Much of the
commentary surrounding the shambles into which the English House of Commons
descended earlier this week has been either about the extent to which it was
all about party political manoeuvring over what appear to be tiny differences
in wording or about whether the Speaker was being partisan in his decision-making.
Whilst the difference between an immediate ceasefire, a humanitarian ceasefire
and a sustainable ceasefire is indeed important in terms of nuance, the population
of Gaza, who have largely been herded over recent weeks into a giant refugee
camp right up against the border with Egypt, simply want the shooting and the
bombing to stop. Some of the other differences in wording – such as the extent
to which Israel deserves criticism – are probably more significant in terms of
meaning, but even less so in terms of simply stopping the fighting. On the
substance of the issue being debated, there isn’t really much more to say than
that the fighting needs to stop.
The shambles also
revealed yet another aspect of the arcane nature of Westminster’s rules,
something which has received rather less comment. The SNP still hold the
majority of Scottish seats (whatever the current opinion polls tell us about
their prospects for the next election) and under the normal rules of democracy
that might suggest that they have a reasonable right to claim that they represent Scottish
opinion. They are accustomed to losing votes in parliament; having Scottish opinion
over-ruled by the English majority of MPs (and in this context, Tory and Labour
usually seem to act as one) is something which happens on a more or less daily basis.
One of the things that emerged from this week’s debacle is that, on three
sitting days each year, the SNP get to choose the subject on which the English
majority proceeds to over-rule Scotland’s voice. 'They' probably see it as an over-generous concession.
Choosing the subject
on which you’re going to get hopelessly outvoted can’t be an easy matter, and
since the result is pre-ordained, one could argue that it doesn’t matter a
great deal anyway. The wish to be seen to have views on matters other than domestic
Scottish issues is an obvious one for a party which wants to avoid being
labelled parochial, and which wants Scotland to take its place on the world
stage. I can’t help wondering, though, about the wisdom of choosing to lose on
an issue which genuinely is a UK-wide issue for as long as the UK exists. It
doesn’t add much to the narrative of Scottish voices being ignored. On this
occasion, the SNP’s natural desire to twist the knife in a divided Labour Party
seems to have got the better of them, and they’ve ended up joining in the procedural
fun and games which are so typical of Westminster. It’s not the first time that
I’ve wondered what there is about the place which sucks people into its preposterous
norms and practices. It's not unique to the SNP. But then sucking people in is what has made the English
establishment so extraordinarily long-lived.
Posts
3 comments:
The SNP being sucked in might be a bit harsh. I think that Sinn Fein have probably been sucked by the establishment at times though obviously not at the Westminster venue.
Whatever the motive or more likely motives the SNP had they would not have expected that the Speaker would allow the leader of the opposition to manipulate the Speaker by exploiting the Speaker's concern for the safety of MPs, that the Speaker would then ignore the advice of the Clerk and then change the rule so that there was an obvious benefit to Labour interests and detriment to the SNP's.
Maybe the SNP should have expected such a devious trick. At least now everyone knows to expect such shenanigans in the future.
As a certain R Burns wrote
The best-laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men
Gang aft agley,
An’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain,
For promis’d joy!
"...they would not have expected that the Speaker would allow the leader of the opposition to manipulate the Speaker by exploiting the Speaker's concern for the safety of MPs, that the Speaker would then ignore the advice of the Clerk and then change the rule so that there was an obvious benefit to Labour interests and detriment to the SNP's." I can't disagree with any of that, but it doesn't addres the key point that, in choosing the subject and the wording of the motion, the SNP were playing games.
I don't doubt for a minute that the SNP's opposition to what is happening in Gaza is genuine and deeply felt, but neither do I doubt, I'm afraid, that they saw an opportunity (even if subsequently denied them by the Speaker) to embarrass Labour, and pursuing that opportunity was a significant part of their goal. On a whole host of issues, using parliamentary procedures to try and embarrass political opponents is a justifiable tactic - they all do it. But I really don't feel that a question of life and death for thousands of people, where the SNP was already in possession of a large part of the moral high ground by taking a clear position, is the right time or place to deploy that tactic.
As you point out having a genuine concern and knowing that acting on that concern will get one over your opponent aren't mutually exclusive.
Given that neither Tories nor Labour were willing to match the SNP's concern by tabling an original motion themselves which the SNP would support what should the SNP tactic be.
The Hansard doesn't list who or what party has the moral high ground and how much of it they occupy. However the voting record in the House of Commons does give the public the opportunity to consider how parties or MPs compare to their own moral standards.
Would the situation in Gaza have ending up being any worse by keeping to the one amendment rule and the subsequent Kier Starmer/Labour Party "embarrassment".
Post a Comment