Order, order

It was a Wednesday Sir Lindsay Hoyle will want to forget. But he probably never will.

The SpeakerIn the UK, an MP who is chosen to keep order during debates in the House of Commons and chose which MPs can speak. of the House of CommonsThe democratically elected house of the UK Parliament. It consists of 650 Members of Parliament.  began the day a "clubbable, honest backbenchIn the UK, referring to MPs who do not hold positions in the government or Opposition and so sit on the back benches of the House of Commons. champion", known for his evenhandedness and eccentricity.¹ He ended it, according to sketch writerIn the UK, writers who make "verbal cartoons" about Parliament for newspapers. Quentin Letts, "broken, apologetic, compromised" and "on the verge of tears".

Hoyle is at the centre of the biggest British parliamentary drama of the year so far. "Speaker on brink," howled The Daily Telegraph. "Fury in Commons," said The Guardian. Letts called it "Mutiny on the Thames".

The House of Commons had met to debate the GazaThe smaller of two Palestinian territories, home to two million people. It is located on the Mediterranean coast, surrounded by Israel and Egypt. conflict. The governing ConservativesA traditionally right-wing or centre right political party in the UK. Members are sometimes called Tories. and main opposition parties all wanted to call for a pause in the fighting.²

The trouble came in how the motion was approved. On most days, the government brings motions to Parliament. But Wednesday was a designated opposition day for the Scottish National PartyA political party founded in 1934 that wishes to ultimately make Scotland independent. It is the largest party in Scotland. (SNP). This means that the SNP's motionsFormal proposals for discussion. are debated in Parliament. Other opposition parties are not allowed to table amendmentsMinor changes to approve a piece of writing or proposed law, for example. .

Hoyle broke this tradition. He allowed a LabourBritain's main left-of-centre political party. amendment before the SNP motion.

The outrage was immediate. MPsMembers of Parliament. MPs are elected to represent people in 650 different geographical areas.  erupted in heckles and jeers. Leader of the HouseIn the UK, a government minister who organises government business in the House of Commons. Penny Mordaunt announced she would pull the government's amendment.³ The SNP were enraged at not being able to vote for their unamended motion. Labour's amendment passed without a vote, making it non-binding.

Hoyle now faces calls to resign. On Thursday, health minister Maria Caulfield said he had "48 hours" to save his job.

His critics argue that his action challenged the basis of British democracy. Parliament operates through strict conventions.⁴ Breaking one might not look like a great sin. But it opens the door for future trespasses.

Before becoming Speaker, Hoyle was a Labour MP. Many Labour MPs planned to vote for the SNP's motion. This would be seen as a rebellion against their party's leadership. By allowing the Labour amendment first, Hoyle saved its leader Keir Starmer from embarrassment.

The incident, others say, also cast the House of Commons in a terrible light. As SNP WestminsterAn area of London known for its government buildings and parliament. leader Stephen Flynn said: "This should have been the chance to do the right thing - instead it turned into a Westminster circus". If Parliament is not trusted, its legitimacy is at risk.

Yet some think the furore is overstated. Hoyle has said he wanted MPs to hear the "widest possible range of options".⁵ The point of Parliament is to debate. The more options considered the better the debate. Parliamentary procedure is the real villain.

It could be much ado about nothing. The SNP were angry that their motion was not passed. But one expressing a similar message did. Why does it matter what party is in the small print?

The debate reveals a self-obsessed, inward looking politics, say some. Party political intrigue trumps serious concern over the Gaza conflict. As John Crace writes in The Guardian: "If only MPs were capable of self-reflection they would be in a downward shame spiral."

Should the Speaker resign?

Yes: Rules are rules. They have to matter at all times to matter at all. Hoyle must be made an example. If he can get away with ignoring convention, why should any politician follow them at all?

No: Children are dying in Gaza. Hoyle understood that MPs should do everything they can to call for a ceasefire and halt the conflict. But the MPs' petty, internal squabbling shamed their country.

Or... British politics is notoriously forgiving: Home Secretary Suella Braverman was made to resign then got her job back within six days (she was later fired). Hoyle will bounce back.