The vote on a motion about the Gaza conflict has upended the British Parliament. The Speaker of the House of Commons, Lindsay Hoyle, has faced sharp criticism from Conservative and Scottish National Party (SNP) MPs for bypassing normal procedure and permitting a Labour amendment to be debated alongside a call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. The move, pushed this week by SNP MPs, drew further controversy, as Hoyle is a former Labour MP who served for two decades. Nearly 60 MPs demanded his resignation on Thursday, despite apologies from Hoyle himself.
The SNP-led debate came on one of the few days when the party manages to set the parliamentary agenda, a role usually dominated by the government. Such “opposition days” allow smaller parties to table motions on issues they deem important, but the votes are not binding. The House rules allocate 17 days to the main opposition, the Labour Party, and a further three to the second opposition party, the SNP, over the parliamentary year.
Labour divides
The discussions on this issue have been tense for Labour since Israel began bombing after Hamas attacks on October 7. Labour leader Keir Starmer has avoided joining calls for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, though a significant portion of his party has expressed support. In a similar vote last November, more than 50 Labour MPs backed an SNP motion demanding an immediate ceasefire, going against party leadership. A handful of those MPs later resigned from prominent roles within the parliamentary group to show their dissent.
Starmer faced a risk this week that those divisions would be put on display again. He tried to steer the debate by tabling an amendment that would modify the SNP motion, calling for an end to collective punishment of Palestinians and insisting on an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, a halt to hostilities, and the release of hostages held by Hamas. Hoyle accepted the amendment for a vote in the Commons, a highly unusual move during days reserved for another opposition party. This provided Labour MPs with an opportunity to back an alternative position without fully aligning with or opposing the SNP motion.
Motion of censure
The tension carried over into Thursday morning, with around 60 Conservative and SNP MPs formally backing a motion of censure against Hoyle for allegedly favouring Labour. Some MPs, including SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn, accused Hoyle of bowing to pressure from Starmer and his chief of staff, Sue Gray, who reportedly met him in the late afternoon on Wednesday. “We were denied the chance to vote on an issue of grave concern that we have repeatedly tried to raise in this chamber,” Flynn lamented in the chamber. “From our side, we do not believe you can continue in your role as speaker.”
Hoyle has insisted that his aim was not to disadvantage the SNP but to ensure all parliamentary voices could be heard on a divisive matter. The issue comes amid heightened threats against MPs from all parties as elections approach. “I never want to find myself in a situation where a colleague from any party is harmed by a terrorist act. My duty is to protect MPs, and that duty led me to a decision I now regret,” Hoyle said on Thursday, visibly affected by the controversy.
Despite mounting pressure for Hoyle to step down, the chances of the censure motion succeeding remain slim. The government has stayed neutral on the matter and has instead criticized Labour for attempting to disrupt Parliament. “They have placed the Labour Party above justice, integrity, and democracy, and above the reputation and honor of a decent man who sits in this chamber,” argued Penny Mordaunt, the government’s minister for parliamentary affairs. Hoyle’s tenure, long respected across parties, will likely be decided in the days ahead.
Citation: parliamentary statements and party positions reported in mainstream outlets and official records serve as the basis for these developments. The ongoing debate highlights how the House of Commons handles dissent, leadership, and the balance between procedure and principle in a time of international crisis.