I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
It is what Jon Craig of Sky reported
In this parliament Labour can do zip to remove Hoyle , they don’t have the votes . Craig is being his customary drama queen believing any old nonsense he’s told .
Yes but in the next parliament they almost certainly will.
So what - he's 67 now, time to retire. Its probably not a bad thing for a new parliament to have a new speaker (that by convention would be an ex-conservative).
It certainly would be if Rees-Mogg got it.
Speaking of whom.. Presumably JRM would prefer full fat male breast milk to nasty woke skimmed.
Another asset sold overseas. MCR Hotels is American.
Not much of an asset, these days. The microwave network it was built for was switched off decades ago. The tower itself was used for mobile network control, but that was moved to Vodafone's Newbury site in the mid 2010s. There's a broadcast switching hub in the base, or was until recently - but that could be done anywhere, there's no need for it to be in the middle of London.
Otherwise, it's just a very expensive corporate hospitality site. It's Grade II listed, so can't easily be altered to be suitable for anything BT might actually need.
Flogging it to be used as a hotel is probably the best thing that can be done with it.
Agree. But in terms of quality, it deserves Grade I listing. In its day it was an astonishment to be admired. If only other high buildings in London were as interesting.
It's an ugly looking thing in the wrong place. Sticking up out of lovely Fitzrovia
Pull it down, and London's skyline would begin to make more sense (not hard)
Something that looks like a giant dildo ought to be right up your... street ?
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
It is what Jon Craig of Sky reported
In this parliament Labour can do zip to remove Hoyle , they don’t have the votes . Craig is being his customary drama queen believing any old nonsense he’s told .
Yes but in the next parliament they almost certainly will.
So what - he's 67 now, time to retire. Its probably not a bad thing for a new parliament to have a new speaker (that by convention would be an ex-conservative).
It certainly would be if Rees-Mogg got it.
Mogg would be great speaker 👍🏻
He just endorsed Hoyle’s decision. Not sure if that’s real or mischief making.
And another test is needed ASAP - preferably more than one - where it is seen publicly to work.
That's not really up to the UK because we don't have a test range and probably don't have another test airframe prepared. So it's up to the USN and Lockheed-Martin.
The situation could very definitely be improved by much more regular test firings but every Trident shot is 20 million quid so the MoD prefer to "validate" via software simulation.
Feels like this might be a better use of any recent boost to the Treasury coffers than f*cking tax cuts that we can clearly ill-afford.
Mind you every other public service would have a similar claim.
Part of the problem was that we only had three boats to maintain the CASD because they had to saw Vanguard in half to refuel her and it took seven years. So very limited opportunities to dedicate a boat to testing.
I just love how some PB shrewdie thinks it would be better to fire more useless missiles we'll never use at nothing rather than let people keep a bit more of their own money. I thought it was meant to be the younger generation who are educationally subnormal.
Another asset sold overseas. MCR Hotels is American.
Not much of an asset, these days. The microwave network it was built for was switched off decades ago. The tower itself was used for mobile network control, but that was moved to Vodafone's Newbury site in the mid 2010s. There's a broadcast switching hub in the base, or was until recently - but that could be done anywhere, there's no need for it to be in the middle of London.
Otherwise, it's just a very expensive corporate hospitality site. It's Grade II listed, so can't easily be altered to be suitable for anything BT might actually need.
Flogging it to be used as a hotel is probably the best thing that can be done with it.
Agree. But in terms of quality, it deserves Grade I listing. In its day it was an astonishment to be admired. If only other high buildings in London were as interesting.
It's an ugly looking thing in the wrong place. Sticking up out of lovely Fitzrovia
Pull it down, and London's skyline would begin to make more sense (not hard)
Did you ever get to dine in the revolving restaurant? (Would have been a private invite probably, since it hasn't been open to the public since 1971).
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
The convention was that only government amendments should be selected for opposition motions?
Yeah, that looks outdated for me. Fine for a two party world, but not when we have significant numbers of MPs from third and fourth parties.
Beth Rigby's reporting that the deciding factor was that MPs feared for their safety if a way wasn't found to defuse the issue:
On the matter on pressure on Speaker. Am told that many MPs made a personal pleas to Sir Lindsay about amendments. MPs' have growing concerns for personal safety after incidents of confrontations & protests over the Israel-Hamas war. https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1760306065634124018
So threatening and intimidating MPs works. Useful to know for a multitude of interest groups.
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
The convention was that only government amendments should be selected for opposition motions?
Yeah, that looks outdated for me. Fine for a two party world, but not when we have significant numbers of MPs from third and fourth parties.
Beth Rigby's reporting that the deciding factor was that MPs feared for their safety if a way wasn't found to defuse the issue:
On the matter on pressure on Speaker. Am told that many MPs made a personal pleas to Sir Lindsay about amendments. MPs' have growing concerns for personal safety after incidents of confrontations & protests over the Israel-Hamas war. https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1760306065634124018
Where I have sympathy (!) for the SNP is they don’t get many opposition days. It should be SNP motion vs government amendment
Labour have grabbed the airtime.
Will the SNP get to put down an amendment on the next Labour oppo day? I doubt it somehow!
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
It is what Jon Craig of Sky reported
In this parliament Labour can do zip to remove Hoyle , they don’t have the votes . Craig is being his customary drama queen believing any old nonsense he’s told .
Yes but in the next parliament they almost certainly will.
So what - he's 67 now, time to retire. Its probably not a bad thing for a new parliament to have a new speaker (that by convention would be an ex-conservative).
Yep it’s a frigging mess because everyone needs their own exact wording to protect their viewpoint.
Meanwhile your typical MP is being attacked on both sides because people don’t grasp that we have sod all say in what is happening being a small country x,000 miles away
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
It is what Jon Craig of Sky reported
Was that on twitter or earlier in the day? I’ve been through the liveblog and the only post from Jon Craig was on the SNP backing Labour’s amendment.
No - it was immediately after Hoyle's decision and live on Sky by Craig
Did he say “Tory MPs allege” at beginning of claiming it?
It would be difficult for Sky news to know/prove either way.
No - he didn't refer to them just commenting that a furious row was heard between Hoyle, Starmer and the shadow chief whip whilst labour mps were delaying the decision by asking an extraordinary number of lengthy points of order
Craig did say the SNP were furious as were conservative mps
I would just say I watched Sky throughout PMQs, points of order, and then Jon Craig comments which immediately followed
Another asset sold overseas. MCR Hotels is American.
Not much of an asset, these days. The microwave network it was built for was switched off decades ago. The tower itself was used for mobile network control, but that was moved to Vodafone's Newbury site in the mid 2010s. There's a broadcast switching hub in the base, or was until recently - but that could be done anywhere, there's no need for it to be in the middle of London.
Otherwise, it's just a very expensive corporate hospitality site. It's Grade II listed, so can't easily be altered to be suitable for anything BT might actually need.
Flogging it to be used as a hotel is probably the best thing that can be done with it.
Agree. But in terms of quality, it deserves Grade I listing. In its day it was an astonishment to be admired. If only other high buildings in London were as interesting.
It's an ugly looking thing in the wrong place. Sticking up out of lovely Fitzrovia
Pull it down, and London's skyline would begin to make more sense (not hard)
Did you ever get to dine in the revolving restaurant? (Would have been a private invite probably, since it hasn't been open to the public since 1971).
I went up, as a child, when it was open to the public. And was invited up again, by BT in 2012, as a special guest being one of the London councillors peripherally involved in preparing for the Olympics.
The fact is that the Parliament of this country (which has precisely zilch influence on whether or not the fighting in Gaza stops), is getting itself so worked up about the nuances in the wording of motions that will make absolutely no difference, is incredibly depressing. Its student union politics.
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
It is what Jon Craig of Sky reported
In this parliament Labour can do zip to remove Hoyle , they don’t have the votes . Craig is being his customary drama queen believing any old nonsense he’s told .
They would have the votes if the Tories feel like changing the Speaker as well. I don't know whether any or many of them do feel like that.
Labour will be happy for Hoyle stay on until the GE . Why would Labour want to get rid of him now . Tories of course have the votes to remove him after his decision today.
This is the first time Hoyle has made a controversial decision so it does look over the top to remove him .
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
The convention was that only government amendments should be selected for opposition motions?
Yeah, that looks outdated for me. Fine for a two party world, but not when we have significant numbers of MPs from third and fourth parties.
Beth Rigby's reporting that the deciding factor was that MPs feared for their safety if a way wasn't found to defuse the issue:
On the matter on pressure on Speaker. Am told that many MPs made a personal pleas to Sir Lindsay about amendments. MPs' have growing concerns for personal safety after incidents of confrontations & protests over the Israel-Hamas war. https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1760306065634124018
So threatening and intimidating MPs works. Useful to know for a multitude of interest groups.
Sky news used to be quite good on politics. It’s recently gone completely hyperbolic, more interested in drama than journalism.
Sky’s lefty and ultra woke breakfast show is completely unwatchable now.
The BT Tower is an outstanding example of British techno-modernist-futurism, which probably has an actual name.
Other examples include “Dan Dare”, the TARDIS console, and the Blue Streak missile.
In sense of style, it would be atompunk, or the British version. Architecturally it would be modernist, specifically the Modern Movement. I did some work on this back in my old alternate history days
SNP teaming up with Tories will play *really well* north of the border...
1979 all over again!
SNP losing 80% of their seats would be an eyebrow raiser, but probably good news for Starmer.
Has he yet again played a blinder? Got the amendment he wanted, removed a speaker he doesn't like *and* fucked the SNP over all in one move?
It seems it depends on whether the government accepts labours amendment or calls for a vote on theirs which puts labour back in the same position as if their amendment hadn't been called
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
It is what Jon Craig of Sky reported
In this parliament Labour can do zip to remove Hoyle , they don’t have the votes . Craig is being his customary drama queen believing any old nonsense he’s told .
They would have the votes if the Tories feel like changing the Speaker as well. I don't know whether any or many of them do feel like that.
Labour will be happy for Hoyle stay on until the GE . Why would Labour want to get rid of him now . Tories of course have the votes to remove him after his decision today.
This is the first time Hoyle has made a controversial decision so it does look over the top to remove him .
If it is true that Labour essentially told Hoyle they would unseat him if he didn’t call the amendment, which is what the BBC are suggesting, then the other parties should remove the Speaker.
To bow to party political pressure is exactly what a Speaker shouldn’t do, so I’d say they’re well within their rights.
The Equalities minister Kemi Badenoch has not met with any LGBT organisations since getting the job in September 2022, but has met two groups which campaign against trans rights, according to a freedom of information request highlighted by Labour MP Ben Bradshaw #PMQs
Yep. Yet another lie told by her at the dispatch box. Lying on a multitude of subjects and on repeated occasions.
No wonder Tory members are such fans.
Ben Bradshaw is also being a bit economical with the truth. She has met with Transgender and the LGB Alliance. They are not groups Bradshaw approves of. But that is not the point. There are differing opinions and listening to the views of groups other than Stonewall (whose approach has been recently criticised by the courts in recent legal judgments) and Mermaids, currently under investigation by the Charity Commission for serious governance issues, is sensible. He's pissed off that she won't just listen to Stonewall.
It is not an "extensive" list as claimed by Ms Badenoch. But it is certainly wider than, say, the Labour Party, which won't even allow Labour Womens Declaration to have a stall at Labour Conference.
(I will declare an interest here in that I played a very small part in helping with their response a while back to some proposals put forward by Anneliese Dodds.)
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
It is what Jon Craig of Sky reported
In this parliament Labour can do zip to remove Hoyle , they don’t have the votes . Craig is being his customary drama queen believing any old nonsense he’s told .
They would have the votes if the Tories feel like changing the Speaker as well. I don't know whether any or many of them do feel like that.
Labour will be happy for Hoyle stay on until the GE . Why would Labour want to get rid of him now . Tories of course have the votes to remove him after his decision today.
This is the first time Hoyle has made a controversial decision so it does look over the top to remove him .
Taking the bigger picture, the fact that opposition parties don’t have some sort of right to table amendments is a denial of rights that they should have - at the end of the day a (united) majority government will win every vote, and it should be a fundamental principle of democracy that amendments that are serious and proper are taken and debated, to give opposing views their voice. That’s the way every local council works, and it is shameful that our parliament is so archaic in its procedure.
The fact is that the Parliament of this country (which has precisely zilch influence on whether or not the fighting in Gaza stops), is getting itself so worked up about the nuances in the wording of motions that will make absolutely no difference, is incredibly depressing. Its student union politics.
Jeez. It sounds like the wing simply.... fell apart
????
Is it wise of us to have a nuclear deterrent that is dependent upon another country? Is it in the US's interest for us to have a functioning system or would it be better that we didn't so we'd then be more reliant on Uncle Sam?
Personally, I have always felt we should have gone the French route, and developed our own truly indy deterrent. Expensive, but ultimately worth it
Instead we have ended up with a deterrent wholly dependent on the goodwill of an ally, who might be minded to tell us to fuck off, and now it seems it possibly doesn't work?
We should be urgently looking into the development of an entirely UK deterrent. Perhaps we could unite with Australia, as part of AUKUS, I dunno. They must fancy having a deterrent with China looming...
I agree, with the added thought that we should just abandon the strategic nuclear deterrent and invest in far cheaper tactical nuclear weapons, with various payloads and delivery systems, such as by air. These are independent, and are way scarier to dodgy dictators and bad regimes than a doomsday weapon that we'd only ever use when we've been obliterated in a nuclear strike, and then probably wouldn't work anyway.
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
It is what Jon Craig of Sky reported
In this parliament Labour can do zip to remove Hoyle , they don’t have the votes . Craig is being his customary drama queen believing any old nonsense he’s told .
They would have the votes if the Tories feel like changing the Speaker as well. I don't know whether any or many of them do feel like that.
Labour will be happy for Hoyle stay on until the GE . Why would Labour want to get rid of him now . Tories of course have the votes to remove him after his decision today.
This is the first time Hoyle has made a controversial decision so it does look over the top to remove him .
No it doesn’t. The Tories and SNP should walk the walk and remove him, if they are mouthing off he’s gone bercow and is in Starmer’s pocket, but then don’t actually act and do anything about it? He can easily be replaced by his able deputies who won’t be in Starmer’s pocket.
SNP teaming up with Tories will play *really well* north of the border...
1979 all over again!
SNP losing 80% of their seats would be an eyebrow raiser, but probably good news for Starmer.
Has he yet again played a blinder? Got the amendment he wanted, removed a speaker he doesn't like *and* fucked the SNP over all in one move?
It seems it depends on whether the government accepts labours amendment or calls for a vote on theirs which puts labour back in the same position as if their amendment hadn't been called
It's a opposition day, so bugger all to do with the government, surely ?
IIUC this is 1 of 3 SNP opposition days. Labour have 17. Hoyle is effectively surrendering the day to Labour because it'd be awkward for them if the SNP had as much control if normal procedures were followed. Goldsmith notes this in his acerbic letter.
This to my mind is the worst day of Hoyle's speakership.
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
The convention was that only government amendments should be selected for opposition motions?
Yeah, that looks outdated for me. Fine for a two party world, but not when we have significant numbers of MPs from third and fourth parties.
Beth Rigby's reporting that the deciding factor was that MPs feared for their safety if a way wasn't found to defuse the issue:
On the matter on pressure on Speaker. Am told that many MPs made a personal pleas to Sir Lindsay about amendments. MPs' have growing concerns for personal safety after incidents of confrontations & protests over the Israel-Hamas war. https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1760306065634124018
Where I have sympathy (!) for the SNP is they don’t get many opposition days. It should be SNP motion vs government amendment
Labour have grabbed the airtime.
Will the SNP get to put down an amendment on the next Labour oppo day? I doubt it somehow!
I do see that, and can also see how the ordering of the amendments - with the Labour one to be called first - exacerbates the insult felt by the SNP.
On the other hand, the SNP's main opponent at the moment is Labour, and Flynn does his best to turn PMQs into LOTOQs every week.
There doesn't seem to be any sign of a return to two party politics in the near future, so we do need to have some way of dealing with situations in which the opposition parties have taken significantly different positions.
The Equalities minister Kemi Badenoch has not met with any LGBT organisations since getting the job in September 2022, but has met two groups which campaign against trans rights, according to a freedom of information request highlighted by Labour MP Ben Bradshaw #PMQs
Yep. Yet another lie told by her at the dispatch box. Lying on a multitude of subjects and on repeated occasions.
No wonder Tory members are such fans.
Ben Bradshaw is also being a bit economical with the truth. She has met with Transgender and the LGB Alliance. They are not groups Bradshaw approves of. But that is not the point. There are differing opinions and listening to the views of groups other than Stonewall (whose approach has been recently criticised by the courts in recent legal judgments) and Mermaids, currently under investigation by the Charity Commission for serious governance issues, is sensible. He's pissed off that she won't just listen to Stonewall.
It is not an "extensive" list as claimed by Ms Badenoch. But it is certainly wider than, say, the Labour Party, which won't even allow Labour Womens Declaration to have a stall at Labour Conference.
(I will declare an interest here in that I played a very small part in helping with their response a while back to some proposals put forward by Anneliese Dodds.)
As someone with direct interest in LGBT issues I find the endless bickering of the different advocacy groups to be pitiful. But that is not exactly news - part of the reason I stayed in the closet so long was that the LGBsoc at university wasn't remotely welcoming of bisexuals.
My position is relatively simple - let people be people. The main problem with politicising it is that antis - and the current Tory party are anti - get away with it.
The Equalities minister Kemi Badenoch has not met with any LGBT organisations since getting the job in September 2022, but has met two groups which campaign against trans rights, according to a freedom of information request highlighted by Labour MP Ben Bradshaw #PMQs
Yep. Yet another lie told by her at the dispatch box. Lying on a multitude of subjects and on repeated occasions.
No wonder Tory members are such fans.
Ben Bradshaw is also being a bit economical with the truth. She has met with Transgender and the LGB Alliance. They are not groups Bradshaw approves of. But that is not the point. There are differing opinions and listening to the views of groups other than Stonewall (whose approach has been recently criticised by the courts in recent legal judgments) and Mermaids, currently under investigation by the Charity Commission for serious governance issues, is sensible. He's pissed off that she won't just listen to Stonewall.
It is not an "extensive" list as claimed by Ms Badenoch. But it is certainly wider than, say, the Labour Party, which won't even allow Labour Womens Declaration to have a stall at Labour Conference.
(I will declare an interest here in that I played a very small part in helping with their response a while back to some proposals put forward by Anneliese Dodds.)
With the best will in the world, it would be very difficult to describe "Transgender [Trend? Omitted word?]" and "LGB Alliance" as LGBT+ organisations, since they are defined in contradistinction to the "T" part.
By analogy, it's like inviting the Church of Satan to a consultation on Christian church regulation and not inviting the Roman Catholic Church.
Jeez. It sounds like the wing simply.... fell apart
????
Is it wise of us to have a nuclear deterrent that is dependent upon another country? Is it in the US's interest for us to have a functioning system or would it be better that we didn't so we'd then be more reliant on Uncle Sam?
Personally, I have always felt we should have gone the French route, and developed our own truly indy deterrent. Expensive, but ultimately worth it
Instead we have ended up with a deterrent wholly dependent on the goodwill of an ally, who might be minded to tell us to fuck off, and now it seems it possibly doesn't work?
We should be urgently looking into the development of an entirely UK deterrent. Perhaps we could unite with Australia, as part of AUKUS, I dunno. They must fancy having a deterrent with China looming...
I agree, with the added thought that we should just abandon the strategic nuclear deterrent and invest in far cheaper tactical nuclear weapons, with various payloads and delivery systems, such as by air. These are independent, and are way scarier to dodgy dictators and bad regimes than a doomsday weapon that we'd only ever use when we've been obliterated in a nuclear strike, and then probably wouldn't work anyway.
How many dodgy regimes would believe we'd use even a tactical nuke? I certainly don't...
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
It is what Jon Craig of Sky reported
In this parliament Labour can do zip to remove Hoyle , they don’t have the votes . Craig is being his customary drama queen believing any old nonsense he’s told .
They would have the votes if the Tories feel like changing the Speaker as well. I don't know whether any or many of them do feel like that.
Labour will be happy for Hoyle stay on until the GE . Why would Labour want to get rid of him now . Tories of course have the votes to remove him after his decision today.
This is the first time Hoyle has made a controversial decision so it does look over the top to remove him .
If it is true that Labour essentially told Hoyle they would unseat him if he didn’t call the amendment, which is what the BBC are suggesting, then the other parties should remove the Speaker.
To bow to party political pressure is exactly what a Speaker shouldn’t do, so I’d say they’re well within their rights.
Looks like Tories and SNP working together will remove Hoyle tommorow. Take that Starmer 🧨
The Equalities minister Kemi Badenoch has not met with any LGBT organisations since getting the job in September 2022, but has met two groups which campaign against trans rights, according to a freedom of information request highlighted by Labour MP Ben Bradshaw #PMQs
Yep. Yet another lie told by her at the dispatch box. Lying on a multitude of subjects and on repeated occasions.
No wonder Tory members are such fans.
Ben Bradshaw is also being a bit economical with the truth. She has met with Transgender and the LGB Alliance. They are not groups Bradshaw approves of. But that is not the point. There are differing opinions and listening to the views of groups other than Stonewall (whose approach has been recently criticised by the courts in recent legal judgments) and Mermaids, currently under investigation by the Charity Commission for serious governance issues, is sensible. He's pissed off that she won't just listen to Stonewall.
It is not an "extensive" list as claimed by Ms Badenoch. But it is certainly wider than, say, the Labour Party, which won't even allow Labour Womens Declaration to have a stall at Labour Conference.
(I will declare an interest here in that I played a very small part in helping with their response a while back to some proposals put forward by Anneliese Dodds.)
With the best will in the world, it would be very difficult to describe "Transgender [Trend? Omitted word?]" and "LGB Alliance" as LGBT+ organisations, since they are defined in contradistinction to the "T" part.
By analogy, it's like inviting the Church of Satan to a consultation on Christian church regulation and not inviting the Roman Catholic Church.
She consulted with the folk who agree with her, then ?
So we can now go back to thinking Starmer's not a misunderstood tactical genius again.
Thank goodness for that.
He's a brilliant lawyer with a brilliant trap to ensnare his opponents.
Starmer: Richard Rampton
SNP: David Irving.
Well, David Irving did get tripped up in court over a letter written by a senior figure in a National(ist) party on the stationery of the aforesaid National(ist) Party thanking him for his attendance and speech at a rally.
Immediately after he had told the judge he had never spoken at a BNP rally, and had no links with them...
The Equalities minister Kemi Badenoch has not met with any LGBT organisations since getting the job in September 2022, but has met two groups which campaign against trans rights, according to a freedom of information request highlighted by Labour MP Ben Bradshaw #PMQs
Yep. Yet another lie told by her at the dispatch box. Lying on a multitude of subjects and on repeated occasions.
No wonder Tory members are such fans.
Ben Bradshaw is also being a bit economical with the truth. She has met with Transgender and the LGB Alliance. They are not groups Bradshaw approves of. But that is not the point. There are differing opinions and listening to the views of groups other than Stonewall (whose approach has been recently criticised by the courts in recent legal judgments) and Mermaids, currently under investigation by the Charity Commission for serious governance issues, is sensible. He's pissed off that she won't just listen to Stonewall.
It is not an "extensive" list as claimed by Ms Badenoch. But it is certainly wider than, say, the Labour Party, which won't even allow Labour Womens Declaration to have a stall at Labour Conference.
(I will declare an interest here in that I played a very small part in helping with their response a while back to some proposals put forward by Anneliese Dodds.)
...As someone with direct interest in LGBT issues I find the endless bickering of the different advocacy groups to be pitiful...
This is a plot point in the gay rom-com "Bros", a film nobody saw.
Another asset sold overseas. MCR Hotels is American.
Not much of an asset, these days. The microwave network it was built for was switched off decades ago. The tower itself was used for mobile network control, but that was moved to Vodafone's Newbury site in the mid 2010s. There's a broadcast switching hub in the base, or was until recently - but that could be done anywhere, there's no need for it to be in the middle of London.
Otherwise, it's just a very expensive corporate hospitality site. It's Grade II listed, so can't easily be altered to be suitable for anything BT might actually need.
Flogging it to be used as a hotel is probably the best thing that can be done with it.
Agree. But in terms of quality, it deserves Grade I listing. In its day it was an astonishment to be admired. If only other high buildings in London were as interesting.
It's an ugly looking thing in the wrong place. Sticking up out of lovely Fitzrovia
Pull it down, and London's skyline would begin to make more sense (not hard)
The BT Tower is pretty much the only thing of interest in Fitzrovia and by standing clear of surrounding buildings, serves as a landmark for much of North London.
Pity neither Sarah Munby nor Grant Shapps are being called to answer questions about the memo.
Of course not.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68146054 ...The revelations uncovered by the BBC also raise serious questions for the public inquiry by Sir Wyn Williams, as to whether it is adequately scrutinising what the government knew about the Post Office's internal investigations. In UKGI's 2022 statement to the inquiry, there was no reference to Tim Parker's letter to Baroness Neville-Rolfe of 21 June 2016, notifying her he was calling off Deloitte's investigation. In 2018, two years after completing his review, Sir Jonathan Swift, formerly First Treasury Counsel - the top civil lawyer at Her Majesty's Treasury - was appointed to be a High Court judge. He received a knighthood in the same year. However, in the list of upcoming witnesses at the Williams inquiry, his name is absent...,/i>
That is because of the Inquiry's Terms of Reference not because the Judge is not doing his job.
The ToR were drawn up by politicians so it is no surprise that they have been carefully drawn to avoid detailed scrutiny of them.
So we can now go back to thinking Starmer's not a misunderstood tactical genius again.
Thank goodness for that.
He's a brilliant lawyer with a brilliant trap to ensnare his opponents.
Starmer: Richard Rampton
SNP: David Irving.
I don't recall Mr Rampton nobbling the learned Mr Justice Gray and changing the court procedures to suit himself.
I was thinking more the trap of persuading Irving to agree to a trial by judge rather than jury because Rampton/Julius argued that the issues were so complex that members of the public wouldn't be able to comprehend Irving's arguments whereas only a judge could.
Anyhoo, if the SNP are voting for Labour's amendment then it's all good.
So we can now go back to thinking Starmer's not a misunderstood tactical genius again.
Thank goodness for that.
He's a brilliant lawyer with a brilliant trap to ensnare his opponents.
Starmer: Richard Rampton
SNP: David Irving.
I don't recall Mr Rampton nobbling the learned Mr Justice Gray and changing the court procedures to suit himself.
Well, in one way he did. He asked Irving to translate a document, as the translator wasn't present. He then gave Irving one that he'd apparently picked up by mistake, and got him to read a translation into the record.
Three weeks later, Irving found that this was actually a crucial extract from a longer letter that he had deliberately mistranslated in one of his books. He realised this when Rampton read his translation back to him...
I think the IRA were behind the reason it was closed to the public in 1971 (they planted a bomb in the men's toilets) but that's no reason for the foot-dragging for decades after.
No other city would let such a great asset as a revolving restaurant with great views of their capital just lie defunct.
Pity neither Sarah Munby nor Grant Shapps are being called to answer questions about the memo.
Of course not.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68146054 ...The revelations uncovered by the BBC also raise serious questions for the public inquiry by Sir Wyn Williams, as to whether it is adequately scrutinising what the government knew about the Post Office's internal investigations. In UKGI's 2022 statement to the inquiry, there was no reference to Tim Parker's letter to Baroness Neville-Rolfe of 21 June 2016, notifying her he was calling off Deloitte's investigation. In 2018, two years after completing his review, Sir Jonathan Swift, formerly First Treasury Counsel - the top civil lawyer at Her Majesty's Treasury - was appointed to be a High Court judge. He received a knighthood in the same year. However, in the list of upcoming witnesses at the Williams inquiry, his name is absent...,/i>
That is because of the Inquiry's Terms of Reference not because the Judge is not doing his job.
The ToR were drawn up by politicians so it is no surprise that they have been carefully drawn to avoid detailed scrutiny of them.
Well yes. But the result is that the enquiry is not adequately scrutinising the government, as the article says. The judge can be entirely innocent of blame without changing that.
So we can now go back to thinking Starmer's not a misunderstood tactical genius again.
Thank goodness for that.
He's a brilliant lawyer with a brilliant trap to ensnare his opponents.
Starmer: Richard Rampton
SNP: David Irving.
Ignoring the analogy, what commentators away from PB miss is that Starmer is first and foremost a lawyer who knows his way through the rulebook, any rulebook. He used the Labour Party's rules to best Corbyn and the left, and Parliamentary rules to oust Boris Johnson, and now we see it again. The irony is that Starmer would probably make a better Speaker than Prime Minister.
IIUC this is 1 of 3 SNP opposition days. Labour have 17. Hoyle is effectively surrendering the day to Labour because it'd be awkward for them if the SNP had as much control if normal procedures were followed. Goldsmith notes this in his acerbic letter.
This to my mind is the worst day of Hoyle's speakership.
I mean, the SNP could have picked a topic that the Commons has some power to do something about. If they want to waste one of their days on silly games, that’s on them.
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
It is what Jon Craig of Sky reported
In this parliament Labour can do zip to remove Hoyle , they don’t have the votes . Craig is being his customary drama queen believing any old nonsense he’s told .
Yes but in the next parliament they almost certainly will.
So what - he's 67 now, time to retire. Its probably not a bad thing for a new parliament to have a new speaker (that by convention would be an ex-conservative).
It certainly would be if Rees-Mogg got it.
Mogg would be great speaker 👍🏻
He just endorsed Hoyle’s decision. Not sure if that’s real or mischief making.
He’ll be complete rubbish then. Sacked already. 🤦♀️
Got to respect precedent and mannerly behaviour, and not back down to bully’s.
Starmer should have been taken to the cells in the basement, the speaker has that power where MPs step out of line.
Starmer's timidity ruthlessness in play again. While of course it's true that what the HoC votes on today is unimportant to Israel, it's very important to the Labour Party. Starmer's trying to stop Gaza being a festering sore that causes division within his party up to the GE. He thinks they can unite under his amendment. As is often the case, he's probably right. We'll see.
As with Boris, Starmer's opponents make the repeated mistake of underestimating him.
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
It is what Jon Craig of Sky reported
In this parliament Labour can do zip to remove Hoyle , they don’t have the votes . Craig is being his customary drama queen believing any old nonsense he’s told .
They would have the votes if the Tories feel like changing the Speaker as well. I don't know whether any or many of them do feel like that.
Labour will be happy for Hoyle stay on until the GE . Why would Labour want to get rid of him now . Tories of course have the votes to remove him after his decision today.
This is the first time Hoyle has made a controversial decision so it does look over the top to remove him .
If it is true that Labour essentially told Hoyle they would unseat him if he didn’t call the amendment, which is what the BBC are suggesting, then the other parties should remove the Speaker.
To bow to party political pressure is exactly what a Speaker shouldn’t do, so I’d say they’re well within their rights.
So we can now go back to thinking Starmer's not a misunderstood tactical genius again.
Thank goodness for that.
He's a brilliant lawyer with a brilliant trap to ensnare his opponents.
Starmer: Richard Rampton
SNP: David Irving.
Ignoring the analogy, what commentators away from PB miss is that Starmer is first and foremost a lawyer who knows his way through the rulebook, any rulebook. He used the Labour Party's rules to best Corbyn and the left, and Parliamentary rules to oust Boris Johnson, and now we see it again. The irony is that Starmer would probably make a better Speaker than Prime Minister.
I mentioned it a few weeks ago, I accidentally visited some PB threads from early 2022 and there were some PBers asking why Starmer was focussing on Partygate with such obscure questions on a non story.
SNP teaming up with Tories will play *really well* north of the border...
1979 all over again!
The Tories could vote for the SNP motion in a game of bluff and counter bluff. Ideally sufficient Tories would abstain to ensure it was passed on the votes of Labour rebels.
SNP teaming up with Tories will play *really well* north of the border...
1979 all over again!
The Tories could vote for the SNP motion in a game of bluff and counter bluff. Ideally sufficient Tories would abstain to ensure it was passed on the votes of Labour rebels.
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
It is what Jon Craig of Sky reported
In this parliament Labour can do zip to remove Hoyle , they don’t have the votes . Craig is being his customary drama queen believing any old nonsense he’s told .
They would have the votes if the Tories feel like changing the Speaker as well. I don't know whether any or many of them do feel like that.
Labour will be happy for Hoyle stay on until the GE . Why would Labour want to get rid of him now . Tories of course have the votes to remove him after his decision today.
This is the first time Hoyle has made a controversial decision so it does look over the top to remove him .
If it is true that Labour essentially told Hoyle they would unseat him if he didn’t call the amendment, which is what the BBC are suggesting, then the other parties should remove the Speaker.
To bow to party political pressure is exactly what a Speaker shouldn’t do, so I’d say they’re well within their rights.
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
It is what Jon Craig of Sky reported
In this parliament Labour can do zip to remove Hoyle , they don’t have the votes . Craig is being his customary drama queen believing any old nonsense he’s told .
They would have the votes if the Tories feel like changing the Speaker as well. I don't know whether any or many of them do feel like that.
Labour will be happy for Hoyle stay on until the GE . Why would Labour want to get rid of him now . Tories of course have the votes to remove him after his decision today.
This is the first time Hoyle has made a controversial decision so it does look over the top to remove him .
If it is true that Labour essentially told Hoyle they would unseat him if he didn’t call the amendment, which is what the BBC are suggesting, then the other parties should remove the Speaker.
To bow to party political pressure is exactly what a Speaker shouldn’t do, so I’d say they’re well within their rights.
So we can now go back to thinking Starmer's not a misunderstood tactical genius again.
Thank goodness for that.
He's a brilliant lawyer with a brilliant trap to ensnare his opponents.
Starmer: Richard Rampton
SNP: David Irving.
Ignoring the analogy, what commentators away from PB miss is that Starmer is first and foremost a lawyer who knows his way through the rulebook, any rulebook. He used the Labour Party's rules to best Corbyn and the left, and Parliamentary rules to oust Boris Johnson, and now we see it again. The irony is that Starmer would probably make a better Speaker than Prime Minister.
I mentioned it a few weeks ago, I accidentally visited some PB threads from early 2022 and there were some PBers asking why Starmer was focussing on Partygate with such obscure questions on a non story.
So we can now go back to thinking Starmer's not a misunderstood tactical genius again.
Thank goodness for that.
He's a brilliant lawyer with a brilliant trap to ensnare his opponents.
Starmer: Richard Rampton
SNP: David Irving.
Ignoring the analogy, what commentators away from PB miss is that Starmer is first and foremost a lawyer who knows his way through the rulebook, any rulebook. He used the Labour Party's rules to best Corbyn and the left, and Parliamentary rules to oust Boris Johnson, and now we see it again. The irony is that Starmer would probably make a better Speaker than Prime Minister.
Is there any actual evidence that Starmer 'threatened the Speaker', or are we just accepting Tory spin at face value ?
If the latter is the case, then I'm sure all those waxing outraged will turn their fire on the spinners.
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
It is what Jon Craig of Sky reported
In this parliament Labour can do zip to remove Hoyle , they don’t have the votes . Craig is being his customary drama queen believing any old nonsense he’s told .
They would have the votes if the Tories feel like changing the Speaker as well. I don't know whether any or many of them do feel like that.
Labour will be happy for Hoyle stay on until the GE . Why would Labour want to get rid of him now . Tories of course have the votes to remove him after his decision today.
This is the first time Hoyle has made a controversial decision so it does look over the top to remove him .
If it is true that Labour essentially told Hoyle they would unseat him if he didn’t call the amendment, which is what the BBC are suggesting, then the other parties should remove the Speaker.
To bow to party political pressure is exactly what a Speaker shouldn’t do, so I’d say they’re well within their rights.
Labour say it’s not true.
From the BBC:
“ Senior Labour figures have told BBC Newsnight that the commons speaker Sir Lyndsay Hoyle was left in no doubt that Labour was prepared to see him fall as speaker after the general election unless he called its Gaza amendment.
Newsnight has been told that it was made clear that Hoyle would need Labour votes to be re-elected after the general election and this might not be forthcoming.
That would effectively mean he would lose the speakership.”
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
It is what Jon Craig of Sky reported
In this parliament Labour can do zip to remove Hoyle , they don’t have the votes . Craig is being his customary drama queen believing any old nonsense he’s told .
They would have the votes if the Tories feel like changing the Speaker as well. I don't know whether any or many of them do feel like that.
Labour will be happy for Hoyle stay on until the GE . Why would Labour want to get rid of him now . Tories of course have the votes to remove him after his decision today.
This is the first time Hoyle has made a controversial decision so it does look over the top to remove him .
If it is true that Labour essentially told Hoyle they would unseat him if he didn’t call the amendment, which is what the BBC are suggesting, then the other parties should remove the Speaker.
To bow to party political pressure is exactly what a Speaker shouldn’t do, so I’d say they’re well within their rights.
Labour say it’s not true.
What Mandy Rhys-Davies said!
I think you can trust politicians to tell the truth. I mean, take Kemi Badenoch. People thought she was lying and then it turned out… oh.
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
It is what Jon Craig of Sky reported
In this parliament Labour can do zip to remove Hoyle , they don’t have the votes . Craig is being his customary drama queen believing any old nonsense he’s told .
They would have the votes if the Tories feel like changing the Speaker as well. I don't know whether any or many of them do feel like that.
Labour will be happy for Hoyle stay on until the GE . Why would Labour want to get rid of him now . Tories of course have the votes to remove him after his decision today.
This is the first time Hoyle has made a controversial decision so it does look over the top to remove him .
If it is true that Labour essentially told Hoyle they would unseat him if he didn’t call the amendment, which is what the BBC are suggesting, then the other parties should remove the Speaker.
To bow to party political pressure is exactly what a Speaker shouldn’t do, so I’d say they’re well within their rights.
Labour say it’s not true.
What Mandy Rhys-Davies said!
I think you can trust politicians to tell the truth. I mean, take Kemi Badenoch. People thought she was lying and then it turned out… oh.
How can you tell when politicians are lying to you?
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
It is what Jon Craig of Sky reported
In this parliament Labour can do zip to remove Hoyle , they don’t have the votes . Craig is being his customary drama queen believing any old nonsense he’s told .
They would have the votes if the Tories feel like changing the Speaker as well. I don't know whether any or many of them do feel like that.
Labour will be happy for Hoyle stay on until the GE . Why would Labour want to get rid of him now . Tories of course have the votes to remove him after his decision today.
This is the first time Hoyle has made a controversial decision so it does look over the top to remove him .
If it is true that Labour essentially told Hoyle they would unseat him if he didn’t call the amendment, which is what the BBC are suggesting, then the other parties should remove the Speaker.
To bow to party political pressure is exactly what a Speaker shouldn’t do, so I’d say they’re well within their rights.
Labour say it’s not true.
From the BBC:
“ Senior Labour figures have told BBC Newsnight that the commons speaker Sir Lyndsay Hoyle was left in no doubt that Labour was prepared to see him fall as speaker after the general election unless he called its Gaza amendment.
Newsnight has been told that it was made clear that Hoyle would need Labour votes to be re-elected after the general election and this might not be forthcoming.
That would effectively mean he would lose the speakership.”
I think the IRA were behind the reason it was closed to the public in 1971 (they planted a bomb in the men's toilets) but that's no reason for the foot-dragging for decades after.
No other city would let such a great asset as a revolving restaurant with great views of their capital just lie defunct.
Mm, a bit of an overreaction. They could have checked people's bags at the entrance if they were really so worried...
It's a bit like bins at railway stations. After an IRA bomb in the early 90s, there still aren't any bins at main termini - you have find one of the roving cleaners and hand them any rubbish you may have. Elsewhere, they have special clear plastic bags hanging from flimsy loops, ripe for attack from foxes and seagulls.
Meanwhile, in Northern Ireland, every station is peppered with bog standard bins containing cheap as chips black binbags...
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
It is what Jon Craig of Sky reported
In this parliament Labour can do zip to remove Hoyle , they don’t have the votes . Craig is being his customary drama queen believing any old nonsense he’s told .
They would have the votes if the Tories feel like changing the Speaker as well. I don't know whether any or many of them do feel like that.
Labour will be happy for Hoyle stay on until the GE . Why would Labour want to get rid of him now . Tories of course have the votes to remove him after his decision today.
This is the first time Hoyle has made a controversial decision so it does look over the top to remove him .
If it is true that Labour essentially told Hoyle they would unseat him if he didn’t call the amendment, which is what the BBC are suggesting, then the other parties should remove the Speaker.
To bow to party political pressure is exactly what a Speaker shouldn’t do, so I’d say they’re well within their rights.
Labour say it’s not true.
What Mandy Rhys-Davies said!
I think you can trust politicians to tell the truth. I mean, take Kemi Badenoch. People thought she was lying and then it turned out… oh.
How can you tell when politicians are lying to you?
Their lips move.
And when two sets of politicians are saying the opposite of each other ?
Why does the Speaker have to be a job for life? It makes more sense to me to elect a new one every Parliament. Or every session. Parliament is supposed to be some sort of standard bearer for democracy, yet they are frit of having competitive elections. Go figure.
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
It is what Jon Craig of Sky reported
In this parliament Labour can do zip to remove Hoyle , they don’t have the votes . Craig is being his customary drama queen believing any old nonsense he’s told .
They would have the votes if the Tories feel like changing the Speaker as well. I don't know whether any or many of them do feel like that.
Labour will be happy for Hoyle stay on until the GE . Why would Labour want to get rid of him now . Tories of course have the votes to remove him after his decision today.
This is the first time Hoyle has made a controversial decision so it does look over the top to remove him .
If it is true that Labour essentially told Hoyle they would unseat him if he didn’t call the amendment, which is what the BBC are suggesting, then the other parties should remove the Speaker.
To bow to party political pressure is exactly what a Speaker shouldn’t do, so I’d say they’re well within their rights.
Labour say it’s not true.
What Mandy Rhys-Davies said!
I think you can trust politicians to tell the truth. I mean, take Kemi Badenoch. People thought she was lying and then it turned out… oh.
How can you tell when politicians are lying to you?
Their lips move.
And when two sets of politicians are saying the opposite of each other ?
“Understanding is a three edged sword, there is my side, your side and the truth.” (I don’t need to tell some of you the source of that quote.)
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
It is what Jon Craig of Sky reported
In this parliament Labour can do zip to remove Hoyle , they don’t have the votes . Craig is being his customary drama queen believing any old nonsense he’s told .
They would have the votes if the Tories feel like changing the Speaker as well. I don't know whether any or many of them do feel like that.
Labour will be happy for Hoyle stay on until the GE . Why would Labour want to get rid of him now . Tories of course have the votes to remove him after his decision today.
This is the first time Hoyle has made a controversial decision so it does look over the top to remove him .
If it is true that Labour essentially told Hoyle they would unseat him if he didn’t call the amendment, which is what the BBC are suggesting, then the other parties should remove the Speaker.
To bow to party political pressure is exactly what a Speaker shouldn’t do, so I’d say they’re well within their rights.
Labour say it’s not true.
From the BBC:
“ Senior Labour figures have told BBC Newsnight that the commons speaker Sir Lyndsay Hoyle was left in no doubt that Labour was prepared to see him fall as speaker after the general election unless he called its Gaza amendment.
Newsnight has been told that it was made clear that Hoyle would need Labour votes to be re-elected after the general election and this might not be forthcoming.
That would effectively mean he would lose the speakership.”
The eternal dilemma, senior sources keen to show that they're tough and can kick arse, while also not revealing that they've finagled the system to avoid a damaging vote. Couldn't resist the first option obviously.
The Equalities minister Kemi Badenoch has not met with any LGBT organisations since getting the job in September 2022, but has met two groups which campaign against trans rights, according to a freedom of information request highlighted by Labour MP Ben Bradshaw #PMQs
Yep. Yet another lie told by her at the dispatch box. Lying on a multitude of subjects and on repeated occasions.
No wonder Tory members are such fans.
Ben Bradshaw is also being a bit economical with the truth. She has met with Transgender and the LGB Alliance. They are not groups Bradshaw approves of. But that is not the point. There are differing opinions and listening to the views of groups other than Stonewall (whose approach has been recently criticised by the courts in recent legal judgments) and Mermaids, currently under investigation by the Charity Commission for serious governance issues, is sensible. He's pissed off that she won't just listen to Stonewall.
It is not an "extensive" list as claimed by Ms Badenoch. But it is certainly wider than, say, the Labour Party, which won't even allow Labour Womens Declaration to have a stall at Labour Conference.
(I will declare an interest here in that I played a very small part in helping with their response a while back to some proposals put forward by Anneliese Dodds.)
With the best will in the world, it would be very difficult to describe "Transgender [Trend? Omitted word?]" and "LGB Alliance" as LGBT+ organisations, since they are defined in contradistinction to the "T" part.
By analogy, it's like inviting the Church of Satan to a consultation on Christian church regulation and not inviting the Roman Catholic Church.
And then have someone quibbling about a complaint that no Christians had been invited, because "there are differing opinions".
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
It is what Jon Craig of Sky reported
In this parliament Labour can do zip to remove Hoyle , they don’t have the votes . Craig is being his customary drama queen believing any old nonsense he’s told .
They would have the votes if the Tories feel like changing the Speaker as well. I don't know whether any or many of them do feel like that.
Labour will be happy for Hoyle stay on until the GE . Why would Labour want to get rid of him now . Tories of course have the votes to remove him after his decision today.
This is the first time Hoyle has made a controversial decision so it does look over the top to remove him .
If it is true that Labour essentially told Hoyle they would unseat him if he didn’t call the amendment, which is what the BBC are suggesting, then the other parties should remove the Speaker.
To bow to party political pressure is exactly what a Speaker shouldn’t do, so I’d say they’re well within their rights.
Labour say it’s not true.
From the BBC:
“ Senior Labour figures have told BBC Newsnight that the commons speaker Sir Lyndsay Hoyle was left in no doubt that Labour was prepared to see him fall as speaker after the general election unless he called its Gaza amendment.
Newsnight has been told that it was made clear that Hoyle would need Labour votes to be re-elected after the general election and this might not be forthcoming.
That would effectively mean he would lose the speakership.”
Hmm.. sounds like we’re going to get into he said she said, then.
For what it’s worth, as noted above I find the student politics aspect of the whole debate, amendments etc very depressing. That said as a point of principle Hoyle shouldn’t be bowing to pressure from one party (if that is what he did). We don’t want the incoming government party to have compromised the Speaker’s position in such a way.
So yes on principle if it does transpire that is what occurred, I think he should lose the chair.
The Equalities minister Kemi Badenoch has not met with any LGBT organisations since getting the job in September 2022, but has met two groups which campaign against trans rights, according to a freedom of information request highlighted by Labour MP Ben Bradshaw #PMQs
Yep. Yet another lie told by her at the dispatch box. Lying on a multitude of subjects and on repeated occasions.
No wonder Tory members are such fans.
Ben Bradshaw is also being a bit economical with the truth. She has met with Transgender and the LGB Alliance. They are not groups Bradshaw approves of. But that is not the point. There are differing opinions and listening to the views of groups other than Stonewall (whose approach has been recently criticised by the courts in recent legal judgments) and Mermaids, currently under investigation by the Charity Commission for serious governance issues, is sensible. He's pissed off that she won't just listen to Stonewall.
It is not an "extensive" list as claimed by Ms Badenoch. But it is certainly wider than, say, the Labour Party, which won't even allow Labour Womens Declaration to have a stall at Labour Conference.
(I will declare an interest here in that I played a very small part in helping with their response a while back to some proposals put forward by Anneliese Dodds.)
With the best will in the world, it would be very difficult to describe "Transgender [Trend? Omitted word?]" and "LGB Alliance" as LGBT+ organisations, since they are defined in contradistinction to the "T" part.
By analogy, it's like inviting the Church of Satan to a consultation on Christian church regulation and not inviting the Roman Catholic Church.
She consulted with the folk who agree with her, then ?
Which is exactly what Labour have done. They won't even listen to their own party members with a different view. So a bit rich of them to try and take the moral high ground.
Comments
Presumably JRM would prefer full fat male breast milk to nasty woke skimmed.
It would be difficult for Sky news to know/prove either way.
🚨🚨🚨
Hearing the SNP are seeking urgent discussions with Tories about getting rid of Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle after todays Gaza amendment row
https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1760304767434150198
Hoyle's allowed a labour amendment, effectively bringing them into play when maybe he shouldn't have done.
As I understand it.
Hardly an idle threat.
Labour have grabbed the airtime.
Will the SNP get to put down an amendment on the next Labour oppo day? I doubt it somehow!
The video quality is certainly not modern.
Meanwhile your typical MP is being attacked on both sides because people don’t grasp that we have sod all say in what is happening being a small country x,000 miles away
Craig did say the SNP were furious as were conservative mps
I would just say I watched Sky throughout PMQs, points of order, and then Jon Craig comments which immediately followed
The fact is that the Parliament of this country (which has precisely zilch influence on whether or not the fighting in Gaza stops), is getting itself so worked up about the nuances in the wording of motions that will make absolutely no difference, is incredibly depressing. Its student union politics.
Has he yet again played a blinder? Got the amendment he wanted, removed a speaker he doesn't like *and* fucked the SNP over all in one move?
This is the first time Hoyle has made a controversial decision so it does look over the top to remove him .
Sky’s lefty and ultra woke breakfast show is completely unwatchable now.
Ah - found it. 1989.
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2013/january/trident-ii-flipping-flop
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/21/stakes-are-high-as-snp-and-labour-wrestle-over-gaza-ceasefire-call
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberpunk_derivatives
https://www.architecture.com/explore-architecture/modernism
https://www.mainstreammodern.co.uk/casestudies.aspx/Detail/230/post-office-tower
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberpunk_derivatives
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/an-alternate-trek.298075/post-8478607
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/an-alternate-trek.298075/post-8478628
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/an-alternate-trek.298075/post-8533176
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/an-alternate-trek.298075/post-8535167
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/an-alternate-trek.298075/post-8535167
To bow to party political pressure is exactly what a Speaker shouldn’t do, so I’d say they’re well within their rights.
It is not an "extensive" list as claimed by Ms Badenoch. But it is certainly wider than, say, the Labour Party, which won't even allow Labour Womens Declaration to have a stall at Labour Conference.
(I will declare an interest here in that I played a very small part in helping with their response a while back to some proposals put forward by Anneliese Dodds.)
Spoiler: This is not a good thing.
Basically a load of tosh.
On the other hand, the SNP's main opponent at the moment is Labour, and Flynn does his best to turn PMQs into LOTOQs every week.
There doesn't seem to be any sign of a return to two party politics in the near future, so we do need to have some way of dealing with situations in which the opposition parties have taken significantly different positions.
Thank goodness for that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5nZ-SwngnE
(from what i read about recent test, the booster didn't ignite at all...)
My position is relatively simple - let people be people. The main problem with politicising it is that antis - and the current Tory party are anti - get away with it.
That would tie up with the article I found?
By analogy, it's like inviting the Church of Satan to a consultation on Christian church regulation and not inviting the Roman Catholic Church.
Starmer: Richard Rampton
SNP: David Irving.
Immediately after he had told the judge he had never spoken at a BNP rally, and had no links with them...
If this was Boris Johnson behaving like this, quite rightly, “centrist” commentators would be howling in outrage.
They’d call it thuggery, blackmail and an assault on the democratic system.
Let’s see how they respond to this, shall we!
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1760317560942203153
The ToR were drawn up by politicians so it is no surprise that they have been carefully drawn to avoid detailed scrutiny of them.
Anyhoo, if the SNP are voting for Labour's amendment then it's all good.
Three weeks later, Irving found that this was actually a crucial extract from a longer letter that he had deliberately mistranslated in one of his books. He realised this when Rampton read his translation back to him...
I think I need a lie down.
No other city would let such a great asset as a revolving restaurant with great views of their capital just lie defunct.
But the result is that the enquiry is not adequately scrutinising the government, as the article says.
The judge can be entirely innocent of blame without changing that.
All charges dropped.
Got to respect precedent and mannerly behaviour, and not back down to bully’s.
Starmer should have been taken to the cells in the basement, the speaker has that power where MPs step out of line.
timidityruthlessness in play again. While of course it's true that what the HoC votes on today is unimportant to Israel, it's very important to the Labour Party. Starmer's trying to stop Gaza being a festering sore that causes division within his party up to the GE. He thinks they can unite under his amendment.As is often the case, he's probably right. We'll see.
As with Boris, Starmer's opponents make the repeated mistake of underestimating him.
How did an idiot like that ever get into uni?
I won't name and shame those posters.
If the latter is the case, then I'm sure all those waxing outraged will turn their fire on the spinners.
“ Senior Labour figures have told BBC Newsnight that the commons speaker Sir Lyndsay Hoyle was left in no doubt that Labour was prepared to see him fall as speaker after the general election unless he called its Gaza amendment.
Newsnight has been told that it was made clear that Hoyle would need Labour votes to be re-elected after the general election and this might not be forthcoming.
That would effectively mean he would lose the speakership.”
I would love that.
Their lips move.
It's a bit like bins at railway stations. After an IRA bomb in the early 90s, there still aren't any bins at main termini - you have find one of the roving cleaners and hand them any rubbish you may have. Elsewhere, they have special clear plastic bags hanging from flimsy loops, ripe for attack from foxes and seagulls.
Meanwhile, in Northern Ireland, every station is peppered with bog standard bins containing cheap as chips black binbags...
NEW THREAD
For what it’s worth, as noted above I find the student politics aspect of the whole debate, amendments etc very depressing. That said as a point of principle Hoyle shouldn’t be bowing to pressure from one party (if that is what he did). We don’t want the incoming government party to have compromised the Speaker’s position in such a way.
So yes on principle if it does transpire that is what occurred, I think he should lose the chair.