The UK House of Commons was thrown into chaos over procedural irregularities and behaviour by the Speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, for which he later apologised profusely. The issues being addressed were different proposals for statements about the Israel/Hamas war in Gaza to be put to the House. The SNP, who were supposed to control the order paper, wanted a statement calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the Labour party wanted a statement calling for an immediate end to fighting and a humanitarian ceasefire and the Conservatives wanted a statement calling for a sustainable ceasefire. The Labour proposal had conditions such as the surrender by Hamas of all hostages. The Conservative proposal also had conditions. The Labour proposal was given inappropriate procedural precedence and was nodded through as other parties had effectively left the House in disgust. It is important to emphasise that the statement has no effect on Government policy. But let’s put the procedural irregularities to one side.
The New Statesman in its “ Morning Call” addressed these events but made telling statements about the reason for Labour calling now for a ceasefire. “There’s another reason MPs were charged with emotion. The sad reality is that many Labour MPs were desperate to vote for a ceasefire to stave off the threats they have been receiving……. This was the grave undertone to the proceedings: some of Britain’s sovereign legislators want to vote a certain way because they feel threatened. Why is this not more widely condemned?” Apparently too on the day of the vote Keir Starmer, Labour leader, had a meeting to make special pleading with the Speaker, most unusual.
This shines a light on a problem which has pervaded for some time, that MPs receive volumes of messages of severe abuse, and threats to life, both against themselves and also their families. In this case, supposedly, from pro-Palestinian extremists but in other cases extremists of different hues. It is understandable MPs feel a need to protect themselves and their families. But somehow authorities, security services and the Police, need to find a way to bring perpetrators to book with heavy penalties, and to provide appropriate protective comfort for MPs, and otherwise mitigate this problem. Threats cannot be used to undermine the democracy of the UK.
Second, a dangerous possibility is emerging. MPs must surely never vote on any matter driven by personal concerns whether of safety or otherwise. The criteria to be taken into account are primarily the best interests of the British people, democratic principles and morality. Personal prejudice and fear cannot be drivers. If they are, then the MPs concerned must resign or stand aside and not vote. It looks like the Speaker too took account of personal security issues in his deliberations. If fear becomes a driver for Parliamentary and Government decisions, where might that lead? Putin will be rubbing his hands. When he declares war on the UK, as some predict, perhaps he can win without firing a shot, by having his cyber criminals issue death threats tainted with Novichok against all MPs who might otherwise advocate resistance. As a precedent, it is suggested the political parties, and particularly the Labour leadership, must put 21 February behind them as one to forget.
The public spectacle of Parliamentary point scoring over the terms of a statement ending in shambles is depressing enough. It is the more depressing that the UK’s three main political parties were pettily arguing about the language to stop the fighting in a most tragic conflict. Cannot these parties agree and show unity that the fighting in Gaza should stop, Hamas should release all hostages and renounce its genocide of Jews; and all sides should work towards a lasting peaceful solution where Palestinians live independently in harmony with Israel, and where Israel is safe from future attacks by Islamic terrorists and nations.
