Starmer has brought shame upon Labour
Sir Lindsay Hoyle may have hoped that his explanation for the shambolic scenes in Parliament this week would reduce the pressure on him. If so, he will be disappointed. In saying that his actions were driven by his concern for the safety of MPS, and his “duty of care” towards them, Sir Lindsay has made explicit that Parliament has caved in to threats of violence, and that its members are unwilling to stand up for what is right in the face of intimidation.
Wednesday was not a day the Commons will wish to remember. Such scenes should never have been permitted. Yet Sir Lindsay is far from alone in bearing the blame for this low moment.
Sir Keir Starmer appears well pleased with his work. The Conservative Party has accused the Labour leader of putting “intolerable pressure” on the Speaker in order to have his party’s position on the Gaza conflict put to a vote.
Sir Keir, for his part, has admitted lobbying Sir Lindsay, but insists “categorically” that he “did not threaten the Speaker in any way whatsoever”. Regardless of how it happened, the sense is that the Labour leadership is satisfied at having manipulated parliamentary procedure in order to avoid a major rebellion from the party’s backbenches.
If this is so, it has been achieved at the expense of the good functioning of British democracy. Sir Keir and the Labour front bench have put maintaining the facade of unity within their party ahead of the principle that Parliament cannot be seen to be intimidated, or bullied into actions, and have done so for relatively little gain.
Wednesday’s debate left the House in chaos and disorder, but the Labour Party is not really united. Sir Lindsay has also made it clear that he intends to offer a fresh debate to the SNP on its motion, and there will undoubtedly be further moments when Labour policy on Gaza will be put under scrutiny.
All that Labour has managed to do is push the problem into the future; the party remains deeply divided, many of its voters at odds with its leadership.
Britain, too, is increasingly divided between the reasonable majority, who wish debate to be conducted in proper, democratic fashion, and a vocal minority who believe that MPS can be threatened and intimidated into bowing to their will.
In this case, the minority in question consists of Left-wing activists and Islamists united over the issue of Palestine, but we have seen eco-zealots, anti-hunt fanatics and pro-cannabis campaigners deploying similar intimidatory tactics and urging their supporters to disrupt the lives of MPS.
How else, for instance, are we supposed to view the growing popularity of protests outside MPS’ homes? There is ample public space for protest elsewhere; there are appropriate venues for political debate to take place.
To eschew these in favour of gathering in mobs outside family homes is clearly an attempt to frighten politicians into voting against their conscience.
This infection is spreading throughout British life, and little is being done to combat it. Protesters chant hate-filled slogans, leaving the Jewish community in fear of their lives, with little visible consequence. They are emboldened.
On Wednesday night, the anti-semitic slogan “from the river to the sea” – a call for the eradication of the state of Israel – was projected upon the Houses of Parliament even as the MPS within it shirked their duty to stand by their principles and display the courage that the people they represent deserve.
It is difficult not to draw a line between the appeasement of pro-palestine protesters earlier, and the increasing boldness with which radical elements seek to place pressure on politicians. When Andrew Percy MP says that he “felt safer” visiting Israel than he does in Britain, it is a sign that we must act to preserve our democracy.
It is self-evident that Britain’s police forces must do more to crack down on intimidation and extremism, rather than prioritising “community relations”.
But it is also high time that our politicians dug deep into their reserves of courage, and showed that they will not be intimidated. To do otherwise will only embolden and encourage those willing to use threats of violence to get their way.