Lindsay Hoyle must resign
Occasionally, I take students on visits to parliaments. The Senedd (Welsh parliament) is wonderful, yet the history of the UK Houses of Parliament is unsurpassable. During a 2019 visit – on the day of the formation of Change UK, a major act of parliamentary courage – our guide explained the role of the Speaker. Vividly, I remember the tale of Speaker Lenthall. In 1642, just before the civil war between Crown and Parliament, King Charles I entered Parliament to arrest five Commons members for treason. Lenthall resisted Charles,
‘May it please Your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak in this place, but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here, and I humbly beg Your Majesty's pardon that I cannot give any other answer than this to what Your Majesty is pleased to demand of me.’
This week, I have thought of Lenthall’s words. During a debate on the Gaza conflict, the current Speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, changed the order of a motion to provide Labour MPs with the chance to vote on their party position, rather than those of the Conservative Party and Scottish National Party (SNP). For esoteric reasons which are explained here, this contravened precedent. Crucially, Hoyle acknowledged that this was motivated by threats to Labour MPs,
‘I don’t ever want to go through the situation of picking up a phone to find that a friend, of whatever side, has been murdered by terrorists. I also don’t want another attack on this house… If my mistake is looking after Members, I am guilty.’
Understandably, some defend Hoyle; the desire to protect colleagues is scarcely an ignominious motive. Yet reflecting on it, Hoyle’s act is deeply corrosive to liberal democracy. For the first time in living memory, a senior parliamentarian has acknowledged that threats change the functioning of British democracy. The adage that one cannot negotiate with terrorists may be old, yet is perennial. Once parliamentarians acknowledge that threats pay off, they encourage the enemies of liberal democracy; hearing Hoyle’s concession, dangerous people will have rubbed their hands.
Admittedly, this is easy for me to say; I do not live under the shadow of threats to my family and me. Dangers to MPs are undoubtedly grave. Since 2016, two have been murdered and many more have endured serious threats.
Whilst authorities must meet these threats with zero tolerance, this does not justify caving to them. Long before social media, being an MP was a dangerous occupation. As the writer Samuel Rubinstein observes, there are multiple examples of MPs doing their job in more perilous conditions; 94 SPD deputies voted against Hitler’s Enabling Act. In the 1980s, IRA terrorists posed a grave threat to MPs.
The ability to carry out basic democratic functions is the sine qua non of the parliamentarian. Members have long known about dangers. Just as one cannot be a soldier without braving the battlefield, one cannot be an MP without being committed to articulating one’s position, whatever the risk. The public may not face these threats, yet have the right to insist that MPs perform their duties. Otherwise, our democracy will corrode.
I have sympathy for Hoyle. From what I have seen, he is an honourable man and desires to protect colleagues. Nonetheless, senior office must have high standards and, in explicitly acknowledging that he changed the order of a motion in response to threats, Hoyle has undermined the office of Lenthall.
Lindsay Hoyle must resign.
If you enjoyed reading this, do think about subscribing! Subscription is free – all it means is that you’ll receive a weekly email. But every new subscriber makes me very happy 😊 😊 😊
Technically yes although there is a precedent of sorts when Speaker Bercow bent the rules to read the word 'another' as allowing him to call unlimited amendments, despite that not being the normal reading of the SO.
I think the issue is making it public. If he had called the Whips in the day before and told them to not play silly buggers because this is serious, he would have had the moral high ground. Instead he's attempted to justify his decision post hoc which looks shifty and tbh he doesn't have the skills to do.
I don't have strong views on whether he stays or goes. But I'm very surprised no Tory on a semi-marginal is on maneuvers to avoid a challenge at the Election
I think this is a bit harsh, but I agree that mistakes were made. However, the mistakes were not procedural but were political (unusual for a former Whip to be so flat-footed...)
It was obvious from a long way out that the SNP were trying to 'trap' Labour (mainly because they told everyone that that's what they were doing). What was needed - and what seemed to be lacking - was the Speaker anticipating the problems. Could he, for instance, have leaked a comment to the effect of "this is all very serious .... heightened emotions ... no time for cheap politics ... consider whether rules relevant in cases like this" and, crucially, signposted to the usual channels that he would do this, whether they liked it or not?
By seemingly not anticipating he boxed himself in by giving the impression he was doing Labour a favour. As I say, it was poor politics (not helped by his general inability to convey complex information in public).