The Chaotic Gaza Vote in the UK Parliament: A Test of Political Procedure and MP Safety

The chaotic scene that unfolded in the UK Parliament on a Wednesday night in recent weeks was a testament to the complexities and challenges of parliamentary procedure, as well as the growing concerns over MP safety. The issue at hand was the UK’s response to the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.

The Speaker of the House of Commons, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, attempted to create a nuanced and subtle voting process, allowing Labour MPs the chance to vote for a ceasefire with conditions attached. He anticipated that this would be followed by a vote on the SNP motion and then the government amendment. However, his plans were thwarted when the Conservatives scuppered the chance for the SNP to have a vote, bringing down the Speaker’s plan to give each of the three biggest parties their chance to make clear their stance on a highly divisive issue.

The consequences of the Speaker’s decision were far-reaching. The Labour amendment passed, and the Conservatives were criticized for what some saw as an “obsession” with appeasing intimidating behavior from pro-Palestinian protestors. Others warned against conflating legitimate protest with threatening behavior.

The concern for MP safety had been heightened in recent weeks, with several MPs, including Conservative MP Mike Freer and fellow Conservative MP Tobias Ellwood, reporting death threats and protests outside their homes. The office of shadow Welsh secretary Jo Stevens was also daubed in red paint and covered in posters accusing her of having “blood” on her hands after she abstained in a vote on a ceasefire. Shadow Leader of the Commons Lucy Powell reflected on these situations and more when she said in the Commons that MPs are working under a “long shadow of threats, intimidation, and security concerns.”

Speaker Hoyle takes MP safety seriously and has previously suggested that the possibility of another violent attack on an MP keeps him awake at night. Conservative MP Sir Charles Walker described it as an “obsession” that had “clouded” the Speaker’s judgement when he chose to depart from normal procedure. However, those Conservative backbenchers now calling for the Speaker to go believe that changing the rules amounts to a concession to intimidating behavior from some pro-Palestinian protestors.

The former attorney general, Tory MP Sir Geoffrey Cox, described it as “abject surrender to intolerance and tyranny,” which “offers up the House of Commons as able to be influenced by external threats.” Lord Walney, the government’s Independent Adviser on Political Violence and Disruption, told the BBC that it is “extraordinarily serious” to have a position where the events of the seat of democracy can be influenced by a sense of threat coming from outside.

The Metropolitan Police said their officers had facilitated the right to protest peacefully at the time of the vote, and no arrests were made. However, the concern for MP safety is far from a new issue. MPs have faced binary choices where their preferred option might often be “somewhere in between,” and the procedure is more restrictive than optimal because it was developed when there were only two main parties in the House.

Speaking to BBC Newscast, Hannah White from the Institute for Government said the procedure is “more restrictive than optimal because it was developed when we only had two main parties in the House.” She said, “I do think there’s an issue with the difficulty the House has in deciding anything other than binary questions.” We saw it with House of Lords reform, we saw it with indicative votes on Brexit.” If you have more than two options, it’s really difficult under parliamentary procedures to get a sensible way of deciding on those.”

Conservative MP Vicky Ford suggested an alternative course of action, arguing that MPs should be allowed to register a written explanation along with their votes to explain why they have voted the way they have. She said a “lack of transparency” explaining why MPs vote a certain way was being “wilfully used to drum up hatred.” The leader of the Commons Penny Mordaunt described her suggestion as “interesting.”

The wider question posed by Wednesday’s events remains. Is reducing a complex, divisive, and highly emotional issue to a simple “yes” or “no” answer always the best way to proceed? That’s the way it works in Parliament, and it has for hundreds of years. However, as the political landscape becomes more complex, and the concerns over MP safety continue to grow, it may be time to reconsider the way parliamentary procedure is approached.

In conclusion, the chaotic scene that unfolded in the UK Parliament over the Gaza vote was a testament to the complexities and challenges of parliamentary procedure and the growing concerns over MP safety. The Speaker’s decision to allow a Labour amendment to pass, despite the Conservatives’ objections, highlighted the need for a more nuanced and subtle approach to parliamentary procedure, as well as the importance of addressing the concerns over MP safety in a meaningful way. As the political landscape continues to evolve, it may be time for the UK Parliament to reconsider its approach to parliamentary procedure and find ways to better address the complexities and challenges of the modern political landscape.