This Lindsay Hoyle business
- Thread starter Legz
- Start date
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
Yes, an insult, so what?
You have misrepresented my words, twisted them and used them to lie to others which I find insulting so really what did you expect?
Oh, and today at 8;47 you claimed that I was having trouble with comprehension. What's sauce for the goose . . .
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
You must hold SuperStu to much higher standards than you do LessoftheLip.
LessoftheLip
Well-known member
Well you can retract that for a kick off. I haven't engaged with you for months. Nor SuperStu, nor Scrote and nor Bumface. I haven't reacted to any of your comments whether negatively or otherwise. I post independently and despite numerous attempts to drag me into a debate I'm not biting. So do me a favour and leave me alone. And by the way, WeeGord is an absolute gentleman who sees the good in every poster by and large. That he has needed to comment on yours and SuperStu's 'posting styles' says more about you than him.
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
My comment was purely about the use of emojis.
Scrote
Well-known member
The convention that only the government table an amendment on an Opposition Day.
It might not sound like much but as with most things that go on in and around Westminster (like unnamed sources) they have very specific reasons for existing.
I have no problem with Labour doing whatever they want. I won't be voting for them at the next election and, on the current trajectory, I doubt I will be again in the near-to-mid term. However, lets not pretend that people supporting Labour doing this aren't the same people that cried foul when the Tories did similar.
As we've seen in both the UK and US, the right-wing capital class are slowly pulling at the edges of legality to see what they can get away with. Cambridge Analytica and GB News are both good UK examples. If you don't care about conventions and/or rules then fair enough. Some of us still do.
Chris_Boro
Well-known member
And they still could have, all 3 would have been voted on and the Tories could have either abstained and allowed the vote on both or voted against both and for their own.
They withdrew it because they would have been defeated by their own rebels voting for the Labour ammendment, nothing to do with convention. It was to save face.
ODM's are utterly pointless as they are not binding on the Government with the Tories changing how they are voted depending on how weak their government is. They are effectively a talking session with no meaningful outcome 99% of the time.
In all this ridiculous pantomime over convention on a pointless process has overshadowed the fact that the Speakers decision ended up with a ODM being passed on a ceasefire, even though it's just words. The only other outcome would've been an utterly meaningless Tory one.
You can b***r off with "my tribe" won. I've said from the start this is all a pointless exercise with MP's from all side playing political football for their own self interests while the people if Gaza suffer. This whole ridiculous theatre was purely about party politics, nothing more.
LessoftheLip
Well-known member
If you're seriously comparing me to SuperStu in the use of emojis I think you'll find that I trail home a very distant second. If I agree with a post I like it. If I find something humouros I'll give it a laughing emoji.
Basically same as my system. Although I do like some posts I don't necessarily agree with too - when I think they're making a point well for example.
MolteniArcore
Well-known member
Just quoted you. You wrote them. Don’t get crabby with yourself!
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
Firstly, after misrepresenting and misquoting me you forfeit the right to set the agenda so I will quote-reply you and I will try to be as clear as possible. Here goes:
I said that there was no solid evidence so we are relying on circumstantial evidence.
You said: “Isn’t a statement from the Speaker and one from Starmer sufficient?”
To which I replied that no, a statement from two of the suspects was not sufficient.
You: “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?”
Me: “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.”
(Note the word if, ‘used in conditional sentences to introduce the circumstances in which an event or situation might happen, might be happening, or might have happened.’
You: (ignoring if) So nothing to do with Starmer then.
At this point I asked you to be more clear, (show your working out)
You then reposted this: “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.’ (It’s that troublesome if word again)
So I commented that you still weren’t being clear to which you replied:
“You said it was Hoyle who was culpable. Not sure why you are struggling with this, you said it” (Insinuating that I was struggling with my own words. An insult in other words.)
Next, in a reply to Scrote you said the following: “The only difference in this case is that Hoyle, off his own back, decided to break convention to allow the Labour one. As @BlindBoyGrunt has stated, Hoyle is culpable, not Starmer.”
Which was a total misrepresentation of all I had being saying. A lie in other words.
MolteniArcore
Well-known member
Where is this written? The only place I can find where convention was broken was that of the OD motion of the SNP not being voted on first before any amendments were put.
(FYI I am not being pedantic here - I just would like to learn where this convention is stated so there is evidence of this being Labour’s fault.)
What I have found is here:
I note it says the Givernment either vote down or amend, but it does not say that other amendments cannot be made. It also states on that page that it is the Speaker who decides what motions and amendments are allowed.
Debates on opposition motions
Dates for Opposition Day debates are announced by the Leader of the House in the weekly business statement on Thursdays. The subject of the debate and text of the motion appears in the Future Business section of the Order Paper once decided by the opposition party. Often the full text of the motion is not tabled until the day before the debate which means it is not available until the date of the debate when it appears in the Order Paper.In an exception to the normal rules of debate, the main motion (the opposition motion) is debated and voted on first, rather than any amendment. This is to allow a decision on the opposition motion to be taken first, before any amendment is put.
Many opposition motions criticise Government policies and decisions and the Government often tables an amendment to remove most of the text, replacing it with text commending the Government instead. Government amendments are usually carried under majority Governments.
Unless specifically framed, motions tabled on Opposition Days are not seen as binding on the Government. See motion for a return below.
Divisions on opposition motions
The Government does not table an amendment to every motion, sometimes it simply votes against the motion. Not all motions are critical of the Government, in such cases opposition motions have been agreed without a vote. Amendments can be tabled by other opposition parties. The Speaker selects which amendment, if any, is taken.The outcome of the motion and results of any division are provided in the spreadsheet.
Source: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06315/#fullreport
MolteniArcore
Well-known member
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
Nice one (didn’t read it)
A friendly debate indeed.
MolteniArcore
Well-known member
HolgateCorner
Well-known member
My conclusion after reading this long, unwieldy and sometimes tedious thread is that Starmer did nothing wrong…
Scrote
Well-known member
It isn't. That's the whole point.
The convention is for the major opposition party to stay out of the amendment process on an Opposition Day given to one of the other, minor, opposition parties. That's it.
If you don't think that should matter then I'm not going to argue with you. You're entitled to your opinion and, in this case there isn't some absolute fact that renders one opinion invalid.
However, what I am saying is that you can't get behind this and then complain about other parties overriding conventions at any other time.
The evidence is inconclusive on that one. Regardless of whether the amendment itself was acceptable, there has been no independent proof to show that Starmer didn't bully the Speaker. All evidence points to something happening that hasn't been disclosed.
LessoftheLip
Well-known member
It would appear that the 'presumption of innocence' doesn't apply in Keir Starmer's case.
Instead we have this weird situation where he is presumed guilty until he can prove himself innocent.
Wowser.
Instead we have this weird situation where he is presumed guilty until he can prove himself innocent.
Wowser.
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
That's in a court of law and applies to people who have been charged with a criminal offence.