Lindsay Hoyle

He may well be a BWFC fan but what an utter buffoon he is as the Speaker.

I've never rated him from the start - he doesn't seem to have control of the House as past speakers have, nor the wit to get out of trouble when he needs to.

God knows what he was thinking when he broke with convention today and caused the monumental cock up he did?

Surely to God he would have done his homework on how best to handle todays poison challis vote on an Israeli cease fire, with so much political positioning and posturing hanging on it - but to sabotage the vote by his ill informed (and highly inappropriate convention breaking decisions) was mindboggling dumb of him.

I expect him resign tomorrow.

He's certainly got no credibility left.

In simple terms the government of the day selects what motions are put before the House but 20 days a year, the government opposition are allowed to select their motions and today was one of them - with the SNP setting their agenda.

Obviously the government of the day usually will vote against opposition motions (otherwise both parties would have the same views on them, so they would not need special days like this to have the motion hears - it could be heard anytime and passed).

For this reason then it is usually a convention that no 'amendment' from ANOTHER opposition party is heard other than the government's itself.

Labour however has got its knickers in a twist over Palestine/Gaza - and put forward an amendment to the SNP motion - meaning if it was heard and past, then the SNP cold no longer vote on its own motion - the motion would have been amended to something different to what the SNP had wanted.

If Labour's amendment was accepted by the speaker to be heard and voted on, it would give Starmer a 'get out of Jail free' card in order to tell his 'rebels' that an official Labour policy position was accepted by the whole of Parliament and voted on.

Hoyle allowed the Labour amendment along with the government one - and all Hell broke loose!

The Conservatives screamed Hoyle had been nobbled by Labour - by being blackmailed - in that IF he didn't allow their amendment to be heard he would be de-selected after the General Election as Speaker as Labour would simply not vote for him in the 'new' Parliament.

The SNP screamed at Hoyle that if passed, the Labour motion would change their motion to something they didn't want and thus they couldn't vote on it.  The Government COULD have voted AGAINST Labours amendment and won - thus putting everything back to square one - but why would they as the Labour amendment would thus in effect become the nations position on Palestine/Gaza with Labour's name attached to it and if anything went wrong - then Labour would carry the can and not the Tory Party.

The Conservatives promptly refused to vote on Labours amendment and withdrew their own - meaning the amended motion by Labour was passed (with only Labour and a few odds and sods voting for it) whilst the SNP and the Conservatives kept out of it - the SNP because it was no longer what they wanted and the Conservatives because the poison challis was now entirely owned by Labour!

Starmer was happy because he can now tell his rebels that the House voted on it so take it up with them if they didn't like it - not him!




To cap it all off, the Parliaments expert on parliamentary procedure has immediately written to Hoyle to tell him he'd fucked up! -

The fallout from the Speaker's unusual decision to allow Labour's amendment to the Gaza debate is continuing.

Now the Clerk of the House, Tom Goldsmith, who's the chief adviser on matters of parliamentary procedure in the Commons, has added his views.

He's written a letter putting on record his belief Lindsay Hoyle's decision was a "substantial breach" of procedures intended to allow the opposition to vote on their own motion.

"...I feel compelled to point out that long-established conventions are not being followed in this case," he writes, adding he and Hoyle discussed the issue "extensively" and the final decision "is one for you to make"

I like Hoyle in general. He’s managed some tricky situations with a firm hand and the occasional touch of laughter in the past, but he has made an error of judgment here and thankfully it’s not a mistake that’s particularly important - apart from the impact on him.

He broke convention - which upset a few but he was within his rights to do it, so he didn’t do anything illegal and fortunately it was only over the wording of a statement that will be ignored by Israel and the USA anyway so it’s not actually important.

Yes there will be a lot of posturing and indignation as the various parties make as big a meal of it as they can, and Hoyle may resign but ultimately the wording of a pointless statement isn’t a big deal on the world stage.

Personally I’m annoyed that our MPs are wasting their time and our money on it when it could be better spent on healthcare and education.

Hahaha!!!

Are you saying that just to take the opposite view to me or do you simply not understand what has happened - or both???

He's got himself involved with party politics (just shows how useless he is as a Speaker) - it isn't anything to do with a motion that everyone KNOWS will be ignored by Israel - by his actions (whether knowingly or not) he has dug Labour out of their biggest hole they've got themselves into for years, in the run up to a General Election that is imminent in just a handful of months time - with Labour massively dependant on the Muslim vote.

"The move meant Labour MPs could call for a ceasefire without backing a differently-worded SNP motion, limiting a potential Labour rebellion".

The row erupted during a debate allocated to the Scottish National Party, during which they are allowed to put forward motions for debate and vote.

The SNP tabled a motion calling for an "immediate ceasefire" in Gaza and calling for an end to the "collective punishment of the Palestinian people".

Labour, which has shifted its stance on the conflict on recent days, tabled an amendment that also backed an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, but also noted that Israel "cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence".

If it's not 'such a big thing' then why are these the front pages of todays newspapers???


















In a statement after the debate, SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn said Sir Lindsay had "colluded" with Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer to "block Parliament voting on the SNP motion".

Speaking on Thursday, Labour campaign co-ordinator Pat McFadden acknowledged that party leader Sir Keir had lobbied Sir Lindsay before the debate to allow a vote on Labour's motion.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68366512

If you still don't understand it...

If Hoyle had ignored the call from Labour for an amendment - which by convention he SHOULD have done, the motion by the SNP would have faced the governments amendment - which with the Conservatives having a majority, would have been passed - and then the amended motion voted on and passed BUT a vast majority of Labour members would have rebelled against it - and split the Labour Party.

This back in November being the background leading up to yesterdays motion -

Keir Starmer suffers major Labour rebellion over Gaza ceasefire vote

Sir Keir Starmer has suffered a major rebellion over his stance on the Israel-Gaza war, with 56 of his MPs voting for an immediate ceasefire.

Jess Phillips, Afzal Khan and Yasmin Qureshi were among shadow ministers who quit their roles to back the motion from the SNP.

Ten of the party's frontbenchers have left their jobs over the vote, including eight shadow minsters.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67432393

Labour has since agreed rally round a 'humanatarian' cease fire position...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68346129
...but the SNP's motion was for an unconditional cease fire which the 56 Labour MP's (if not many more now) would again have voted for (how could they not?) - and splitting the Labour party in half yet again - just before the General Election is about to be held!


The only way Starmer could prevent this massive undermining of his position was to get HIS amendment heard - with the line in it about 'no cease fire whilst Hamas continuing violence' (which Hamas won't stop!).

Whether Hoyle was implicit or simply played, his actions were such that he had no understanding of the party politics going on around him and thus compliantly or stupidly let himself to be led into the actions he did.

And it really wasn't too hard to work out what Starmer was attempting to do - and Hoyle had years of Parliamentary convention history behind him, not to allow the Labour amendment - and clearly had prior receipt of such advise from his Parliamentary advisors - so it beggars belief that he did what he did!!!

AND I've absolutely ZERO idea why you think this???

wanderlust wrote:I like Hoyle in general. He’s managed some tricky situations with a firm hand and the occasional touch of laughter in the past...

Just look at him in action yesterday - Christ he's NO control, often reads from NOTES provided to him and acts like a limp lettuce - and always has done...

For completeness, this was the government amendment which they withdrew and walk out following Hoyle allowing of the Labour one.

Government amendment on Gaza ceasefire vote puts Labour in a bind
Shadow foreign secretary David Lammy suggested Labour could not back either the Government or SNP motion on the Israel-Hamas war.

I think it would be untenable for (Sir Keir Starmer) to say that he backs an immediate ceasefire, but not vote for one

SNP WESTMINSTER LEADER STEPHEN FLYNN




The UK Government has put forward an amendment to counter the SNP’s Gaza ceasefire motion in a move that could expose Labour splits over the Middle East conflict.

Labour had looked to avoid another possible rebellion over the Israel-Hamas war by tabling an amendment to the Scottish nationalists’ motion demanding an immediate ceasefire.

Sir Keir Starmer’s party on Tuesday publicly shifted its stance to back a call for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire”, giving MPs who were unhappy with the leadership’s previous handling of the issue a wording to rally behind.

But the Government’s decision to table its own counter-amendment to the motion increases the likelihood that the Commons Speaker will not choose the Labour amendment for debate on Wednesday.

It could leave Labour MPs with the choice between voting for the Government’s position, which does not go as far as calling for an immediate ceasefire, and the SNP’s stance.

The debate will be going on as thousands of pro-Palestinian demonstrators are expected to take part in a rally in Parliament Square on Wednesday.

The Government amendment says ministers want an “immediate humanitarian pause” in the fighting before supporting “moves towards a permanent sustainable ceasefire” that involves Hamas freeing all hostages, the Palestinian militant group relinquishing control of Gaza and international efforts to create a two-state solution.

The amendment says it “supports Israel’s right to defence, in compliance with international humanitarian law”.

Labour has not said how it plans to vote if its own amendment is not backed.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/david-lammy-government-gaza-mps-uk-government-b1140443.html

Completely understand it and it’s not important in any way as I said. He broke wit a tradition- so what?
He may leave his job - so what? Wil his actions impact on what’s happening in Gaza? Will they fuck.
Non event for me.

And why Labour could not back the SNP motion...

There is a real split between the SNP and Labour on Gaza

Labour’s appeal for an immediate ceasefire in an amendment to today’s SNP motion (which will call for the same) contains the caveat that “Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence”. Labour states this is simply the definition of ceasefire, which requires both sides to lay down arms.

The important point is that Labour’s rhetoric has hardened in the face of electoral threats in places such as Rochdale, increasing concern among MPs about the backlash from constituents, and Israel’s anticipated ground offensive against the city of Rafah in southern Gaza. But parliamentary procedure probably means Labour’s amendment to the SNP motion is not voted on at all – paving the way for a Labour rebellion that could have been avoided had the motion accommodated Labour’s concerns.

For that reason, the SNP’s decision to press ahead with its own motion has been labelled unnecessarily partisan and parochial, in the context of a conflict has killed tens of thousands of people.

The Scottish Nats’ determination to expose the divisions within other opposition parties is no surprise. The SNP has recognised for months that Labour is its main opponent at the general election and the Holyrood elections in 2026. The attacks on Labour by its leader in the Commons, Stephen Flynn, at each Prime Minister’s Questions prove that.

But these calculations aren’t merely political games. If parliament does express a view contrary to the government, that in itself will be significant. More importantly, the SNP’s motion has revealed genuine differences between itself and Labour over the war. Lammy has said he would not vote for the motion – which accuses Israel of imposing collective punishment and doesn’t call for a two-state solution nor recognise Palestinian sovereignty – in order to protect Labour’s diplomatic efforts were it to enter government.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/labour/2024/02/snp-ceasefire-motion-split-labour

A shameful dereliction of duty by MPs  who chose to indulge in childish, self-interested theatrics, involving the nuances of semantics, rather than debating seriously an issue of global concern.

Another example of the UK making itself an irrelevant laughing stock internationally.

wanderlust wrote:Completely understand it and it’s not important in any way as I said. He broke wit a tradition- so what?
He may leave his job - so what? Wil his actions impact on what’s happening in Gaza? Will they fuck.
Non event for me.

You've completely missed what the story is all about.

It's nothing to do with Israel and Palestine and EVERYTHING to do with this years General Election!!!

Both the Tories and SNP see Labour as the main threat - and it is.

The only way to stop Labour is to make them look like utter loons to the general public and one way of doing that is for Labour to tear itself apart and losing the Muslim vote - as well as those who have their doubts about Labour anyway!

The SNP COULD  have easily worded its motion that took in Labours solution to Labours own internal strife - but DIDN'T - they wanted voters to keep voting for them and not switch to Labour at the General Election that's just months away.

The SNP had a golden opportunity to put Starmer and the Labour Party on the spot - how could many rebel Labour MP's NOT vote for a ceasefire???

Labour could not afford to have such a rebellion - so tabled it's amendment.

The government were then 'forced' to table its amendment, which meant through convention that only the motion and the government amendment would be voted on and the Labour amendment would not be heard - and again would lead to a rebellion in the Labour ranks.

The only way Starmer could stop that was to get Hoyle to overturn convention and allow the Labour amendment to be heard - and thus scuttling the SNP AND Conservative ploys to humiliate him.

But by doing so the Speaker involved himself in party politics which is strictly against his neutral role.

That is the end for Hoyle, even if he survives to the next General Election (he may now decide not to stand) the Conservatives and SNP will simply no longer vote to re-elect him.

Labour if they have an overall majority could vote him back but won't because Hoyle would no longer be seen to be impartial.

That's what all this has been about - you really haven't had a clue - had you.

okocha wrote:A shameful dereliction of duty by MPs  who chose to indulge in childish, self-interested theatrics, involving the nuances of semantics, rather than debating seriously an issue of global concern.

Another example of the UK making itself an irrelevant laughing stock internationally.

I keep telling anyone who will listen that politics is NOT about doing the right thing, it is all about getting and keeping power.

This was all about the SNP and Conservatives trying to fuck up Labour, just months away from the next General Election.

The jaw dropping thing here is that Hoyle got involved and didn't let it happen - he's either hasn't a clue about what is going on (like Wanderlust) or playing politics instead of staying neutral which is what the Speakers role is all about.