Connect with us

Published

on

Commons speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle is facing a backlash from Tory MPs over his decision to select both the Labour and government amendments to the SNP’s Gaza ceasefire motion.

It is highly unusual to allow an opposition party – in this case Labour – to amend a motion from another opposition party. Usually, only a government amendment would be selected in such a vote.

Tory MPs have accused Sir Lindsay of making an “overtly political decision”, given that Sir Keir Starmer was expected to face a significant rebellion had his amendment not been selected.

This might have led to Labour MPs backing the SNP’s motion calling for a ceasefire against Labour’s orders.

Sir Lindsay was first elected as a Labour MP but relinquished his party affiliation to become the Speaker, as is tradition.

Advice from the clerk of the House said the decision to select both amendments “represents a departure from the long-established convention for dealing with such amendments on opposition days”.

But the letter said Sir Lindsay ultimately has discretion over what amendments to select.

In explaining his decision, Sir Lindsay said that he wanted MPs to have the “widest possible range” of options in the Gaza ceasefire debate because of its importance.

Politics Live:
Reaction to Speaker’s choice and vote updates

However one Tory MP told Sky News: “Nobody wants a return to the Bercow days. The Speaker has done lots to rebuild trust over the past years.

“Today’s overtly political decision from the Speaker will cause a loss of confidence from Conservative MPs.

“The question now is can he retain the confidence of the House and continue?”

The mention of Bercow harks back to the speakership of John Bercow.

He was Speaker during the Brexit years and came in for criticism for making what were perceived as political interventions to allow MPs to delay or scrutinise proposed Brexit deals.

He was later found guilty of bullying House of Commons staff and banned from parliament.

Labour had not said how it would whip its MPs if its amendment was selected, but it was expected they would be told to abstain.

A source told our political editor Beth Rigby that Sir Keir faced resignations from shadow cabinet members had the Labour amendment not been called and up to 80 MPs were ready to rebel.

There is not actually a huge difference between Labour and the SNP’s position.

Both are calling for an “immediate ceasefire” and the release of hostages, but the wording of Labour’s amendment has a greater emphasis on the role of Hamas – as well as Israel – in bringing about a lasting end to the fighting.

Read More:
Former Speaker banned from parliament for life after bullying inquiry finds him guilty

Labour announced its motion yesterday, after months of pressure over its position on the war.

Previously the Labour leadership had refrained from calling for an immediate ceasefire, choosing language such as a “sustainable ceasefire” or “humanitarian pauses” instead.

This led to eight shadow ministers resigning in November, so they could support a previous SNP amendment calling for a ceasefire.

The government amendment, which will be voted on if the Labour amendment falls, states that ministers want an “immediate humanitarian pause” in the fighting before supporting “moves towards a permanent sustainable ceasefire”.

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

Please refresh the page for the fullest version.

You can receive Breaking News alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News App. You can also follow @SkyNews on X or subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.

Continue Reading

Politics

Gaming data is the next AI battleground

Published

on

By

Gaming data is the next AI battleground

Gaming data is the next AI battleground

Gaming’s behavioral data is rapidly becoming the most sought-after resource in AI. Game telemetry fuels next-gen AI agents for everything from logistics to finance. The battle for gaming data is on.

Continue Reading

Politics

Rachel Reeves turning around UK’s finances ‘like Steve Jobs did for Apple’, claims minister

Published

on

By

Rachel Reeves turning around UK's finances 'like Steve Jobs did for Apple', claims minister

Rachel Reeves will turn around the economy the way Steve Jobs turned around Apple, a cabinet minister has suggested ahead of the upcoming spending review.

Science and Technology Secretary Peter Kyle compared the chancellor to the late Apple co-founder when asked on Sky News’ Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips where the £86bn for his department is coming from.

Politics Live: Winter fuel payment cut to be dealt with ‘in run up to autumn’

Steve Jobs. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Apple Inc. chief executive Steve Jobs, who died in 2011. Pic: Reuters

Rachel Reeves
Image:
Chancellor Rachel Reeves


The package, confirmed ahead of the full spending review next week, will see each region in England granted £500m to spend on science projects of their choice, including research into faster drug treatments.

Asked by Trevor Phillips how the government is finding the money, Mr Kyle said: “Rachel raised money in taxes in the autumn, we are now allocating it per department.

“But the key thing is we are going to be investing record amounts of money into the innovations of the future.

“Just bear in mind that how Apple turned itself around when Steve Jobs came back to Apple, they were 90 days from insolvency. That’s the kind of situation that we had when we came into office.

“Steve Jobs turned it around by inventing the iMac, moving to a series of products like the iPod.

“Now we are starting to invest in the vaccine processes of the future, some of the high-tech solutions that are going to be high growth. We’re investing in our space sector… they will create jobs in the future.”

👉 Click here to listen to Electoral Dysfunction on your podcast app 👈

The spending review is a process used by governments to set departmental budgets for the years ahead.

Asked if it will include more detail on who will receive winter fuel payments, Mr Kyle said that issue will be “dealt with in the run-up to the autumn”.

“This is a spending review that’s going to set the overall spending constraints for government for the next period, the next three years, so you’re sort of talking about two separate issues at the moment,” he said.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘So we won’t get an answer on winter fuel this week?

Scrapping universal winter fuel payments was one of the first things Labour did in government – despite it not being in their manifesto – with minsters saying it was necessary because of the financial “blackhole” left behind by the Tories.

But following a long-drawn out backlash, Sir Keir Starmer said last month that the government would extend eligibility, which is now limited to those on pension credit.

Read more: Spending review 2025 look ahead

It is not clear what the new criteria will be, though Ms Reeves has said the changes will come into place before this winter.

Mr Kyle also claimed the spending review will see the government invest “the most we’ve ever spent per pupil in our school system”.

However, he said the chancellor will stick to her self-imposed fiscal rules – which rule out borrowing for day-to-day spending – meaning that while some departments will get extra money, others are likely to face cuts.

Continue Reading

Politics

Minister dismisses US misgivings over Chinese ‘super embassy’ in London – as Tories warn of ‘espionage base’

Published

on

By

Minister dismisses US misgivings over Chinese 'super embassy' in London - as Tories warn of 'espionage base'

A minister has dismissed reported US misgivings about plans for a Chinese “super embassy” near London’s financial districts.

Peter Kyle told Sky News’ Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips that security concerns will be “taken care of assiduously in the planning process”.

Politics live: Winter fuel payment cut to be dealt with ‘in run up to autumn’

There have been protests against the proposed site of the new Chinese embassy, outside Royal Mint Court. Pic: Reuters
Image:
There have been protests against the new Chinese embassy. Pic: Reuters

According to The Sunday Times, the White House has warned Downing Street against the proposed massive embassy at Royal Mint Court.

The site is between financial hubs in the City of London and Canary Wharf and close to three data centres, raising concerns about espionage risk.

Asked for the government’s view on the risk, Mr Kyle said: “These issues will be taken care of assiduously in the planning process.

“But just to reassure people, we deal with embassies and these sorts of infrastructure issues all the time.

“We are very experienced and we are very aware of these sorts of issues constantly, not just when new buildings are being done, but all the time.”

He added that America and Britain “share intelligence iteratively” and if they raise security concerns through the planning process “we will have a fulsome response for them”.

However, shadow home secretary Chris Philp said he shared the US’s concerns.

He told Trevor Phillips: “I agree with the United States. We think it is a security risk in the government.

“The Conservatives were very clear. We should not be allowing the Chinese to build the super embassy. It is likely to become a base for their pan-European espionage activities.”

He added that underneath the sites are cables connecting the City of London to Canary Wharf and these could be intercepted.

Sky News has contacted the Chinese embassy for comment.

Read More: Diplomatic win for UK hosting US-China trade talks

China has been attempting to revise plans for the Royal Mint building, opposite the Tower of London, since purchasing it in 2018.

The proposal for the embassy, which would be China’s largest in Europe, was previously rejected by Tower Hamlets council in 2022.

However, Beijing resubmitted it in August after Labour won the election, and the plans were “called in” by Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister and housing secretary.

It means that an inspector will be appointed to carry out an inquiry into the proposal, but the decision ultimately rests with central government rather than the local authority.

Two large protests were held at the site in February and March, which organisers claimed involved thousands of people.

Continue Reading

Trending