really disappointing that you so cynically dismiss such humanitarian motives. We are used to the anti independence media and the BBC showing hostility towards Scotland but I always believed you were better than that.
I have a lot of respect for Stephen Flynn and approval for his performance at PMQs. He appears to be a good man and obviously shares most people’s horror at the carnage in Gaza. That said, the cynic in me finds it hard not to think that a small part of the reasoning behind the SNP’s actions yesterday was to discomfort the Labour Party. It is sad that adversarial politics cannot be laid aside by all parties for matters of such humanitarian importance.
Take your point and perhaps I'm a naive idealist, albeit a very old one, but the consistency with which the SNP have long argued for an immediate ceasefire speaks to me of genuine horror at the atrocities being perpetrated in Gaza. Should they not take one of the very limited occasions they have to propose a motion because it might embarrass the Labour Party? I can't express how embarrassed I am at the failure of both Tories and Labour to call for an immediate end to the slaughter. I am ashamed to be British because of their political manouevering.
Could they not take that option to have a sidebar with Labour (and Lib Dems) and put a motion together that each of the parties could agree on - with the hope of winning over a few Conservatives? What would be the reason for not working together to find a compromise set of words, especially given the scale of labour support for the ceasefire amendment/motion last year?
Labour have vacillated for months and have been complicit with the Tories in refusing to back an immediate ceasefire. You seem to want the SNP to ditch their accusations of ‘collective punishment’ which is a war crime to appease the dithering Starmer. Sometimes you have to stick to your principles especially when atrocities are being committed. At what point in your life do you say this has gone too far. The British establishment has blood on its hands and we want no part of it.
The text of the final motion as amended by Labour and approved by the Commons is below:
“That this House believes that an Israeli ground offensive in Rafah risks catastrophic humanitarian consequences and therefore must not take place; notes the intolerable loss of Palestinian life, the majority being women and children;
condemns the terrorism of Hamas who continue to hold hostages;
supports Australia, Canada and New Zealand’s calls for Hamas to release and return all hostages and for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, which means an immediate stop to the fighting and a ceasefire that lasts and is observed by all sides, noting that Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence and that Israelis have the right to the assurance that the horror of 7th October cannot happen again;
therefore supports diplomatic mediation efforts to achieve a lasting ceasefire; demands that rapid and unimpeded humanitarian relief is provided in Gaza;
demands an end to settlement expansion and violence; urges Israel to comply with the International Court of Justice’s provisional measures;
calls for the UN Security Council to be meet urgently;
and urges all international partners to work together to establish a diplomatic process to deliver the peace of a two-state solution, with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state, including working with international partners to recognise a Palestinian state as a contribution to rather than outcome of that process, because statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and not in the gift of any neighbour.”
You may view Israel’s actions as a “war crime”, but that is your opinion not a fact proven in a court of law. You’ll understand that the (likely) next PM and govt can not make this pronouncement on another sovereign nation (that suffered an egregious terrorist massacre) as if they’ve held a trial.
Pragmatism or political impotence in the face of this horrendous slaughter seems to me a dereliction of responsibility by Starmer. I absolutely fail to understand why he cannot show some moral courage.
Tell that to Scotish constituents with family in Gaza and see how you get on, this was political point scoring at its worst so much so the SNP have allowed themselves to be saddled up with the Tories of all people now in order to tear a strip out of Starmer's Labour they saw a weakness and went hard on it that bleeting on was just about semantics they failed to demonstrate a shred of dignity or empathy over a deadly serious dangerous situation and exploited it for petty political grandstanding.
The leader of the SNP is married to a Palestinian and his brother in law is a doctor in Gaza facing death every day. No semantics involved nor political grandstanding. You choose to attack the SNP for a position they have consistently held since November and impugn their motives. Strange that you don’t believe people can be horrified by 30000 deaths and feel they must have another motive. Sadly I think that says more about you
Everyone with a heart is horrified by these deaths I am not quite sure how you can say this of me or anyone otherwise no matter what our political persuasion is and the people we elect should should represent this unity as parliments of old did in times of war and deprevation. I stand by my comment that the SNP demonstrated
no such unity this week and had any other party had behaved thus I would have said what I have about them. This horrific situation needed reasoned dignifed debate and that is not what was presented from all sides of the house. As I said in my original comment not one MP in that chamber came out of this well they should all
ne ashamed, I have contacted my own MP to let him know this also. My advice to you is to not let tribalism come in the way of decency and to think about the greater good. Sadly as you have turned a comment about about political point scoring and division in parliments into a personal attack on me I have reported you and this comment .
I apologise for offending you. It is an overreaction on my part. I am from Scotland and the Scottish Parliament voted overwhelmingly for an immediate ceasefire and the people are totally behind this. I just get upset that the media which is overwhelmingly anti independence is making a genuine and consistent and deeply held position appear like playing politics. Nevertheless once again I apologise to you.
Apology accepted, I am a passionate Welsh lass mate also utterly exasperated by this horrendous Tory government and its constant attack on Labour in Wales so I totally understand your frustration and thar of everyone who wants independece in your country and to a lesser extent my own, for me its not an answer just more questions and division but as a Europhile and former citizen of Europe I will never forgive the buggers for Brexit either. I am also a Liberal and former pacifist and now a mother so believe me this war in Gaza hurts my soul to the core. It took a lot to apologise and I commend you I was angry too yesterday and probably didnt cover myself in glory either as a result. Nothing wrong with healthy debate let's just avoid anything
Thank you. Please accept that I never meant to imply you do not share my anger and sorrow at what is happening in Gaza. As a socialist and internationalist I am deeply disappointed with the Labour Party’s claim that the SNP were playing politics when they are the only party who had actually put forward a motion for an immediate ceasefire and an end to collective punishment of the Palestinians. Much of the media and sadly Ian Dunt appear to believe that the motion was done to embarrass Labour when in fact it was a decent and principled reaction to the humanitarian crisis. I expect you and I probably agree on most things, I am sorry for upsetting you and I wish you all the very best.
Just so - thank you. And to see it carrying on this morning when they’ve all had a chance to calm down is even more dispiriting. I think Hoyle made a mistake in apologising - that will never calm a baying mob.
I quite agree I'd even go further as to say I fail to see what Hoyle had to apologise for? It's exposed his weakness as a speaker, I was never a fan to be frank but I see no issue with his decision that he has the freedom to make and I understand the rationale behind it. I fear the apology has bought him time but realistically he will never regain the respect of the house I'm afraid.
The best explanation I've seen of what went on last night. Having spent some time in Parliament, I'd agree with your observations about the clerks and staff who run the place, despite the worst efforts of many MPs.
That said, in amongst the noise, there were genuine efforts by some MPs to represent the interests of those who are suffering appallingly in Gaza. Worth a look at TheyWorkForYou to see what was being said. I'd highlight David Lammy and Layla Moran. Sadly lost in the noise and the politicking.
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2024-02-21a.723.1&s=speaker%3A25689#g734.0
Thank you for pointing out the role of the speaker and how he was merely taking responsibility for providing the widest choice on a difficult subject. What’s needed is reform, but with such partisan knuckheads in power, who are more interested in self-service than civil service, it will never happen.
What the Speaker deemed as fair seems to have been shot down in flames by MP’s as it seems their tactical ploy was foiled!
Thank you Ian. I listened to the debate whilst driving back home. There were some reasonable speeches, and I expected that the vote would reflect the opinions expressed. I was utterly gob smacked when I switched on UK TV to discover that the entire proceedings had disintegrated into what would be called farce if the fundamental issue was not so serious. Then I went on Twitter to see even more of the same bollocks. Have we completely lost our capacity to take serious events seriously? is our parliament actually incapable of looking at tragedy unfolding before us and to see it without the prism of their party political view? Dear God, I hope that Keir Starmer can do something to reestablish the gravitas that is lacking from our political institutions. I’m frightened it might be too late.
“How Westminster works and why it doesn’t” encapsulated in this article!
Great insights provided.
Thank you so much for this explanation. I’ve been trying to find a source of news this morning that explains what happened yesterday, and there is nothing but partisan bilge and irrelevant whataboutery.
This really hit the spot.
Now the challenge is: what can we (ordinary citizens) do about changing the system?
Thank you.
Thanks for this, Ian. It’s still quite difficult to get a clear picture of what’s going on through the fog and noise of partisan claim and counter-claim. We have become so riven with division since Brexit (or since the Eton mob took over) that it seems impossible to achieve any kind of consensus on anything.
Mother of Parliaments?
Brilliant clarity and vision. Thank you.
Excellent summary Ian. Hard to disagree with any of it. One question though: you mention the dangers to MPs as a reason for widening the debate yesterday. Does that not then incentivise outside interference (or worse) into parliamentary business?
That's a fair point. But the concession to that danger is simply to give MPs more options, which should be happening anyway. Would be a very different matter, and much more complex, if it led to restricting their voice.
Indeed. Some are treading a fine line between protest/activism and political terrorism.
Thank you, helpful assessment. We continue to be let down by all those stating loudly and repeatedly that they speak for us. Parties and party whips mean they don’t often directly do so, but here, they could have transcended all of that to try and reach an actual consensus as you suggest. Sad.
Agreed in full. Can't wait for the citizens' assembly Labour have promised to look into Parliamentary reform. I suspect they won't want to stop at Lords reform once they start digging.
Do let us know here in the States if you find a way to limit office holding to grownups only
We are still being ruled by a privileged class of people brought up to believe that they are leaders and movers of society.
Until we bury that whole legacy of belief that surreptitiously accords power and privilege to a cultural elite we can never move forward as a democratically responsible society .…it’s not a new problem…
I read this, then immediately afterwards read Stephen Bush's piece in the FT. The latter provided a much clearer explanation of what happened, why it happened and the significance of the Speaker's decision. Less performative outrage, more cogent analysis. I would recommend it to Ian Dunt and his readers
If outrage is genuine, then it is not performative. I am as certain as I can be without having actually met him that Ian’s outrage was not in anyway confected. Not to disparageStephen Bush, who is an excellent journalist, but I read more than one commentator, because different commentators provide different insights. In this Instance, I was grateful to lan for putting intowords my own fury that our political system has been reduced to such a shabby level. Steven s article are always extremely informative, and exactly what I would expect when I choose to read the FT.
Presumably you read Ian’s pieces to get Ian’s take, no?
Yes. I didn't think Ian Dunt's take on this issue was particular insightful whereas I thought Stephen Bush's take was, which was my point. If you're only interested in Ian Dunt's take then no need to read anything else.
Fair enough, but I think the pieces are doing different things. Bush’s is more of an “explainer” of the specifics of the motions etc, whereas Ian’s is making the point that the whole debacle is symptomatic of the rot in Parliament and strengthens the argument for constitutional reform.
Happy for you
Quite unfair to state that this article is jot insightful! I think Ian has been quite objective in his analysis. There is no need for comparison as each writer enriches the arguments based on their perspective and depth of knowledge of the subject matter. I would argue this was quite a comprehensive analysis.
Sorry Ian but I genuinely think you are being unfair in saying the SNPs motion was designed to hurt Labour. The Scottish parliament has called for an immediate ceasefire, the overwhelming majority of Scots are sickened by what is happening in Gaza and SNP MPs have been consistently calling for an immediate ceasefire for a considerable time That they chose one of their 3 opposition days to raise this shows the strength of feeling about this issue. I find it really disappointing that you so cynically dismiss such humanitarian motives. We are used to the anti independence media and the BBC showing hostility towards Scotland but I always believed you were better than that.
I have a lot of respect for Stephen Flynn and approval for his performance at PMQs. He appears to be a good man and obviously shares most people’s horror at the carnage in Gaza. That said, the cynic in me finds it hard not to think that a small part of the reasoning behind the SNP’s actions yesterday was to discomfort the Labour Party. It is sad that adversarial politics cannot be laid aside by all parties for matters of such humanitarian importance.
Take your point and perhaps I'm a naive idealist, albeit a very old one, but the consistency with which the SNP have long argued for an immediate ceasefire speaks to me of genuine horror at the atrocities being perpetrated in Gaza. Should they not take one of the very limited occasions they have to propose a motion because it might embarrass the Labour Party? I can't express how embarrassed I am at the failure of both Tories and Labour to call for an immediate end to the slaughter. I am ashamed to be British because of their political manouevering.
Could they not take that option to have a sidebar with Labour (and Lib Dems) and put a motion together that each of the parties could agree on - with the hope of winning over a few Conservatives? What would be the reason for not working together to find a compromise set of words, especially given the scale of labour support for the ceasefire amendment/motion last year?
Labour have vacillated for months and have been complicit with the Tories in refusing to back an immediate ceasefire. You seem to want the SNP to ditch their accusations of ‘collective punishment’ which is a war crime to appease the dithering Starmer. Sometimes you have to stick to your principles especially when atrocities are being committed. At what point in your life do you say this has gone too far. The British establishment has blood on its hands and we want no part of it.
The text of the final motion as amended by Labour and approved by the Commons is below:
“That this House believes that an Israeli ground offensive in Rafah risks catastrophic humanitarian consequences and therefore must not take place; notes the intolerable loss of Palestinian life, the majority being women and children;
condemns the terrorism of Hamas who continue to hold hostages;
supports Australia, Canada and New Zealand’s calls for Hamas to release and return all hostages and for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, which means an immediate stop to the fighting and a ceasefire that lasts and is observed by all sides, noting that Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence and that Israelis have the right to the assurance that the horror of 7th October cannot happen again;
therefore supports diplomatic mediation efforts to achieve a lasting ceasefire; demands that rapid and unimpeded humanitarian relief is provided in Gaza;
demands an end to settlement expansion and violence; urges Israel to comply with the International Court of Justice’s provisional measures;
calls for the UN Security Council to be meet urgently;
and urges all international partners to work together to establish a diplomatic process to deliver the peace of a two-state solution, with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state, including working with international partners to recognise a Palestinian state as a contribution to rather than outcome of that process, because statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and not in the gift of any neighbour.”
You may view Israel’s actions as a “war crime”, but that is your opinion not a fact proven in a court of law. You’ll understand that the (likely) next PM and govt can not make this pronouncement on another sovereign nation (that suffered an egregious terrorist massacre) as if they’ve held a trial.
Pragmatism or political impotence in the face of this horrendous slaughter seems to me a dereliction of responsibility by Starmer. I absolutely fail to understand why he cannot show some moral courage.
Tell that to Scotish constituents with family in Gaza and see how you get on, this was political point scoring at its worst so much so the SNP have allowed themselves to be saddled up with the Tories of all people now in order to tear a strip out of Starmer's Labour they saw a weakness and went hard on it that bleeting on was just about semantics they failed to demonstrate a shred of dignity or empathy over a deadly serious dangerous situation and exploited it for petty political grandstanding.
The leader of the SNP is married to a Palestinian and his brother in law is a doctor in Gaza facing death every day. No semantics involved nor political grandstanding. You choose to attack the SNP for a position they have consistently held since November and impugn their motives. Strange that you don’t believe people can be horrified by 30000 deaths and feel they must have another motive. Sadly I think that says more about you
Everyone with a heart is horrified by these deaths I am not quite sure how you can say this of me or anyone otherwise no matter what our political persuasion is and the people we elect should should represent this unity as parliments of old did in times of war and deprevation. I stand by my comment that the SNP demonstrated
no such unity this week and had any other party had behaved thus I would have said what I have about them. This horrific situation needed reasoned dignifed debate and that is not what was presented from all sides of the house. As I said in my original comment not one MP in that chamber came out of this well they should all
ne ashamed, I have contacted my own MP to let him know this also. My advice to you is to not let tribalism come in the way of decency and to think about the greater good. Sadly as you have turned a comment about about political point scoring and division in parliments into a personal attack on me I have reported you and this comment .
I apologise for offending you. It is an overreaction on my part. I am from Scotland and the Scottish Parliament voted overwhelmingly for an immediate ceasefire and the people are totally behind this. I just get upset that the media which is overwhelmingly anti independence is making a genuine and consistent and deeply held position appear like playing politics. Nevertheless once again I apologise to you.
Apology accepted, I am a passionate Welsh lass mate also utterly exasperated by this horrendous Tory government and its constant attack on Labour in Wales so I totally understand your frustration and thar of everyone who wants independece in your country and to a lesser extent my own, for me its not an answer just more questions and division but as a Europhile and former citizen of Europe I will never forgive the buggers for Brexit either. I am also a Liberal and former pacifist and now a mother so believe me this war in Gaza hurts my soul to the core. It took a lot to apologise and I commend you I was angry too yesterday and probably didnt cover myself in glory either as a result. Nothing wrong with healthy debate let's just avoid anything
personal if we lock horns again. Diolch x
Thank you. Please accept that I never meant to imply you do not share my anger and sorrow at what is happening in Gaza. As a socialist and internationalist I am deeply disappointed with the Labour Party’s claim that the SNP were playing politics when they are the only party who had actually put forward a motion for an immediate ceasefire and an end to collective punishment of the Palestinians. Much of the media and sadly Ian Dunt appear to believe that the motion was done to embarrass Labour when in fact it was a decent and principled reaction to the humanitarian crisis. I expect you and I probably agree on most things, I am sorry for upsetting you and I wish you all the very best.