,
59 tweets,
7 min read
Read on Twitter
Commons opens up again for more hellish nightmares parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/f6…
Bercow: "Yesterday the House did itself no credit. There was an atmosphere in the Chamber worse than any I've known in my 22 years in the House."
"I have overnight received an approach by two very senior members from either side of the House pressing the case for a formal consideration of our political culture going forward."
"Lower the decibel level and try to treat each other as opponents, not enemies"
Labour MP Ian Murray is now probing the govt's position on the Benn bill. It has only three options: Pass a deal, pass no-deal, or deal an extension.
Duderidge for the govt insists the "govt position is very, very clear - we will obey the law". But of course there is this vast chasm of absence in that statement, because it implies they have some other way to dodge the Benn bill which they are not articulating.
That's part of the govt strategy to imply and sometimes say that there's loopholes they can get through. There aren't. And if there are, parliament will close them.
Starmer is up. The Act is very simply, he says. It's true, the terms of the letter he must write were set out in a schedule and duty to accept EU extension offer.
Those features were not in the previous version of the Act applied to Theresa May "because there was a consensus that the then-prime minister would comply with the law, understood the rule of law and could be trusted and therefore it was not necessary to out them in the Act."
Jesus Christ, so damning.
"They're in the Act now - and I'm afraid to say this is a low point in our history - those assumptions no longer hold. "
Starmer: If there is no deal by the deadline will the PM comply? If not it will be enforced in the courts, he warns.
Minister: "The got will obey a law on the 18th, the 19th and the 20th and will always do so."
He insists there was " a big shift" in the negotiations after the PM's meetings with Macron and Merkel. Simply amazing. The blubbering insincerity of it.
Benn: "The problem we have is that the very clear answer the minister has given is not compatible with the very clear answer the prime minister gave yesterday evening."
Angela Eagle: "In answer to a Q from me the PM hinted he would obey the law, he said directly to my rt hon friend last night that he wouldn't."
"The minister's answers today would be listening to with a little more belief if senior sources in Number 10 didn't keep briefing that they intend to break the law."
I wouldn't trust Liz Truss to buy the milk. Listening to her outline the illegal sale of arms to Saudi Arabia, it's as if she barely understands the words emerging from her mouth.
Jess Phillips has asked an urgent question about political language and threats to MPs.
Kevin Fioter there to answer for the govt. PM not in the Commons. He lists what govt is doing to create "safe environment for debate". Doesn't mention the PM's rhetoric.
Phillips: "I had a death threat this week that literally quoted the prime minister, delivered to my staff."
This is brilliant from Phillips. She accepts there is abuse on both sides. But she is talking about something else - "a clear strategy to divide".
"The use of language such as 'surrender bill', such as invoking the war, such as betrayal, it has clearly been tested and workshopped. It is clearly designed to inflame hatred."
"I get it. It works. It is working. We're all ambitious, but I also have a soul. It is not sincere. It is totally planned. It is completely and utterly a part of a strategy to harm and cause hatred in our country."
"When I hear of my friend's murder and the way it has made me and my colleagues feel, described as 'humbug', I actually don;t feel anger towards the PM. I feel pity towards those of you who still have to toe his line."
"The people opposite me know how appalling it was to describe the murder of my friend as mere humbug." Slightly uproar on Tory benches at that idea. But it is a fair description.
"Can I ask everyone to act with calm and dignity in this moment. I want to ask the PM to apologise and to tell him that the bravest, strongest thing to say is sorry."
"It will make him look good. it will not upset the people who want Brexit in this country if he acts for once as a statesman."
"Putting words in my mouth ad the mouth of my dead friend makes me angry. But I will not react. The PM wants me to react so I join in the chaos that keeps this hatred and fear on our streets."
"I simply ask the minister today to request the PM that he meet with me in private... and friends from Jo's family so we can explain our grief and try to make him understand why it is so abhorrent."
Really, really strong, well judged and principled from Phillips. The right person, making the right argument, in the right way, at the right time.
Kevin Foster responds for govt by suggesting everyone oversteps the line a lot. So far nothing on what she was discussing - Johnson's strategy and rhetoric.
He says he'll meet with her - doesn't mention the PM. Pitiful response from govt. "It is for everyone to think about what they say and how they have contributed". The irresponsible cowardice of 'both sides' excuses.
Extraordinary moment as Maria Miller (Con) now accuses Phillips of being the person screaming the hardest.
The reason Phillips was shouting was because her friend's death had just been used for political point-scoring and threats.
Corbyn thanks Phillips for the question. "Extremely disappointing that the PM has not respected the House by attending here today."
Dreadful from Tory MP Bernard Jenkins, who says we should "no longer invoke the name of any person who has been the victim of attacks in order to make political points".
Truly outrageous comment. It is an attempt to depoliticise Jo Cox's death. But that was not a consequence of natural disaster. It was a product of terrorism, which has a cause.
Jo Swinson: "It is not for any member of this House to determine whether another member can talk about their own grief and whether that should somehow not be allowed. The language leaders use matters, because it sets the tone for public debate."
The debate started well and is still just about staying subdued and regretful. But the truth is I hear very few - if any - expressions of concern from Tory benches about what their leader is saying. And at the moment, that's where it needs to come from.
Good old Ken Clarke. "What concerns me about all this is if there is any sense of a deliberate strategy to all this. I'd like my hon friend to reassure me."
Then gently mocks him while making implicit serious point about the disregard the govt has shown to this debate. "I have been a junior minister myself, so I do realise he's probably not consulted closely about strategy."
He wants to know that this isn't part "of some grand discrediting of the institutions in order to fight a populist and nationalist campaign".
Foster, even on this very light questioning, is unable to offer any reassurances.
It's worth mentioning that Foster is quite useless and operating well above the level that anyone might sensibly place him in.
Harriet Harman, who could well be the next Speaker, says we can;t allow for anyone to be silent. Says MPs shouldn't be afraid. Says there's "lack of initiative and focus for action".
Want a Speakers conference on this. Fairly non-descript contribution from Harman. Doesn't give us much insight into what kind of Speaker she'd be.
Ed Miliband: "I spent four and a half years opposite David Cameron. I never saw a performance like the performance we saw last night from this prime minister."
That's fair. Spent a bit of time slagging off Cameron recently. But we never got anything like that from him.
Quotes Johnson saying best way for MPs to be safe was to vote for Brexit. "None of us can agree that the safety of the members of this House can depend on how they vote in this House. "
"The PM has a special responsibility. He is not exercising this responsibility. He is trying to divide an already divided country. Some people say this strategy will work. I say this strategy will not work because the British people are better than this."
Caroline Noakes, purged Tory: "How should he suggest I respond to those in Romsey who told me I was a traitor who should be shot, when the language of traitor is heard in this House?"
Luciana Berger (Lib Dem, former Labour, left because of....): "I don't believe minister can tell this House he seeks to reduce online harm while the PM booms out toxic soundbites the clips of which are immediately posted & promoted on online, hate-filled social media channels."
Minister's response is to suggest that the Lib Dems 'Bollocks to Brexit' slogan is partly responsible for the quality of debate. Just dreadful.
Margaret Hodge (Lab): "The courage thing that the Pm could have done today was to come to this House and explain to us why he thinks that leadership is appropriate."
Paula Sherriff, who gave the best speech yesterday, and was responded to with the word 'humbug', says there's been solidarity from some on the govt benches.
She cites a tweet from Tory MP Simon Clarke. "I will not refer to him as honourable. He sent a tweet last night appearing to mock me. Sadly brought more abuse."
I think this is the tweet.
David Gauke, purged Tory: "At best the PM's answers to questions last night were deeply insensitive. But the concern many of us have is that there is a deliberate strategy of division and confrontation."
