Within hours of the Commons mayhem, following the SNP Opposition Day motion on Wednesday 21 February 2024, mainstream media had come together in one voice. The SNP were playing politics. It was an astonishing convergence of opinion. We look at how media framing shifted the blame and hid the real story.
The SNP brought a motion unequivocally calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. It was one of three Opposition Day motions granted to the SNP. Labour has the other 17. The trouble began when Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons, overturned years of precedent to allow an amendment from the Labour Party. He was warned by the Clerk of the House that “long-established conventions are not being followed”. The rules that govern motions are contained in Standing Order No. 31. They ensured that only the Labour wording for a ceasefire was likely to get a vote. Hoyle was clearly warned of this outcome by the Clerk of the House.
Hoyle’s reasoning, quoted in Hansard, contained no hint of the terrorist threat he would alight upon the next day, “I think it is important on this occasion that the House is able to consider the widest possible range of options.” His argument seemed to rest on the belief that procedures were “outdated”. He said:
“Finally, I should tell the House that in my opinion the operation of Standing Order No. 31, which governs the way amendments to Opposition Day motions are dealt with, reflects an outdated approach that restricts the options that can be put to the House.”
His decision meant that Starmer would no longer face a rebellion. His MPs could vote for the Labour amendment and thereby avoid voting for the SNP wording, which many were known to favour.
Early reports of arm twisting
Some reports threw doubt on why Hoyle had decided upon this radical change of approach. It transpired that Starmer had met Hoyle just before he entered the Chamber. According to BBC’s Nick Watt, Hoyle “was left in no doubt that Labour would bring him down after the general election”.
This story was obviously dangerous for both men. It threatened to expose weaknesses in their integrity as well as parliamentary process. Oddly, the media lost interest quickly. Perhaps they could not keep up? More was on its way.
Acrimonious scenes
Hoyle’s decision to allow the Labour amendment led to chaos in the House. The SNP MPs were understandably furious. So too were Conservative MPs. At some point Hoyle left the Commons and was replaced by his deputies. By the time of the division Rosie Winterton was in place. She was asked several times by Stephen Flynn (SNP) where Hoyle was and how he could be brought back to the House to explain his decision. Winterton declined any help. Anger with Hoyle and the mess he had created fuelled acrimonious exchanges. Then came the infamous moment of the vote. According to John Nicholson (SNP) and several other witnesses, the SNP MPs had left the Chamber to vote. While they were out, Winterton passed the Labour amendment without a division. An extraordinary error. The SNP MPs could not even vote on the Labour amendment for their own motion.
Afterwards Flynn, still visibly angry, spoke to Krishnan Guru-Murthy (Ch4 News). He said that Hoyle had “treated the Scottish National Party with contempt”, and that he had to “convince me his position is tenable. I’m not sure it is right now.” Subsequently, more than 90 MPs signed a motion declaring they had no confidence in the Speaker.
Hoyle had made a dreadful error. Yet a more sympathetic narrative was already becoming apparent. Early in the same interview, Guru-Murthy asked, “It is not important is it whether it’s an SNP or Labour motion; that’s just House of Commons politicking?” Soon the narrative would shift entirely. The SNP had played a game of party politics and lost.
Hoyle changed his story
The next day, Hoyle came back to the House with a wildly different reason for accepting the Labour amendment. He declared that a terrorist threat to MPs had changed his mind, saying:
“I never, ever want to go through a situation where I pick up a phone to find a friend, on whatever side, has been murdered by a terrorist. I also do not want another attack on this House – I was in the Chair on that day. I have seen, I have witnessed. I will not share the details…”
He went on: “With the risk being put on all members at the moment, I had serious meetings yesterday with the police on these issues and on threats to politicians as we head towards an election.”
This unexpected revision to his reasoning would have profound consequences. It sparked a moral panic that is still reverberating today.
The media fall again
Had the media pursued obvious lines of enquiry, they would have asked probing questions. Why had Hoyle not mentioned the terrorist threat before? When exactly did he speak to the police? How specific was the threat and who were the supposed terrorists? What measures had been taken to protect MPs? What had really happened in the meeting with Starmer?
The media could have challenged Hoyle on his initial reasoning. If he intended to allow the House to “consider the widest possible range of options,” then selecting one form of words over another was not going to do that.
Instead, the media gratefully accepted the terror threat he handed them. The moral panic that ensued swallowed up everything that was vaguely Islamic in its path, including peace protesters calling for a ceasefire.
James O’Brien summed it up
On the Friday of that week, James O’Brien spoke to a Scottish caller on his LBC radio show. Her name was Fiona, from Perth. He summed up the main points the media were now using.
There was the ‘playing politics’ trope. He said to Fiona, “Of course I understand the depth of feeling, but I don’t approve of it. I don’t approve of your depth of feeling about parliamentary procedure trumping the opportunity to vote for a ceasefire in Gaza.” He doubled down with: “[Stephen Flynn] set a trap for Labour and the fury is that it didn’t work.”
Like much of the media he assumed that the SNP absence in the Chamber was due to a walkout. And implicit in his arguments was the assumption that the SNP was only intent on mischief-making. Forcing Labour to declare its position on a ceasefire was somehow unfair.
The undermining of parliamentary process and potentially serious wrongdoing was no longer up for debate. The media had decided the SNP had set a trap and it had backfired. To argue otherwise missed the point.
The elephant in the room
The most blindingly obvious question of all was why Starmer did not offer a free vote – the elephant in the room question. The onus was always on the SNP to explain why it had not chosen its words so Labour could agree with them.
There is only one substantial difference between the SNP motion and the Labour amendment. As Hansard states: “[this House] further, calls for the immediate release of all hostages taken by Hamas and an end to the collective punishment of the Palestinian people.”
Collective punishment is a war crime. This is the phrase that must have led Starmer to seek help from the Speaker. O’Brien, in his exchange with Fiona, surprisingly attempted to explain his dilemma.
Fiona: “Why didn’t Starmer allow his MPS to vote on the Scottish [motion] then?”
O’Brien: “Because it involves an accusation of war crimes against Israel – and all being well by the end of the year Starmer will be in charge of our diplomatic mission to Israel for peace.”
Perhaps we begin to see the elephant? Starmer was concerned not to offend Israel. The media, sensing that he may be the next PM, were happy to blame the SNP for the chaotic scenes in the House and let Starmer duck out of the limelight. Meanwhile, the moral panic Hoyle had started still swirls around like a malignant fog.
More on Westminster
