This Lindsay Hoyle business

[mercury_redstone7]

Its a polarised country imho, it will become fractured in the not to distant future IMHO.
Some cities and towns wont be represented by Labour nor Tory or Liberal and will become independently represented, They can then vote how they feel without having their hand forced. I will be interested on how the Rochdale by election turns out. It will be the end for Labour in very similar towns, as their views aren't being represented by Labour.

It feels like more extreme political ideals both right and left that were in the background have become very uneasy with things and are beginning to move to the front. The Reform Party will mop up the far right wing, I feel there will be a big kick back by moderate Tories to get rid of their nutso far right colleagues and look to owning the centre.

Seems to be a lot White English unrest being tapped at the moment, the media are helping with this imho.

I can see a new Socialist Party forming too, it just needs focus and the desire to tap the unions money for it to spark up and get running. You can appreciate why its needed just reading peoples feelings and thoughts on this board, there are lots of socialist sympathetic voters who want more than the Labour Party can give, and the Labour Party will become a lot weaker.

 

[SuperStu]

There's none so blind as those who will not see

Go on.

Which bits the blindness? You don't think MPs genuinely feel threatened or you do think environmental and pro-Palestine protestors are to blame for the murders of Cox, Amess and the Finsbury Park mosque attack?

 

[MolteniArcore]

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.

Sources aren’t evidence one way or the other. And yes, I could jump on the 6 Clarks story but again, it’s just sources. I’d imagine most of it is rubbish and just released to fuel the media coverage.

The only thing we have to go on is Hoyle’s statement to the House and the fact that he hasn’t (yet) been referred to the Standards Committee. Everything else is just speculation.

When we are talking about the removal of the speaker, or the Leader of the Opposition making threats, which are very serious we need actual evidence, not chat from ‘anonymous sources’.

It is evidence that gets people like 30p Lee removed from the Tory party, evidence that gets Scott Benton suspended etc etc - anonymous sources don’t get this kind of action.

But Stu, I do understand your view on this and can appreciate why you have taken your view based on the reports and that’s fine. We all have our own opinions

 

[SuperStu]

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.

No come on, you'll have to do better than that.

I said:

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 that's the context. Murders, terrorist attacks, soldiers getting as close as basically possible to saying they'd carry out a coup.

You asked:

Is it the far right? Or is it also the far left?

You must have had something in mind when you typed it. So what was that?

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

What sticking posters up and tweets and that? To me that shouldn't be conflated with the above.

It is purely what I took from the events in Parliament and on the news over the last week.

Well honestly thats kind of dumb. Personally I have memories and experiences and they don't all go out the window as soon as someone in parliament says the left are dangerous. Can't you challenge things you see on the news?

I’m happy to be wrong on this mind you!

Doubt meme.

 

[SuperStu]

Sources aren’t evidence one way or the other.

Of course they are. Otherwise how can you get to:

The only thing we have to go on is Hoyle’s statement to the House

Hoyle is a source. Watt and Harpin are quoting unnamed sources.

When we are talking about the removal of the speaker, or the Leader of the Opposition making threats, which are very serious we need actual evidence, not chat from ‘anonymous sources’.

We weren't. We were talking about it whether Starmer threatened Hoyles job. You claimed there was no evidence it happened.

 

[MolteniArcore]

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.

It WAS Labour's fault. Whether Hoyle broke convention off his own bat or was pressured is a minor side-show. Labour tabled an amendment when they weren't supposed to. Labour actively did that. There's no reading of the situation where Labour were not the guilty party.

What conventions or standing orders did Labour breach here? I’ve looked briefly and can’t see any. I was hoping you could enlighten me as you may know more?

I found this but you may know of something else?

Who can table amendments to motions?​

Amendments to motions can only be proposed by a member of the House the motion is tabled in. This means MPs cannot amend a motion in the Lords, or vice versa.

In the Commons, any MP can table amendments to a substantive motion. As with amendments to bills, it is possible for MPs to show their support for an amendment by adding their name to it.

In the Lords, any peer, other than the individual tabling the motion, may propose an amendment.

How are amendments selected for debate?​

In the Commons, the Speaker decides which, if any, amendments will be debated and voted on. In some cases, the Speaker may decide how many amendments they will select before any have been tabled. This gives the Speaker significant influence in shaping the debate, which can be controversial. The Speaker does not give reasons for their choice, and their decision cannot be challenged.

In the Lords, all amendments will be debated unless they are withdrawn. They will usually be considered in the order in which they relate to the motion, unless they relate to the same part of the motion, when they will be debated in the order in which they were tabled.

The government can also choose to accept amendments to motions it tables, in which case they are incorporated into the motion without a vote. Sometimes, the government will seek to amend Opposition Day Motions.

The Speaker’s ability to select amendments for debate, and the government’s freedom to accept amendments without a vote, can have important ramifications for parliamentary debate, and may play a key role in the parliamentary course of Brexit.

When can amendments be made?​

In the Commons, amendments must be tabled before the House finishes business the day before the debate. In exceptional circumstances, amendments made after this deadline, referred to as ‘manuscript’ amendments, may be accepted. This could be the case where new information has come to light after the usual deadline, justifying a late amendment. However, as with manuscript amendments to bills, they are unlikely to be accepted by the Speaker without good reason.

In the Lords, any motion can be amended with or without notice.

 

[MolteniArcore]

Of course they are. Otherwise how can you get to:



Hoyle is a source. Watt and Harpin are quoting unnamed sources.



We weren't. We were talking about it whether Starmer threatened Hoyles job. You claimed there was no evidence it happened.

Wow so may quotes!

Hoyle is on record, the others aren’t. Actually Starmer is on record too. Both are a higher standard of evidence that ‘unnamed sources’.

If it is referred to the privileges committee hopefully these ‘unnamed sources’ will go on record. Until then it is all speculation.

 

[Laughing]

Sources aren’t evidence one way or the other. And yes, I could jump on the 6 Clarks story but again, it’s just sources. I’d imagine most of it is rubbish and just released to fuel the media coverage.

The only thing we have to go on is Hoyle’s statement to the House and the fact that he hasn’t (yet) been referred to the Standards Committee. Everything else is just speculation.

When we are talking about the removal of the speaker, or the Leader of the Opposition making threats, which are very serious we need actual evidence, not chat from ‘anonymous sources’.

It is evidence that gets people like 30p Lee removed from the Tory party, evidence that gets Scott Benton suspended etc etc - anonymous sources don’t get this kind of action.

But Stu, I do understand your view on this and can appreciate why you have taken your view based on the reports and that’s fine. We all have our own opinions

Not sure why you are bothering Molteni. There is not one shred of reliable evidence that Starmer attempted to blackmail Hoyle but that doesn't matter.

Folks are entitled to hold whatever view they please, but whilst some people view this incident through a prism of hate for starmer, you wont change their minds.

It's pointless.

 

[MolteniArcore]

No come on, you'll have to do better than that.

I said:



So that's the context. Murders, terrorist attacks, soldiers getting as close as basically possible to saying they'd carry out a coup.

You asked:



You must have had something in mind when you typed it. So what was that?



What sticking posters up and tweets and that? To me that shouldn't be conflated with the above.



Well honestly thats kind of dumb. Personally I have memories and experiences and they don't all go out the window as soon as someone in parliament says the left are dangerous. Can't you challenge things you see on the news?



Doubt meme.

I don’t have to do better than that - that is what I was thinking about when Hoyle did what he did. I took it at face value. There must have been a risk to all from both sides or he would not have done what he did.

Left or right, I don’t care. The bit where you say ‘tweets and stickers’ - I saw MP’s on the news being mobbed. Maybe that was the Pro Palestine far right? Not sure. Who was it? It might have been the centre? Either way it is wrong.

And the other bit - you are saying it is dumb to take something that happened this week and have an opinion on it? Maybe. Or am I dumb? Oh, I challenge quite a lot what I see on the news.

I am probably closer to your view on this than you think. I just wonder if there are pro-Palestine elements who are also threatening MP’s and that is why Hoyle did what he did. That isn’t a stretch, emotions ate high on all sides. I do find your tone mildly attacking though when I mentioned this. Do you know verbatim that there have been no such threats?

Like I said, any threat is wrong no matter where it is coming from. Right, left, centre, I don’t care. They all are wrong. Oh Jesus, I sound like a Tory MP with all these wrongs!!

 

[MolteniArcore]

Not sure why you are bothering Molteni. There is not one shred of reliable evidence that Starmer attempted to blackmail Hoyle but that doesn't matter.

Folks are entitled to hold whatever view they please, but whilst some people view this incident through a prism of hate for starmer, you wont change their minds.

It's pointless.

I know. I am procrastinating so I don’t have to build a bed in the spare room.

You are right though.

I’d best crack on or I will get in trouble off the wife!!!

 

[BoroBosco]

Go on.

Which bits the blindness? You don't think MPs genuinely feel threatened or you do think environmental and pro-Palestine protestors are to blame for the murders of Cox, Amess and the Finsbury Park mosque attack?

I read your reference to the right, as most people probably did, as the far right British extremists. Now I've seen your later post where you correctly incude Islamists as extreme right then I apologise.

I do believe MPs feel threatened & the situation in Palestine is heightening that threat.

How could I blame the current pro-palestine demonstrators for past murders, that would be ridiculous, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was anothers Ali Harbi Ali among them.

 

[SuperStu]

If it is referred to the privileges committee hopefully these ‘unnamed sources’ will go on record.

Unless they say something you don't like right? Then it'll be weak evidence and you'll pretend it doesn't exist.

Not sure why you are bothering Molteni.

No need to be like that gadge, talking about stuff is interesting and Molteni was doing the important centrist work of both sides'ing far right violence.

Folks are entitled to hold whatever view they please, but whilst some people view this incident through a prism of hate for starmer, you wont change their minds.

As far as I can see I'm the only one on the thread to be at all open to changing their view. I'm just not pretending Watts tweet doesn't exist or that Hoyles gonna be completely impartial about allegations over his own actions. Maybe it did happen, maybe it didn't happen. Maybe it happened but in a way Starmer can plausibly deny. Who knows?

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!

 

[Muttley]

Molteni was doing the important centrist work of both sides'ing far right violence.

Classy.

 

[WeeGord]

@SuperStu you're letting yourself down with the constant laughing emojis which appear to be mocking others points of view. I get that there are different views on this topic, but all contributors are ordinarily good, decent posters including your good self. The emojis don't do you any favours.

 

[r00fie1]

 

[MolteniArcore]

@SuperStu you're letting yourself down with the constant laughing emojis which appear to be mocking others points of view. I get that there are different views on this topic, but all contributors are ordinarily good, decent posters including your good self. The emojis don't do you any favours.

Insults or mocking. That’s what you get isn’t it? It’s a shame when you are trying to have a friendly debate on a very important issue.

 

[MolteniArcore]

I know. I am procrastinating so I don’t have to build a bed in the spare room.

You are right though.

I’d best crack on or I will get in trouble off the wife!!!

Only half way through. Lunch break for PMQs.

 

[SuperStu]

@SuperStu you're letting yourself down with the constant laughing emojis which appear to be mocking others points of view. I get that there are different views on this topic, but all contributors are ordinarily good, decent posters including your good self. The emojis don't do you any favours.

WG, I appreciate your kind words the other day, but (and I hope you take this collaboratively as thats how I intend it) I think its probably best if everyone sticks to posting what they want to rather than trying to police the terms, emojis, etc that others use.

I mean isn't this mocking others POV?

They're saintly don't you know, there's no way they'd indulge in party politics. It's only Labour and that second coming of the Anti-Christ Keir Starmer who would do that.

 

[SuperStu]

Insults or mocking. That’s what you get isn’t it? It’s a shame when you are trying to have a friendly debate on a very important issue.

Or in other words:

‘Despite the evidence I will continue to believe, as usual, that Starmer is the epitome of all evil and it is my opinion that again it is all his and Labour’s fault!!’

 

[MolteniArcore]

The winking emoji is a friendly one…