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 believe the unamended motion only gets voted on if no amendments are accepted. So that would need the Tories to vote down their own amendment...
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.
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...
Quite apart from anything else, this trial has been fascinating to hear about today and yesterday (from @TSE too just now). A quick look suggests that it took Prof Evans two years of his time, for which he was paid of course. I see he's written a book about that trial. Any good?
Really? Telling someone that if he makes a decision you disagree with, you will vote against him at the next election? What's wrong with that?
Because we could really do without parties threatening Speakers if they don’t get their way. The whole point is that they are supposed to be the referee, and by asking them to depart from precedent and threatening their job if they do not do so, is not really in keeping with how the system should work. I’d say the same if it was any other party doing this, I have no particular beef with the Labour leadership generally. I just dislike bad practice.
However, the correct response to take in Hoyles position would have been to ignore the pressure. I am sure that Speakers have been threatened before by all and sundry and I’d hope that they’ve not responded to those threats. As the ref, they have to have a thick skin and ignore it. This is of course assuming that events transpired as are being reported.
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".
A better analogy would be to consult only Opus Dei, claim they represent all Christians and ignore the women and others who would be adversely affected by Opus Dei's views. That is pretty much the position with Stonewall. Whatever their strengths they are not lawyers and their advice on the Equality Act has been found to be misleading and got organisations relying on it into legal trouble.
Parties should be consulting a wide range of stakeholders not just one single issue lobby group.
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
The problem is the SNP in Westminster have for the second time used the tragedy of Gaza as a weapon with which to attack Labour division. I suppose weaponising Gaza simply to damage your opponent is fair game, if morally bankrupt. I do find it somewhat ironic nonetheless that the SNP bellyache that their silly game has been scuppered by a Labour silly game
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
The problem is the SNP in Westminster have for the second time used the tragedy of Gaza as a weapon with which to attack Labour division. I suppose weaponising Gaza simply to damage your opponent is fair game, if morally bankrupt. I do find it somewhat ironic nonetheless that the SNP bellyache that their silly game has been scuppered by a Labour silly game
Two cheeks of the same arse, at least the SNP losers forced the labour Hypocrites to do something even if both are just virtue signalling. Fit SNP better if they did some work on Scotland rather than whining constantly about affairs well outside their remit.
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...
Quite apart from anything else, this trial has been fascinating to hear about today and yesterday (from @TSE too just now). A quick look suggests that it took Prof Evans two years of his time, for which he was paid of course. I see he's written a book about that trial. Any good?
It is an excellent book.
And Evans' battles to get it published over the threat of further vexatious suits from Irving is a saga in itself
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...
Quite apart from anything else, this trial has been fascinating to hear about today and yesterday (from @TSE too just now). A quick look suggests that it took Prof Evans two years of his time, for which he was paid of course. I see he's written a book about that trial. Any good?
It is an excellent book.
And Evans' battles to get it published over the threat of further vexatious suits from Irving is a saga in itself
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...
Quite apart from anything else, this trial has been fascinating to hear about today and yesterday (from @TSE too just now). A quick look suggests that it took Prof Evans two years of his time, for which he was paid of course. I see he's written a book about that trial. Any good?
It is an excellent book.
And Evans' battles to get it published over the threat of further vexatious suits from Irving is a saga in itself
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...
Quite apart from anything else, this trial has been fascinating to hear about today and yesterday (from @TSE too just now). A quick look suggests that it took Prof Evans two years of his time, for which he was paid of course. I see he's written a book about that trial. Any good?
It is an excellent book.
And Evans' battles to get it published over the threat of further vexatious suits from Irving is a saga in itself
Thanks! now ordered.
There is a certain irony that it is published by Verso - one of the loudest claimers that there is no antiSemtism in the Labour party, and it's all made up by evil Zionists...
Comments
NEW THREAD
Made me actually LOL.
However, the correct response to take in Hoyles position would have been to ignore the pressure. I am sure that Speakers have been threatened before by all and sundry and I’d hope that they’ve not responded to those threats. As the ref, they have to have a thick skin and ignore it. This is of course assuming that events transpired as are being reported.
Parties should be consulting a wide range of stakeholders not just one single issue lobby group.
And Evans' battles to get it published over the threat of further vexatious suits from Irving is a saga in itself