This Lindsay Hoyle business

FishofContemplation said:
There’s a fair amount of truth in that as always when there’s a row in Parliament. But underneath it, this is still akin to a referee openly allowing a team to punch in the last-minute winner because the other team has been time wasting. Not his place to do. Ultimately, you need the referee to apply the rules or the system breaks down.

In the trivial world of football, and so much more in the more serious world of Constitutional politics. Treating the rules as optional leads at best to anarchy. I do think this one does, or should, transcend the partisan stuff a little. Even the speaker himself appeared to concede last night it was a catastrophic error of judgement.
Click to expand...
Not sure this is true. The speaker broke convention and he did it for the right reasons.

The SNP and Tories were playing party politics whilst people die. SNP were trying ot create a wedge between them and labour for the upcoming GE and the tories just wanted to cause havoc in the Labour benches. Shame on them both.
 
Ex Footy Legs said:
No. The Tories and the snp games we’re scuppered and they then threw their toys out of the pram with their big pretence
Click to expand...

Laughing said:
Not sure this is true. The speaker broke convention and he did it for the right reasons.

The SNP and Tories were playing party politics whilst people die. SNP were trying ot create a wedge between them and labour for the upcoming GE and the tories just wanted to cause havoc in the Labour benches. Shame on them both.
Click to expand...

The bit that's being missed here is that the SNP get 3 days per year to drive the agenda in Parliament and Labour get 17.

The protocol is that other opposition parties don't scupper these days.

What the SNP did was give a narrow focus on the Gaza issue which forced Labour to either back the ceasefire or not back the ceasefire.

By allowing the Labour amendment the Speaker went against the protocol which is meant to protect the minor opposition parties.

Labour were the baddies yesterday. And they got exactly what they wanted. Which for people like me doesn't bid well for the future.
 
Scrote said:
The bit that's being missed here is that the SNP get 3 days per year to drive the agenda in Parliament and Labour get 17.

The protocol is that other opposition parties don't scupper these days.

What the SNP did was give a narrow focus on the Gaza issue which forced Labour to either back the ceasefire or not back the ceasefire.

By allowing the Labour amendment the Speaker went against the protocol which is meant to protect the minor opposition parties.

Labour were the baddies yesterday. And they got exactly what they wanted. Which for people like me doesn't bid well for the future.
Click to expand...
Bit if tunnel vision there Scrote. The amendment from labour was quite small and had the SNP actually wanted to work cross party as flynn suggested in PMQ's he could have worked with Labour on the issue, but choose not to. The SNP were trying to place a wedge for the GE. It really is that simple.

The underlying issue has been lost in members of parliament throwing a strop when peoiple are dying.
 
It was point scoring and posturing in the extreme.

Its completely F***ing pointless waste of time debating anything to do with the middle east situation in a UK parliament. Hamas and Netanyahu couldn't give two hoots what a bunch foreign MPs think.


The row is quite well summed up by:

Was SNP motion designed to put Labour in tough spot?​

881f9514-a88e-4013-8af2-ec8b5cdb8340.jpg

Harry Farley
Political correspondent
The SNP deny they were playing party politics with such a sensitive issue like yesterday's ceasefire vote. When I spoke to Stephen Flynn, the SNP’s Westminster leader, last night he said they had written the motion to be as simple as possible and had long called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.
But Labour sources describe the SNP motion as “one-sided”. These sources point to the fact it did not condemn Hamas, did not recognise the need for Hamas to stop the violence as well as Israel and it included reference to the “collective punishment” of Palestinian people.
That is why Labour argued MPs needed a chance to vote for their motion, which called for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” but did not make reference to “collective punishment”. It also condemned Hamas, saying “Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence”.
If Labour’s amendment had not been selected, like it was, MPs would have just had a choice between the SNPs call for an “immediate ceasefire” and the government’s language of a “humanitarian pause” - but not yet a ceasefire.
Given that choice, many Labour MPs would've been tempted to rebel against their own party and back the SNP.
{inferred point as the SNP motion didn't condemn Hamas - scores of Labour MPs voting for something seen as pro hamas anti Israel might have refuelled the Labour anti-semite debate, which is why Starmer was keen to get the Labour wording voted, which condemned violence on both sides.}
That is why some Conservative and SNP MPs are accusing the Speaker of allowing Labour to avoid a rebellion.

In addition re opposition day motions:

Its quite rare opposite parties introduce a motion, only 20 days a year, and most of the time its Labour as main opposition who get to raise them, SNP get 3 per year year as next biggest oppo.
On an opposition motion, usual convention is the government can raise an amendment (or it simply goes to a vote), but its not usual for the other opposition parties to raise an amendment to an opposition motion. This is why SNP & Torys have leapt on Lindsay Hoyle for political capital against Labour.
 
Scrote said:
The bit that's being missed here is that the SNP get 3 days per year to drive the agenda in Parliament and Labour get 17.

The protocol is that other opposition parties don't scupper these days.

What the SNP did was give a narrow focus on the Gaza issue which forced Labour to either back the ceasefire or not back the ceasefire.

By allowing the Labour amendment the Speaker went against the protocol which is meant to protect the minor opposition parties.

Labour were the baddies yesterday. And they got exactly what they wanted. Which for people like me doesn't bid well for the future.
Click to expand...

The SNP used their day to drive a wedge in the Labour party for their own political reasons, which the Tories gleefully jumped in on.

They could have worked across the house with the wording, which they have previously indicated they would do, but didn't.

It's backfired on them and the Tories, they then publicly threw their toys out the pram. The realities of Gaza were very distant at that point.
 
SuperStu said:
Esenpeé invited her sisters Layla and Torie, their mam Lindsay, and all their mates down the Westminny for a big night out and a back tattoo reveal. They're all sh*tfaced. Layla and Torie have said they both want to make announcements too. Their mams taken charge and said Layla may go first. Laylas only gone and revealed a back tattoo.

Esenpeés ran in the toilets crying cause it was meant to be her big night and Torie stood at the bar fuming for a while fuming saying it goes against the girlcode of the Westminny - which is rubbish since she phoned in a fake bomb threat 3 christmasses ago and the police came and emptied the place.

Then one of their mates overheard Layla whispering that she made her mam pick her to go first by threatening to send her to a care home. Now its all gone a bit eastenders and Esenpeé and Torie are stood shouting you aint my mavvaaa! The funny thing is all their back tattoos are transfers anyway... 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
You're now obliged to do commentary like this for the May local elections
 
Laughing said:
Not sure this is true. The speaker broke convention and he did it for the right reasons.

The SNP and Tories were playing party politics whilst people die. SNP were trying ot create a wedge between them and labour for the upcoming GE and the tories just wanted to cause havoc in the Labour benches. Shame on them both.
Click to expand...

Laughing I don't think you can say all this and then accuse others of tunnel vision.

Did it for the right reasons? That might turn out to be true but I don't think you can just completely discount the Nicholas Watt tweet yesterday. If the speakers been influenced to protect his own job, rather than with MPs safety in mind, then that is simply not for the right reasons.

Similarly I don't think you can say the SNP and tories were playing party politics without acknowledging that Labour of course were also.
 
Penny Mordaunt just now in the Commons: “The British people cannot abide bullies and cheats”.

The British people: "Correct. So what time's the General Election?"
 
SuperStu said:
Laughing I don't think you can say all this and then accuse others of tunnel vision.

Did it for the right reasons? That might turn out to be true but I don't think you can just completely discount the Nicholas Watt tweet yesterday. If the speakers been influenced to protect his own job, rather than with MPs safety in mind, then that is simply not for the right reasons.

Similarly I don't think you can say the SNP and tories were playing party politics without acknowledging that Labour of course were also.
Click to expand...
I can take the speaker at his word, which would seem reasonable. I can discount the Watt tweet because the speaker himself explained his reasoning. That is first hand the watt tweet was, at best second hand and possibly not even that.

How were labour playing party politics? They wanted a very small amendment to the SNP wording for the ceasefire to be lasting and observed by both sides. The SNP leader in westminster said in PMQ's he wanted the house to speak as one on this issue but was unprepaired to meet with either Labour or the tories. He didn't want a single voice, he wanted a wedge issue with Labour because they are going to take seats of the SNP at the next election.

So, my tunnel vision. I take a first hand account from the speaker himself, rather than a second or third hand quote. I take the SNP at their word and actions. This isn't tunnel vision, its the SNP and Tories playing a game whilst people die.
 
Laughing said:
I can take the speaker at his word, which would seem reasonable. I can discount the Watt tweet because the speaker himself explained his reasoning. That is first hand the watt tweet was, at best second hand and possibly not even that.

How were labour playing party politics? They wanted a very small amendment to the SNP wording for the ceasefire to be lasting and observed by both sides. The SNP leader in westminster said in PMQ's he wanted the house to speak as one on this issue but was unprepaired to meet with either Labour or the tories. He didn't want a single voice, he wanted a wedge issue with Labour because they are going to take seats of the SNP at the next election.

So, my tunnel vision. I take a first hand account from the speaker himself, rather than a second or third hand quote. I take the SNP at their word and actions. This isn't tunnel vision, its the SNP and Tories playing a game whilst people die.
Click to expand...

Agree with your thinking @Laughing. Seems reasonable.
 
MolteniArcore said:
Agree with your thinking @Laughing. Seems reasonable.
Click to expand...
I could have gone further Molteni, but it would spark an argument on here. The SNP had a line in their motion. "collective punishment". This is a legal term that says Israel have breached article 33. A court, the ICJ, have to make this determination, not the SNP. Laws are for the judiciary to decide not MP's.

I would suggest that the SNP put that in specifically so Starmer would want it removed, him being a lawyer and all. Once Labour wanted an amendment to the motion, the tories jumped on board, because if they table an amendment, the speaker "usually" allows the government of the day to have their amedment heard. It was easy for the SNP to see this happening. It was see that Starmer would not want his party voting for a motion that tried to supercede international law. Some of the party wouldn't understand the nuance and would have broken ranks to support the SNP's unamended motion. It would make a mockery of our parliament.

In all of this neither the SNP nor the Tories were thinking about the killing in Gaza, but about their political careers.

The reason I didn't go all this was is because, as members of the public we can all see that Israel is dishing out collective punishment, but our parliament cannot say that without an international backlash.

Starmer again, the only adult in the room.
 
Laughing said:
How were labour playing party politics? They wanted a very small amendment to the SNP wording for the ceasefire to be lasting and observed by both sides.
Click to expand...

In this very thread BBGs pointed out this isn't the only wording changed. See post #20.

They've removed the "collective punishment" from the motion. There's also other changes - the Labour amendment calls for an immediate ceasefire and says "Israel can't be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence". Put these two things together and it is a meaningful difference.

You're literally ignoring/denying anything you don't want to be true. How is it not tunnel vision?
 
Thanks t4tomo for bothering to explain exactly what happened without resorting to childish banter.

I suppose the result of all this is that Speaker Lindsay Hoyle, who is fair and competent in doing the job (unlike the Clown he replaced) will now risk losing his job in a vote of “no confidence “. A shame.
 
Laughing said:
I could have gone further Molteni, but it would spark an argument on here. The SNP had a line in their motion. "collective punishment". This is a legal term that says Israel have breached article 33. A court, the ICJ, have to make this determination, not the SNP. Laws are for the judiciary to decide not MP's.

I would suggest that the SNP put that in specifically so Starmer would want it removed, him being a lawyer and all. Once Labour wanted an amendment to the motion, the tories jumped on board, because if they table an amendment, the speaker "usually" allows the government of the day to have their amedment heard. It was easy for the SNP to see this happening. It was see that Starmer would not want his party voting for a motion that tried to supercede international law. Some of the party wouldn't understand the nuance and would have broken ranks to support the SNP's unamended motion. It would make a mockery of our parliament.

In all of this neither the SNP nor the Tories were thinking about the killing in Gaza, but about their political careers.

The reason I didn't go all this was is because, as members of the public we can all see that Israel is dishing out collective punishment, but our parliament cannot say that without an international backlash.

Starmer again, the only adult in the room.
Click to expand...

Again, I agree, and that was my interpretation of it too. The SNP knew what they were doing, as did the Tories. All very cynical when what they were debating and voting on was so serious.

Possibly one of the worst ‘playing politics’ episodes I have seen of late.

Flynn doesn’t seem like a very nice chap.
 
SuperStu said:
In this very thread BBGs pointed out this isn't the only wording changed. See post #20.

They've removed the "collective punishment" from the motion. There's also other changes - the Labour amendment calls for an immediate ceasefire and says "Israel can't be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence". Put these two things together and it is a meaningful difference.

You're literally ignoring/denying anything you don't want to be true. How is it not tunnel vision?
Click to expand...
What a giggle. Lets look at all the amendments. They wanted Israel to abide by ICJ rulings. The SNP did not have that in their motion. So the SNP didn't want Israel to abide by internation court rulings? Do we all agree with that? I certainly don't.

I have explained why collective punishment HAD to be removed and why it was in there in the first place.

Let's consider for a moment what would have happened last night had the tories not tabled their own amendment. Well exactly what ended up happening. But without all the fuss and unedifying politics that pushed Gazza and the deaths their off the front page.

Now let's consider why the SNP are angry. Well, they tabled a motion, it was carried unanimously by the house and the SNP got what they wanted, with some amendments, amendments that should have been in the motion and would have been had flynn did what he said he was going to do. So why are they angry?

Because they didn't get to create a wedge issue within labour, an party that are set to take quite a few seats of them at the next election.

Sorry Stu, but this is obvious and anyone who doesn't see this either doesn't understand politics and how international and domestic law plays into that or they just hate the labour party.
 
Laughing said:
Sorry Stu, but this is obvious and anyone who doesn't see this either doesn't understand politics and how international and domestic law plays into that or they just hate the labour party.
Click to expand...

Laughing you're at a point now where you're saying any view other than yours is automatically incorrect, either because they're ignorant or malicious. You can't accuse others of tunnel vision.

Heres a couple of questions - can you imagine anyone wanting the wording around collective punishment included on the motion for any reason other than to upset Starmer? Of course you can, you've said as much yourself.

Laughing said:
as members of the public we can all see that Israel is dishing out collective punishment, but our parliament cannot say that without an international backlash.
Click to expand...

Not everyones raison detre is going to be keeping Israel happy and avoiding any diplomatic backlash.

Can you imagine any reason other than avoiding a diplomatic backlash, that Starmer and co might not want the wording? Of course you can, you've seen the posts on this board setting out Starmers financial backers.

To completely dismiss these things is what I'm saying is tunnel vision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top