(CN) — The United Kingdom Parliament is facing bitter recriminations today, after a key vote on whether to back a cease-fire in the ongoing Israeli assault on Gaza descended into chaos.
The vote, which had been put to the house by the Scottish Nationalist Party, was set to place the Labour Party — which is divided over the issue — in an extremely tricky political position.
However Parliament's speaker unusually broke with long-standing parliamentary convention to allow Labour to table their own amendment, to the fury of Conservatives and Scottish Nationalists alike, who subsequently walked out the House of Commons in anger.
The surprise Labour amendment calling for a conditional cease-fire subsequently passed, but only after other parties boycotted the vote. The chaotic scenes in the Commons, which included an extraordinary failed attempt to continue proceedings in private, relegated the debate on Gaza to a footnote. Instead, parliamentarians were left arguing over whether the speaker’s position was still tenable, and whether Parliament had been brought into disrepute.
The Scottish Nationalist’s Stephen Flynn angrily accused the speaker of “treating myself and my colleagues in the Scottish Nationalist Party with complete and utter contempt,” adding that he would “take significant convincing that your position is now not intolerable.”
Speaking on behalf of the government, Leader of the House Penny Mordaunt said, “I fear that this most grave matter … has become a political row within the Labour Party … and that regrettably Mr. Speaker has inserted himself into that row, and undermined the confidence of this house.”
She added: “Long established conventions should not be impaired by the current view of a weak leader of the opposition and a divided party."
The Labour Party has been tearing itself apart over the issue of a Gaza cease-fire ever since the war broke out this past October. Party leader Keir Starmer provoked fury among his rank-and-file back that month for appearing to endorse the Israeli siege on Gaza, which has seen the civilian population denied access to food, water, electricity and medicine. His opposition to a ceasefire as the war has drawn on has caused consternation in his party, weakened his position internally, and undermined support among key demographics.
Having already suffered a damaging parliamentary rebellion over the issue in November, Starmer was keen to ward off the even greater division that the Scottish Nationalist Party’s motion would have sowed. But the speaker’s intervention to prioritize the Labour Party’s amendment gave Starmer an unlikely reprieve from an expected collapse in party unity.
The speaker’s intended role is as a politically neutral member of parliament who chairs proceedings in the House of Commons. The current speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, was selected in 2019, having previously served as a Labour MP. Speakers are expected to renounce all affiliation to their former party once assuming the chair, and failure to ensure impartiality may trigger parliamentary proceedings to precipitate their removal.
In prioritizing the Labour amendment Hoyle cited security concerns, stating that threats and intimidation aimed at Labour MPs over the issue of Gaza had become acute in recent months. Since 2016, two MPs have been killed in politically motivated attacks, and many parliamentarians claim that intimidation has become commonplace.
But Hoyle’s argument failed to convince the majority of parliamentarians, including Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who insisted that “we should never let extremists intimidate us in to changing the way in which parliament works. That is a very slippery slope and not the right way to go.” Sunak notably refused to back the speaker, describing his actions as “very concerning.”
Placing further pressure on the speaker was a highly unusual clarification from the clerk of the Commons, normally not a public-facing role. The clerk stated that the decision “represents a departure from the long-established convention for dealing with such amendments,” and made clear that the speaker had been warned about the potential political consequences of his decision.
With accusations of political bias swirling around the speaker, 64 MPs have signed a motion of no confidence, prompting Hoyle to issue an apology for his actions. Appearing emotional from the speaker’s chair, Hoyle said: “'I made a judgment call that didn't end up in the position that I expected it to. I regret it, I apologize to the House, I made a mistake.”
Despite heading off a large rebellion, Starmer has come out of the episode far from unscathed, with accusations that he threatened the speaker into ensuring his party’s amendment was heard first. Westminster rumors suggest that Starmer had visited the speaker before the debate and threatened to remove him from his position after the upcoming general election, which his party are expected to win, unless he allowed Labour’s amendment to be heard.
Speaking to reporters Thursday, Starmer conceded that he had visited the speaker before the debate to persuade him to include the Labour amendment, though denied issuing any threats. However, when asked, he pointedly did not deny that other Labour MPs may have threatened Hoyle.
Addressing the rumors in Parliament on behalf of the governing Conservatives, Mordaunt accused Starmer of being a bully and a cheat and putting “the Labour Party before the reputation of the decent man who sits in the speaker’s chair.” The allegations have been reported to Parliament's privileges committee for investigation.
To an extent, the row exposes the anger and division that the war has caused across Britain’s multicultural society. But it is also particularly an embarrassment for Parliament, which has proven itself incapable of addressing perhaps the defining global issue of the moment.
Speaking to Channel 4 News, Palestinian ambassador to the U.K. Husam Zomlot said, “It is British politics at its lowest, it is disgraceful and shameful.”
He added: “MPs tonight have shown everybody that they are defending and protecting their own careers, as opposed to defending and protecting children, our humanity, and the U.K.’s responsibilities under international law."
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
