Seldom has a ruling by the Speaker of the House of Commons been so eagerly anticipated by MPs.
During the Brexit wars of a couple of years ago, pro-Remain John Bercow could be relied upon to deliver rulings to cause maximum turmoil and embarrassment for the government.
Sir Lindsay Hoyle is a much less partisan figure, however, and when he has to made a tricky or controversial ruling he relies on the advice of the Commons clerks and legal bods. Mr Bercow used to overrule them.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
PM avoids Tory rebellion over foreign aid
So when he had to rule on Tory MP Andrew Mitchell’s bid to use a piece of legislation on science research to reverse Boris Johnson’s overseas aid cut, cricket fan Sir Lindsay played a straight bat.
It wasn’t in order, he declared, to almost no-one’s surprise.
Advertisement
What was more surprising was Sir Lindsay’s angry attack on the government at the end of his ruling. From straight bat to bowling the prime minister a hostile bouncer.
First he encouraged Mr Mitchell and his supporters to apply for an emergency debate on the aid cut, which he duly did and now MPs will have three hours to attack the government. A free hit for the PM’s critics.
More from Politics
Then he rounded off his statement with some furious finger pointing at the government frontbench as he bluntly ordered ministers to hold a vote on the aid cut without delay – or he’d connive with MPs to find a way to hold one.
“I wish and hope, very quickly, that this is taken on board,” the normally cheery Sir Lindsay warned, his lip curling with disdain for the government’s attempts to dodge a vote.
“I don’t want this to drag on,” he said. “If not, we will then look to find other ways in which we can move forward.”
Then when Sir Lindsay’s deputy, Nigel Evans, tested support for Mr Mitchell’s application for an emergency debate, no-one rose to their feet quicker than former prime minister Theresa May, who was seated just a few rows further forward.
She was one of around 30 Conservative MPs who had put their names to the Mitchell new clause to the Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill, a Dominic Cummings legacy, no less. What an ironic twist.
The Tory rebels included old bruisers like David Davis and Sir Edward Leigh, but cabinet ministers from the May years like Jeremy Hunt and Damian Green and MPs from both the Brexit and Remain wings of the party.
In his response to Sir Lindsay’s ruling and then in his bid for an emergency debate, Mr Mitchell claimed that had the vote gone ahead he would have won by nine or possibly 20 votes. He reminded MPs, of course, that he is a former chief whip.
Really? That assumes all the Conservative MPs who put their names to his new clause would have trooped into the Aye lobby with Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP. Would Mrs May – victim of dozens of bruising rebellions as PM – go that far?
She has form for voicing her objection to a Boris Johnson policy and then absenting herself from a vote, no doubt because of a pressing engagement elsewhere.
Former prime ministers tend not to rebel, with the exception of Ted Heath during the Thatcher years. Not for nothing was he known as “the incredible sulk”.
Talking of ex-prime ministers, the Tories’ 0.7% aid spending pledge is a legacy of David Cameron’s time as Tory leader.
It was even written into law in 2015, as Sir Lindsay reminded MPs. That’s presumably why Mr Cameron’s former bag-carrier Sir Desmond Swayne was among the rebels.
Not that they would accept that they’re rebels. Since 0.7% was a Tory manifesto pledge, they’ve claimed throughout this row that they’re the loyalists.
Not sure that’s how the current chief whip, the burly, ruddy-faced Nottinghamshire farmer Mark Spencer, would see it.
With Mr Mitchell’s new clause ruled out of order, the debate that followed was a dismal anti-climax.
But hostilities will resume in the emergency debate and if and when the government brings forward a proper vote on the aid cut.
Sir Lindsay will no doubt continue to play a straight bat. But his mood suggests he is growing tired of the prime minister dodging the umpire’s rulings.
Sir Keir Starmer has talked up the US-UK relationship after a White House meeting with Joe Biden, but questions remain over Ukraine’s use of long-range missiles.
Speaking before the “long and productive” meeting held in the White House on Friday, Sir Keir said the two countries were “strategically aligned” in their attempts to resolve the war.
Afterwards, he skirted around questions regarding Ukraine’s use of long-range missiles, saying: “We’ve had a long and productive discussion on a number of problems, including Ukraine, as you’d expect, the Middle East, and the Indo-Pacific, talking strategically about tactical decisions.
“This isn’t about a particular decision but we’ll obviously pick up again in UNGA (UN General Assembly) in just a few days’ time with a wider group of individuals, but this was a really important invitation from the president to have this level of discussion about those critical issues.”
Decisions loom for Ukraine’s key Western allies as Volodymyr Zelenskyy has recently increased pressure on them to permit his forces to use long-range missiles to strike inside Russian territory.
More on Joe Biden
Related Topics:
However, despite repeated calls for a decision, the West has so far resisted green-lighting the use of the missiles.
Two US officials familiar with the discussions said they believed that Sir Keir was seeking US approval to let Ukraine use British Storm Shadow missiles for expanded strikes into Russia, according to Reuters news agency.
Advertisement
They added that they believed Mr Biden would be amenable.
The president’s approval would be needed because Storm Shadow components are made in the US.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:17
Military analyst Sean Bell looks at how serious Putin’s threats could be
But when speaking to journalists after the meeting, Sir Keir was repeatedly pressed on the long-range missile question but evaded giving a firm decision.
“This wasn’t a meeting about a particular capability. That wasn’t why we got our heads down today,” he said.
The US has been concerned that any step could lead to an escalation in the conflict and has moved cautiously so far, however, there have been reports in recent days that Mr Biden might shift his administration’s policy.
It wasn’t much, but it’s a start
There wasn’t much to say at the end, but it’s a start.
Both sides in these discussions had spent some time playing down expectations and the Americans were insistent their stance wasn’t changing on Ukraine and long-range missiles.
“Nothing to see here” seemed to be the message.
Only, there clearly was – a glance at the headlines gave that the lie.
It’s not every day a Russian president threatens war with the West.
The UK and US were discussing a change in strategy because they must – anything less would be a dereliction of duty for two leaders pledging a commitment to Ukraine’s fight.
Just ask Kyiv’s president Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
Following the meeting, Sir Keir Starmer said they’d talked tactics and strategy.
It will have had missiles, range, and Russian territory at the heart of it.
That is the material change in strategy demanded by Ukraine and supported widely among its backers.
A plan discussed by both sides of the special relationship will now be floated to other, allied nations in an effort to build a coordinated coalition behind a change in strategy.
And they’ll do it against the clock.
There is the unpredictability of the war itself in Ukraine and no less certainty surrounding the political battle at home.
A Trump victory in November’s US election would change the picture – here and there.
Vladimir Putin previously threatened the West, warning that allowing Ukraine to use long-range missiles to strike inside Russian territory would put Moscow “at war” with NATO.
Speaking to Russian state television, he insisted the decision would “significantly change” the nature of the war.
He added: “This will be their direct participation, and this, of course, will significantly change the very essence, the very nature of the conflict.
“This will mean that NATO countries, US, European countries are at war with Russia.
“If this is so, then, bearing in mind the change in the very essence of this conflict, we will make appropriate decisions based on the threats that will be created for us.”
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
There remains some scepticism within the US over the impact that allowing Kyiv to unleash long-range missiles would have.
US officials, according to Reuters, have pointed out that Ukraine already has the capability to strike into Russia using drones, and while US missiles would enhance that they are too costly and limited in number to change the overall picture.