This Lindsay Hoyle business

[HolgateCorner]

An absolutely ludcirous suggestion! *WHY* would I have any sort of bias against you?

I made it clear that I took this, AND other posts into account when suggesting you've tunnel vision against Keir Starmer. It's very clear and obvious.

As I've already said, I think you're for some reason misreading me especially when you throw ridiculous statements around like I have some sort of bias against you yet refused to say WHY I have a suppsed bias against you. It really is ludicours, and all the crazier becuase as with SuperStu, I am largely very close to where you are politically.

‘Very close to where you are politically’?

In my opinion most posters on here are just Boro fans with a view left or right, but for some it is about long term political campaigning and we have no real idea which side of the fence they are on. Why else would they spend so much time posting against the current Labour Party?

 

[SuperStu]

I find it amazing that this 3rd hand rumour is taken over two people's first hand accounts.

I think it's your absolute desire to believe 2nd or 3rd hand info over information directly from both involved.

So last year were you both convinced there were no parties at number 10 during lockdown? Afterall Boris Johnson was saying so, and his account would be first hand?

Apologies if I've overstated it somewhere over the last few days BUT if I remember correctly I've mostly stuck to saying IF the allegations are true, or to saying that they shouldn't just be dismissed out of hand.

Laughing and Molteni are the ones with their mind made up already that Starmer says no so ipso facto it didn't happpen.

 

[WeeGord]

So last year were you both convinced there were no parties at number 10 during lockdown? Afterall Boris Johnson was saying so, and his account would be first hand?

Apologies if I've overstated it somewhere over the last few days BUT if I remember correctly I've mostly stuck to saying IF the allegations are true, or to saying that they shouldn't just be dismissed out of hand.

Laughing and Molteni are the ones with their mind made up already that Starmer says no so ipso facto it didn't happpen.

That is giving absolute equivalence between Johnson, a known and habitual liar who has been sacked for his casual relationship with the truth, and Keir Starmer who was DPP and is renowned for detail.

It's not anywhere near a fair comparison as I'm sure you know.

In fact, I dare say that even the most anti-Starmer critics would be more inclined to believe him over Johnson.

 

[SuperStu]

That is giving absolute equivalence between Johnson, a known and habitual liar who has been sacked for his casual relationship with the truth, and Keir Starmer who was DPP and is renowned for detail.

It's not anywhere near a fair comparison as I'm sure you know.

In fact, I dare say that even the most anti-Starmer critics would be more inclined to believe him over Johnson.

WG come on lets be honest here, even if you (not you specifically, you as in anyone) admire Starmer or credit him with Labours polling, he is very well known to have lied several times throughout his leadership. He's lied to the members about what policies his leadership would pursue and promote. Len McCluskey relayed a (first hand account alert) story in his autobiography of Starmer lying during the Corbyn disciplinary business. The donations that were kept quiet during the leadership election, RLBs sacking. There's been a number of times when he's either explicitly lied or acted in a dishonest way. His supporters approve of it! They consider it very clever and Prime Ministerial!

I am regularly advised on here that I should vote for him despite not liking what Starmer and his shadow cabinet say because don't worry once he's in power he'll reveal that he was lying now! Starmers as dishonest as they come.

 

[Geoff_B]

I quite like Hoyle and attended a Q&A with him a few months back (via teams) he was in the speakers office, very grand room!

But to state because the supposed perpatrator and supposed victim both said it didn’t happen as a means of evidence of truth is weak at best.

Take domestic violence how many times does a victim and perpetrator state nothing happened. Even bullying often the victim is too scared to state anything is happening.

Now I’m not saying starmer went in the speakers office and beat him up, threatened to smash his face or anything, but it’s not beyond the realms of reality thar some threat of removing support may have occurred, given it’s been reported by more than one source also.

I feel sorry for Hoyle, he does a good job, in my opinion but given the cloak and dagger world of politics I wouldn’t be taking the above as actual fact

 

[SuperStu]

For a bunch of folks who wanted a ceasefire called for, you don't seem very happy that we have that motion, now passed. You seem much more incensed with Starmer. You might forgive me for thinking the ceasefire isn't centermost in your mind.

Does seem like Hoyles tried to dig Starmer out a bit.

But I will say hopefully it will be worth it if it means there's a route now for the motion (with or without amendment) to be passed. I disagree with those earlier saying its meaningless.

Blimey. Strange afternoon in Parliament apparently.

The Labour amendment has passed. Shame they couldn't just go with the SNP text, and also a shame that it's passed via SNP walking out but I am pleased there's at least some parliamentary call for a ceasefire on record.

I also couldn't care less about Hoyle not following convention on which amendments to pick. It's in speakers powers to change it so the rest shouldn't complain when they do so. Especially with the tories record on following conventions, proroguing parliament etc.

However...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1760315363542122769

If that's true then it really ought to be investigated and Hoyle actually shouldn't continue as speaker. The whip systems minging enough. Parties shouldn't be carrying on like that with the speaker.

It should be a cause for concern for any on here looking forward to a Starmer win on the basis of that representing a step away from the corruption of the tories.

And it should also be a cause for concern for any on here looking forward to a Starmer win on the basis of that providing a more stable government. This Labour party got addicted to leaking during the years when they were all sabotaging the Corbyn leadership. As if within minutes of blackmailing the speaker some daft so and so has text Watt "lol we blackmailed him".

I know neither of them will be though. It's all good in the Starmer cult.

HALLOOOOOO IN THERE...

 

[SuperStu]

If Hoyle has changed the rules of parliament, and has made decisions in a way that is partial, on the basis of protecting his own job, he isn't simply a victim in this. That's why the allegation should be taken seriously even if Starmer and Hoyle are denying.

 

[LessoftheLip]

Convention ≠ rules.

Convention "a way in which something is usually done".

Rules "one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct or procedure".

Ergo - Neither Labour nor Starmer has broken any rules.

 

[JackG]

WG come on lets be honest here, even if you (not you specifically, you as in anyone) admire Starmer or credit him with Labours polling, he is very well known to have lied several times throughout his leadership. He's lied to the members about what policies his leadership would pursue and promote. Len McCluskey relayed a (first hand account alert) story in his autobiography of Starmer lying during the Corbyn disciplinary business. The donations that were kept quiet during the leadership election, RLBs sacking. There's been a number of times when he's either explicitly lied or acted in a dishonest way. His supporters approve of it! They consider it very clever and Prime Ministerial!

I am regularly advised on here that I should vote for him despite not liking what Starmer and his shadow cabinet say because don't worry once he's in power he'll reveal that he was lying now! Starmers as dishonest as they come.

That is giving absolute equivalence between Johnson, a known and habitual liar who has been sacked for his casual relationship with the truth, and Keir Starmer who was DPP and is renowned for detail.

It's not anywhere near a fair comparison as I'm sure you know.

In fact, I dare say that even the most anti-Starmer critics would be more inclined to believe him over Johnson.

Starmer is also a known and habitual liar. He is less polished than Johnson when lying and carries it off with little aplomb, but he is not remotely trustworthy.

 

[WeeGord]

WG come on lets be honest here, even if you (not you specifically, you as in anyone) admire Starmer or credit him with Labours polling, he is very well known to have lied several times throughout his leadership. He's lied to the members about what policies his leadership would pursue and promote. Len McCluskey relayed a (first hand account alert) story in his autobiography of Starmer lying during the Corbyn disciplinary business. The donations that were kept quiet during the leadership election, RLBs sacking. There's been a number of times when he's either explicitly lied or acted in a dishonest way. His supporters approve of it! They consider it very clever and Prime Ministerial!

I am regularly advised on here that I should vote for him despite not liking what Starmer and his shadow cabinet say because don't worry once he's in power he'll reveal that he was lying now! Starmers as dishonest as they come.

I agree, and I'm not here to paint Starmer as whiter than white - he's a politician, a very successful one at that and that doesn't happen to people who don't know how to bob and weave and play the game a little. That said, I personally think that largely where Starmer has gone back on his word or things have changed, they've been for situations changing in a wider context.

I don't for one moment think he's the type to threaten anyone and if anything, in some respects I think he's not dirty enough especially when it comes to playing the Tories at their own game.

Lindsey Hoyle appeared to be very upset when it was suggested he'd been threatened and I would take the word of Starmer and Hoyle above 2nd or 3rd person Chinese whispers.

If Starmer is as dishonest as they come, then you'll no doubt believe things won't be any different under him and Labour than they are under the Tories. Feel free to crack on with your anti Starmer agenda but he brings one thing to the table that nobody else has and that's the ability to get the Tories out of power.

I'm no Starmer apologist and I'm more than aware of his shortcomings but things will get better under him and Labour than they are currently under the Tories.

Finally, let's not forget for one moment here that I am a socialist, I believe in and want a socialist agenda for the governnance of this country and I have spent many years calling for and trying to push for one. And as I've documented before on here, it is the socialist wing of the local Labour party that were responsible for Blyth Valley turning Tory, and I've been called all sorts of vile stuff on social media because I'm a pragmatist and would rather have a more centrist Labour party in power than a socialist Labour party in perpetual opposition.

If that means I have to accept Starmer, warts and all, to achieve that then so be it.

 

[BoroBosco]

Feel free to crack on with your anti Starmer agenda but he brings one thing to the table that nobody else has and that's the ability to get the Tories out of power.

I think the way the Tories are performing even Screaming Lord Sutch & his pals could get them out.

 

[Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret]

Picture someone dying on the street and people standing over them, arguing about who should call 999.

 

[Ziggy]

After the Labour amendment was allowed the Tories became in an instant bitter and twisted along the Scot Nats. Both thought they had taken advantage of the split in Labour. Like others have said is what the whole thing was about anyway. So totally frustrated Hoyle became the target.
There was precedence for Hoyle’s decision, in fact on two previous occasions apparently.
The Labour Party parliamentary management team are currently running rings around their opposite numbers, where everything they touch turns to s**t.

 

[LessoftheLip]

Well well.

New reports suggest Hoyle WAS lent on... by the Tories

Simon Hart, the chief whip, warned Hoyle that his actions would "unleash hell" during a meeting, it has been revealed.

www.thelondoneconomic.com

 

[SuperStu]

Apparently its been reported to the privileges committee now.

 

[Millbrook]

Does anyone have any detail about what Hoyle was alluding to when he spoke about protecting members of the house.

Searched the net and can't find further explanation.

 

[SuperStu]

Does anyone have any detail about what Hoyle was alluding to when he spoke about protecting members of the house.

Searched the net and can't find further explanation.

In the context of other stuff this week, I think its from pro-Palestine and/or just stop oil protestors. JSO have taken to protesting outside MPs offices and homes. There's pro-Palestine demos outside parliament. The MPs are worried that it'll boil over into another violent episode at some point.

I pointed it out earlier in this thread, or maybe on one of the other threads this week, but I do think its an unfair worry. The two MPs killed in recent years, Amess and Cox were killed by an Islamic extremist and a neo nazi. To conflate those murders with what have been very peaceful demonstrations seems a bit out of order to me. But I do get that crowds can be frightening so I'm not saying MPs are lying necessarily.

 

[Scrote]

Well that depends if you think the wording of the snp statement was political shenanigans aimed at pressuring Labour to vote against it for political gain rather than because of wanting a ceasefire

Why do the SNP have to worry about what Labour think before proposing a motion for their own Opposition Day?

The SNP worded their motion based on their belief that it reflected the views of the majority of their constituents, in Scotland. I'd argue that it probably represents the views of a reasonable majority of English voters too.

Since November and the last SNP vote on Gaza, Labour have done nothing to allow their MPs a vote on any form of ceasefire. Blaming the SNP for making Labour look bad is childish. It serves no purpose other than to muddy the already murky waters and make the pretence that Labour's actions were somehow noble.

You are right convention says Labour shouldn't take amendments. However it has been done previously, by the tories.

If you're having to turn to a Tory example as a means to justify Labour's actions is it any wonder people like myself have become so disillusioned? It isn't the win you seem to think it is.

However, as I have said on numerous occasions and you haven't addressed, Labour could not vote for the snp's motion as it stood and to be frank neither should the snp nor the tories. The fact that they were speaks volumes.

What do you mean "could not vote"? The reason Labour scuppered the debate was because they knew their MPs were going to vote in favour. If they weren't going to vote for it and the Tories weren't going to vote for it what was the point of the amendment?

Labour tabled their amendment before the tories that is a statement of fact. That they were both done in the same session it's neither here nor there. There is a timeline in a single season of parliament.

In a temporal sense, yes, the Labour amendment came first. Your original post implied that the Tory amendment was a reaction to the Labour amendment. If that's not what you meant then I guess we agree. Labour went against protocol to scupper the debate and ensure there was no meaningful vote on a Gaza ceasefire. They then blamed everyone else. Duplicitous to the core.

 

[Laughing]

Why do the SNP have to worry about what Labour think before proposing a motion for their own Opposition Day?

The SNP worded their motion based on their belief that it reflected the views of the majority of their constituents, in Scotland. I'd argue that it probably represents the views of a reasonable majority of English voters too.

Since November and the last SNP vote on Gaza, Labour have done nothing to allow their MPs a vote on any form of ceasefire. Blaming the SNP for making Labour look bad is childish. It serves no purpose other than to muddy the already murky waters and make the pretence that Labour's actions were somehow noble.


If you're having to turn to a Tory example as a means to justify Labour's actions is it any wonder people like myself have become so disillusioned? It isn't the win you seem to think it is.


What do you mean "could not vote"? The reason Labour scuppered the debate was because they knew their MPs were going to vote in favour. If they weren't going to vote for it and the Tories weren't going to vote for it what was the point of the amendment?


In a temporal sense, yes, the Labour amendment came first. Your original post implied that the Tory amendment was a reaction to the Labour amendment. If that's not what you meant then I guess we agree. Labour went against protocol to scupper the debate and ensure there was no meaningful vote on a Gaza ceasefire. They then blamed everyone else. Duplicitous to the core.

I have already said I will no longer take part in this debate Scrote. I don't like the way it is heading and how it ignores the reality of the situation in Gazza.

 

[HolgateCorner]

Why do the SNP have to worry about what Labour think before proposing a motion for their own Opposition Day?

The SNP worded their motion based on their belief that it reflected the views of the majority of their constituents, in Scotland. I'd argue that it probably represents the views of a reasonable majority of English voters too.

Since November and the last SNP vote on Gaza, Labour have done nothing to allow their MPs a vote on any form of ceasefire. Blaming the SNP for making Labour look bad is childish. It serves no purpose other than to muddy the already murky waters and make the pretence that Labour's actions were somehow noble.


If you're having to turn to a Tory example as a means to justify Labour's actions is it any wonder people like myself have become so disillusioned? It isn't the win you seem to think it is.


What do you mean "could not vote"? The reason Labour scuppered the debate was because they knew their MPs were going to vote in favour. If they weren't going to vote for it and the Tories weren't going to vote for it what was the point of the amendment?


In a temporal sense, yes, the Labour amendment came first. Your original post implied that the Tory amendment was a reaction to the Labour amendment. If that's not what you meant then I guess we agree. Labour went against protocol to scupper the debate and ensure there was no meaningful vote on a Gaza ceasefire. They then blamed everyone else. Duplicitous to the core.

Politicians and activist posters playing politics, who would have thought it eh?

And meanwhile the killing goes on…