Lindsay Hoyle's time is up

[andysays]

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

I've already commented on the other thread that that looks like a likely possibility, but it isn't the Speaker's job to protect the Labour party leadership from possible embarrassment from other parties.

He is supposed to remain politically neutral.

 

[andysays]

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

My point is that if he was going against convention, he should have explained fully why at the time.

 

[Silas Loom]

I've already commented on the other thread that that looks like a likely possibility, but it isn't the Speaker's job to protect the Labour party leadership from possible embarrassment from other parties.

He is supposed to remain politically neutral.

The point is that conventions are sometimes best defended by abandoning them when they have been invoked in bad faith. Hoyle’s judgement is defensible on non-partisan grounds.

 

[Silas Loom]

My point is that if he was going against convention, he should have explained fully why at the time.

I agree, but let’s wait and see what else he has to say.

 

[Bus Honeygun]

This caught my attention on the radio this morning. I started listening then realised about a minute in that I was just staring out the window and had switched off.

I've come to this thread for some insight, read a bit and then started skimming.

In the grand scheme of things, pretty much a non-story and just a load of politicking. Nobody outside the Westminster bubble and the political nerds gives a fuck.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Sorry, but can anyone explain why precious parliamentary time is given over to debates on whether Israel should have a ceasefire or not? May as well debate whether the UK can move to the moon.

 

[Silas Loom]

Sorry, but can anyone explain why precious parliamentary time is given over to debates on whether Israel should have a ceasefire or not? May as well debate whether the UK can move to the moon.

Well, quite. But wasn’t that meant to be one of the benefits of Brexit?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Sorry, but can anyone explain why precious parliamentary time is given over to debates on whether Israel should have a ceasefire or not? May as well debate whether the UK can move to the moon.

Because it was the SNP's day out and that's what they wanted to debate. I'd far rather they had focussed the motion on the UK's ongoing military support for Israel, but there you go.

 

[Sue]

.

 

[Serge Forward]

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.

Oh yeah? Well, I sucked Starmer's cock. Beat that.

ETA: not really.

 

[skyscraper101]

Sorry, but can anyone explain why precious parliamentary time is given over to debates on whether Israel should have a ceasefire or not? May as well debate whether the UK can move to the moon.

I think it's more about playing up to the electorate. i.e. look at the progressive SNP with their no nonsense call for a ceasefire. Voted for. On the record. Meanwhile look at Labour tying themselves in knots over a 'humanitarian pause' etc etc.

It's posturing really.

 

[teqniq]

The point is that conventions are sometimes best defended by abandoning them when they have been invoked in bad faith. Hoyle’s judgement is defensible on non-partisan grounds.

Already posted on the Starmer thread but I'll post it here as well, Hoyle's judgement was motivated by self-interest:

 

[littlebabyjesus]

This caught my attention on the radio this morning. I started listening then realised about a minute in that I was just staring out the window and had switched off.

I've come to this thread for some insight, read a bit and then started skimming.

In the grand scheme of things, pretty much a non-story and just a load of politicking. Nobody outside the Westminster bubble and the political nerds gives a fuck.

The ins and outs of conventions and walk-outs is the stuff of political nerds. But the big picture is that Starmer nobbled a vote on a ceasefire to avoid a rebellion in his own party. That means that he is still positioning himself against calling for a ceasefire, and that is hurting Labour because it goes against what a huge majority of Labour voters believe.

 

[gosub]

Because it was the SNP's day out and that's what they wanted to debate. I'd far rather they had focussed the motion on the UK's ongoing military support for Israel, but there you go.

'Entirely untrue': Anas Sarwar caught out over SNP claims in BBC interview

ANAS Sarwar has been called out by the SNP for an “entirely untrue claim” made in a BBC interview ahead of a ceasefire…

www.thenational.scot

 

[ska invita]

Sorry, but can anyone explain why precious parliamentary time is given over to debates on whether Israel should have a ceasefire or not? May as well debate whether the UK can move to the moon.

Humza Yousaf has friends and family in Gaza, several of who have been killed
That shouldn't make a difference - even if you dont have friends and family being killed in an act of ethnic cleansing parliament should take a stand on something it is in fact actively involved in - but I think this is being done in good faith and some of the speeches Ive read from the SNP have been heartfelt and spot on

 

[ska invita]

I think this Hoyles fella is toast
Interesting to see how "Strong" Starmer looks after that

 

[skyscraper101]

The ins and outs of conventions and walk-outs is the stuff of political nerds. But the big picture is that Starmer nobbled a vote on a ceasefire to avoid a rebellion in his own party. That means that he is still positioning himself against calling for a ceasefire, and that is hurting Labour because it goes against what a huge majority of Labour voters believe.

It seems consistent with his overtly cautious position he's taken on everything to keep the Labour party united, and he wasn't about to let the SNP compromise this.

So if I understand it right (and admittedly I find the whole parliamentary protocols at play here confusing), Labour were about to get played by the SNP, so Starmer leaned on Hoyle, Hoyle caved, and the SNP got bitchslapped. It's almost like Starmer was some sort of top courtroom barrister in a former life.

 

[two sheds]

Sorry, but can anyone explain why precious parliamentary time is given over to debates on whether Israel should have a ceasefire or not?

At least it means they're not introducing bills to privatize the NHS or send woke tweeters to the pokey.

 

[gosub]

It seems consistent with his overtly cautious position he's taken on everything to keep the Labour party united, and he wasn't about to let the SNP compromise this.

So if I understand it right (and admittedly I find the whole parliamentary protocols at play here confusing), Labour were about to get played by the SNP, so Starmer leaned on Hoyle, Hoyle caved, and the SNP got bitchslapped. It's almost like Starmer was some sort of top courtroom barrister in a former life.

Pretty much.


Looks like Labour made no effort to liase and then hijacked the debate (and Speaker) to get an amendment that looks more like dancing on the head of a pin to placate the various Labour factions than anything else

 

[two sheds]

It seems consistent with his overtly cautious position he's taken on everything to keep the Labour party united, and he wasn't about to let the SNP compromise this.

Well yes by expelling all the left wingers and people who don't do what he wants. Not entirely a united party.

 

[planetgeli]

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

Even if this were true, and the SNP held no moral position at all on one of the most major global issues of the day...so what? Labour allowed themselves to get in this position, against the wishes of many of their constituents.

The SNP have 3 opposition days a year. 3. They can do what they like with them and for whatever reasons they like.

 

[Wilf]

Everything the Tories are saying about Starmer is correct. It was undue pressure * to avoid Labour having to vote on anything critical of Israel. Having said all that, fuck that windbag Hoyle, fuck parliament and its 'traditions', fuck the tories and their walkouts and fuck the lot of them for exporting arms and enabling mass slaughter.

* Though probably not that different to the more routine pressure put on speakers to twist the agenda. Usually by the government.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Humza Yousaf has friends and family in Gaza, several of who have been killed
That shouldn't make a difference - even if you dont have friends and family being killed in an act of ethnic cleansing parliament should take a stand on something it is in fact actively involved in - but I think this is being done in good faith and some of the speeches Ive read from the SNP have been heartfelt and spot on

Good faith or not, it's utterly meaningless, what next, a vote on whether Russia should pull out of Ukraine, the Houthis to stop attacking ships? Israel are not going to pay a blind bit of attention to what a cruddy group of British MPs vote on or not.

 

[Wilf]

Good faith or not, it's utterly meaningless, what next, a vote on whether Russia should pull out of Ukraine, the Houthis to stop attacking ships? Israel are not going to pay a blind bit of attention to what a cruddy group of British MPs vote on or not.

I agree with all that, though the failure to pass such votes adds a wee bit of comfort to those invading, murdering and ethnic cleansing.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It seems consistent with his overtly cautious position he's taken on everything to keep the Labour party united, and he wasn't about to let the SNP compromise this.

So if I understand it right (and admittedly I find the whole parliamentary protocols at play here confusing), Labour were about to get played by the SNP, so Starmer leaned on Hoyle, Hoyle caved, and the SNP got bitchslapped. It's almost like Starmer was some sort of top courtroom barrister in a former life.

That's not how I see it.

SNP proposed a motion, as was their right, and Labour refused to engage with the SNP beforehand to sort a joint position. Reality is that the SNP and Starmer don't have a joint position on Gaza as the SNP thinks what Israel are doing is wrong and want them to stop immediately, and have been prepared to say so publicly for months now.

Clearly lots of people won't have been paying close attention, but this idiocy did achieve a few things: it publicised the SNP's position, in case people had missed it; it showed up Labour as not really having a position, in case people had missed it; and it exposed Starmer as willing to engage in bullying tactics in order to get his way and scupper a vote.

Scuppering debates and votes is not a good look. How many of the millions of Labour voters who are already disgusted by the Labour Party position on Gaza are now even more angry about it? Starmer is a hapless politician, and yesterday was a good example of that.

As for the SNP being 'bitchslapped', what happened yesterday will have done them no harm at all among the electorate. Yesterday's debacle is a good example of how it is possible to lose by winning the wrong way. It seems to be something of a Starmer speciality.

 

[Bingoman]

Threatening behaviour denied by Starmet

Starmer 'categorically' denies threatening Commons Speaker over Gaza ceasefire vote

Sir Lindsay Hoyle is fighting to save his job after the House of Commons descended into chaos over a vote on a ceasefire in Gaza.

news.sky.com

 

[DotCommunist]

just need someone to deny it a third time for completions sake. Mcfadden this morn, starmer this afternoon, some other cunt in the evening.

 

[Winot]

Good faith or not, it's utterly meaningless, what next, a vote on whether Russia should pull out of Ukraine, the Houthis to stop attacking ships? Israel are not going to pay a blind bit of attention to what a cruddy group of British MPs vote on or not.

It's more about the British political parties positioning themselves in the international (Western) political order. Branding, if you like.

 

[cupid_stunt]

The SNP's Westminster leader has confirmed they are now formally calling for him to stand down.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Good faith or not, it's utterly meaningless, what next, a vote on whether Russia should pull out of Ukraine, the Houthis to stop attacking ships? Israel are not going to pay a blind bit of attention to what a cruddy group of British MPs vote on or not.

It was an opposition day motion. These things are mostly symbolic so why not use it to make a stand on Gaza? In terms of pressure on Israel, every little helps. At the very least, it doesn't do any harm.

And it exposed Starmer yet again. I think the motion was sincere, but that it also caused problems for Labour is an added bonus, and entirely Labour's problem.