Speaker plays straight bat on aid cut amendment – but then bowls PM a hostile bouncer

Published

4 years ago

June 7, 2021

admin

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.

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.

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.

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.

Politics

‘No doubt’ UK will spend 3% of GDP on defence in next parliament, defence secretary says

Published

4 hours ago

May 31, 2025

admin

'No doubt' UK will spend 3% of GDP on defence in next parliament, defence secretary says

There is “no doubt” the UK “will spend 3% of our GDP on defence” in the next parliament, the defence secretary has said.

John Healey’s comments come ahead of the publication of the government’s Strategic Defence Review (SDR) on Monday.

This is an assessment of the state of the armed forces, the threats facing the UK, and the military transformation required to meet them.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has previously set out a “clear ambition” to raise defence spending to 3% in the next parliament “subject to economic and fiscal conditions”.

Mr Healey has now told The Times newspaper there is a “certain decade of rising defence spending” to come, adding that this commitment “allows us to plan for the long term. It allows us to deal with the pressures.”

A government source insisted the defence secretary was “expressing an opinion, which is that he has full confidence that the government will be able to deliver on its ambition”, rather than making a new commitment.

The UK currently spends 2.3% of GDP on defence, with Sir Keir announcing plans to increase that to 2.5% by 2027 in February.

This followed mounting pressure from the White House for European nations to do more to take on responsibility for their own security and the defence of Ukraine.

The 2.3% to 2.5% increase is being paid for by controversial cuts to the international aid budget, but there are big questions over where the funding for a 3% rise would be found, given the tight state of government finances.

While a commitment will help underpin the planning assumptions made in the SDR, there is of course no guarantee a Labour government would still be in power during the next parliament to have to fulfil that pledge.

A statement from the Ministry of Defence makes it clear that the official government position has not changed in line with the defence secretary’s comments.

The statement reads: “This government has announced the largest sustained increase to defence spending since the end of the Cold War – 2.5% by 2027 and 3% in the next parliament when fiscal and economic conditions allow, including an extra £5bn this financial year.

“The SDR will rightly set the vision for how that uplift will be spent, including new capabilities to put us at the leading edge of innovation in NATO, investment in our people and making defence an engine for growth across the UK – making Britain more secure at home and strong abroad.”

Sir Keir commissioned the review shortly after taking office in July 2024. It is being led by Lord Robertson, a former Labour defence secretary and NATO secretary general.

The Ministry of Defence has already trailed a number of announcements as part of the review, including plans for a new Cyber and Electromagnetic Command and a £1bn battlefield system known as the Digital Targeting Web, which we’re told will “better connect armed forces weapons systems and allow battlefield decisions for targeting enemy threats to be made and executed faster”.

On Saturday, the defence secretary announced a £1.5bn investment to tackle damp, mould and make other improvements to poor quality military housing in a bid to improve recruitment and retention.

Mr Healey pledged to “turn round what has been a national scandal for decades”, with 8,000 military family homes currently unfit for habitation.

He said: “The Strategic Defence Review, in the broad, will recognise that the fact that the world is changing, threats are increasing.

“In this new era of threat, we need a new era for defence and so the Strategic Defence Review will be the vision and direction for the way that we’ve got to strengthen our armed forces to make us more secure at home, stronger abroad, but also learn the lessons from Ukraine as well.

“So an armed forces that can be more capable of innovation more quickly, stronger to deter the threats that we face and always with people at the heart of our forces… which is why the housing commitments that we make through this strategic defence review are so important for the future.”