The vote on the call for ceasefire in Gaza

It seems to me that Keir managed to get a ceasefire motion passed because it was worded better than the SNP one which many MP’s would have been unable to vote for. I don’t see a problem with that. It is time that our anachronistic parliament was dragged into the modern age, though imo.

There is a lot we don't know. While our government is squabbling over a ceasefire we concentrate on that and not noticing that the Israel/Gaza war has taken focus off Russia. Putin is amassing troops and Ukraine is not going to be able to stop them without substantial help.

If Hoyle caved in to pressure from Starmer that is disgraceful. Hoyle is not a strong Speaker. I hope he goes.

AGAA4

There is a lot we don't know. While our government is squabbling over a ceasefire we concentrate on that and not noticing that the Israel/Gaza war has taken focus off Russia. Putin is amassing troops and Ukraine is not going to be able to stop them without substantial help.

I have said this on other threads about Israel and Gaza. It is extremely worrying.

First time I can actually remember him siding with Labour to be honest. I’ve complained to the speakers office on several occasions.

I thought the speaker was supposed to be completely neutral.

There is nothing new in MPs lobbying the Speaker. During the Brexit debates one frequently saw MPs lobbying Speaker Bercow while he was in the Chair. Politics is a rough old trade as Mrs Thatcher said and Speakers have to be robust. Breaking precedent may be difficult but new precedents may sometimes meet new situations. The SNP were playing politics and the Tories may have walked out to avoid a rebellion in their own ranks. 57 MPs have signed an Early Day motion expressing no confidence in the Speaker but EDMs never seen the light of day in the Commons. Hot air in my opinion.

The Speaker is supposed to be completely neutral maddyone. Hoyle has demonstrated that he is not. His allegiance to Labour is showing.

I came rather late to this row. The Speaker’s role in this Parliament has been beyond difficult but I often thought Hoyle even-handed and a good tension diffuser. He was tripped up over this but I don’t think he should be forced out over it. That really would be fiddling while Gaza burns.

This from the Guardian today regarding meeting between Speaker and Starmer:

“Those briefed on the meeting said the Labour leader warned Hoyle that Labour MPs’ security was at risk. Many had been deluged by criticisms, threats and abuse since abstaining on a similar SNP motion in November. With hundreds of protesters congregating outside parliament, they worried worse might be to come.”

Starmer’s duty of care to Labour MPs being threatened would mean that he had to relay this information to the Speaker - that’s the procedure; rather like a safeguarding issue in school. The Speaker then had to decide how to deal with this information. If he had ignored it, stating parliamentary convention etc, and something awful (God forbid) had happened to a Labour MP … we’d all be having a very different conversation today wouldn’t we!

Or Starmer could have brought to an end his policy of Labour not voting on SNP motions if he wished to protect his MPs.

Germanshepherdsmum

Or Starmer could have brought to an end his policy of Labour not voting on SNP motions if he wished to protect his MPs.

No because if you read the SNP motion you would understand that there were issues with the wording.

Unlike Conservative MP’s who rarely vote against their part Labour MP’s vote more with their conscience. They were being put in a very difficult position yesterday.

Whitewavemark2

Germanshepherdsmum

Or Starmer could have brought to an end his policy of Labour not voting on SNP motions if he wished to protect his MPs.

No because if you read the SNP motion you would understand that there were issues with the wording.

But some Labour MPs agreed with the SNP motion and would have voted for it. That seems to be the only reason Starmer needed an amendment. Motions to do with war and armaments have always been a matter of conscience for Labour MPs, there being a substantial number who oppose weapons and acts of aggression. Most Labour leaders have accepted this.Starmer apparently thought it would be an act of weakness to allow a free vote.

There were issues with the wording. Hoyle was put in an untenable position by Starmer and must have felt he had to go with the amended motion.
As speaker he shouldn't have allowed this but can understand why he did.

But AGAA4 surely Starmer was right to inform Hoyle about the fears of some Labour MPs - he couldn’t keep that to himself. Agree Whitewave, the wording of the SNP motion alluded to ‘war crimes’. As an international human rights lawyer, Starmer was uncomfortable about that as a ‘throw away’ accusation in a UK debate motion.

Should Sir Lindsay Hoyle resign as House of Commons Speaker?

Yes

69%

No

31%
Total votes: 26,653

The Telegraph

LizzieDrip

But AGAA4 surely Starmer was right to inform Hoyle about the fears of some Labour MPs - he couldn’t keep that to himself. Agree Whitewave, the wording of the SNP motion alluded to ‘war crimes’. As an international human rights lawyer, Starmer was uncomfortable about that as a ‘throw away’ accusation in a UK debate motion.

I do hope that the Labour MPs who were afraid for their safety report any/all incidents to the police so that those who are trying to intimidate democratically elected members of The House, are arrested and charged…

And the Labour MP’s who allegedly threatened the Speaker should be named

Nicenanny3

Should Sir Lindsay Hoyle resign as House of Commons Speaker?

Yes

69%

No

31%
Total votes: 26,653

The Telegraph

No surprises there, then

Presumably a self selecting poll of Telegraph readers.

Anniebach

And the Labour MP’s who allegedly threatened the Speaker should be named

Allegedly.

I'd rather not have names named unless the allegations are proven.

Yes, I did mean when named sorry

Starmer visited Hoyle the day before the vote and URGED (his words) him to put forward the amendment.

urge
verb [ I or T ]
UK /ɜːdʒ/ US /ɝːdʒ/

C1
to strongly advise or try to persuade someone to do a particular thing:

So perhaps he strongly urged him 😊

Sadly none of the partys included releasing the hostages in their motion or amendment. Unfortunately they seem all but forgotten. At least Prince William DID mention them, just! With ALL the suffering that this appalling situation has wreaked upon these poor people on both sides, how disgraceful it is that our Parliamentarians use such suffering to try to manipulate political advantage. For Speaker Hoyle to be part of that manipulation and shenanigans is shameful, as is Kier Starmers part in encouraging this complete disregard for protocol under the guise of protecting MPs from the baying mob who were clearly running things inside the H of C itself, as well as outside on Saturdays, and of whom Labour is clearly very afraid, when actually it was the splitting of the labour vote that was the real issue. A Labour government run by??!! He very fearful.

Jaberwok, you have no mention of the SNP's part in this . I wonder why