'Gaza ceasefire vote has NOTHING to do with Britain,' claims Nigel Farage

This is all about Gaza. That is what is now dominating British politics.

It is, of course, a direct result of the increasing sectarianism in British politics and in particular within the Labour Party, because Keir Starmer has tried from the start, ever since October 7, to take a relatively nuanced position.

On the one hand that Israel has the right to defend itself, but on the other, that we don't want to see excess casualties in Gaza. But that line has become harder and harder.

Many in the Labour movement, particularly those on the Muslim side of politics, are speaking out about the way Israel is behaving and calling it a genocide, Which of course, in any historical sense is a complete and utter outrage.

That is the genesis of all of this, and what happened was the SNP had a motion down to be voted on the House of Commons. Now, bear in mind, this is not legislative, it's not executive, it doesn't change anything, least of all here, and certainly not in Gaza itself.

Now, I'm sure there are many of you out there saying, 'this is not our priority'.

Well, no, that may well be right. But it's been the priority of parliament and almost the obsession of the Labour Party for the last few months. What the SNP were asking for was an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and in Israel.

They condemned any military assault, namely what may be about to happen in Rafah and most controversially, they want an end to the collective punishment of the Palestinian people.

It's a motion effectively saying that Israel should give up, that Israel should surrender, that there should be no attempt to go after Hamas, who not only committed those atrocities on October 7 but have promised to repeat them now.

That was what was supposed to be debated and voted on today with a Government amendment against it. But what did Lindsay Hoyle the speaker do this morning? He allowed a Labour amendment to an SNP motion.

OK, I'm trying not to lose you.

But in effect, the Labour Party amendment was really a peace offering to their own backbenchers, an attempt not to split the party.

The last time there was a vote on whether there should be an immediate ceasefire, 56 Labour MPs, including eight frontbenchers, went against the Keir Starmer.

So Sir Lindsay Hoyle, who is neutral as the Speaker, but was elected to begin with as a Labour MP, has made what is being seen by many as a highly partisan political gesture which incidentally we're told breaks Article 31 of the Standing orders of the House of Commons. And he does it much to the favour of the Labour Party.

That has caused anger, that has caused outrage. So much so that William Wragg, a Conservative backbench Member of Parliament, has even put down a motion saying the Speaker should be replaced.

And extraordinarily, whilst much of this debate was going on, Sir Lindsay Hoyle was literally nowhere to be seen.

The most dramatic moment that came, and we can see in this footage, was when SNP and Conservative members of Parliament literally walked out of the House of Commons, leaving the whole thing in a state of complete and utter chaos.

Then there came a Labour motion for the debate to continue, but to do so in private. And that would mean not just the public galleries being cleared but radio and television transmissions would have to have stopped as well.

This did happen back in 2001 when terrorism was being discussed and as a matter of national security, it was felt that MPs should be able to debate very sensitive matters in private.

But the idea that Labour even put this motion forward, why should this be debated in private?

This is not a matter of national security. This is about what's happening in Israel and Gaza. This is the extent to which religious sectarianism is now dominating British politics and the House of Commons.

But there's also talk that the Labour Party said to Sir Lindsay Hoyle, you know what? Unless you keep our motion we certainly won't be allowing you to be the Speaker if we win the next election. The truth of this we probably will never ever know, but it is an extraordinary decision that Hoyle made.

In fact, it takes us back to the days of John Bercow. In fact, some sarcastically were shouting out Bring Back Bercow when Bercow was seen to make very, very controversial decisions in terms of what votes he allowed, what amendments he allowed during the whole Brexit debark, which went on pretty much for two years.

However dramatic, however passionate the scenes were in Westminster during Brexit, they are frankly nothing compared to what we have seen today.