The speaker set a terrible precedent... We must answer the question of not if, but how Keir Starmer pressurised him
While all the parliamentary bluster this week has been focussed on the budget there is still other, unfinished, business to deal with. With newly returned George Galloway already threatening to weaponise the tragedy of Gaza against certain Labour MPs, including its deputy leader, we need to look again at the conduct of politics.
Once again, the issue of bullying and intimidation threatens the position of a Speaker of the House of Commons. The difference this time is that the Speaker appears to be the victim and not the perpetrator, and the issue is whether he was sufficiently robust in his response to threats from inside and outside the House of Commons and in defending the independence and conventions of Parliament in recent weeks.
The most important charge relates to Kier Starmer and the Labour Party. It was clear that Starmer had been outmanoeuvred in the Commons by the SNP in their recent supply day debate in the Commons and that the Labour leader faced a widespread rebellion by the Labour left. He urged the Speaker to give the widest possible choice of votes i.e., changing the rules of the House of Commons to suit the Labour Party. That is exactly what he got. As the Speaker said of the debate, “this is a highly sensitive subject, on which feelings are running high, in the House, in the nation and throughout the world. I think it is important on this occasion that the House is able to consider the widest possible range of options.” Had the Speaker wanted to have the “widest possible range of options”, he could also have allowed the Commons the chance to vote for the LibDem amendment. He chose not to do so, offering only the Labour amendment.
The Labour party hope that we have all forgotten about the incident and will quietly let it drop, though the climbing number of signatures on the Early Day motion about the Speaker suggests that many MPs will not do so.
The question that needs to be answered is not if but how Starmer pressurised the Speaker into setting a terrible precedent. It means that any official opposition can now hijack a minority party’s political time in the Commons. This is constitutionally important as minority parties deserve to have their voices heard, irrespective of what the larger parties think of their positions. It is not often I agree with the SNP, but they are right that their position as an independent party in the Commons has been severely damaged as has that of the LibDems, the DUP and other minority parties.
I have always found Sir Lindsay Hoyle courteous, decent and accessible, but the precedent has now been created that will leave our minority parties at a permanent disadvantage in the House of Commons to which they were elected. This needs to be addressed, but so does the issue of how the Speaker was or was not pressured into his decision as it could have a crucial impact on how our democratic parliament operates at a time when mob rule seems to be on the rise. All the facts need to be in the open. Who did the Speaker meet with and were all the rules followed equally for each party with officials in attendance to keep a record in the run up to the debate on Gaza? Again, this matters because Galloway and others will want to ensure that the greatest possible fury on the issue is generated outside.
The Speaker may or may not survive the crisis, but a much more important issue is whether a Party Leader should seek to put undue pressure on any Speaker or House official to change the rules of Parliament to their party’s advantage. The Speaker does appear more like the victim rather than the villain of this piece. We owe it to Parliament and the voters we represent to ensure the whole truth comes out.