Lindsay Hoyle on the brink of being ousted as Tories plot to remove Speaker from chair

But Hoyle picked both the Government amendment and the Labour amendment to be debated this afternoon.

There was instant fury from both Tory and SNP MPs after the amednments were announced, with a senior Tory source suggesting Hoyle should resign.

They told GB News: "Speaker Hoyle has amended the constitution on a whim in a totally partisan way. Difficult to see how he can continue [as Speaker].”

Former SNP whip Pete Wishart dubbed the Speaker’s ruling “absolutely ridiculous”, writing on social media that Hoyle has "totally lost it and this will come back to haunt him".

He added: "He talks about precedent but this has practically never happened. He has changed Commons precedent to save Labour an embarrassing rebellion."

Meanwhile, Wragg tabled an early day motion declaring no confidence in the Speaker. Early Day Motions are submitted for debate in the House of Commons and can be used to demonstrate the level of support in parliament for an issue.

This came after it emerged that Hoyle's decision was taken against the advice of the Clerk of the House.

Writing to Hoyle, Clerk of the House Tom Goldsmith warned that “long standing conventions are not being followed in this case”.

However, he acknowledged that Hoyle's decision was "motivated by giving the House what you considered to be the widest choice of decisions on alternative propositions, on a subject of immense importance, on which people outside of the House have the strongest of views".

Starmer will breathe a sigh of relief at the decision as if the Labour amendment hadn't been selected, his MPs would have had to choose between voting for a Government amendment - which stops short of demanding a ceasefire - or rebelling to vote for the SNP motion.

The last time a vote took place on this issue, 10 members of his Shadow Cabinet were forced to quit.

The 10 Labour frontbenchers quit after they broke with the party line to vote for the SNP's amendment to the King's Speech calling for an immediate ceasefire in Israel and Gaza.

In an attempt to prevent dozens of his own MPs from rebelling to vote with the SNP on today's motion, Starmer tabled an amendment which takes a similar position.

The SNP's amendment calls for an “immediate ceasefire” and condemns the “collective punishment” of Palestinians, while Labour's amendment says Israel’s planned assault on Rafah “must not take place”.

It also demands an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” that must be observed by “all sides.”

Labour is expected to whip its MPs to abstain on the SNP motion, and vote for the Labour amendment.

The Government's amendment calls for an "immediate humanitarian pause" whilst also backing Israel's "right to self-defence".

After Hoyle announced which amendments had been selected, shouts of "moving the goalposts" and "bring back Bercow" were directed at the Speaker from the Tory benches.

Speaking ahead of the decision, a Government minister warned that this would be a “Bercow-request test” for Hoyle if he selects the Labour amendment.

But Hoyle said the precedent not to select opposition amendments is "outdated".

As Speaker, John Bercow made a number of high-profile stands against the government's use of Brexit legislation and was accused of allowing a number of unorthodox challenges by MPs.

Tory MP Sir Robert Goodwill also compared Hoyle's decision to the approach taken by Bercow, telling GB News: "It sets a new precedent and it will be interesting to see if, next time we have a Labour Opposition Day, if the SNP puts down an amendment whether they'll be suggesting that their amendment should be called as well.

"It does have echoes of the time when John Bercow was the Speaker and was sort of making it up as he goes along."

Commons Leader Penny Mordaunt has accused Sir Lindsay Hoyle of having "undermined the confidence" of the House in being able to rely on the rules to govern its debates.

Mordaunt told the Commons: "I fear that this most grave matter that we’re discussing today and this afternoon has become a political row within the Labour Party and that regrettably Mr Speaker has inserted himself into that row with today’s decision and undermined the confidence of this House in being able to rely on its long-established standing orders to govern its debates."

She added: "Long-established conventions that should not be impaired by the current view of a weak leader of the Opposition and a divided party.

"I would ask that the Speaker take the opportunity to reassure all honourable and right honourable members that their Speaker, our Speaker, will not seek to undermine those rights in order to protect the interests of particular members and that future Opposition Day debates will not be hijacked in this way.

"I say this for the benefit of all members."