We saw it coming.

That it took six months to come to a head is actually quite surprising.

However, here we are, and battle lines are now drawn between the Government and Opposition over the issue of who sits in the chair of House Speaker.

There is wrong on both sides of this issue. First, Government Members of Parliament (MP) should have agreed among themselves to avoid exposing Mrs Juliet Holness to professional harm, as has now been done by the Opposition. It is a very tough call to make. For, as Ms Olivia Grange, the minister of gender affairs, said in her news release on Tuesday, Mrs Holness is eminently qualified to serve, and was in fact elected to the Speaker’s chair on merit — not because of her spouse, who is the prime minister.

Second, when Mrs Holness was nominated to ascend to the chair, after having served as deputy speaker without any blemish that we can remember, the Opposition should have voiced concern that her elevation had within it the possibility of a perception of conflict. The fact that the Opposition seconded her nomination last September and heartily welcomed her to the post, but is now raising unease, smacks — as Ms Grange rightly said — of hypocrisy.

We believe Opposition Leader Mark Golding could have exercised diplomacy in voicing his concern about the manner in which Mrs Holness is conducting some of the affairs of the Parliament. Statecraft, after all, is not foreign to him.

However, using the fact that she is married to the prime minister to make his point, during his budget presentation on Tuesday, was not necessary and as such opened him up to accusations of misogyny.

The reaction to Mr Golding’s comment from Government MPs, led by Prime Minister Andrew Holness, was, we believe, extreme, as walking out of the House of Representatives in the middle of attending to the country’s business is simply unacceptable.

And, let us place on the table
— for all those legislators and politicos who are now behaving as if they are paragons of virtue
— that the act of walking out of Parliament is discourteous to citizens, regardless of which side does it.

Mr Holness and the Government members would have done better to demand that Mr Golding withdraw his comment. And, had Mr Golding refused to do so, they could have sought disciplinary relief from the deputy speaker, who was in the chair at the time the comment was made on Tuesday.

Or, Mr Holness, given that he, by association, was also the target of Mr Golding’s criticism, could start formatting a response to include in his budget presentation today.

Whether he will do so is yet to be seen, and whether the Opposition will choose to boycott today’s sitting of the legislature will, we are told, be made known by early afternoon.

Childish behaviour, though, is not uncommon to legislators.

Parliamentary procedures require that the Speaker cuts all ties with his or her political party and runs the business of the Parliament in a completely non-partisan manner. It’s an ideal that presents inherent challenges and with which our local Parliament has struggled to be able to achieve in totality.

The questions, therefore, before us are: Can we really continue to pursue this impartiality? Is it notional and unworkable?