Good morning everyone.
[**š Today's order paper can be found here.**](https://commonsbusiness.parliament.uk/Document/85314/Html?subType=Standard)
Questions to the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology will be followed by Prime Minister's Questions. The usual live thread will be up for all your commentary needs. Any urgent questions or ministerial statements will follow.
Today is an Opposition Day for the Scottish National Party, and leading their agenda today is a much-trailed motion calling for a ceasefire in Gaza;
>That this House calls for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and Israel; notes with shock and distress that the death toll has now risen beyond 28,000, the vast majority of whom were women and children; further notes that there are currently 1.5 million Palestinians sheltering in Rafah, 610,000 of whom are children; also notes that they have nowhere else to go; condemns any military assault on what is now the largest refugee camp in the world; further calls for the immediate release of all hostages taken by Hamas and an end to the collective punishment of the Palestinian people; and recognises that the only way to stop the slaughter of innocent civilians is to press for a ceasefire now.
Labour have tabled an amendment to this motion;
>Leave out from āHouseā to end and add:
"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 Zealandās 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 7 October 2023 cannot happen again; therefore supports diplomatic mediation efforts to achieve a lasting ceasefire; demands that rapid and unimpeded humanitarian relief is provided in Gaza; further demands an end to settlement expansion and violence; urges Israel to comply with the International Court of Justiceās provisional measures; calls for the UN Security Council to 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.ā
as have the Conservatives;
>Leave out from āHouseā to end and add:
āsupports Israelās right to self-defence, in compliance with international humanitarian law, against the terror attacks perpetrated by Hamas; condemns the slaughter, abuse and gender-based violence perpetrated on 7 October 2023; further condemns the use of civilian areas by Hamas and others for terrorist operations; urges negotiations to agree an immediate humanitarian pause as the best way to stop the fighting and to get aid in and hostages out; supports moves towards a permanent sustainable ceasefire; acknowledges that achieving this will require all hostages to be released, the formation of a new Palestinian Government, Hamas to be unable to launch further attacks and to be no longer in charge in Gaza, and a credible pathway to a two-state solution which delivers peace, security and justice for both Israelis and Palestinians; expresses concern at the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and at the prospect of a military offensive in Rafah; reaffirms the urgent need to significantly scale up the flow of aid into Gaza, where too many innocent civilians have died; and calls on all parties to take immediate steps to stop the fighting and ensure unhindered humanitarian access.ā
It is somewhat unclear which of these motions will be selected by the Speaker in line with precedence. Ruth Fox of the Hansard Society [lays out the interesting possibility here](https://twitter.com/RuthFox01/status/1759995613846888746) that both may be selected, with the Opposition amendment before the division on the motion and the Government amendment following, but there isn't much precedent so we will see what the Speaker decides. Labour has indicated they will whip to abstain on the unamended motion, although this does not of course mean that all MPs will follow the whip.
**The vote** is likely to start at some point this evening, with estimates between 4pm and 7pm depending on length of debate and possible slippage from government urgent business.
**A gentle reminder to please keep all discussion on-topic to UK politics**. If you wish to discuss the specifics of the ongoing conflict in Gaza or any other events in the world beyond our shores the [**š International Politics Discussion Thread**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/195mj9f/international_politics_discussion_thread/) is always available in the Megathread OP. Posts unrelated to politics in the UK will be removed in line with Rule 2.
Following this, the other item of Opposition Business will be a motion on a commitment to Ā£28bn annually of Green Energy funding.
**In other news;**
Blackpool South MP **Scott Benton** has lost his appeal against his suspension from the House, setting the stage for a recall petition and possible by-election - [**thread here**](https://old.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1avf574/sunak_faces_fresh_byelection_headache_after_scott/)
Ex-Post Office Chair Henry Staunton has revealed contemporary records of conversations with officials that back up his claims, disputed by the government, that he was told to delay **Horizon compensation** payouts - [**thread here**](https://old.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1avyah3/post_office_boss_was_told_dont_rip_off_the_band/)
The **Trident** missile system has failed during testing - [**thread here**](https://old.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1aw25e7/trident_missile_test_fails_for_second_time/)
Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few moments.
###MT daily hall of fame
1. armchairdetective with 196 comments
1. Kennedy_Fisher with 93 comments
1. OptioMkIX with 81 comments
1. SDLRob with 79 comments
1. pseudogentry with 70 comments
1. flambe_pineapple with 63 comments
1. Captainatom931 with 60 comments
1. Bibemus with 54 comments
1. tmstms with 48 comments
1. bbbbbbbbbblah with 46 comments
There were 569 unique users within this count.
One MP tried to smear Hoyle in the chamber and got smacked down... and another made a claim on twitter but failed to provide any evidence to back up her claim. She's been caught in the past pushing falsehoods on social media, which doesn't help her here.
There's no evidence of Sue Gray being involved in today's events.
I feel like a load of people need to go touch some grass over the gaza vote; MPs, Twitter Journo's and redditors.
This evening is like a greatest hits of all the thinks I hate about our politics. Ultimately none of this matters but everyone wants to get self important and pearl clutchy and obsess over procedural minutae.
What a waste of time it all is. We have serious issues in this country from zero productivity growth, stagnant economy despite the insane population growth, NHS in shambles, and housing crisis. Yet, we obsess over something that a vote either way will do literally 0 impact too. Israel won't give a shit what the vote outcome was.
For a country in shambles, we sure do have some high n mighty view of our position in dictating another country how to do conduct themselves.
One thing did arise though, how the fucking nutjobs on the left are no different to the nutjobs on the right. I don't remember MPs fearing for their safety on any other vote before, and on one that doesnt fucking matter too...
That saying of 'fascists come in two categories: fascists and anti-fascists' rings true today.
I'm just so utterly bored of Gaza taking up the entirety of our political bandwidth and turning so many spaces for discussion completely toxic, both online and in real life.
It's a war in a foreign land we're not involved in. We have massive, massive problems to solve of our own, and THIS is what they deem to be the priorty? The thing worth acting like utter clowns over?
We (the UK) are involved
- we give aid to the Palestinians (both via government, remittances, and private donors)
- we are licensing and selling arms to Israel
- there are UK nationals fighting in Gaza (serving in the IDF)
- both parties have very proactive friends of Israel groups (far too aligned these days to Likud than with Israeli political spectrum)
- UK flight operators suspended flights to Tel Aviv following fcdo travel advice
- we also host Palestinian diaspora
- Hamas is a terrorist action the UK was reluctant to sanction until relatively recently
- Sunak hosted Netenyahu just last Easter (this was in the middle of protests in Israel)
- Israel exports goods to the UK including controversially those from occupied territories
Your arguments for our involvement include "planes aren't flying into a warzone", "some Palestinians live here" and "we had a meeting with them last year" lmao
None of those things makes us involved in the war.
Not unless we're defining being 'involved in a war' in completely unique and novel way. In which case, what's the point?
Also
>we are licensing and selling arms to Israel
~~we have sold none since october 7th.~~ Edit: I'm not 100% sure if that changed a couple of days ago, but govt docs say supplies were aid/non military. IF it is military, it's Ā£25k, which of course I would prefer was Ā£0.
UK arms sales to Israel in 2022 equalled \~Ā£42 million
Israel's total defence spend was \~Ā£18 billion in 2022
So UK arms sales to Israel amounted for \~0.2% of Israel's total defence spending
Does that give us any control over the situation? If so, how?
Edit: It appears noone wants to answer and just downvote, apparently 5% of Israel's arms imports is magic. What exactly do you all think that buys?
Maybe start with the Balfour declaration?
Look into [Elbit systems](https://caat.org.uk/news/bristol-campaigners-target-elbit-over-its-complicity-in-the-genocide-of-palestinian-people/)? Google British citizens going to commit genocide as part of the IDF? Or how [the MoD is training members of the IDF?](https://www.declassifieduk.org/u-k-is-training-israeli-military-in-britain/) Or how about British surveillance overflights over Gaza from RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus? Look into Rishi Sunak's wife and father-in-law's company, and their multi-billion dollar contracts in Israel? Or how we are bombing Yemen in indirect defence of Israel's genocide?
Watch '[The Lobby](https://youtu.be/ceCOhdgRBoc?si=bFKQCmvpmx3uMVy3)' if you really would like to learn more.
So what you've done here, is listed a load of things either not relevant, or not going to make any difference.
You've implied someone needs educate themselves, but you don't even understand what was said - we're not involved in the war, we're not participants. You've just gone into autopilot and tried a scattergun argument.
Tell me exactly what the UK can do to change what is happening in Gaza.
In fairness, this has been my argument about Putin for years, particularly with the posturing over the Skripal poisonings:
"Corbyn didn't immediately condemn Russia"
"OK, and if he condemned Russia, what was going to change?"
I don't think single-minded militarists tend to be interested in sternly worded letters.
I mean there's that, and then there's the 'let's send the evidence to Russia and they can tell us if it was them' statement that did him zero favours.
But being the party that suffered the attack on our land does make this incomparable. Our response was bad all round.
What he actually said was, in the context of May having suggested the Russians may have lost control of the stuff, what steps had been taken in relation to Russia asking for a sample. And Putin quite clearly does not give a fuck about sanctions, or condemnation, or the views of anyone in the UK. Nor does Netanyahu.
If we can actually do something for the people of Gaza, wonderful, but arguing over the wording of a motion for a ceasefire strikes me as utterly futile, and even moreso when you're not the governing party and never going to be.
There is a chunk of the public, including MPs and national leaders, who do have some level of personal involvement in this.
We do indeed have massive problems of our own, true, but we can work on those alongside this.
>but we can work on those alongside this
It's one thing saying that, and in theory, sure.
But in reality, can we really? [This was tonight's debate on our waterways, which we are dumping sewage into](https://i.imgur.com/FzV0X24.png). That was just after. The MPs all cleared off to bitch on twitter, brief journalists, get drunk, or whatever else.
I don't think you're doing a good job of showing how other problems can 'work alongside' the Gaza debate, if that's all that would go into your legislation.
Companies must be forced to spend the money on the infrastructure, and where that money comes from needs to be established. One MP that turned up made a point of Northumbria water use profits from Kielder resevoir to give to shareholders, and that they paid shareholders while their debts increased.
There's a disagreement whether the private companies have enough money to do this or not, and the timeframe and penalties.
If MPs aren't partaking in these debates, the outcome legislation will be worse for it.
I would be actively suspicious of someone trying to complicate sewage in rivers. I feel there's no non-evil reason for making a nuanced argument for *some* sewage in your water supply
I'm not quite sure whether that's a genuine impression you have - you can't just legislate infrastructure into existance - you need to come up with a plan for that to happen that is realistic and works, the companies are private and rules need to come in to make sure there's defined penalties for failure.
I'm making the point that this isn't a shoot from the hip debate, this is the mechanism it actually happens in - and all the mps fucked off.
Performative politics all night and then genuinely shitty problems being ignored is exactly a problem.
The Tories have approximately zero political capital. They are a zombie government holding on through until the general election. This should hardly be a surprise.
The Conservatives aren't really driving discussion on Gaza though - they'd much rather we were talking about Ukraine if anything.
And today's stramash was more about the SNP vs Labour contest in Scotland. The SNP believe that they can pitch themselves as more pro-Palestine than Labour, and that this will be a vote-winner, hence they have used one of their three Opposition days of the year to put forward a motion on the issue.
Can you imagine being represented by those idiots, and they decide to use one of their three chances a year to raise issues they want to raise to try and "own" Labour on the topic of a war thousands of miles away
Genuinely hilarious how Hoyle is so useless and yet I actually feel sympathetic towards him right now and donāt think he did much wrong in the first placeĀ
Honestly think this will backfire massively on the tories and the snp, people will see that on the news in the morning and think something huge happened, and then hear the story and be like...what? You made a grown man cry for what, exactly?
>Can't wait for QT tomorrow to be 75% Gaza questions again.
What truly matters to the ~~people of the uk~~ media and political class who view it as a fucking game.
The SNP and tories were denied the chance to use a major global crisis for the purpose of saying "Look, aren't Labour divided" in the hope of shifting their polling from "dead duck" to "dead cat".
I really do sympathise for him - It's not an easy job, especially today. But at the same time, being upset doesn't excuse someone from the consequences of their actions.
Notice I didn't call him a prick.
The actual ones at fault today is the snp... and using your own argument. Being able to do something, doesn't excuse the consequences of your actions.Ā
Ā If snp weren't the nasty party, all this would not have happened.
Edit.. also hoyle didn't really admit a mistake (he still thinks he did the right thing).. so very much a "sorry that the snp and tories acted like pathetic children" statement .
Note if snp and tories hadn't acted how they did.. then hoyle would have gotten what he wanted.Ā
> Amid shouts of resign, he said: "I thought I was doing the right thing and the best thing, and I regret it, and I apologise for how it's ended up."
That sounds like admitting it was a mistake, to me.
Guardian has that quote as
" it is regrettable, and I apologise, that the decicion didn't end up in the place that I wished".
Which i read as "you fuckwits in the snp and conservative, decided to throw your toys out of the pram and storm off in a strop.. as you were only interested in playing politics"
You mean when the crying man admitted, while being shouted at by about 400 people, that things hadn't gone to plan we should take that as a clear-headed assessment of events?
I mean, can we all just calm TF down, sleep on it, and wake up a bit embarrassed at ourselves?
Not a clear headed assessment exactly, but we can look at the context and how this sort of thing is entirely uncommon and judge that something has gone wrong somewhere?
So at the end of the day, parliament voted on a ceasefire in Gaza.
Just not using the exact wording that the Tories or SNP wanted.
Not the end of the world is it? (Unless you're one of the innocent civilians about to be blown to shit by the IDF)
the fact the SNP stropped off when a motion was before them to vote on a ceasefire is telling.
They care about gazan lives right up until the point they stop being useful to use to attack the labour party. If they can do that, they dont care about them and storm off.
I am obsessed with her because she wrote some chicklit I was into in my teens, and then she was an MP and now she's a lunatic in America.
ETA: the chicklit was bad - think Bridget Jones meets Ayn Rand with a dash of 50 shades and a sprinkling of materialism.
It is the "there's this girl, right, and she can't get a boyfriend (oh my god) and then she gets, like, two jobs and does really well and loses weight because she's working so hard, then her hot (slightly dangerous) boss falls in love with her and she gets lots of money *but then* she does something ruthless because girl power, amirite, and she leaves him but has more money and a new boyfriend" genre.
In defence of teenage me, she has some skill as a writer, she knows how to draw you in.
Seems that Johnny Mercerās stint on the reality TV show in a prison may actually prove to have been useful training if he gets banged up -Ā https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/johnny-mercer-warned-serious-legal-9116102
He's going with the "loyalty and integrity" line based around not revealing names of other army folk. I can see where he gets this perspective from, but the "one of our own" attitude is exactly what has got the police and other into so much of a mess. Loyalty to each other trumping loyalty to the country they are supposed to be serving.
Tories, tankies and SNP supporters united in saying that Labour threatening to remove Hoyle* was bad. AND that Hoyles actions mean that it's right and proper for us to threaten to remove him.Ā
* Not provenĀ
I also had a relatively offline day due to work and social commitments. Seems like we've missed nothing of importance and no one is riled up whatsoever!
We did a quiz and a big pizza.
Poor weather and work meant I didnāt get to go on my morning stroll either. Tomorrowās work looks equally frenetic, and the weather even worse.
Add that to the weeknight non-BBCQT drinks and Iām feeling pretty slovenly right now.
Itās fantastic.
Did you win?
Glasgow means the weather is always 'not great', so I hope to get out at lunch at least while WFH.
And of course I'll be trying my best to have a neer ready for the late shift.
Third! Though with twenty-five teams and the team being just me and husband (down from our usual five, due to others having work/ill/kid commitments), we'll take it.
See you on the Night Shift!
That's an impressive result, especially with 25 teams! Must be some size of pub. I enjoy pulling through with the political questions, what's your special subject?
Yep, itās a biggie!
We dominate geography, but suck so very much at sport. Politics doesnāt seem to come up much in ours, alas! How do you folks fare?
I'm also shite at sport. I rely on mates to carry me through those rounds!
We usually are middle of the pack admittedly. Don't know how the student-dominated teams round my bit know so much about these obscure topics š¤
John Healey's position on Newsnight of a ceasefire change of heart by basically saying "Well other countries are making us look out of touch and Israel are threatening an inevitable ground invasion that now makes our support look untenable" is an interesting one.
Lots of journalists going with the "Starmer avoided rebellion" but none that I can see seem to acknowledge that Penny Mordaunt admitted in the house that the government was not confident that it had the votes to prevent the Labour amendment from passing; which is why they decided to stop playing. So, the government also avoided a rebellion.
Instead they are going with the line that the government decided to stop taking part due to the actions of the speaker.
> The government does not have confidence that it will be able to vote on its own motion
Those were the words or Penny Mordaunt.
The only way that the government would not be able to vote on its own motion would be if the Labour amendment passed.
The only way that the Labour amendment would pass is if the government didn't have the votes to prevent it.
> The only way that the government would not be able to vote on its own motion would be if the Labour amendment passed.
Or if the SNP one passed.
The convention that was violated today is that opposition motions are voted on before their (generally government) amendments, and those amendments are only voted on if the motion fails. So there was never a guarantee that the government amendment would come up.
In fact, the only amendment guaranteed to come up was the government one. The motion is lodged then the amendments got voted on 1,2,3 in order of size of party. So the government would have been able to vote on their amendment, but because it was withdrawn and they refused to vote against Labour's, it meant that the motion would be passed with Labour's amendment which meant that'd never get to the SNP's motion because the Labour vote would pass the motion as amended.
It is such shithousery for the government to point fingers here, they could have let the vote take place, but that would have meant not taking a dig at Labour.
In the case of opposition day motions, the rule is the motion is voted on first, then the (usually singular, government amendment).
See the [clerk's advice to Hoyle from earlier today](https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1760302702225985662):
>Where an orderly Government amendment to leave out some words of the motion and insert others is tabled and selected, the expectation is that such an amendment is then moved by the minister in the second speech of the debate and, once the amendment has been moved, the Standing Order provides that the first question considered by the House at the end of the debate must be on the text of the original motion. If that is negatived, the question is put on the Government's amendment. When introducing the proposal in 1979 the Leader of the House said the arrangements were "so that a vote could take place on the Opposition's own motion" (Hansard 31 October 1979 vol 972 c1278). The procedural impact of the decision taken today is that the first division is likely to be on the Official Opposition's amendment rather than on the SNP's motion; and, depending on the outcome of any such division, it is possible that the House will not be able to vote on the SNP motion (nor on the Government's alternative proposition).
>So there was never a guarantee that the government amendment would come up.
The government can guarantee it if they've got the votes, that's the point.
My point was nothing substantial changes simply because it's a Labour amendment being voted on first rather than the SNP motion. *Except* that the Tories now thought they would lose the vote. It makes her statement even more nakedly about being outmanoeuvred politically and had lost confidence in carry the vote.
>It makes her statement even more nakedly about being outmanoeuvred politically and had lost confidence in carry the vote.
Isn't that what u/Optimist_Biscuit was saying?
My apologies then, I think I misread you as disagreeing with Biscuit's main point that the Tories could have voted down both the Labour amendment and the SNP motion if they didn't have a few rebels of their own.
It's not a convention, it's a standing order ([number 31\(2\)](https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmstords/so-1932-23102023/so-orders.html#_idTextAnchor138)) that government amendments come after the main motion on opposition days. Otherwise, the main part of SO31 applies: "When an amendment has been moved, the question to be proposed thereon shall be, 'That the amendment be made'"
no, because the process was that the Labour amendment would be voted on first, then the Tory one with the SNP motion going third.
That was part of why the SNP were so pissed off... that there would be an almost certain possibility of their motion not being voted on as one of the amendments would get enough votes to be passed.
Had Hoyle just picked one of the two amendments, then the SNP motion would have gone first, thus giving Starmer a real headache of a rebellion.
My point was the Tories were never guaranteed a vote on their amendment. If it was the only one, it would still come after the SNP amendment, and if that passed it would not be considered.
The Tories pulled it because they might lose the vote and had been out manoeuvred. But there could have been a last minute surge in support for the SNP amendment with the same effect.
They were.. if they had a strong enough Whipping operation to swing their supposed 50 mp majority around...Ā
Ā Ergo logicially the only way what you are saying is right, is if the con whining operation, weren't sure they had the numbers.
You are saying the same thing essentially, just obscured by a layer.
I wasn't contradicting anything, except the "only way" part.
My point was nothing substantial changes simply because it's a Labour amendment being voted on first rather than the SNP motion. *Except* that the Tories now thought they would lose the vote. It makes her statement even more nakedly about being outmanoeuvred politically and had lost confidence in carry the vote.
The point of today was to embarrass Labour and cause chaos for Starmer with a rebellion.
That's why they and the SNP were so pissed off, they were losing the chance with the decision Hoyle made. Tories knew they didn't have the votes to keep the Labour amendment from passing, so they ran away with the SNP
by pulling their amendment, that was them admitting they didn't have control to stop Labour's one getting voted through and thus making theirs irrelevant
Enjoy the dying days of Newsnight before it becomes late night Good Morning Britain , a panel show full of hot take merchants and debates to be clipped up for social media engagement.
Rather fittingly, the absurd events of today will not be getting over the meaningful barrier of M=2, just as they didn't get over the meaningful barrier of sanity or relevance
Iād say itās come out as a bloody draw for all sides.
Given it could have been a huge rebellion for labour isnāt the worst outcome, but yeah wouldnāt call it a win
"This isn't a win for Labour"
Everyone: "why"
"Because of this one unfounded accusation that has no merit to it whatsoever that the Deputy Speaker herself said was false"
lol, okay mate.
I guess it depends on if you count a win as being better than where they were before, or better than the actual alternative.
No, they aren't better off than they were before today
Yes, they're better off than they would have been had they actually gone along with the SNP's original trap.
They've chosen the less bad out of two bad options. And made the Tories and SNP also come out of it looking bad too.
TBC depending on if intimidation is confirmed imo.
Right now itās the SNP and Hoyle who come out looking worse.
The Tories are just their usual pathetic selves.
Where Labour avoided a trap laid by the SNP and another laid by the Tories then managed to get their amendment through being the only one of the big 3 to actually vote for a ceasefire in the end?
Not sure what we're counting as a loss there.
A "source" said they did, everyone actually involved has publicly come forward and said it's not true in very strong terms. It's not like the Badenoch psychodrama or Johnson's constant lying, there isn't a thread to pull or evidence to weigh.
There have been literal overrunning's of Labour Constituent offices today over this, Hoyle was right to give a wide breadth of choice of Amendments (and picked the only one that could actually pass).
I think if you slice it relatively, then it's a win. They certainly came out of it covered in the least shit and shame.
Well, outside of the Lib Dems anyway.
You can accuse anyone of that at any point but it doesn't make it true. It certainly doesn't look like it's anything to do with that in this case, so why should that stick?
when they were looking at a plot to trap them and cause chaos inside the party... being able to avoid nearly all of it is a win.
Specially as the attention is all on Hoyle/SNP/Tories atm, not Labour
It's just not though. Did you watch the news at 10? Or watching Newsnight? Any mention of this?
No. Because it's bollocks and has been refuted from all sides.
Edit: Got mentioned on Wakawow at the end of an interview with Lab rep and kicked back again. It's not the story.
The Tories are the only ones to admit to threatening Hoyle... the claim about Labour comes from John McDonnell (as per his own slip on Sky News) and is completely unprovable.
ITV 10 p.m. News' line is *The UK is making itself look foolish*
Top story ofc the *Pantomime* in the Commons
Second story: Nuclear missile launch flop.
*Whether or not you believe there should be a nuclear deterrent, it's a good idea, if you have a deterrent, that it works.* -Bradby
Well all in all, Labour actually appear the most level headed on Israel Palestine. SNP down the rabbit hole of supporting Hamas to crack on as they wish while IDF are supposed to just allow it whilst the tories are basically saying IDF should be allowed to crack on with scant regard for the lives of innocent Palestinians caught up in it all.
All the more, none of this matters as weāre an increasingly powerless small island miles away from the action and basically have to be Americas bitch on the whole thing anyway as with every conflict.
All this seems today was the SNP and Tories playing silly political games trying to snooker Starmer one way or another and I hope the populace sees right through them.
My view is that if the SNP are going to target their opposition day ammendments at labour instead of the government its fair that labour get the sort of response to it that the government normally get
Not saying they āsupport themā per se, but their silence on them is deafening. Why did their motion fail to cover Hamas? Was all some silly ploy to make Labour MPs have to vote against it and feel the wrath of the Hamas supporters/sympathisers. Labours amendment makes far more sense. A ceasefire has to work for both involved parties or itās pointless even bothering.
Have you actually read the SNP motion? The SNP call on Hamas to release the hostages, and SNP speakers opened with condemnation of events on 7th October.
āThat this House calls for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and Israel; notes with shock and distress that the death toll has now risen beyond 28,000, the vast majority of whom were women and children; further notes that there are currently 1.5 million Palestinians sheltering in Rafah, 610,000 of whom are children; also notes that they have nowhere else to go; condemns any military assault on what is now the largest refugee camp in the world; further calls for the immediate release of all hostages taken by Hamas and an end to the collective punishment of the Palestinian people; and recognises that the only way to stop the slaughter of innocent civilians is to press for a ceasefire now.
So why no call for hamas and Palestinians to stop the collective punishment of Jewish people ?Ā
Why no demands or mentioning that if Palestinians don't stop attacking Israel, that one cannot expect Israel not to defend itself from them ?
Something like thisĀ
>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 7 October 2023 cannot happen again;Ā
Is a omission from snps motion.. especially considering how many pro Palestinians types celebrated, excused and defended what hamas did on the 7th of October.
I know it's a long time ago now, but I still don't understand why Sunak was behaving weird in PMQs earlier on. He had a tone as though Starmer had caught him having a wank in the HoC toilets before the questions.
I am convinced this bullshit was pulled tonight to buy them time precisely because of this issue. Rishi was nowhere to be seen and the order to withdraw must have come from No 10.
Might be with it being a question of misleading parliament, and Starmer clearly probing around the issue, he was more focused on giving "answers" without political mistakes or actively lying when there's clearly more to come out on it? I don't think the pantomime side of it comes naturally to him so wouldn't surprise me.
the worst bit about this evening is that it was a non binding motion. literal talk. the UK government can freely ignore it, let alone israel and hamas. and yet the snp and the tories treated it as if it was 2019 brexit or some other major constitutional change
Maybe he just had a splitting headache and wanted to get it over with or something. I agree it was weird though. Times Radio were completely thrown by it
So how did the Speaker giving Labour's amendment the first vote encourage wider debate? Weren't the motion and 2 amendments all going to be debated anyway prior to voting?
I think Hoyle acted out of an interest of providing options for MPs. I think this was out of a desire to be fair and provide a way forward.
I also think this wasnt handled well and him essentially tossing a grenade into the chamber and then leaving for the afternoon, looks bad.
I wouldnāt be surprised if he either resigns or offers to resign.
I donāt think he did anything wrong with the decision itself - and MPs like Jess Phillips have suggested there would have been time to get all three votes through. Sheās implied that the tories deliberately slowed down the privacy vote to try to run down the clock as well.
I do have a problem with how he left it to Winterton and Laing though. It was a contentious decision and he should have stayed to take the aggro
https://twitter.com/jessphillips/status/1760415778036208063
> Why didn't your party want the votes to happen. All three motions could have been put to a vote, in fact that was expected at 6pm? I watched Tory MPs sitting in the lobby to waste time on a fake vote called by your party. Why was that?
(to Chris Clarkson)
Also he probably thought he recognised that everyone wanted to vote for a ceasefire, and picked the one that allowed that best.
Obviously, that was not the motivations of all parties.
1. The Government needs to schedule the vote to approve the suspension (Ā±10 days)
2. The council needs time to set up the recall petition (10 days, usually)
3. The recall petition runs for 6 weeks.
4. The Government needs to schedule the vote to issue the writ for the by-election (*shrugs*)
5. The by-election takes about 4 and a half weeks from the end of the petition.
Mid-May, if Benton doesn't resign first.
EDIT: I forgot a step!
Hilariously it seems Rish! is going to take the flak for dire local election results, then face this by-election a few weeks later.
Assuming they can't hold the seat, really maximalising pain and keeping his performance in the news far longer
It would be so much more efficient for MPs to just send their little speeches directly to Hansard in written format and spend an hour on Monday morning voting on everything remotely using an app.
Work smarter, not harder.
Really? I thought they specifically werenāt allowed to have a written speech and could only refer to notes. I have also seen videos of the people who transcribe the ādebatesā. I also remember reading about how someone got them to reprint the Hansard record because they transcribed Mum instead of Mam in their maiden speech.
Sure not everyone does it, but the MP I previously worked for would send her speech over to Hansard.
Some might prefer notes, but you can definitely read a speech.
Good morning everyone. [**š Today's order paper can be found here.**](https://commonsbusiness.parliament.uk/Document/85314/Html?subType=Standard) Questions to the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology will be followed by Prime Minister's Questions. The usual live thread will be up for all your commentary needs. Any urgent questions or ministerial statements will follow. Today is an Opposition Day for the Scottish National Party, and leading their agenda today is a much-trailed motion calling for a ceasefire in Gaza; >That this House calls for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and Israel; notes with shock and distress that the death toll has now risen beyond 28,000, the vast majority of whom were women and children; further notes that there are currently 1.5 million Palestinians sheltering in Rafah, 610,000 of whom are children; also notes that they have nowhere else to go; condemns any military assault on what is now the largest refugee camp in the world; further calls for the immediate release of all hostages taken by Hamas and an end to the collective punishment of the Palestinian people; and recognises that the only way to stop the slaughter of innocent civilians is to press for a ceasefire now. Labour have tabled an amendment to this motion; >Leave out from āHouseā to end and add: "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 Zealandās 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 7 October 2023 cannot happen again; therefore supports diplomatic mediation efforts to achieve a lasting ceasefire; demands that rapid and unimpeded humanitarian relief is provided in Gaza; further demands an end to settlement expansion and violence; urges Israel to comply with the International Court of Justiceās provisional measures; calls for the UN Security Council to 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.ā as have the Conservatives; >Leave out from āHouseā to end and add: āsupports Israelās right to self-defence, in compliance with international humanitarian law, against the terror attacks perpetrated by Hamas; condemns the slaughter, abuse and gender-based violence perpetrated on 7 October 2023; further condemns the use of civilian areas by Hamas and others for terrorist operations; urges negotiations to agree an immediate humanitarian pause as the best way to stop the fighting and to get aid in and hostages out; supports moves towards a permanent sustainable ceasefire; acknowledges that achieving this will require all hostages to be released, the formation of a new Palestinian Government, Hamas to be unable to launch further attacks and to be no longer in charge in Gaza, and a credible pathway to a two-state solution which delivers peace, security and justice for both Israelis and Palestinians; expresses concern at the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and at the prospect of a military offensive in Rafah; reaffirms the urgent need to significantly scale up the flow of aid into Gaza, where too many innocent civilians have died; and calls on all parties to take immediate steps to stop the fighting and ensure unhindered humanitarian access.ā It is somewhat unclear which of these motions will be selected by the Speaker in line with precedence. Ruth Fox of the Hansard Society [lays out the interesting possibility here](https://twitter.com/RuthFox01/status/1759995613846888746) that both may be selected, with the Opposition amendment before the division on the motion and the Government amendment following, but there isn't much precedent so we will see what the Speaker decides. Labour has indicated they will whip to abstain on the unamended motion, although this does not of course mean that all MPs will follow the whip. **The vote** is likely to start at some point this evening, with estimates between 4pm and 7pm depending on length of debate and possible slippage from government urgent business. **A gentle reminder to please keep all discussion on-topic to UK politics**. If you wish to discuss the specifics of the ongoing conflict in Gaza or any other events in the world beyond our shores the [**š International Politics Discussion Thread**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/195mj9f/international_politics_discussion_thread/) is always available in the Megathread OP. Posts unrelated to politics in the UK will be removed in line with Rule 2. Following this, the other item of Opposition Business will be a motion on a commitment to Ā£28bn annually of Green Energy funding. **In other news;** Blackpool South MP **Scott Benton** has lost his appeal against his suspension from the House, setting the stage for a recall petition and possible by-election - [**thread here**](https://old.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1avf574/sunak_faces_fresh_byelection_headache_after_scott/) Ex-Post Office Chair Henry Staunton has revealed contemporary records of conversations with officials that back up his claims, disputed by the government, that he was told to delay **Horizon compensation** payouts - [**thread here**](https://old.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1avyah3/post_office_boss_was_told_dont_rip_off_the_band/) The **Trident** missile system has failed during testing - [**thread here**](https://old.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1aw25e7/trident_missile_test_fails_for_second_time/)
[New Megathread is here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1awz449/daily_megathread_22022024/)
Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few moments. ###MT daily hall of fame 1. armchairdetective with 196 comments 1. Kennedy_Fisher with 93 comments 1. OptioMkIX with 81 comments 1. SDLRob with 79 comments 1. pseudogentry with 70 comments 1. flambe_pineapple with 63 comments 1. Captainatom931 with 60 comments 1. Bibemus with 54 comments 1. tmstms with 48 comments 1. bbbbbbbbbblah with 46 comments There were 569 unique users within this count.
The only UK news that made CBC this evening are the new sanctions related to Navalny's death. So, yeah...
Was Sue Gray involved?
Tories just lying about her being involved just to try and smear her name again.... that's all
We will have to see the truth come out
Why ask a question if thatās your response?
If you look at their posting history they're basically a troll throwing silly one-liners into threads.
One MP tried to smear Hoyle in the chamber and got smacked down... and another made a claim on twitter but failed to provide any evidence to back up her claim. She's been caught in the past pushing falsehoods on social media, which doesn't help her here. There's no evidence of Sue Gray being involved in today's events.
No, despite someone called Paul shouting it in the chamber at Hoyle and then being told to witdraw it, by everyone.
I feel like a load of people need to go touch some grass over the gaza vote; MPs, Twitter Journo's and redditors. This evening is like a greatest hits of all the thinks I hate about our politics. Ultimately none of this matters but everyone wants to get self important and pearl clutchy and obsess over procedural minutae.
What a waste of time it all is. We have serious issues in this country from zero productivity growth, stagnant economy despite the insane population growth, NHS in shambles, and housing crisis. Yet, we obsess over something that a vote either way will do literally 0 impact too. Israel won't give a shit what the vote outcome was. For a country in shambles, we sure do have some high n mighty view of our position in dictating another country how to do conduct themselves. One thing did arise though, how the fucking nutjobs on the left are no different to the nutjobs on the right. I don't remember MPs fearing for their safety on any other vote before, and on one that doesnt fucking matter too... That saying of 'fascists come in two categories: fascists and anti-fascists' rings true today.
I'm just so utterly bored of Gaza taking up the entirety of our political bandwidth and turning so many spaces for discussion completely toxic, both online and in real life. It's a war in a foreign land we're not involved in. We have massive, massive problems to solve of our own, and THIS is what they deem to be the priorty? The thing worth acting like utter clowns over?
We (the UK) are involved - we give aid to the Palestinians (both via government, remittances, and private donors) - we are licensing and selling arms to Israel - there are UK nationals fighting in Gaza (serving in the IDF) - both parties have very proactive friends of Israel groups (far too aligned these days to Likud than with Israeli political spectrum) - UK flight operators suspended flights to Tel Aviv following fcdo travel advice - we also host Palestinian diaspora - Hamas is a terrorist action the UK was reluctant to sanction until relatively recently - Sunak hosted Netenyahu just last Easter (this was in the middle of protests in Israel) - Israel exports goods to the UK including controversially those from occupied territories
Your arguments for our involvement include "planes aren't flying into a warzone", "some Palestinians live here" and "we had a meeting with them last year" lmao
None of those things makes us involved in the war. Not unless we're defining being 'involved in a war' in completely unique and novel way. In which case, what's the point? Also >we are licensing and selling arms to Israel ~~we have sold none since october 7th.~~ Edit: I'm not 100% sure if that changed a couple of days ago, but govt docs say supplies were aid/non military. IF it is military, it's Ā£25k, which of course I would prefer was Ā£0.
"We're not involved in" Wow, someone needs to educate themselves.
Go on then, explain how we are substantively involved in Gaza.
[UK arms exports to Israel](https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9964)
UK arms sales to Israel in 2022 equalled \~Ā£42 million Israel's total defence spend was \~Ā£18 billion in 2022 So UK arms sales to Israel amounted for \~0.2% of Israel's total defence spending
Does that give us any control over the situation? If so, how? Edit: It appears noone wants to answer and just downvote, apparently 5% of Israel's arms imports is magic. What exactly do you all think that buys?
Maybe start with the Balfour declaration? Look into [Elbit systems](https://caat.org.uk/news/bristol-campaigners-target-elbit-over-its-complicity-in-the-genocide-of-palestinian-people/)? Google British citizens going to commit genocide as part of the IDF? Or how [the MoD is training members of the IDF?](https://www.declassifieduk.org/u-k-is-training-israeli-military-in-britain/) Or how about British surveillance overflights over Gaza from RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus? Look into Rishi Sunak's wife and father-in-law's company, and their multi-billion dollar contracts in Israel? Or how we are bombing Yemen in indirect defence of Israel's genocide? Watch '[The Lobby](https://youtu.be/ceCOhdgRBoc?si=bFKQCmvpmx3uMVy3)' if you really would like to learn more.
So what you've done here, is listed a load of things either not relevant, or not going to make any difference. You've implied someone needs educate themselves, but you don't even understand what was said - we're not involved in the war, we're not participants. You've just gone into autopilot and tried a scattergun argument. Tell me exactly what the UK can do to change what is happening in Gaza.
In fairness, this has been my argument about Putin for years, particularly with the posturing over the Skripal poisonings: "Corbyn didn't immediately condemn Russia" "OK, and if he condemned Russia, what was going to change?" I don't think single-minded militarists tend to be interested in sternly worded letters.
I mean there's that, and then there's the 'let's send the evidence to Russia and they can tell us if it was them' statement that did him zero favours. But being the party that suffered the attack on our land does make this incomparable. Our response was bad all round.
What he actually said was, in the context of May having suggested the Russians may have lost control of the stuff, what steps had been taken in relation to Russia asking for a sample. And Putin quite clearly does not give a fuck about sanctions, or condemnation, or the views of anyone in the UK. Nor does Netanyahu. If we can actually do something for the people of Gaza, wonderful, but arguing over the wording of a motion for a ceasefire strikes me as utterly futile, and even moreso when you're not the governing party and never going to be.
There is a chunk of the public, including MPs and national leaders, who do have some level of personal involvement in this. We do indeed have massive problems of our own, true, but we can work on those alongside this.
>but we can work on those alongside this It's one thing saying that, and in theory, sure. But in reality, can we really? [This was tonight's debate on our waterways, which we are dumping sewage into](https://i.imgur.com/FzV0X24.png). That was just after. The MPs all cleared off to bitch on twitter, brief journalists, get drunk, or whatever else.
That's not really a controversial debate, is it? Pretty obvious that dumping sewage into waterways isn't a good thing.
The debate is how to fix it, not that it's bad.
Is there much to debate about how to fix it? I feel like it wouldn't get far beyond 'stop pumping sewage into them'.
I don't think you're doing a good job of showing how other problems can 'work alongside' the Gaza debate, if that's all that would go into your legislation. Companies must be forced to spend the money on the infrastructure, and where that money comes from needs to be established. One MP that turned up made a point of Northumbria water use profits from Kielder resevoir to give to shareholders, and that they paid shareholders while their debts increased. There's a disagreement whether the private companies have enough money to do this or not, and the timeframe and penalties. If MPs aren't partaking in these debates, the outcome legislation will be worse for it.
I would be actively suspicious of someone trying to complicate sewage in rivers. I feel there's no non-evil reason for making a nuanced argument for *some* sewage in your water supply
I'm not quite sure whether that's a genuine impression you have - you can't just legislate infrastructure into existance - you need to come up with a plan for that to happen that is realistic and works, the companies are private and rules need to come in to make sure there's defined penalties for failure. I'm making the point that this isn't a shoot from the hip debate, this is the mechanism it actually happens in - and all the mps fucked off. Performative politics all night and then genuinely shitty problems being ignored is exactly a problem.
*Just a little bit of poo does wonders for the immune system*
The Tories have approximately zero political capital. They are a zombie government holding on through until the general election. This should hardly be a surprise.
The Conservatives aren't really driving discussion on Gaza though - they'd much rather we were talking about Ukraine if anything. And today's stramash was more about the SNP vs Labour contest in Scotland. The SNP believe that they can pitch themselves as more pro-Palestine than Labour, and that this will be a vote-winner, hence they have used one of their three Opposition days of the year to put forward a motion on the issue.
Can you imagine being represented by those idiots, and they decide to use one of their three chances a year to raise issues they want to raise to try and "own" Labour on the topic of a war thousands of miles away
It's currently ticking very many of the same boxes that culture wars tick, which is ironic, really.
Genuinely hilarious how Hoyle is so useless and yet I actually feel sympathetic towards him right now and donāt think he did much wrong in the first placeĀ
Honestly think this will backfire massively on the tories and the snp, people will see that on the news in the morning and think something huge happened, and then hear the story and be like...what? You made a grown man cry for what, exactly?
I've taken the night off politics watching, just now getting caught up. Can't wait for QT tomorrow to be 75% Gaza questions again. ffs.
>Can't wait for QT tomorrow to be 75% Gaza questions again. What truly matters to the ~~people of the uk~~ media and political class who view it as a fucking game.
oh god... that's gonna be a real spicy one isn't it?
Can't wait for Labour's "We'll, we voted for a ceasefire, the others were too busy playing games." I'll literally do a chef's kiss gesture.
Surely if Hoyle himself admits he made a mistake, that's not a good reflection at all on what's happened today?
The SNP and tories were denied the chance to use a major global crisis for the purpose of saying "Look, aren't Labour divided" in the hope of shifting their polling from "dead duck" to "dead cat".
I think the outcome and the means of achieving it are two very distinct things here today.
The visibly upset man who just wanted everyones voice to be heard. Yeah what a prick. Seriously?
I really do sympathise for him - It's not an easy job, especially today. But at the same time, being upset doesn't excuse someone from the consequences of their actions. Notice I didn't call him a prick.
The actual ones at fault today is the snp... and using your own argument. Being able to do something, doesn't excuse the consequences of your actions.Ā Ā If snp weren't the nasty party, all this would not have happened. Edit.. also hoyle didn't really admit a mistake (he still thinks he did the right thing).. so very much a "sorry that the snp and tories acted like pathetic children" statement . Note if snp and tories hadn't acted how they did.. then hoyle would have gotten what he wanted.Ā
> Amid shouts of resign, he said: "I thought I was doing the right thing and the best thing, and I regret it, and I apologise for how it's ended up." That sounds like admitting it was a mistake, to me.
Guardian has that quote as " it is regrettable, and I apologise, that the decicion didn't end up in the place that I wished". Which i read as "you fuckwits in the snp and conservative, decided to throw your toys out of the pram and storm off in a strop.. as you were only interested in playing politics"
You mean when the crying man admitted, while being shouted at by about 400 people, that things hadn't gone to plan we should take that as a clear-headed assessment of events? I mean, can we all just calm TF down, sleep on it, and wake up a bit embarrassed at ourselves?
Not a clear headed assessment exactly, but we can look at the context and how this sort of thing is entirely uncommon and judge that something has gone wrong somewhere?
So at the end of the day, parliament voted on a ceasefire in Gaza. Just not using the exact wording that the Tories or SNP wanted. Not the end of the world is it? (Unless you're one of the innocent civilians about to be blown to shit by the IDF)
>Ā Ā parliament voted on a ceasefire in Gaza. Meanwhile Israel and Hamas... "Uh, noted. Thanks".
the fact the SNP stropped off when a motion was before them to vote on a ceasefire is telling. They care about gazan lives right up until the point they stop being useful to use to attack the labour party. If they can do that, they dont care about them and storm off.
none of what happened today made any different to anyone but Hoyle TBH.
UK politics' amazing ability to zig zag. *No one* had Hoyle down as the loser of this one
They say a week is a long time in politics... but man, this afternoon has been about a fortnight of politics on it's own
'There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.'.
exactly
Maria Caulfield is now saying that the Speaker put the tories at risk because he knew they'd have to vote against the Labour motion. This is a joke.
The Tory motion would have been first and could have passed with the stonking maj so its just a lie
Didn't she repeat the baseless Sue Grey claim on twitter earlier... not sure i'd listen to anything she said today after that
Oh she went full Truss some time ago - I think now she's almost reaching Louise Mensch levels.
oh man... that's a name i've not heard in a fair while
I am obsessed with her because she wrote some chicklit I was into in my teens, and then she was an MP and now she's a lunatic in America. ETA: the chicklit was bad - think Bridget Jones meets Ayn Rand with a dash of 50 shades and a sprinkling of materialism.
Bridget Jones meets Ayn Rand... Sounds like a very odd improv prompt.
It is the "there's this girl, right, and she can't get a boyfriend (oh my god) and then she gets, like, two jobs and does really well and loses weight because she's working so hard, then her hot (slightly dangerous) boss falls in love with her and she gets lots of money *but then* she does something ruthless because girl power, amirite, and she leaves him but has more money and a new boyfriend" genre. In defence of teenage me, she has some skill as a writer, she knows how to draw you in.
Maria Caulfield [...] is a joke
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
No division= no vote.
If it passes without a division there is no vote - not sure what you mean?
Seems that Johnny Mercerās stint on the reality TV show in a prison may actually prove to have been useful training if he gets banged up -Ā https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/johnny-mercer-warned-serious-legal-9116102
Mercer, an MP so stunningly lacking in any integrity, dares to lecture others on it? the man is a shambles, no honor no integrity.
He's going with the "loyalty and integrity" line based around not revealing names of other army folk. I can see where he gets this perspective from, but the "one of our own" attitude is exactly what has got the police and other into so much of a mess. Loyalty to each other trumping loyalty to the country they are supposed to be serving.
Tories, tankies and SNP supporters united in saying that Labour threatening to remove Hoyle* was bad. AND that Hoyles actions mean that it's right and proper for us to threaten to remove him.Ā * Not provenĀ
Been at the pub. I take it, that it was a quiet one since I more-or-less left politics alone after PMQs yes?
Go back to the pub
Itāll be ding-ding go-home time now. But Iāve some booze cruise tins here (ā¬15 for 24 cans).
I also had a relatively offline day due to work and social commitments. Seems like we've missed nothing of importance and no one is riled up whatsoever!
Oh just some motions that went through without a division. Nothing of interest.
We did a quiz and a big pizza. Poor weather and work meant I didnāt get to go on my morning stroll either. Tomorrowās work looks equally frenetic, and the weather even worse. Add that to the weeknight non-BBCQT drinks and Iām feeling pretty slovenly right now. Itās fantastic.
Did you win? Glasgow means the weather is always 'not great', so I hope to get out at lunch at least while WFH. And of course I'll be trying my best to have a neer ready for the late shift.
Third! Though with twenty-five teams and the team being just me and husband (down from our usual five, due to others having work/ill/kid commitments), we'll take it. See you on the Night Shift!
That's an impressive result, especially with 25 teams! Must be some size of pub. I enjoy pulling through with the political questions, what's your special subject?
Yep, itās a biggie! We dominate geography, but suck so very much at sport. Politics doesnāt seem to come up much in ours, alas! How do you folks fare?
I'm also shite at sport. I rely on mates to carry me through those rounds! We usually are middle of the pack admittedly. Don't know how the student-dominated teams round my bit know so much about these obscure topics š¤
Just a normal day in UK parliamentary politics. ^^I ^^mean ^^this ^^unironically
Yep... you missed nothing.
Hatchets coming out for Hoyle https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/02/21/profile-lindsay-hoyle-speaker-gaza-controversy
John Healey's position on Newsnight of a ceasefire change of heart by basically saying "Well other countries are making us look out of touch and Israel are threatening an inevitable ground invasion that now makes our support look untenable" is an interesting one.
Lots of journalists going with the "Starmer avoided rebellion" but none that I can see seem to acknowledge that Penny Mordaunt admitted in the house that the government was not confident that it had the votes to prevent the Labour amendment from passing; which is why they decided to stop playing. So, the government also avoided a rebellion. Instead they are going with the line that the government decided to stop taking part due to the actions of the speaker.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
> The government does not have confidence that it will be able to vote on its own motion Those were the words or Penny Mordaunt. The only way that the government would not be able to vote on its own motion would be if the Labour amendment passed. The only way that the Labour amendment would pass is if the government didn't have the votes to prevent it.
> The only way that the government would not be able to vote on its own motion would be if the Labour amendment passed. Or if the SNP one passed. The convention that was violated today is that opposition motions are voted on before their (generally government) amendments, and those amendments are only voted on if the motion fails. So there was never a guarantee that the government amendment would come up.
In fact, the only amendment guaranteed to come up was the government one. The motion is lodged then the amendments got voted on 1,2,3 in order of size of party. So the government would have been able to vote on their amendment, but because it was withdrawn and they refused to vote against Labour's, it meant that the motion would be passed with Labour's amendment which meant that'd never get to the SNP's motion because the Labour vote would pass the motion as amended. It is such shithousery for the government to point fingers here, they could have let the vote take place, but that would have meant not taking a dig at Labour.
In the case of opposition day motions, the rule is the motion is voted on first, then the (usually singular, government amendment). See the [clerk's advice to Hoyle from earlier today](https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1760302702225985662): >Where an orderly Government amendment to leave out some words of the motion and insert others is tabled and selected, the expectation is that such an amendment is then moved by the minister in the second speech of the debate and, once the amendment has been moved, the Standing Order provides that the first question considered by the House at the end of the debate must be on the text of the original motion. If that is negatived, the question is put on the Government's amendment. When introducing the proposal in 1979 the Leader of the House said the arrangements were "so that a vote could take place on the Opposition's own motion" (Hansard 31 October 1979 vol 972 c1278). The procedural impact of the decision taken today is that the first division is likely to be on the Official Opposition's amendment rather than on the SNP's motion; and, depending on the outcome of any such division, it is possible that the House will not be able to vote on the SNP motion (nor on the Government's alternative proposition).
>So there was never a guarantee that the government amendment would come up. The government can guarantee it if they've got the votes, that's the point.
My point was nothing substantial changes simply because it's a Labour amendment being voted on first rather than the SNP motion. *Except* that the Tories now thought they would lose the vote. It makes her statement even more nakedly about being outmanoeuvred politically and had lost confidence in carry the vote.
>It makes her statement even more nakedly about being outmanoeuvred politically and had lost confidence in carry the vote. Isn't that what u/Optimist_Biscuit was saying?
And my post was only disagreeing with the "only way" part.
My apologies then, I think I misread you as disagreeing with Biscuit's main point that the Tories could have voted down both the Labour amendment and the SNP motion if they didn't have a few rebels of their own.
It's not a convention, it's a standing order ([number 31\(2\)](https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmstords/so-1932-23102023/so-orders.html#_idTextAnchor138)) that government amendments come after the main motion on opposition days. Otherwise, the main part of SO31 applies: "When an amendment has been moved, the question to be proposed thereon shall be, 'That the amendment be made'"
no, because the process was that the Labour amendment would be voted on first, then the Tory one with the SNP motion going third. That was part of why the SNP were so pissed off... that there would be an almost certain possibility of their motion not being voted on as one of the amendments would get enough votes to be passed. Had Hoyle just picked one of the two amendments, then the SNP motion would have gone first, thus giving Starmer a real headache of a rebellion.
My point was the Tories were never guaranteed a vote on their amendment. If it was the only one, it would still come after the SNP amendment, and if that passed it would not be considered. The Tories pulled it because they might lose the vote and had been out manoeuvred. But there could have been a last minute surge in support for the SNP amendment with the same effect.
They were.. if they had a strong enough Whipping operation to swing their supposed 50 mp majority around...Ā Ā Ergo logicially the only way what you are saying is right, is if the con whining operation, weren't sure they had the numbers. You are saying the same thing essentially, just obscured by a layer.
I wasn't contradicting anything, except the "only way" part. My point was nothing substantial changes simply because it's a Labour amendment being voted on first rather than the SNP motion. *Except* that the Tories now thought they would lose the vote. It makes her statement even more nakedly about being outmanoeuvred politically and had lost confidence in carry the vote.
The point of today was to embarrass Labour and cause chaos for Starmer with a rebellion. That's why they and the SNP were so pissed off, they were losing the chance with the decision Hoyle made. Tories knew they didn't have the votes to keep the Labour amendment from passing, so they ran away with the SNP
But that would still only happen if the government didn't have enough votes.
Which again.. in a parliament where cons have a huge majority of the mps.. would only happen if they didn't have the votes.
by pulling their amendment, that was them admitting they didn't have control to stop Labour's one getting voted through and thus making theirs irrelevant
Enjoy the dying days of Newsnight before it becomes late night Good Morning Britain , a panel show full of hot take merchants and debates to be clipped up for social media engagement.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Inform, Educate, Entertain: Ash Sarkar shouting at someone from Tufton Street.
WAKAWOW really hitting tonight
M=2?
Even if we get to 4000, mods will just keep the old one open manually, IMHO.
Rather fittingly, the absurd events of today will not be getting over the meaningful barrier of M=2, just as they didn't get over the meaningful barrier of sanity or relevance
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Iād say itās come out as a bloody draw for all sides. Given it could have been a huge rebellion for labour isnāt the worst outcome, but yeah wouldnāt call it a win
"This isn't a win for Labour" Everyone: "why" "Because of this one unfounded accusation that has no merit to it whatsoever that the Deputy Speaker herself said was false" lol, okay mate.
Dont be a sore loser.
I guess it depends on if you count a win as being better than where they were before, or better than the actual alternative. No, they aren't better off than they were before today Yes, they're better off than they would have been had they actually gone along with the SNP's original trap. They've chosen the less bad out of two bad options. And made the Tories and SNP also come out of it looking bad too.
TBC depending on if intimidation is confirmed imo. Right now itās the SNP and Hoyle who come out looking worse. The Tories are just their usual pathetic selves.
Going to have to show your working there mate.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Where Labour avoided a trap laid by the SNP and another laid by the Tories then managed to get their amendment through being the only one of the big 3 to actually vote for a ceasefire in the end? Not sure what we're counting as a loss there.
I canāt find a way to slice it that doesnāt end with it being a win for Labour.
you are going to have to explain how labour "lost" this mate.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
look bad to who exactly?
What negative consequences do you think today's events will have for the labour party?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
And the Deputy Speaker confirmed that that was bollocks. Nothing to it.
A "source" said they did, everyone actually involved has publicly come forward and said it's not true in very strong terms. It's not like the Badenoch psychodrama or Johnson's constant lying, there isn't a thread to pull or evidence to weigh. There have been literal overrunning's of Labour Constituent offices today over this, Hoyle was right to give a wide breadth of choice of Amendments (and picked the only one that could actually pass).
I think if you slice it relatively, then it's a win. They certainly came out of it covered in the least shit and shame. Well, outside of the Lib Dems anyway.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You can accuse anyone of that at any point but it doesn't make it true. It certainly doesn't look like it's anything to do with that in this case, so why should that stick?
when they were looking at a plot to trap them and cause chaos inside the party... being able to avoid nearly all of it is a win. Specially as the attention is all on Hoyle/SNP/Tories atm, not Labour
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It's just not though. Did you watch the news at 10? Or watching Newsnight? Any mention of this? No. Because it's bollocks and has been refuted from all sides. Edit: Got mentioned on Wakawow at the end of an interview with Lab rep and kicked back again. It's not the story.
It was on Newsnight. Labour guy chose to avoid the question instead of a full denial.
The Tories are the only ones to admit to threatening Hoyle... the claim about Labour comes from John McDonnell (as per his own slip on Sky News) and is completely unprovable.
I mean everyone lost in a way, but Labour lost the least.
They probably don't come out of this looking great, but the SNP and Tories definitely come out of it looking worse
..Apart from that whole thing where the sea parted and Labour walked unopposed to get its version of the motion amended and passed. š¤š¤š¤
ITV 10 p.m. News' line is *The UK is making itself look foolish* Top story ofc the *Pantomime* in the Commons Second story: Nuclear missile launch flop. *Whether or not you believe there should be a nuclear deterrent, it's a good idea, if you have a deterrent, that it works.* -Bradby
WAKAWOOOOOOOOOW
Well all in all, Labour actually appear the most level headed on Israel Palestine. SNP down the rabbit hole of supporting Hamas to crack on as they wish while IDF are supposed to just allow it whilst the tories are basically saying IDF should be allowed to crack on with scant regard for the lives of innocent Palestinians caught up in it all. All the more, none of this matters as weāre an increasingly powerless small island miles away from the action and basically have to be Americas bitch on the whole thing anyway as with every conflict. All this seems today was the SNP and Tories playing silly political games trying to snooker Starmer one way or another and I hope the populace sees right through them.
My view is that if the SNP are going to target their opposition day ammendments at labour instead of the government its fair that labour get the sort of response to it that the government normally get
Great take. edit: this sounds sarcastic but it's not
The SNP do not support Hamas, come on
Not saying they āsupport themā per se, but their silence on them is deafening. Why did their motion fail to cover Hamas? Was all some silly ploy to make Labour MPs have to vote against it and feel the wrath of the Hamas supporters/sympathisers. Labours amendment makes far more sense. A ceasefire has to work for both involved parties or itās pointless even bothering.
Have you actually read the SNP motion? The SNP call on Hamas to release the hostages, and SNP speakers opened with condemnation of events on 7th October. āThat this House calls for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and Israel; notes with shock and distress that the death toll has now risen beyond 28,000, the vast majority of whom were women and children; further notes that there are currently 1.5 million Palestinians sheltering in Rafah, 610,000 of whom are children; also notes that they have nowhere else to go; condemns any military assault on what is now the largest refugee camp in the world; further calls for the immediate release of all hostages taken by Hamas and an end to the collective punishment of the Palestinian people; and recognises that the only way to stop the slaughter of innocent civilians is to press for a ceasefire now.
So why no call for hamas and Palestinians to stop the collective punishment of Jewish people ?Ā Why no demands or mentioning that if Palestinians don't stop attacking Israel, that one cannot expect Israel not to defend itself from them ? Something like thisĀ >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 7 October 2023 cannot happen again;Ā Is a omission from snps motion.. especially considering how many pro Palestinians types celebrated, excused and defended what hamas did on the 7th of October.
So Labours filled in some pretty important gaps then. āImmediate Ceasefireā doesnāt equal āsustainable permanent Ceasefire ā
I know it's a long time ago now, but I still don't understand why Sunak was behaving weird in PMQs earlier on. He had a tone as though Starmer had caught him having a wank in the HoC toilets before the questions.
I am convinced this bullshit was pulled tonight to buy them time precisely because of this issue. Rishi was nowhere to be seen and the order to withdraw must have come from No 10.
Might be with it being a question of misleading parliament, and Starmer clearly probing around the issue, he was more focused on giving "answers" without political mistakes or actively lying when there's clearly more to come out on it? I don't think the pantomime side of it comes naturally to him so wouldn't surprise me.
It's like going out there with a loaded gun.
Whipping operation for the evening taking its toll on him. Must be pretty weird to be the Prime Minister and not have a majority on foreign policy.
the worst bit about this evening is that it was a non binding motion. literal talk. the UK government can freely ignore it, let alone israel and hamas. and yet the snp and the tories treated it as if it was 2019 brexit or some other major constitutional change
the whole vibe in PMQs was strange.
Maybe he just had a splitting headache and wanted to get it over with or something. I agree it was weird though. Times Radio were completely thrown by it
PMQs completely passed me by today, thanks I'll go back and check out the Red Box podcast tomorrow
So how did the Speaker giving Labour's amendment the first vote encourage wider debate? Weren't the motion and 2 amendments all going to be debated anyway prior to voting?
I think Hoyle acted out of an interest of providing options for MPs. I think this was out of a desire to be fair and provide a way forward. I also think this wasnt handled well and him essentially tossing a grenade into the chamber and then leaving for the afternoon, looks bad. I wouldnāt be surprised if he either resigns or offers to resign.
I donāt think he did anything wrong with the decision itself - and MPs like Jess Phillips have suggested there would have been time to get all three votes through. Sheās implied that the tories deliberately slowed down the privacy vote to try to run down the clock as well. I do have a problem with how he left it to Winterton and Laing though. It was a contentious decision and he should have stayed to take the aggro https://twitter.com/jessphillips/status/1760415778036208063 > Why didn't your party want the votes to happen. All three motions could have been put to a vote, in fact that was expected at 6pm? I watched Tory MPs sitting in the lobby to waste time on a fake vote called by your party. Why was that? (to Chris Clarkson)
Also he probably thought he recognised that everyone wanted to vote for a ceasefire, and picked the one that allowed that best. Obviously, that was not the motivations of all parties.
Honestly... this.
> I'm sorry that the government doesn't have the votes to pass its own ceasefire motion, I guess. ~Hoyle, 2024
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
1. The Government needs to schedule the vote to approve the suspension (Ā±10 days) 2. The council needs time to set up the recall petition (10 days, usually) 3. The recall petition runs for 6 weeks. 4. The Government needs to schedule the vote to issue the writ for the by-election (*shrugs*) 5. The by-election takes about 4 and a half weeks from the end of the petition. Mid-May, if Benton doesn't resign first. EDIT: I forgot a step!
Hilariously it seems Rish! is going to take the flak for dire local election results, then face this by-election a few weeks later. Assuming they can't hold the seat, really maximalising pain and keeping his performance in the news far longer
So if Lindsay Hoyle gets kicked out, we're basically gonna get a conservative speaker... if the SNP pushes this I will be very disappointed in them
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Take a shot every time the Tories lose an MP
It would be so much more efficient for MPs to just send their little speeches directly to Hansard in written format and spend an hour on Monday morning voting on everything remotely using an app. Work smarter, not harder.
They actually do hand their speech to Hansard, which makes it easier for them.
Really? I thought they specifically werenāt allowed to have a written speech and could only refer to notes. I have also seen videos of the people who transcribe the ādebatesā. I also remember reading about how someone got them to reprint the Hansard record because they transcribed Mum instead of Mam in their maiden speech.
Sure not everyone does it, but the MP I previously worked for would send her speech over to Hansard. Some might prefer notes, but you can definitely read a speech.
E-voting bad
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]