Arguments in the Commons are meant to help MPs reach an informed decision on a subject. However, the farcical manoeuvring over parliamentary procedure, during a debate on Wednesday night over how to end a deadly war in Gaza that has claimed thousands of innocent lives, did little to enlighten anybody inside or outside the chamber. Instead, the public would have looked on at the unfolding chaos and thought: what, if anything, is the point of parliamentary debate?
Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Commons speaker, is mostly responsible for the mess. He has apologised for a bad, if well-intended, error of judgment. Sir Lindsay has sought to make amends by offering an emergency debate that would help move things forward at a time of urgent need. MPs should take up his offer and reflect on how they have got here. The Scottish National party has every right to be angry, having lost its opportunity to make the case for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Tories may be indignant that Sir Lindsay appears to be treading the same path as his controversial predecessor by breaking Commons conventions to secure votes that inadvertently favour Labour. But both parties have made their point. The Commons is often held in disrepute not because it is too theatrical but because it is bad theatre.
The speaker’s error was to allow Labour’s amendment to the SNP’s opposition day motion to be decided ahead of MPs voting on that motion and on a government amendment. This let Labour avoid a damaging split. Though Sir Lindsay pleaded ignorance in his defence, the consequences of his actions were foreseen by Tom Goldsmith, the Commons’ clerk, who warned “it is possible that the House will not be able to vote on the SNP motion”.
There is also a lesson here for Labour’s Sir Keir Starmer. He ought to rethink his strategy of adopting positions unpopular with his party’s base under the cover of big poll leads. In trying to duck an embarrassing vote, Labour increased the chances of Sir Lindsay being replaced by a speaker from the Tory benches.
Hannah White, the director of the Institute for Government, is right that this week’s “opposition day procedure” was designed for a two-party parliament and is “outdated in an era” with a substantial third party in the Commons. That logic could explain why Sir Lindsay did not want to “restrict the options that can be put” to MPs. At first glance, there may be nothing wrong in offering MPs a choice. But such a reform needed proper consideration by the house’s procedure committee. Instead, MPs were landed with a completely novel course of action at the start of a debate where emotions were running high.
Commons debate may not lead the “national conversation” as it once did. But parliament is indispensable. In it, MPs can persuade their opponents through reason – but only if debates are more clashes of opinions rather than of interests. The events of Wednesday night only emphasise how hyper-partisan politics militates against broader discussions that better reflect voting intentions. This zero-sum attitude has led to the weaponisation of voting records by all parties and contributed to a toxic political atmosphere. Sir Lindsay is right to say that MPs’ safety needs to be considered. But the protection parliamentarians deserve must come from changing the way politics is conducted, not simply altering the way parliament works.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
