Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: How did the Speaker of the House of Commons justify ejecting Keir Starmer in 2024?
Executive Summary
There is no documented instance in the provided material showing the Speaker of the House of Commons ejecting Keir Starmer in 2024; the available UK-focused items describe calls for inquiries and denials from Starmer, not a parliamentary ejection. Reporting that does describe a Speaker ejecting a party leader in 2024 refers to the Canadian House and Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, a separate event and jurisdiction that is not evidence of a UK Speaker removing Sir Keir Starmer [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What supporters claimed — a motion and talk of inquiry that stopped short of ejection
The contested materials reveal pressure within Conservative ranks to refer allegations about Keir Starmer’s conduct regarding the Gaza ceasefire vote to a privileges committee, with the Commons leader Penny Mordaunt reportedly backing such a motion. Those stories center on inquiries and parliamentary processes rather than disciplinary removal from the chamber; the framing is about investigating whether Starmer tried to influence the Speaker or the procedure surrounding the vote, not about an immediate order to eject him from the Commons. The coverage therefore documents procedural escalation, not the Speaker’s expulsion of Starmer [1] [2].
2. What Sir Keir himself said — denial and a plea for fuller debate
Starmer publicly denied making threats against the Speaker and represented his own actions as attempts to secure a broader parliamentary debate on the Gaza ceasefire motion. His statement that he “did not threaten the Speaker in any way” positions him as asserting procedural intent rather than misconduct warranting ejection. Those comments add context showing a dispute over process and rhetoric, with Starmer insisting on contesting how the vote was handled rather than acknowledging behavior that would normally trigger a Speaker’s order to remove a member from the chamber [3].
3. Where reporting diverges — no UK source provided a Speaker-ordered ejection of Starmer
A cross-check of the supplied items shows no UK source alleging that the Speaker actually ordered Starmer out of the Commons. The only clear removal-for-unparliamentary-comments case in the bundle concerns Canada’s House of Commons, where Speaker Greg Fergus ejected Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre after repeated calls to withdraw a personal insult to the Prime Minister. That Canadian precedent illustrates how Speakers justify ejection — citing “unparliamentary” language and repeated refusals to withdraw — but it does not substantiate any claim that a UK Speaker used the same rationale to remove Starmer in 2024 [4] [5] [6].
4. What’s missing — direct Speaker statements and parliamentary record entries
The analyses provided do not include a direct statement from a UK Speaker (such as Lindsay Hoyle in 2024) ordering Starmer’s ejection, nor do they cite Hansard entries documenting such an order. The absence of those categories of evidence is meaningful: a Speaker-ordered ejection is an official, recorded act typically accompanied by a formal ruling or an entry in the official parliamentary record. Without a cited ruling or Hansard extract, the claim that Starmer was ejected in 2024 lacks primary-source support in the material presented [1] [2] [3].
5. Alternative interpretations and possible agendas in the coverage
The materials show competing narratives: Conservatives pressing for privileges inquiries may be pursuing political advantage by framing Starmer’s actions as coercive, while Labour’s denials aim to minimize reputational harm and preserve the leader’s legitimacy. Reporting that focuses on process—motions to refer to committees—can be leveraged by opponents as evidence of wrongdoing without producing the concrete disciplinary action of ejection. Conversely, transplanting the Canadian example of ejection risks conflating separate parliamentary systems to imply a parallel UK event that is not supported by the provided UK sources [1] [2] [3] [4].
6. Bottom line — what the evidence supports and what it does not
The evidence in the supplied set supports only that there were allegations, calls for investigation, and a public denial by Keir Starmer concerning conduct around a Gaza ceasefire vote; it does not support the claim that the Speaker of the UK House of Commons justified ejecting Starmer in 2024. The only explicit ejection described is a documented Canadian incident where the Speaker cited unacceptably unparliamentary language and refusal to withdraw comments as justification — a useful comparator but not proof that the same occurred in the UK context [1] [2] [3] [4] [6].