I've tried to constrain it as narrowly as possible, so it really only deals with changes to the Standing Orders themselves.
I think there is a valid parallel with the protracted debate that's been going on now in a very narrow sense, a very narrow but important sense, which is this: If you want to see what in the future a debate would look like in an attempt to amend the Standing Orders that did not have all-party support, then what's going on in the House of Commons is a pretty good example of what it will look like. There would be some kind of deadlock.
The point is to not cause that deadlock to occur. Rather, since it's obvious that it would happen, it's to make the government more.... Since one assumes it would normally be the government that's proposing changes to the Standing Orders, and most often a majority government, it would make it necessary for them to make compromises. They might not get all they would want.
No change would occur because of this with regard to any debate on any subject other than the Standing Orders. Of course, what's happening in the House right now is not a debate on the Standing Orders. It's a debate on an order the Speaker made.