Labour officials were upbeat on Wednesday evening as they weighed up the implications of the day’s dramatic events in Westminster. On the downside, the House of Commons had descended into farce as more than half the chamber left in protest at the decision by the speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, to allow a vote on Labour’s position on the war in Gaza. In doing so, Hoyle ignored years of precedent that states only one amendment should be brought to an opposition day motion – when smaller parties set the parliamentary agenda – and that any lodged by the government should take precedence. On the upside, Keir Starmer had avoided what was expected to be the biggest rebellion of his leadership, which would have included the resignation of at least two shadow cabinet ministers. By Thursday morning, however, the Labour leader found himself under fire for his last-minute visit to Hoyle before Wednesday’s debate, during which he successfully petitioned the speaker to allow the Labour amendment to be put to a vote. The Guardian has learned Starmer did not have an appointment to see Hoyle, but turned up unexpectedly to a planned meeting between the speaker and Alan Campbell, Labour’s chief whip. Sources briefed on the meeting said Starmer had not issued threats to the speaker, but instead focused on his belief that MPs’ security was at risk. Penny Mordaunt, the Conservative leader of the house, focused her anger directly on the Labour leader. “We have seen into the heart of Labour’s leadership – nothing is more important than the interests of the Labour party,” she said on Thursday morning. “The Labour party before principles, the Labour party before individual rights, the Labour party before the reputation and honour of the decent man that sits in the speaker’s chair.”
Starmer defended his actions during a visit to Sussex, telling reporters: “I can categorically tell you that I did not threaten the speaker in any way whatsoever. “I simply urged him to ensure that we have the broadest possible debate, so that actually the most important thing, which is what do we do about the situation in Gaza, could be properly discussed by MPs with a number of options in front of them.” Some Labour MPs were angry with their own leader for his actions on Wednesday, pointing out that because the government had decided not to oppose Labour’s motion, it passed without a vote being called. One said: “This looks beyond awful for Labour to the public, and will increase anger even further against us. I think that’s extremely dangerous when temperatures are already so high.” Others, however, said they were pleased that Starmer’s pressure on the speaker had avoided a scenario in which they looked like they were opposing a ceasefire in Gaza by voting against the Scottish National party (SNP) motion. Stephen Timms, the Labour backbencher, told GB News on Thursday: “There is a lot of anger around at the moment, around what’s happening in the Middle East. The Labour motion I think did provide a helpful way through. “It was in the end adopted and I’m pleased there is now a vote that has been recorded that the parliament has called for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire.” Many Labour MPs were infuriated in November when they were whipped to vote against a similar SNP motion calling for a ceasefire because it did not represent the official Labour party position. Some say they have since faced threats to their safety from activists accusing them of being complicit in what is happening to civilians in Gaza. While some in the party were irritated that Starmer had only called for an immediate ceasefire because of an impending internal crisis, they also expressed relief that had finally happened. “It was madness,” said one Labour source. “But the most important thing is that Labour’s position has shifted significantly and MPs are able to say this is now our view: we believe in a ceasefire.”