With the Chief Whip apparently.
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
Meeting the Speaker isn't rare
You mean the same Ofcom that, like Ofgem, is accountable to Parliament. The same parliament that - oh, you know where I'm going with this.
He probably went over there to get Hoyle's prediction and money for the Commons Porto vs Arsenal sweepstake Starmer is running.
I imagine he went there to try and advance the Labour party position.
A stupid take.
Keir Starmer accuses the Tories and SNP of “choosing political games over serious solutions”.
The Labour leader said:
The Labour leader said:
That would have less influence on the Speaker. I can't imagine Starmer or the Chief Whip choosing to leak to the BBC that they threatened the Speaker.
I'm officially confused about what has happened today, and even if someone explained it I would probably still be confused. This is what I get for ignoring politics for a couple of days.
Apparently someone outside the room heard them. It was probably a heated conversation.
What passes for British democracy went up against Starmer not wanting to look like he believes Israel has the right to commit acts that Parliament considers collective punishment and thus a war crime.
British democracy lost via a lowblow delivered by the referee.
Labour's wording left out condemnation of Israel and added that a ceasefire won't happen until Hamas ceases violence. A total cop out.
He'd definitely get through to judges houses with a sob story like that.
What I don't understand is why, with the government amendment, there would have been 3 separate votes (original SNP text, government amendment, Labour amendment) but once the government amendment was withdrawn the only vote was on the Labour amendment. That seems very strange from a procedural point of view.
It also seems strange that Labour is essentially allowed to gazump the SNP on the SNP's opposition day. What is the point of allotting an opposition day to the SNP if one could theoretically table an amendment replacing the entire text of whatever the SNP put forward and then only having a debate and vote on that amendment? Seems ridiculous.
It also seems strange that Labour is essentially allowed to gazump the SNP on the SNP's opposition day. What is the point of allotting an opposition day to the SNP if one could theoretically table an amendment replacing the entire text of whatever the SNP put forward and then only having a debate and vote on that amendment? Seems ridiculous.
The PA news agency takes a look at what happened on one of the chamber’s most heated days since the Brexit debates of 2016 to 2020.
– What was expected to happen on Wednesday?
Section 31 (2) explains that when the Government tables an amendment to an Opposition Day Debate motion, the original words of the motion will be voted upon first and if rejected then the Government’s alternative wording will be put to a vote.
The expectation therefore was that the Government amendment to the SNP motion would be selected for debate with both being voted on.
– What did the Speaker do?
Sir Lindsay said he wanted MPs to consider the “widest possible range of options” and announced at the start of Wednesday’s debates that he would be selecting both the Labour amendment and the Government amendment.
He acknowledged this was an exceptional move and this provoked uproar in the chamber, with Conservative former minister Sir Desmond Swayne lampooning the Speaker by shouting “bring back Bercow!” – a nod to the previous Speaker John Bercow, whose controversial tenure concluded with the Brexit wars.
Sir Lindsay also faced shouts of resign and “shame” from the SNP and Conservative benches.
– Why was the Speaker’s decision an issue for many MPs?
The SNP have up to three days on which, as the second largest opposition party, they can lead debates. The selection of the amendments by the Speaker led them to argue they were being denied an opportunity to have a vote on their motion – given that Labour’s amendment would be voted on first and sought to change its content.
Claims also circulated that Sir Lindsay had bowed to pressure from Labour to select their amendment, something that was denied.
Commons Leader Penny Mordaunt accused Sir Lindsay of having “hijacked” the debate and said it had become a “political row within the Labour Party”, adding: “Regrettably Mr Speaker has inserted himself into that row with today’s decision and undermined the confidence of this House in being able to rely on its long-established standing orders to govern its debates.”
– Did anyone else question the decision?
Sir Lindsay was warned by House of Commons Clerk Tom Goldsmith about the unprecedented nature of his decision ahead of the clash with MPs, with the senior official saying he felt “compelled to point out that long-established conventions are not being followed in this case”.
The clerk is the chief adviser to the House on matters of parliamentary procedure, privilege and broader constitutional issues.
– What happened next?
Once tempers had calmed after the Speaker’s initial decision, an actual debate took place in the House of Commons. Shortly after 6pm and after the SNP frontbench had finished their speech to wind up the debate, Mordaunt made a point of order on behalf of the Government.
It was at this point she attacked the Speaker’s handling of the matter and suggested the Government would take no part in votes linked to the motion.
As Deputy Speaker Dame Rosie Winterton tried to move towards holding the votes, further points of order were raised during heated exchanges.
Flynn repeatedly demanded to know the whereabouts of the Speaker before SNP MPs and several Conservative MPs walked out of the chamber in an apparent protest at the handling of matters.
It was understood that SNP MPs headed to the voting lobby in anticipation of voting in favour of calls for a ceasefire.
– So they had a vote?
Further points of order continued to be raised, with Conservative MP William Wragg asking if ministers could sign his no confidence motion in the Speaker and Dame Rosie denying claims that Sir Lindsay selected Labour’s amendment amid threats from the party that they would “bring him down” should they win the election.
A vote then took place when Wragg rose to ask that the House sat in private. This was defeated but was interpreted by some as a time-wasting ruse in the belief that if the clock ticked past 7pm – the moment of interruption for the day – that no other votes could take place.
Deputy Speaker Dame Rosie later said advice had been taken and the vote on the Labour amendment was required to take place regardless of the timing.
If MPs had decided the House should sit in private, the galleries would have been cleared and the broadcast feed would have ceased.
– OK, so at this point there was a vote on the actual debate?
Yes. Labour’s amendment pushing for an immediate Gaza ceasefire was approved by the Commons without a formal vote being called.
The Deputy Speaker ruled that it had been approved on the shouts of MPs. Conservative former minister Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg later challenged this ruling and said: “It is absolutely extraordinary that that noise level was deemed to be ‘aye’.”
Some MPs were left frustrated that a formal vote did not take place, with many wanting to place on record their decision and show their constituents they had supported a ceasefire.
– And how did the Speaker respond to events?
Sir Lindsay returned to the chair once Labour’s amendment had been approved. He apologised to the Commons amid shouts of “resign” from some MPs.
He said he was “very, very concerned about the security” of all MPs, adding: “I wanted all to ensure they could express their views and all sides of the House could vote. As it was, in particular the SNP were ultimately unable to vote on their proposition.
“I am, and I regret… with my sadness, that it’s ended up… in this position. That was never my intention for it to end like this. I was absolutely convinced that the decision was done with the right intentions. I recognise the strength of feeling of members on this issue.”
Sir Lindsay also denied meeting Labour adviser Sue Gray on Wednesday.
– How did MPs respond to the apology?
The SNP’s Mr Flynn said he would take significant convincing that the Speaker’s position was “not now intolerable” and claimed his party had been treated with contempt.
Sir Lindsay has offered to meet Mr Flynn and other key players to discuss the matter.
– What is the impact of Labour’s amendment being agreed?
Opposition Day Debate motions are non-binding on the Government. But on matters such as this they at least signal the feeling of the House of Commons. What was clear from the debate is MPs from all sides want to see an end to the violence in the Hamas-Israel conflict, although they disagree on how best to achieve this.
– What happens next?
It is unlikely the Speaker has heard the last of Wednesday’s events and business questions on Thursday may be another occasion when Mordaunt and others consider the matter further.
The fecking state of these tweets.
They never seem keen to explain which bit of the SNP's original motion Starmer found so awful he couldn't show their oh so desired 'cross-party support' for it.
So on this reading it wasn't so much Hoyle accepting the Labour amendment that prevented the naked SNP motion from being voted on, but the withdrawal of the government's amendment by the Conservative Party. Is that right? I'm still confused though. Just because an amendment is proposed by another opposition party instead of the government shouldn't change the procedural order so radically. Surely precedence should still be given to the party who's opposition day it is. Strikes me that because this was such an unusual decision by the speaker such an occurrence was't legislated for and so convention dictated the house fall back on some set of standard (non opposition day) procedures.
It really does feel like the SNP was short changed.
Nah, it seems they tried to make this motion about politics, got caught out and now are throwing their toys out the pram.
The Tories is seems also know they couldn't do anything so upped and left.
As not someone playing politics, which bit of blocking aid, food, fuel and water into an entire population do you not consider collective punishment? Which bit of bombing civilian areas and refugee camps do you not consider collective punishment? How high up the Hamas totem pole do you think Hind Rajab was prior to her death?
What part of Starmer wanting to remove the part of the SNP motion describing such things (and things he said Israel has the right to do) as collective punishment and going to the lengths of visiting the speaker personally to ensure that happens is not 'playing politics'?
So let me get this straight: no call for ceasefire from Tories or Labour, right? And the people bringing any semblance of ceasefire were poo pooed out? Right. Gotcha. Let me find my surprised mask. Genocidal cnuts.
This doesn't seem correct but I've thought about it a fair bit and I remain very uncertain. You seem very certain, but that just makes me think you haven't given this very much thought.
No. Hoyle should have chosen the SNP one, but chose Labour. The Government withdrew their motion in protest. The SNP were shafted here after Labour MPs lobbied the Speaker that their safety would be at risk if the SNP amendment was chosen.
You know, the party of Jo Cox obliquely alluding to what happened to Jo Cox if Starmer wasn't removed from this political jam.
When did Hoyle remove the SNP motion?
I don't get the 'security of MPs' thing. Are they saying parliament should surrender to threats from the public? What sort of precedent is that?
No polonium threats to MPs when they passed motions against Russia left, right and fecking centre. Genocidal Labour and Tory cnuts.
The reason I'm not on the same page here is something that the Deputy Speaker said when I was listening. I've just gone back in the broadcast to about 18:15 or so and she says the following in response to the SNP's point of order:
Dame Rosie Winterton said:
I understood the "three votes" to be the SNP motion and the two amendments. Clear as mud to me.
Frosty was incorrect is all. The Speaker did not disallow the SNP motion. The controversy is that he allowed the Labour amendment to that motion to be tabled.
If Labour hadn't tabled their amendment the government would have continued with their own amendment. The SNP motion would have been unlikely to pass unamended.
Hoyle should resign. The chicanery of Starmer smells like someone pulled back Johnson's hood.
Surely The Speakers position is untenable now
Hoyle is a disgrace. Its bad enough he went on a sponsored trip to Israel (deeply inappropriate for a speaker), and now this. He should be removed as speaker.
Starmer is just a cnut, but he's got away with it. Hopefully the voters who care deeply about this issue don't forget it come the polls.
Starmer is just a cnut, but he's got away with it. Hopefully the voters who care deeply about this issue don't forget it come the polls.
Of course, if the Speaker hadn't selected the Labour amendment, the SNP motion simply wouldn't have passed and there wouldn't be a record of Parliament wanting a ceasefire.
Sole intention was to focus on Labour, rather than get any votes for the ceasefireThe fecking state of these tweets.
They never seem keen to explain which bit of the SNP's original motion Starmer found so awful he couldn't show their oh so desired 'cross-party support' for it.
This is Labour's equivalent to The Conservative's prorogation of parliament. It's shameful. They're an absolute disgrace.
I recognise politicians making political points quite well tbhThis doesn't seem correct but I've thought about it a fair bit and I remain very uncertain. You seem very certain, but that just makes me think you haven't given this very much thought.
Farcical take.