Mick Hartley

The Islamist veto comes to Westminster. https://t.co/HxL0vwud40

— Alan Johnson (@Fathom_Editor) February 22, 2024

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

This makes it explicit. MPs wanting to be seen to take a particular line on Gaza because they want to reduce the physical danger to them and their family. Very worrying. https://t.co/mZ2UxKn8Dj

— David Gauke (@DavidGauke) February 22, 2024

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Conservative MP Charles Walker, quoted in the Spectator:

‘People are frightened. People have weaponised this debate in this Chamber. Whips are frightened for their flocks because Members of parliament now feel that they have to vote in a certain way in order to safeguard their safety and that of their family. That is a far bigger issue than the debate we are having tonight, because if people are changing their votes or their behaviour in this place because they are frightened of what may happen to them or their family out there, we have a real problem. So this point scoring off each other is not going to resolve many issues.’

And Isabel Hardman:

MPs shouldn’t be changing their votes because of threats. That’s not how democracy works. It has, however, been sliding that way for a good while: members have been self-censoring and avoiding certain debates because of the amount of abuse they get on social media about a whole range of issues. But the idea that MPs would have to vote a certain way to calm the mob that was online, in their constituencies and indeed in Westminster yesterday is still a big move from that.

MPs have been under intolerable pressure in some cases. I have spoken to a number who have stopped going out on their own and who say they feel genuinely relieved when they get out of their constituencies. They also raised concerns with the Speaker last night about their safety: it wasn’t just Starmer who tried to make the case for the Labour amendment being selected using the safety argument.

Hoyle has come under a huge amount of opprobrium over the past few hours, and that will continue today. But just imagine the reaction if a Labour MP had been attacked or their children threatened and they linked it to the fact they hadn’t been able to vote for a motion they could support on Palestine. In the fickle world of Westminster, it’s entirely likely that the narrative this morning would be ‘why couldn’t the Speaker change the rules on this sensitive topic to help MPs stay safe?’ We are all excellent at hindsight, and when it comes to MPs’ safety, hindsight weighs very heavily when there have been two murders in the past decade.

The problem is that the Speaker’s selection will not make MPs safer, because it has suggested to the people putting this pressure on members that they can force democracy to move through threats. We all respond to incentives, and Hoyle’s well-meaning attempt to help MPs has unwittingly offered an incentive to campaigners to keep intimidating members. Neither parliament nor the political parties have really worked out how to deal with the new era of mob politics. But they’re going to have to learn fast.