It was absolute chaos trying to figure out what happened here, what the Speaker did wrong, and why so many people were angry, especially the SNP. Can someone explain like I’m five? Thanks in advance.
In: Other
On certain days, Parliament sets aside time for a particular party’s idea to be debated, and there’s a convention (not a rule, but an understanding) that their ideas aren’t able to be amended by other parties.
This is because it would make setting that time to debate those ideas pointless if they just could be amended by the majority.
It also lets them get an “up and down” vote on the idea itself.
The Speaker allowed other Labour and the Conservatives to amend the SNP’s motion on a Gaza ceasefire because he said was an “emotive” topic and was not just an ordinary debate. This was against the understanding.
The Speaker was a Labour MP before becoming Speaker and is supposed to be impartial – and the result is that decision got Labour out of a tricky position: they were looking at some of their own MPs crossing the floor and supporting the SNP‘s original motion, in the absence of a Labour alternative.
But the Conservatives – who had originally also put an amendment up – then withdrew that amendment and abstained from further votes, meaning the Labor amendment to the SNP idea got up.
This means the SNP didn’t even get to vote on their original idea and this upset them.
This also means the Conservatives are upset they didn’t manage to split Labour and the Speaker seemed to be not so independent.
Some from both sides are now calling for the Speaker to resign for breaching the unspoken rule of debate and appearing to play favourites (even if that wasn’t their intention).
Latest Answers