Lindsay Hoyle fights back as Sunak criticises speaker’s ‘concerning’ choice

Lindsay Hoyle has strongly defended his position as Commons speaker amidst attempts to remove him, while Rishi Sunak expressed his worries about Hoyle's decision in the Gaza debate.

Hoyle is facing intense stress as a result of 67 Conservative and SNP lawmakers endorsing a motion that demands a no-confidence vote against him.

A controversy arose on Wednesday when Hoyle altered the parliamentary process to permit a Labour amendment to be discussed about Gaza in order to protect members of parliament from danger, which detracted from the SNP's initial proposal.

On Thursday, Sunak expressed his concern that Hoyle had altered the customary procedures of parliament. Sunak claimed that this was alarming, as he believed that members of parliament should never feel threatened by individuals with extremist views.

He also mentioned that the individual who spoke apologized and is taking time to think about what occurred. This suggests that he is prepared to move forward and leave the situation behind, at least for the time being. The government sources have stated that they are not supporting calls for Hoyle to step down.

Sunak emphasized that we should not allow extremist individuals to intimidate us into modifying the way parliament functions. He stressed the significance of parliamentary debates taking place and stated that we should not concede to aggressive or intimidating behavior when some individuals attempt to suppress them. He warned that altering the functioning of parliament is a precarious path to embark on.

Towards the end of Thursday, it seemed like the push against the speaker was losing steam. Andrew Mitchell, the Foreign Office minister who spoke for the government during the Gaza discussion, said on Times Radio: "I'm not trying to get rid of him" when asked if he wanted the speaker to resign.

He further stated that the individual who spoke should take responsibility for their words, and he believes that their actions were provocative. However, the person did offer an apology for their behavior, and in his opinion, that should be the end of the matter.

Beforehand, someone who speaks for Sunak refused to say they believed in Hoyle on multiple occasions. However, the possibility of Hoyle losing his position seemed to decrease because no government officials demanded that he step down.

On Thursday, Hoyle once again expressed regret for making a "wrong decision" and explained that he had acted based on his concern for the safety of MPs. He had been informed of some truly terrifying threats against them, which were made because the Labour position had not been discussed.

The SNP put forward a proposal to discuss an immediate end to the fighting in Gaza, while Labour's idea suggested similar terms with certain prerequisites such as promoting a two-state resolution and collaborating with overseas allies. The Conservative proposition similarly called for a ceasefire but had many more requirements attached.

When Hoyle allowed the Labour amendment, it caused the government to retract their own motion about Gaza. After that, the Labour amendment was approved. Sources from the Tory party verified that this happened because they lacked the necessary votes and time to pass their own amendment in the Commons.

Hoyle suggested that the SNP could hold an urgent discussion on Gaza, but this proposal did not calm down their Westminster leader, Stephen Flynn, who stated that the speaker's stance was not feasible.

Penny Mordaunt, who is the leader of the Commons, stood up for Hoyle by saying that he is a "good person." However, the government is not actively trying to remove him from his position. Kemi Badenoch, who is the business secretary, shared a harsh statement from Geoffrey Cox, the former attorney general, on social media. Cox's comment criticized Hoyle's justification for his actions, which was deemed unacceptable.

According to Cox, the speaker's choice to disregard traditional practices can be attributed to two possible reasons. The first one being that he did it to aid his past political leader in order to escape from a difficult situation. The second theory is that he did it to safeguard specific members of the Labour party who were concerned about potential harassment if they voted against the SNP's proposal, which he thought was an erroneous move.

There are two possible explanations, both of which are not good. The first one would mean that the person in question has been misusing their position of power. The second scenario would be even worse, as it would show that the House of Commons can be easily swayed by outside pressure and is giving in to oppressive and authoritarian tendencies.

On Thursday morning, there was a heated conversation in the Commons with differing views on what should happen to Hoyle. Flynn expressed his thoughts to Hoyle, stating that they do not believe he should continue as speaker if they do not have confidence in his ability to do the job. This conversation was not entirely peaceful.

Many Members of Parliament, including those belonging to the Conservative party, expressed their support for the speaker. Sir Edward Leigh, who is a member of the Conservative party but is not a part of the government, suggested that it's time to focus on other matters and advised against initiating motions to remove the speaker from his position.

Mark Francois, a long-standing member of the Conservative party known for his more conservative views, expressed his strong support for Speaker Hoyle after the latter was under fire. Francois was deeply touched, and spoke passionately in defense of Hoyle, especially given the tragic murder of David Amess, who was a dear friend and colleague to both MPs. Francois emphasized that he would always remember the many ways the Speaker went above and beyond to assist all MPs in coping with such a heartbreaking tragedy as that of Amess' murder.

Keir Starmer stood up for his choice to persuade Hoyle into accepting the Labour amendment and turned down the notion that he had exerted any stress on him. Starmer had a meeting with Hoyle just before the vote, putting forward that the speaker should set aside the usual practice.

Last Thursday, Starmer refuted claims of intimidating the speaker during his visit in Sussex. He firmly stated to reporters, "I want to make it clear that I did not threaten the speaker in any manner. My only objective was to urge for an extensive and inclusive discussion. We need to deliberate on the essential matter of resolving the crisis in Gaza, with a diverse range of choices presented to MPs."