This Lindsay Hoyle business

Scrote said:
You know this was different.
Click to expand...

Why is it different? MP’s table amendments all the time, I’d imagine quite a lot of them are designed to thwart the original motions.

The only difference in this case is that Hoyle, off his own back, decided to break convention to allow the Labour one. As @BlindBoyGrunt has stated, Hoyle is culpable, not Starmer. Remember though that the Speaker does not have to stick to convention.

Or is it different in some peoples eyes due to their anti-Labour / anti-Starmer views?
 
SuperStu said:
This has already been explained multiple times. If Hoyles making decisions based on his own career plans then no, he's not a victim.

I will say if there really was 6 clerks in the meeting with Starmer, and they're all saying Hoyles job wasn't threatened then fair enough!

The inconsistencies in this story do seem odd to me. Why was Hoyle bullsh*tting about a wide debate if the real reason was MP safety? Why didn't he or Starmer mention the 6 clerks in the first place? Why did Hoyle apologise for breaking convention if it was for MPs safety? It does seem like something dodgy has probably gone on behind the scenes. Does anyone really doubt that Starmer can phrase a threat without it being explicit? Enough to give himself wriggle room later?

I'll also say, as I've said earlier on this thread or the other last week, I've no issue with conventions being broke for valid reasons and I do think the MPs safety issue is genuinely felt by MPs. We've had two MPs killed in 10 years, terror events aimed at the leader of the opposition, British soldiers filming themselves using the Labour leaders image for target practice. It's shameful. BUT all of the above violent episodes are associated with far right politics. So a load of parliamentary rhetoric about the danger of environmental and pro-Palestine protestors will probably make the situation even more dangerous by further radicalising the far right.

Proroguing parliament to dodge any debate of the governments actions wasnt a valid reason, and Hoyle feathering his own nest wouldn't be.

For those of you frustrated with me/others for not just taking Starmer's word for it - this is the problem with how he's conducted his leadership. He has lied about policies - and his supporters have celebrated that. He used his first party conference to make the party's leadership rules less democratic. Quite frankly he has little to no credit in the bank as far as expecting people to take him at his word on anything.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, you don’t want to accept Starmer’s word for the reasons stated, I get that. But I thought people would accept Hoyle’s word. The only people who refuse to seem to be the SNP for obvious reasons and the Tories because they are Tories.

I can see why Hoyle did what he did. I do think though that it was a bit soft and in this instance should have stuck to convention. That way we would have seen the Tories lose another vote and Sunak look even weaker. But I also appreciate that this is playing into the ‘playing politics’ on a very serious matter where thousands of lives has been lost - in light of that I think the SNP should maybe have left it alone.

Thankfully it looks like the people who actually have influence are getting their act together and are arranging some kind of ceasefire (according to Biden maybe Monday??) so that is something.

It’s not great that Parliament has been on the wrong side of this for so long by not calling for a ceasefire but it is a f’ed up situation. I can see why all sides have done what they have done in the House, rightly or wrongly.

Personally I would have been calling for a ceasefire ages ago when it became very apparent that Isreal were going well over the top.

This security for MP’s issue is interesting. It seems that MP’s only need it when they are going against public opinion on the most serious issues for political reasons. Maybe I am wrong here, but that is what it seems like with this. The public want a ceasefire.
 
MolteniArcore said:
But I thought people would accept Hoyle’s word.
Click to expand...

Why? Do you get the point that as speaker he's obliged to referee the house neutrally and that he's accused of doing something party political? And that he's also been accused of doing it to protect his job - i.e., for dosh, relevance, a seat in the Lords in a few years. He has a big vested interest in denying the whole thing. And his story has changed multiple times.

MolteniArcore said:
This security for MP’s issue is interesting. It seems that MP’s only need it when they are going against public opinion on the most serious issues for political reasons. Maybe I am wrong here,
Click to expand...

I think you are wrong here tbh. Its not MPs going against "public opinion" in my view. Its for drawing the ire of the far right.
 
SuperStu said:
Why? Do you get the point that as speaker he's obliged to referee the house neutrally and that he's accused of doing something party political? And that he's also been accused of doing it to protect his job - i.e., for dosh, relevance, a seat in the Lords in a few years. He has a big vested interest in denying the whole thing. And his story has changed multiple times.



I think you are wrong here tbh. Its not MPs going against "public opinion" in my view. Its for drawing the ire of the far right.
Click to expand...

I am aware what the role of the Speaker is.

People can accuse the Speaker of whatever they want but there is no evidence to substantiate the allegations and he has explained himself on more than one occasion. As such one would expect the Speaker to be believed.

Hoyle has not yet been referred to the Standards Committee so it would appear that Mordaunt and the Government are satisfied and they were the ones initially kicking off.
________

Is it the far right? Or is it also the far left? The right don’t support Palestine so why would MP’s not voting for a ceasefire be afraid of the right?
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
No I did not. Please do not twist my words to fit your own agenda.
Click to expand...

I quoted what you said. Maybe you shouldn’t have said it if you didn’t believe it. I’ll leave it here so others can make their minds up who you feel is responsible:

BlindBoyGrunt said:
Hoyle claims he wasn't pressured into making his disastrous decision. If he is telling the truth then he did it off his own back and is therefore culpable.
Click to expand...

(y)
 
MolteniArcore said:
Is it the far right? Or is it also the far left?
Click to expand...

What are the big acts of violence committed by the far left for British MPs to be frightened by? Sorry Molteni I think your bias is showing there. I understand centrists love the idea that they're the only adults/sane ones around and that the political spectrums a horseshoe and all that sh*t but honestly thats a rubbish thing to say if you're not going to substantiate it with examples.

Cox: killed by a far right extremist.
Amess: killed by an islamic extremist.
Finsbury Park mosque attack: far right extremist.
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
This is a totally dishonest post. in trying to appear clever you are actually making yourself look stupid. if you can't show me where I blamed Hoyle, please give up.
Click to expand...

I’m not trying to be clever, like I have stated tooooooo many times now, I am just quoting what you said. I honestly don’t care if you think I am looking stupid, you are the one that wrote it.

Anyway, I’m not bickering with you about what you wrote. If that is not your view it won’t take you long to clarify it without quote-replying me. Off you pop.
 
SuperStu said:
What are the big acts of violence committed by the far left for British MPs to be frightened by? Sorry Molteni I think your bias is showing there. I understand centrists love the idea that they're the only adults/sane ones around and that the political spectrums a horseshoe and all that sh*t but honestly thats a rubbish thing to say if you're not going to substantiate it with examples.

Cox: killed by a far right extremist.
Amess: killed by an islamic extremist.
Finsbury Park mosque attack: far right extremist.
Click to expand...

I’m biased against anyone who wants to harm an MP. What I was referring to was Hoyle’s reasons for him allowing the Labour amendment. He seemed to be saying he wanted the labour amendment so that labour MP’s could vote for a ceasefire on their amended terms, not the ones of the SNP, not the ‘pause’ from the Government. This to me would indicate that there was risks to Labour MP’s from people who support a ceasefire in Palestine, traditionally this is not the view of the right, so I presumed it comes from the left?

Have we not seen Labour MP’s hassled recently from groups supporting a ceasefire in Palestine?

I’m happy to be wrong on this mind you! It is purely what I took from the events in Parliament and on the news over the last week. I think broadly we are in agreement.
 
MolteniArcore said:
I’m not trying to be clever, like I have stated tooooooo many times now, I am just quoting what you said. I honestly don’t care if you think I am looking stupid, you are the one that wrote it.
Click to expand...
Yes, and what I wrote was that if Hoyle was not pressurised then he was culpable. That statement does not clear Starmer but you seem to be struggling with this key stage 2 comprehension.
 
MolteniArcore said:
Such as?
Click to expand...

Are you joking?

1) Watt quoting multiple "senior Labour figures" that Starmer made clear he was threatening Hoyles job.
2) Hoyle acting outside of parliamentary conventions against the advice of deputy speakers.
3) Hoyle and Starmers stories changing multiple times since last week.

Here's something to think about. Multiple news sources reported Hoyle and Starmer met privately. One journalist, Lee Harpin, has stated a single source has told him there were 6 other clerks there. BBG has already demonstrated on this thread that Harpin is extremely unreliable. You simply can't dismiss Watts tweet if you're relying on Harpin's to disprove it. They are both tweets by journalists, quoting sources they won't name.
 
Humouros piece on the BBC today about the three Plaid Cymru MPs who have 'lost confidence' in the Speaker. A nationalist party getting trounced by Labour in its own backyard. It couldn't be that their motive is purely opportunistic could it 🤣.

As an aside, I think the Labour Left has more MPs who've had the whip withdrawn for making racist/offensive/antisemitic comments 🤔.

Screenshot_20240228_094634_BBC News.jpg
 
SuperStu said:
I do think the MPs safety issue is genuinely felt by MPs. We've had two MPs killed in 10 years, terror events aimed at the leader of the opposition, British soldiers filming themselves using the Labour leaders image for target practice. It's shameful. BUT all of the above violent episodes are associated with far right politics.
Click to expand...
There's none so blind as those who will not see
 
Scrote said:
Yes. She pulled it because the Labour MPs would have voted for the Labour amendment. It made no sense having a Tory amendment with similar changes. Hence why the convention is only for the government to table amendments on Opposition Days. I fully accept they were all "playing politics" but then almost everything that happens in parliament can be labelled thusly.

At the end of the day, Labour broke the conventions. I'm not going to support that because I wouldn't support it if the Tories were doing it e.g. prorogation under Johnson.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well put.
Particularly that they were all playing politics - who would have thought in the HOC?
The outcome, as you say, was unsatisfactory and Labour have to take their share of the blame.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top