This Lindsay Hoyle business

[Alan_Breck]

It's a storm in a teacup, and this whole sorry "ceasefire voting" business has been blown out of proportion. The UK parliament has zero effect, whetever the outcome of last night's vote, on Netanyahu and the Israel/Palastine situation. Only the US will be listened to by Israel, and the US will not jeopardise the value of the Jewish vote and influence.

#UTB

 

[SuperStu]

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.

It's a legally binding motion of the British parliament.

Laughing I don't know if I'm misunderstanding what you've been getting at in this thread but I think you're wrong about these parts. It sounds like maybe there's some confusion between motions and bills. Motions reflect the will of parliament, and opposition day motions in particular are actually not legally binding.

If the SNPs motion had been voted on and even if it had passed it wouldn't have then gone on to the House of Lords for instance, and it wouldn't have out any obligation on the ICJ to come to a particular ruling in their court case.

 

[Duffman]

SNP used their right to lay down an opposition motion. Tories sought a government amendment . Labour also sought an amendment. Once the speaker ruled the Labour amendment could be tabled, Mourdeant - the Tory leader of the house announced the government would not be taking part in the Labour amendment. Mourdaunt did this fully understanding that would result in the original SNP motion being subject to the Labour amendment. Why did Mourdant do this? Simply because she knew some Tories would vote with the Labour amendment therefore embarrassing the Tory government. Fully understand why the SNP are furious their motion was killed but look at Mourdaunt and the Tories not Labour or the Speaker

 

[Duffman]

Kier Starmer coming across as a right
C U Next Tuesday

Or a sharp bright leader

 

[Scrote]

It's amazing how the people who thought Boris Johnson should be sent to the tower for proroguing parliament are more than happy for their man to break the rules to suit his party.

Labour have had plenty of opportunites to nip anything the SNP could have thrown at them in the bud. The fact it took a very shady piece of work to cover that up doesn't look good for the party that's not supposed to be corrupt.

I'm starting to worry about how far along the nodding-dogs will allow themselves to be taken.

 

[Alzi]

Lib Dems (the only party with a Palestinian MP) asked SNP to remove the “collective punishment” line so that parties could all try and present as a united front with the ceasefire message. SNP refused.

Says it all really. Flynn’s behaviour last night was also a disgrace. Can’t wait for Labour to decimate them and their Tory chums at the GE.

 

[Scrote]

Lib Dems (the only party with a Palestinian MP) asked SNP to remove the “collective punishment” line so that parties could all try and present as a united front with the ceasefire message. SNP refused.

Says it all really. Flynn’s behaviour last night was also a disgrace. Can’t wait for Labour to decimate them and their Tory chums at the GE.

Again with the selective facts though. The SNP leader has close family in Gaza. I'm pretty sure he'd have had some influence on his party's stance.

I'd also question the fact that the Liberals have a Palestinian MP. The last time I looked Palestine wasn't a recognised member of the Commonwealth so presumably they're actually a British national (I'm guessing you mean Layla Moran?).

 

[Laughing]

Laughing I don't know if I'm misunderstanding what you've been getting at in this thread but I think you're wrong about these parts. It sounds like maybe there's some confusion between motions and bills. Motions reflect the will of parliament, and opposition day motions in particular are actually not legally binding.

If the SNPs motion had been voted on and even if it had passed it wouldn't have then gone on to the House of Lords for instance, and it wouldn't have out any obligation on the ICJ to come to a particular ruling in their court case.

They are binding to parliament Stu. It would be the british parliament declaring that Israel are engaging in collective punishment. They, legally shouldn't do it. I don't doubt starmer is aware of this, as should the rest of parliament.

It doesn't move into law, you are corrective, but it does become the legally binding decision of parliament. The motion was for debate the unanimous carry of the motion moved it into a decision of parliament.

 

[Laughing]

It's amazing how the people who thought Boris Johnson should be sent to the tower for proroguing parliament are more than happy for their man to break the rules to suit his party.

Labour have had plenty of opportunites to nip anything the SNP could have thrown at them in the bud. The fact it took a very shady piece of work to cover that up doesn't look good for the party that's not supposed to be corrupt.

I'm starting to worry about how far along the nodding-dogs will allow themselves to be taken.

What did Labour do that was shady? Propose an amendment to the SNP motion? Why is that shady.

I have already explained why labour tabled the amendment.

It was only after Labour tabled their amendment that the tories tabled theirs, hoping to snooker starmer. It failed.

So I ask again, what did Labour do that was shady?

 

[Laughing]

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.

As I said, it wasn't unprecedented, in fact it was mentioned in parliament that the tories did exactly the same thing when Blair was PM. It was mentioned without correction.

 

[Laughing]

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.

According to Watt? Not according to both Hoyle and Starmer whose accounts are both first hand, Watt's account is at best second hand and has no named sources.

Make of that what you will.

 

[Laughing]

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.

It wasn't watered down at all. It was in-line with international law, it did not put oness on one side or another for the ceasefire but demanded that both sides obey the ceasefire and it included the clause that Israel would have to abide by any ICJ rulings.

Take of your starmer hate glasses and debate honestly using the facts, not your interpretation of the facts.

 

[SuperStu]

According to Watt? Not according to both Hoyle and Starmer whose accounts are both first hand, Watt's account is at best second hand and has no named sources.

Make of that what you will.

This is ridiculous Laughing. He's a journalist of course he hasn't named his sources, who would expect him to?

Tell us specifically what you mean. Are you suggesting Watt made the contents of his tweet up? Or that multiple "senior labour figures" have lied to him? Why would they do that?

There is a very obvious motivation why Starmer wouldn't want to admit to blackmail and bullying, and Hoyle wouldn't want to admit to partiality. To entirely dismiss the allegation on their word and nothing else is motivated reasoning. They must be telling the truth cause you want them to be telling the truth.

 

[Ex Footy Legs]

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.

I like Flynn in PMQs but no more

Vvanker of the highest order. No an ounce of integrity in any way shape or form

 

[BoroMart]

It's amazing how the people who thought Boris Johnson should be sent to the tower for proroguing parliament are more than happy for their man to break the rules to suit his party.

Labour have had plenty of opportunites to nip anything the SNP could have thrown at them in the bud. The fact it took a very shady piece of work to cover that up doesn't look good for the party that's not supposed to be corrupt.

I'm starting to worry about how far along the nodding-dogs will allow themselves to be taken.

He didn’t actually break rules, he broke convention that’s not the same thing. It isn’t a written rule

 

[HolgateCorner]

This is ridiculous Laughing. He's a journalist of course he hasn't named his sources, who would expect him to?

Tell us specifically what you mean. Are you suggesting Watt made the contents of his tweet up? Or that multiple "senior labour figures" have lied to him? Why would they do that?

There is a very obvious motivation why Starmer wouldn't want to admit to blackmail and bullying, and Hoyle wouldn't want to admit to partiality. To entirely dismiss the allegation on their word and nothing else is motivated reasoning. They must be telling the truth cause you want them to be telling the truth.

‘Senior Labour figures’ could be anti Starmer MPs or even former Labour MP’s who for some reason don’t like Starmer, that sort of thing happens within a party as broad as Labour and any journalist will want to spark controversy to get some readership.

Not saying he is lying but he is quoting sources who may, shall we say, have an agenda…

Desperate that this almost ridiculous debate about Hoyle’s actions (whether right or wrong) have been used today by politicians at every level of society to overshadow the carnage and destruction on the Gaza Strip.

I was listening to the 5 live phone in this morning with all sorts of political cranks calling in and talking about HoC reform, sacking Hoyle, disillusionment with all politicians, Labour skullduggery, weak opposition parties, etc but very few mentioned the mass murder going on in Palastine.

Because at the end of the day they were more interested in the political battle than the people suffering in the war.

 

[Ziggy]

Faux high drama and low farce..on Newsnight Geoffrey Cox rolls out his ‘Widow Twankey’ in support of the Speaker, in the house The Bearer of the Spear, Morduant tries to stitch up Labour with some hardly believable hysterical over acting.
Someone remind what the debate was actually about again. Before they all got caught up in the thing they really love talking about….themselves.

 

[SuperStu]

‘Senior Labour figures’ could be anti Starmer MPs or even former Labour MP’s

I don't think so HC. Are you implying Corbyn with former Labour MPs? I really don't think anyone would describe him as a senior Labour figure. And lets be honest he didn't have a clue what conversations were going on behind closed doors when he was leading the party, why would he now?

If you're wanting to suggest the sources have mislead Watt, I'd think the more likely answer would be someone in the shadow cabinet with leadership ambitions.

 

[Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret]

I think the important thing that everyone needs to remember is who gives a ****.

 

[Scrote]

What did Labour do that was shady? Propose an amendment to the SNP motion? Why is that shady.

I have already explained why labour tabled the amendment.

It was only after Labour tabled their amendment that the tories tabled theirs, hoping to snooker starmer. It failed.

So I ask again, what did Labour do that was shady?

Labour aren't supposed to table amendments on an SNP Opposition Day. Doing so was shady. The fact the Speaker allowed it, despite the furore it could, and then did, cause, is shadier still - the fact you believe he did it with no outside pressure makes it look even worse.

Are you also suggesting that the Tories only decided to table an amendment after Labour had tabled theirs? This is factually incorrect. Both amendments were tabled in the same session and Hoyle, against precedent, allowed the Labour amendment to be heard. The Tory amendment was just following accepted protocol.

You're obviously struggling to follow parliamentary procedure which makes me wonder if you actually understand what has happened.

The Labour leadership were worried about a repeat of the revolt in November, when their MPs voted in favour of another SNP motion on Gaza. Labour have had the best part of four months to come up with their own motion on Gaza which could have been voted on favourably by other parties. They haven't. Now they're sabotaging the SNP for political, not humanitarian, purposes.

All of the political shenanigans are wholly the responsibility of the Labour party.