Last Wednesday evening, February 21, 2024, I was appalled to see a rolling graphic of an infamous Palestinian chant appear on the Elizabeth Tower, home to Big Ben.

I thought it was photoshopped. Sadly, it was not.

No offence committed

As the Elizabeth Tower is part of the Parliamentary estate, the Speaker of the House has to give permission for any messaging on it. However, it seems that the image was superimposed with no permission sought: a bit of guerilla warfare, if you will.

On Thursday, February 22, The Times posted scenes of the graphic, which until now has been seen as anti-Semitic in content, and stated that the Metropolitan Police found that no offence had been committed (emphases mine):

An investigation was launched after activists beamed “From the river to the sea” onto the Elizabeth Tower, which houses Big Ben, on Wednesday night. The Metropolitan Police assessed the incident and found it did not constitute an offence.

Wow. Unbelievable.

Fortunately, several Conservative MPs spoke out about anti-Semitism in the capital:

Andrew Percy, a Conservative backbencher, raised concerns about the “genocidal call” after demonstrators took to Westminster to demand a ceasefire in Gaza during the Commons debate on the issue.

On Thursday, MPs spoke out about the rising tide of anti-Semitism, expressed fears over their safety and warned threats from “Islamist extremists” were stifling democracy.

Percy told the Commons: “[On Wednesday] night, a genocidal call of ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’ was projected onto this building. That message says no Jew is welcome in the state of Israel or in that land. This is going to continue happening because we’re not dealing with it.

“For months I’ve been standing up here talking about the people on our streets demanding ‘death to Jews’, demanding Jihad, demanding intifadas as the police stand by and allow that to happen.”

Penny Mordaunt, the Commons leader, said: “British Jews are suffering a grotesque level of hatred and abuse which quite frankly shames our country. There cannot be any tolerance or quarter given to those individuals that threaten and try to prevent MPs conducting their business and honouring the obligations they have to their constituents to use their judgement when they come into this place.”

She said the incident was being looked at by “the Speaker’s Office, parliamentary security, the Metropolitan Police, and Westminster city council, who will be responsible for pursuing prosecutions in that case”.

Robert Jenrick, the former immigration minister, said: “We have allowed our streets to be dominated by Islamist extremists, and British Jews and others to be too intimidated to walk through central London week after week. Now we’re allowing Islamist extremists to intimidate British members of parliament. This is wrong. It has to stop.”

I could not agree more. It must stop. But will it? And who will do it?

This is how the images appeared:

The rally was organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, which has been behind regular weekend marches, including one last Saturday that passed near the Israeli embassy. Among the messages projected onto parliament were “Stop bombing Gaza,” “Ceasefire now” and “Stop war now”.

Planning laws require permission to be granted before any projection onto parliament but authorities said they did not grant permission for slogans to be beamed onto Big Ben …

The Met said: “This is a chant that has been frequently heard at pro-Palestinian demonstrations for many years and we are very aware of the strength of feeling in relation to it.

“While there are scenarios where chanting or using these words could be unlawful depending on the specific location or context, its use in a wider public protest setting, such as [Wednesday] night, is not a criminal offence.”

Amazing — and not in a good way.

This was the Jewish response:

Claudia Mendoza, the chief executive at the Jewish Leadership Council, said: “This incident has contributed to an intimidating environment for MPs, for people working in parliament and for the Jewish community. It feels like there’s no single arena where this toxicity is not manifesting.”

Mendoza said that Jewish trust in the police is lessening:

In December, a survey conducted by the Jewish Leadership Council in conjunction with Jewish News, a newspaper, found that before the October 7 attacks more than 60 per cent of British Jews generally had faith in the police. However since then 50 per cent of those questioned said they trusted the police less than they did before the attacks.

Mendoza added: “We are fielding calls daily from members of the community who feel like the police are not taking strong enough action. I’m sure if the poll was repeated today the level of trust would not have improved and, quite possibly, worsened.”

It seems apparent that the Metropolitan Police are comprised of Arabists, the subject of my post yesterday. How else to explain their kowtowing?

Last Wednesday’s ceasefire debate

Well, this was a turn-up for the books.

For a start, it was one of three debate days allocated to the SNP, whose topic was a ceasefire in Gaza.

However, Labour decided to take the SNP motion away and replace it with their own.

This took some time to arrange, as Chris Bryant said that Thérèse Coffey’s Ten-minute Rule Bill was unnecessary and then proceeded to lecture the Conservatives on knowing what laws were on the books.

He spoke for ages, excerpted below:

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am very grateful for your reminding me that I have to speak in opposition to the legislation, but given that the Government themselves oppose the Bill, as the right hon. Member has just pointed out, I presume that the Government will be opposing it as well this afternoon.

While I commend the right hon. Lady for her diligence as a Back Bencher in introducing a series of ten-minute rule Bills over the last year—for instance, last year she introduced the Schools (Gender and Parental Rights) Bill, which fell at the first hurdle because it did not get a Second Reading, with 40 people voting No and 34 voting Aye—we have the same right to oppose her Bill today if we think that it is not appropriate, relevant or necessary. She referred to the fact that she considers this to be—[Interruption.] …

I believe—I think the Government do too, because so far the Department for Transport has refused to budge in the direction that the right hon. Lady suggests—that this is an inappropriate Bill that would do harm rather than good. It would not lead to greater safety, but actually imperil safety in the UK …

My final point is that there are 78 private Members’ Bills listed on the Order Paper that will be called for Second Reading on 23 February, 1 March, 15 March or 22 March, all of which are before the final date for calling a general election on 2 May. I do not think that a single one of them will enter the statute book. There are actually 26 in the name of Members called Christopher, and I feel rather left out that not one of them comes from myself. The serious point is that we keep putting more Bills on to the Order Paper but not putting them on to the statute book, because we still have a system for ten-minute rule Bills and private Members’ Bills that is completely and utterly bust. The Procedure Committee has said time and again that we are bringing the whole process into disrepute, and that is why we should not be adding yet another ten-minute rule Bill to the Order Paper when we have no intention of putting it on the statute book. I therefore urge all hon. Members to vote against the measure today.

And, lo, so it happened: 63 Ayes versus 81 Noes.

At 1:30, Mr Speaker took his place in the chair:

Mr Speaker was not best pleased to hear Sir Desmond Swayne say sarcastically, ‘Bring back Bercow!’ He referred to the previous Speaker of the House who did much to stymie the way of Brexit, ultimately resulting in Boris Johnson proroguing Parliament for a general election in December 2019.

So, what happened last Wednesday?

Andrew Pierce exposed everything for the Daily Mail on Thursday, February 22, starting at the end of Wednesday’s PMQs when:

Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle dived with some alacrity behind his chair, heading for the tiny Reasons Room, which seats just eight people, in the bowels of the Chamber.

And that’s where things got interesting. All day, the Westminster tea-rooms had been simmering with talk of the SNP’s forthcoming motion on a ‘ceasefire’ in Gaza – a move that threatened to rip the Labour party in two. MPs had been surprised that Sir Lindsay hadn’t made a statement on the imminent debate before PMQs.

Labour’s chief whip Sir Alan Campbell followed Sir Lindsay into the Reasons Room – and hot on the two men’s heels, I have established, was Starmer himself. The Labour leader barged his way in – and the Speaker, I understand, was astonished to see him do so. Normally, party leaders have no business attending private meetings between the Speaker and the whips. So what exactly was Starmer doing there?

And that’s not the only troubling new detail I have uncovered about yesterday’s extraordinary events at Westminster.

Also spotted lurking near the Reasons Room after PMQs was none other than Sue Gray, the ‘neutral’ ex-civil servant who presided over the Partygate inquiry that helped to torpedo Boris Johnson’s premiership in 2022.

The steely Gray is now Starmer’s chief of staff, working diligently to secure a Labour victory at the next election. No wonder the Tory MPs who glimpsed her presence in the vicinity of the Speaker before such a crucial conversation immediately smelled a rat.

‘Sue Gray should have been nowhere near that meeting,’ one former minister hissed last night. ‘The moment we saw her, we knew there was an operation against the Speaker about the Gaza vote. She needs to learn the art of subtlety.’

Yesterday, Sir Lindsay categorically denied having spoken directly to Gray. But her fingerprints are all over what some have called a ‘backstairs stitch-up’ of the SNP – one that clearly favoured Hoyle’s own former party, Labour.

We come to understand why Chris Bryant was running decoy in the Commons:

While the private arm-wrestling between the Speaker, the Labour leader and his chief whip took place behind closed doors, back in the Commons Chamber, an unrelated Private Member’s Bill about rural transport was rumbling on (raised by Tory ex-minister Therese Coffey).

Unusually, a frontbencher, Labour’s Sir Chris Bryant, hoisted himself to his feet to respond to Coffey’s fairly arcane speech. Bryant managed to string out his contribution for seven long minutes, even pausing to tell bemused MPs that there were 26 further Private Member’s Bills from MPs called ‘Chris’ in Parliament’s pipeline.

‘He was filibustering – time-wasting,’ says another Tory MP. ‘Now we know why. They were stalling to give Starmer more time to mug the Speaker.’

The irony of Bryant taking such a role in this tawdry affair was not lost on his fellow MPs. Last year, the shadow minister felt moved to publish a book: Code of Conduct: Why we Need to Fix Parliament and How To Do It. ‘This self-appointed purist deliberately exploited the very rules of the House that he railed against in his own book!’ cries one exasperated MP.

Here is where Bryant and Starmer timed it perfectly:

Just before Bryant sat down, Starmer returned to his frontbench seat in the Commons chamber. Wreathed in smiles, his private meeting with Hoyle had clearly gone well.

And then came the Speaker:

Minutes later, the Speaker himself arrived, and then made the bombshell and possibly career-ending announcement that he had turned decades of tradition on its head by allowing a vote on Labour’s motion instead of the SNP’s – a vote which had been crafted to prevent another massive revolt by Starmer’s backbenchers. Sir Lindsay’s deputies had no idea he was going to do this.

On the one hand, the Speaker’s statement appeared as one wishing to protect the safety of all MPs. However, was that merely a plausible cover for keeping Labour happy?

Neither Hoyle nor Starmer will discuss what went on in their private meeting. But it’s clear the Speaker was warned by Labour luminaries that he might have ‘blood on his hands’ if he didn’t do as they wish: Islamist extremists had threatened violence against Labour MPs who failed to vote for a ceasefire. In his statement, Hoyle admitted as much, saying he was ‘very, very concerned about the safety of all MPs’.

Pierce explains through the voices of other MPs how Speaker Hoyle had departed from the norm:

Hoyle, whose own father was a Labour MP, was first elected in 1997 – but is supposed to surrender all political allegiance as Speaker. He has done serious damage to his reputation – and he knows it. Stephen Flynn, the SNP’s Westminster leader, said Sir Lindsay’s position was now ‘entirely intolerable’. Some have dubbed him a ‘lame duck’.

Tory MPs suspect Hoyle bowed to arm-twisting from Starmer who was trying to avoid a damaging backbench rebellion, expected to number as many as 90 MPs.

There is even talk now that the Tories might break with tradition and put up a candidate to oppose Hoyle in his Chorley constituency at the next general election. (By convention the Speaker is elected unopposed.)

Many Labour MPs are also unhappy – as they want to protect the independence of the Speaker. John McDonnell, who was shadow chancellor under Jeremy Corbyn, said: ‘I just don’t know if Starmer & Co tried to threaten or influence Hoyle,’ adding: ‘Maybe everyone should come clean about what meetings took place.’

This was another telling moment:

his prospects were not helped yesterday when he went into the Commons tea room and a number of Labour MPs loudly applauded him.

Rumours of bullying circulated from that point on.

The debate was a lengthy and well-considered one. It ended with Madam Deputy Speaker Dame Rosie Winterton (Labour) in the chair.

Penny Mordaunt, the Leader of the House, rose to speak objecting to Mr Speaker’s decision that afternoon:

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that Mr Speaker is a servant of this House and that he takes his responsibilities to us extremely seriously. It is that duty towards us and our rights as Members in this place that commands our respect of him.

We all have obligations in this place to ensure that all views can be expressed, and that individual Members and parties of all colours and sizes can have their say. As a Member on the Government Benches, sometimes that is difficult during Opposition day debates, as motions are always deliberately confected to try to engineer the greatest possible backlash against Members. But we on the Government Benches have never asked that the procedures of this House be upturned to militate against such pressures, even when we have faced extreme abuse. Mr Speaker has stated in the decision that he has taken today, and that he is entitled to take, that he wished for all propositions on the Order Paper to be put to the House.

However, that decision has raised temperatures in this House on an issue where feelings are already running high, and that has put right hon. and hon. Members in a more difficult position. It also appears, from the advice of his Clerk, that the decision was taken against the long-standing and established processes and procedures of this House, and that the consequence may be that the Government are not able to respond to Opposition day motions. As such, the Government do not have confidence that they will be able to vote on their own amendment. For that reason, the Government will play no further part in the decision this House takes on today’s proceedings.

I would like to stress that the Government’s position on Israel and Gaza remains unchanged, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister outlined today. We want to see the fighting in Gaza end as soon as possible, and we never again want to see Hamas carry out the appalling terrorist attacks that Israel was subject to. We know that just calling for an immediate ceasefire now, which collapses back into fighting within days or weeks, is not in anyone’s interests. We will be reiterating the Government’s position via a written ministerial statement. I fear that this most grave matter that we are discussing this afternoon has become a political row within the Labour party, and that regrettably—[Interruption.]

I fear that, regrettably, Mr Speaker has inserted himself into that row with today’s decision and undermined the confidence of this House in its ability to rely on its long-established Standing Orders to govern its debates—long-established conventions that should not be impaired by the current view of a weak Leader of the Opposition and a divided party. I ask that Mr Speaker take the opportunity to reassure all right hon. and hon. Members that their Speaker—our Speaker—will not seek to undermine those rights in order to protect the interests of particular Members, and that future Opposition day debates will not be hijacked in this way. I say that for the benefit of all Members. [Interruption.]

The SNP’s Stephen Flynn asked on more than one occasion why Mr Speaker had not turned up for the end of the debate:

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am afraid that I will have to try for a third time. Can you please advise me on where Mr Speaker is? What mechanisms are available to bring him to the House? As we wait for the deliberation on that question, I move that you use the power that I trust you have to suspend this House until Mr Speaker is brought here. [Interruption.] You can do that.

A Conservative MP Dr Matthew Offord asked the same question. Dame Rosie replied:

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to make do with me, which I know is a great disappointment. Mr Speaker will be here in his place tomorrow.

Brendan O’Hara, another SNP MP, also asked where Mr Speaker was:

The House and its procedures have descended into absolute chaos, simply because of a decision taken by the Speaker earlier today. Is it too much to ask that the Speaker is asked to come to this House to explain exactly why he took those decisions, the consequences of those decisions and how he intends to get this House out of the mess it finds itself in? For what reason would you not suspend the House in order for the Speaker to come here to sort this mess out?

Only to be told:

I have said twice already that Mr Speaker set out this morning in detail why he had made his decision, and he will be in his place tomorrow.

In a rare, one-time-only event, the Conservatives and the SNP were closing ranks against Labour. Both emptied their respective benches to leave.

Then Dame Rosie put forward the Labour motion, which passed. Dame Rosie later said she heard no objections to it. It stands in Hansard as ‘Resolved’.

Then, what happened? Mr Speaker turned up:

Penny Mordaunt was satisfied with Mr Speaker’s explanation.

Stephen Flynn felt that the SNP were hard done by, and Mr Speaker pledged to have a private meeting with him.

However, Conservative MP Kit Malthouse put the boot in:

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are two points in what Mr Speaker just said on which I seek your clarification. First, he implied that the proceedings of the House were manipulated by outside intimidation, with regard given to things said outside on social media and reacted to within the House. Quite an important Rubicon has been crossed, and it may have been crossed without the consent of Members. I would like to know where the processes of the House are likely to go, given the outside influences that may be brought to bear. I would be grateful for some clarification on that.

Secondly, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have the greatest respect for you, but, bluntly, you seem to have rammed through two decisions that were quite important to a lot of Members in which no individual vote will have been recorded. A number of us had thought quite carefully about how we were going to vote in those Divisions. Essentially, we were—forgive me—taken by surprise by those two decisions being rammed through. I wonder if it is possible to either void them or run them again.

Dame Rosie said:

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The fact is, I put the Question and nobody called against it—[Interruption.] No.

This brought forth objections:

Not true.

Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg had more to say:

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was quite clear from the level of noise when the Question was put that the view of the Deputy Speaker was being challenged. I think it is absolutely extraordinary that that noise level was deemed to be “Aye”. It is inconceivable that anybody hearing it would have thought it was “Aye”. It is quite clear from all our Standing Orders and all our traditions that when the Speaker or Deputy’s decision is challenged, it should go to a Division.

Dame Rosie defended her actions and blamed the Conservatives:

I am extremely sorry. I took it on the voices. I was quite clear where we were. [Interruption.] The whole thing would have been considerably clearer if the Government had not withdrawn at that position.

Plaid Cymru’s Liz Saville Roberts registered her objection:

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder if the House has considered how this looks to people outside. It looks like chicanery. I rise to ask a question on behalf of the small parties. What precedent has been set today in the way this Opposition day has been handled? How can we ever have faith in the future that our voices and our votes will actually be heard, or will it always be about the two big parties here?

Rees-Mogg tried to make another point of order. Dame Rosie was having none of it.

More MPs raised objections to the way the vote was carried out but to no avail.

All it did show was the Labour were in the ascendant here and prepared to be able to say that their MPs could say they supported a ceasefire. As such, the pro-Palestinian cause could not take issue with them; they were doing the right thing.

It is the first time that MPs have bowed to capitulation of outside forces.

Conclusion

This is where we have a dark future ahead of us. The police turn a blind eye to guerilla warfare on one of our nation’s iconic monuments. The Labour Party try to safeguard their own by steering away from a group of shadowy outside forces meant to intimidate.

This is what happens when well-meaning Arabists take over.