This Lindsay Hoyle business

SuperStu said:
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.



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.
Click to expand...
Lets assume you are right that Flynn wanted an ileagal meaningless term in the motion to be kept. Why is he now so angry? The SNP tabled a similar motion last year and it was voted down and the SNP didn't have a collective fit, yet their motion, with amendments passes and they do have a fit. They should be delighted. A motion for a ceasefire passed, so why aren't they delighted?

Please give me another reasonable argument why they should be screaming in parliament, walking out and posturing from the benches. One that takes into account all the available evidence. Labours willingness to work with the SNP, the SNP's refusal to work with Labour and the eventually passing of the amended motion. Why they are apoplectic, they got what they wanted. Please, knock yourself out. Or could it be they didn't get what they wanted, a divided Labour party. His reaction to the removal of the term speaks volumes.

Starmer doesn't want the wording because it is not for parliament to suprcede the judiciary, either locally or internationally, as a lawyer he recognizes this.

I am not completely dismissing them, I have given, on numerous occassions, the reasoning behind both Labours position and the SNP and backed it up with evidence.

I am not saying any view other than mine is wrong. I am saying any view that doesn't consider the obvious waddle and quack is doing so to fulfill an alternative agenda, or the person making the statement doesn't understand politics.

Over and above, the SNP and the Tories are an absolute disgrace putting politics above the lives of innocent, terrified citizens. You could put the lot of em in a sack and beat them with a stick and I wouldn't care who got the worst of it.

[EDIT] removing collective punishemnt from the motion isn't about keeping Israel happy, it's about parliament fulfilling it's requirement not to supercede the judiciary. Great example of the tunnel vision I was talking about.
 
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...

I don't think it's really about that.

It was the SNP's motion, not Labour's. It was the SNP's opposition day, so not up to the SNP to work across party lines. The SNP came up with its own motion, expecting amendments to be tabled by the government, and Labour. Protocol would be to debate all three.

The speaker ignored the SNP's motion, in favour of the Labour amendment. This allowed Labour MPs to vote according to the Labour party line and not their own consciences. It saved a potentially difficult moment for Labour. Does anyone not want a ceasefire at this stage?

The SNP motion called for an immediate ceasefire and cease collective punishment of the Palestinians. The collective punishment phrase may be controversial because it could mean Israel is breaking article 33 of the 4th Geneva Convention. Does anyone think the Israeli army is not doing this?

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.
Click to expand...

Probably right about Keir Starmer and article 33 but I think we're at the stage where our MPs should be saying and doing the right thing, and that's to call for a ceasefire. So I'd say the SNP is thinking - very clearly - about a ceasefire, and Labour is trying to not offend anyone and call for a humanitarian pause unless Hamas continues hostilities and this that and the other.

So Lindsay Hoyle protected Labour from a situation where some Labour MPs would have voted for what's right and not the caveats the Labour party wanted.

That's really making a mockery of Parliament, not what the SNP did.
 
When people accuse the SNP of playing politics, what do they mean? Because if it means attempting to drive a wedge through Labour in Scotland then are they not just doing their job? As for the Speaker doing the right thing without any pressure from Labour then he has overstepped the mark in acting in a totally unprecedented manner. If the SNP put Labour in an awkward position it is up to Labour to find a way to combat it and it is not up to the speaker - the only neutral person in the House - to come to their aid whether bidden or unbidden, and for that he should go.

Starmer for his part is also playing politics. Until very recently he has shown no interest in a ceasefire - Starmer saying that Israel had the right to deny Gaza water and energy - and Labour have had ample opportunity to bring a motion but have failed. What changed his mind all of a sudden? My take is this; Labour did pressurise the Speaker to take the action that he did and now Starmer's shadow cabinet, many of whom have taken the Zionist dollar, can rest easy in the fact that they've done their sponsors bidding.
 
Soutra said:
I don't think it's really about that.

It was the SNP's motion, not Labour's. It was the SNP's opposition day, so not up to the SNP to work across party lines. The SNP came up with its own motion, expecting amendments to be tabled by the government, and Labour. Protocol would be to debate all three.

The speaker ignored the SNP's motion, in favour of the Labour amendment. This allowed Labour MPs to vote according to the Labour party line and not their own consciences. It saved a potentially difficult moment for Labour. Does anyone not want a ceasefire at this stage?

The SNP motion called for an immediate ceasefire and cease collective punishment of the Palestinians. The collective punishment phrase may be controversial because it could mean Israel is breaking article 33 of the 4th Geneva Convention. Does anyone think the Israeli army is not doing this?



Probably right about Keir Starmer and article 33 but I think we're at the stage where our MPs should be saying and doing the right thing, and that's to call for a ceasefire. So I'd say the SNP is thinking - very clearly - about a ceasefire, and Labour is trying to not offend anyone and call for a humanitarian pause unless Hamas continues hostilities and this that and the other.

So Lindsay Hoyle protected Labour from a situation where some Labour MPs would have voted for what's right and not the caveats the Labour party wanted.

That's really making a mockery of Parliament, not what the SNP did.
Click to expand...
Let me reiterate one of the points I made earlier. The snp had the phrase collective punishment in their motion for a reason.

This motion isn't a discussion on here or an argument down the pub. It's a legally binding motion of the British parliament. Having the phrase collective punishment when the icj have not ruled on this is the same as the tories safe Rwanda Bill. It seems to supercede the judiciary.

Now either that was put in knowing that a trained lawyer who excelled in his field, would object to it and whip his MPs to vote against it as is right and proper. Or the snp are dumb, unprofessional and should be no where near a sensitive international motion.

The snp made this about Labour. Had they done their job correctly we wouldn't be discussing this.

And once again the tragedy gets lost in the childish kerfuffle of entitled members of parliament who do not give a hoot about the Palestinian people.

Flynn screaming in the chamber yesterday speaks volumes about what he thinks is important.
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
When people accuse the SNP of playing politics, what do they mean? Because if it means attempting to drive a wedge through Labour in Scotland then are they not just doing their job? As for the Speaker doing the right thing without any pressure from Labour then he has overstepped the mark in acting in a totally unprecedented manner. If the SNP put Labour in an awkward position it is up to Labour to find a way to combat it and it is not up to the speaker - the only neutral person in the House - to come to their aid whether bidden or unbidden, and for that he should go.

Starmer for his part is also playing politics. Until very recently he has shown no interest in a ceasefire - Starmer saying that Israel had the right to deny Gaza water and energy - and Labour have had ample opportunity to bring a motion but have failed. What changed his mind all of a sudden? My take is this; Labour did pressurise the Speaker to take the action that he did and now Starmer's shadow cabinet, many of whom have taken the Zionist dollar, can rest easy in the fact that they've done their sponsors bidding.
Click to expand...
Of course the snp are doing their job. Given the subject matter it was reprehensible. If that's the look the snp want then job done.

Lyndsey hole's actions weren't unprecedented. It's happened at least once before when the tories raised an amendment to a lib dem motion after the then government Labour had tabled an amendment.

Your take on starmer pressurising the speaker? Really, both starmer and hoyle deny this. It may have happened and they are both lying. I haven't seen any evidence of this.
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
Starmer for his part is also playing politics. Until very recently he has shown no interest in a ceasefire - Starmer saying that Israel had the right to deny Gaza water and energy - and Labour have had ample opportunity to bring a motion but have failed.
Click to expand...
They already know all this but they pretend that they don't because it doesn't fit in with their 'Starmer can do no wrong' fantasies.
 
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...
You’d already made your mind up scrote, yesterday didn’t make one iota of difference to your vote or I suspect most peoples votes….although changing peoples voting intention was the snp plan after the disaster they’ve had for the last couple of years, they were desperate to avoid the forthcoming kicking
 
Chris_Boro said:
Something that is getting repeatedly missed.
Click to expand...

The thing that is repeatedly getting missed is that the speaker is so concerned about the safety of politicians that he feels he must ignore parliamentary convention despite being advised against it.

Speakers statement

It is shocking that MPs have to consider their own and their families safety when deciding how to vote.
 
BoroBosco said:
It is shocking that MPs have to consider their own and their families safety when deciding how to vote.
Click to expand...
And it's predominantly Labour MPs who need to take their own and their family's safety into consideration. Left wing activists whipping up a frenzy, protesting outside MP's houses, accosting them on public transport etc.
 
Laughing said:
Lyndsey hole's actions weren't unprecedented. It's happened at least once before when the tories raised an amendment to a lib dem motion after the then government Labour had tabled an amendment.
Click to expand...
Everybody else is saying that it was unprecedented including the HofC Clerk who wrote to him warning him of such.

From the Independent.

"Sir Lindsay was warned by House of Commons Clerk Tom Goldsmith about the unprecedented nature of his decision ahead of the clash with MPs, with the senior official saying he felt “compelled to point out that long-established conventions are not being followed in this case”."
The speaker himself admitted that his decision was an exception to the rules.

"Under Commons rules, when the government tables an amendment to an Opposition Day Debate, the original words of the motion will be voted upon first, and if rejected then the government’s alternative wording will be put to a vote.
The expectation therefore was that the Government amendment to the SNP motion would be selected for debate, with both being voted on [ . . . ] He acknowledged this was an exceptional move and this provoked uproar in the chamber"

Whatever else happened last night, Hoyle, who is supposed to remain neutral, moved to dig his own party out of a hole.
 
BoroBosco said:
The thing that is repeatedly getting missed is that the speaker is so concerned about the safety of politicians that he feels he must ignore parliamentary convention despite being advised against it.
Click to expand...
That's after-the-fact BS though otherwise he would have said so when he made the decision, instead of some slaver about wanting everyone's voice to be heard.
 
Laughing said:
Let me reiterate one of the points I made earlier. The snp had the phrase collective punishment in their motion for a reason.

This motion isn't a discussion on here or an argument down the pub. It's a legally binding motion of the British parliament. Having the phrase collective punishment when the icj have not ruled on this is the same as the tories safe Rwanda Bill. It seems to supercede the judiciary.

Now either that was put in knowing that a trained lawyer who excelled in his field, would object to it and whip his MPs to vote against it as is right and proper. Or the snp are dumb, unprofessional and should be no where near a sensitive international motion.

The snp made this about Labour. Had they done their job correctly we wouldn't be discussing this.

And once again the tragedy gets lost in the childish kerfuffle of entitled members of parliament who do not give a hoot about the Palestinian people.

Flynn screaming in the chamber yesterday speaks volumes about what he thinks is important.
Click to expand...

I agree about the Article 33 issue but I can't agree with the rest. The SNP is not dumb and unprofessional. It's doing its job and stating a clear unambiguous amendment to the motion. Of course Labour would be whipped to vote for their amendment. The expectation would have been that the motion and all amendments would be debated.

Lindsay Hoyle unilaterally decided to ignore the SNP motion, so the SNP couldn't debate its own motion.

How is that either proper parliamentary protocol or democracy? It's not "making it about Labour" at all.

Lindsay Hoyle justifying his action by claiming it was to protect MPs from threats to their security is just ridiculous. It's his job to be impartial and apply Parliamentary protocols. It's up to the police to protect us from security threats.
 
Last edited:
This is it.

1. Starmer is a zionist without qualification (his words). He will not willingly oppose anything that Israel does.
2. The government are pro Israel. Sunak "I hope you win".
3. The SNP have tabled two motions calling for a ceasefire. Starmer imposed a three line whip telling labour mps not to vote in favour of the first motion, but a significant number of labour mps voted in favour and some shadow cabinet ministers resigned.
4. SInce then the ICJ have decided that there is a plausible case for genocide and many more civilians in Gaza have been murdered.
5. The SNP then brought a second motion for an "immediate ceasefire" and "an end to the collective punishment of the Palestinian people". Starmer again imposed a three line whip but feared that on this occasion the labour rebellion would be too big to ignore and would cause him significant political damage.
6. So he proposed an amendment to the motion that he hoped his party would vote for, taking out any mention of collective punishment. Although it refers to an immediate ceasefire, this seems to depend on various conditions such as "the assurance that the horror of 7th October cannot happen again" and that "Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence" etc which renders the prospect of an immediate ceasefire remote. It also seeks to suggest some sort of equivalence of arms, as if these are two armies on a battlefield, rather than a murderous genocidal assault on a defenceless civilian population.
7. Parliamentary rules meant that Labour would not be allowed to table an amendment to the SNP motion.
8. According to Nick Watt of Newsnight the Labour leadership threatened Hoyle: "
"Senior Labour figures tell me he was left in no doubt that Labour would bring him down after the general election unless he called Labour’s Gaza amendment"
https://twitter.com/x/status/1760315363542122769
9. So Hoyle allowed the Labour amendment and saved Starmer's ass.
10. Labour and Hoyle deny the threats and say it was done to secure the safety of MPs.

Make of it what you will.
 
LessoftheLip said:
And it's predominantly Labour MPs who need to take their own and their family's safety into consideration. Left wing activists whipping up a frenzy, protesting outside MP's houses, accosting them on public transport etc.
Click to expand...

As usual Lessof, everything you've said there has managed to be wrong. A Conservative MP, David Amess, was killed by an Islamic extremist just two years ago. In 2016 Jo Cox was killed by a Neo Nazi white supremacist. So there's clearly danger for MPs across parliament and neither of those cases had anything to do with left wing activists. For once try and engage with reality rather than just blaming everything on socialists.
 
SuperStu said:
As usual Lessof, everything you've said there has managed to be wrong. A Conservative MP, David Amess, was killed by an Islamic extremist just two years ago. In 2016 Jo Cox was killed by a Neo Nazi white supremacist. So there's clearly danger for MPs across parliament and neither of those cases had anything to do with left wing activists. For once try and engage with reality rather than just blaming everything on socialists.
Click to expand...
I fail to see how Hoyle's actions would keep MP's safe from left wing agitators. The motion that passed (Labour) was the one most likely to rile *protesters, it being the one that watered down the proposal and omitted the collective punishment line.

*I personally think that given the number of protesters on the streets of London and other cities since October, the protests have been extremely peaceful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top