Lindsay Hoyle's time is up

[DotCommunist]

they blackmailed hoyle then rang up the pol editor of newsnight to tell him all about it. Addicted to shithousing.

 

[rubbershoes]

50 MPs have signed a no confidence EDM against him, so far.

And I doubt anyone outside Westminster cares at all about what he did

 

[andysays]

I find it really hard to understand what happened and why.

From what I underastand he broke with convention to allow a Labour vote on a ceasefire in Gaza, without allowing a a differently-worded SNP motion to get a vote?

And the implication is that as this was done under pressure from Labour, so Labour MPs wouldn't need then to vote on the SNP worded motion (thus limiting a potential Labour rebellion) Am I right?

And why should he have felt pressure? He was being partisan? He wants to curry favour from an incoming Labour govt? Because? I'm so confused.

The original motion was put forward by the SNP, as an Opposition Motion, the bit that went against convention was the Speaker allowing an amendment from Labour, ie another opposition party.

But once the amendment had been accepted, it's normal practice for the amendment to be voted on first. If it passes, the original motion has been superseded so isn't voted on. If the amendment doesn't pass, then the original motion is voted on.

 

[skyscraper101]

The original motion was put forward by the SNP, as an Opposition Motion, the bit that went against convention was the Speaker allowing an amendment from Labour, ie another opposition party.

But once the amendment had been accepted, it's normal practice for the amendment to be voted on first. If it passes, the original motion has been superseded so isn't voted on. If the amendment doesn't pass, then the original motion is voted on.

Right so he allowed an amendment to be voted on, which rendered the original SNP motion to be superseded so no votes on that original SNP worded motion.

And this is a massive deal because this would never usually happen? And it presumably it shows bias and therefore his position is now arguably untenable?

And the implication is this is basically Labour skullduggery and they played Hoyle so they wouldn't have to vote on wording that would expose divisions within Labour?

 

[Silas Loom]

The original motion was put forward by the SNP, as an Opposition Motion, the bit that went against convention was the Speaker allowing an amendment from Labour, ie another opposition party.

But once the amendment had been accepted, it's normal practice for the amendment to be voted on first. If it passes, the original motion has been superseded so isn't voted on. If the amendment doesn't pass, then the original motion is voted on.

The Labour amendment, of course, wouldn’t have passed if the Tories and SNP had whipped against it, rather than flouncing out.

 

[PR1Berske]

 

[andysays]

Right so he allowed an amendment to be voted on, which rendered the original SNP motion to be superseded so no votes on that original SNP worded motion.

And this is a massive deal because this would never usually happen? And it presumably it shows bias and therefore his position is now arguably untenable?

And the implication is this is basically Labour skullduggery and they played Hoyle so they wouldn't have to vote on wording that would expose divisions within Labour?

As I understand it, the convention is that only the Government can put forward an amendment to an Opposition motion.

If the Conservative amendment had been voted on and succeeded, again the original SNP motion wouldn't have been voted on.

But yes, the very strong suggestion is that Hoyle was persuaded by some sort of Labour skulduggery to go against convention by allowing an opposition amendment to avoid exposing divisions within Labour.

 

[andysays]

The Labour amendment, of course, wouldn’t have passed if the Tories and SNP had whipped against it, rather than flouncing out.

Also true.

 

[skyscraper101]

Seems to me he just screwed up, and it's all so heated because it's all partisan and of course Gaza. I've no strong feelings on it tbh, but the idea that it's some sort of sackable offence seems a bit OTT given the shit a lot of MPs manage to keep hold of their jobs for.

I'm a bit bored of him anyway, maybe he should call it a day come the next election. It seems like his persona has got in the way of things a bit a la Bercow.

 

[andysays]

Seems to me he just screwed up, and it's all so heated because it's all partisan and of course Gaza. I've no strong feelings on it tbh, but the idea that it's some sort of sackable offence seems a bit OTT given the shit a lot of MPs manage to keep hold of their jobs for.

I'm a bit bored of him anyway, maybe he should call it a day come the next election. It seems like his persona has got in the way of things a bit a la Bercow.

He can't be sacked

Can a Speaker be ousted?

As calls for a resignation mount, it's worth considering whether it's even possible for a Speaker to get sacked. There’s not a formal mechanism in place for MPs to oust the Speaker from their role. Erskine May, the "bible" of parliamentary procedure, explains that a Speaker is elected, or re-elected, by MPs after every general election. And “thus elected and approved, continues in that office during the whole Parliament, unless in the meantime they resign or are removed by death”.

However, there is a precedent for a Speaker being pressured into a resignation. Michael Martin, who served in the role from 2000 to 2009, stepped down after criticism of his handling of the MPs’ expenses scandal. He said his reason for standing down was to maintain the unity of the House of Commons.

I'd guess there's a good chance he will announce he's stepping down at the next GE...

 

[ska invita]

Seems to me he just screwed up,

Screwing up is when you do something accidentally or through some other failure, he did this on purpose and despite being warned not to in advance

 

[skyscraper101]

Screwing up is when you do something accidentally or through some other failure, he did this on purpose

That's what I mean, he screwed up. Not by accident, but because he got played.

 

[ska invita]

That's what I mean, he screwed up. Not by accident, but because he got played.

I think he knew what he was doing and thought he could get away with it

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Screwing up is when you do something accidentally or through some other failure, he did this on purpose and despite being warned not to in advance

Yep. He fucked up royally. It was already being reported in the press that Labour were blackmailing him. As soon as that went public, the only thing to do was to refuse to buckle. He's shown himself up as piss-weak.

 

[two sheds]

And you'd think it's what he'll be most remembered for.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think he knew what he was doing and thought he could get away with it

That's the bit I don't get. How could he possibly have thought he would get away with it? Surely you only get away with giving in to pressure when the fact that has happened remains a secret.

 

[Silas Loom]

Yep. He fucked up royally. It was already being reported in the press that Labour were blackmailing him. As soon as that went public, the only thing to do was to refuse to buckle. He's shown himself up as piss-weak.

The suggestion is that he was being coerced, not that he was being blackmailed.

And FWIW, I believe that he thought he was doing the right thing and that all the motions and amendments would go before the House.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The suggestion is that he was being coerced, not that he was being blackmailed.

And FWIW, I believe that he thought he was doing the right thing and that all the motions and amendments would go before the House.

Some kind of pressure was being applied.

Clearly convention is just that. It can be broken if there's a good enough reason. But what reason was there here? And Hoyle was unbelievably naive to think that choosing to break convention on this matter wouldn't cause a shitstorm. It's obvious why Starmer wanted convention broken. To avoid a rebellion. Hoyle allowed himself to be played in the most obvious way possible.

 

[Silas Loom]

Some kind of pressure was being applied.

Clearly convention is just that. It can be broken if there's a good enough reason. But what reason was there here? And Hoyle was unbelievably naive to think that choosing to break convention on this matter wouldn't cause a shitstorm. It's obvious why Starmer wanted convention broken. To avoid a rebellion. Hoyle allowed himself to be played in the most obvious way possible.

Apart from the rationale concerning MP safety, there’s also the point that the convention was being exploited by the SNP solely to try and put Labour into an awkward position, which is clearly not part of the circumstances which the conventions governing opposition versus government amendments were designed to foster.

 

[andysays]

The suggestion is that he was being coerced, not that he was being blackmailed.

And FWIW, I believe that he thought he was doing the right thing and that all the motions and amendments would go before the House.

We've already established that if an amendment to a motion is passed, the original motion doesn't go before the House, so this doesn't really hold up.

If he truly felt it was appropriate to go against convention, it might have been better if he'd given everyone a clear explanation of exactly why he was doing that, including why he was going to allow the Labour amendment to be voted on first, knowing full well that if it passed, neither the Government amendment or the original motion would be voted on.

And if it was genuine because of concerns about MPs' safety, that should surely have been acknowledged at the time, rather than the story being released the morning after when it inevitably comes across as an excuse dreamed up as a justification rather than the genuine reason.

TL;DR even if he thought he was doing the right thing, the way he did it was shockingly bad.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The rationale concerning MP safety is total bollocks. Offensive bollocks.

 

[andysays]

Apart from the rationale concerning MP safety, there’s also the point that the convention was being exploited by the SNP solely to try and put Labour into an awkward position, which is clearly not part of the circumstances which the conventions governing opposition versus government amendments were designed to foster.

Has Hoyle mentioned that anywhere?

 

[Silas Loom]

We've already established that if an amendment to a motion is passed, the original motion doesn't go before the House, so this doesn't really hold up.

If he truly felt it was appropriate to go against convention, it might have been better if he'd given everyone a clear explanation of exactly why he was doing that, including why he was going to allow the Labour amendment to be voted on first, knowing full well that if it passed, neither the Government amendment or the original motion would be voted on.

And if it was genuine because of concerns about MPs' safety, that should surely have been acknowledged at the time, rather than the story being released the morning after when it inevitably comes across as an excuse dreamed up as a justification rather than the genuine reason.

TL;DR even if he thought he was doing the right thing, the way he did it was shockingly bad.

But it wouldn’t have passed unless some Tories supported Labour. So the most likely outcome is that it would have failed, allowing the government one a chance and then, possibly, the SNP one.

 

[Silas Loom]

Has Hoyle mentioned that anywhere?

No. Do you think the SNP crafted their motion with anything other than discomforting Labour in mind?

 

[ska invita]

Apart from the rationale concerning MP safety, there’s also the point that the convention was being exploited by the SNP solely to try and put Labour into an awkward position, which is clearly not part of the circumstances which the conventions governing opposition versus government amendments were designed to foster.

are you saying the SNP wanted a vote on an immediate ceasire to "put Labour into an awkward position"

 

[Silas Loom]

are you saying the SNP wanted a vote on an immediate ceasire to "put Labour into an awkward position"

Yes.

 

[andysays]

But it wouldn’t have passed unless some Tories supported Labour. So the most likely outcome is that it would have failed, allowing the government one a chance and then, possibly, the SNP one.

Did Hoyle make this point as an explanation of why he was allowing the Labour amendment?

 

[ska invita]

No. Do you think the SNP crafted their motion with anything other than discomforting Labour in mind?

I thought they did it because theres ethnic cleansing taking place that Britian is actively supporting and they want a ceasefire but maybe I'm being naive

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No. Do you think the SNP crafted their motion with anything other than discomforting Labour in mind?

The SNP has been consistent on this issue. I certainly believe that they believe what they wrote in their motion. They also know that a lot of Labour MPs believe it too.

They are under no obligation to water down their motion to fall in line with Starmer. In fact, they have a responsibility not to if they think Starmer's position is weak and ineffectual.

 

[Silas Loom]

Did Hoyle make this point as an explanation of why he was allowing the Labour amendment?

No idea. He hasn’t yet said that he has nothing further to say on the matter.