Lindsay Hoyle is a good man and should not resign

It has been a bad week for Britain. First came the failed rocket launch. Though that was hardly a disaster, it confirmed a widespread feeling that nothing in this country appears to work, that what could go wrong will go wrong. During the war, some soldierly cynic coined an adage: “snafu”. It stands for situation normal, all fu**ed up. A lot of people think that the UK is permanently snafued. 

Then we had the Parliamentary degringolade. Not one person in 10,000 understands what actually happened and why. I doubt if one single person believes that the Commons emerged with credit. In the midst of serious events, the whole affair appeared as a childish squabble.

Not only has the Speaker been blamed, he clearly believes that he made an error of judgment and bitterly regrets doing so. But this should not lead to his resignation. Lindsay Hoyle is a good man. In the first place, he restored the dignity of the Office after two unsatisfactory Speakers. Although Michael Martin is a decent fellow, he was simply not bright enough to be Speaker. There was also the suspicion that he had not outgrown partisanship. 

As for Speaker Bercow, “unsatisfactory” is a gross understatement. His manifold failings do not include stupidity. They do include a complete lack of self-knowledge and an equally complete disrespect for the Speakership. It was as if, every time he entered the Chamber, he tried to work out a new way of demeaning it. In earlier times, there must have been Speakers who were as bad. If so, they will have passed out of the memory of men and obscurity now shelters them from ignominy. Those who observed him will remember Bercow.

From the first time that he processed into the Chamber, Speaker Hoyle brought back decency and dignity. Popular and respected, he reveres the House and is an old-fashioned Labour patriot, almost an extinct species, but not quite. (It is only unfortunate that he will not wear the wig.) Nor has there ever been a suggestion of partisanship – until now. The allegation has been made that the Speaker helped the Leader of the Opposition out of a hole.

At the risk of sounding naive, I do not believe it. Speaker Hoyle would not have acted like that and Keir Starmer would have known better than to ask him. There is another explanation. Lindsay Hoyle displayed the defects of his qualities. He was warned that Labour MPs who defied Muslim extremists might be in danger. A pacific soul, he could not bear the thought of grief-stricken widows and orphans. For what it is worth, I believe that he was wrong. We should not allow terrorist threats to amend Parliamentary procedure.

Since 1979, six MPs and one Peer have been murdered, alongside one MP’s wife. Airey Neave, Robert Bradford, Anthony Berry, Ian Gow, Jo Cox, David Amess, Lord Mountbatten, Roberta Wakeham. That is a roll of honour proclaiming part of the price of democracy. In the world we live in, they are unlikely to be the last names on the list. Although every reasonable security precaution should be taken, some risks must also be taken. Among other roles, the Palace of Westminster is part of the nation’s backbone. Its Parliamentarians should feel privileged to contribute to spinal fortitude.

Compassion moved Hoyle to make what some of us would regard as the wrong choice. That seems to be eminently forgivable. Moreover, no doubt inadvertently, he made the SNP look principled. It would be unfortunate if that were to slow their path on the route to decline yet if the Speaker were forced out, the Nats would claim the credit. That ought to be unthinkable. 

Apropos misjudgments, we come to Lee Anderson (No relation). Anderson is not a typical Tory spokesman, When he was appointed Deputy Chairman of the Party, it was made clear that he would bring a fresh tone of voice. He could never be accused of sounding like a Wykehamist scholar. He was expected – indeed encouraged – to be a bit rough and ready.

So did he go too far? I would argue that it was the Whips who went too far by suspending him. After all, he is no longer a Party spokesman. Lee Anderson may have been guilty of clumsiness, but the words do not bear out the charge of racism or Islamophobia – merely of Sadiq-Khan-ophobia, a justified response.

Senior Party spokesmen, including the PM, should have contented themselves with saying that Lee will speak for himself, but that he surely did not intend to express racist or Islamophobic sentiments. Equally, in these troubled times, it behoves us all to weigh our words carefully. If that had happened, Labour’s best efforts would not have been enough to efface the controversies of the up-coming Rochdale by-election.

So, a bad week at home, and internationally, there could be worse to come. Things are not going well either in Ukraine or in Gaza. The Israelis have done more damage to Gaza than they have to Hamas. 

From the perspective of British politics, there is a vacuum. Most voters are fed up with snafu and want leadership. They know that a lot has gone wrong and they want to know who is going to put it right. As a result, there is a great deal of volatility. I still believe that Rishi Sunak has the qualities and could be the pilot that weathered the storm. But he has to get on with it.

Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life