This Lindsay Hoyle business

[SuperStu]

This should shut up a few on this thread. Or maybe not

https://twitter.com/x/status/1767577002100367616

For anyone who's reading of the situ was that the speaker may have acted partially, why would them blocking an investigation from happening make that less of a suspicion? I'm not following your logic there.

Have to say as well it's interesting that your go to is "this should shut people up" rather than "this proves nothing improper happened".

 

[bumface]

For anyone who's reading of the situ was that the speaker may have acted partially, why would them blocking an investigation from happening make that less of a suspicion? I'm not following your logic there.

Have to say as well it's interesting that your go to is "this should shut people up" rather than "this proves nothing improper happened".

He isn't worth debating with these days. He's just trying to wind people up on these threads. Don't let him do it to you. There's a game on now anyway, so politics will have to wait for a bit.

 

[LessoftheLip]

For anyone who's reading of the situ was that the speaker may have acted partially, why would them blocking an investigation from happening make that less of a suspicion? I'm not following your logic there.

Have to say as well it's interesting that your go to is "this should shut people up" rather than "this proves nothing improper happened".

You need to read the letter Stu instead of just commenting blind.

 

[SuperStu]

There's a game on now anyway, so politics will have to wait for a bit.

Three screens on the go here. Plenty of room for the match and some discussion!

He's just trying to wind people up on these threads. Don't let him do it to you.

I can't fault anyone too much for that. I can admit I too occasionally enjoy a provocative remark!

 

[SuperStu]

You need to read the letter Stu instead of just commenting blind.

View attachment 73445

What do you think that says? Are you under the impression it says the threats, and party political decision making didn't happen?

 

[LessoftheLip]

What do you think that says? Are you under the impression it says the threats, and party political decision making didn't happen?

Only in your head Stu (and a few others probably). Meanwhile, others who aren't blinded by their hatred of Starmer can be quite objective really. All that no confidence in the Speaker guff soon died a death didn't it?

 

[SuperStu]

Only in your head Stu (and a few others probably). Meanwhile, others who aren't blinded by their hatred of Starmer can be quite objective really. All that no confidence in the Speaker guff soon died a death didn't it?

Yeah yeah yeah blah blah blah I'm the worst whatever.

Come on LotL, you've clipped a bit of the letter. You obviously think it's meaningful for a reason. What is it?

 

[LessoftheLip]

Yeah yeah yeah blah blah blah I'm the worst whatever.

Come on LotL, you've clipped a bit of the letter. You obviously think it's meaningful for a reason. What is it?

What part of "There are no direct accounts of what was said from anyone who was actually in the room" don't you understand Stu?

You're in danger of slipping into conspiracy theory territory if you're not careful.

 

[SuperStu]

What part of "There are no direct accounts of what was said from anyone who was actually in the room" don't you understand Stu?

You're in danger of slipping into conspiracy theory territory if you're not careful.

I still don't see your point. Yes the allegations in Watts tweet apparently came from "senior Labour figures", not Starmer and/or Hoyle. Which is exactly what we all knew weeks ago. That doesn't make the allegations false.

 

[HolgateCorner]

I still don't see your point. Yes the allegations in Watts tweet apparently came from "senior Labour figures", not Starmer and/or Hoyle. Which is exactly what we all knew weeks ago. That doesn't make the allegations false.

Superstu I honestly think you are flogging a dead horse.

 

[Scrote]

What part of "There are no direct accounts of what was said from anyone who was actually in the room" don't you understand Stu?

The bit i don't understand is that we were told there were six clerks there, all of whom said there was no pressure put on the speaker. Now, none of them can give an account of what happened?

Hoyle recused himself but Winterton didn't. How does that work?

 

[Liamo]

I still don't see your point. Yes the allegations in Watts tweet apparently came from "senior Labour figures", not Starmer and/or Hoyle. Which is exactly what we all knew weeks ago. That doesn't make the allegations false.

OK, but as that letter makes crystal clear, there's nothing in parliamentary procedures or precedents that would permit a complaint to be referred to the parliamentary privileges committee, based simpy on the premise that some wholly unsubstantiated, third party allegations might not be false.

 

[SuperStu]

OK, but as that letter makes crystal clear, there's nothing in parliamentary procedures or preceĺdents that would permit a complaint to be referred to the parliamentary privileges committee, based simpy on the premise that some wholly unsubstantiated, third party allegations might not be false.

I think "permit" is the wrong word there, as the letter makes clear the 3 deputy speakers considered it and made a decision. More accurate to just say the letter makes clear there isn't a precedence - which I'm sure they're right about.

I'm not going to bother digging through this thread or others but I did say multiple times a few weeks ago I don't particularly care about parliamentary procedure being followed for the sake of following it. It's an archaic old institution with plenty of daft rules.

 

[HolgateCorner]

The bit i don't understand is that we were told there were six clerks there, all of whom said there was no pressure put on the speaker. Now, none of them can give an account of what happened?

Hoyle recused himself but Winterton didn't. How does that work?

It’s called getting the answer you don’t want, it happens.

 

[MolteniArcore]

The bit i don't understand is that we were told there were six clerks there, all of whom said there was no pressure put on the speaker. Now, none of them can give an account of what happened?

Hoyle recused himself but Winterton didn't. How does that work?

Isn’t the letter saying that the allegations came from hearsay reported in the media? The people in the room have felt no need to make allegations. As such they can’t investigate based on what people might have overheard so it doesn’t go forward.

 

[SuperStu]

Genuine question for folks on this thread, does the speakers actions today give you any pause or doubts about whether he's acting impartially? Either today or 3 weeks ago?

I mean the (eventual) explanation after the ceasefire debates was that he's so concerned about MP safety right? But today we have multiple questions from MPs about a donor commenting on shooting an MP, but that MP herself isn't allowed to speak?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1767924510261403717

Seeing Diane Abbotts tweet here there is a hint that she suspects him of acting in the Labour leaderships interests?

 

[LessoftheLip]

Seeing Diane Abbotts tweet here there is a hint that she suspects him of acting in the Labour leaderships interests?

Do you think so Stu?

If you'd have said he was acting in the best interests of the Conservative Party I'd give that some thought. Starmer used a number of his questions to take Sunak up on the matter and then voluntarily sought her out after PMQs. Hoyle's reasoning is that she was not on the order paper and there are only so many other questions he can ok. I'm not defending that but you yourself have described Parliament's processes as archaic.

Diane Abbott is not shy in her criticism of Starmer so if she really thought the Speaker was acting in the Labour leadership's interests I'm sure she'd do more than hint.

 

[outoftown]

Genuine question for folks on this thread, does the speakers actions today give you any pause or doubts about whether he's acting impartially? Either today or 3 weeks ago?

I mean the (eventual) explanation after the ceasefire debates was that he's so concerned about MP safety right? But today we have multiple questions from MPs about a donor commenting on shooting an MP, but that MP herself isn't allowed to speak?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1767924510261403717

Seeing Diane Abbotts tweet here there is a hint that she suspects him of acting in the Labour leaderships interests?

Orrrrr maybe...

As a conservative ... He didn't want her to ask Mr Sunak " Why don't you give the money back " ??

Who knows?

 

[Chris_Boro]

Genuine question for folks on this thread, does the speakers actions today give you any pause or doubts about whether he's acting impartially? Either today or 3 weeks ago?

I mean the (eventual) explanation after the ceasefire debates was that he's so concerned about MP safety right? But today we have multiple questions from MPs about a donor commenting on shooting an MP, but that MP herself isn't allowed to speak?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1767924510261403717

Seeing Diane Abbotts tweet here there is a hint that she suspects him of acting in the Labour leaderships interests?

Not at all, Hoyle is not a good speaker and is weak, which shows at every PMQ's. However not a coerced, intimidated or blackmailed one as previously alleged.

Having Sunak be forced to tell Abbott that she should accept an "apology" and move on would be extremely damaging to Sunak.

I have no idea how on this occasion, Labour are somehow to blame in your eyes? Of course they would have wanted her to speak.

 

[SuperStu]

Do you think so Stu?

Yes maybe. As we discussed in the other thread about the donors comments, I do think Abbotts treatment from Labour MPs is relevant. It all feeds in to our political culture. It's not coincidence that she receives the most abuse of our MPs. And who knows, maybe she would have phrased any question she asked in a "pox on both your houses" sort of fashion.

If you'd have said he was acting in the best interests of the Conservative Party I'd give that some thought.

Does this mean you won't even think about anything that isn't praise for Starmer? Bit cultish I suppose my thinking is she might have said something to make Starmers questions seem a bit hypocritical? Hoyle was elected as a Labour MP and we all expect a Labour government in the near future so there's a logic to thinking Hoyle may act partially to protect Starmer from embarrassment. How would blocking Abbott have helped the tories? Just one fewer question?

Hoyle's reasoning is that she was not on the order paper and there are only so many other questions he can ok. I'm not defending that but you yourself have described Parliament's processes as archaic.

Absolutely. If I remember correctly, MPs that get themselves on the order paper have to provide the wording of their question in advance so that may be why Abbott chose not to do that.

Worth remembering that the convention with PMQs is that MPs not on the order paper can try to catch the speakers eye, and the speaker can choose to call on them, and PMQs has overran the 30 minutes many times. So Hoyle certainly could have let Abbott speak without breaking any conventions.

Diane Abbott is not shy in her criticism of Starmer so if she really thought the Speaker was acting in the Labour leadership's interests I'm sure she'd do more than hint.

Yep agreed! She may yet have more to say over the next few days...?