Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle has apologised to MPs after the chamber descended into chaos around a motion calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.
Wednesday was designated as an opposition day for the SNP, which chose to debate the Israel-Hamas war – and sought to persuade MPs to back its calls for an immediate halt to the fighting.
But a controversial decision from Sir Lindsay to allow a Labour amendment to be put to the House led to an uproar from Tory MPs – and eventually saw the government pledging to “play no further part” in proceedings, as well as the SNP not even getting to vote on its original proposal.
After Conservative and SNP politicians stormed out of the chamber in protest, Sir Lindsay returned to the Commons to face his critics, apologising for “how it all ended up” and saying he took “responsibility” for his actions.
But SNP leader Stephen Flynn said he would “take significant convincing” that the Speaker’s position was “not now intolerable”.
And 33 MPs from both his party and the Tories have now signed a no-confidence motion in Sir Lindsay – not enough to oust him yet, but a motion that could gain traction in the coming days.
Today’s debate was set to be the conclusion of days of drama over whether Labour would change its position on the conflict in the Middle East.
The party initially supported the government’s stance, calling for a pause in the fighting rather than a ceasefire, as it did not believe the latter would be sustainable.
Advertisement
However, after the SNP decided to force the issue to a vote in the Commons, Labour went further – putting forward an amendment calling instead for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire”, albeit still with its initial caveats that both sides would need to lay down their arms and Israeli hostages would have to be released.
Politics Hub with Sophy Ridge
Sky News Monday to Thursday at 7pm.
Watch live on Sky channel 501, Freeview 233, Virgin 602, the Sky News website and app or YouTube.
Labour sources told Sky News Sir Lindsay – who was a Labour MP before taking on the role of Speaker – had been pressured by party whips to select it, but a party spokesman denied the claim.
However, Tory MPs accused him of making an “overtly political decision” to select the amendment in order to prevent Sir Keir Starmer facing a rebellion from his backbenchers – who could have supported the SNP’s motion without a Labour option.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:53
Speaker angers SNP and tories
In a surprise move, Leader of the House Penny Mordaunt announced the government would be withdrawing its own amendment to the SNP’s motion – which reiterated the government’s existing position – saying the Conservatives would “play no further part in the decision this House takes on today’s proceedings”.
She said the decision of Sir Lindsay to select the Labour amendment had “undermined the confidence” of MPs in procedures, “raised temperatures in this House on an issue where feelings are already running high” and “put honourable and right honourable members in a more difficult position”.
But due to parliamentary rules, the decision to walk away meant Labour’s amendment passed and MPs could only vote on the altered motion – stopping the SNP’s original proposal even being voted on.
Image: Leader of the House of Commons Penny Mordaunt. Pic: PA
Instead of the aftermath being about the significance of the UK parliament officially backing an immediate ceasefire in Gaza for the first time, the focus returned to the impact of Sir Lindsay’s earlier decisions – with some Tory and SNP MPs leaving the chamber in protest.
The SNP’s Mr Flynn called for the Speaker to come to the Commons, asking deputy speaker Dame Rosie Winterton: “How do we bring him to this House now to explain to the Scottish National Party why our views and our votes in this House are irrelevant to him?”
And after some delaying tactics by MPs, the Speaker appeared to offer his apologies to MPs on all sides.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:15
Amid chaos in parliament, SNP and Conservative MPs have walked out of the chamber in protest at the Speaker’s handling of the Gaza ceasefire debate
As some MPs called out “resign”, Sir Lindsay reiterated his earlier justifications for selecting the Labour amendment, saying he had been trying to ensure all options were on the table for MPs to vote on – as well as protecting MPs’ safety.
He added: “I thought I was doing the right thing and the best thing, and I regret it, and I apologise for how it’s ended up.
“I do take responsibility for my actions.”
But while Mr Flynn accepted the intention of the apology, he said the result of the Speaker’s actions saw “an SNP opposition day turn into a Labour Party opposition day”.
“I’m afraid that is treating myself and my colleagues in the Scottish National Party with complete and utter contempt,” he said.
“I will take significant convincing that your position is not now intolerable.”
How do you oust a Speaker?
On a chaotic night, the Speaker of the House of Commons appears to be fighting for his future in the role.
Our deputy political editor Sam Coates says he probably has as little as 24 hours to save his political life.
But how would he end up leaving the role?
According to the Institute for Government, there’s no formal means of removing the House Speaker from office.
However, they can fall victim to a vote of no confidence – making it extremely difficult, and likely untenable, for them to stick around.
One famous example was during the expenses scandal in 2009, when speaker Michael Martin resigned in anticipation of losing such a vote.
There has been speculation today that the government may look to make Sir Lindsay Hoyle subject to one too.
Given his apology to MPs tonight, he clearly recognises the strength of feeling and sheer anger at his handling of the Gaza votes
Were he to resign, it would kick off a vote to select his successor.
Candidates are put forward via written nominations, and if one secures more than 50% of the vote among MPs then a motion is put to the Commons asking to confirm their appointment.
If it doesn’t pass, selection and voting starts again.
If nobody secures 50% in the first place, the candidate with the lowest vote share gets removed from the ballot and the vote is repeated until someone does hit the threshold and a winner emerges.
Speaking to Sky News after the drama had unfolded, Mr Flynn apologised to the public, saying today should have been about Palestinians in Gaza.
“But Westminster does this, doesn’t it?” he added. “It turns into a [debate] all about Westminster and what a circus this is.
“Because thanks to the actions of the Speaker of the House of Commons, the SNP has been stitched up to the point that the Labour Party were the only game in town today.”
He said there would be some “serious recriminations”, adding: “Today was about something much bigger than Westminster, and yet here we are debating Westminster is nonsense.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:01
SNP leader says Speaker’s position may be ‘intolerable’.
Labour’s shadow defence secretary, John Healey, defended Sir Lindsay, telling Sky News’s Politics Hub With Sophy Ridge: “The Speaker is there to protect the rights of all MPs and he was trying to do the right thing.
“He was trying to make sure [there was] the widest possible debate because he knows it matters in parliament, it matters in our communities and it matters beyond the shores of Britain.”
However, Mr Healey criticised other MPs, adding: “This was a chance when we could have shown the best of parliament in coming together to demand an end to the fighting in Gaza.
“But instead we’ve revealed the worst of Westminster, with this descending into a row about procedure, with a boycott from the Conservatives, a walkout from the SNP, and frankly, this does nothing to help the Palestinians and it does nothing to advance the cause of peace.”
The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sent warning letters to several exchange-traded fund (ETF) providers, halting applications for leveraged ETFs that offer more than 200% exposure to the underlying asset.
ETF issuers Direxion, ProShares, and Tidal received letters from the SEC citing legal provisions under the Investment Company Act of 1940.
The law caps exposure of investment funds at 200% of their value-at-risk, defined by a “reference portfolio” of unleveraged, underlying assets or benchmark indexes. The SEC said:
“The fund’s designated reference portfolio provides the unleveraged baseline against which to compare the fund’s leveraged portfolio for purposes of identifying the fund’s leverage risk under the rule.”
The SEC directed issuers to reduce the amount of leverage in accordance with the existing regulations before the applications would be considered, putting a damper on 3-5x crypto leveraged ETFs in the US.
SEC regulators posted the warning letters the same day they were sent to the issuer, in an “unusually speedy move” that signals officials are keen on communicating their concerns about leveraged products to the investing public, according to Bloomberg.
The crypto market took a nosedive in October after a flash crash caused $20 billion in leveraged liquidations, the most severe single-day liquidation event in crypto history, sparking discussions among analysts and investors over the dangers of leverage and its effect on the crypto market.
24-hour liquidations in the crypto derivatives market. Source: Coinglass
Liquidations in the crypto futures market during the last cycle averaged about $28 million in long positions and $15 million in shorts per day.
The current cycle is clocking about $68 million in long liquidations and $45 million in short liquidations daily, according to Glassnode.
Demand for leveraged crypto ETFs surged following the 2024 presidential election in the United States, in anticipation of a better regulatory climate for crypto in the US.
Leveraged ETFs are not subject to margin calls and automated liquidations like leveraged crypto derivatives, but can still deal a serious blow to investor capital in a bear market or even a sideways market, as losses compound more quickly than gains.
Taiwan could see its first stablecoin launched as early as the second half of 2026 as lawmakers advance new rules for digital assets, according to one of the country’s financial regulators.
According to a Focus Taiwan report on Wednesday, Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC) Chair Peng Jin-lon said that, based on the timeline for passing related legislation, a Taiwan-issued stablecoin could enter the market in the second half of 2026.
Should the Virtual Assets Service Act pass in the country’s next legislative session, and accounting for a six-month buffer period for the law to take effect, it would lay the groundwork for the launch of a Taiwanese stablecoin.
Peng said the draft legislation was derived from Europe’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) and would eventually allow non-financial institutions to issue stablecoins. Initially, however, Taiwan’s central bank and the FSC would restrict issuance to regulated entities.
Last year, Taiwan’s policymakers began enforcing Anti-Money Laundering regulations in response to alleged violations by crypto companies MaiCoin and BitoPro. As of December, however, regulated entities in the country have yet to launch a stablecoin pegged to either the US dollar or the Taiwan dollar.
In addition to the FSC’s advancement of stablecoin regulations, Taiwan’s policymakers are reportedly assessing the total amount of Bitcoin (BTC) confiscated by authorities. The move signaled that the nation could be preparing to launch its own strategic crypto stockpile.
Ju-Chun, a Taiwanese lawmaker, called on the government to add BTC to its national reserves in May as a hedge against economic uncertainty.
The country’s reserves include US Treasury bonds and gold, but no cryptocurrencies. Other countries, such as the US, have adopted policies that promote Bitcoin and crypto reserves.
Former US Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Gary Gensler renewed his warning to investors about the risks of cryptocurrencies, calling most of the market “highly speculative” in a new Bloomberg interview on Tuesday.
He carved out Bitcoin (BTC) as comparatively closer to a commodity while stressing that most tokens don’t offer “a dividend” or “usual returns.”
Gensler framed the current market backdrop as a reckoning consistent with warnings he made while in office that the global public’s fascination with cryptocurrencies doesn’t equate to fundamentals.
“All the thousands of other tokens, not the stablecoins that are backed by US dollars, but all the thousands of other tokens, you have to ask yourself, what are the fundamentals? What’s underlying it… The investing public just needs to be aware of those risks,” he said.
Gensler’s record and industry backlash
Gensler led the SEC from April 17, 2021, to Jan. 20, 2025, overseeing an aggressive enforcement agenda that included lawsuits against major crypto intermediaries and the view that many tokens are unregistered securities.
The industry winced at high‑profile actions against exchanges and staking programs, as well as the posture that most token issuers fell afoul of registration rules.
Gary Gensler labels crypto as “highly speculative.” Source: Bloomberg
Under Gensler’s tenure, Coinbase was sued by the SEC for operating as an unregistered exchange, broker and clearing agency, and for offering an unregistered staking-as-a-service program. Kraken was also forced to shut its US staking program and pay a $30 million penalty.
The politicization of crypto
Pushed on the politicization of crypto, including references to the Trump family’s crypto involvement by the Bloomberg interviewer, the former chair rejected the framing.
“No, I don’t think so,” he said, arguing it’s more about capital markets fairness and “commonsense rules of the road,” than a “Democrat versus Republican thing.”
He added: “When you buy and sell a stock or a bond, you want to get various information,” and “the same treatment as the big investors.” That’s the fairness underpinning US capital markets.
On ETFs, Gensler said finance “ever since antiquity… goes toward centralization,” so it’s unsurprising that an ecosystem born decentralized has become “more integrated and more centralized.”
He noted that investors can already express themselves in gold and silver through exchange‑traded funds, and that during his tenure, the first US Bitcoin futures ETFs were approved, tying parts of crypto’s plumbing more closely to traditional markets.
Gensler’s latest comments draw a familiar line: Bitcoin sits in a different bucket, while most other tokens remain, in his view, speculative and light on fundamentals.
Even out of office, his framing will echo through courts, compliance desks and allocation committees weighing BTC’s status against persistent regulatory caution of altcoins.