This Lindsay Hoyle business

This episode is now stuttering to a halt for the very reasons described above. We will never what is said in the Speaker’s room. MP’s and leaders will make enquiries, no doubt, of the clerks in his office all the time on procedures, they know more about it than the speaker.
Anyway it’s time for Angie Rayner’s supposed new gaff…and her house😉
 
MolteniArcore said:
Or in other words:

‘Despite the evidence I will continue to believe, as usual, that Starmer is the epitome of all evil and it is my opinion that again it is all his and Labour’s fault!!’

:ROFLMAO:;)
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone has posted any direct evidence on this thread, so we are all relying on circumstantial evidence. I am running with the story which in my opinion, requires the fewest leaps to fit the circumstances. Unless there is some kind of enquiry we may never know the truth.
 
1finny said:
Agree to a lot of that but I have this from Sky News which was highlighted on R4 as the key point

'Then came a curve ball from the Tory Leader of the House, Penny Mordaunt, who decided to pull the government's amendment from the floor.

She announced her party would "play no further part" in proceedings in protest at the actions of Sir Lindsay - something she claimed "undermined the confidence" of MPs in the House's procedures'
Click to expand...
Yes. She pulled it because the Labour MPs would have voted for the Labour amendment. It made no sense having a Tory amendment with similar changes. Hence why the convention is only for the government to table amendments on Opposition Days. I fully accept they were all "playing politics" but then almost everything that happens in parliament can be labelled thusly.

At the end of the day, Labour broke the conventions. I'm not going to support that because I wouldn't support it if the Tories were doing it e.g. prorogation under Johnson.

LessoftheLip said:
I think what is forgotten in all of this is how duplicitous the SNP is. It originally planned to use the opposition day debate to call on Labour and the Conservatives to commit to the £28 billion-a-year public investment programme. Just another attempt to embarrass Labour.
Click to expand...
WeeGord said:
They're saintly don't you know, there's no way they'd indulge in party politics. It's only Labour and that second coming of the Anti-Christ Keir Starmer who would do that.
Click to expand...
MolteniArcore said:
Or in other words:

‘Despite the evidence I will continue to believe, as usual, that Starmer is the epitome of all evil and it is my opinion that again it is all his and Labour’s fault!!’

:ROFLMAO:;)
Click to expand...

The SNP can do whatever they want with their alloted time. They are not obliged to support the Labour party or do anything to promote the Labour party.

The Labour party were only going to be embarrassed because they hadn't done anything since November to address the issue of allowing their own MPs to vote for any form of ceasefire.

If you're equally happy with e.g. the Tories circumventing long-held conventions for party-political purposes then we're never going to agree. If you're not than you're a massive hypocrite. Labour stooped low when the whole point of the Labour party, in my opinion, is to maintain the high-ground and argue it's case to persuade rather than undermine voters and the electoral process.

It WAS Labour's fault. Whether Hoyle broke convention off his own bat or was pressured is a minor side-show. Labour tabled an amendment when they weren't supposed to. Labour actively did that. There's no reading of the situation where Labour were not the guilty party.
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
I don't think anyone has posted any direct evidence on this thread, so we are all relying on circumstantial evidence. I am running with the story which in my opinion, requires the fewest leaps to fit the circumstances. Unless there is some kind of enquiry we may never know the truth.
Click to expand...

Isn’t a statement from the Speaker and one from Starmer sufficient?
 
Scrote said:
It WAS Labour's fault. Whether Hoyle broke convention off his own bat or was pressured is a minor side-show. Labour tabled an amendment when they weren't supposed to. Labour actively did that. There's no reading of the situation where Labour were not the guilty party.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that is rubbish! They can table what they want and Hoyle can accept it for reject it. Amendments are tabled all the time and rejected - is that their fault too?

The Speaker can do what he wants. He broke convention, that’s on him. So one vote for Hoyle. The Tories pulled their amendment as they didn’t have the numbers. Hilarity ensued. That’s a vote for them. Labour tabled an amendment - they are obviously to blame :ROFLMAO:
 
It's so strange when posters who have previously publicised that they have me on ignore labelling me a troll then directly quote me.

Only in criticism of the Labour Party though. Never the Boro or music or beer or just life in general 🤔
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
A statement from two of the accused? No. Especially as one of them has given at least two different explanations.
Click to expand...

Hoyle is accused of what? Being bullied into accepting the amendment? That makes him the victim surely? And if the victim surely we should believe them? We do in other bullying cases. Or is this a case of victim blame?
 
MolteniArcore said:
Hoyle is accused of what? Being bullied into accepting the amendment? That makes him the victim surely? And if the victim surely we should believe them? We do in other bullying cases. Or is this a case of victim blame?
Click to expand...
Hoyle claims he wasn't pressured into making his disastrous decision. If he is telling the truth then he did it off his own back and is therefore culpable.
 
MolteniArcore said:
Sorry, but that is rubbish! They can table what they want and Hoyle can accept it for reject it. Amendments are tabled all the time and rejected - is that their fault too?

The Speaker can do what he wants. He broke convention, that’s on him. So one vote for Hoyle. The Tories pulled their amendment as they didn’t have the numbers. Hilarity ensued. That’s a vote for them. Labour tabled an amendment - they are obviously to blame :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
I fully agree. Labour can do what they want and I'll judge them for it in the same way as I'd judge the Tories for doing the same thing. Unfavourably.

The Tories pulled their amendment because it wasn't going to differ from the Labour amendment enough for them not to be accused of "playing politics" if they didn't vote for the Labour amendment. Half of the fuss would have been avioded if Hoyle had put the Tory amendment first, but he chose to go with the Labour amendment that should never have been tabled.

As I've said, if you were congratualting the Tories for all of their recent duplicity up to and including prorogation of parliament, then fair enough. If not then why, other than tribalism, is it okay when Labour do it?

Are you happy that this will become the norm with the Tories blaming Labour for opening the floodgates?
 
A slight aside to this debate, since it is about the general rather than the specific, is that it once again shows the huge potential power of the speaker under our constitution, just as some of the machinations of Brexit did.

One or two have drawn comparisons with Johnson’s prorogation, which was also against convention. But the big difference there is that he was ultimately brought back into line by the Supreme Court. The court has no jurisdiction over actions of the speaker. That’s a fundamental of our constitution. I think it’s worth debating whether it should be.

There’s no doubt that if you wanted to move from an elected position to dictatorship, for example in the way certain parties might have done in the 1930s, you would be better off doing it by securing control of the speakership, and thus being beyond the jurisdiction of the courts. I don’t actually think that terribly many British politicians, even the ones I don’t like, are that way inclined. I’m not even that convinced someone like Trump is, although in his case that’s probably because he can’t be arsed. But I do think it’s time that we had proper enforceable rules in relation to our constitution. It’s an accident waiting to happen.
 
Scrote said:
Yes. She pulled it because the Labour MPs would have voted for the Labour amendment. It made no sense having a Tory amendment with similar changes. Hence why the convention is only for the government to table amendments on Opposition Days. I fully accept they were all "playing politics" but then almost everything that happens in parliament can be labelled thusly.
Click to expand...

She pulled it because enough Tories were going to vote for Labours amendment to pass it. They tabled their own to block the SNP's motion.

ODM's are generally ignored by the Tories since May's minority government and after Rashford's school meals intervention, most go through on the nod. Given the sensitivity of this motion, they proposed and would have voted for their own amendment while rejoicing in Labour MP's voting for the SNP motion against the whip, causing chaos.

The SNP knew this too. Their wording made sure the Tories wouldn't vote for it.

Also, the Tories amendment was in no way similar to the Labour amendment. Theirs says a ceasefire should only happen if Hamas has completely relinquished control of Gaza and handed back all Israeli hostages, AND if a credible process has begun leading towards a two-state solution.

That's a very different meaning, with a stipulation that's never going to happen.
 
Scrote said:
As I've said, if you were congratualting the Tories for all of their recent duplicity up to and including prorogation of parliament, then fair enough. If not then why, other than tribalism, is it okay when Labour do it?

Are you happy that this will become the norm with the Tories blaming Labour for opening the floodgates?
Click to expand...

Tabling an amendment, as other MP’s do day in day out every day in Parliament is nothing like what the Tories got up to.
 
Chris_Boro said:
She pulled it because enough Tories were going to vote for Labours amendment to pass it. They tabled their own to block the SNP's motion.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The government are supposed to table an amendment to block an opposition day motion. It's part of the game in Westminster.

Labour broke with convention and the whole system collapsed for the day. Being happy about that because your tribe won is the bit that perplexes me.

MolteniArcore said:
Tabling an amendment, as other MP’s do day in day out every day in Parliament is nothing like what the Tories got up to.
Click to expand...
You know this was different.
Plaid Cymru now joining in with calls or the Speaker to resign.
Not a great look.
 
MolteniArcore said:
Hoyle is accused of what? Being bullied into accepting the amendment? That makes him the victim surely? And if the victim surely we should believe them? We do in other bullying cases. Or is this a case of victim blame?
Click to expand...

This has already been explained multiple times. If Hoyles making decisions based on his own career plans then no, he's not a victim.

I will say if there really was 6 clerks in the meeting with Starmer, and they're all saying Hoyles job wasn't threatened then fair enough!

The inconsistencies in this story do seem odd to me. Why was Hoyle bullsh*tting about a wide debate if the real reason was MP safety? Why didn't he or Starmer mention the 6 clerks in the first place? Why did Hoyle apologise for breaking convention if it was for MPs safety? It does seem like something dodgy has probably gone on behind the scenes. Does anyone really doubt that Starmer can phrase a threat without it being explicit? Enough to give himself wriggle room later?

I'll also say, as I've said earlier on this thread or the other last week, I've no issue with conventions being broke for valid reasons and I do think the MPs safety issue is genuinely felt by MPs. We've had two MPs killed in 10 years, terror events aimed at the leader of the opposition, British soldiers filming themselves using the Labour leaders image for target practice. It's shameful. BUT all of the above violent episodes are associated with far right politics. So a load of parliamentary rhetoric about the danger of environmental and pro-Palestine protestors will probably make the situation even more dangerous by further radicalising the far right.

Proroguing parliament to dodge any debate of the governments actions wasnt a valid reason, and Hoyle feathering his own nest wouldn't be.

For those of you frustrated with me/others for not just taking Starmer's word for it - this is the problem with how he's conducted his leadership. He has lied about policies - and his supporters have celebrated that. He used his first party conference to make the party's leadership rules less democratic. Quite frankly he has little to no credit in the bank as far as expecting people to take him at his word on anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top