Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Lindsay Hoyle's time is up

Has the parliament of Burkina Faso had a debate yet on whether Hoyle should go?

Owing to not currently having a functioning democratic one and being a bit busy with coups, no.

They aren't averse to a bit of globalisation and influencing people though.

1708622202710.png

Fun fact. Burkina Faso translates as 'land of incorruptible people'.
 
To be fair, we have the Mother of Parliaments. When they are about to make an important decision, just about every legislator in the world thinks 'how would Nadine Dorries handle it?'
And do the opposite
 
That's a hell of an outfit though.
Superb isn't it? I'd wear that if I was a few years younger and several pounds lighter.
The camouflage design meant that at first I didn't notice the pocket on his left thigh, so the kecks appear to be a form of ultra-chic combat trousers (or 'cargo pants', as our cousins across the pond are wont to call them).
 
Anyway, for all you plebs, here's a detailed breakdown of Sir Lyndsey's ruling:
Now, before I begin the lesson, will those of you who are playing in the match this afternoon move your clothes down onto the lower peg immediately after lunch, before you write your letter home, if you're not getting your hair cut, unless you've got a younger brother who is going out this weekend as the guest of another boy, in which case, collect his note before lunch, put it in your letter after you've had your hair cut, and make sure he moves your clothes down onto the lower peg for you. Now...

Wymer:
Sir?

Humphrey:
Yes, Wymer?

Wymer:
My younger brother's going out with Dibble this weekend, sir, but I'm not having my hair cut today, sir.

Wymer:
So, do I move my clothes down, or...

Humphrey:
I do wish you'd listen, Wymer. It's perfectly simple. If you're not getting your hair cut, you don't have to move your brother's clothes down to the lower peg. You simply collect his note before lunch, after you've done your scripture prep, when you've written your letter home, before rest, move your own clothes onto the lower peg, greet the visitors, and report to Mr. Viney that you've had your chit signed.
 
It’s the Sunday Times, briefed as ever by senior members of Sunak’s shitshow administration. Why should anyone take it seriously?
 
It’s the Sunday Times, briefed as ever by senior members of Sunak’s shitshow administration. Why should anyone take it seriously?
Because although as you say it is a publication that leans well to the right, it sometimes publishes worthwhile articles and this one corroborates what has been talked about elsewhere. Nicholas Watt, the political editor of Newsnight is not going to publicly claim the speaker has essentially been blackmailed unless his sources are credible. The Times article fleshes this out whilst also telling us there are moves afoot to bring another debate before the house. Hoyle must be feeling rather uncomfortable right now.
 
It’s the Sunday Times, briefed as ever by senior members of Sunak’s shitshow administration. Why should anyone take it seriously?
Lead story in the Sunday Times is worth checking, exactly for that reason, it gets good briefings and sometimes does actual journalist research. Its the one thing the gets published in the Times all week that might have any meaning or weight.
 
Last edited:
This is all pretty damning, for both Hoyle and Starmer:

After a week of chaos, Sir Lindsay Hoyle is running out of options

That link isn't loading for me for some reason.

The BBC is focusing mostly on the possibility of another debate

SNP to push for fresh Gaza debate after Commons vote chaos


The SNP will have to formally apply for the debate after the Commons returns on Monday, potentially prompting fresh scrutiny over Sir Lindsay's handling of Commons procedure.
 
Taken from: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commo...7F16-5CC3-40CE-9756-930E183B06EA/PointOfOrder


Quotes:
Stephen Flynn
(Aberdeen South) (SNP):
"In good faith, my colleagues and I sought to bring forward an SO24 debate, which, among other things, would have sought to end the sale of arms to Israel and call on the Government to use their voice at the United Nations to exercise our view in favour of an immediate ceasefire. It is my understanding that that SO24 application has not been accepted. Can you please advise me on when it will be accepted?"

Mr Speaker:
"The Standing Order says that I should not give the reasons for any decision regarding a Standing Order No. 24 application. Indeed, properly, we should not be discussing what is a private application to the Speaker. However, given the exceptional circumstances we find ourselves in today, my view is that I ought none the less to explain my reasoning."

"...n determining whether a matter is urgent, I must have regard to the probability of the matter being brought before the House in time by other means. The House came to a resolution on this matter on Wednesday last week. Further, I understand that the Government are ready to make a relevant statement tomorrow, so there is a very imminent opportunity for this important matter to come before the House.

That is why I decided that the application for an emergency debate should not proceed. That decision of course does not mean that Members cannot apply for a debate at a later stage, when circumstances might have changed. While the decision is mine to take, I have consulted my Deputies and the Clerks on this matter and we have agreed on this approach.'
 
So, Diane Abbott during PMQs stood up to speak 46 times when they were discussing racism, misogyny and violence, of which she was the actual victim. The only sensible explanation for this is that she was deliberately and blatantly ignored by Lindsay Hoyle. The tingling in my spidey senses make me think he was most probably leaned on (again) not to let her speak. Spidey senses give no prizes for guessing who most likely did the leaning.
 
So, Diane Abbott during PMQs stood up to speak 46 times when they were discussing racism, misogyny and violence, of which she was the actual victim. The only sensible explanation for this is that she was deliberately and blatantly ignored by Lindsay Hoyle. The tingling in my spidey senses make me think he was most probably leaned on (again) not to let her speak. Spidey senses give no prizes for guessing who most likely did the leaning.

I really have no idea why you might think that Starmer would not want her to speak


Diane Abbott accuses Tories AND Labour of ‘shocking’ racism in donor row
Diane Abbott has hit out at the Conservatives and Labour, accusing both parties of “shocking” racism in the Tory donor scandal.
She also attacked Sir Keir and said: “The position of the current leadership of the Labour Party is disappointing, which seemed equally reluctant at the outset to call out either racism or sexism.

“Instead, the entire focus was on the demand that the Tories give Hester back his money, which is surely not the primary point in this case.”
 
He's just been re-appointed as Speaker

Sir Lindsay Hoyle addresses chamber
Sir Edward Leigh, Father of the House, presides over the selection of the new Speaker. He asks Sir Lindsay Hoyle - who stood at the election as the "Speaker seeking re-election” - if he is willing to assume the role once again. (It's all for show - his appointment is not expected to be contested.)

Speaker-elect Hoyle answers in the affirmative. Addressing MPs from the backbenches, he thanks his family and his constituency, Chorley, for allowing him to put himself forward again as Speaker. Hoyle goes on to welcome all the new MPs.
 
Back
Top Bottom