Labour
Maslow and the best scientific trials we can muster…
I was reminded by the death of the playwright, Edward Bond who is alleged to have thought that depriving people of imagination and education just brutalised them (ain’t that the truth? see too the disastrous decline in arts council funding and in various local councils – in particular Birmingham and Nottingham where their arts contributions... Read more
The lull before the storm
It feels like we are in the lull before the storm.
Tomorrow is budget day, and I really cannot be bothered to spend time speculating on the nonsense that is being written about what Jeremy Hunt might, or might not, do when waiting until tomorrow to find out seems a lot more sensible thing to do, particularly when very little of what it is suggested that he might offer meets the criteria of being sensible.
That though, is an issue of the immediate moment. That feeling of an impending storm is much stronger.
We know that we have a general election campaign waiting to start this year. What we also know is that whilst such campaigns are normally run on the basis of differing economic policy, on this occasion that will not be possible.
It is very clear that the Tories have run out of any ideas on how to run the economy, and that Labour is in completely in complete agreement with them in every possible way, including by having a total lack of ideas on how to tackle the issues that we face. As a result, there will be almost no basis for disagreement between them on issues relating to economics.
They are combined in their agreed that all that they can offer is low, or no, growth in earnings coupled with higher taxes on those with lower earnings both in absolute terms and as a proportion of GDP, as GDP itself stagnates and demand for public services rise. They will also agree that there can be no significant investment in any aspect of our economy.
Given that is the case, this election campaign is going to be brutal and ugly, because it will inevitably focus on what are described as culture wars.
These have every chance of becoming unseemly. Far too many in the Tories appear intent on pandering to a small Christian evangelical minority. Labour now appears intent on pandering to one part of the Jewish community. The majority of people in this country who are happy to live in a multicultural society, and know all the benefits of doing so, including many Christians and Jews, will feel deeply alienated by all of this.
Meanwhile, anyone who has concern for any minority group will live in fear during the campaign, partly because of the Draconian election laws that mean that they will have to almost continually tread on eggshells for fear of breaking election law over the next twelve months. That fear will be combined with the anticipation of a Labour government that has shown absolutely no interest in supporting any return towards proper balances within human and civil rights legislation in this country, or elsewhere.
The lull is, in that case, all about waiting for the fight to come, which will be with a Labour government that will bear no comparison with any previous administration of that name. Even Blair at his worst was nothing like the current Labour leadership because he had nothing like the control of the party that Starmer has managed to create for himself. This is, then, a time to reflect on the campaigns that are likely to be needed.
There will clearly be fights to come over austerity, to which Labour is dedicated.
There will also be fights over environmental causes, about which issue Labour appears to be in complete denial.
There will also be concerns over human rights, civil rights, freedom of speech, the right to protest, and, of course, international issues related to all these themes that are very likely to focus upon Gaza for a long time to come.
On top of that, there will be a very obvious economic fight, which will continue within the public services but also elsewhere, as those who work for a living seek to maintain their incomes in a to battle to meet the demand made upon them for excessive payments from the financial services sector, whether for insurance or interest payments, or from utility suppliers, or the hegemonic rental and housing markets . I suspect there will be no support for working people from Labour on these issues. Stress will, therefore, be very high.
That also suggests that the likelihood of significant stress over the future of public services will not in anyway abate as a consequence of the election of a Labour government, contrary to any past expectation.
Most people now realise that the current Tory government is in no position to resolve any of these issues, and has not really got the power to do so. Everything is in abeyance as a result. But, any relief at the election of a Labour government is going to give away, very quickly, to disbelief at what it will plan to do in practice.
I strongly suspect that disbelief will not only give rise to massive disquiet about that party very soon after its election, but also to disquiet about the whole political system when the obvious absence of choice within it becomes very apparent to millions of people who still believe that there is some fundamental difference between the options with which they are presented at  this moment. When it becomes clear to most people that Labour is absolutely no alternative to the Tories stress might reach previously unknown levels, and that is why I suggest that we are in the lull before a storm.
Worryingly, I have no idea in which direction that storm might eventually blow. I blame Labour for that. I can also live in hope. But only a fool would not worry about what is to come.
Before buyer’s regret creeps in
This is worth sharing, sent to me by Ipsos Mori this morning, and maybe useful as a benchmark for use at the time when buyer's regret creeps in sometime in the not too distant future:
Labour lead on economy and public services as Conservative share falls to record low
- Dissatisfaction with Rishi Sunak as Prime Minister reaches his worst score.
- Though Keir Starmer’s satisfaction ratings also drop, and most think he is indecisive.
London, UK. The latest Ipsos Political Monitor, taken 21st to 28th February 2024, explores public attitudes to the various parties and their leaders in the run up to the next General Election, including which party is best on key issues that will decide their vote. This month’s results also explore attitudes to the economy, public services and spending ahead of the budget, including public satisfaction with Chancellor Jeremy Hunt and whether Hunt or Labour’s Rachel Reeves would make the most capable Chancellor.
Voting intention
- Labour 47% (-2 pts), Conservatives 20% (-7), Liberal Democrats 9% (+2), Green 8% (+1), Reform UK 8% (+4), Other 7% (+2). Making Labour’s lead 27 points, up from 22 in January.
- The Conservatives’ share of 20% is the lowest ever recorded by Ipsos in our regular Political Monitor series, which has run since 1978. Previous Conservative low points were 22% under John Major in December 1994 and May 1995, 23% in July 1997, shortly after Labour’s landslide win and 23 per cent in December 2022.
- Half (50%) of those with a voting intention say they have definitely decided who to vote for – but 45% may change their mind. There are also signs of a growing enthusiasm gap, with only 62% of Conservatives saying they certain to vote, vs 76% of Labour voters (which feeds through into the headline voting figure) – last month the gap was just 4 points.
Leader satisfaction ratings
- 83% are dissatisfied with the way the government is running the country (+5 pts from January). 10% are satisfied (-3 pt).
- 19% are satisfied with the job Rishi Sunak is doing as Prime Minister (-1 from January) and 73% say they are dissatisfied (+7). His net rating of -54 is a record low for Mr Sunak.
- 54% of current Conservative voters are satisfied with the job Sunak is doing (-1 point) and 37% are dissatisfied (+2).
- Keir Starmer’s ratings have also fallen since January. 29% are satisfied with his performance as Labour leader (-1) and 55% are dissatisfied (+7). His net score of -26 is only slightly above his lowest finding of -29 in May 2021.
Most important issues
- When asked which issues are likely to be the most important when deciding how to vote, the top issues for the public are the NHS (30%), inflation / rising prices (22%), the economy (22%) and asylum/immigration (15%).
- For Labour voters the top issue is the NHS but for Conservatives the top issues are immigration and the economy.
Best party on key issues
- Labour are seen as having the best policies on managing the economy by a margin of 31% to the Conservative score of 23%. In October the parties were neck and neck.
- On taxation, Labour are seen as having the best policies over the Conservatives by a margin of 32% to 19%.
- 40% think Labour have the best policies for people in work, 15% think the Conservatives have the best policies.
- 43% think Labour have the best policies for public services in general, 11% think the Conservatives have the best policies.
- 35% think Labour have the best policies for the level of public spending, 16% think the Conservatives have the best policies.
- 29% think the Conservatives have the best policies for Britain’s businesses, 25% think Labour have the best policies. In September 2021 the Conservatives lead on this by 41% to 17%.
- 30% think the Conservatives have the best policies for Britain's financial services sector, also known as the City, 22% think Labour have the best policies.
Keir Starmer
- 37% think Keir Starmer has changed Labour for the better (down 11 points from February 2021), 13% for the worse (+9) and 39% say he has made no difference (+4). 11% say they don’t know (-2).
- 29% say Labour led by Keir Starmer has done a good job setting out a clear alternative to the current government to voters (+11 from a similar question asked in July 2021*) and 47% say he has done a bad job (-12).
- Meanwhile 32% think Keir Starmer has done a good job giving people a reason to vote Labour (-3 from February 2021) and 45% think it has done a bad job (+8).
- 29% consider Keir Starmer decisive and 55% say he is indecisive. In February 2021 scores were the other way round, with 46% saying he was decisive and 28% indecisive.
- 50% agree it is unclear what Keir Starmer stands for. 30% disagree. 46% agree it is unclear what Rishi Sunak stands for and 36% disagree. Scores are largely unchanged from June last year.
Economy: Satisfaction with Chancellor and Hunt vs. Reeves.
- 22% are satisfied with the job Jeremy Hunt is doing as Chancellor and 56% are dissatisfied, his worst scores as Chancellor. In February last year 26% were satisfied and 52% dissatisfied.
- The British public think Labour’s Rachel Reeves would make the most capable Chancellor by a margin of 39% to 24%, slightly up from a 12 point lead in October and June last year.
Gideon Skinner, Head of Political Research at Ipsos, said: "The historical comparisons continue to look ominous for Rishi Sunak and the Conservatives. The Ipsos Political Monitor series started in the late 70s and has never recorded a Conservative vote share this low – and the job satisfaction trends for the Prime Minister and his government since he took office are also heading downwards. Combined with Labour taking leads on issues of economic credibility to go with their traditional strengths in public services, this means the Conservatives face big challenges across a number of fronts if they are to turn the situation around."
Notes to Editors
- Ipsos interviewed a representative sample of 1,004 adults aged 18+ across Great Britain. Interviews were conducted by telephone between the 21st to 28th February 2024. Data are weighted to match the profile of the population. All polls are subject to a wide range of potential sources of error.
- *in July 2021 for this question the neither/don’t know categories were combined, this month they have been separated out.
This is dark stuff – how the right is controlling politics:
Although effectively none of that narrative is reflected in the views of the British population… This fifteen minutes is I suggest, well worth watching: Peter Oborne shows how the narrative is being swerved and unfortunately (or purposely?) Starmer and the Speaker (certainly the Speaker) have a leading role – we’re being told that Parliament is... Read more
McCluskey: looking after Ogle after cancer was ‘Unite culture when I was general sec’
Former Unite head says he felt uncomfortable testifying against his old union and didn’t want to be critical of successor Sharon Graham – but testimony to employment tribunal in discrimination case was still explosive
Len McCluskey did not want to be photographed as he left the WRC in Dublin
Long-time former Unite general secretary Len McCluskey testified to the Irish Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) in Dublin today in union legend Brendan Ogle’s discrimination case against the union now run by Sharon Graham. Despite McCluskey’s obvious discomfort having to testify against his old union and his expressed determination not to speak critically of his successor, his testimony was infused with explosive criticism nonetheless. McCluskey was not thrown off course by hostile questioning from the union’s expensive legal team from Dentons, the world’s largest law firm, which has been engaged by Graham and Unite for both the tribunal and Ogle’s separate defamation claim. The adjudicator in the case is former war-crimes prosecutor Elizabeth Spelman.
Unite’s lawyers tried to portray McCluskey’s insistence – that Unite was always going to keep Ogle on full pay if he was able to return to work from treatment for life-threatening cancer, regardless of the duties he was able to carry out – as somehow outlandish. In a bristly cross-examination, McCluskey told the tribunal he was astonished that anyone would contend that it was bizarre not to want someone to be penalised for being ill and that such a matter of basic decency was part of the ‘union’s culture when I was general secretary’.
Sharon Graham has been heavily criticised among union members and activists in the union – and by more than one Irish politician – for Unite’s treatment of Brendan Ogle, one of and perhaps the highest-profile and effective union figures in Ireland. Ogle, who backed Howard Beckett rather than Graham during the last Unite general secretary election, returned from successful cancer treatment expecting to take up his old duties, but was ‘sidelined’ to a lesser position in Dundalk, over fifty miles from his Dublin base. The situation caused such outrage that union members picketed Graham’s long-delayed visit to Dublin, Unite’s Community section condemned it as ‘disgusting’ and a whole sector branch threatened to disaffiliate.
Unite’s lawyers claimed the union’s policy was to ‘red-ring’ the salaries of ill employees for two years only, but McCluskey said that this had not been Unite’s practice when he was in charge. The union’s legal team also tried to claim that Ogle’s position had been created specifically for him, presumably implying that this was some kind of ‘grace and favour’ position, but McCluskey angrily rejected this, pointing to the union’s changes in Ireland during its disaffiliation from the Irish Labour party over the party’s support for austerity, the organisational changes this necessitated, and the extensive approval of Unite’s executive for the need for such a position and for Ogle’s appointment as the most suitable candidate by a distance.
McCluskey told Skwawkbox that he felt very uneasy testifying against the union he and his team had built, but had been forced to do so because Unite had included claims about him in its submissions to the tribunal in the case.
Ogle’s testimony began this afternoon but is expected to continue into tomorrow.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
Skwawkbox is in Dublin to cover Ogle vs Unite discrimination tribunal
Irish union legend claiming discrimination by Graham-run union after return from cancer treatment. Skwawkbox will report from Irish Workplace Relations Commission
From Tuesday, the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) in Dublin will hear the discrimination case brought by Irish union legend Brendan Ogle against Sharon Graham’s Unite, for abuse Ogle – who supported Howard Beckett during the 2021 Unite general secretary election – says he suffered at the hands of the union management after his return from a successful battle against life-threatening cancer.
Ogle, who is also separately suing Graham, her ally Tony Woodhouse and the union for defamation, has alleged that he was abused by the union after his return from treatment for cancer – and after he made ‘protected disclosures’ to the union about its failures to adhere to covid protocols during the pandemic.
Graham and her representatives have been accused of ‘disgusting’ behaviour toward Ogle – and anger in Ireland at the situation became so great that an entire sector branch threatened to disaffiliate entirely from Unite, the well-known ‘Right2Water’ campaign said it will no longer work with Unite, Unite’s Community section in Ireland condemned the ‘injustice inflicted’ on him and members picketed general secretary Sharon Graham’s long-delayed visit to Dublin.
Skwawkbox is in Dublin to cover the proceedings, including Tuesday’s session where Graham’s predecessor as general secretary, Jeremy Corbyn ally Len McCluskey, is expected to take the stand to testify. Graham herself has been subpoenaed by Ogle’s legal team to give evidence, despite allegedly trying to get out of appearing.
Graham is using one of the world’s most profitable law firms to defend the defamation suit – and also, as Skwawkbox revealed, in the tribunal case. Her tenure as Unite boss has been marked by a string of other allegations – which neither she nor the union has denied – including alleged destruction of evidence against her husband in misogyny and bullying complaints. She is currently being sued, along with an ally and the union, by Irish union legend Brendan Ogle for defamation.
She has been exposed using proxies to order the cancellation of showings of the film ‘Oh Jeremy Corbyn/The Big Lie’, which exposes the political abuse of antisemitism accusations against left-wingers in the Labour party, and discussion of Asa Winstanley’s forensic book Weaponising Antisemitism: How the Israel Lobby Brought Down Jeremy Corbyn. Proxies were similarly despatched to try, unsuccessfully, to cancel a Unite ‘fringe’ event at Labour’s conference earlier this month in support of Palestinians.
Ogle’s barrister told the Workplace Relations Commission adjudicator last November that she expected the union would be required to ‘produce’ Sharon Graham to testify, along with a string of current and former senior Unite officials and employees.
If you would like to help cover Skwawkbox’s costs of attending this week’s session, which is expected to be the first of two or three at the WRC before the case is adjudicated, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thank you for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
We desperately need a Green New Deal and our power elites would rather ignore that fact
As the Guardian's morning comment newsletter says in its introduction this morning:
Houses in the UK are some of the oldest and least energy efficient in Europe. A new report by Friends of the Earth and the Institute of Health Equity found that 9.6m households are living in cold, poorly insulated homes. These households also have incomes below the minimum for a decent standard of living, meaning that they cannot afford to install double glazing or insulation, for example, to make their homes warmer. The analysis comes just weeks after the Labour party U-turned on a key climate proposal, which included a pledge to insulate millions of homes. Meanwhile, over the last 13 years the government has reversed plenty of policies designed to tackle the insulation problem in the UK.
It's now more than fifteen years since I co-authored the first Green New Deal report. In that report, we called for the release of a 'carbon army' of well-trained people who could insulate Britain, install solar power and build the transmission networks for a new economy. There would be long-term employment on offer as a result. The UK would go green. And energy poverty would be tackled. It was an all-round win.
It has not happened.
Labour has now turned its back on the idea.
But we need this solution more than ever.
And it could be done. The Taxing Wealth Report 2024 shows that the funding is available. All that is lacking is the will.
Rather than tackle gross tax, income and wealth inequality in the UK, both our leading political parties would rather balance the government's books, subject us to the desires of the City of London and maintain the existing hierarchies of financial power within our society, which leave millions in poverty whilst denying us a future.
Why do they do that? Because they crave to be part of the financial power elite, and that elite knows that and bribes them with its inducements as a result.
I would expect this of Tories.
But we have to conclude that Labour has now been totally corrupted.
That is what is frightening about where we are. Morals, ethics, principles and values have left Labour. All that is left is a vacuum desperately seeking power.
Graham suspends official who refused to cancel pro-Palestine Labour conference fringe
Simon Dubbins told Graham’s proxies she should come and tell him herself if she wanted Unite Palestine solidarity fringe cancelling.
CORRECTION: Dubbins is ‘under investigation’, but not suspended..
Unite general secretary Sharon Graham has suspended a senior Unite official who refused last October to cancel a solidarity fringe even for the Palestinian people that he had arranged during Labour’s annual conference in Liverpool.
Graham sent underlings to tell Simon Dubbins, Unite’s Director for International Affairs, that the event must be pulled – but as Skwawkbox revealed exclusively at the time Dubbins refused, telling the proxies that if Graham wanted the event cancelled she should come and say so herself. She didn’t, and it went ahead.
The official reasons for the suspension have not been revealed, but Unite insiders have linked it to the fringe event.
Sharon Graham has been slammed for her actions – and inaction – relating to Palestine and the Israeli regime’s genocide in Gaza. She has been publicly silent about the slaughter, but has been criticised for banning Unite officials and national banners from pro-Gaza protests, banned and smeared films and books exposing the ‘Labour antisemitism’ scam – and an email from her official union address to an angry member dismissed the genocide perpetrated on the people of Gaza.
Ms Graham’s tenure as Unite boss has also been marked by a string of other allegations – which neither she nor the union has denied – including alleged destruction of evidence against her husband in threat, misogyny and bullying complaints brought by union employees. She is also embroiled in both an employment tribunal for discrimination and a defamation lawsuit brought by Irish union legend Brendan Ogle for the union’s treatment of him and comments made about him by Graham and her close ally Tony Woodhouse.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
Starmer is high in the pantheon of charlatans who have sought high office in this country
The true story of what was behind yesterday's debacle in parliament is made clear in an article in The Guardian:
The reality is that Starmer will not condemn Isarael's action in Gaza and wants to perpetuate their right to collectively punish the Palestinian people of Gaza, contrary to international law.
The fact is that the vast majority of people in this country do not like what he is doing. They are protesting.
Labour MPs do not like the right to protest, as the Labour leadership has made very clear by offering its support to the government in crackdowns on the right to protest.
Worse still, the Labour leadership do not like protests aimed at them. They are most definitely, in the opinion, anti-democratic when the exact opposite is true.
So Starmer, rather than listen to the protests and realise that people are rightly angry that he is still supporting the right of Israel to commit genocide, demanded that Lindsay Hoyle break parliamentary procedure to supposedly let his MPs vote on a Labour motion calling for a faux-ceasefire, the conditions for which he knew could not be met.
He claimed his members were at risk. And that was his justification.
So, too, are the people of Gaza at risk. He, however, does not care about them. He only cares about Labour Party discipline when its policy offends all decent people.
And so we got yesterday's debacle. He'd rather undermine democracy than do the right thing for people suffering genocide.
That puts him high in the pantheon of charlatans who have sought high office in this country.
After the debacle of last night, Labour look like grubby power-grabbers intent on achieving their personal goal of office irrespective of who or what is harmed as a consequence
Let me summarise what I think happened in the House of Commons yesterday.
The SNP tabled an opposition day debate calling for a permanent ceasefire in Gazza. It is the second time that it has done this. The sentiments that it expressed, I very strongly suspect, reflect those of the vast majority of people in the UK, leaving all politics aside.
Labour's leadership, who had enjoyed many opportunities to table their own motions on this issue at almost any time they chose, were horrified at the prospect of this motion being put before the House because they knew that many of their own MPs would wish to back it unless Labour could offer an alternative motion.
The problem for Labour was that it is exceptional for the Speaker of the House of Commons to allow an opposition party, like Labour, to have a motion amending an opposition day motion from another party, like the SNP, debated in the House of Commons. The convention has always been that the opposition party proposing a motion has that motion debated and voted upon, and then, even if that motion is accepted, the government might then propose an amendment to that it, which basically lets the government neuter whatever the opposition party has proposed.
For reasons that are not clear but which are not to its credit, the government chose not to table an amendment to the SNP motion until the Labour Party had already done so. When it did, there was little difference between its motion and that from Labour. Both called for a ceasefire that imposed considerable conditions on the Palestinians whilst permitting the continued collective punishment of the civilian Palestinian population by Israeli forces for issues that were beyond their control, contrary to the requirements of international law.
For reasons that again are not clear, but which do appear to be very heavily related to intense lobbying from the Labour Party, Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons, decided soon after lunch yesterday that contrary to convention, the Labour Party motion amending the SNP motion would be debated by parliament, and voted upon.
Uproar then ensued for two reasons. First, this meant that the SNP motion would, inevitably, be replaced by the Labour motion before there was any chance for the SNP motion as tabled to be voted upon by the House of Commons. As a result, one of the rare opportunities that the SNP had to bring an issue before parliament was being totally taken over by Labour, which, unsurprisingly, the SNP found unacceptable.
There were also complaints from Conservative benches. Some were from the Tory MPs who actually wished to vote for the SNP motion. There may not have been many of them, but they existed, including Paul Bristow, the MP for Peterborough. They were not happy.
There was, however, another reason why the Tories panicked. Their whips realised that the government's own motion was so close to Labour's that it was highly likely That Tory MP would not vote down the Labour motion and replace it with the government's, granting Labour a victory on an SNP opposition day motion, which, which was the last thing that government whips wanted. This, it would seem, was the true reason why the leader of the House of Commons, Penny Mordaunt, withdrew the government motion shortly after 6 pm last night. She did not wish the government to suffer the ignominy of losing on a vote.
However, this disruption from the government simply heightened tension in the Commons, leading to an exceptional resolution being tabled moving that the House move into private session. There was no serious chance of this happening. It was tabled as a protest as tempers got heated.
Worse still though, when that motion was inevitably lost, the deputy speaker of the House of Commons, Rosie Winterton MP (who is, I should add, a Labour MP) then asked from the chair if there were any objections to the Labour amendment to the SNP motion, and declared that she heard none, and therefore declared it passed, unanimously by the House. She then moved immediately on to ask if there were then any objections to the revised SNP motion, which was now the Labour motion, being approved by the House. She again claimed that she heard no such objections, although the House was in tumult at this point, in anger at what had gone on beforehand. It would have been entirely reasonable to presume that such noise represented an objection to the motion being carried and that a vote was being called for, but she inexplicably declared the now Labour motion passed as well.
In all this, it has to be noted that the plight of the people of Gazza was terribly overlooked.
Labour, meanwhile, is now claiming that the SNP motion was only tabled to embarrass them. That is absurd. Of course the SNP tabled a motion that Labour did not like. As an opposition party in their own right, they are perfectly entitled to disagree with Labour and present motions that it does not support. It is ludicrous that Labour object to that when that is precisely what the SNP is in parliament to do, and what those who vote for it expect. Nothing that Labour has said on this issue is edifying in any way, nor was its motion, as I have made clear in previous comments on this blog.
Nor was anything that the government did yesterday edifying in any way. If anyone played politics, they did, and it was their panic when they realised that they had completely misunderstood the sentiments of their own members that led to the chaos that erupted in the House of Commons at around 7 pm last night. They might be angry with the Speaker, but if they are, it is only because his actions revealed their own inability to manage this situation properly. If they had tabled their motion before Labour did, there is little doubt that Labour's motion would never have been called.
Then there are the actions of the Speaker to consider. His own senior advisor, the clerk of the House of Commons, wrote to him to point out the folly of his decision very soon after he had made it. Lindsay Hoyle stuck with that decision. He got it very wrong, and admitted so after the votes, looking to be close to tears in the House when doing so. I have long felt him to be utterly incompetent. Just watch Prime Minister's Question Time and the number of stupid comments he has made suggesting that he will send members to the tea room to calm down, which has never, in fact, done, and his weakness is readily apparent. It was all too clear yesterday.
Hoyle disappearance from the house during the debate, leaving Rosie Winterton to take the flak, is also exceptionally hard to understand.
But then, so too, is her decision to force through the Labour amendment to the SNP motion whilst claiming that no one had opposed it when that suggestion is completely ludicrous.
Calls for Lindsey Hoyle to resign are clearly appropriate.
Rosie Winterton also needs to be sacked as a deputy speaker: her actions last night were disgraceful.
It should be no surprise to anyone that the government was unable to manage this situation. It seems incapable of managing anything, anymore.
As readers of my comments in the National newspaper in Scotland will know, I am not the biggest fan of the SNP. They have their merits, but also many faults, but whatever Labour likes to say about them and their actions yesterday, they acted wholly within their rights to present what I think was a genuine and honest statement of their desire to the House of Commons, seeking that it be voted upon, as was there right.
That, then, leaves the actions of Labour to be considered. Their denial that there was lobbying before Lindsay Hoyle made his decision is absurd. It would be extraordinary if they had not lobbied him. Lindsay Hoyle said that he had not met with Sue Gray, Labour chief executive, but he did not deny meeting anyone else from Labour. I am sure that he did, and that undue pressure was brought to bear on him.
The impression that is left is of a Labour Party willing to bully in pursuit of its aims, and willing to demand changes to democratic conventions to achieve that goal to save itself the embarrassment of having many of its members support an SNP motion that clearly matched their own mood on the subject of Gaza. If anyone failed to understand the need of the day, and to appreciate the appropriate way in which this matter should have been discussed, it was the Labour leadership. It was them who played politics on an issue of ethical concern.
I have had increasing doubts about the Labour leadership's attitudes over the last two years. After the debacle of last night, it is hard to see them as anything but grubby power-grabbers intent on achieving their personal goal of office irrespective of who is harmed as a consequence.
What we can say is one thing. We have been put on notice of what a Labour Party government will look like when in office. It is not a welcome prospect.