Government and SNP Condemn Speaker Hoyle for Handling of Gaza Ceasefire Debate

UK House of Commons Descends into Chaos

The political atmosphere in the UK’s House of Commons turned chaotic as both the government and the Scottish National Party (SNP) criticized Speaker Lindsay Hoyle for his handling of a crucial vote concerning support for a ceasefire in Gaza.

Lawmakers from the SNP and the Conservative Party staged a walkout from the chamber on Wednesday, protesting Hoyle’s actions during the proceedings.

Hoyle’s Controversial Decision

In a significant departure from precedent, Speaker Hoyle decided to deviate from the established practice and allowed a vote that helped the opposition Labour Party avoid a potential rebellion within its own ranks over its stance on Israel’s conflict with Gaza. This decision caused an uproar in the parliament and drew jeers from some lawmakers.

The debate, originally initiated by the SNP, revolved around their proposal for an “immediate ceasefire” in Gaza. As the debate unfolded, both Labour and the Conservatives introduced amendments that outlined alternative conditions that would necessitate a pause in the fighting.

Normally, only the government’s amendment would be selected, with one opposition party being unable to modify another party’s motion. However, in an unusual move, Hoyle chose to allow a vote on both the Labour and Conservative amendments. This departure from tradition further fueled the discontent among the parliamentarians.

Dismay and Accusations of a Constitutional Crisis

The aftermath of the vote witnessed the approval of the Labour amendment without a formal vote, as no Conservative lawmakers participated. The SNP motion, which had initiated the debate, was not voted on at all, leaving both the SNP and Conservatives furious.

One parliament member accused Speaker Hoyle, a former Labour representative, of triggering a “constitutional crisis” due to his handling of the vote.

The Leader of the House of Commons, Penny Mordaunt, from the government, expressed disappointment, stating that Hoyle had “hijacked” the debate and undermined the House’s confidence. Consequently, the government decided to withdraw from the proceedings.

Labour’s Way Out and Escalating Pressure on Party Leader

Hoyle’s decision to allow the vote on both amendments ultimately aided the Labour Party in avoiding a potential split caused by the SNP motion. Previous similar motions had already led to a significant revolt against Labour leader Keir Starmer.

Labour’s position on the conflict started with complete support for Israel but has now come under mounting pressure from its own lawmakers and party members to back an immediate ceasefire.

Chaos Overshadows Crucial Debate on Gaza

Al Jazeera’s reporter, Harry Fawcett, based in London, described the vote on Wednesday as a “farce” with the Labour amendment passing due to the absence of Conservative participation. The failure to vote on the SNP motion generated frustration among both the SNP and Conservatives, overshadowing the significance of the debate concerning civilian life in Gaza.

This is an absolute disgrace. Labour and the government have managed to turn what should have been a solemn vote on ending the killing in Gaza into a spectacle. They should be completely ashamed.

— Rohan Talbot (@rohantalbot) February 21, 2024

Ian Blackford, an SNP MP, expressed his disappointment regarding the day’s events in parliament, believing that they diverted attention away from the situation in Gaza. These events ultimately compromised the impact of the eventual vote.

Mr. Blackford contended that the Labour Party’s proposition, allowing them to proceed with a vote when the government party did not participate, negated the significance of the SNP’s intended meaningful vote. He expressed regret that the focus had shifted from the critical need to protect civilians in Gaza towards the discussion of parliamentary events.

Expressing their dissatisfaction, some Conservative MPs have tabled a no-confidence motion against Speaker Hoyle, perceiving his actions as a deviation from the traditionally neutral role of the speaker.

Later in the evening, Speaker Hoyle returned to the House of Commons to apologize for the outcome of the vote, acknowledging that his desired outcome was not achieved.