Ceasefire vote chaos fanned the flames of the Far Right

As we have now seen, it paved the way for the conflation of anti-genocide protesters with “extremists”, the incendiary and unsubstantiated use of the word “mobs” and a wave of Islamophobia unleashed by Suella Braverman. In her Telegraph column, she claimed the country was “sleep-walking into a ghettoised society” which emperilled freedom of expression.

But whatever social/ethnic/religious polarisation is taking place, we aren’t “sleep-walking” into it – we have been led there by dog-whistle rants such as the former Home Secretary’s.

Braverman appears oblivious to, or heedless of, the links between her comments and the racist slurs Humza Yousaf – the leader of the party whose Opposition Day motion was sabotaged– receives on a daily basis. Jibes such as “First Minister for Hamas” are the product of far-right propaganda which spreads the lie that most Muslims are radicalised (even when they unequivocally condemn terrorism).

Yet Yousaf himself is not above amplifying hate speech when it suits his own agenda. On Friday, he retweeted a P&J front page with photographs of Starmer, Rachel Reeves and Ed Miliband, all wearing cloaks, under a headline reading: The Traitors.

FM Humza Yousaf

Meanwhile, there is nothing that says “freedom of expression” quite like handing the police extra powers to crack down on demonstrations. How much cognitive dissonance does it require to accuse others of undermining democracy while trying to strip the public of its right to hold you to account?

Complex reality

The Hamas attacks, the ongoing hostage situation, and the Israeli onslaught on the civilian population of Gaza present an almost uniquely complicated set of circumstances for Westminster to navigate. We live in a country with a significant population of both Jews and Palestinians.

Although not homogenous, these populations are shaped by conflicting narratives and, while politicians might come down on one side or the other, it is vital they understand how those narratives have evolved, and the extent to which the communities are invested in them. To effectively represent those communities, they must recognise the heightened sense of threat they feel (both anti-Semitic and Islamophobic attacks have risen since October 7). Political parties also come with their own baggage. This is particularly true of Labour, with Starmer having promised to “tear out the poison” of anti-Semitism.

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer

Nevertheless, an act of unfettered brutality has been unfolding in front of our eyes. Tens of thousands of Palestinians have been slaughtered by a regime prepared to obliterate the Gaza Strip in its attempt to destroy Hamas.

Every night we witness the repercussions: the rubble, the mounting death toll, the lack of basic medical facilities, the hunger. MPs have a responsibility – a civic and moral duty – to call for an immediate ceasefire. This should not be controversial but yet the Tories and Labour have shilly-shallied and equivocated.

Last week’s Opposition Day debate afforded all parties an opportunity to demonstrate grown-up, responsible politics, to work together to produce a motion everyone could (belatedly) sign up to, while – more crucially – pushing the UK Government to suspend arms sales to Israel.

Instead, they prioritised their own narrow concerns, allowing the debate to degenerate into chaos and bringing themselves and Westminster into disrepute.

The SNP has, at least, been consistent. It opposed the Iraq War (losing votes as a result), and has been calling for a ceasefire in Gaza from the outset. Still, let’s not pretend the party didn’t choose to include the phrase “as a collective punishment” – a reference to the cutting off of water and electricity, and the Geneva Convention which says “[no] protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed” – in the hopes it would split the Labour Party.

Speaker Lindsay Hoyle

Or that it wouldn’t have been more conciliatory to have set the Gaza bombardment in the context of the Hamas atrocities and to have referenced a “two-state solution”.

We may never find out exactly what behind-the-scenes machinations led Hoyle to change the protocol on amendments, but it is clear Labour’s imperative was to avoid a civil war. This it did, at the expense of the SNP, parliamentary process, the Speaker’s reputation, and public trust in our political institutions.

That the point of the exercise – to send out a strong and united message – was surrendered to self-interest could be seen in the lack of self-reflection afterwards.

Although the SNP had a right to feel hard done by, Stephen Flynn’s attempt to claim “victim” status for the party was crass when set beside the plight of the people of Gaza.

Stephen Flynn MP

Labour narcissism

As for Labour gloating about having avoided the trap set by the SNP, and lauding the passage of its own motion, what a way to showcase your own narcissism – to make a humanitarian crisis all about you. If Palestinians were looking to the UK for an unambiguous expression of solidarity, they must have been sorely disappointed.

Hoyle made no reference to his fears for MPs’ safety when he agreed to accept the Labour amendment against the advice of the Clerk of the House, falling back on this explanation only once the Commons had descended into uproar.

So, how much credence should we give it? On the other hand, the alternative – that Starmer told Hoyle Labour wouldn’t back him as Speaker post-election if he did not comply (something they both deny) – would mean he exploited the murders of Jo Cox and David Amess to cover his own back.

And that is too awful to contemplate, even in these amoral times.

Either way, the repercussions of Hoyle’s decision, and the Islamophobia it legitimised, will be deep and enduring. The spectacle of MPs bickering while Gaza burns will surely feed into the growing disillusionment with party politics.

For all Starmer’s claim to having won the day – and the staving off of a damaging rebellion – the Labour leader has been sullied by the debacle.

It makes you wonder about the turnout, if not the result, of the General Election, and about what kind of foreign policy lies beyond a Labour victory. More terrifying still is the escalation of racist rhetoric. The projection of the much-contested “from the river to the sea” slogan onto Big Ben will have escalated tensions. But so, too, will the loose and unevidenced talk about “mob” rule.

Braverman clash

WHILE fringe elements attach themselves to most big gatherings, the pro-Palestinian marches have been ethnically and socially diverse, and largely peaceful. Indeed, the only time there has been a significant flare-up was when Braverman’s rabble-rousing prompted far-right counter-protesters to clash with police at the Cenotaph.

That incident – the blame for which London mayor Sadiq Khan placed firmly on Braverman’s doorstep – has done nothing to temper her behaviour, nor that of former Conservative deputy chair Lee Anderson who said on GB News he believed Khan was controlled by Islamists and had handed the capital over to “his friends”.

Yesterday, Anderson was suspended from the party after “refusing to apologise” for his comments.

Tory MP Lee Anderson

There is no doubt what they are up to: they are using what is happening in Israel and Gaza to sow racial division in their own backyard.

Every time they talk about “the illusion of multiculturalism” or present the country as teetering on the brink of Sharia law, they are inciting the violence they affect to condemn.

If the UK should fear anyone, it is them.