Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Not the performance of a government that is going to be re-elected – politicalbetting.com

13567

Comments

  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,935
    Vote now on whether House should sit in private
  • Options
    AverageNinjaAverageNinja Posts: 1,169
    IanB2 said:

    There’s a chance that this government might be re-elected? Is this breaking news?

    There's more than a slim chance they are re-elected.

    I absolutely think the polls will narrow and the odds of a Hung Parliament are higher than I think some others might say. Similar to Starmer doing better than many thought after 2019, it is quite possible Sunak does too. He might be a terrible politician thus far but he's not an unintelligent person.
  • Options
    sbjme19sbjme19 Posts: 149

    kle4 said:

    Mordant says Tories ot taking any further part in today's opposition day debate as they have no confidence in Hoyle after he caved to SKS pressure

    Bit of an overreaction to be honest. If the Labour sources' account are true then Hoyle sold his integrity as Speaker for sake of personal politics, but it's still only a single procedural ruling.

    Do they plan to boycott the Commons until he goes? If not, then what's gained by just pulling out for the day?
    SNP and Tories have now both walked out.

    SNP claim now that their are only 2 options theirs should be put first.

    Deputy Speaker says no.

    Looks like there may be no tellers so no vote at all.

    Hoyle needs to go
    Nice if SNP and Tories could stay out.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,139

    kle4 said:

    Mordant says Tories ot taking any further part in today's opposition day debate as they have no confidence in Hoyle after he caved to SKS pressure

    Bit of an overreaction to be honest. If the Labour sources' account are true then Hoyle sold his integrity as Speaker for sake of personal politics, but it's still only a single procedural ruling.

    Do they plan to boycott the Commons until he goes? If not, then what's gained by just pulling out for the day?
    SNP and Tories have now both walked out.

    SNP claim now that their are only 2 options theirs should be put first.

    Deputy Speaker says no.

    Looks like there may be no tellers so no vote at all.

    Hoyle needs to go
    If he does (I do not think he will) the Tories should back an SNP MP as Speaker. That would be hilarious.
  • Options
    AverageNinjaAverageNinja Posts: 1,169
    Taz said:

    His record on housebuilding is lamentable.

    For what it is worth Taz, I 100% agree with you!
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,935

    Omnium said:

    Bet accordingly for London Mayor:


    John Rentoul
    @JohnRentoul
    ·
    1h
    My phone just rang on the Tube on 5G in between stations. What has Sadiq Khan done?

    By far the most transformative policy in years.
    Another major project delivery on Khan's cv. He might not be the most inspiring mayor ever, but he gets shit done.

    • Night Tube
    • Crossrail
    • Ulez
    • Ulez-X
    • Underground mobile
    Get this through your head: Sadiq had fuck all to do with Crossrail getting "done".

    I was there. He was a complete melon obsessed only by PR and media and someone no-one respected.

    He was in office and simply that. Nothing more nothing less.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/10/01/sadiq-khan-takes-control-crossrail/
    That was Andy Byford, not Sadiq Khan.

    Sadiq did fuck all. The man's an idiot.

    I know some ex-New Labour SPads - two of whom worked on the project- who laughed when his name was mentioned.
    Khan seems to have not quite done anything, not quite been guilty of anything, and so far as anyone can tell just banking his salary. A remarkably smart dimwit.
    Indeed, his strong record of major project delivery just happened by pure accident.

    Only on PB.
    HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

    You are ignorant of the facts. But, if there's one thing I've learned over the years, it's that total ignorance of the facts is absolutely no obstacle to people having strong and irrefutable opinions they insist are correct.
    It’s an attitude that has kept PB going for 20 years. (HYUFD waves and BJO waves back).
    I wave at you with one finger
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,139
    As amusing as this mess is, I do hope these sorts of stunts do not become the norm. We don't want a House which is even more just a place to get media clips and to get on the news rather than an actual legislature. See the US Congress.
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,613

    kle4 said:

    Mordant says Tories ot taking any further part in today's opposition day debate as they have no confidence in Hoyle after he caved to SKS pressure

    Bit of an overreaction to be honest. If the Labour sources' account are true then Hoyle sold his integrity as Speaker for sake of personal politics, but it's still only a single procedural ruling.

    Do they plan to boycott the Commons until he goes? If not, then what's gained by just pulling out for the day?
    SNP and Tories have now both walked out.

    SNP claim now that their are only 2 options theirs should be put first.

    Deputy Speaker says no.

    Looks like there may be no tellers so no vote at all.

    Hoyle needs to go
    Without commenting on this issue, I find Lindsay Hoyle the most likeable speaker since Betty Boothroyd, if not before.
    Also, his dad was mentioned in a sample of a news clip in a song by Carter USM.
  • Options
    geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,197

    Thread on the failure of sanctions on Russia from Ed Conway:

    https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1760348194741891241

    image

    Not sufficient just to show the expected growth. The base from which it comes should be shown, or previous years' growth.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,139
    IanB2 said:

    There’s a chance that this government might be re-elected? Is this breaking news?

    If it is more than a 5% chance, yes.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,620
    edited February 21
    kle4 said:

    algarkirk said:

    kle4 said:

    kjh said:

    eek said:

    The Speaker should have told them all to get on with something more important. We all want the war to end even if we disagree about precisely how that should happen. And the combatants on both sides couldn't care in the slightest what our parliaments view on it happens to be. It is just grandstanding. Spend the time fixing something that actually can be fixed by parliament instead.

    This parliament is doing sod all
    I spoke to an MP last Saturday. I was told they are all standing around twiddling their fingers waiting for the election. Fixed term parliament is another thing this Government has undone unwisely.
    Yes, why anyone thought a return to this nonsense was a great idea is quite beyond me.
    It was in the manifesto of Labour and the Tories, so most of the parliament wanted this.

    I liked the principle but in the end it just got bloody silly.
    Yes silly, but not as silly as the mess we got into when we had the FTPA.
    I meant I liked the principle of FTPA but that was what got too silly.

    A government unable to get a GE, but then passing an Act to get one with enough votes to trigger one under FTPA.
    But it’s odd, isn’t it, that for every other democratically elected body in the land, from the Scottish Parliament through to Little Sodbury Parish Council, parliament sets down a fixed electoral cycle such that everyone knows how long is their term of office, and no-one can play silly buggers with the timetable? Yet somehow, parliament itself feels it needs to be an exception.

    Just as, today, we see fun and games over whether procedurally proper opposition amendments can be tabled and debated in the Commons, whereas in every single other democratic body in the land, this right would be taken as read.
  • Options
    TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,733
    AlsoLei said:

    On topic, it's fascinating to see that people believe by 67% to 22% that Sunak is failing even on the pledge to reduce inflation

    I mean, I'm about as far from being a Sunakian as it's possible to get, and even I'll admit that inflation has fallen from where it was a year ago!

    So 67% of the population are prepared to kick Sunak for any reason, whether valid or not....

    Not really. Most people are economically illiterate (me too!).

    "Inflation rises = bad, price rises
    Inflation falls = good, price falls"

    As prices haven't fallen, then people don't believe inflation hasn't fallen.

    It's like the 'debt vs deficit' arguments this site was engaged in more than ten years ago now.
  • Options
    Clutch_BromptonClutch_Brompton Posts: 428
    edited February 21
    On topic - the British public being harsh on inflation but incredibly generous on the other four.

    Mr Sunak doesn't need time to turn this around. He needs a miracle and for his Ministers to stop making fools of themselves - which might count as a second miracle. That applies to the Secretaries for Business and Health especially!

  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,620
    edited February 21

    Omnium said:

    Bet accordingly for London Mayor:


    John Rentoul
    @JohnRentoul
    ·
    1h
    My phone just rang on the Tube on 5G in between stations. What has Sadiq Khan done?

    By far the most transformative policy in years.
    Another major project delivery on Khan's cv. He might not be the most inspiring mayor ever, but he gets shit done.

    • Night Tube
    • Crossrail
    • Ulez
    • Ulez-X
    • Underground mobile
    Get this through your head: Sadiq had fuck all to do with Crossrail getting "done".

    I was there. He was a complete melon obsessed only by PR and media and someone no-one respected.

    He was in office and simply that. Nothing more nothing less.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/10/01/sadiq-khan-takes-control-crossrail/
    That was Andy Byford, not Sadiq Khan.

    Sadiq did fuck all. The man's an idiot.

    I know some ex-New Labour SPads - two of whom worked on the project- who laughed when his name was mentioned.
    Khan seems to have not quite done anything, not quite been guilty of anything, and so far as anyone can tell just banking his salary. A remarkably smart dimwit.
    Indeed, his strong record of major project delivery just happened by pure accident.

    Only on PB.
    HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

    You are ignorant of the facts. But, if there's one thing I've learned over the years, it's that total ignorance of the facts is absolutely no obstacle to people having strong and irrefutable opinions they insist are correct.
    Breaking: evidence at last that our Casino does actually have a mirror at home…. ;)
  • Options
    OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,853

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    There would have been no London Underground 4G/5G without Mayor Khan.

    I was involved with the delivery of the project on behalf of one of the four MNOs.

    He might be absolutely useless on the rest of it but I can speak to that one specific example where he pushed it forward. Johnson never bothered.

    There would have been no advance from the stone ages without ...

    It's ridiculous to associate progress with those who happen to be in office when it takes place.

    If you did then in the UK the Tories would be unassailable,
    Johnson had two terms to deliver a 3G/4G solution and could not be bothered to. Khan delivered it on round two.

    Now I don't doubt Johnson's successor would have delivered it too but in reality he didn't despite having ample time to do so.

    So this is really not an attempt at partisanship in this particular case, I am speaking from my work.

    London in general has poor mobile coverage compared to our competitors and Khan has not been good on that. He has not challenged the silly NIMBYs and councillors rejecting the infrastructure for no reason and for that he's had strong criticism from me.
    Well its daft to tar governments with a lack of incidental progress too. (Not sure what you're saying)
    I was only saying that Boris Johnson didn't deliver 3G/4G on the Tube in his entire time as Mayor and Khan has. That's all I am saying.

    I was then trying to talk about the technicalities of the project having been involved in it but if that's not of interest I am very happy to move onto something else?
    I doubt either can realistically claim much credit. Do tell us about the detail.
  • Options
    numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 5,562
    kle4 said:

    As amusing as this mess is, I do hope these sorts of stunts do not become the norm. We don't want a House which is even more just a place to get media clips and to get on the news rather than an actual legislature. See the US Congress.

    This is why Hoyle should go. Whatever the rights and wrongs and what happened, a significant amount of bad feeling has been generated and the House should have confidence in the Speaker. I like Hoyle, and he is a significant improvement over his predecessor, but this has happened on his watch and he needs to take responsibility for it.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,139
    Cookie said:

    kle4 said:

    Mordant says Tories ot taking any further part in today's opposition day debate as they have no confidence in Hoyle after he caved to SKS pressure

    Bit of an overreaction to be honest. If the Labour sources' account are true then Hoyle sold his integrity as Speaker for sake of personal politics, but it's still only a single procedural ruling.

    Do they plan to boycott the Commons until he goes? If not, then what's gained by just pulling out for the day?
    SNP and Tories have now both walked out.

    SNP claim now that their are only 2 options theirs should be put first.

    Deputy Speaker says no.

    Looks like there may be no tellers so no vote at all.

    Hoyle needs to go
    Without commenting on this issue, I find Lindsay Hoyle the most likeable speaker since Betty Boothroyd, if not before.
    Also, his dad was mentioned in a sample of a news clip in a song by Carter USM.
    He has seemed pretty solid and sound to me thus far. Still gives in to the performative outrage when the government announces things outside the Commons, but the Speaker doing that is as much a part of the role as the robes, it's expected because we want to think we still live in a time when governments did not do it all the time. But I'm hard pressed to think of many other examples of poor behaviour or absurdity.

    Which makes me wonder what Starmer has against him. He surely authorised the statements which have painted Hoyle in such a poor light by suggesting he caved to political threats.
  • Options
    AverageNinjaAverageNinja Posts: 1,169

    AlsoLei said:

    On topic, it's fascinating to see that people believe by 67% to 22% that Sunak is failing even on the pledge to reduce inflation

    I mean, I'm about as far from being a Sunakian as it's possible to get, and even I'll admit that inflation has fallen from where it was a year ago!

    So 67% of the population are prepared to kick Sunak for any reason, whether valid or not....

    Not really. Most people are economically illiterate (me too!).

    "Inflation rises = bad, price rises
    Inflation falls = good, price falls"

    As prices haven't fallen, then people don't believe inflation hasn't fallen.

    It's like the 'debt vs deficit' arguments this site was engaged in more than ten years ago now.
    I think in this particular case I actually feel a bit sorry for Sunak, it's probably the only thing he's vaguely achieved and he can't even get any credit for that. It does feel like the end.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,139
    Speaking of forgotton PMs, today Sunak has equalled the tenure of Spencer Compton, our second Prime Minister.

    Clearly this is a sign that PM trends are cyclical, and Starmer will now govern for 20 years as our final PM.
  • Options
    IanB2 said:

    There’s a chance that this government might be re-elected? Is this breaking news?

    :)


  • Options
    OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,853
    edited February 21

    AlsoLei said:

    On topic, it's fascinating to see that people believe by 67% to 22% that Sunak is failing even on the pledge to reduce inflation

    I mean, I'm about as far from being a Sunakian as it's possible to get, and even I'll admit that inflation has fallen from where it was a year ago!

    So 67% of the population are prepared to kick Sunak for any reason, whether valid or not....

    Not really. Most people are economically illiterate (me too!).

    "Inflation rises = bad, price rises
    Inflation falls = good, price falls"

    As prices haven't fallen, then people don't believe inflation hasn't fallen.

    It's like the 'debt vs deficit' arguments this site was engaged in more than ten years ago now.
    I think in this particular case I actually feel a bit sorry for Sunak, it's probably the only thing he's vaguely achieved and he can't even get any credit for that. It does feel like the end.
    All economists are economically illiterate. It is the modern alchemy. I think most of them would admit it too (which is an improvement on the alchemists).

    Edit: illiterate is wrong here it's more 'unwise'.
  • Options
    AverageNinjaAverageNinja Posts: 1,169
    edited February 21
    Omnium said:

    I doubt either can realistically claim much credit. Do tell us about the detail.

    Yes I accept in the round that's probably a fair rebuttal. Consider my partisanship on this noted and understood.

    What would you like to know? The whole project itself is pretty cool and virtually unique in terms of what they are doing to get it working "down there". The majority of the Central Line is done, platforms having a lot of bands deployed, including the entire spectrum allocation for O2, EE, Vodafone, Three, so you can get some crazy good speeds on the platforms from the DAS, 700+ Mbps.

    In tunnel they use a leaky feeder, split into two parts, one going to the platforms at either end, in there the MNOs have fewer bands deployed because they don't travel as well but you'll still get 200Mbps easily.

    It's really incredible thus far where it's done. It's a shame it's been so delayed and has had so many issues, including interfering with the signalling so it got paused for some time. But it's progressing slowly now, with Piccadilly and Victoria Lines to come next.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,753
    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    There’s a chance that this government might be re-elected? Is this breaking news?

    If it is more than a 5% chance, yes.
    William Hills: PM after next election: Rishi Sunak: 7/1. (SKS 1/9)

    Make of that what you will! I am one of the smallish group who think that NOM is quite feasible. But not in my wildest nightmares do I think that Rishi will be PM after the next election.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,139
    One common problem with politicians deservedly getting credit is it is so hard to tell what is actually down to them. Maybe they proposed an idea, but some other political figure oversaw it. Maybe they said they supported something, but it was someone else's idea and they jumped on the bandwagon. Maybe they had no practical involvement on any decisions, but at least ensured the funding taps kept flowing. Maybe they diligently worked behind the scenes on it, but we'd never know.

    Any of these they could rightly claim some credit, they cannot be expected to project manage every idea especially the higher up they go, but the extent of credit might be very little to a lot, yet we the public can rarely assess that.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 19,244

    algarkirk said:

    Why are our elected politicians twatting around about a ceasefire in a conflict between two combatants who couldn't really give a toss about what we want them to do? What's the point? Any sane person (difficult to find in this parliament, admittedly) would say a ceasefire in any conflict would be a damn fine thing. What's to discuss? Haven't they got stuff to debate around things they actually do have control of, like the PO scandal, the state of the economy, why the armed forces are on their arse...
    Or is that too hard for them?

    Spot on.

    I watch the Daily Politics (or whatever it's called these days) daily and I reckon 60% of this week's output so far has been on the exact wording of a ceasefire call from four UK political parties that have no method of effecting such a ceasefire in a country that is a) several thousands of miles away and b) is the theatre of a war in which neither belligerent wants a ceasefire.

    It's totally bizarre. As you say, it's not as if there aren't lots of major problems that our beloved politicians are responsible for that need addressing.
    FWIW it's because the exact wording, and also who is proposing the wording, give very particular political messages about who is in charge and who you actually support.

    The Tories: basically support Israel but want a resolution and don't want to be found on the wrong side of history

    Labour: want to be the government, our government has always supported Israel so they must too, but vast numbers of their members and traditional voters don't, and support Palestine. But they need 2 million Tory voters on board urgently and now.

    The SNP: basically support Palestine and are accusing Israel of a war crime.

    Lenin's question: Who? Whom? is the top issue here.
    It doesn't matter to our population. I can't see the average Joe hunkered down in some Gaza rubble caring too much about it. Our politicians love a bit of wanky performance art, though.
    If there is one thing all politicians across the party political divide love, it’s grandstanding on international affairs despite the fact that this country has not had a truly independent foreign policy for decades.

    I think they all enjoy pretending it’s the 1930s and these debates have some kind of seismic bearing on international affairs.
    "Calls for". "Fury". They are furious at something. They call for things. Everybody needs a hobby, and getting angry and calling for things fills the time until they get unelected and have to do a proper job.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,935
    What is the point of this sitting in private motion?

    Who proposed it?
  • Options
    IanB2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Bet accordingly for London Mayor:


    John Rentoul
    @JohnRentoul
    ·
    1h
    My phone just rang on the Tube on 5G in between stations. What has Sadiq Khan done?

    By far the most transformative policy in years.
    Another major project delivery on Khan's cv. He might not be the most inspiring mayor ever, but he gets shit done.

    • Night Tube
    • Crossrail
    • Ulez
    • Ulez-X
    • Underground mobile
    Get this through your head: Sadiq had fuck all to do with Crossrail getting "done".

    I was there. He was a complete melon obsessed only by PR and media and someone no-one respected.

    He was in office and simply that. Nothing more nothing less.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/10/01/sadiq-khan-takes-control-crossrail/
    That was Andy Byford, not Sadiq Khan.

    Sadiq did fuck all. The man's an idiot.

    I know some ex-New Labour SPads - two of whom worked on the project- who laughed when his name was mentioned.
    Khan seems to have not quite done anything, not quite been guilty of anything, and so far as anyone can tell just banking his salary. A remarkably smart dimwit.
    Indeed, his strong record of major project delivery just happened by pure accident.

    Only on PB.
    HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

    You are ignorant of the facts. But, if there's one thing I've learned over the years, it's that total ignorance of the facts is absolutely no obstacle to people having strong and irrefutable opinions they insist are correct.
    Breaking: evidence at last that our Casino does actually have a mirror at home…. ;)
    Of course. He is "one of the most objective posters on here", as I believe he wrote himself.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,267
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,620
    edited February 21

    What is the point of this sitting in private motion?

    Who proposed it?

    So they can embarrass themselves even more than usual, without anyone finding out…at least until they all spill out and start blabbing to the media?
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,913
    Why didn’t the government just defeat the opposition motions, exercising and demonstrating its power? I don’t get it.
  • Options
    TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,733
    IanB2 said:



    But it’s odd, isn’t it, that for every other democratically elected body in the land, from the Scottish Parliament through to Little Sodbury Parish Council, parliament sets down a fixed electoral cycle such that everyone knows how long is their term of office, and no-one can play silly buggers with the timetable? Yet somehow, parliament itself feels it needs to be an exception.

    It isn't odd really. If you set a five year fixed term, then what happens if during a Parliament the governing party loses its majority due to by-election defeats?

    It could try for a coalition with another party but if that doesn't work out, then you could be left with a government which is nominally in power, but unable to get any business done.

    At the fag end of the 2017-2019 Parliament, after the 20 Conservative MPs were kicked out, the Conservatives were left with a mere 288 MPs, some 43 seats short of a majority.

    There was no way that government was going to be able to limp on to June 2022. A GE had to be held, and the FTPA was an obstruction to that as (unusually) despite being in a minority, the governing party had a significant polling lead, and so the Labour opposition didn't want an election.

    I like the quirkiness. You never know when you might get a GE.
  • Options
    AverageNinjaAverageNinja Posts: 1,169
    I am so lost, what exactly is going on in Parliament.
  • Options
    kle4 said:

    One common problem with politicians deservedly getting credit is it is so hard to tell what is actually down to them. Maybe they proposed an idea, but some other political figure oversaw it. Maybe they said they supported something, but it was someone else's idea and they jumped on the bandwagon. Maybe they had no practical involvement on any decisions, but at least ensured the funding taps kept flowing. Maybe they diligently worked behind the scenes on it, but we'd never know.

    Any of these they could rightly claim some credit, they cannot be expected to project manage every idea especially the higher up they go, but the extent of credit might be very little to a lot, yet we the public can rarely assess that.

    I think many of the informed population around my neck of the woods give Portillo a lot of create for starting Metrolink which in time turned into a huge success and benefit to the region.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,355

    algarkirk said:

    Why are our elected politicians twatting around about a ceasefire in a conflict between two combatants who couldn't really give a toss about what we want them to do? What's the point? Any sane person (difficult to find in this parliament, admittedly) would say a ceasefire in any conflict would be a damn fine thing. What's to discuss? Haven't they got stuff to debate around things they actually do have control of, like the PO scandal, the state of the economy, why the armed forces are on their arse...
    Or is that too hard for them?

    Spot on.

    I watch the Daily Politics (or whatever it's called these days) daily and I reckon 60% of this week's output so far has been on the exact wording of a ceasefire call from four UK political parties that have no method of effecting such a ceasefire in a country that is a) several thousands of miles away and b) is the theatre of a war in which neither belligerent wants a ceasefire.

    It's totally bizarre. As you say, it's not as if there aren't lots of major problems that our beloved politicians are responsible for that need addressing.
    FWIW it's because the exact wording, and also who is proposing the wording, give very particular political messages about who is in charge and who you actually support.

    The Tories: basically support Israel but want a resolution and don't want to be found on the wrong side of history

    Labour: want to be the government, our government has always supported Israel so they must too, but vast numbers of their members and traditional voters don't, and support Palestine. But they need 2 million Tory voters on board urgently and now.

    The SNP: basically support Palestine and are accusing Israel of a war crime.

    Lenin's question: Who? Whom? is the top issue here.
    It doesn't matter to our population. I can't see the average Joe hunkered down in some Gaza rubble caring too much about it. Our politicians love a bit of wanky performance art, though.
    It's exactly that.

    Israel/Gaza is effectively a form of political masturbation.
    It's also a tale of intimidation of MPs:

    https://twitter.com/ChaplainChloe/status/1760345776876564728

    Am told Speaker's decision today was motivated by desire to protect MPs from threats by offering range ceasefire amendments - attempting to diffuse v hostile debate

    Understand MPs went to him with concerns in the lead up to vote due to threats to themselves, families, staff...
  • Options

    What is the point of this sitting in private motion?

    Who proposed it?

    Quite. “Democracy must be seen to be done! This is an outrage! Let’s sit in private so that nobody can see…
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,139
    edited February 21
    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    algarkirk said:

    kle4 said:

    kjh said:

    eek said:

    The Speaker should have told them all to get on with something more important. We all want the war to end even if we disagree about precisely how that should happen. And the combatants on both sides couldn't care in the slightest what our parliaments view on it happens to be. It is just grandstanding. Spend the time fixing something that actually can be fixed by parliament instead.

    This parliament is doing sod all
    I spoke to an MP last Saturday. I was told they are all standing around twiddling their fingers waiting for the election. Fixed term parliament is another thing this Government has undone unwisely.
    Yes, why anyone thought a return to this nonsense was a great idea is quite beyond me.
    It was in the manifesto of Labour and the Tories, so most of the parliament wanted this.

    I liked the principle but in the end it just got bloody silly.
    Yes silly, but not as silly as the mess we got into when we had the FTPA.
    I meant I liked the principle of FTPA but that was what got too silly.

    A government unable to get a GE, but then passing an Act to get one with enough votes to trigger one under FTPA.
    But it’s odd, isn’t it, that for every other democratically elected body in the land, from the Scottish Parliament through to Little Sodbury Parish Council, parliament sets down a fixed electoral cycle such that everyone knows how long is their term of office, and no-one can play silly buggers with the timetable? Yet somehow, parliament itself feels it needs to be an exception.

    Just as, today, we see fun and games over whether procedurally proper opposition amendments can be tabled and debated in the Commons, whereas in every single other democratic body in the land, this right would be taken as read.
    Procedural silly buggers is not restricted to Westminster of course, even if it might focus on other areas. I don't have an inherent problem with Parliament being a bit different in some aspects, you get that with such a history and evolution.

    I am a bit of a traditionalist, and am happy to keep unique oddities and procedural arcana, as these add character to an institution, so long as they are not activley harmful. If they are harmless then getting rid of them is not really modernising things for any benefit, but can be presented as some grand achievement despite not being so.

    I do still like the principle of fixed terms, I'd like to see it again, but the operation of the FTPA proved very lacking, so it clearly needs a proper rethink if being reintroduced. And given how it went, I think the chances of Labour reintroducing it are very low.
  • Options
    Hoyle!
  • Options
    Just switched on Sky

    What an utterly shambles and a disgrace on such an important subject
  • Options
    OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,853

    Omnium said:

    I doubt either can realistically claim much credit. Do tell us about the detail.

    Yes I accept in the round that's probably a fair rebuttal. Consider my partisanship on this noted and understood.

    What would you like to know? The whole project itself is pretty cool and virtually unique in terms of what they are doing to get it working "down there". The majority of the Central Line is done, platforms having a lot of bands deployed, including the entire spectrum allocation for O2, EE, Vodafone, Three, so you can get some crazy good speeds on the platforms from the DAS, 700+ Mbps.

    In tunnel they use a leaky feeder, split into two parts, one going to the platforms at either end, in there the MNOs have fewer bands deployed because they don't travel as well but you'll still get 200Mbps easily.

    It's really incredible thus far where it's done. It's a shame it's been so delayed and has had so many issues, including interfering with the signalling so it got paused for some time. But it's progressing slowly now, with Piccadilly and Victoria Lines to come next.
    Very interesting. It sounds like there's work there, that, as an expert, you're proud of.

    Everyone wants that.

    'Shame', 'Progressing slowly' ... etc. What's going wrong there?

    I walk past the statue of Brunel on Paddington station quite frequently - I never pass it without a thought in his direction.
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,613
    geoffw said:

    Thread on the failure of sanctions on Russia from Ed Conway:

    https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1760348194741891241

    image

    Not sufficient just to show the expected growth. The base from which it comes should be shown, or previous years' growth.
    Also, isn't it a bit dubious to be trusting Russian stats?
    And isn't it a bit dubious to be setting too much store by the stats of a wartime economy? Spending vast amounts on making war adds hugely to GDP figures but doesn't make people any richer, and does make peope considerably more dead.
    I don't buy this thread at all. 800,000 of Russia's brightest and best have fled; 300,000 more have been killed. It is unable to trade with much of its markets. It might have been rescued by POO but POO seems disinclined to help. It is selling its resources to China and India at less than it costs to extract them. Loopholes on sanctions are gradually being tightened. It has spent two thirds of its vast rainy day fund on partial and uncertain control of four Ukrainian provinces. Economically, it is fucked. It is just hanging on hoping for war fatigue in the west to strike first.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,139

    algarkirk said:

    Why are our elected politicians twatting around about a ceasefire in a conflict between two combatants who couldn't really give a toss about what we want them to do? What's the point? Any sane person (difficult to find in this parliament, admittedly) would say a ceasefire in any conflict would be a damn fine thing. What's to discuss? Haven't they got stuff to debate around things they actually do have control of, like the PO scandal, the state of the economy, why the armed forces are on their arse...
    Or is that too hard for them?

    Spot on.

    I watch the Daily Politics (or whatever it's called these days) daily and I reckon 60% of this week's output so far has been on the exact wording of a ceasefire call from four UK political parties that have no method of effecting such a ceasefire in a country that is a) several thousands of miles away and b) is the theatre of a war in which neither belligerent wants a ceasefire.

    It's totally bizarre. As you say, it's not as if there aren't lots of major problems that our beloved politicians are responsible for that need addressing.
    FWIW it's because the exact wording, and also who is proposing the wording, give very particular political messages about who is in charge and who you actually support.

    The Tories: basically support Israel but want a resolution and don't want to be found on the wrong side of history

    Labour: want to be the government, our government has always supported Israel so they must too, but vast numbers of their members and traditional voters don't, and support Palestine. But they need 2 million Tory voters on board urgently and now.

    The SNP: basically support Palestine and are accusing Israel of a war crime.

    Lenin's question: Who? Whom? is the top issue here.
    It doesn't matter to our population. I can't see the average Joe hunkered down in some Gaza rubble caring too much about it. Our politicians love a bit of wanky performance art, though.
    It's exactly that.

    Israel/Gaza is effectively a form of political masturbation.
    It's also a tale of intimidation of MPs:

    https://twitter.com/ChaplainChloe/status/1760345776876564728

    Am told Speaker's decision today was motivated by desire to protect MPs from threats by offering range ceasefire amendments - attempting to diffuse v hostile debate

    Understand MPs went to him with concerns in the lead up to vote due to threats to themselves, families, staff...
    Very laudable of him to have that concern and motivation. I think every MP is quite likely to receive threats over this subject matter.

    Too bad for him Labour sources have said his motivation was keeping his job. Who to believe?
  • Options
    RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 2,978
    Can someone please explain what on earth is happening
  • Options

    What is the point of this sitting in private motion?

    Who proposed it?

    Everybody's obviously really worried the evil Zios will murder them on their way home if they vote for the SNP motion
  • Options
    boulayboulay Posts: 4,159

    algarkirk said:

    Why are our elected politicians twatting around about a ceasefire in a conflict between two combatants who couldn't really give a toss about what we want them to do? What's the point? Any sane person (difficult to find in this parliament, admittedly) would say a ceasefire in any conflict would be a damn fine thing. What's to discuss? Haven't they got stuff to debate around things they actually do have control of, like the PO scandal, the state of the economy, why the armed forces are on their arse...
    Or is that too hard for them?

    Spot on.

    I watch the Daily Politics (or whatever it's called these days) daily and I reckon 60% of this week's output so far has been on the exact wording of a ceasefire call from four UK political parties that have no method of effecting such a ceasefire in a country that is a) several thousands of miles away and b) is the theatre of a war in which neither belligerent wants a ceasefire.

    It's totally bizarre. As you say, it's not as if there aren't lots of major problems that our beloved politicians are responsible for that need addressing.
    FWIW it's because the exact wording, and also who is proposing the wording, give very particular political messages about who is in charge and who you actually support.

    The Tories: basically support Israel but want a resolution and don't want to be found on the wrong side of history

    Labour: want to be the government, our government has always supported Israel so they must too, but vast numbers of their members and traditional voters don't, and support Palestine. But they need 2 million Tory voters on board urgently and now.

    The SNP: basically support Palestine and are accusing Israel of a war crime.

    Lenin's question: Who? Whom? is the top issue here.
    It doesn't matter to our population. I can't see the average Joe hunkered down in some Gaza rubble caring too much about it. Our politicians love a bit of wanky performance art, though.
    It's exactly that.

    Israel/Gaza is effectively a form of political masturbation.
    It's also a tale of intimidation of MPs:

    https://twitter.com/ChaplainChloe/status/1760345776876564728

    Am told Speaker's decision today was motivated by desire to protect MPs from threats by offering range ceasefire amendments - attempting to diffuse v hostile debate

    Understand MPs went to him with concerns in the lead up to vote due to threats to themselves, families, staff...
    So any interest group can start threatening and intimidating MPs now and the speaker will mess around with Parliament. The police and security services should be protecting affected MPs as democracy should be paramount and those who make threats or intimidate MPs should be hit very hard. We are screwed if, in this case, pro-Palestinian protesters can change how democracy works through the fear of violence to MPs.
  • Options
    Hoyles authority seriously undermined
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 59,036

    I am so lost, what exactly is going on in Parliament.

    A lot of virtue signalling nonsense. A complete waste of time.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,700

    The Speaker should have told them all to get on with something more important. We all want the war to end even if we disagree about precisely how that should happen. And the combatants on both sides couldn't care in the slightest what our parliaments view on it happens to be. It is just grandstanding. Spend the time fixing something that actually can be fixed by parliament instead.

    In Ireland the Opposition have called on the government to take specific steps that would have some impact on Israel - to the extent that the Irish government has felt compelled to write to the EU Commission requesting that the EU trade deal with Israel is suspended.

    Is there anything in the debate on Britain about taking any concrete steps to put pressure on Israel in any way, or is it purely grandstanding?
    That is not a concrete measure. People fighting for their existence, as both sides rightly or wrongly think they are doing, do not change course because 1% of the world, or in Irelands case 0.1% of the world want to suspend a trade deal.
    It's more consequential than a mere Parliamentary motion.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,139
    boulay said:

    algarkirk said:

    Why are our elected politicians twatting around about a ceasefire in a conflict between two combatants who couldn't really give a toss about what we want them to do? What's the point? Any sane person (difficult to find in this parliament, admittedly) would say a ceasefire in any conflict would be a damn fine thing. What's to discuss? Haven't they got stuff to debate around things they actually do have control of, like the PO scandal, the state of the economy, why the armed forces are on their arse...
    Or is that too hard for them?

    Spot on.

    I watch the Daily Politics (or whatever it's called these days) daily and I reckon 60% of this week's output so far has been on the exact wording of a ceasefire call from four UK political parties that have no method of effecting such a ceasefire in a country that is a) several thousands of miles away and b) is the theatre of a war in which neither belligerent wants a ceasefire.

    It's totally bizarre. As you say, it's not as if there aren't lots of major problems that our beloved politicians are responsible for that need addressing.
    FWIW it's because the exact wording, and also who is proposing the wording, give very particular political messages about who is in charge and who you actually support.

    The Tories: basically support Israel but want a resolution and don't want to be found on the wrong side of history

    Labour: want to be the government, our government has always supported Israel so they must too, but vast numbers of their members and traditional voters don't, and support Palestine. But they need 2 million Tory voters on board urgently and now.

    The SNP: basically support Palestine and are accusing Israel of a war crime.

    Lenin's question: Who? Whom? is the top issue here.
    It doesn't matter to our population. I can't see the average Joe hunkered down in some Gaza rubble caring too much about it. Our politicians love a bit of wanky performance art, though.
    It's exactly that.

    Israel/Gaza is effectively a form of political masturbation.
    It's also a tale of intimidation of MPs:

    https://twitter.com/ChaplainChloe/status/1760345776876564728

    Am told Speaker's decision today was motivated by desire to protect MPs from threats by offering range ceasefire amendments - attempting to diffuse v hostile debate

    Understand MPs went to him with concerns in the lead up to vote due to threats to themselves, families, staff...
    So any interest group can start threatening and intimidating MPs now and the speaker will mess around with Parliament. The police and security services should be protecting affected MPs as democracy should be paramount and those who make threats or intimidate MPs should be hit very hard. We are screwed if, in this case, pro-Palestinian protesters can change how democracy works through the fear of violence to MPs.
    As South Park once memorably noted, violence works.

    We need to be extra vigilant when it comes to matters like this, since if that sort of thing happens, it will happen again and again, we need to overreact to the slightest hint that intimidation would impact our democratic operations, or it will become normal.

    Again, see America, where baselessly challenging elections (see the many many outcomes) has very quickly turned into disbelieving any adverse election result and even defending people convicted of violently trying to overthrow democracy.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,484
    edited February 21
    Hoyles regrets and apologises for his actions today

    He seems near tears
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,193
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Mordant says Tories ot taking any further part in today's opposition day debate as they have no confidence in Hoyle after he caved to SKS pressure

    Bit of an overreaction to be honest. If the Labour sources' account are true then Hoyle sold his integrity as Speaker for sake of personal politics, but it's still only a single procedural ruling.

    Do they plan to boycott the Commons until he goes? If not, then what's gained by just pulling out for the day?
    SNP and Tories have now both walked out.

    SNP claim now that their are only 2 options theirs should be put first.

    Deputy Speaker says no.

    Looks like there may be no tellers so no vote at all.

    Hoyle needs to go
    If he does (I do not think he will) the Tories should back an SNP MP as Speaker. That would be hilarious.
    There's actually some sense in that as a general principle, using a MP from a small party. Less angst in critical votes. The Scottish Parliament some years back elected a Green for PO partly, I believe, for that reason.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,620
    edited February 21

    algarkirk said:

    Why are our elected politicians twatting around about a ceasefire in a conflict between two combatants who couldn't really give a toss about what we want them to do? What's the point? Any sane person (difficult to find in this parliament, admittedly) would say a ceasefire in any conflict would be a damn fine thing. What's to discuss? Haven't they got stuff to debate around things they actually do have control of, like the PO scandal, the state of the economy, why the armed forces are on their arse...
    Or is that too hard for them?

    Spot on.

    I watch the Daily Politics (or whatever it's called these days) daily and I reckon 60% of this week's output so far has been on the exact wording of a ceasefire call from four UK political parties that have no method of effecting such a ceasefire in a country that is a) several thousands of miles away and b) is the theatre of a war in which neither belligerent wants a ceasefire.

    It's totally bizarre. As you say, it's not as if there aren't lots of major problems that our beloved politicians are responsible for that need addressing.
    FWIW it's because the exact wording, and also who is proposing the wording, give very particular political messages about who is in charge and who you actually support.

    The Tories: basically support Israel but want a resolution and don't want to be found on the wrong side of history

    Labour: want to be the government, our government has always supported Israel so they must too, but vast numbers of their members and traditional voters don't, and support Palestine. But they need 2 million Tory voters on board urgently and now.

    The SNP: basically support Palestine and are accusing Israel of a war crime.

    Lenin's question: Who? Whom? is the top issue here.
    It doesn't matter to our population. I can't see the average Joe hunkered down in some Gaza rubble caring too much about it. Our politicians love a bit of wanky performance art, though.
    If there is one thing all politicians across the party political divide love, it’s grandstanding on international affairs despite the fact that this country has not had a truly independent foreign policy for decades.

    I think they all enjoy pretending it’s the 1930s and these debates have some kind of seismic bearing on international affairs.
    To be honest, that bit I can identify with, having been a local councillor for almost thirty years continuous.

    Most of administration, national or local, is the hard slog of intractable problems, or problems which you could tackle if you had money that you don’t have, or problems to which you know the answer but can’t risk the politics of being the first person to propose. Meanwhile you spend much of your time cutting funding from things that are essentially worthwhile. Everything you say and do is tempered by the financial and political realities, and while in opposition you are freed from much of this, even opposition politicians try not to detach themselves entirely from reality, especially if there’s a chance of future administration. And if there isn’t, no-one will care what you say and do, anyway.

    Then along comes some wider policy issue over which you have absolutely no control - and hence relatively few constraints - and with one bound you are suddenly free to posture and promulgate and advocate and emote, and do all the things you imagined that truly free politicians would be able to do.

    Any sort of debate in a chamber that has no, or next to no, power or authority over the outcome is a busperson’s holiday for politicians, and a rare chance to let the hair hang long and give it large….



  • Options

    Can someone please explain what on earth is happening

    It's kicking off Prue, that's what's happening. Just in slow motion.

    I'm sat by the lobby watching Tories being instructed to go slow through the lobby's so there is no chance to vote as it cuts of the time. They are laughing about it. Democracy

    https://twitter.com/jessphillips/status/1760378692776128695
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,620

    IanB2 said:



    But it’s odd, isn’t it, that for every other democratically elected body in the land, from the Scottish Parliament through to Little Sodbury Parish Council, parliament sets down a fixed electoral cycle such that everyone knows how long is their term of office, and no-one can play silly buggers with the timetable? Yet somehow, parliament itself feels it needs to be an exception.

    It isn't odd really. If you set a five year fixed term, then what happens if during a Parliament the governing party loses its majority due to by-election defeats?

    It could try for a coalition with another party but if that doesn't work out, then you could be left with a government which is nominally in power, but unable to get any business done.

    At the fag end of the 2017-2019 Parliament, after the 20 Conservative MPs were kicked out, the Conservatives were left with a mere 288 MPs, some 43 seats short of a majority.

    There was no way that government was going to be able to limp on to June 2022. A GE had to be held, and the FTPA was an obstruction to that as (unusually) despite being in a minority, the governing party had a significant polling lead, and so the Labour opposition didn't want an election.

    I like the quirkiness. You never know when you might get a GE.
    Every other assembly and parliament and council manages to cope.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,139
    RobD said:

    I am so lost, what exactly is going on in Parliament.

    A lot of virtue signalling nonsense. A complete waste of time.
    I would say part of the purpose of Parliament is to signal virtues (not in an Assembly of Saints way, but in a 'these are the issues the public are concerned with and we are acknowledging that' way).

    But it is not the major part of it, and the level of passion on this issue, notwithstanding the very real human tragedies happening in Israel and Gaza, is outsized to its relevance to the governance of this country.
  • Options
    SNP says Hoyles position is intolerable
  • Options
    AverageNinjaAverageNinja Posts: 1,169
    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    I doubt either can realistically claim much credit. Do tell us about the detail.

    Yes I accept in the round that's probably a fair rebuttal. Consider my partisanship on this noted and understood.

    What would you like to know? The whole project itself is pretty cool and virtually unique in terms of what they are doing to get it working "down there". The majority of the Central Line is done, platforms having a lot of bands deployed, including the entire spectrum allocation for O2, EE, Vodafone, Three, so you can get some crazy good speeds on the platforms from the DAS, 700+ Mbps.

    In tunnel they use a leaky feeder, split into two parts, one going to the platforms at either end, in there the MNOs have fewer bands deployed because they don't travel as well but you'll still get 200Mbps easily.

    It's really incredible thus far where it's done. It's a shame it's been so delayed and has had so many issues, including interfering with the signalling so it got paused for some time. But it's progressing slowly now, with Piccadilly and Victoria Lines to come next.
    Very interesting. It sounds like there's work there, that, as an expert, you're proud of.

    Everyone wants that.

    'Shame', 'Progressing slowly' ... etc. What's going wrong there?

    I walk past the statue of Brunel on Paddington station quite frequently - I never pass it without a thought in his direction.
    Depends who you ask. Initially the plan was to have the entire project done by the end of this year but has now been pushed back to sometime next year, so over a year late. The rollout (not of the infrastructure itself which they build during maintenance hours) was paused because of "safety issues" which I interpret as the signalling problems I referred to above.

    Then there is the complexities of working in a very old network of tunnels with all sorts of weird things that come up with that, signals don't travel as you expected them to, where do the cables go etc. there's lots that can go wrong - I am not as close to that side of things so that is as much as I really know.

    I am sure there is a lot of bureaucracy as well, with TfL running rather slowly and reacting to problems slowly too. Trying to get masts built near to the railway takes forever so I am sure they slow it down too.

    Bodlyn has just re-branded and is probably going through internal re-organisations that probably don't help.

    Then the Elizabeth Line doesn't currently support 5G at all because as I said above, when the infrastructure was installed originally they didn't put in support for the higher bands 5G uses for the fastest speeds. So they are going to have to go back and retrospectively add it another time. At least they've got 4G working on the platforms, with the physical sites built in the tunnels and just waiting to be turned on. This all should have gone live a year ago but really did break the signalling and so had to be stopped. I am not quite sure how they managed to build a system which did that but alas they did so they have to be quite careful.
  • Options
    boulayboulay Posts: 4,159
    kle4 said:

    boulay said:

    algarkirk said:

    Why are our elected politicians twatting around about a ceasefire in a conflict between two combatants who couldn't really give a toss about what we want them to do? What's the point? Any sane person (difficult to find in this parliament, admittedly) would say a ceasefire in any conflict would be a damn fine thing. What's to discuss? Haven't they got stuff to debate around things they actually do have control of, like the PO scandal, the state of the economy, why the armed forces are on their arse...
    Or is that too hard for them?

    Spot on.

    I watch the Daily Politics (or whatever it's called these days) daily and I reckon 60% of this week's output so far has been on the exact wording of a ceasefire call from four UK political parties that have no method of effecting such a ceasefire in a country that is a) several thousands of miles away and b) is the theatre of a war in which neither belligerent wants a ceasefire.

    It's totally bizarre. As you say, it's not as if there aren't lots of major problems that our beloved politicians are responsible for that need addressing.
    FWIW it's because the exact wording, and also who is proposing the wording, give very particular political messages about who is in charge and who you actually support.

    The Tories: basically support Israel but want a resolution and don't want to be found on the wrong side of history

    Labour: want to be the government, our government has always supported Israel so they must too, but vast numbers of their members and traditional voters don't, and support Palestine. But they need 2 million Tory voters on board urgently and now.

    The SNP: basically support Palestine and are accusing Israel of a war crime.

    Lenin's question: Who? Whom? is the top issue here.
    It doesn't matter to our population. I can't see the average Joe hunkered down in some Gaza rubble caring too much about it. Our politicians love a bit of wanky performance art, though.
    It's exactly that.

    Israel/Gaza is effectively a form of political masturbation.
    It's also a tale of intimidation of MPs:

    https://twitter.com/ChaplainChloe/status/1760345776876564728

    Am told Speaker's decision today was motivated by desire to protect MPs from threats by offering range ceasefire amendments - attempting to diffuse v hostile debate

    Understand MPs went to him with concerns in the lead up to vote due to threats to themselves, families, staff...
    So any interest group can start threatening and intimidating MPs now and the speaker will mess around with Parliament. The police and security services should be protecting affected MPs as democracy should be paramount and those who make threats or intimidate MPs should be hit very hard. We are screwed if, in this case, pro-Palestinian protesters can change how democracy works through the fear of violence to MPs.
    As South Park once memorably noted, violence works.

    We need to be extra vigilant when it comes to matters like this, since if that sort of thing happens, it will happen again and again, we need to overreact to the slightest hint that intimidation would impact our democratic operations, or it will become normal.

    Again, see America, where baselessly challenging elections (see the many many outcomes) has very quickly turned into disbelieving any adverse election result and even defending people convicted of violently trying to overthrow democracy.
    Can you imagine the uproar if this happened over a vote on LGBT rights where a large group were threatening MPs? Or the BNP were threatening on some race related vote?

    It’s disgraceful and Labour especially need to call it out and express clearly to people that they would rather not have the votes of those who support such attempts at manipulation rather than pander to them and soft peddle for some misguided political advantage.
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,342
    The big story today in Germany:

    https://www.dw.com/en/bundesliga-scraps-major-investment-deal-amid-fan-revolt/a-68330351

    "The decision came after widespread fan protests against the proposals which had seen matches in the Bundesliga and Bundesliga 2 (Germany's top two divisions) increasingly disrupted by supporters throwing tennis balls and other objects onto pitches, causing delays of up to 30 minutes."

  • Options
    AverageNinjaAverageNinja Posts: 1,169
    DougSeal said:

    Labour amendment passes. Can you imagine all the people huddled around their TVs and portable radios in Israel and Gaza tonight, following the minutiae of the debate, waiting to see which type of ceasefire will be called as its result.

    This feels so utterly pointless. I am sure Israel are going to roll over now the British Labour Party have called for them to stop!
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,139
    IanB2 said:

    algarkirk said:

    Why are our elected politicians twatting around about a ceasefire in a conflict between two combatants who couldn't really give a toss about what we want them to do? What's the point? Any sane person (difficult to find in this parliament, admittedly) would say a ceasefire in any conflict would be a damn fine thing. What's to discuss? Haven't they got stuff to debate around things they actually do have control of, like the PO scandal, the state of the economy, why the armed forces are on their arse...
    Or is that too hard for them?

    Spot on.

    I watch the Daily Politics (or whatever it's called these days) daily and I reckon 60% of this week's output so far has been on the exact wording of a ceasefire call from four UK political parties that have no method of effecting such a ceasefire in a country that is a) several thousands of miles away and b) is the theatre of a war in which neither belligerent wants a ceasefire.

    It's totally bizarre. As you say, it's not as if there aren't lots of major problems that our beloved politicians are responsible for that need addressing.
    FWIW it's because the exact wording, and also who is proposing the wording, give very particular political messages about who is in charge and who you actually support.

    The Tories: basically support Israel but want a resolution and don't want to be found on the wrong side of history

    Labour: want to be the government, our government has always supported Israel so they must too, but vast numbers of their members and traditional voters don't, and support Palestine. But they need 2 million Tory voters on board urgently and now.

    The SNP: basically support Palestine and are accusing Israel of a war crime.

    Lenin's question: Who? Whom? is the top issue here.
    It doesn't matter to our population. I can't see the average Joe hunkered down in some Gaza rubble caring too much about it. Our politicians love a bit of wanky performance art, though.
    If there is one thing all politicians across the party political divide love, it’s grandstanding on international affairs despite the fact that this country has not had a truly independent foreign policy for decades.

    I think they all enjoy pretending it’s the 1930s and these debates have some kind of seismic bearing on international affairs.
    To be honest, that bit I can identify with, having been a local councillor for almost thirty years continuous.

    Most of administration, national or local, is the hard slog of intractable problems, or problems which you could tackle if you had money that you don’t have, or problems to which you know the answer but can’t risk the politics of being the first person to propose. Meanwhile you spend much of your time cutting funding from things that are essentially worthwhile. Everything you say and do is tempered by the financial and political realities, and while in opposition you are freed from much of this, even opposition politicians try not to detach themselves entirely from reality, especially if there’s a chance of future administration. And if there isn’t, no-one will care what you say and do, anyway.

    Then along comes some wider policy issue over which you have absolutely no control - and hence relatively few constraints - and with one bound you are suddenly free to posture and promulgate and advocate and emote, and do all the things you imagined that truly free politicians would be able to do.

    Any sort of debate in a chamber that has no, or next to no, power or authority over the outcome is a busperson’s holiday for politicians, and a rare chance to let the hair hang long and give it large….



    It's one of the reasons local councillors have fun when they can opine on national issues - where they are also more likely to have disagreements with their opponents, whom they will have much unity on wanting more money from central government, not liking development, and wanting to improve services - and are keen to talk about motions which the national parties spread about from time to time.
  • Options

    I am so lost, what exactly is going on in Parliament.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzhPzHhnFl0
  • Options

    SNP says Hoyles position is intolerable

    I'm not sure that the House functions any more. Never mind Mr Speaker, Madame Deputy Speaker has also done a massive naughty by waving through the Labour motion without division. I was watching and was baffled.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,967

    SNP says Hoyles position is intolerable

    Intolerable? Sounds like they feel sorry for him. Surely they mean some other word?
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,935

    Hoyles authority seriously undermined

    Understatement
  • Options
    I have never seen anything like this in the HOC

    It is shameful and the office of speaker has been seriously damaged
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,967

    SNP says Hoyles position is intolerable

    I'm not sure that the House functions any more. Never mind Mr Speaker, Madame Deputy Speaker has also done a massive naughty by waving through the Labour motion without division. I was watching and was baffled.
    I thought the Tories and SNP had flounced off? If so, what opposition to the Labour amendment would there have been?
  • Options
    boulayboulay Posts: 4,159
    DougSeal said:

    Labour amendment passes. Can you imagine all the people huddled around their TVs and portable radios in Israel and Gaza tonight, following the minutiae of the debate, waiting to see which type of ceasefire will be called as its result.

    Sir Keir going for his Tony Blair Bosnian Messiah moment. It’s all you will hear in Gaza tonight “Sir Keir, Sir Keir, made the Israelis ceasefire”.
  • Options
    AverageNinjaAverageNinja Posts: 1,169

    Hoyles authority seriously undermined

    Understatement
    BJO is thinking up a post now about how this should mean Keir Starmer must resign.
  • Options

    SNP says Hoyles position is intolerable

    I'm not sure that the House functions any more. Never mind Mr Speaker, Madame Deputy Speaker has also done a massive naughty by waving through the Labour motion without division. I was watching and was baffled.
    I am watching this live with an open mouth of astonishment and embarrassed by the chaos
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 20,286
    • Night Tube
    • Ulez
    • Elizabeth Line
    • Ulex
    • 5G Tube

    YES WE KHAN!
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,620

    I have never seen anything like this in the HOC

    It is shameful and the office of speaker has been seriously damaged

    A lot of it is chucking muck hoping that much of it sticks to the odds-on favourite.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,935

    DougSeal said:

    Labour amendment passes. Can you imagine all the people huddled around their TVs and portable radios in Israel and Gaza tonight, following the minutiae of the debate, waiting to see which type of ceasefire will be called as its result.

    This feels so utterly pointless. I am sure Israel are going to roll over now the British Labour Party have called for them to stop!
    They haven't.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,193

    SNP says Hoyles position is intolerable

    I'm not sure that the House functions any more. Never mind Mr Speaker, Madame Deputy Speaker has also done a massive naughty by waving through the Labour motion without division. I was watching and was baffled.
    I thought the Tories and SNP had flounced off? If so, what opposition to the Labour amendment would there have been?
    But the SNP motion also passed sans division.

    *confused*
  • Options
    AverageNinjaAverageNinja Posts: 1,169

    • Night Tube
    • Ulez
    • Elizabeth Line
    • Ulex
    • 5G Tube

    YES WE KHAN!

    Okay give it a rest now.
  • Options

    • Night Tube
    • Ulez
    • Elizabeth Line
    • Ulex
    • 5G Tube

    YES WE KHAN!

    Khanife Khrime
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,139
    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Mordant says Tories ot taking any further part in today's opposition day debate as they have no confidence in Hoyle after he caved to SKS pressure

    Bit of an overreaction to be honest. If the Labour sources' account are true then Hoyle sold his integrity as Speaker for sake of personal politics, but it's still only a single procedural ruling.

    Do they plan to boycott the Commons until he goes? If not, then what's gained by just pulling out for the day?
    SNP and Tories have now both walked out.

    SNP claim now that their are only 2 options theirs should be put first.

    Deputy Speaker says no.

    Looks like there may be no tellers so no vote at all.

    Hoyle needs to go
    If he does (I do not think he will) the Tories should back an SNP MP as Speaker. That would be hilarious.
    There's actually some sense in that as a general principle, using a MP from a small party. Less angst in critical votes. The Scottish Parliament some years back elected a Green for PO partly, I believe, for that reason.
    I think it would give WingsOverScotland and the 'The SNP have gone native in Westminster' crowd a heart attack though.

    I once floated the idea that the Commons should choose a retiring MP as Speaker as the final act before an election*. I'm not a huge fan of the (loosely followed) convention of major parties not opposing the standing Speaker, or the public in that area getting an MP who does not vote most of the time.

    If major parties (usually) stand down to give a free run to an incumbent Speaker then they don't really care that much about providing a range of choice for that constituency, so why have a Speaker who has constituents at all?

    *this could be combined with my other policy of ex-MPs not being able to be made Peers until 10 years or 2 terms has passed, whichever is longer, by saying the exception is unless that MP was picked as Speaker, and could be ennobled once their term as Speaker ends.
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,085
    edited February 21
    I've generally been well disposed towards Hoyle but he may have erred badly. However if Starmer is seen as having made him an offer he can't refuse it might not look too good for the Labour leader either.
  • Options

    SNP says Hoyles position is intolerable

    I'm not sure that the House functions any more. Never mind Mr Speaker, Madame Deputy Speaker has also done a massive naughty by waving through the Labour motion without division. I was watching and was baffled.
    I am watching this live with an open mouth of astonishment and embarrassed by the chaos
    I am reminded of the dying days of the Johnson government. In minority by its own hand, the Attorney General roaring across the dispatch box demanding the house dissolves itself, with both the government and the speaker powerless to actually drive them to do anything.

    This is great! We need a General Election because the Commons is in absolute chaos, with no control from the government who appear to have triggered some of this chaos by withdrawing.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,484
    edited February 21
    SNP leader wants to know why Starmer was given a private conversation when he wasn't and it was his opposition day debate

    He is openly saying it is a Labour stitch up

    He has yet to be convinced Hoyle should remain in post
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,967

    SNP says Hoyles position is intolerable

    He presumably means 'untenable'.
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 20,286
    edited February 21
    DougSeal said:

    Labour amendment passes. Can you imagine all the people huddled around their TVs and portable radios in Israel and Gaza tonight, following the minutiae of the debate, waiting to see which type of ceasefire will be called as its result.

    Indeed. At least now we know. The tension was all too much to bear.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,959

    The Speaker should have told them all to get on with something more important. We all want the war to end even if we disagree about precisely how that should happen. And the combatants on both sides couldn't care in the slightest what our parliaments view on it happens to be. It is just grandstanding. Spend the time fixing something that actually can be fixed by parliament instead.

    In Ireland the Opposition have called on the government to take specific steps that would have some impact on Israel - to the extent that the Irish government has felt compelled to write to the EU Commission requesting that the EU trade deal with Israel is suspended.

    Is there anything in the debate on Britain about taking any concrete steps to put pressure on Israel in any way, or is it purely grandstanding?
    That is not a concrete measure. People fighting for their existence, as both sides rightly or wrongly think they are doing, do not change course because 1% of the world, or in Irelands case 0.1% of the world want to suspend a trade deal.
    It's more consequential than a mere Parliamentary motion.
    I'll accept it is perhaps at best a paper mache measure.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,139

    I've generally been well disposed towards Hoyle but he may have erred badly. However if Starmer is seen as having made him an offer he can't refuse it might not look too good for the Labour leader either.

    Don Starmer will disavow he said any such thing, and Hoyle will deny as well I reckon, blame the 'Labour sources' thing on mistaken people. They were anonymous, they can afford to be slammed and their journalist friends annoyed when told it was wrong.
  • Options
    Pointless members shouting abuse and outrage. They need to grab the mace or something. This is chaos.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,700
    I'm a bit confused by why there is so much outrage about the speaker allowing an amendment to a moron to be voted on. It seems a bit weird to not allow an amendment that might have a large amount of support but to be voted on.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,935

    Hoyles authority seriously undermined

    Understatement
    BJO is thinking up a post now about how this should mean Keir Starmer must resign.
    Well if he told Hoyle unless he put the Lab amendment he would ensure he was removed after the GE he is disgraceful.

    If Sunak had told Hoyles to rip up the rulebook otherwise he would sack him would you be OK with that.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,967
    Seems like a bit of masterful politicking from Starmer tonight. He's a cunning bugger.
  • Options

    I'm a bit confused by why there is so much outrage about the speaker allowing an amendment to a moron to be voted on. It seems a bit weird to not allow an amendment that might have a large amount of support but to be voted on.

    Is that Flynn?
  • Options

    • Night Tube
    • Ulez
    • Elizabeth Line
    • Ulex
    • 5G Tube

    YES WE KHAN!

    Crappy Central Line service!
    Completely Pointless Overground renaming!
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,139

    Seems like a bit of masterful politicking from Starmer tonight. He's a cunning bugger.

    He could be a remarkably effective PM. Or one too absorbed in his own cleverness.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,193

    SNP says Hoyles position is intolerable

    I'm not sure that the House functions any more. Never mind Mr Speaker, Madame Deputy Speaker has also done a massive naughty by waving through the Labour motion without division. I was watching and was baffled.
    I am watching this live with an open mouth of astonishment and embarrassed by the chaos
    I am reminded of the dying days of the Johnson government. In minority by its own hand, the Attorney General roaring across the dispatch box demanding the house dissolves itself, with both the government and the speaker powerless to actually drive them to do anything.

    This is great! We need a General Election because the Commons is in absolute chaos, with no control from the government who appear to have triggered some of this chaos by withdrawing.
    Quite the thing, too. We had the SNP accused of wanting to disrupt the HoC on PB earlier. But look what happens. The thought of allowing Scottish MPs to *follow the rules* was too much for SKS and the Speaker ... so SKS has handed the SNP a solid gift to take away: Scottish MPs don't count in the new world of SKS as Prime Minister.
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,460

    DougSeal said:

    Labour amendment passes. Can you imagine all the people huddled around their TVs and portable radios in Israel and Gaza tonight, following the minutiae of the debate, waiting to see which type of ceasefire will be called as its result.

    This feels so utterly pointless. I am sure Israel are going to roll over now the British Labour Party have called for them to stop!
    They haven't.
    Hey @bigjohnowls - I've pasted the Labour amendment below. Can you point out your specific objection to it?

    That this House believes that an Israeli ground offensive in Rafah risks catastrophic humanitarian consequences and therefore must not take place; notes the intolerable loss of Palestinian life, the majority being women and children;

    condemns the terrorism of Hamas who continue to hold hostages;

    supports Australia, Canada and New Zealand’s calls for Hamas to release and return all hostages and for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, which means an immediate stop to the fighting and a ceasefire that lasts and is observed by all sides, noting that Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence and that Israelis have the right to the assurance that the horror of 7th October cannot happen again;

    therefore supports diplomatic mediation efforts to achieve a lasting ceasefire; demands that rapid and unimpeded humanitarian relief is provided in Gaza;

    demands an end to settlement expansion and violence; urges Israel to comply with the International Court of Justice’s provisional measures;

    calls for the UN Security Council to be meet urgently;

    and urges all international partners to work together to establish a diplomatic process to deliver the peace of a two-state solution, with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state, including working with international partners to recognise a Palestinian state as a contribution to rather than outcome of that process, because statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and not in the gift of any neighbour.
  • Options
    numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 5,562
    This is a classic Westminster bubble debacle that just makes everyone look crap. Perhaps the key takeaway from this is maybe having non-binding votes on matters the HOC can’t influence isn’t a very good use of anyone’s time.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,753
    Even though the Speaker has apologised for getting it wrong, I am not convinced he did get it wrong in fact. What should he have done instead? Would MPs have been any more delighted with him.

    Is it possible that MPs got it wrong by breaking with the convention that the Speaker has the last word and makes the rules.
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,085
    Sorry for being lazy but in short what was the difference between Labour and SNP motions?
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,935

    Seems like a bit of masterful politicking from Starmer tonight. He's a cunning bugger.

    I don't think so. Thinks he can expel the speaker in the same way he has dealt with Socialists or the wrong sort of Jew.

    Nasty man who will be a disasterous PM.

    Mind you Hoyles is the main person responsible for today's farce.
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 20,286

    I'm a bit confused by why there is so much outrage about the speaker allowing an amendment to a moron to be voted on. It seems a bit weird to not allow an amendment that might have a large amount of support but to be voted on.

    I think you mean motion not moron but yes I agree with your point
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 20,286
    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    Labour amendment passes. Can you imagine all the people huddled around their TVs and portable radios in Israel and Gaza tonight, following the minutiae of the debate, waiting to see which type of ceasefire will be called as its result.

    This feels so utterly pointless. I am sure Israel are going to roll over now the British Labour Party have called for them to stop!
    They haven't.
    Hey @bigjohnowls - I've pasted the Labour amendment below. Can you point out your specific objection to it?

    That this House believes that an Israeli ground offensive in Rafah risks catastrophic humanitarian consequences and therefore must not take place; notes the intolerable loss of Palestinian life, the majority being women and children;

    condemns the terrorism of Hamas who continue to hold hostages;

    supports Australia, Canada and New Zealand’s calls for Hamas to release and return all hostages and for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, which means an immediate stop to the fighting and a ceasefire that lasts and is observed by all sides, noting that Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence and that Israelis have the right to the assurance that the horror of 7th October cannot happen again;

    therefore supports diplomatic mediation efforts to achieve a lasting ceasefire; demands that rapid and unimpeded humanitarian relief is provided in Gaza;

    demands an end to settlement expansion and violence; urges Israel to comply with the International Court of Justice’s provisional measures;

    calls for the UN Security Council to be meet urgently;

    and urges all international partners to work together to establish a diplomatic process to deliver the peace of a two-state solution, with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state, including working with international partners to recognise a Palestinian state as a contribution to rather than outcome of that process, because statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and not in the gift of any neighbour.
    It was agreed by SKS?
  • Options
    algarkirk said:

    Even though the Speaker has apologised for getting it wrong, I am not convinced he did get it wrong in fact. What should he have done instead? Would MPs have been any more delighted with him.

    Is it possible that MPs got it wrong by breaking with the convention that the Speaker has the last word and makes the rules.

    His ruling was in order. Unconventional, but in order. Procedurally.
    Politically? Oh dear oh dear...
This discussion has been closed.