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.
It's a question of procedure. Granted, the public are not going to care about that so it is a very Westminster story, but MPs need to be confident of what the rules of the House are if they are to engage with the processes of the House, which everyone should want, because that's the nuts and bolts of democracy. Process does matter, especially for smaller parties like the SNP who will have limited opportunities to have their voices heard.
Many things will ultimately be for the Speaker to decide, as indeed this issue was, but Hoyle himself laudably put in place a procedure to make clear when a Speaker made a decision which was, seemingly, arbitrary or against precdent and advise of the professional clerks. He did so because he recognised the importance of people having confidence in the Speaker's decisions, even if they do not agree with those decisions.
In this case, Hoyle went against procedure, and to rub salt into the would he has reportedly done so to safeguard his own job. Had that not been reported the anger would be far less, as he could justify it on the basis of trying to offer a range of options.
So whilst it may be a bit weird, and the outrage and threats to his position are a bit overkill, I do think his alleged abuse of procedure for personal political reasons, is still important.
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.
But the basic problem is the same - if any opposition party had put forward a vote on anything, on their opposition day, and then been denied in the way that they have been, the crisis would be even greater.
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.
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.
You don't care about the war in Gaza. You care about causing embarrassment for Starmer, a man who obsesses you like you're some sort of flatulent Captain Ahab. Now embarrassment for Starmer is off the table you're throwing your toys out of the pram like the manchild you are.
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.
You don't care about the war in Gaza. You care about causing embarrassment for Starmer, a man who obsesses you like you're some sort of flatulent Captain Ahab. Now embarrassment for Starmer is off the table you're throwing your toys out of the pram like the manchild you are.
Ahab evidently Not Popular with marine mammals. Understandably.
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.
Lead don't leave.
Unless you don't vote for Unionist parties of course.
Sky rather overegging the importance of this nonsense me thinks. Great fun for political nerds, absolutely meaningless for the Man on the Clapham Omnibus, who probably doesn’t understand it, never mind care about it.
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.
All looks pretty sensible to me, and should be uncontroversial. I actually can't see anything in that that most Tories could object to.
Sky rather overegging the importance of this nonsense me thinks. Great fun for political nerds, absolutely meaningless for the Man on the Clapham Omnibus, who probably doesn’t understand it, never mind care about it.
That sounds to me like a reason to report on it rather than not, since the news should sometimes bring to attention matters which are important but people do not care about.
Of course, it is still a procedural row about a rather pointless vote, so that only goes so far even when raising important issues.
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.
That may be so, but making constitutional innovations on the hoof on sensitive political issues isn’t perhaps the greatest look, if you’ve not done so with consensus. That inevitably politicises things.
Sky rather overegging the importance of this nonsense me thinks. Great fun for political nerds, absolutely meaningless for the Man on the Clapham Omnibus, who probably doesn’t understand it, never mind care about it.
The man on the Clapham Omnibus is more concerned with Sadiq renaming it the Mary Seacole Omnibus than votes in the Commons.
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.
Sky rather overegging the importance of this nonsense me thinks. Great fun for political nerds, absolutely meaningless for the Man on the Clapham Omnibus, who probably doesn’t understand it, never mind care about it.
The man on the Clapham Omnibus is more concerned with Sadiq renaming it the Mary Seacole Omnibus than votes in the Commons.
Nah,that'd be the William Wilberforce Diligence. Mrs Seacole was up north somewhere IIRC.
Tomorrow’s headlines could have been Labour splits and Labour MPs defying the whip. Now thanks to the incompetence of the Speaker Starmer’s motion passes unanimously and the story moves on.
If Sue Gray did contrive this she is worth her money.
The Speaker has done nothing wrong. He is there to make the big calls, and the government has acted scandalously in attacking him for political advantage when he has to make tough decisions. He has been magnanimous in taking the blame on himself.
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.
On current polls most Scottish MPs may well be SNP not Labour after the next general election
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.
I think you've shut me up. A very good and informative post. I need to think about this.
Sorry for being lazy but in short what was the difference between Labour and SNP motions?
The SNP motion condemned the collective punishment of the Gaza population, essentially accusing Israel of contravening the Geneva Convention and committing a war crime.
Sky rather overegging the importance of this nonsense me thinks. Great fun for political nerds, absolutely meaningless for the Man on the Clapham Omnibus, who probably doesn’t understand it, never mind care about it.
The man on the Clapham Omnibus is more concerned with Sadiq renaming it the Mary Seacole Omnibus than votes in the Commons.
Nah,that'd be the William Wilberforce Diligence. Mrs Seacole was up north somewhere IIRC.
I think more things could be named in honour of Wilberforce. Very worthy.
The Tories have a substantial parliamentary majority. They could have used this to get the outcome they wanted tonight, but they've ended up in disarray over technicalities. It rather suggests Starmer's had a good day.
As for Hoyle, he's had a strange old day, but compared with Bercow he's attracted hardly any negative coverage during his time as Speaker. He'll be fine.
Tomorrow’s headlines could have been Labour splits and Labour MPs defying the whip. Now thanks to the incompetence of the Speaker Starmer’s motion passes unanimously and the story moves on.
If Sue Gray did contrive this she is worth her money.
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.
Starmer isn’t trying to expel the Speaker unless I’ve missed something?
Well, having Labour sources say he was told he would not get support for remaining Speaker if he did not fall into line, and then he did, does not sound designed to secure his position.
Of course, as expected that is being claimed as untrue by Hoyle, and I expect Labour will say so as well (the journalists probably won't reveal sources, and the source can be said to have done so unauthorised if they are revealed)
BBC Conservative MP Philip Davies raises the claims that senior Labour figures pressured Speaker Lindsay Hoyle to make the unusual decision to allow an opposition amendment to an opposition motion.
BBC Newsnight's political editor posted the claim from senior Labour sources on social media earlier today, but added the Speaker's Office was later in touch to say the claim was not true.
Davies calls for the Labour figure to be identified as shouts of "Sue Gray" are made from the Conservative benches.
Deputy speaker Rosie Winterton says: "That tweet is wrong and the statement is incorrect, just to reassure him
So either Starmer had people say something to undermine Hoyle's position, or some random senior Labour person did, and in either case people the motion is passed and people are arguing about Hoyle more than Labour.
Ben Kentish @BenKentish · 1h Almost 30,000 are dead, Israeli hostages are spending their 20th week in captivity, the prospect of catastrophe in Rafah edges closer, the risk of regional conflict grows by the day, and half of Westminster obsesses over the ins and outs of parliamentary procedure.
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.
That may be so, but making constitutional innovations on the hoof on sensitive political issues isn’t perhaps the greatest look, if you’ve not done so with consensus. That inevitably politicises things.
No. The Speaker is the essential safety valve in a multi party democracy and should be treated according to the conventions of treating rugby referees, whose job it closely resembles. Anarchy ensues if the Speaker is not always right. This is because in our sort of democracy consensus does not happen.
Sky rather overegging the importance of this nonsense me thinks. Great fun for political nerds, absolutely meaningless for the Man on the Clapham Omnibus, who probably doesn’t understand it, never mind care about it.
The man on the Clapham Omnibus is more concerned with Sadiq renaming it the Mary Seacole Omnibus than votes in the Commons.
Nah,that'd be the William Wilberforce Diligence. Mrs Seacole was up north somewhere IIRC.
I think more things could be named in honour of Wilberforce. Very worthy.
Mm. He's commemorated in his native Hull, but I'm not sure where else apart fromk the odd statue and street name.
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.
Starmer isn’t trying to expel the Speaker unless I’ve missed something?
You've missed the (alleged) threat by Starmer to remove the Speaker.
How do we know that isn't simply a Tory invention? Is there any evidence?
Because it was BBC Newsnight who claimed it.
Now, was their source fibbing/acting beyond their authority? A different question. But it was clearly not a Tory invention. Was it Starmer who allegedly left Hoyle in no doubt or someone else? Unclear from the claim, but if it were true surely it would be on Starmer's direction, since no way would the Speaker be threatened without approval.
Both will say it is untrue, so someone has played Hoyle or played the BBC very well.
Tomorrow’s headlines could have been Labour splits and Labour MPs defying the whip. Now thanks to the incompetence of the Speaker Starmer’s motion passes unanimously and the story moves on.
If Sue Gray did contrive this she is worth her money.
It seems so did the SNP motion
But that was amended by Labour, as Labour got in later, as a result of the chaos which SKS caused. Or so I understand it?
The Tories have a substantial parliamentary majority. They could have used this to get the outcome they wanted tonight, but they've ended up in disarray over technicalities. It rather suggests Starmer's had a good day.
As for Hoyle, he's had a strange old day, but compared with Bercow he's attracted hardly any negative coverage during his time as Speaker. He'll be fine.
And the big picture is that the Labour amendment passed without a division. Neither the SNP or the Conservative ones would have done that.
In most other contexts, that would be considered excellent chairmanship, extracting an agreement out of an argument.
It's the House of Commons, where playing silly buggers is the point of the place, that's out of step here.
I'd really like to meet the Man on the Clapham Omnibus.
Trouble is, these days he'd probably be a hipster plugged in with Apple pods listening to some godawful rubbish and would talk a stream of shite if you ever got chatting to him.
Ben Kentish @BenKentish · 1h Almost 30,000 are dead, Israeli hostages are spending their 20th week in captivity, the prospect of catastrophe in Rafah edges closer, the risk of regional conflict grows by the day, and half of Westminster obsesses over the ins and outs of parliamentary procedure.
Westminster needs to take a reality check, a vote in the UK HOC on SNP opposition day is not going to change the course of the war.
Sky rather overegging the importance of this nonsense me thinks. Great fun for political nerds, absolutely meaningless for the Man on the Clapham Omnibus, who probably doesn’t understand it, never mind care about it.
Yes, the Parliamentary theatricals notwithstanding, Labour has had a good day and probably done a little to neutralise the pro-Palestinian threats in its East London seats. The SNP amendment might have caused a real split within Labour ranks and Starmer ends up looking the reasonable leader of a united party.
I'm not sure the Conservatives emerge from today all that well - they were to an extent wrong footed by the Speaker and clearly Lindsey Hoyle comes out of this as the day's big loser. I suspect if Labour win big, Starmer will be magnanimous in victory (as victors can afford to be) and Hoyle will stay on. A closer result and we may see a different figure put forward to replace Hoyle - perhaps Stephen Timms, who knows?
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.
On current polls most Scottish MPs may well be SNP not Labour after the next general election
Apologies 'On current polls most Scottish MPs may well be Labour not SNP after the next general election'
Sky rather overegging the importance of this nonsense me thinks. Great fun for political nerds, absolutely meaningless for the Man on the Clapham Omnibus, who probably doesn’t understand it, never mind care about it.
The man on the Clapham Omnibus is more concerned with Sadiq renaming it the Mary Seacole Omnibus than votes in the Commons.
I suspect the man waiting for the Clapham Omnibus will be more relieved if the bus turns up than what it is called.
I'd really like to meet the Man on the Clapham Omnibus.
Trouble is, these days he'd probably be a hipster plugged in with Apple pods listening to some godawful rubbish and would talk a stream of shite if you ever got chatting to him.
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.
All economic statistics are rubbish. Is the public right about inflation? For a start, some costs are not captured by the CPI. Phone contracts, to take one example, mostly go up each year by the RPI (or even RPI and a bit). More prosaically, what is inflation as opposed to the rate of inflation?
Ben Kentish @BenKentish · 1h Almost 30,000 are dead, Israeli hostages are spending their 20th week in captivity, the prospect of catastrophe in Rafah edges closer, the risk of regional conflict grows by the day, and half of Westminster obsesses over the ins and outs of parliamentary procedure.
Ben Kentish @BenKentish · 1h Almost 30,000 are dead, Israeli hostages are spending their 20th week in captivity, the prospect of catastrophe in Rafah edges closer, the risk of regional conflict grows by the day, and half of Westminster obsesses over the ins and outs of parliamentary procedure.
yes but Israel or Hamas dont give a flying fig about a vote in the uk parliament - The uk parliament would be better turning its attention to why things dont work anymore in the UK including nuclear missiles
Does it? Both dates are today. Neither side has produced a smoking gun.
Neither the letter to Staunton in January 2023 nor his contemporaneous file note at the time support what he has been saying.
His note, in particular, did not even mention compensation to the subpostmasters.
Frankly this is an argument in which it would be nice to see both sides lose because both have behaved utterly shamefully towards the subpostmasters. But no-one in the Post Office or government or the civil service really cares about them, whatever crocodile tears they may shed for effect from time to time.
Ben Kentish @BenKentish · 1h Almost 30,000 are dead, Israeli hostages are spending their 20th week in captivity, the prospect of catastrophe in Rafah edges closer, the risk of regional conflict grows by the day, and half of Westminster obsesses over the ins and outs of parliamentary procedure.
yes but Israel or Hamas dont give a flying fig about a vote in the uk parliament - The uk parliament would be better turning its attention to why things dont work anymore in the UK including nuclear missiles
I know we expect things to be shit now, but I'm surprised that has not been a bigger story.
• Night Tube • Ulez • Elizabeth Line • Ulex • 5G Tube
YES WE KHAN!
Night Tube was also part of Boris's second term, it just didn't come in until a few months after he left office because he ran out of time.
True but he got completely bogged down failing to negotiate with the unions - Khan got them to the table and got the project over the line. The winner takes it all. (Hence why the bikes are called Boris Bikes!)
So much of parliamentary procedure is arcane and idiotic. For example, very occasionally allowing the opposition to table and debate propositions, but regardless of how the house votes, the outcome isn’t binding. That is simply nonsensical procedure.
Sky rather overegging the importance of this nonsense me thinks. Great fun for political nerds, absolutely meaningless for the Man on the Clapham Omnibus, who probably doesn’t understand it, never mind care about it.
The man on the Clapham Omnibus is more concerned with Sadiq renaming it the Mary Seacole Omnibus than votes in the Commons.
I suspect the man waiting for the Clapham Omnibus will be more relieved if the bus turns up than what it is called.
He's got a better chance than the man not on the Central Line train.
Let alone the man not on a bus because the council has had to cut bus subsidies to try to balance its budget.
Nandy about to burst into tears with self righteousness on C4. Don't do it Lisa, it won't make your patter any more convincing.
Tears and overly effusive emotion are almost never a good idea in politics outside of very personal matters. It is either insincere or tack when it is sincere. A tad harsh for the latter, but a bit of composure is needed most of the time.
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.
Starmer isn’t trying to expel the Speaker unless I’ve missed something?
You've missed the (alleged) threat by Starmer to remove the Speaker.
How do we know that isn't simply a Tory invention? Is there any evidence?
Because it was BBC Newsnight who claimed it.
Now, was their source fibbing/acting beyond their authority? A different question. But it was clearly not a Tory invention. Was it Starmer who allegedly left Hoyle in no doubt or someone else? Unclear from the claim, but if it were true surely it would be on Starmer's direction, since no way would the Speaker be threatened without approval.
Both will say it is untrue, so someone has played Hoyle or played the BBC very well.
Ben Kentish @BenKentish · 1h Almost 30,000 are dead, Israeli hostages are spending their 20th week in captivity, the prospect of catastrophe in Rafah edges closer, the risk of regional conflict grows by the day, and half of Westminster obsesses over the ins and outs of parliamentary procedure.
yes but Israel or Hamas dont give a flying fig about a vote in the uk parliament - The uk parliament would be better turning its attention to why things dont work anymore in the UK including nuclear missiles
I know we expect things to be shit now, but I'm surprised that has not been a bigger story.
oh to be smugly making fun of kim jong un and his rockets failing now .
So much of parliamentary procedure is arcane and idiotic. For example, very occasionally allowing the opposition to table and debate propositions, but regardless of how the house votes, the outcome isn’t binding. That is simply nonsensical procedure.
Yes, that is silly if that is the rule, if the House votes for something that should have consequence.
Of course, were it reviewed the outcome would probably be not to have opposition tabled propositions, on the basis the government proposes, the House can amend if it likes
I still don’t get why the government didn’t use its majority to assert its authority and win the day.
Because it wasn’t about the motion.
Labour wanted to avoid a situation where they looked divided, given the sensitivities in Labour on the issue.
The Tories and the SNP wanted Labour to be put in a situation where they looked divided and think the Speaker bailed them out. The SNP are also miffed because their chance to have an opposition day where they control the agenda was unravelled.
Let’s not pretend this is all about winning a vote on what should happen in Gaza, a situation that the House of Commons has precisely zero control over. Each Party is playing politics here, nobody ends up looking great and if you’re hearing anyone saying any party won from today or comes out of it looking better, they don’t.
The person who has had the worst day at the office is Hoyle. We still don’t know his motivations, but he tried to be clever and it backfired.
It strikes me that many of the people who are saying that the UK Parliament should not waste its time discussing a conflict/war that it can have no influence over are the same people that assert that the UK punches above its weight in international affairs and should do more to exercise its global influence.
Apparently that nasty-wasty bully boy SKS has tricked the Tories into failing to vote for their own amendment thus getting Labour’s own motion carried, which has united the PLP causing a major headache for Big John Owls.
Ben Kentish @BenKentish · 1h Almost 30,000 are dead, Israeli hostages are spending their 20th week in captivity, the prospect of catastrophe in Rafah edges closer, the risk of regional conflict grows by the day, and half of Westminster obsesses over the ins and outs of parliamentary procedure.
yes but Israel or Hamas dont give a flying fig about a vote in the uk parliament - The uk parliament would be better turning its attention to why things dont work anymore in the UK including nuclear missiles
In fairness Hamas might have used to care a little more about what happened when certain other people were leading one party.
I'd really like to meet the Man on the Clapham Omnibus.
Trouble is, these days he'd probably be a hipster plugged in with Apple pods listening to some godawful rubbish and would talk a stream of shite if you ever got chatting to him.
Or, these days, the hipster is more likely to dispense with the iPods and play it loudly on the bus and share the drivel with everyone else. Innit.
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.
All economic statistics are rubbish. Is the public right about inflation? For a start, some costs are not captured by the CPI. Phone contracts, to take one example, mostly go up each year by the RPI (or even RPI and a bit). More prosaically, what is inflation as opposed to the rate of inflation?
What do you mean, phone contracts are not captured in the calculation of CPI? The cost goes up each year, and the revised cost is an input into the CPI calculation. How the price rise is determined by the phone company and their contract doesn't matter - the CPI will look at the price this year, the price last year, and that will input into the CPI.
It strikes me that many of the people who are saying that the UK Parliament should not waste its time discussing a conflict/war that it can have no influence over are the same people that assert that the UK punches above its weight in international affairs and should do more to exercise its global influence.
Does it , well I certainly dont think that - without planes for aircraft carriers and nuclear missiles that only threaten mackerel I think we should be extremely careful about putting our "weight" around including Ukraine
So much of parliamentary procedure is arcane and idiotic. For example, very occasionally allowing the opposition to table and debate propositions, but regardless of how the house votes, the outcome isn’t binding. That is simply nonsensical procedure.
That's not the story really. Parliament is the legislature and has the power to do binding things called Acts of Parliament. It is also a debating society for the nation's representatives and that's different.
Does it? Both dates are today. Neither side has produced a smoking gun.
Neither the letter to Staunton in January 2023 nor his contemporaneous file note at the time support what he has been saying.
His note, in particular, did not even mention compensation to the subpostmasters.
Frankly this is an argument in which it would be nice to see both sides lose because both have behaved utterly shamefully towards the subpostmasters. But no-one in the Post Office or government or the civil service really cares about them, whatever crocodile tears they may shed for effect from time to time.
@GBNEWS understands Govt Chief Whip Simon Hart warned Sir Lindsay Hoyle twice this morning not to go ahead with his plan to allow a Labour amendment today.
Mr Hart told the Speaker his actions would “unleash hell“ if he went ahead, according to sources.
Apparently that nasty-wasty bully boy SKS has tricked the Tories into failing to vote for their own amendment thus getting Labour’s own motion carried, which has united the PLP causing a major headache for Big John Owls.
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.
Starmer isn’t trying to expel the Speaker unless I’ve missed something?
You've missed the (alleged) threat by Starmer to remove the Speaker.
How do we know that isn't simply a Tory invention? Is there any evidence?
Because it was BBC Newsnight who claimed it.
Now, was their source fibbing/acting beyond their authority? A different question. But it was clearly not a Tory invention. Was it Starmer who allegedly left Hoyle in no doubt or someone else? Unclear from the claim, but if it were true surely it would be on Starmer's direction, since no way would the Speaker be threatened without approval.
Both will say it is untrue, so someone has played Hoyle or played the BBC very well.
Pointless members shouting abuse and outrage. They need to grab the mace or something. This is chaos.
This is worse than the wrestling film I saw last week but more memorable as I have already forgotten the name of it.
Was that the film about the Von Erich clan. I want to catch that. It’s a tragic story.
Tragic how can one family be that unlucky. When i got home i wiki'd it there was one more family member who didnt even get a mention in the film
Yes, it is a truly tragic story. Mind you some of them in the family were vile. When Kerry died the wrestlers organised a card to,raise money fandom as a tribute.
Sid Eudy spoke about it on a shoot video. Wrestlers were flying in from all over the US at their own expense for the card. Fritz, his dad, wanted $1500 to turn up. What a POS.
It strikes me that many of the people who are saying that the UK Parliament should not waste its time discussing a conflict/war that it can have no influence over are the same people that assert that the UK punches above its weight in international affairs and should do more to exercise its global influence.
I am in unashamadely in both camps. Our international weight comes as much from culture, language and sport as it does politics. And the time we can influence positively through politics is largely in peace time at international conferences on subjects like the environment or trade.
It is very difficult to influence people who are, rightly or wrongly, in fear for their existence which applies to both sides in Gaza.
Apparently that nasty-wasty bully boy SKS has tricked the Tories into failing to vote for their own amendment thus getting Labour’s own motion carried, which has united the PLP causing a major headache for Big John Owls.
Great analysis (not)
What part of the Labour amendment do you disagree with?
The Speaker has done nothing wrong. He is there to make the big calls, and the government has acted scandalously in attacking him for political advantage when he has to make tough decisions. He has been magnanimous in taking the blame on himself.
Prediction: He won't be sacked, but might retire.
I predict neither, but don't think he has been magnanimous nor the attacks (whilst partisan) scandalous.
Let's say the 'labour sources' claim is indeed untrue and that he was not threatened in order to change, and that was the biggest red flag here. We'd still have the on record statement that his decision, whilst within his remit, was unusual and a departure from convention, and it appears detrimental to the SNP's motion.
Now, as Bercow once (rightly) noted, there will be occasions to depart from convention, that is how it develops. But as Hoyle (rightly) reacted by putting in place that reporting mechanism, Speakers should not have poor or no reasons to depart from convention, as was the case in that Bercow case and why Hoyle felt it necessary to correct matters.
He's apologised, everyone's had their rages, time to move on.
The borrowing figures this morning look superficially very good with the Government achieving a surplus of nearly £17 billion which is of course welcome.
The problem as we know is in January the self-assessment tax forms are complete and that leads into a bump in tax receipts while the ending of Government support for energy bills has also helped the public finances (though not the finances of many of the public).
Proponents of tax cuts may still hold the view Hunt has the room to offer jam now, more jam in a pre-election Autumn Statement and the promise of even more jam with steadfast voting. Whether that bait catches the same amount of fish it used to is debatable and with problems in local Government funding becoming more evident the calls to put money into public services rather than tax cuts are growing.
Comments
Many things will ultimately be for the Speaker to decide, as indeed this issue was, but Hoyle himself laudably put in place a procedure to make clear when a Speaker made a decision which was, seemingly, arbitrary or against precdent and advise of the professional clerks. He did so because he recognised the importance of people having confidence in the Speaker's decisions, even if they do not agree with those decisions.
In this case, Hoyle went against procedure, and to rub salt into the would he has reportedly done so to safeguard his own job. Had that not been reported the anger would be far less, as he could justify it on the basis of trying to offer a range of options.
So whilst it may be a bit weird, and the outrage and threats to his position are a bit overkill, I do think his alleged abuse of procedure for personal political reasons, is still important.
https://x.com/kiranstacey/status/1760378069573845330?s=20
Unless you don't vote for Unionist parties of course.
The haircuts in the trailer were too 1980s for me, so I didn't watch it.
I actually can't see anything in that that most Tories could object to.
Of course, it is still a procedural row about a rather pointless vote, so that only goes so far even when raising important issues.
Tomorrow’s headlines could have been Labour splits and Labour MPs defying the whip. Now thanks to the incompetence of the Speaker Starmer’s motion passes unanimously and the story moves on.
If Sue Gray did contrive this she is worth her money.
Prediction: He won't be sacked, but might retire.
Why would a Socialist care about Palestinian children being slaughtered in huge numbers by the Fascists in charge of Israel right now
You should hang your head in shame at that ridiculous comment.
As for Hoyle, he's had a strange old day, but compared with Bercow he's attracted hardly any negative coverage during his time as Speaker. He'll be fine.
Of course, as expected that is being claimed as untrue by Hoyle, and I expect Labour will say so as well (the journalists probably won't reveal sources, and the source can be said to have done so unauthorised if they are revealed)
BBC
Conservative MP Philip Davies raises the claims that senior Labour figures pressured Speaker Lindsay Hoyle to make the unusual decision to allow an opposition amendment to an opposition motion.
BBC Newsnight's political editor posted the claim from senior Labour sources on social media earlier today, but added the Speaker's Office was later in touch to say the claim was not true.
Davies calls for the Labour figure to be identified as shouts of "Sue Gray" are made from the Conservative benches.
Deputy speaker Rosie Winterton says: "That tweet is wrong and the statement is incorrect, just to reassure him
So either Starmer had people say something to undermine Hoyle's position, or some random senior Labour person did, and in either case people the motion is passed and people are arguing about Hoyle more than Labour.
Ben Kentish
@BenKentish
·
1h
Almost 30,000 are dead, Israeli hostages are spending their 20th week in captivity, the prospect of catastrophe in Rafah edges closer, the risk of regional conflict grows by the day, and half of Westminster obsesses over the ins and outs of parliamentary procedure.
December is the tenth month. Clue is in the name.
September, Seven.
October, Eight.
November, Nine.
December, Ten.
Count backwards and the year begins in March, so I hope you're looking forward to bringing in the New Year next week.
#NEW Quinnipiac Poll
🔵 Biden 49% (+4)
🔴 Trump 45%
🔴 Haley 46% (+3)
🔵 Biden 43%
Quinnipiac #15 - 2/19 - 1,421 RV
https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1760383456058429904
https://www.hullmuseums.co.uk/wilberforce-house-museum
Now, was their source fibbing/acting beyond their authority? A different question. But it was clearly not a Tory invention. Was it Starmer who allegedly left Hoyle in no doubt or someone else? Unclear from the claim, but if it were true surely it would be on Starmer's direction, since no way would the Speaker be threatened without approval.
Both will say it is untrue, so someone has played Hoyle or played the BBC very well.
In most other contexts, that would be considered excellent chairmanship, extracting an agreement out of an argument.
It's the House of Commons, where playing silly buggers is the point of the place, that's out of step here.
Trouble is, these days he'd probably be a hipster plugged in with Apple pods listening to some godawful rubbish and would talk a stream of shite if you ever got chatting to him.
I'm not sure the Conservatives emerge from today all that well - they were to an extent wrong footed by the Speaker and clearly Lindsey Hoyle comes out of this as the day's big loser. I suspect if Labour win big, Starmer will be magnanimous in victory (as victors can afford to be) and Hoyle will stay on. A closer result and we may see a different figure put forward to replace Hoyle - perhaps Stephen Timms, who knows?
His note, in particular, did not even mention compensation to the subpostmasters.
Frankly this is an argument in which it would be nice to see both sides lose because both have behaved utterly shamefully towards the subpostmasters. But no-one in the Post Office or government or the civil service really cares about them, whatever crocodile tears they may shed for effect from time to time.
Just a guess.
Let alone the man not on a bus because the council has had to cut bus subsidies to try to balance its budget.
Tragic how can one family be that unlucky. When i got home i wiki'd it there was one more family member who didnt even get a mention in the film
Of course, were it reviewed the outcome would probably be not to have opposition tabled propositions, on the basis the government proposes, the House can amend if it likes
Labour wanted to avoid a situation where they looked divided, given the sensitivities in Labour on the issue.
The Tories and the SNP wanted Labour to be put in a situation where they looked divided and think the Speaker bailed them out. The SNP are also miffed because their chance to have an opposition day where they control the agenda was unravelled.
Let’s not pretend this is all about winning a vote on what should happen in Gaza, a situation that the House of Commons has precisely zero control over. Each Party is playing politics here, nobody ends up looking great and if you’re hearing anyone saying any party won from today or comes out of it looking better, they don’t.
The person who has had the worst day at the office is Hoyle. We still don’t know his motivations, but he tried to be clever and it backfired.
And Nenry Staunton's: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65d63d2f2ab2b3001a75969f/henry-staunton-note-of-meeting-with-sarah-munby.pdf
@GBNEWS understands Govt Chief Whip Simon Hart warned Sir Lindsay Hoyle twice this morning not to go ahead with his plan to allow a Labour amendment today.
Mr Hart told the Speaker his actions would “unleash hell“ if he went ahead, according to sources.
Hoyle ignored him.
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1760390521724268585
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68352275
The SNP motion was partly intended as a trap for Labour and they’ve been beaten at their own game - that’s the political reality.
@elrick1
Not seen SNP MPs this angry since they found out the name of a cafe at Edinburgh Castle.
Sid Eudy spoke about it on a shoot video. Wrestlers were flying in from all over the US at their own expense for the card. Fritz, his dad, wanted $1500 to turn up. What a POS.
Kerry was a real superstar in the making.
It is very difficult to influence people who are, rightly or wrongly, in fear for their existence which applies to both sides in Gaza.
Let's say the 'labour sources' claim is indeed untrue and that he was not threatened in order to change, and that was the biggest red flag here. We'd still have the on record statement that his decision, whilst within his remit, was unusual and a departure from convention, and it appears detrimental to the SNP's motion.
Now, as Bercow once (rightly) noted, there will be occasions to depart from convention, that is how it develops. But as Hoyle (rightly) reacted by putting in place that reporting mechanism, Speakers should not have poor or no reasons to depart from convention, as was the case in that Bercow case and why Hoyle felt it necessary to correct matters.
He's apologised, everyone's had their rages, time to move on.
The problem as we know is in January the self-assessment tax forms are complete and that leads into a bump in tax receipts while the ending of Government support for energy bills has also helped the public finances (though not the finances of many of the public).
Proponents of tax cuts may still hold the view Hunt has the room to offer jam now, more jam in a pre-election Autumn Statement and the promise of even more jam with steadfast voting. Whether that bait catches the same amount of fish it used to is debatable and with problems in local Government funding becoming more evident the calls to put money into public services rather than tax cuts are growing.
People are unhappy about price rises as it means they have to pay more.
So what people want is high inflation and price falls.
Which requires prices falls for the things they buy but price rises for things they do not buy but 'people like them' do buy.