What a mess. The parliamentary shenanigans of Wednesday evening’s Israel-Gaza ceasefire vote may prove to be the downfall of Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle. It’s easy to brush aside it all as a wonkish procedural row. But processes do matter if you think politics matters – how parliament operates and conducts itself should define our democracy. If you dismiss concerns about rules, you risk dismissing the point of the whole institution at a time when more people are feeling increasingly alienated from mainstream politics.
There is, however, reason to feel some sympathy for Hoyle’s wrongheaded decision to break with convention over who voted on what amendment. The Speaker finds himself buffeted by the dawn of thuggish mob politics in Britain. In his first round of contrite words, Hoyle explained: “I am very, very concerned about the security of all members”, revealing he had met with MPs to discuss real threats to them and their families. In short, the Speaker was scared. It is a very dark day when rules have to be bent to cope with the extreme views of the mob. And on this topic, emotions could not be running higher.
Until now, the Labour leadership has sought to preserve a deliberately vague line on the Israeli bombardment of Gaza and calm emotions, while its more left-wing backbenchers have agitated for a tougher, more vocal stance. Too many in Labour are swayed by campaigners who want them to take anti-Israel stances, while its MPs want to avoid further harassment. By breaking convention to allow a compromise Labour motion on Gaza to be voted through, Sir Lindsay has spared Sir Keir Starmer’s blushes. But it has exposed something much, much darker.
What should outrage everyone is not Hoyle’s intentions, but that the House of Commons’ business is now being determined by thugs who physically intimidate MPs, attack their offices, threaten violence if their views aren’t adhered to. Ask any MP about their social media or email accounts and they will tell you they are a stream of bile.
Israel-Gaza might not seem a domestic matter, but from the moment of the 7 October terror attack, it was clear that the biggest attacks on Jews since the Holocaust would stoke community divisions across the world – and the UK is no exception. Cases of antisemitism reached a record high last year, with two thirds of incidents reported after the attack on Israel.
The ceasefire debate has lifted the most divisive form of sectarian politics from the gutter of social media right into the House of Commons chamber. On Wednesday, Hoyle allowed the Labour amendment through to protect MPs who would otherwise receive violent threats if they could not somehow back a ceasefire.
The blame for this downward turn is not the fault of any one party. For too many years, the UK has been insufficiently tough on extremism – particularly anti-Jewish sentiment from a minority of pro-Palestinian campaigners. We have allowed unacceptable and prejudiced views to develop in too many communities, exacerbated by segregation, a disconnect from mainstream British values and the radicalisation that remains untackled in some religious communities. The Israel-Gaza conflict has brought to the surface what has been festering for some time.
Labour has found itself at the sharp end of this issue, but the signs based on how they reacted to Wednesday’s debate suggests they are unlikely to do much about it. Part of the problem is that Sir Keir’s relentless focus on winning requires papering over the cracks in his party’s stance on Israel-Gaza. The only comprehensible explanation as to why he didn’t withdraw support from Azhar Ali as the Rochdale candidate immediately for his obviously antisemitic comments is because of the electoral damage it would cause. Only when his hand was forced with further evidence did he act. Labour may be in denial: instead of addressing a wider societal problem, they have relied on the Speaker as a sticking-plaster to hide from both extremists and critics.
Whatever happens to Hoyle, we should not lose sight of the fact MPs are being intimidated. What is needed is a big and clear sign from the Government that it will not allow this intimidating atmosphere to continue distorting our democracy. After the chaotic events in the Commons, the Prime Minister should deliver a big and bold speech calling out hatred wherever it festers. He should state any threats of violence towards MPs will be dealt with the full force of the law. He should argue that the Prevent extremism programme should be bolstered, as William Shawcross has warned, and that the police will not shirk from tackling intimidation on the streets wherever they see it.
Sir Lindsay has now repented twice for seemingly siding with the Labour Party in Wednesday’s vote, but that is missing the point. What the Speaker really has to do is reassure MPs of all hues is that he is not willing to yield to hateful views and ensure parliament can assert itself as the cockpit of the nation, in control of its destiny without fear or favour.
What parliament does should be decided purely by those with the mandate to do so. One of the reasons the Palace of Westminster was built where it is, perched on the banks of the Thames, was to ensure a mob could never surround it. Now it faces a constant virtual mob that threatens the very rules that define it. This should not, and cannot, be allowed to pass.
Sebastian Payne is director of the centre-right think-tank Onward
