This Lindsay Hoyle business

MolteniArcore said:
That’s because you think that Hoyle’s reasons were to protect Labour. That is presumptuous when Hoyle himself, on the record, stated it was to:
Click to expand...
His post wasn't clear to me because when he said "I think Hoyle did the right thing, the SNP know Labour will soundly defeat them in the GE so are trying to cause issues politically" it could be interpreted as Hoyle did the right thing because it prevented this, so I merely asked for clarification from him. If that's not what he meant then fine, I'm sure he will tell me.

As for Hoyles statement, I find that raises more questions.

1. If he wanted everybody to be able to express their views, how was this helped by his unusual action of accepting an opposition amendment which the Clerk of the House advised against and which resulted in the SNP motion being dropped?

2. How does his action address the safety of the Members and their families?
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
I don't fully understand this statement. Are you saying that Hoyle did the right thing in protecting Labour from a SNP attempt to win votes at the next GE by introducing their motion, or have I misunderstood?
Click to expand...
All political skulduggery, the SNP didnt want to discuss the motion after the Labour amendments. They knew to begin with that some Labour MP`s would vote along with theirs and they knew what the outcome would be. The same with the Tories and their MP`s. why they bailed out of it.

The Israelis wont have ceasefire until they have their hostages back or their bloodlust is satisfied. That place will never find peace imho, there's to much hatred for those two religion's from all around rest of the worlds people.

Hoyle was just either thinking of the Israelis friends etc or perhaps he really thought it may have been the best option to give everyone their attachment to the SNP motion or got way confused I guess.

We will either have to believe he has honest intentions or you don't. have to and think he`s a liar.

And for the record I voted for Corbyn on each occasion , and I`ll vote for Starmer, because I want to see a Labour Govt back in power.
 
Last edited:
"2. How does his action address the safety of the Members and their families?"
Everybody in the country now demands recognition, fair treatment and civil rights
The Muslim-Asian communities.
The Black Community.
The LGBTQ +.
The White Community.
The Far Right White Community.
The Far Left Community.
etc
etc

And we have the last throws of the White English people, upset that their culture is evaporating, you can see this on You Tube- Talk TV, GB News, Times Radio, BBC Politics.
In the papers to many to mention.
LBC Fatty gammon slowest Ferrari

Crying about woke ffs.

People pulling their hair out that d*ck Emery, Benny Hill, Love They Neighbour Jim Davidson etc. have been deemed un-pc.

The MPs have a tough job(never thought Id say that) to do, to placate all the different demands from all the factions of society now, and when they don't listen nor care, people get very angry. I heard this morning on Fatty Ferrari spot that they can no longer tolerate the Palestinian marches, and want them subdued, cancelled, or stopped altogether because the Police and the MP`s are fed up with it and fear they may be killed.

They wont walk in public now for fear someone will put one on them.

Added extra bonus rant
Also for the record, I think its my generation , those that were brought up by conscripted war heroes and political & union heroes and those that opposed the looney right and left ,that wanted to live in a fairer, happier and more product society. My generation are the most racist bigoted nasty self centre divisive generation there has ever been.
 
Last edited:
MolteniArcore said:
I don’t think it would have been appropriate at the start of the debate to start explaining that safety was the reason for the changes in procedure
Click to expand...
Why not, if that was the actual reason. How would it have made the situation any worse?

MolteniArcore said:
I know you hate Starmer and Labour but it is a stretch for anyone to say this is Labour’s fault.
Click to expand...
Where have I ever said I hate either Starmer or Labour?

I hate where Labour have gone but that's entirely different.

I think Starmer is unsuitable to be the Labour leader as he doesn't appear to have any left-wing principles. I also think he actively lied to the membership to secure said leadership.

I would have voted Labour to get the Tories out if they'd stood a reasonable local candidate (Redcar). I won't vote for Anna Turley because I don't trust her politically.

This situation was Labour's fault because without Labour tabling their amendment the SNP motion would have been voted on and the story would have moved on - at worst Labour would have looked bad for a day or so, but only because they've chosen not to address the issue at hand previously.

MolteniArcore said:
This is what the Speaker said:

“This is a highly sensitive subject, on which feelings are running high, in the House, in the nation and throughout the world. I think it is important on this occasion that the House is able to consider the widest possible range of options. I have therefore decided to select the amendments both in the name of the Prime Minister and in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.”

He then explains how everyone would get a vote under Standing Order 31. He also explains there is precedent for this. Unfortunately it all ended in chaos when the Government withdrew their participation (having participated all day).

He provided further clarity in his statement after the vote:

“Today’s debate was exceptional in the intensity with which all parties wished to secure a vote on their own proposition. It took decisions that were intended to allow the House the widest range of propositions on which to express a view. I wanted to do the best, and it was my wish to do the best, by every Member of this House. I take very seriously—[Interruption.] No, the danger—that is why I wanted everybody to be able to express their views. I am very, very concerned about the security of all Members. [Interruption.] I was very concerned, I am still concerned, and that is why the meetings I have had today were about the security of Members, their families and the people involved.”

Doesn’t sound like a committee response to me. It sounds like someone who was concerned about the safety of members.
Click to expand...
This misrepresents the timeline of events and all the back and forth over the few hours the news was developing.

Hoyle's actions favoured Labour, whether deliberately or not. That looks far worse than a few MPs defying the whip would have. Especially when that outcome was expected.

If MPs safety couldn't be assured by allowing a vote on the issue then why are Labour claiming to have won the vote with their nodded-through amendment?
 
mercury_redstone7 said:
All political skulduggery, the SNP didnt want to discuss the motion after the Labour amendments. They knew to begin with that some Labour MP`s would vote along with theirs and they knew what the outcome would be. The same with the Tories and their MP`s. why they bailed out of it.

The Israelis wont have ceasefire until they have their hostages back or their bloodlust is satisfied. That place will never find peace imho, there's to much hatred for those two religion's from all around rest of the worlds people.

Hoyle was just either thinking of the Israelis friends etc or perhaps he really thought it may have been the best option to give everyone their attachment to the SNP motion or got way confused I guess.

We will either have to believe he has honest intentions or you don't. have to and think he`s a liar.

And for the record I voted for Corbyn on each occasion , and I`ll vote for Starmer, because I want to see a Labour Govt back in power.
Click to expand...

That's still not clear. Were you saying that Hoyle acted to protect Labour?

Also, how does his decision to select both the Government's amendment and controversially the Labour one, address the safety of the Members and their families? I really don't understand this part of his explanaton.
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
That's still not clear. Were you saying that Hoyle acted to protect Labour?

Also, how does his decision to select both the Government's amendment and controversially the Labour one, address the safety of the Members and their families? I really don't understand this part of his explanaton.
Click to expand...
I'm probably saying we will never know, he may of, but he has denied it, do you trust him or do you think he's a bad egg?
As for the members and their families, its seems they are all getting threatened by different factions of the Palestinian cause not just some odd cranks.
Its like all movements some are normal decent people, others are very dangerous and must have been threatening the politicians of all parties.
I listened to LBC and they had the Met representative on saying just as much.
Others were saying its getting well overblown and it will stay peaceful.
At a guess its sounding like the establishment think our politicians and politics is being intimidated and so they have asked for protection.
What's going around is they think that the movement is becoming like the nutso Trump voters. I think they are concerned that some of the crazy sections start taking things to far like the London bombings and the Lee Rigby murder.

I do think it will be a regular occurrence with different people kicking off now and again.
 
mercury_redstone7 said:
I'm probably saying we will never know, he may of, but he has denied it, do you trust him or do you think he's a bad egg?
As for the members and their families, its seems they are all getting threatened by different factions of the Palestinian cause not just some odd cranks.
Its like all movements some are normal decent people, others are very dangerous and must have been threatening the politicians of all parties.
I listened to LBC and they had the Met representative on saying just as much.
Others were saying its getting well overblown and it will stay peaceful.
At a guess its sounding like the establishment think our politicians and politics is being intimidated and so they have asked for protection.
What's going around is they think that the movement is becoming like the nutso Trump voters. I think they are concerned that some of the crazy sections start taking things to far like the London bombings and the Lee Rigby murder.

I do think it will be a regular occurrence with different people kicking off now and again.
Click to expand...
Then the Speaker's decision didn't protect anyone?
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
Then the Speaker's decision didn't protect anyone?
Click to expand...
Perhaps the Speaker had listened to MP`s who have a substantial Muslim community in their constituency, informing him of the hostility they are facing(which is understandable), maybe he has known there has been dangerous threats for a while and they didnt have the nerve to tell the public they were scared to vote or not vote in this case.
Did the speaker think there was a way out for all, if this was the case was he wrong?
Or should our MP`s run the gauntlet as its part of the job?

Those Tories and SNP members who don't who haven't a big angry contingent in their constituency probably have been the $hit stirrers. Did the leader of the SNP or Scots Labour have anything to say ?
 
mercury_redstone7 said:
Perhaps the Speaker had listened to MP`s who have a substantial Muslim community in their constituency, informing him of the hostility they are facing(which is understandable), maybe he has known there has been dangerous threats for a while and they didnt have the nerve to tell the public they were scared to vote or not vote in this case.
Did the speaker think there was a way out for all, if this was the case was he wrong?
Or should our MP`s run the gauntlet as its part of the job?

Those Tories and SNP members who don't who haven't a big angry contingent in their constituency probably have been the $hit stirrers. Did the leader of the SNP or Scots Labour have anything to say ?
Click to expand...
But how did the Speaker's action make it safer for them?
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
But how did the Speaker's action make it safer for them?
Click to expand...
I know you were a boiler maker but dear me.

If they all vote on each of their own party amendment stuck on the SNP`s motion, they are then giving each party MP`s a chance to say they did vote on a ceasefire, all be it some with the parties stipulated line drawn. (for reasons of bigotry and hatred being levelled at one particular party before)
Perhaps the MP`s came up with that way and it was the Speaker who fashioned it.
Can you explain why the MP`s are now asking for protection?
Baring in mind both Labour and Conservative have had MP`s murdered ... but they never asked then. What's changed?
 
mercury_redstone7 said:
Perhaps the Speaker had listened to MP`s who have a substantial Muslim community in their constituency, informing him of the hostility they are facing(which is understandable), maybe he has known there has been dangerous threats for a while and they didnt have the nerve to tell the public they were scared to vote or not vote in this case.
Did the speaker think there was a way out for all, if this was the case was he wrong?
Or should our MP`s run the gauntlet as its part of the job?

Those Tories and SNP members who don't who haven't a big angry contingent in their constituency probably have been the $hit stirrers. Did the leader of the SNP or Scots Labour have anything to say ?
Click to expand...
Did that "hostility" extend to those Muslim and Black MPs who have faced death threats and abuse from the Zionist and Labour right? The “dangerous threats” are those who support the ceasefire in Palestine, who are demanding their MP's account for their actions. It's a deliberate distraction for those who support Israeli murder of innocent Palestinians, whilst stealing their land and imprisoning them by their thousands in the West Bank. It's another attack on those who care about 30,000 dead Palestinians, including 17,000 children and 70,000 seriously injured, plus those still under the rubble and missing. ​
 
I think that goes with the territory it happened to the last leader of the Labour Party and the one before him and on and on. Its nothing new.
That's why the SNP did it, it had been going on for over a month, all the votes in the world wont stop it until the Yanks say that's enough.

Its something we got involved in before and look were that landed them all.

electronicintifada.net

When Britain turned Palestine into a "second Ireland"

Revered military commander Bernard Montgomery was not bothered about attacks on civilians.
electronicintifada.net electronicintifada.net
 
mercury_redstone7 said:
I know you were a boiler maker but dear me.

If they all vote on each of their own party amendment stuck on the SNP`s motion, they are then giving each party MP`s a chance to say they did vote on a ceasefire, all be it some with the parties stipulated line drawn. (for reasons of bigotry and hatred being levelled at one particular party before)
Perhaps the MP`s came up with that way and it was the Speaker who fashioned it.
Can you explain why the MP`s are now asking for protection?
Baring in mind both Labour and Conservative have had MP`s murdered ... but they never asked then. What's changed?
Click to expand...
They could have debated the SNP motion and the Government amendment and all voted on the winner. So how did the Speaker's decision make MP's safer. Were Labour concerned about their Members safety when they whipped them to abstain last time round? That would have upset the protesters.
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
They could have debated the SNP motion and the Government amendment and all voted on the winner. So how did the Speaker's decision make MP's safer. Were Labour concerned about their Members safety when they whipped them to abstain last time round? That would have upset the protesters.
Click to expand...

They also could have voted for all 3 and none of this ridiculous argument would have happened.
 
r00fie1 said:
Did that "hostility" extend to those Muslim and Black MPs who have faced death threats and abuse from the Zionist and Labour right? The “dangerous threats” are those who support the ceasefire in Palestine, who are demanding their MP's account for their actions. It's a deliberate distraction for those who support Israeli murder of innocent Palestinians, whilst stealing their land and imprisoning them by their thousands in the West Bank. It's another attack on those who care about 30,000 dead Palestinians, including 17,000 children and 70,000 seriously injured, plus those still under the rubble and missing. ​
Click to expand...
It is a genocide no two ways about it, and the Israelis should be held accountable. Locally the Muslim communities seeing fellow Muslims being slaughtered are demanding their MP`s stand up and be counted, we did enough to the people in Palestine India Iraq Syria Afghanistan .
All factions of people in our country are now demanding what they want, they pay their taxes and want to be recognised and want action too. I can see all those towns becoming independent MP`s
 
Last edited:
Chris_Boro said:
Ultimately it didn't, because the Tories pulled their amendment late on and caused the arguments and division Hoyle sought to avoid.

MP's have explained in the house how they've been threatened previously over debates on Gaza.

All for political posturing.
Click to expand...
I think you're spot on particularly about political posturing.

All of the 3 protagonists seemed to be guilty of it, to some degree or another, even though all 3 denied it.

Perhaps John Crace in the Guardian summed it up best, when he said "All 3 parties wanted a ceasefire, but it had to be their ceasefire".

Maybe it's time for a ceasefire on this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top