0:05

Hello and welcome to Navara Live. I'm

0:07

Mollie Lothain-McLean and tonight I'm joined by

0:09

Ash Saka. Ash, hello. How

0:12

you doing? It's nice to see you on Navara

0:14

Live and not just on our brand new podcast,

0:16

If I Speak. You

0:20

are the master of plugging. Yes, Ash

0:22

and I have a new podcast called

0:24

If I Speak. And if you go

0:26

to our socials or Spotify or Apple

0:28

Podcasts and search for If I Speak,

0:30

you'll be able to listen to the

0:32

first episode out now. But we're doing

0:34

Navara Live tonight. So,

0:36

coming up later, we will be bringing

0:38

you the latest updates from the situation

0:40

in Gaza. We'll also be scrutinising Labour's

0:43

defence over Hoylegate and see if it

0:45

stacks up. I hate adding gate as

0:47

a suffix to stuff, so please, please

0:49

know that's attributed to my producer James

0:52

Fox. And we will also

0:54

be exploring the moral panic about

0:56

Palestinian protesters. Stay tuned for all

0:58

of that. First

1:01

story. Lindsay Hoyle,

1:03

the Speaker of the House of

1:05

Commons, has today issued a grovelling

1:07

apology for his decision

1:09

yesterday to put forward a Labour

1:12

amendment over an SMP one. Here's

1:14

what Hoyle said. Now,

1:16

that is not all Hoyle said, but we will

1:18

get into that more later. First, I want to break

1:43

down exactly what led to that

1:45

initial show of contrition, because a

1:48

quick refresher. The Speaker of the

1:50

House of Commons is the person

1:52

who maintains order within the Commons.

1:54

They are strictly nonpartisan and a

1:56

Speaker has to renounce their affiliation

1:59

to their of political party.

2:01

Lindsay Hoyle of course belonged to the

2:03

Labour Party before he was elected Speaker

2:06

in 2019. Now Wednesday was

2:08

an SMP Opposition Day. These

2:11

are days when opposition parties can put

2:14

forward debates and motions to be discussed

2:16

and voted upon. And this gives an

2:18

opportunity to the parties that are not

2:20

in government to put certain issues on

2:23

the parliamentary agenda and record. So they

2:25

are important. The results aren't legally binding

2:27

but they are supposed to represent the

2:30

quote will of parliament. So

2:32

if the government isn't addressing something say

2:35

like the issue of a ceasefire in

2:37

Gaza, opposition days enable other parties to

2:39

drag them kicking and screaming into the

2:42

comments to discuss just that. And

2:44

there are 20 opposition days each parliamentary

2:46

session. 17 of

2:48

those are allocated to Labour as the

2:50

biggest alternative party but

2:52

only three of those days are allocated

2:55

to the SMP. Yesterday was one

2:57

of those three days. So what

2:59

happened? The SMP used the

3:01

opposition day to put forward a motion

3:03

calling for an immediate ceasefire in

3:06

Israel's wall on Gaza. And

3:08

both Labour and the government

3:10

tabled amendments which weakened that

3:12

original SMP motion significantly. And

3:14

out of these two amendments

3:17

only one would normally be

3:19

picked, usually the government's. But

3:21

instead this is what happened on

3:23

Wednesday afternoon. We now come

3:25

to the SMP motion on Gaza. I

3:28

understand that the second motion on the order

3:31

paper will not be moved today. This

3:34

is a highly sensitive subject on which

3:36

feelings are running high in

3:38

the house, in the nation and throughout the world.

3:42

I think it's important on this occasion

3:45

that the house is able to consider

3:47

the widest possible range of options.

3:51

I have therefore decided to select the amendments

3:53

both in the name of the Prime Minister

3:57

and in the name of the leader of the opposition.

4:00

So firstly, Hoyle selected

4:02

both amendments, and this is

4:04

the first time this has happened in

4:06

about 25 years on Opposition Day. He

4:09

was actually warned against doing this by his own

4:11

clerks, but we'll get onto why. But

4:14

Hoyle was not finished there. Because

4:16

the operation of standing on a

4:18

number 31 will prevent another

4:21

amendment from being moved after the government

4:23

has moved its amendment. I

4:25

will exceptionally call the Opposition Bench

4:27

spokesperson to move their amendment to

4:29

the beginning of the debate. Once

4:33

the SNP spokesperson has moved their

4:35

motion, at the end of

4:37

the debate, the House will have

4:40

an opportunity to take a decision

4:42

on the Official Opposition Amendment. If

4:45

that is agreed to, there is a final question on

4:47

the main motion as amended. If the

4:50

Official Opposition Amendment is not agreed

4:52

to, I will call the Minister

4:54

to move the government amendment formally. That

4:57

will engage the... Order! Order! I'm

5:01

going to finish... That

5:06

will engage the provisions of

5:09

Standing Order number 31. So

5:11

the next vote will be

5:13

on the original birds in the

5:15

SNP motion. If that

5:17

is not agreed to, then

5:21

the House will have the opportunity to vote

5:23

on the government amendment. Proceeding

5:25

this way will allow a vote

5:27

to take place potentially on

5:31

all proposals from each of the

5:34

three main parties. What

5:36

Lindsay Hoyle did there was move the Labour

5:38

amendment to be first in the voting order.

5:41

Now the Tories were so incensed by

5:43

this choice that they withdrew their

5:45

amendment and abstained from further voting.

5:48

That meant the Labour amendment

5:50

would automatically pass, essentially

5:53

wiping out the SNP motion, which

5:55

there was then no vote on

5:57

anyway. Fjori absolutely ruptured.

6:00

at this decision and the

6:02

implications and hours of debate

6:04

ensued. Here's SNP Westminster leader

6:06

Stephen Flynn summing up the

6:09

situation. If I have

6:11

listened correctly to what has just

6:13

been said, on SNP

6:16

opposition day, should

6:18

the Labour Party's motion

6:21

be carried, then the

6:23

SNP's vote will not

6:25

be held. Secondly,

6:28

if I have read

6:31

the clerk's letter to

6:34

all members correctly which was sent

6:36

to the speaker, this was

6:40

a consequence that he was

6:42

warned of. So

6:44

can you please advise me, where

6:46

on earth is the speaker of

6:49

the House of Commons? How

6:53

do we bring them

6:55

to that seat to explain

6:58

how do we bring him

7:00

to this House now to

7:02

explain to the Scottish National

7:04

Party why our views and

7:06

our votes in this House

7:08

are irrelevant to him? Rightly

7:12

furious there because when Stephen Flynn was speaking,

7:14

Lindsay Hoyle wasn't actually there at that point.

7:16

He'd announced what he was going to do and then

7:19

he left and his deputy speaker was there.

7:22

And this actually led to a

7:24

scene where at one point both

7:26

SNP and Tory walked out after

7:28

Hoyle had failed to appear to

7:30

explain his decision. This is

7:32

Labour MP Chris Bryant trying to defend

7:35

the procedural change when that happened. There

7:38

are perfectly legitimate views on different

7:40

sides as to the propriety of

7:42

today's proceedings. However

7:45

I would just say

7:47

gently to some honourable members opposite who have

7:49

said that you cannot possibly have an

7:52

Opposition Day motion being

7:54

amended by another Opposition Party,

7:57

that some of the members

7:59

who are shouting the loudest. Now

8:09

Hoyle did eventually turn up in the Commons

8:11

and this is the explanation he gave on

8:13

Wednesday for his decision. I

8:15

wish to respond to the point raised by the leader

8:17

of the House. Today's

8:20

debate was exceptional in

8:22

its intensity with

8:24

which all parties wished to secure a vote on

8:26

their own house.

8:29

It took the decisions which were intended to

8:31

load the house the widest

8:33

range of propositions on

8:39

which to express a view. I wanted

8:41

to do the best and

8:43

it was my wish to do

8:45

the best by

8:51

every member of this

8:53

House. I think very

8:55

seriously, the danger

8:59

is that that's

9:01

why I wanted

9:04

everybody to be able to

9:06

express because I am very, very

9:08

concerned about

9:11

the security of

9:13

all members. Let

9:16

me just take this through. I

9:19

was very concerned, I am still concerned

9:21

and that's why the meetings I've had

9:23

today is about

9:25

the security of members, their

9:28

families and the people that

9:30

are involved. And

9:33

I've got to say, I regret,

9:35

oh it's ended up,

9:39

this was not my intention.

9:42

It wouldn't be my intention too if I started

9:44

the day with one F&P motion and two amendments

9:46

and ended the day with one Labour amendment which

9:48

did end up passing. Now

9:51

Hoyle's reasoning there that he broke, why

9:53

he broke with parliamentary procedure was

9:55

to protect the security of

9:58

members of Parliament. The question

10:00

is why would this affect a

10:02

vote on a ceasefire in Gaza? Well,

10:05

there is a burgeoning narrative that

10:07

protesters and the public who are lobbying

10:09

the MPs to support a ceasefire in

10:11

Gaza are part of a wider threat

10:14

to MP safety. And we will get

10:16

into further analysis on this later in

10:18

the show. But at

10:20

the time, other parliamentarians thought Hoyle's

10:23

decision was for another reason, pressure

10:26

from the Labour Party. Here's

10:28

what both Penny Mordent and Stephen

10:30

Flynn said during Wednesday's debate. I

10:34

fear that this most grave

10:36

matter that we are discussing

10:38

today and this afternoon has

10:40

become a political row within

10:42

the Labour Party and that,

10:44

regrettably, Mr Speaker has inserted

10:46

himself into that row and

10:51

undermines the confidence of this House

10:53

in being able to

10:55

rely on its long-established standing orders

10:57

to govern its debate, long-established

11:00

conventions that should not

11:02

be impaired by the current view of

11:04

a weak leader of the opposition

11:07

and the divided party.

11:09

Mr Speaker, whilst I

11:11

acknowledge your apology,

11:15

the reality is that you

11:17

were warned by the

11:19

clerks of the House that

11:21

your decision could lead to

11:25

the SNP not

11:27

having a vote on our very

11:30

own opposition day. As

11:32

a result, we have seen

11:35

the SNP opposition day turn into

11:37

a Labour Party opposition

11:39

day. I'm

11:41

afraid that that is treating myself

11:44

and my colleagues in the Scottish

11:46

National Party with complete

11:49

and utter contempt and

11:51

that I will take

11:53

significant convincing that your

11:55

position is not now

11:57

intolerable. would

12:00

these MPs get the idea that

12:02

Lindsay Hoyle may have acted in

12:04

a partisan manner to protect Labour?

12:07

Well from a specific report that

12:09

Labour leaned upon Hoyle to get

12:11

him to put their amendment first.

12:14

Now that's one report. Here's what we

12:16

know for sure. Labour leader Kiz Fermi

12:19

definitely met with Lindsay Hoyle on Wednesday

12:21

and the Guardian reports that the two

12:23

of them discussed security of MPs because

12:26

of quote threats Labour MPs had received

12:28

after being whipped to abstain on similar

12:30

S&P ceasefire motion in November. But

12:33

another journalist says that Hoyle was

12:35

also under direct pressure from Labour

12:37

to put forward their amendment not

12:39

because of MP security but because

12:41

of job security. Keir Starmer's job

12:43

security because it was instead to

12:45

head off what could have been

12:47

a difficult rebellion for Starmer if

12:49

Labour MPs voted for the S&P

12:51

motion. This is what

12:53

BBC News Night political editor Nicholas Watt

12:56

tweeted on Wednesday afternoon. Senior

12:58

Labour figures tell me at common speaker

13:00

aka Lindsay Hoyle was left in no

13:03

doubt that Labour would bring him down

13:05

after the general election unless he called

13:07

Labour's Gaza amendment. The message

13:09

was you will need our votes to

13:12

be reelected as Speaker after election with

13:14

strong indications that this would not be

13:16

forthcoming if you failed to call the

13:18

Labour and amendment. Hoyle

13:20

has denied this but what stuck by his

13:23

story saying senior Labour sources have briefed him

13:25

on the messages. So far no other journalists

13:27

have come out saying they've had this too

13:30

yet. Today Keir Starmer has

13:32

also stridently denied this report and stuck

13:34

to the official line. Of

13:37

course there was a session with the

13:39

Speaker but many, all party leaders think

13:43

the Speaker but there

13:45

was absolutely no threat to the Speaker

13:48

in the course of that. What he wanted

13:50

to do was to ensure that Parliament had

13:52

the broadest possible debate on an issue which

13:54

is really very very important. Can

13:56

you categorically say then that no

13:59

Labour MP warned Lindsay Hoyle that

14:01

he could lose Labour's support to continue his speaker

14:03

after the election if he didn't select that demand.

14:06

I was very concerned that

14:09

the debate yesterday should

14:11

be elevated. It's a very important issue

14:13

that is probably the most important issue

14:15

globally at the moment the conflict in

14:18

Java and how we bring an end

14:20

to the terrible situation. So I wanted

14:22

that amendment.

14:25

Of course I had conversations

14:27

with the speaker. All political

14:29

leaders had conversations with the

14:31

speaker. I

14:33

simply urge the speaker to ensure that

14:36

the debate could be as broad as

14:38

possible and that MPs

14:40

could vote for the proposition that

14:42

they believe in. We're talking here

14:44

about whether there was one amendment

14:46

or two amendments before

14:48

Parliament. The real issue is

14:53

how that proper debate and

14:55

that didn't happen. Starman noticeably

14:57

refused to answer the question there

14:59

so he was asked it again.

15:01

Can you say that

15:04

you and your Labour MPs didn't put that

15:06

pressure on the speaker, didn't question to miss

15:08

all your support for him after the election?

15:10

Can you just say that yes or no?

15:12

I can categorically tell you that

15:15

I did not put the speaker in any

15:17

way whatsoever. I simply

15:19

urged him to ensure that

15:21

we have the broadest possible debate so that

15:27

actually the most important thing which

15:29

is what we do about the

15:31

awful between them in Java could be

15:33

properly discussed by MPs with a number

15:35

of options in terms of the right

15:38

thing to do. I

15:40

think this is actually a very interesting interview because

15:42

obviously we've only got that one

15:44

report by Nicholas Watts. Starman could

15:46

be in quite a powerful position

15:49

but he could easily deny entirely

15:51

that report by Nicholas Watts. Instead

15:53

what happens there is he categorically

15:55

denies that he threatened Lindsay

15:58

Hoyl. He doesn't answer the question about Whipps. or

16:00

any other Labour figures or MPs when it's put

16:02

to him. And as a

16:04

former top lawyer, these details

16:07

matter. Of course, the debacle

16:10

has handed the Tories a huge

16:12

meaty bone. This is Penny Morden

16:14

attacking Labour in the Commons today.

16:17

Two significant things happened

16:19

yesterday, and

16:22

I'm not sure all honourable members have flocked.

16:25

Firstly, it sold to the

16:27

government benches to defend

16:29

the rights of a minority party

16:32

in this House.

16:35

If the honourable lady opposite cannot

16:39

bring herself to

16:41

reflect on the appalling

16:44

consequences of her party's

16:46

actions yesterday, if

16:48

she cannot rise above the

16:51

narrow and immediate needs of

16:53

her weak and sickle leader,

16:57

to fulfil her duties to

17:00

this House as its shadow leader, perhaps

17:03

she might like to reflect on the

17:05

damage her party has done to the

17:07

office of the Speaker. I

17:11

would never have done to him what

17:13

the Labour Party have done to

17:15

him. Secondly,

17:19

we have seen into the heart of

17:23

Labour's leadership. Nothing

17:26

is more important than the

17:28

interests of the Labour Party.

17:31

The Labour Party before

17:33

principle. The Labour

17:35

Party before individual rights.

17:38

The Labour Party before the

17:40

reputation and honour of the

17:43

decent man that sits in

17:45

Speaker's chair. Of

17:47

course, the situation of the Tory Party

17:50

has got absolutely no business casting

17:52

themselves as defenders of

17:54

democracy, but it shows how badly

17:57

Labour have come off here. And

17:59

if they... really were engaged in the

18:01

political games they have been accused of.

18:03

How much they've blown those machinicians? You

18:06

know, it's their first attempt to

18:08

really get in these dark arts

18:10

and they've fluffed it. And meanwhile,

18:12

the SNP are still calling for

18:14

Lindsay Hoyle to go. Here's David

18:16

Linden, the SNP's social justice spokesperson.

18:19

Every SNP will be backing the motion of

18:21

more confidence. I think the last that I

18:23

saw suggested that something like

18:25

65 MPs, so not just the SNP other

18:29

MPs have decided that Lindsay Hoyle does

18:31

not command the confidence of the House

18:33

of Commons. The SNP only gets

18:35

the opportunity to have an opposition day three times

18:37

a year. We have

18:39

made a lot of running on the

18:42

issue as a warning thing to see

18:44

that immediate ceasefire and reference what we

18:46

believe is the collective punishment of Palestinians.

18:49

Unfortunately, as a result, a direct

18:51

result of the actions taken by

18:53

Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of

18:56

Commons, very much in co-hoots with the Speaker

18:58

of the Labour Party, the SNP

19:00

was robbed on its opposition day. It did not

19:02

get a fee at the ball. And

19:04

that was done as a result of the Speaker

19:06

either being intimidated by the Labour Party or

19:08

working with him hand in glove. I have tonight seen

19:10

a pull clip of the Speaker of the House of

19:13

Commons being asked if he or

19:15

any of his MPs, i.e. his whip team,

19:18

tried to put undue pressure on the Speaker

19:20

of the House of Commons. It was blatantly

19:22

clear yesterday as the Speaker kept leaving the

19:25

chair to enter the reasons room that he

19:27

was having private meetings with

19:29

Labour MPs. Now, Keir Starmer has said he didn't put

19:31

any pressure on the Speaker,

19:33

but he has dodged the question as to

19:35

whether his MPs have. What I want to

19:37

see now is that the clock of House

19:40

of Commons come out and produce

19:42

minutes of that meeting where Clark's present at

19:44

it. And to answer whether

19:46

or not Labour MPs intimidated Sir Lindsay

19:48

Hoyle to select an amendment against the

19:51

advice of the Clerk that would seek

19:53

to avoid just Starmer having to expedient

19:55

the rebellion on the House of Commons

19:58

on the most grave issue of the situation. in Gaza.

20:01

I deeply regret the fact

20:03

that today the news in the UK

20:06

is about people dancing on the head of a

20:08

pen of what happened procedurally in the UK parliament.

20:11

The reality is 30,000 people, mainly

20:14

women and children, have lost their life

20:16

as a result of the Israeli assault

20:18

on Gaza and the death and destruction

20:20

that that has wreaked. Now, there's no

20:22

doubt that there are strong feelings in

20:24

the House of Commons. But

20:27

the reason that there's so much anger

20:29

yesterday and the reason why MPs, I think,

20:31

have lost confidence in the Speaker of the

20:33

House is because he lost control of the

20:35

House as a result of his

20:38

own actions. And as for that reason, his position

20:40

is no longer turned at all. Now,

20:42

that no-confidence motion in Ninsiho that David Linden mentioned

20:44

there is now reportedly at 67 MPs, I think

20:46

it'd be about 175 in order for it to

20:48

be brought to the House.

20:53

Now, this may all seem like

20:55

a silly Commons for all, but

20:57

it's not. If the non-partisan speaker

20:59

was pressured into rigging a vote

21:01

so it would favour his previous

21:03

party and avoid a very difficult

21:05

political moment for that party's leader,

21:08

that's a story on its own, let

21:10

alone if those machinations caused

21:12

another political party to be robbed

21:15

of their rightful democratic opportunity to

21:17

get issues on the Commons agenda.

21:20

Think about it this way, Boris

21:22

Johnson or Rishi Sunak were accused of

21:24

putting pressure on someone to change

21:26

parliamentary procedure in their favour. Well,

21:29

we'd probably be seeing a standards

21:31

committee investigation. Labour would certainly be

21:33

going to town. And even

21:36

if Lindsay Hoyer was acting solely because

21:38

of his fears of MP security, why

21:41

now? Did parliamentary procedure

21:43

on amendments change when the tragic

21:46

death of Joe Cox or David Amnes

21:48

would happen? And why

21:50

did the ceasefire on a

21:53

Gaza amendment suddenly pose such

21:55

a particular threat to MP

21:57

safety? Ash, if

21:59

Hoyer's position untenable even if

22:01

he did have security concerns.

22:04

We're going to talk about these so-called security

22:06

concerns later in the show so I'm not

22:09

going to get into that just now. What

22:11

I want to talk about is the position

22:13

of the speaker. So just to

22:15

remind the audience what the position of the speaker

22:17

is supposed to be about, even though they are

22:20

selected from MPs who are members

22:22

of parties, the moment they take

22:25

the speaker's chair, they're supposed to

22:27

be scrupulously impartial on

22:29

party lines and to represent

22:31

the interests of the House

22:34

of Commons as a whole.

22:36

Very famously, the speaker

22:38

of the House of Commons during the

22:40

reign of Charles I said, I have

22:42

neither eyes to see nor ears to

22:44

hear except as this house is

22:46

pleased to direct me. It's this

22:48

idea that they are a vehicle

22:50

for the will of the House

22:53

as a whole. So

22:55

if you have political operators

22:57

effectively sitting on the speaker's

23:00

head to try and get

23:02

preferential treatment in the selection

23:05

of the amendments, that fatally

23:07

undermines the credibility of

23:10

the speaker. Now, Moyer, you

23:12

said earlier that this was,

23:14

you know, Keir Starmer's Labour

23:16

Party, you know, their first go

23:18

at some of these darker arts and

23:20

machinations and it's blown up in their

23:22

face. I wonder if

23:24

that was a calculated

23:27

risk on their part, because

23:30

sure, they're taking some heat.

23:32

There are these rumours swirling

23:34

about with pressure applied

23:36

to Sir Lindsay Hoyle by Labour

23:39

Party Whip. But when you look

23:41

at whose job is at risk,

23:43

it's not Keir Starmer's, it's Sir

23:46

Lindsay Hoyle's. Because what's being threatened

23:48

by the Conservative Party is that

23:50

in departure from parliamentary convention, they

23:53

may stand a candidate as a

23:55

Notori MP, as a candidate for

23:57

Speaker against Lindsay Hoyle, which is

24:00

is against the convention which

24:03

usually is that a speaker steps

24:05

down. That

24:08

I think will make Lindsay Hoyle's position

24:10

very, very difficult. It's

24:13

unheard of in modern times for there

24:15

to be 66 sitting MPs who have

24:17

declared that they have no confidence in

24:19

the speaker. It's difficult to see how

24:22

he gets through that without a broader

24:24

vote in the House of Commons. I

24:26

think that you can see in his

24:28

face an intense regret, less

24:31

so in terms of narrowing the proper

24:33

scope of debate in the House

24:35

of Commons yesterday over the two

24:38

different amendments regarding a ceasefire.

24:40

And I think more perhaps

24:43

if he did act in order to preserve

24:45

his job, this may have done the exact

24:47

opposite. The last thing that I want to

24:50

say is that once more,

24:52

and I know people can get very annoyed at me

24:54

when I say this, this does

24:56

show that perhaps Keir Starmer

24:58

is taking more cues from

25:00

Boris Johnson's style of leadership

25:02

than he or his supporters

25:04

would care to admit. Because

25:07

if at Keir Starmer's

25:09

direction Labour Whips did

25:11

pressure Sir

25:13

Lindsay Hoyle to select their

25:16

amendment, which would come at

25:18

the expense of the SNP's

25:20

motion and would put

25:22

the threats of a Labour rebellion

25:25

to bed, if that indeed happened,

25:27

you'd sort of, I think, compare

25:29

that to Boris Johnson's prorigation of

25:31

Parliament, removing the whip from 21

25:34

MPs, a willingness in Boris Johnson's

25:36

part to do what was best for

25:38

his faction of the party by

25:41

pushing parliamentary conventions to

25:44

their very breaking point. Because

25:46

of course a lot of this is

25:48

mere convention. This isn't law

25:50

and even where certain acts

25:52

are found to have been unlawful retrospectively,

25:55

such as the prorigation of Parliament, nothing's

25:57

going to happen because of it. I

26:00

think there has been a level

26:03

of impunity that was demonstrated

26:05

by Boris Johnson, which has

26:07

perhaps been a little bit

26:09

inspiring to Sir Keir Starmer.

26:12

It's quite interesting telling

26:15

Eden that the last speaker who resigned

26:18

was 2009, maybe Michael

26:20

Martin, over the

26:22

expensive scandal. It only

26:25

took 22 signatures

26:27

and a no-confidence motion

26:30

for him to resign. The motion wasn't put forward because

26:32

he'd already gone and I think it would have been

26:34

the first motion since the 17th century. 17th

26:38

century? Yeah, 17th century, if

26:41

he had gone. So

26:43

viral motion. But yeah, it took 22 signatures

26:45

and now we've got 67 against

26:47

Lindsay Oyl and you still haven't gone. So

26:51

the decline

26:54

of standards and ethics within

26:56

parliament. Let's go

26:58

on to our next story. There

27:01

are 1.5 million Palestinians sheltering in

27:03

Rafa, a city that is built

27:06

for 250,000. Despite

27:10

being driven there for safety by

27:12

Israel's military operation in the rest of

27:14

the Gaza Strip, the IDF keeps

27:16

bombing them anyway. Over

27:18

night, the Al-Furuk Mosque was flattened

27:20

by an Israeli airstrike. Several

27:23

buildings surrounding the mosque were also

27:25

damaged with entire residential blocks leveled.

27:28

In another attack on Rafa, this

27:30

family lost three people killed when

27:32

a missile hit their house. One

27:34

of those who survived said, quote,

27:36

in 2014 they took three of

27:38

my siblings and in the 2024

27:41

war they took the people I love. They

27:43

took a piece of my heart, a

27:46

piece of my heart. I hope my

27:48

voice reaches everyone asking them

27:50

to pray for mercy for my family. With

27:53

two thirds of Gazans trapped in Rafa, 800,000 are still

27:55

living in the rest of the Strip.

28:00

Many of them are sheltering in

28:02

unrobuildings, such as schools, offices and

28:04

medical centres repurposed to house refugees.

28:07

In the far north of the territory,

28:09

the Jabalia refugee camp has come under

28:11

attack again, with IDF bombs hitting a

28:13

marketplace and an unro facility. The

28:16

unrobuilding was the only known location

28:18

left in Jabalia for distributing food

28:21

assistance to the camp. Last

28:23

month, Israel accused unro of complicity

28:25

in the 7th of October attacks,

28:27

an accusation that was made public

28:30

on the very same day the

28:32

ICJ ruled it plausible that Israel

28:34

is committing genocide in Gaza. But

28:36

Israeli attacks on unro facilities long

28:38

predate that verdict. 300

28:41

attacks on its infrastructure since

28:43

the start of Israel's offensive,

28:45

decimating the agency's ability to

28:48

distribute food, water and medicine

28:50

to the civilian population of

28:52

Gaza. That collapse in

28:54

infrastructure is now leading to irreversible

28:56

catastrophe. The Director General of

28:58

the World Health Organization has said this. On

29:01

a broader level, Gaza has

29:03

become a de-zone. Much

29:06

of the territory has been destroyed. More

29:08

than 29,000 people are dead. Many

29:12

more are missing, presumed dead, and

29:15

many, many more are injured. Severe

29:18

malnutrition has shot up dramatically

29:21

since the war started, from

29:23

under 1% to more

29:25

than 15% in some areas, putting

29:28

more lives at risk. This

29:30

figure will rise the longer

29:32

the war goes on and

29:35

supplies are interrupted. Gaza

29:38

has become a death zone, chilling words

29:40

from the head of the World Health

29:42

Organization, and they come with the strongest

29:44

justification. Experts at Johns

29:46

Hopkins University in the US and the University

29:48

of London have published a report detailing

29:51

the medium-term fate of Palestinians in Gaza. They

29:54

model three scenarios. A ceasefire, a continuation

29:56

of the conflict, and an escalation. This

29:58

is what they are. they conclude. Over

30:01

the next six months we project that in

30:03

the absence of epidemics six and a half

30:06

thousand excess deaths would occur under the ceasefire

30:08

scenario climbing to 58,000 under the status quo

30:10

scenario and 74,000 under the escalation

30:16

scenario. Over the same period

30:18

and with the occurrence of epidemics our projections rise

30:20

to 11,000, 66,000 and 85,000 respectively. The difference in

30:27

those figures shows just how

30:29

urgently a ceasefire is needed with 10

30:31

times more deaths

30:33

projected if the war continues

30:35

even at its current pace without epidemics

30:39

and the figure even with a ceasefire

30:41

at least six and a half thousand

30:43

excess deaths gives you a sense of

30:45

the extent of the damage Israel has

30:48

inflicted on Gaza. As the

30:50

authors point out thousands of excess deaths

30:52

would occur because of the time it

30:54

would take to restore basic sanitation, healthcare

30:57

and shelter to the strip. Israel

31:00

has also been thinking about a

31:02

ceasefire and specifically how it would

31:04

manage Gaza when it stopped bombing

31:06

it. Reuters reports that

31:08

Israel is proposing forming Palestinian

31:11

run humanitarian pockets in areas

31:14

of Gaza to test plans

31:16

for post-war administration in the

31:18

enclave. But there's a catch.

31:21

According to the Israeli official who spoke to Reuters,

31:24

Israel is only prepared to give control

31:26

to Palestinians with no connections to Hamas

31:28

or the Palestinian authorities and given that

31:31

Israel thinks everyone in Gaza is

31:33

Hamas might take them a

31:35

while to find anyone that is if there's

31:37

anyone left alive in the first place. The

31:40

article reports this. The

31:42

Israeli officials said the planned quote humanitarian

31:44

pockets would be in districts of the

31:47

Gaza Strip from which Hamas has been

31:49

expelled but that their ultimate success would

31:51

hinge on Israel achieving its goal of

31:54

destroying the Islamist faction across the tiny

31:56

coastal territory that it has been governing.

31:58

The plan the official added quote,

32:00

may be achieved once Hamas is

32:02

destroyed and doesn't pose a threat

32:05

to Israel or to Gazans. Geographically

32:08

distant humanitarian pockets under the

32:10

control of Israeli selected Palestinian

32:13

leaders sounds kind of familiar.

32:15

In fact, they sound a lot like

32:17

the Bantu stands forced on black South

32:19

Africans in apartheid South Africa. Hamas

32:21

has said the plan would be tantamount to

32:23

a reoccupying Gaza. Outside of Gaza there's

32:26

been an attack in the occupied West Bank. A

32:29

26 year old Israeli man was

32:31

killed and a further eight people

32:33

were injured after three Palestinian gunmen

32:35

opened fire on cars moving slowly

32:37

in the traffic jam. The

32:39

attack happened near a checkpoint

32:41

entering occupied East Jerusalem. Two

32:44

of the attackers were killed by quote security

32:46

forces and armed civilians and a third was

32:49

reportedly detained. Speaking at

32:51

the scene, Bar-right Minister of National

32:53

Security Itamar Ben-Gavir said this. Our

32:57

right to life overrides the

32:59

Palestinians freedom of movement. I

33:01

will fight for barriers around the villages that

33:03

will limit the freedom of movement of the

33:05

residents of the Palestinian Authority. Have

33:09

they learned absolutely nothing?

33:12

The answer is yes. In a statement

33:14

Hamas called the attack quote a natural response

33:17

to the Israeli occupations massacres and crimes in

33:19

the Gaza Strip and the

33:21

West Bank. Now you

33:23

might not think that the description of the

33:26

shooting in the occupied West Bank is legitimate

33:28

or justified but whether justified or not we

33:30

know one thing for sure. Until

33:32

Israel stops its assault of Palestinians

33:34

in Gaza stops the occupation of

33:36

the Palestinian territories stops blocking

33:38

the right of Palestinians to self-determination and the

33:41

right to return a tax on

33:43

its security will only

33:45

continue. Let's go

33:47

to our next story. Labour

33:50

under pressure over the allegations that

33:52

they blackmailed the House of Commons

33:54

speaker to quote hijack the Gaza

33:56

ceasefire votes during an S&P opposition

33:58

day. Notably, Labour hasn't yet

34:01

used any of its own opposition days

34:03

to table a motion on a ceasefire

34:05

in Israel's war on Gaza. And

34:08

on BBC Newsnight, Victoria Derbyshire asked

34:10

Shadow Defence Secretary John Healy why.

34:14

Surely the reason why we're actually

34:16

here tonight in this position is

34:19

to do with the central problem of

34:21

secure farmers' leadership. He hides. He

34:24

could have tabled his own opposition

34:26

day motion on a ceasefire. Why

34:28

did it take the SNP doing

34:30

it for you to get your act

34:33

together with your own amendment? Well,

34:36

Keir, Starmer and Labour now have been arguing

34:38

for a ceasefire for weeks

34:41

now. So why have

34:43

you waited weeks then? I'm going

34:45

to answer your question. What

34:47

has happened in recent days is

34:50

that the threatened ground offensive by

34:52

the Israelis against

34:54

Rafa have become so

34:56

serious with taking a

34:58

stance to say that cannot happen. What's

35:01

happened is that there's been a shift

35:03

among important allies like New Zealand,

35:06

Australia, Canada and others,

35:08

demanding as we have now an

35:11

immediate humanitarian ceasefire and one that

35:13

can build into a long-term peace

35:15

process. So that was the argument

35:17

we were making today. We're going to

35:19

enter the fighting now, a ceasefire

35:22

respected on both sides and

35:25

one that lasts. And today was

35:27

an opportunity to debate that,

35:29

to bring the House together. And

35:32

I think as MPs, we lost

35:34

sight of why we're here. We

35:36

allowed ourselves to descend into the

35:39

chaos of a row about procedure

35:41

with the government boycotting

35:43

their own vote and the SNP

35:45

walking out on the debate based

35:48

on their own motion. his

36:00

position when it comes to a threatened

36:02

Israeli ground offence in Rafa. And

36:04

even if the Rafa offences is stopped,

36:07

Netanyahu has been clear for months in

36:09

both words and actions that his aim

36:11

is, quote, complete victory over Hamas, a

36:13

goal that won't be achieved,

36:15

possibly ever but without even greater

36:18

destruction than we've already seen if you

36:20

can imagine it. Now, Darbisha put that

36:22

point to Healy. Perhaps

36:24

you, Labour, have lost sight of the fact that

36:28

nearly 30,000 people have been killed

36:30

in Gaza. What were you

36:32

waiting for? I

36:35

am so concerned

36:37

and aware of the agonies of

36:39

the Palestinian people. The death toll

36:42

is 30,000 and mounting, as you

36:44

say. So what were you waiting

36:46

for? Hospitals have been smashed. Families

36:48

are starving. Yet more children are

36:51

being killed. And at this

36:53

point, with the threatened

36:55

ground offensive against Rafa, which cannot

36:57

happen, now is the moment to

37:00

take a stronger position, to say

37:02

Hamas must release all the hostages.

37:05

The Israelis cannot proceed with their

37:07

offensive against Rafa. And the British

37:09

government should come alongside allies to

37:12

demand and call for and work for

37:14

as we have been doing, an immediate

37:16

humanitarian ceasefire that can be

37:18

respected on all sides and become

37:20

the process that we need, a

37:22

political process, a diplomatic process aimed

37:24

at securing a long term peace and

37:27

security for Israel and for the

37:29

Palestinian people. What's really

37:32

interesting is the threat of the

37:34

Rafa offensive has seemed

37:37

to serve an important political function

37:40

for both Netanyahu and politicians like Kistama.

37:42

And these are separate functions. For

37:45

Netanyahu's become a bargaining chip, both

37:47

against Hamas and Western leaders who

37:49

are trying to force a

37:51

change in military strategy, not

37:53

because of the death toll. They haven't moved on

37:55

that, but because now the

37:58

Palestinian population has been pushed to the very end.

38:00

edge of the Gaza Strip. But

38:02

this also gives politicians in the West

38:04

who are wary of calling for

38:07

peace, something smaller to

38:09

focus on, a smaller peace, a way

38:11

of displaying their pseudo moral colours

38:14

while having done nothing at all to stop the

38:16

destruction of 30,000 people in

38:18

Gaza over the last four months, the

38:21

displacement of 1.5 million others. There's

38:23

no clearer display of playing politics with the lives

38:25

of civilians than this. And playing

38:28

politics was at the heart of

38:30

Victoria Derbyshire's next question. At

38:32

around three o'clock this afternoon, our political

38:34

editor reported that senior

38:36

labour figures told him that

38:39

the Speaker would need

38:41

Labour votes to be reelected as

38:43

Speaker after the election with strong

38:45

indications this would not be forthcoming

38:48

if the Speaker failed to call

38:51

your Labour amendment. And Nick interpreted

38:53

that, Nick Watt interpreted that to

38:55

mean that it would be the end

38:57

of Sir Lindsay Hoyle as the Speaker in

38:59

the next Parliament. What do you say to that? Well,

39:02

I've no idea about Nick Watt's

39:04

sources. I've no idea about the

39:06

interpretation he might place on those.

39:08

But in a sense, you've stated

39:12

what happens. The Speaker is elected by

39:14

all members of the House of Commons.

39:17

He is there to protect

39:19

the interests of all MPs. And

39:22

part of that, and what he was trying

39:24

to do, which backfired and he apologised for

39:26

this, but he was trying to ensure the

39:28

widest possible debate. He is not there to

39:30

do the government's bidding. Are

39:33

you saying that

39:35

it is feasible that Sir Keir

39:37

Starmer or a Labour MP or

39:39

a Labour staffer might have

39:41

said something to Sir Lindsay Hoyle that put

39:44

a question mark over Labour's support for him

39:46

as Speaker in the next Parliament? If someone

39:48

has said something of that nature to the

39:50

Speaker, that

39:52

would be unacceptable, wouldn't it? Trying

39:58

to pressure the House of Commons' Speaker. is

40:02

hiding a hide to nothing I have to tell you

40:04

but the speaker this afternoon made

40:08

decisions about how to conduct the debate

40:11

within rules that are outdated heavily

40:13

stacked in favor of the government

40:15

that do require review as he

40:17

said I'm going to pause you there because

40:20

it feels like you're evading the question if someone

40:22

had said something of

40:24

that nature to the speaker about possible

40:26

support for him in the next Parliament

40:28

if he did or didn't call the

40:31

Labor Amendment that would be unacceptable wouldn't

40:33

it because that would be blackmail surely

40:36

there were three hypotheticals in your question if

40:39

all three were true that would

40:41

have been unacceptable my point is

40:43

this afternoon the speaker set

40:45

the terms of the debate because

40:47

he wanted the widest possible debate

40:49

he was conscious this matters to

40:51

Parliament it matters beyond Parliament in

40:53

our communities and it matters what

40:56

Britain has to say about the

40:58

process of peace and how to

41:00

end the fighting in

41:03

Gaza what did you

41:05

make of he responses there

41:07

what should we make of labor after all

41:09

this I

41:12

mean the truth behind all of

41:15

this arcane parliamentary procedure

41:17

is very very simple

41:19

the difference between the

41:21

S&P's motion and Labor's

41:23

amendment was that the

41:25

S&P's motion condemned the

41:27

collective punishment of Gaza

41:29

now why is that a problem

41:32

for labor well the unfortunate fact

41:34

is that until fairly recently the

41:37

labor leadership supported the collective

41:39

punishment of the people of

41:41

Gaza when asked by

41:43

Nick Ferrari whether Israel

41:45

had the right to cut

41:48

off food electricity and water

41:50

to Gaza wholesale

41:53

what Kia Sama said was I

41:55

believe Israel does have that right

41:58

now since then the Labor Party

42:00

ever attempted to walk back that

42:02

statement and say, oh no, he

42:04

wasn't talking about cutting off critical

42:07

supplies to Gaza. He was talking

42:09

about the sort of broader notion

42:11

of Israel's right to self-defense. That

42:14

is, quite frankly, a load of

42:16

horseshit because later that same night

42:18

Emily Thornberry went on Newsnight. She

42:21

was asked by Victoria Derbyshire specifically

42:24

about the comments made

42:26

by Keir Starmer specifically

42:28

about cutting off water,

42:31

food and electricity. And

42:33

she said, I believe that Israel has

42:35

an absolute right to self-defense. That's the

42:38

position of the Labour Party. When Victoria

42:40

Derbyshire said, that doesn't answer my question,

42:43

Emily Thornberry said, that is an answer to

42:45

your question. So quite

42:47

obviously the position of the Labour

42:49

Party, ultimately, was that they supported

42:51

the collective punishment of the people

42:53

of Gaza. And had there been

42:55

a sizable rebellion of

42:58

Labour MPs and they voted

43:01

for the SNP motion, or

43:03

if indeed Labour didn't table an

43:05

amendment of their own at all

43:07

and just put their support behind

43:09

the SNP motion, they would have been

43:12

in deep shit because Keir

43:14

Starmer's own words would come

43:17

under intense and renewed scrutiny.

43:20

So this whole thing is about

43:22

playing politics. Was it the

43:24

case that the SNP's motion was designed to

43:26

exploit divisions in Labour? I mean, probably. This

43:28

is parliamentary democracy that we're talking about after

43:31

all. But the fact that

43:33

it got booted out of the

43:35

parliamentary arena and the

43:37

Speaker of the House's credibility is

43:40

now in tatters. That was all

43:42

about protecting the political ambitions of

43:44

Keir Starmer. That's all there was to

43:46

it. I read both

43:49

motions and the Labour motion wasn't

43:51

as bad as it could have been. And

43:54

the SNP motion was actually

43:56

very simple. The Labour motion did contain

43:58

some things that I probably have been like,

44:01

this should be in the S&P motion.

44:03

But the fact the S&P

44:05

motion didn't even get put forward.

44:07

And what was very key and

44:09

what was missing from the labour

44:11

motion, the S&P motion had was

44:14

the S&P motion unequivocally just called

44:16

for an immediate ceasefire, the labour

44:18

motion called for a humanitarian ceasefire

44:20

leading to a permanent

44:22

ceasefire. And also that

44:25

bit about collective punishment that is

44:27

such a sticking point for

44:29

labour thanks to earlier comments

44:31

by Kirste Armour and

44:34

senior labour front benchmen Pease. Let's

44:37

go on to our next and final

44:39

story. Now on Wednesday,

44:41

as we've covered, MPs were prepared to

44:43

vote on what was supposed to be

44:45

an S&P motion on a ceasefire in

44:47

Israel's War on Gaza. And as we

44:49

know, that vote did not turn out

44:51

as expected. But in the run up

44:53

to that vote, various groups across Britain

44:55

who have been campaigning for a ceasefire,

44:57

mobilised in order to lobby their MPs.

44:59

And some of this lobbying was done

45:01

via email, via letters and some of

45:03

it was done in person. It's called

45:06

a protest. However, these

45:08

protests have sparked an escalation in what appears

45:10

to be, at least to me, a new

45:13

strain for perpetually rumbling,

45:15

Islamophobic moral panic. And

45:17

here's talk TV right

45:19

wing rent agob Julia Hartley-Brewer

45:22

on pro-Palestine demonstrators. A

45:25

highly political, highly violent ideology

45:27

called Islamism is sweeping our

45:29

nation. No, this is not

45:32

Islamophobia. This is real. You know how

45:34

this is real? Because we actually see

45:36

the victims of that. Not just in

45:38

Mike Freer, the Justice Minister who said

45:40

he's not standing for parliament again because

45:43

of the threats to him and his

45:45

family from Islamist ideologies. We see

45:47

it in Sir David Amos, an MP

45:49

brutally murdered because of Islamic ideology. We

45:51

see that in Stephen Tims, a Labour

45:53

MP, he's thanked to survive a stabbing

45:55

in his own constituency. Yes, we all

45:57

focus on Joe Cox. Talk about that.

46:00

her all the time. Another tragic death

46:02

at the hands of a far-right extremist.

46:04

But actually the far-right extremist violence is

46:06

by far the minority. Crazy

46:08

ways say that and it's simply not true. The

46:11

biggest threat to the UK from extremism

46:13

is the far-right as Britain's top counter-terrorism

46:15

officers said in 2019. Now

46:18

while Julia Harley-Brew is hardly the

46:20

most reliable source of temperature checking,

46:23

her extreme bigotry when it comes

46:25

to pro-Palestine protesters is indicative of

46:27

a sentiment that's cutting through to

46:30

liberal circles too. Here's

46:32

Harley-Brew referencing events in Parliament on

46:34

Wednesday. No one should

46:36

be surprised by what happened in the House

46:39

of Commons last night. We have been brushing

46:41

this issue under the carpet for years. Another

46:43

terror attack, another killing of an MP. Oh

46:45

don't worry let's light a candle, let's

46:47

all sing, let's look, don't look back in

46:50

anger and sing, Kombaya and everything will be

46:52

okay. The one thing we must not

46:54

do is face up to

46:56

the threat. That we have imported to

46:58

our country and no this isn't Islamophobia.

47:00

This isn't talking about the four million

47:02

Muslims who live peacefully in this country

47:04

who want to just make a life

47:06

for themselves, for them children, go to

47:09

work and live lives the same as

47:11

everyone else of any other religion or

47:13

none. We are talking though about a

47:15

sizable minority, a far too large minority.

47:18

You can't just be Islamophobic and

47:20

say this isn't Islamophobia because

47:22

it is Islamophobia and this is

47:24

part of a wider narrative which

47:27

paints pro-Palestine protesters and

47:29

supporters of that movement as two things. One,

47:31

as particularly aggressive and abusive towards

47:34

parliamentarians or anyone who might question

47:36

you know pro- Palestine support and

47:38

two, explicitly and

47:41

exclusively Muslim. Common

47:43

speaker Lindsay Hoyle's excuse for his procedural

47:45

bypass on the SMP ceasefire on Wednesday

47:47

was that his fears for the safety

47:49

of MPs were so great he just

47:52

had to change the rules. I

47:55

never ever want to go

47:57

through a situation where I

47:59

pick up a- to find a

48:02

friend of what I was like, has

48:05

been murdered by terrorists. I

48:08

also don't want another

48:10

attack on this house. I was

48:12

in the chair on that day. I

48:15

have seen, I have witnessed. I

48:17

won't show the details, but

48:20

the details of

48:23

the things that have been brought to me are

48:25

absolutely frightening on all members of

48:28

this house. On all

48:30

sides. I have a

48:32

duty of care, and I

48:34

say that. And if my mistake

48:36

is looking after members, I

48:38

am guilty. I am

48:40

guilty because... I

48:49

have a duty of care that I

48:51

will carry out to

48:54

protect people. It is the protection

48:57

that led me to make a wrong decision. But

49:00

what I do not apologise

49:03

is the risk that's being

49:05

put on all members at the

49:07

moment. I had

49:09

serious meetings yesterday with

49:12

the police on the issues and

49:15

threats to politicians, threats heading

49:17

to an election. And

49:19

I do not want anything to happen

49:21

again. So yes, I

49:25

will apologise. I always will when I

49:27

make a mistake. I did. I

49:29

offer an SL24 that is within my

49:31

gift and power. But I

49:34

will also say I will do

49:36

whatever it is to protect anybody in

49:38

this chamber or anybody who works in

49:40

this house. Now what Hoyle

49:43

does there is paint

49:45

Palestine protesters as a

49:47

unique threat because he's changing procedure

49:49

for the first time in 25

49:52

years. And

49:54

those 25 years have included a

49:57

real escalation of digital abuse and

49:59

threats. against Black and Asian

50:01

to be female MPs. It's

50:03

included two deaths at

50:06

the hands of extremists of MPs. But

50:08

it's this moment, this moment

50:10

that Hoyle is saying that the

50:12

threat from pro-Palestine processors is so

50:15

great we have to change parliamentary

50:19

procedure. This is a

50:21

unique threat. And it's not just

50:23

Hoyle doing this. This was Labour

50:25

MSP Paul Sweeney yesterday. The

50:28

Glasgow constituency office of Labour MSPs

50:30

was stormed by protesters this afternoon.

50:32

Terrifying and threatening are sad. Staff

50:35

are working to help Glasgow constituents.

50:38

Thanks to App Police Scotland for ensuring their

50:40

safety. The speaker is right to try and

50:43

calm this down. Sounds absolutely

50:45

terrifying, right? Except this was

50:48

the video published by the Scotsman, the

50:50

paper in Scotland, of the storming of

50:53

those Labour offices. I'm

50:55

John, I'm from Gaza, Genesee, the

50:57

emergency committee. We're outside the Labour

50:59

Party offices here in Wilson

51:02

Street in Glasgow and we're here

51:04

to request that Labour

51:07

representatives make a

51:09

substantive statement not just on the

51:12

ceasefire which they've been prevaricating about

51:14

but they actually make a position,

51:16

take a position on the genocide

51:18

itself. We went into

51:21

the offices very peacefully obviously and we requested

51:23

to speak to some of the staff. No

51:26

one was there, alas. I'm not sure where they are.

51:29

Fifteen people turned up, at least that was

51:31

according to a staff photographer who worked for

51:33

the Scotsman, and no Labour staff were even

51:35

there. Stormed. Right,

51:37

okay. The police disputed Sweeney's

51:40

account and here's what the National reported

51:42

today. Police Scotland has now

51:44

confirmed it was not aware of

51:46

anyone storming in or threatening Labour

51:48

staff. Police Scotland also said it

51:50

was made aware of a quote,

51:52

peaceful protest. The officers attended with

51:54

no issues because the protesters involved

51:56

left of their own accord. Back

51:59

in London. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign also

52:01

says they're going to lodge a complaint about

52:03

their treatment because a large

52:05

group of people gathered to lobby MPs

52:07

in person in Westminster. They were

52:09

mobilized, like you do when you're in

52:12

a campaign. However, when demonstrators arrived, they

52:14

were told a, quote, special procedure had

52:16

been employed, which specified that

52:18

pro-Palestine protesters were limited to only

52:20

allow 50 people maximum in Parliament,

52:22

because normally you can go in

52:24

and you can lobby people in

52:26

Westminster Hall. But that wasn't allowed.

52:29

And the Palestine Solidarity Campaign says other

52:31

groups have been allowed to bring as

52:33

many people as they want into Parliament.

52:36

Labour MP John McDonnell backs up their complaint. He

52:38

says this, I raised this

52:40

in Parliament. This is no way to treat

52:43

constituents simply coming to meet their MPs. Large

52:45

lobbies take place frequently and are not

52:48

treated like this. Now, the

52:50

portrayal of peaceful pro-Palestine protests as

52:52

volatile and angry has been in

52:54

process for a while. Remember,

52:57

hate marches was how former Home

52:59

Secretary Sowela Bravin and Prime Minister

53:01

Rishi Sunak framed the peace marches,

53:03

or Remembrance Sunday, 2023. And

53:06

if we want to get into the stats, Open

53:09

Democracy reported that Palestine peace

53:11

marches from October to December

53:14

2023 actually had a

53:16

total arrest rate lower than Glastonbury

53:18

Festival. So that's three months

53:20

versus three days. But never

53:22

mind that. Just today,

53:24

for example, Sir William Shawcross,

53:27

who was appointed by Boris

53:29

Johnson to review the controversial

53:31

Prevent Counterterrorism Strategy last year,

53:33

was issuing coded warnings about,

53:35

quote, her maths sympathisers. So

53:38

Shawcross had told BBC reporters that

53:40

the Prevent Strategy isn't focused on,

53:42

quote, Islamist concerns. He said this,

53:45

There are unfortunately quite a lot of her

53:47

maths sympathisers and some operatives in this

53:49

country. Preventing the police should have been

53:51

working much harder against those her maths

53:54

people in this country. The

53:56

public are more at risk because of the

53:58

events of 7th October and subsequently. and

54:00

many more many people in this country

54:02

are much more frightened than they have

54:04

ever been before. Now this is a

54:06

guy who when he was in charge of

54:08

the review and he turned up to about six of the

54:11

key meetings and his comments

54:13

were you're not focusing enough on

54:16

islamists you're focusing too much on the far right which

54:18

even the home office was like don't

54:20

know about that mate but Never

54:23

mind that the popular pro-palestine

54:25

movement is composed of a huge range

54:27

of groups Nor that support

54:30

for a ceasefire and talk about justice

54:32

ceasefire here is a majority public opinion

54:34

in Britain Because now it's

54:36

not just the right who are positioning pro-palestine Protesters

54:39

as a threat to democracy rather than

54:41

expression of it. It's also

54:43

the centrist and that's why I want to know

54:45

Ash Do you think

54:47

we are seeing a fresh expression

54:50

of Islamophobic moral panic channeled by

54:52

those MP safety concerns? Yes,

54:55

do you want me to say yes, but

54:57

longer because I can also say I'd love a yes, but longer But

55:03

definitely yes, and I

55:05

think that there's two sides to this

55:07

equation one is I think the vein

55:12

of Anti-democratic

55:16

ideology that runs through the

55:18

political media class and

55:21

the other is as you just mentioned

55:23

a particularly

55:25

kind a particular kind of

55:27

Islamic mistrust and

55:29

demonization of British

55:32

Muslim citizens so to start

55:34

with that anti-democratic vein I

55:36

think you see it very

55:38

well when peaceful protesters who

55:40

have not stormed into an

55:42

MP's office A tour was

55:45

held open for them and they entered

55:47

and they held some placards that

55:49

being described in the most emotive

55:53

and hyperbolic ways Politicians

55:57

can only talk like that because

55:59

journalists themselves feel

56:02

like they're under threat from

56:04

the public as well. Now

56:06

I'm not talking about abuse,

56:08

harassment, intimidation, threats, or violence.

56:10

Of course, all of those

56:12

things are completely wrong. And

56:14

I say that as a

56:17

journalist who has faced harassment,

56:19

abuse, threats, and violence

56:21

from people. Some of those behaviors I've

56:23

even experienced from my fellow journalists. So

56:25

I'm not trying to cast

56:29

criminal harmful behaviors, somehow

56:31

morally justified. I'm not. But I'm

56:33

looking at how democratic

56:35

participation like peaceful protest

56:38

is looked upon by

56:41

journalists and by politicians as nothing

56:43

less than attempted murder. There was

56:46

an edition of playbook to which

56:48

for my sins, I'm a subscriber

56:50

where the writer of that morning's

56:52

playbook had mentioned that they'd been

56:55

in central London when

56:57

they'd been out to buy Lego for their

56:59

kid and said all scary stuff. What

57:02

was scary about it? What was it that

57:04

you saw that made you feel that you

57:07

were at risk? The fact that you're not

57:09

mentioning anything specific makes me feel that, yeah,

57:12

you find it scary, but there's

57:14

not actually anything going on. Otherwise

57:16

you would have written about it.

57:18

You just find something inherently threatening

57:20

about the idea of peaceful protest.

57:22

Similarly, MPs who are saying, oh,

57:25

my office has been stormed or

57:27

I didn't want to go outside

57:29

because people were chanting. That's

57:32

kind of a you problem. I'm

57:34

sorry. You have to be able

57:36

to distinguish between threats, violence, harassment

57:39

and legitimate, lawful, peaceful

57:42

democratic participation. And just to give you

57:44

an example of some coverage which I've

57:46

just read from Sky News, which is

57:49

trying to look at this climate fear

57:51

that MPs are having to live

57:54

with. The staffer for one Labour

57:56

MP described having to act like

57:58

a bodyguard for an MP. and

58:00

said, you know, we've started having to report

58:02

tweets that call this MP a fascist and

58:04

say that they've got blood on their hands.

58:09

Look, you might say accusing someone

58:11

of having blood on their hands is discourteous,

58:14

it's heated, it's

58:17

certainly emotive, but

58:19

it is not a term of abuse. Come

58:22

on, like it's just not. And I think

58:25

that what's happening at the moment is that

58:27

both journalists and politicians have come under an

58:29

awful lot of criticism for their responses to

58:31

the, you

58:34

know, the genocidal act taking

58:36

place in Gaza. And

58:38

they've interpreted that criticism as abuse, which

58:41

is why I think you've got such

58:43

histrionics going on in the media. Now,

58:45

I'm not talking about actual abuse, as

58:47

I said, we're talking about what

58:49

is perfectly legitimate for expression being

58:52

wrongly cast as abuse. And

58:54

then you've got the Islamophobic element

58:56

of it. There

58:59

has been, I think in this country,

59:01

a willingness

59:04

to cast British

59:06

Muslims who are exercising the democratic rights

59:08

to put them under the lens of

59:11

suspicion. So when you had

59:13

high voter turnout in Tower

59:15

Hamlets or in Peterborough, you

59:17

had right wing newspapers completely

59:19

falsely and without any evidence

59:21

alleging that there had been

59:23

mass electoral fraud committed by

59:25

Muslims. Now, there wasn't any

59:28

evidence of that happening. They just decided

59:30

that because Muslims turned out to vote

59:32

for their preferred candidate, that there was

59:34

some kind of wrongdoing. So similarly,

59:36

when you see a, you know,

59:40

pretty, you know, high representation

59:42

of Muslims as part of

59:44

the pro-Palestine movement that gets

59:46

cast as Islamismism, that gets

59:49

cast as extremism, that gets

59:51

cast as, you know, a

59:53

kind of looming sectarian conflict

59:55

between British Jewish people who

59:57

are always presented as being...

1:00:00

you know, kind of inherently threatened

1:00:02

by Muslims and British Muslims. And

1:00:04

it is just

1:00:06

Islamophobia, plain and simple,

1:00:09

you know. It's the way

1:00:11

in which Julia Hartley Brewer, earlier in

1:00:13

the segment, was, you know, speaking of

1:00:15

this Islamist threat that had been imported,

1:00:18

while there was B-roll, you

1:00:21

know, footage being screened

1:00:25

of a peaceful pro-Palestine protest.

1:00:27

Now that's a deliberate effort

1:00:29

to conflate Islamism and

1:00:32

the violent extremism with a

1:00:34

peaceful and legitimate protest. And

1:00:37

it can only be done because

1:00:39

people in the media don't think

1:00:41

that Islamophobia is much of a

1:00:43

problem. In fact, they hold many

1:00:45

Islamic views themselves. And

1:00:47

because it's chiming with a much

1:00:49

longer running moral panic about the

1:00:51

presence of British Muslims in this

1:00:53

country. I think it's

1:00:56

really interesting what you highlighted there, Ash,

1:00:58

because it all comes down, not all,

1:01:00

but part of it, significant part of what you said, comes

1:01:02

down to that adage, conflict is

1:01:04

not abuse. And Sarah Shulman, the author

1:01:06

of the book, Conflict is Not Abuse,

1:01:08

where she discusses how

1:01:10

perceived victimhood can be

1:01:12

used in term to perpetuate harm

1:01:15

against others when people are not aware

1:01:17

of the power they have or in

1:01:19

denial about the power they have. And

1:01:21

they see all conflict as abuse. She

1:01:23

actually explicitly and repeatedly uses Israel

1:01:26

and Palestine as an example of

1:01:28

powerful groups where victimhood becomes a

1:01:31

way to perpetuate harm. But also on

1:01:33

an individual level, there's this

1:01:36

fear of conflict, where all conflict is

1:01:38

harm and any sort of

1:01:40

collision is harm. And I think that's

1:01:42

also a register we're really seeing

1:01:45

take root in modern

1:01:47

day politics, British politics. And it's

1:01:49

fascinating how that has seeped

1:01:51

in. I just want to say

1:01:54

a huge thank you for joining me tonight, to talk

1:01:56

through these stories, Ash. And thank

1:01:58

you for having me and... Thank

1:02:00

you to the audience and I'm thanking

1:02:02

you prematurely for listening to our new

1:02:05

podcast if I speak. Don't

1:02:07

make me regret thanking you for it, make me

1:02:09

very happy, listen to the podcast. Yeah

1:02:12

listen also if you want to hear our juicy gossip and

1:02:14

our oversharing that's where we get a little bit more

1:02:16

informal. Come back tomorrow night for

1:02:19

another live stream from 6pm but for You

1:02:22

have, as always, been watching Navarra

1:02:24

Media. Good night. Good night. This

1:02:28

broadcast is brought to you by

1:02:30

Navarra Media. Go to navarramedia.com/support.