Howdy, Stranger!

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

Bad news for backers of the second coming of Truss – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited March 12 in General
imageBad news for backers of the second coming of Truss – politicalbetting.com

Which has been the worst Conservative PM since 2010?Liz Truss: 39%Boris Johnson: 21%Rishi Sunak: 10%Theresa May: 7%David Cameron: 4%Don't know: 18%https://t.co/O0cJHNwANX pic.twitter.com/bevOFL5DFe

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • First like the lettuce.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,870
    edited February 22
    Second like the Second Coming of David Cameron

    …wait that sounds unfortunate.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Unflushable, full of hot air.
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,198
    Only one person seems to have unending faith in Liz Truss. Herself.

  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,132
    edited February 22
    FPT:

    mwadams said:

    kle4 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Daniel Finkelstein
    @Dannythefink

    The Speaker of the Commons has announced that he ignored precedent & selected motions because of MP’s concerns of violent retribution if presented with the usual alternatives. This is not a Westminster issue, it’s a democratic crisis if it’s true. So we need to find out if it is."

    https://twitter.com/Dannythefink/status/1760429543918104995

    Right decision or not in those circumstances it would at least be a defendable reason for making the call, in the sense of an extraordinary situation. Which makes the 'Labour say they forced his hand, oh wait now apparently that was untrue' stuff all the more baffling.
    I think "forced his hand" was over-emotional briefing that they had to row back from. I believe it is true that the decision came after rather urgent discussion between SKS and the speaker, as.per the FT article - and can see how that would be hyped up to "forced" from "persuaded" in that atmosphere.
    If the situation was that, then the speaker should have discussed it with the other relevant partis as well and got their input.
    Oh, yes. I don't think the phrase "expertly handled" will ever get attached to this particular issue.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,132

    First like the lettuce.

    I thought Truss went first and the lettuce survived?
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,198
    On other matters, Hoyle has been a poor speaker throughout. I won’t be sorry if this brings him down, as frankly it should.
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,929
    mwadams said:

    FPT:

    mwadams said:

    kle4 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Daniel Finkelstein
    @Dannythefink

    The Speaker of the Commons has announced that he ignored precedent & selected motions because of MP’s concerns of violent retribution if presented with the usual alternatives. This is not a Westminster issue, it’s a democratic crisis if it’s true. So we need to find out if it is."

    https://twitter.com/Dannythefink/status/1760429543918104995

    Right decision or not in those circumstances it would at least be a defendable reason for making the call, in the sense of an extraordinary situation. Which makes the 'Labour say they forced his hand, oh wait now apparently that was untrue' stuff all the more baffling.
    I think "forced his hand" was over-emotional briefing that they had to row back from. I believe it is true that the decision came after rather urgent discussion between SKS and the speaker, as.per the FT article - and can see how that would be hyped up to "forced" from "persuaded" in that atmosphere.
    If the situation was that, then the speaker should have discussed it with the other relevant partis as well and got their input.
    Oh, yes. I don't think the phrase "expertly handled" will ever get attached to this particular issue.
    I think SKS and Labour played it well. They got exactly what they wanted from it.

    Parliamentary business being governed by fear of the mob's reaction to Labour MP's is not a great precedent to set.
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,929
    mwadams said:

    First like the lettuce.

    I thought Truss went first and the lettuce survived?
    It did.

    Truss was right about one thing. We need to go for growth. Her incompetent way of trying to deliver it just scuppered it and any message she has is now always undermined by her short stint in power.

    The Kwasi Kwarteng interview on the Bloomberg Money Podcast is worth listening to.

    Whoever gets in this country is screwed. I see little to be optimistic about. I am coming round to Leon's mindset that if you are young you should get out and go somewhere else.
  • There is clearly a growing threat to MPs of all parties. You would have hoped this would bring MPs together, not send them off into partisan bickering.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,041
    mwadams said:

    FPT:

    mwadams said:

    kle4 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Daniel Finkelstein
    @Dannythefink

    The Speaker of the Commons has announced that he ignored precedent & selected motions because of MP’s concerns of violent retribution if presented with the usual alternatives. This is not a Westminster issue, it’s a democratic crisis if it’s true. So we need to find out if it is."

    https://twitter.com/Dannythefink/status/1760429543918104995

    Right decision or not in those circumstances it would at least be a defendable reason for making the call, in the sense of an extraordinary situation. Which makes the 'Labour say they forced his hand, oh wait now apparently that was untrue' stuff all the more baffling.
    I think "forced his hand" was over-emotional briefing that they had to row back from. I believe it is true that the decision came after rather urgent discussion between SKS and the speaker, as.per the FT article - and can see how that would be hyped up to "forced" from "persuaded" in that atmosphere.
    If the situation was that, then the speaker should have discussed it with the other relevant partis as well and got their input.
    Oh, yes. I don't think the phrase "expertly handled" will ever get attached to this particular issue.
    On the contrary.
    It was not "expertly handled".
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,764
    edited February 22

    There is clearly a growing threat to MPs of all parties. You would have hoped this would bring MPs together, not send them off into partisan bickering.

    You have experience of the SNP, and thought they would ever try and attempt unity? The whole point of yesterday was to get Labour into partisan bickering, no matter what the consequences. It’s what the Nats live for.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,865
    edited February 22
    Nigelb said:

    mwadams said:

    FPT:

    mwadams said:

    kle4 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Daniel Finkelstein
    @Dannythefink

    The Speaker of the Commons has announced that he ignored precedent & selected motions because of MP’s concerns of violent retribution if presented with the usual alternatives. This is not a Westminster issue, it’s a democratic crisis if it’s true. So we need to find out if it is."

    https://twitter.com/Dannythefink/status/1760429543918104995

    Right decision or not in those circumstances it would at least be a defendable reason for making the call, in the sense of an extraordinary situation. Which makes the 'Labour say they forced his hand, oh wait now apparently that was untrue' stuff all the more baffling.
    I think "forced his hand" was over-emotional briefing that they had to row back from. I believe it is true that the decision came after rather urgent discussion between SKS and the speaker, as.per the FT article - and can see how that would be hyped up to "forced" from "persuaded" in that atmosphere.
    If the situation was that, then the speaker should have discussed it with the other relevant partis as well and got their input.
    Oh, yes. I don't think the phrase "expertly handled" will ever get attached to this particular issue.
    On the contrary.
    It was not "expertly handled".
    Was not that Mr Adams point? The whole thing appears to have been a disgrace, and an insult to both the suffering people of Gaza and the relatives of the hostages.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,459
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,772

    There is clearly a growing threat to MPs of all parties. You would have hoped this would bring MPs together, not send them off into partisan bickering.

    Indeed. And that's why Hoyle should have talked to the relevant parties, and not just do what Starmer requested.

    The threats are apparently being made to any MP who can remotely be seen as being pro-Israel or pro-Jewish, of whatever party. Starmer's idea was to protect Labour MPs; it may well have placed MPs of other parties who voted against it in increased danger.
  • At this difficult and turbulent time, we really need a statesmanlike Speaker with experience at the highest levels of Government, who is used to negotiating deals not just with colleagues but around the globe.

    Yet no doubt the deep state of globalists, socialists, and establishment liberals will once again conspire to prevent her getting the job.
  • There is clearly a growing threat to MPs of all parties. You would have hoped this would bring MPs together, not send them off into partisan bickering.

    Unfortunately, for some MPs, partisan bickering is what gives them life.

    Labour aren't innocent in this- they also use the opposition day process to craft motions which the government can't support but it would be awkward to vote against.

    But this much spluttering over a vote that is pure virtue signalling... ugh.

    Meanwhile,

    What no one in Westminster managed to mention, is that they weren’t the only parliament debating such matters that afternoon. Over in Jerusalem, the Israeli Knesset quietly announced it would never recognise a Palestinian state. That the “two state solution” is, as far as they’re concerned, finished.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f52c8f29-4fac-4642-a0c9-752aa7ec4c4a?shareToken=058fe1ea7897d11fb082a09a2446e9df
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,443
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68366337 IVF effectively banned in Alabama. Anti-abortion laws defining embryos as people are unworkable and will lead to ever more unintended consequences. Will this help the Dems at the elections?
  • https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68366337 IVF effectively banned in Alabama. Anti-abortion laws defining embryos as people are unworkable and will lead to ever more unintended consequences. Will this help the Dems at the elections?

    Yes.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,466
    Leon said:
    Of course! What does any sane person expect?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,041
    Hoyle seems to recognise he ballsed up.
    “I thought I was doing the right thing and the best thing, and I regret it, and I apologise for how it’s ended up,”

    While I understand the behaviour of Labour, and the SNP, what was the justification for a government which commands a large majority in the House just walking out of the debate ?

    The SNP had a genuine grievance over the ruling; the government didn't.
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,929
    Leon said:
    I wonder if there is a statue of the late, great, Kenneth Connor who was Lord Hampton, of Wick.
  • There is clearly a growing threat to MPs of all parties. You would have hoped this would bring MPs together, not send them off into partisan bickering.

    Indeed. And that's why Hoyle should have talked to the relevant parties, and not just do what Starmer requested.

    The threats are apparently being made to any MP who can remotely be seen as being pro-Israel or pro-Jewish, of whatever party. Starmer's idea was to protect Labour MPs; it may well have placed MPs of other parties who voted against it in increased danger.
    What would that meeting have achieved?

    The SNP knew exactly where they were putting the wedge with the motion they had tabled.

    That was literally the point of the exercise.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,977

    Nigelb said:

    mwadams said:

    FPT:

    mwadams said:

    kle4 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Daniel Finkelstein
    @Dannythefink

    The Speaker of the Commons has announced that he ignored precedent & selected motions because of MP’s concerns of violent retribution if presented with the usual alternatives. This is not a Westminster issue, it’s a democratic crisis if it’s true. So we need to find out if it is."

    https://twitter.com/Dannythefink/status/1760429543918104995

    Right decision or not in those circumstances it would at least be a defendable reason for making the call, in the sense of an extraordinary situation. Which makes the 'Labour say they forced his hand, oh wait now apparently that was untrue' stuff all the more baffling.
    I think "forced his hand" was over-emotional briefing that they had to row back from. I believe it is true that the decision came after rather urgent discussion between SKS and the speaker, as.per the FT article - and can see how that would be hyped up to "forced" from "persuaded" in that atmosphere.
    If the situation was that, then the speaker should have discussed it with the other relevant partis as well and got their input.
    Oh, yes. I don't think the phrase "expertly handled" will ever get attached to this particular issue.
    On the contrary.
    It was not "expertly handled".
    Was not that Mr Adams point? The whole thing appears to have been a disgrace, and an insult to both the suffering people of Gaza and the relatives of the hostages.
    Neither of whom will give a monkeys about what the UK House of Commons has said or done. Sometimes we really need to get over ourselves.

    Yesterday was an irrelevant farce. It might have embarrassed Starmer and that seemed to be its purpose. It failed.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 4,203
    Leon said:
    Out of 4 'things to see' in Wick, 2 are John O Groats and Thurso...
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,929
    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    mwadams said:

    FPT:

    mwadams said:

    kle4 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Daniel Finkelstein
    @Dannythefink

    The Speaker of the Commons has announced that he ignored precedent & selected motions because of MP’s concerns of violent retribution if presented with the usual alternatives. This is not a Westminster issue, it’s a democratic crisis if it’s true. So we need to find out if it is."

    https://twitter.com/Dannythefink/status/1760429543918104995

    Right decision or not in those circumstances it would at least be a defendable reason for making the call, in the sense of an extraordinary situation. Which makes the 'Labour say they forced his hand, oh wait now apparently that was untrue' stuff all the more baffling.
    I think "forced his hand" was over-emotional briefing that they had to row back from. I believe it is true that the decision came after rather urgent discussion between SKS and the speaker, as.per the FT article - and can see how that would be hyped up to "forced" from "persuaded" in that atmosphere.
    If the situation was that, then the speaker should have discussed it with the other relevant partis as well and got their input.
    Oh, yes. I don't think the phrase "expertly handled" will ever get attached to this particular issue.
    On the contrary.
    It was not "expertly handled".
    Was not that Mr Adams point? The whole thing appears to have been a disgrace, and an insult to both the suffering people of Gaza and the relatives of the hostages.
    Neither of whom will give a monkeys about what the UK House of Commons has said or done. Sometimes we really need to get over ourselves.

    Yesterday was an irrelevant farce. It might have embarrassed Starmer and that seemed to be its purpose. It failed.
    SNP hoist by their own petard then getting pissy at the end result.

    Yesterday was a complete and utter waste of time. The country has so many issues to deal with at the moment and parliament was wasting time on a debate about Gaza for what ? For the SNP to try to embarrass labour for party political purposes.

    Utterly futile.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,041

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68366337 IVF effectively banned in Alabama. Anti-abortion laws defining embryos as people are unworkable and will lead to ever more unintended consequences. Will this help the Dems at the elections?

    Yes.
    The Congressional GOP also seems to be lead by religious fundamentalists.
    Those who object appear only to want to do so anonymously.

    https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/02/21/congress/johnsons-sermon-to-gop-retreagt-00142436
    ...Johnson’s private remarks to a small group of Republican lawmakers at Miami’s Mandarin Oriental Hotel over the weekend alarmed both people, who addressed the speech on condition of anonymity. Rather than outlining a specific plan to hold and grow the majority, these people said, Johnson effectively delivered a sermon.

    The Louisiana Republican showed slides to the members of his Elected Leadership Committee (ELC) team in a bid to tout the party’s prospects of hanging onto its two-seat majority in November. Johnson, a devout Christian, attempted to rally the group by discussing moral decline in America — focusing on declining church membership and the nation’s shrinking religious identity, according to both people in the room.

    The speaker contended that when one doesn’t have God in their life, the government or “state” will become their guide, referring back to Bible verses, both people said. They added that the approach fell flat among some in the room...
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,443
    Nigelb said:

    Hoyle seems to recognise he ballsed up.
    “I thought I was doing the right thing and the best thing, and I regret it, and I apologise for how it’s ended up,”

    While I understand the behaviour of Labour, and the SNP, what was the justification for a government which commands a large majority in the House just walking out of the debate ?

    The SNP had a genuine grievance over the ruling; the government didn't.

    The SNP’s grievance is that they wanted to embarrass the Labour Party and couldn’t, by voting on something that would never pass. The Government also wanted the Labour Party to be embarrassed, so their grievance is similar.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 5,416
    edited February 22
    If Hoyle did go it could be a very open field on the Tory side. I expect a number of their MPs would rather relish the idea of not having to face a main party challenge at the GE!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,865
    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    mwadams said:

    FPT:

    mwadams said:

    kle4 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Daniel Finkelstein
    @Dannythefink

    The Speaker of the Commons has announced that he ignored precedent & selected motions because of MP’s concerns of violent retribution if presented with the usual alternatives. This is not a Westminster issue, it’s a democratic crisis if it’s true. So we need to find out if it is."

    https://twitter.com/Dannythefink/status/1760429543918104995

    Right decision or not in those circumstances it would at least be a defendable reason for making the call, in the sense of an extraordinary situation. Which makes the 'Labour say they forced his hand, oh wait now apparently that was untrue' stuff all the more baffling.
    I think "forced his hand" was over-emotional briefing that they had to row back from. I believe it is true that the decision came after rather urgent discussion between SKS and the speaker, as.per the FT article - and can see how that would be hyped up to "forced" from "persuaded" in that atmosphere.
    If the situation was that, then the speaker should have discussed it with the other relevant partis as well and got their input.
    Oh, yes. I don't think the phrase "expertly handled" will ever get attached to this particular issue.
    On the contrary.
    It was not "expertly handled".
    Was not that Mr Adams point? The whole thing appears to have been a disgrace, and an insult to both the suffering people of Gaza and the relatives of the hostages.
    Neither of whom will give a monkeys about what the UK House of Commons has said or done. Sometimes we really need to get over ourselves.

    Yesterday was an irrelevant farce. It might have embarrassed Starmer and that seemed to be its purpose. It failed.
    It appears to have embarrassed the whole of the Commons! Or, at least it ought to have!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,041
    Taz said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    mwadams said:

    FPT:

    mwadams said:

    kle4 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Daniel Finkelstein
    @Dannythefink

    The Speaker of the Commons has announced that he ignored precedent & selected motions because of MP’s concerns of violent retribution if presented with the usual alternatives. This is not a Westminster issue, it’s a democratic crisis if it’s true. So we need to find out if it is."

    https://twitter.com/Dannythefink/status/1760429543918104995

    Right decision or not in those circumstances it would at least be a defendable reason for making the call, in the sense of an extraordinary situation. Which makes the 'Labour say they forced his hand, oh wait now apparently that was untrue' stuff all the more baffling.
    I think "forced his hand" was over-emotional briefing that they had to row back from. I believe it is true that the decision came after rather urgent discussion between SKS and the speaker, as.per the FT article - and can see how that would be hyped up to "forced" from "persuaded" in that atmosphere.
    If the situation was that, then the speaker should have discussed it with the other relevant partis as well and got their input.
    Oh, yes. I don't think the phrase "expertly handled" will ever get attached to this particular issue.
    On the contrary.
    It was not "expertly handled".
    Was not that Mr Adams point? The whole thing appears to have been a disgrace, and an insult to both the suffering people of Gaza and the relatives of the hostages.
    Neither of whom will give a monkeys about what the UK House of Commons has said or done. Sometimes we really need to get over ourselves.

    Yesterday was an irrelevant farce. It might have embarrassed Starmer and that seemed to be its purpose. It failed.
    SNP hoist by their own petard then getting pissy at the end result.

    Yesterday was a complete and utter waste of time. The country has so many issues to deal with at the moment and parliament was wasting time on a debate about Gaza for what ? For the SNP to try to embarrass labour for party political purposes.

    Utterly futile.
    It was a pretty cynical manoeuvre - but that doesn't really get the Speaker off the hook.

    I don't think anyone involved came out of it well.
  • There is clearly a growing threat to MPs of all parties. You would have hoped this would bring MPs together, not send them off into partisan bickering.

    Unfortunately, for some MPs, partisan bickering is what gives them life.

    Labour aren't innocent in this- they also use the opposition day process to craft motions which the government can't support but it would be awkward to vote against.

    But this much spluttering over a vote that is pure virtue signalling... ugh.

    Meanwhile,

    What no one in Westminster managed to mention, is that they weren’t the only parliament debating such matters that afternoon. Over in Jerusalem, the Israeli Knesset quietly announced it would never recognise a Palestinian state. That the “two state solution” is, as far as they’re concerned, finished.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f52c8f29-4fac-4642-a0c9-752aa7ec4c4a?shareToken=058fe1ea7897d11fb082a09a2446e9df
    It's finished *for this parliament*. Then when the Likud crooks are thrown out, the new Knesset can decide differently.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,639
    However mediocre Rishi Sunak he is incapable of being as bad as Liz Truss.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,169

    On other matters, Hoyle has been a poor speaker throughout. I won’t be sorry if this brings him down, as frankly it should.

    Well, that's quite the point.

    His speakership wouldn't have been mentioned yesterday had he been a good speaker.

    The fact it was tells you he's not particularly widely respected.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 5,876
    Leon said:
    The weather around the Moray Firth is lovely. Nothing like the west coast - all the rain drops on Torridon/Assynt and the Cairngorms.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    FF43 said:

    However mediocre Rishi Sunak he is incapable of being as bad as Liz Truss.

    To be Fair, he’s giving it his best shot.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 4,203
    Nigelb said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68366337 IVF effectively banned in Alabama. Anti-abortion laws defining embryos as people are unworkable and will lead to ever more unintended consequences. Will this help the Dems at the elections?

    Yes.
    The Congressional GOP also seems to be lead by religious fundamentalists.
    Those who object appear only to want to do so anonymously.

    https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/02/21/congress/johnsons-sermon-to-gop-retreagt-00142436
    ...Johnson’s private remarks to a small group of Republican lawmakers at Miami’s Mandarin Oriental Hotel over the weekend alarmed both people, who addressed the speech on condition of anonymity. Rather than outlining a specific plan to hold and grow the majority, these people said, Johnson effectively delivered a sermon.

    The Louisiana Republican showed slides to the members of his Elected Leadership Committee (ELC) team in a bid to tout the party’s prospects of hanging onto its two-seat majority in November. Johnson, a devout Christian, attempted to rally the group by discussing moral decline in America — focusing on declining church membership and the nation’s shrinking religious identity, according to both people in the room.

    The speaker contended that when one doesn’t have God in their life, the government or “state” will become their guide, referring back to Bible verses, both people said. They added that the approach fell flat among some in the room...
    Article from 3 months ago:
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/nov/04/mike-johnson-theocrat-house-speaker-christian-trump

    "The new House speaker, Mike Johnson, knows how he will rule: according to his Bible. When asked on Fox News how he would make public policy, he replied: “Well, go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it. That’s my worldview.” But it’s taking time for the full significance of that statement to sink in. Johnson is in fact a believer in scriptural originalism, the view that the Bible is the truth and the sole legitimate source for public policy."

  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,443
    Brexit dividend klaxon
    https://cpe.org.uk/our-news/worsening-medicine-shortages-linked-to-brexit-and-more/

    “Worsening medicine shortages linked to Brexit and more”
  • AverageNinjaAverageNinja Posts: 1,169
    The SNP seem to be annoyed that Parliament voted for a ceasefire?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,169
    Leon said:
    I'd go.

    I've never been that far north and it'd be a great excuse to ride the amazingly scenic Far North Line.

    Might even combine with a ferry trip to the Orkneys.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,772
    Nigelb said:

    Hoyle seems to recognise he ballsed up.
    “I thought I was doing the right thing and the best thing, and I regret it, and I apologise for how it’s ended up,”

    While I understand the behaviour of Labour, and the SNP, what was the justification for a government which commands a large majority in the House just walking out of the debate ?

    The SNP had a genuine grievance over the ruling; the government didn't.

    Because the speaker had f*cked up, and if they'd allowed that f*uck up to stand, it would have set a nasty little precedent.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,793
    The SNP played stupid games, and won stupid prizes...
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 5,416
    Nigelb said:

    Taz said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    mwadams said:

    FPT:

    mwadams said:

    kle4 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Daniel Finkelstein
    @Dannythefink

    The Speaker of the Commons has announced that he ignored precedent & selected motions because of MP’s concerns of violent retribution if presented with the usual alternatives. This is not a Westminster issue, it’s a democratic crisis if it’s true. So we need to find out if it is."

    https://twitter.com/Dannythefink/status/1760429543918104995

    Right decision or not in those circumstances it would at least be a defendable reason for making the call, in the sense of an extraordinary situation. Which makes the 'Labour say they forced his hand, oh wait now apparently that was untrue' stuff all the more baffling.
    I think "forced his hand" was over-emotional briefing that they had to row back from. I believe it is true that the decision came after rather urgent discussion between SKS and the speaker, as.per the FT article - and can see how that would be hyped up to "forced" from "persuaded" in that atmosphere.
    If the situation was that, then the speaker should have discussed it with the other relevant partis as well and got their input.
    Oh, yes. I don't think the phrase "expertly handled" will ever get attached to this particular issue.
    On the contrary.
    It was not "expertly handled".
    Was not that Mr Adams point? The whole thing appears to have been a disgrace, and an insult to both the suffering people of Gaza and the relatives of the hostages.
    Neither of whom will give a monkeys about what the UK House of Commons has said or done. Sometimes we really need to get over ourselves.

    Yesterday was an irrelevant farce. It might have embarrassed Starmer and that seemed to be its purpose. It failed.
    SNP hoist by their own petard then getting pissy at the end result.

    Yesterday was a complete and utter waste of time. The country has so many issues to deal with at the moment and parliament was wasting time on a debate about Gaza for what ? For the SNP to try to embarrass labour for party political purposes.

    Utterly futile.
    It was a pretty cynical manoeuvre - but that doesn't really get the Speaker off the hook.

    I don't think anyone involved came out of it well.
    I agree completely.

    The Tories and the SNP look a bit pathetic getting so outraged with it all (the Tories especially given it was not their day). Labour look like they’ve deployed some dark arts and are now sitting back with an air of smugness like that one kid in the class who got the teacher to make a decision in their favour. And Hoyle, whatever his motivations, was clearly wrong to do what he did without further consultation and deliberation with all the parties so as to avoid everything becoming unseemly.
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,198

    Nigelb said:

    Hoyle seems to recognise he ballsed up.
    “I thought I was doing the right thing and the best thing, and I regret it, and I apologise for how it’s ended up,”

    While I understand the behaviour of Labour, and the SNP, what was the justification for a government which commands a large majority in the House just walking out of the debate ?

    The SNP had a genuine grievance over the ruling; the government didn't.

    The SNP’s grievance is that they wanted to embarrass the Labour Party and couldn’t, by voting on something that would never pass. The Government also wanted the Labour Party to be embarrassed, so their grievance is similar.
    And that’s politics.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Leon said:
    I'd go.

    I've never been that far north and it'd be a great excuse to ride the amazingly scenic Far North Line.

    Might even combine with a ferry trip to the Orkneys.
    The north coast of Britain is stunning. Make the trip.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,041

    Nigelb said:

    Hoyle seems to recognise he ballsed up.
    “I thought I was doing the right thing and the best thing, and I regret it, and I apologise for how it’s ended up,”

    While I understand the behaviour of Labour, and the SNP, what was the justification for a government which commands a large majority in the House just walking out of the debate ?

    The SNP had a genuine grievance over the ruling; the government didn't.

    The SNP’s grievance is that they wanted to embarrass the Labour Party and couldn’t, by voting on something that would never pass. The Government also wanted the Labour Party to be embarrassed, so their grievance is similar.
    I'm not defending the SNP - but parties are cynical. That doesn't excuse a Speaker messing up Commons procedure - as he seems to acknowledge.

    He's not a strong enough character to get away with rulings which are of questionable impartiality.

    The SNP has a grievance over losing what was their debate thanks to his ruling - irrespective of the moral dubiousness of their position.. The government are just whingeing from the sidelines.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,977
    Taz said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    mwadams said:

    FPT:

    mwadams said:

    kle4 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Daniel Finkelstein
    @Dannythefink

    The Speaker of the Commons has announced that he ignored precedent & selected motions because of MP’s concerns of violent retribution if presented with the usual alternatives. This is not a Westminster issue, it’s a democratic crisis if it’s true. So we need to find out if it is."

    https://twitter.com/Dannythefink/status/1760429543918104995

    Right decision or not in those circumstances it would at least be a defendable reason for making the call, in the sense of an extraordinary situation. Which makes the 'Labour say they forced his hand, oh wait now apparently that was untrue' stuff all the more baffling.
    I think "forced his hand" was over-emotional briefing that they had to row back from. I believe it is true that the decision came after rather urgent discussion between SKS and the speaker, as.per the FT article - and can see how that would be hyped up to "forced" from "persuaded" in that atmosphere.
    If the situation was that, then the speaker should have discussed it with the other relevant partis as well and got their input.
    Oh, yes. I don't think the phrase "expertly handled" will ever get attached to this particular issue.
    On the contrary.
    It was not "expertly handled".
    Was not that Mr Adams point? The whole thing appears to have been a disgrace, and an insult to both the suffering people of Gaza and the relatives of the hostages.
    Neither of whom will give a monkeys about what the UK House of Commons has said or done. Sometimes we really need to get over ourselves.

    Yesterday was an irrelevant farce. It might have embarrassed Starmer and that seemed to be its purpose. It failed.
    SNP hoist by their own petard then getting pissy at the end result.

    Yesterday was a complete and utter waste of time. The country has so many issues to deal with at the moment and parliament was wasting time on a debate about Gaza for what ? For the SNP to try to embarrass labour for party political purposes.

    Utterly futile.
    Yes, they wanted a vote on their motion because Starmer was opposed to the wording they had deliberately used and several Labour MPs would have defied him and voted for it anyway. It was cheap, petty politics unrelated to the issue under discussion.

    If this was an SNP opposition day then they are entitled to be narked that the Speaker contrived to take it away from them so that their motion was not even voted on. But hey, them's the breaks.

    If only Scotland wasn't so perfect in every sense perhaps the SNP might have focused on an issue nearer to home.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,466
    edited February 22
    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:
    The weather around the Moray Firth is lovely. Nothing like the west coast - all the rain drops on Torridon/Assynt and the Cairngorms.
    Talking about Port Talbot as that piece does, I was startled (but should not have been surprised) by a piece in Ships Monthly this morning. The old paper pulp import terminal at Northfleet on the Thames has been rechristened the London Scrap Terminal and is now exporting high quality steel to steelmakers all over the world. First shipload left in mid-November.
  • Hoyle is a decent man - a good man, even. He's never been cut out to be Speaker, though. The next Parliament is going to need a new one, especially if there is a large Labour majority.
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,198
    DavidL said:

    Taz said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    mwadams said:

    FPT:

    mwadams said:

    kle4 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Daniel Finkelstein
    @Dannythefink

    The Speaker of the Commons has announced that he ignored precedent & selected motions because of MP’s concerns of violent retribution if presented with the usual alternatives. This is not a Westminster issue, it’s a democratic crisis if it’s true. So we need to find out if it is."

    https://twitter.com/Dannythefink/status/1760429543918104995

    Right decision or not in those circumstances it would at least be a defendable reason for making the call, in the sense of an extraordinary situation. Which makes the 'Labour say they forced his hand, oh wait now apparently that was untrue' stuff all the more baffling.
    I think "forced his hand" was over-emotional briefing that they had to row back from. I believe it is true that the decision came after rather urgent discussion between SKS and the speaker, as.per the FT article - and can see how that would be hyped up to "forced" from "persuaded" in that atmosphere.
    If the situation was that, then the speaker should have discussed it with the other relevant partis as well and got their input.
    Oh, yes. I don't think the phrase "expertly handled" will ever get attached to this particular issue.
    On the contrary.
    It was not "expertly handled".
    Was not that Mr Adams point? The whole thing appears to have been a disgrace, and an insult to both the suffering people of Gaza and the relatives of the hostages.
    Neither of whom will give a monkeys about what the UK House of Commons has said or done. Sometimes we really need to get over ourselves.

    Yesterday was an irrelevant farce. It might have embarrassed Starmer and that seemed to be its purpose. It failed.
    SNP hoist by their own petard then getting pissy at the end result.

    Yesterday was a complete and utter waste of time. The country has so many issues to deal with at the moment and parliament was wasting time on a debate about Gaza for what ? For the SNP to try to embarrass labour for party political purposes.

    Utterly futile.
    Yes, they wanted a vote on their motion because Starmer was opposed to the wording they had deliberately used and several Labour MPs would have defied him and voted for it anyway. It was cheap, petty politics unrelated to the issue under discussion.

    If this was an SNP opposition day then they are entitled to be narked that the Speaker contrived to take it away from them so that their motion was not even voted on. But hey, them's the breaks.

    If only Scotland wasn't so perfect in every sense perhaps the SNP might have focused on an issue nearer to home.
    Of course, Tories would never play political games. Never. Ever.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,764
    FF43 said:

    However mediocre Rishi Sunak he is incapable of being as bad as Liz Truss.

    Liz Truss at least tried to achieve something, but the Sunakites in the PCP wouldn’t let it happen.

    Then, having seized the crown, they’ve sat on their hands and done pretty much nothing for the past 18 months.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,640
    Perhaps Labour could give up one of their opposition days and pass that onto the SNP.

    As for what happened with the votes , it was the withdrawing of the Tory amendment which meant the SNP motion wasn’t voted on . The Tories should have won their amendment even with a few rebels so they were game playing.

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,466

    The SNP seem to be annoyed that Parliament voted for a ceasefire?

    Wrong sort of ceasefire, but also because the parliamentary procedures affecting smaller parties have been irreparably damaged for the future. I'm surprised the LDs, etc., aren't complaining more.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,041

    Nigelb said:

    Hoyle seems to recognise he ballsed up.
    “I thought I was doing the right thing and the best thing, and I regret it, and I apologise for how it’s ended up,”

    While I understand the behaviour of Labour, and the SNP, what was the justification for a government which commands a large majority in the House just walking out of the debate ?

    The SNP had a genuine grievance over the ruling; the government didn't.

    Because the speaker had f*cked up, and if they'd allowed that f*uck up to stand, it would have set a nasty little precedent.
    They did allow it to stand by walking out.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,772

    There is clearly a growing threat to MPs of all parties. You would have hoped this would bring MPs together, not send them off into partisan bickering.

    Indeed. And that's why Hoyle should have talked to the relevant parties, and not just do what Starmer requested.

    The threats are apparently being made to any MP who can remotely be seen as being pro-Israel or pro-Jewish, of whatever party. Starmer's idea was to protect Labour MPs; it may well have placed MPs of other parties who voted against it in increased danger.
    What would that meeting have achieved?

    The SNP knew exactly where they were putting the wedge with the motion they had tabled.

    That was literally the point of the exercise.
    There were two exercises:
    *) The SNP setting a trap for Labour and the Conservatives.
    *) Starmer *allegedly* trying to protect Labour MPs.

    The former is absolutely standard operating procedure; it's the way these things are used.

    This mess occurred because of the latter. And the issue is that it's not just Labour MPs who are being threatened. If Starmer convinced the Speaker that there were valid threats out there, then the Speaker should have got all the relevant parties in and said: "There's a chance that this vote may increase risk of violence against MPs. What can we do about it?"

    And if that had not worked, he could have made a grand statement at the start of the debate about the risks of such votes.

    Instead, he just caved in, in a way that potentially placed non-Labour MPs at increased risk.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,057

    Brexit dividend klaxon
    https://cpe.org.uk/our-news/worsening-medicine-shortages-linked-to-brexit-and-more/

    “Worsening medicine shortages linked to Brexit and more”

    Hardly just Brexit though, as your quote and the piece makes clear.

    How has this happened? Before Brexit everything was the fault of the EU. Now, post Brexit, Brexit is to blame for everything.

    Neither was anywhere near correct.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,772
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Hoyle seems to recognise he ballsed up.
    “I thought I was doing the right thing and the best thing, and I regret it, and I apologise for how it’s ended up,”

    While I understand the behaviour of Labour, and the SNP, what was the justification for a government which commands a large majority in the House just walking out of the debate ?

    The SNP had a genuine grievance over the ruling; the government didn't.

    Because the speaker had f*cked up, and if they'd allowed that f*uck up to stand, it would have set a nasty little precedent.
    They did allow it to stand by walking out.
    But they didn't support the process, as voting against would have done. Trying to blame the government for this mess is a little odd.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,865
    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:
    I'd go.

    I've never been that far north and it'd be a great excuse to ride the amazingly scenic Far North Line.

    Might even combine with a ferry trip to the Orkneys.
    The north coast of Britain is stunning. Make the trip.
    It’s among my regrets that I’ll never have been north of Inverness, although I have been on a cruise, which included a visit to the Orkney Islands.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,466
    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:
    I'd go.

    I've never been that far north and it'd be a great excuse to ride the amazingly scenic Far North Line.

    Might even combine with a ferry trip to the Orkneys.
    The north coast of Britain is stunning. Make the trip.
    The north coast *of the mainland*. The Orkneys, and quite separately the northern Shetlands are somethign else again. All worth it.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 5,416

    On other matters, Hoyle has been a poor speaker throughout. I won’t be sorry if this brings him down, as frankly it should.

    Well, that's quite the point.

    His speakership wouldn't have been mentioned yesterday had he been a good speaker.

    The fact it was tells you he's not particularly widely respected.
    He’s at least the best Speaker they’ve had since Boothroyd (though given the two intervening ones, that’s not saying much). I think he’s a decent man and I think he cares about the HoC so he clearly meets the job requirements. I think part of the problem is he has made playing by the rulebook his shtick (particularly in light of his predecessor’s… inventiveness) so when he didn’t the fall is more severe.

    That said, I did mention yesterday that for the senior Labour sources to approach Newsnight to essentially say he was leant on, there must be some in the Labour Party who would prefer him to not be there. They must have known that would become a story and he could lose his job over it.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,977

    DavidL said:

    Taz said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    mwadams said:

    FPT:

    mwadams said:

    kle4 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Daniel Finkelstein
    @Dannythefink

    The Speaker of the Commons has announced that he ignored precedent & selected motions because of MP’s concerns of violent retribution if presented with the usual alternatives. This is not a Westminster issue, it’s a democratic crisis if it’s true. So we need to find out if it is."

    https://twitter.com/Dannythefink/status/1760429543918104995

    Right decision or not in those circumstances it would at least be a defendable reason for making the call, in the sense of an extraordinary situation. Which makes the 'Labour say they forced his hand, oh wait now apparently that was untrue' stuff all the more baffling.
    I think "forced his hand" was over-emotional briefing that they had to row back from. I believe it is true that the decision came after rather urgent discussion between SKS and the speaker, as.per the FT article - and can see how that would be hyped up to "forced" from "persuaded" in that atmosphere.
    If the situation was that, then the speaker should have discussed it with the other relevant partis as well and got their input.
    Oh, yes. I don't think the phrase "expertly handled" will ever get attached to this particular issue.
    On the contrary.
    It was not "expertly handled".
    Was not that Mr Adams point? The whole thing appears to have been a disgrace, and an insult to both the suffering people of Gaza and the relatives of the hostages.
    Neither of whom will give a monkeys about what the UK House of Commons has said or done. Sometimes we really need to get over ourselves.

    Yesterday was an irrelevant farce. It might have embarrassed Starmer and that seemed to be its purpose. It failed.
    SNP hoist by their own petard then getting pissy at the end result.

    Yesterday was a complete and utter waste of time. The country has so many issues to deal with at the moment and parliament was wasting time on a debate about Gaza for what ? For the SNP to try to embarrass labour for party political purposes.

    Utterly futile.
    Yes, they wanted a vote on their motion because Starmer was opposed to the wording they had deliberately used and several Labour MPs would have defied him and voted for it anyway. It was cheap, petty politics unrelated to the issue under discussion.

    If this was an SNP opposition day then they are entitled to be narked that the Speaker contrived to take it away from them so that their motion was not even voted on. But hey, them's the breaks.

    If only Scotland wasn't so perfect in every sense perhaps the SNP might have focused on an issue nearer to home.
    Of course, Tories would never play political games. Never. Ever.
    Of course they would and they were to a certain extent yesterday in that they wanted the SNP manoeuvre to succeed and embarrass Starmer too. That's politics. Its a dirty trade for second rate minds.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Hoyle seems to recognise he ballsed up.
    “I thought I was doing the right thing and the best thing, and I regret it, and I apologise for how it’s ended up,”

    While I understand the behaviour of Labour, and the SNP, what was the justification for a government which commands a large majority in the House just walking out of the debate ?

    The SNP had a genuine grievance over the ruling; the government didn't.

    Because the speaker had f*cked up, and if they'd allowed that f*uck up to stand, it would have set a nasty little precedent.
    They did allow it to stand by walking out.
    But they didn't support the process, as voting against would have done. Trying to blame the government for this mess is a little odd.
    The government could have passed a motion using their majority to assert their authority and rise above the chaos. For some reason they decided not to show such leadership. Bad judgment IMO.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,041

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Hoyle seems to recognise he ballsed up.
    “I thought I was doing the right thing and the best thing, and I regret it, and I apologise for how it’s ended up,”

    While I understand the behaviour of Labour, and the SNP, what was the justification for a government which commands a large majority in the House just walking out of the debate ?

    The SNP had a genuine grievance over the ruling; the government didn't.

    Because the speaker had f*cked up, and if they'd allowed that f*uck up to stand, it would have set a nasty little precedent.
    They did allow it to stand by walking out.
    But they didn't support the process, as voting against would have done. Trying to blame the government for this mess is a little odd.
    I didn't blame them.
    I just called them petulant bystanders.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,164

    Only one person seems to have unending faith in Liz Truss. Herself.

    Is that opening paragraph of the lead saying she'd want the job, or not?
  • Jonathan said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Hoyle seems to recognise he ballsed up.
    “I thought I was doing the right thing and the best thing, and I regret it, and I apologise for how it’s ended up,”

    While I understand the behaviour of Labour, and the SNP, what was the justification for a government which commands a large majority in the House just walking out of the debate ?

    The SNP had a genuine grievance over the ruling; the government didn't.

    Because the speaker had f*cked up, and if they'd allowed that f*uck up to stand, it would have set a nasty little precedent.
    They did allow it to stand by walking out.
    But they didn't support the process, as voting against would have done. Trying to blame the government for this mess is a little odd.
    The government could have passed a motion using their majority to assert their authority and rise above the chaos. For some reason they decided not to show such leadership. Bad judgment IMO.
    There are suggestions that the Conservatives had too many rebels for that.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,164
    Taz said:

    mwadams said:

    FPT:

    mwadams said:

    kle4 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Daniel Finkelstein
    @Dannythefink

    The Speaker of the Commons has announced that he ignored precedent & selected motions because of MP’s concerns of violent retribution if presented with the usual alternatives. This is not a Westminster issue, it’s a democratic crisis if it’s true. So we need to find out if it is."

    https://twitter.com/Dannythefink/status/1760429543918104995

    Right decision or not in those circumstances it would at least be a defendable reason for making the call, in the sense of an extraordinary situation. Which makes the 'Labour say they forced his hand, oh wait now apparently that was untrue' stuff all the more baffling.
    I think "forced his hand" was over-emotional briefing that they had to row back from. I believe it is true that the decision came after rather urgent discussion between SKS and the speaker, as.per the FT article - and can see how that would be hyped up to "forced" from "persuaded" in that atmosphere.
    If the situation was that, then the speaker should have discussed it with the other relevant partis as well and got their input.
    Oh, yes. I don't think the phrase "expertly handled" will ever get attached to this particular issue.
    I think SKS and Labour played it well. They got exactly what they wanted from it.

    Parliamentary business being governed by fear of the mob's reaction to Labour MP's is not a great precedent to set.
    Starmer got what he wanted yesterday, at the price of a big further dent in the reputation of parliament and our politicians - and quite possibly of our country if the episode gets noticed around the world.

    It's possible this will come back to bite a future Labour government.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,977

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:
    I'd go.

    I've never been that far north and it'd be a great excuse to ride the amazingly scenic Far North Line.

    Might even combine with a ferry trip to the Orkneys.
    The north coast of Britain is stunning. Make the trip.
    It’s among my regrets that I’ll never have been north of Inverness, although I have been on a cruise, which included a visit to the Orkney Islands.
    I'm doing a trial in Inverness again today about people from the far north. I sometimes wonder if the weather has an effect on their behaviour. No doubt I am getting a distorted view.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,041

    On other matters, Hoyle has been a poor speaker throughout. I won’t be sorry if this brings him down, as frankly it should.

    Well, that's quite the point.

    His speakership wouldn't have been mentioned yesterday had he been a good speaker.

    The fact it was tells you he's not particularly widely respected.
    He’s at least the best Speaker they’ve had since Boothroyd (though given the two intervening ones, that’s not saying much). I think he’s a decent man and I think he cares about the HoC so he clearly meets the job requirements. I think part of the problem is he has made playing by the rulebook his shtick (particularly in light of his predecessor’s… inventiveness) so when he didn’t the fall is more severe.

    That said, I did mention yesterday that for the senior Labour sources to approach Newsnight to essentially say he was leant on, there must be some in the Labour Party who would prefer him to not be there. They must have known that would become a story and he could lose his job over it.
    I agree with Southam.
    He's a decent guy with good principles - but he's too weak a character to be an effective Speaker when the going gets tough (which is when it matters).

    A Labour government with a large majority would prefer a weak Speaker. I wouldn't.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 3,931
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Taz said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    mwadams said:

    FPT:

    mwadams said:

    kle4 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Daniel Finkelstein
    @Dannythefink

    The Speaker of the Commons has announced that he ignored precedent & selected motions because of MP’s concerns of violent retribution if presented with the usual alternatives. This is not a Westminster issue, it’s a democratic crisis if it’s true. So we need to find out if it is."

    https://twitter.com/Dannythefink/status/1760429543918104995

    Right decision or not in those circumstances it would at least be a defendable reason for making the call, in the sense of an extraordinary situation. Which makes the 'Labour say they forced his hand, oh wait now apparently that was untrue' stuff all the more baffling.
    I think "forced his hand" was over-emotional briefing that they had to row back from. I believe it is true that the decision came after rather urgent discussion between SKS and the speaker, as.per the FT article - and can see how that would be hyped up to "forced" from "persuaded" in that atmosphere.
    If the situation was that, then the speaker should have discussed it with the other relevant partis as well and got their input.
    Oh, yes. I don't think the phrase "expertly handled" will ever get attached to this particular issue.
    On the contrary.
    It was not "expertly handled".
    Was not that Mr Adams point? The whole thing appears to have been a disgrace, and an insult to both the suffering people of Gaza and the relatives of the hostages.
    Neither of whom will give a monkeys about what the UK House of Commons has said or done. Sometimes we really need to get over ourselves.

    Yesterday was an irrelevant farce. It might have embarrassed Starmer and that seemed to be its purpose. It failed.
    SNP hoist by their own petard then getting pissy at the end result.

    Yesterday was a complete and utter waste of time. The country has so many issues to deal with at the moment and parliament was wasting time on a debate about Gaza for what ? For the SNP to try to embarrass labour for party political purposes.

    Utterly futile.
    Yes, they wanted a vote on their motion because Starmer was opposed to the wording they had deliberately used and several Labour MPs would have defied him and voted for it anyway. It was cheap, petty politics unrelated to the issue under discussion.

    If this was an SNP opposition day then they are entitled to be narked that the Speaker contrived to take it away from them so that their motion was not even voted on. But hey, them's the breaks.

    If only Scotland wasn't so perfect in every sense perhaps the SNP might have focused on an issue nearer to home.
    Of course, Tories would never play political games. Never. Ever.
    Of course they would and they were to a certain extent yesterday in that they wanted the SNP manoeuvre to succeed and embarrass Starmer too. That's politics. Its a dirty trade for second rate minds.
    You make it sound like being a barrister.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,301

    On other matters, Hoyle has been a poor speaker throughout. I won’t be sorry if this brings him down, as frankly it should.

    It should indeed.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Hoyle seems to recognise he ballsed up.
    “I thought I was doing the right thing and the best thing, and I regret it, and I apologise for how it’s ended up,”

    While I understand the behaviour of Labour, and the SNP, what was the justification for a government which commands a large majority in the House just walking out of the debate ?

    The SNP had a genuine grievance over the ruling; the government didn't.

    Because the speaker had f*cked up, and if they'd allowed that f*uck up to stand, it would have set a nasty little precedent.
    They did allow it to stand by walking out.
    But they didn't support the process, as voting against would have done. Trying to blame the government for this mess is a little odd.
    The government could have passed a motion using their majority to assert their authority and rise above the chaos. For some reason they decided not to show such leadership. Bad judgment IMO.
    There are suggestions that the Conservatives had too many rebels for that.
    That would explain it. The commons runs into trouble when the government doesn’t have a majority. If true, the weakness of the government is the fundamental problem here.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,164
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Hoyle seems to recognise he ballsed up.
    “I thought I was doing the right thing and the best thing, and I regret it, and I apologise for how it’s ended up,”

    While I understand the behaviour of Labour, and the SNP, what was the justification for a government which commands a large majority in the House just walking out of the debate ?

    The SNP had a genuine grievance over the ruling; the government didn't.

    The SNP’s grievance is that they wanted to embarrass the Labour Party and couldn’t, by voting on something that would never pass. The Government also wanted the Labour Party to be embarrassed, so their grievance is similar.
    I'm not defending the SNP - but parties are cynical. That doesn't excuse a Speaker messing up Commons procedure - as he seems to acknowledge.

    He's not a strong enough character to get away with rulings which are of questionable impartiality.

    The SNP has a grievance over losing what was their debate thanks to his ruling - irrespective of the moral dubiousness of their position.. The government are just whingeing from the sidelines.
    Given the rules as they are, the SNP has a genuine grievance; they get just three opportunities a year to have a vote on a proposition of their choosing.

    But the whole process is a nonsense, with opposition motions of no consequence even if passed, and since Johnson the Tories have often just ignored the debate altogether, let Labour's motion pass by abstaining, and then saying it's all irrelevant. So it's another aspect of our democracy that serves no real purpose other than posturing and show. That place desperately needs dragging into the 21st Century; indeed even getting to the 20th Century would be progress.
  • There is clearly a growing threat to MPs of all parties. You would have hoped this would bring MPs together, not send them off into partisan bickering.

    Unfortunately, for some MPs, partisan bickering is what gives them life.

    Labour aren't innocent in this- they also use the opposition day process to craft motions which the government can't support but it would be awkward to vote against.

    But this much spluttering over a vote that is pure virtue signalling... ugh.

    Meanwhile,

    What no one in Westminster managed to mention, is that they weren’t the only parliament debating such matters that afternoon. Over in Jerusalem, the Israeli Knesset quietly announced it would never recognise a Palestinian state. That the “two state solution” is, as far as they’re concerned, finished.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f52c8f29-4fac-4642-a0c9-752aa7ec4c4a?shareToken=058fe1ea7897d11fb082a09a2446e9df
    When the political game-playing surrounds wind farms and the like, the public normally shrug their shoulders and say 'let them have their fun.' But when the issue at hand involves 30,000 people losing their lives, they expect better and are rightly angry when their leaders act like children.

    In essence, the SNP and Tories were playing a game and got annoyed when the Speaker took away their ball. The SNP had some right to be annoyed (it was their ball) but the Tories were more like the cowards in the playground shouting 'fight fight' and then sulking when one doesn't break out.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,169
    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:
    I'd go.

    I've never been that far north and it'd be a great excuse to ride the amazingly scenic Far North Line.

    Might even combine with a ferry trip to the Orkneys.
    The north coast of Britain is stunning. Make the trip.
    Really tempting to take Friday off and just disappear tonight and catch the sleep train to Inverness. I'd be there by lunchtime tomorrow.

    Trouble is the Caledonian sells out well in advance, and I'm not sure my wife would welcome me abandoning her with two young kids all weekend.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,977

    On other matters, Hoyle has been a poor speaker throughout. I won’t be sorry if this brings him down, as frankly it should.

    Well, that's quite the point.

    His speakership wouldn't have been mentioned yesterday had he been a good speaker.

    The fact it was tells you he's not particularly widely respected.
    He’s at least the best Speaker they’ve had since Boothroyd (though given the two intervening ones, that’s not saying much). I think he’s a decent man and I think he cares about the HoC so he clearly meets the job requirements. I think part of the problem is he has made playing by the rulebook his shtick (particularly in light of his predecessor’s… inventiveness) so when he didn’t the fall is more severe.

    That said, I did mention yesterday that for the senior Labour sources to approach Newsnight to essentially say he was leant on, there must be some in the Labour Party who would prefer him to not be there. They must have known that would become a story and he could lose his job over it.
    I must say that I barely notice him most of the time. Which is a massive step up from Bercow, of course.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,772

    Jonathan said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Hoyle seems to recognise he ballsed up.
    “I thought I was doing the right thing and the best thing, and I regret it, and I apologise for how it’s ended up,”

    While I understand the behaviour of Labour, and the SNP, what was the justification for a government which commands a large majority in the House just walking out of the debate ?

    The SNP had a genuine grievance over the ruling; the government didn't.

    Because the speaker had f*cked up, and if they'd allowed that f*uck up to stand, it would have set a nasty little precedent.
    They did allow it to stand by walking out.
    But they didn't support the process, as voting against would have done. Trying to blame the government for this mess is a little odd.
    The government could have passed a motion using their majority to assert their authority and rise above the chaos. For some reason they decided not to show such leadership. Bad judgment IMO.
    There are suggestions that the Conservatives had too many rebels for that.
    And even so, the Speaker made a very bad decision. That's at the core of this. Why should the government have tried to help the Speaker out of a hole he'd dug himself into?

    (Note: Starmer handed him the shovel, and is now whistling as he walks away from the hole.)
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,793
    It would appear there will be an attempt to defenestrate the speaker today. It would be hilarious if they mess it up as badly as their stunt yesterday
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:
    I'd go.

    I've never been that far north and it'd be a great excuse to ride the amazingly scenic Far North Line.

    Might even combine with a ferry trip to the Orkneys.
    The north coast of Britain is stunning. Make the trip.
    Really tempting to take Friday off and just disappear tonight and catch the sleep train to Inverness. I'd be there by lunchtime tomorrow.

    Trouble is the Caledonian sells out well in advance, and I'm not sure my wife would welcome me abandoning her with two young kids all weekend.
    When I was 17 my dad saved tokens from Sainsburys and bought cheap ba tickets from Gatwick to Inverness. We spent the weekend touring the north coast to Skye and flew back from Glasgow.

    Worth it!
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,057

    There is clearly a growing threat to MPs of all parties. You would have hoped this would bring MPs together, not send them off into partisan bickering.

    Unfortunately, for some MPs, partisan bickering is what gives them life.

    Labour aren't innocent in this- they also use the opposition day process to craft motions which the government can't support but it would be awkward to vote against.

    But this much spluttering over a vote that is pure virtue signalling... ugh.

    Meanwhile,

    What no one in Westminster managed to mention, is that they weren’t the only parliament debating such matters that afternoon. Over in Jerusalem, the Israeli Knesset quietly announced it would never recognise a Palestinian state. That the “two state solution” is, as far as they’re concerned, finished.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f52c8f29-4fac-4642-a0c9-752aa7ec4c4a?shareToken=058fe1ea7897d11fb082a09a2446e9df
    When the political game-playing surrounds wind farms and the like, the public normally shrug their shoulders and say 'let them have their fun.' But when the issue at hand involves 30,000 people losing their lives, they expect better and are rightly angry when their leaders act like children.

    In essence, the SNP and Tories were playing a game and got annoyed when the Speaker took away their ball. The SNP had some right to be annoyed (it was their ball) but the Tories were more like the cowards in the playground shouting 'fight fight' and then sulking when one doesn't break out.
    Labour were playing games too, though. There is very lttle difference in the three parties positions. I heard a labour MP blathering on about hot a pause is not good enough and it must be a ceasefire. Sorry, both mean the same thing.
    For some reason the SNP don’t want Hamas to be mentioned. The government want a humanitarian pause, but that’s not good enough for Labour because the war can start again. Well yes, but a ceasefire can be broken too…
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,640
    The Commons should have reached a united position and sent a clear message even if it would have been ignored by Israel .

    That at least would have had some merit . Instead parties have tried to score political points . The SNP motion was controversial because of certain language and the Tories amendment didn’t go far enough . Both were clearly designed to cause a problem for Labour .

    The speaker was wrong to allow the Labour amendment but I do think it was done with the best of intentions to allow all MPs a vote .
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,977

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Taz said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    mwadams said:

    FPT:

    mwadams said:

    kle4 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Daniel Finkelstein
    @Dannythefink

    The Speaker of the Commons has announced that he ignored precedent & selected motions because of MP’s concerns of violent retribution if presented with the usual alternatives. This is not a Westminster issue, it’s a democratic crisis if it’s true. So we need to find out if it is."

    https://twitter.com/Dannythefink/status/1760429543918104995

    Right decision or not in those circumstances it would at least be a defendable reason for making the call, in the sense of an extraordinary situation. Which makes the 'Labour say they forced his hand, oh wait now apparently that was untrue' stuff all the more baffling.
    I think "forced his hand" was over-emotional briefing that they had to row back from. I believe it is true that the decision came after rather urgent discussion between SKS and the speaker, as.per the FT article - and can see how that would be hyped up to "forced" from "persuaded" in that atmosphere.
    If the situation was that, then the speaker should have discussed it with the other relevant partis as well and got their input.
    Oh, yes. I don't think the phrase "expertly handled" will ever get attached to this particular issue.
    On the contrary.
    It was not "expertly handled".
    Was not that Mr Adams point? The whole thing appears to have been a disgrace, and an insult to both the suffering people of Gaza and the relatives of the hostages.
    Neither of whom will give a monkeys about what the UK House of Commons has said or done. Sometimes we really need to get over ourselves.

    Yesterday was an irrelevant farce. It might have embarrassed Starmer and that seemed to be its purpose. It failed.
    SNP hoist by their own petard then getting pissy at the end result.

    Yesterday was a complete and utter waste of time. The country has so many issues to deal with at the moment and parliament was wasting time on a debate about Gaza for what ? For the SNP to try to embarrass labour for party political purposes.

    Utterly futile.
    Yes, they wanted a vote on their motion because Starmer was opposed to the wording they had deliberately used and several Labour MPs would have defied him and voted for it anyway. It was cheap, petty politics unrelated to the issue under discussion.

    If this was an SNP opposition day then they are entitled to be narked that the Speaker contrived to take it away from them so that their motion was not even voted on. But hey, them's the breaks.

    If only Scotland wasn't so perfect in every sense perhaps the SNP might have focused on an issue nearer to home.
    Of course, Tories would never play political games. Never. Ever.
    Of course they would and they were to a certain extent yesterday in that they wanted the SNP manoeuvre to succeed and embarrass Starmer too. That's politics. Its a dirty trade for second rate minds.
    You make it sound like being a barrister.
    Some of us aspire to being second rate. I had better go and give it a go.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,164

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:
    I'd go.

    I've never been that far north and it'd be a great excuse to ride the amazingly scenic Far North Line.

    Might even combine with a ferry trip to the Orkneys.
    The north coast of Britain is stunning. Make the trip.
    It’s among my regrets that I’ll never have been north of Inverness, although I have been on a cruise, which included a visit to the Orkney Islands.
    Put a map of the UK on your birthday list....
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,169
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:
    I'd go.

    I've never been that far north and it'd be a great excuse to ride the amazingly scenic Far North Line.

    Might even combine with a ferry trip to the Orkneys.
    The north coast of Britain is stunning. Make the trip.
    Really tempting to take Friday off and just disappear tonight and catch the sleep train to Inverness. I'd be there by lunchtime tomorrow.

    Trouble is the Caledonian sells out well in advance, and I'm not sure my wife would welcome me abandoning her with two young kids all weekend.
    When I was 17 my dad saved tokens from Sainsburys and bought cheap ba tickets from Gatwick to Inverness. We spent the weekend touring the north coast to Skye and flew back from Glasgow.

    Worth it!
    Amazing!

    I'm such a train nerd. I'd love to do the full Caledonian sleeper.

    Expensive though.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,443
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Hoyle seems to recognise he ballsed up.
    “I thought I was doing the right thing and the best thing, and I regret it, and I apologise for how it’s ended up,”

    While I understand the behaviour of Labour, and the SNP, what was the justification for a government which commands a large majority in the House just walking out of the debate ?

    The SNP had a genuine grievance over the ruling; the government didn't.

    Because the speaker had f*cked up, and if they'd allowed that f*uck up to stand, it would have set a nasty little precedent.
    They did allow it to stand by walking out.
    But they didn't support the process, as voting against would have done. Trying to blame the government for this mess is a little odd.
    The government could have passed a motion using their majority to assert their authority and rise above the chaos. For some reason they decided not to show such leadership. Bad judgment IMO.
    There are suggestions that the Conservatives had too many rebels for that.
    That would explain it. The commons runs into trouble when the government doesn’t have a majority. If true, the weakness of the government is the fundamental problem here.
    I don’t know if there were too many Tory rebels, but it does feel like the final days of term at school, when the teacher lets you play games.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,640
    DavidL said:

    On other matters, Hoyle has been a poor speaker throughout. I won’t be sorry if this brings him down, as frankly it should.

    Well, that's quite the point.

    His speakership wouldn't have been mentioned yesterday had he been a good speaker.

    The fact it was tells you he's not particularly widely respected.
    He’s at least the best Speaker they’ve had since Boothroyd (though given the two intervening ones, that’s not saying much). I think he’s a decent man and I think he cares about the HoC so he clearly meets the job requirements. I think part of the problem is he has made playing by the rulebook his shtick (particularly in light of his predecessor’s… inventiveness) so when he didn’t the fall is more severe.

    That said, I did mention yesterday that for the senior Labour sources to approach Newsnight to essentially say he was leant on, there must be some in the Labour Party who would prefer him to not be there. They must have known that would become a story and he could lose his job over it.
    I must say that I barely notice him most of the time. Which is a massive step up from Bercow, of course.
    Bercow was a symptom not the cause though . If May hadn’t blown the election and had a healthy majority there would have been little controversy around Bercow .
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:
    I'd go.

    I've never been that far north and it'd be a great excuse to ride the amazingly scenic Far North Line.

    Might even combine with a ferry trip to the Orkneys.
    The north coast of Britain is stunning. Make the trip.
    Really tempting to take Friday off and just disappear tonight and catch the sleep train to Inverness. I'd be there by lunchtime tomorrow.

    Trouble is the Caledonian sells out well in advance, and I'm not sure my wife would welcome me abandoning her with two young kids all weekend.
    When I was 17 my dad saved tokens from Sainsburys and bought cheap ba tickets from Gatwick to Inverness. We spent the weekend touring the north coast to Skye and flew back from Glasgow.

    Worth it!
    Amazing!

    I'm such a train nerd. I'd love to do the full Caledonian sleeper.

    Expensive though.
    Done it three times. Our honeymoon, 10 yr anniversary and then with our two kids (who absolutely loved it).

    Do it, cheap off season and if you book in advance.
  • There is clearly a growing threat to MPs of all parties. You would have hoped this would bring MPs together, not send them off into partisan bickering.

    Unfortunately, for some MPs, partisan bickering is what gives them life.

    Labour aren't innocent in this- they also use the opposition day process to craft motions which the government can't support but it would be awkward to vote against.

    But this much spluttering over a vote that is pure virtue signalling... ugh.

    Meanwhile,

    What no one in Westminster managed to mention, is that they weren’t the only parliament debating such matters that afternoon. Over in Jerusalem, the Israeli Knesset quietly announced it would never recognise a Palestinian state. That the “two state solution” is, as far as they’re concerned, finished.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f52c8f29-4fac-4642-a0c9-752aa7ec4c4a?shareToken=058fe1ea7897d11fb082a09a2446e9df
    When the political game-playing surrounds wind farms and the like, the public normally shrug their shoulders and say 'let them have their fun.' But when the issue at hand involves 30,000 people losing their lives, they expect better and are rightly angry when their leaders act like children.

    In essence, the SNP and Tories were playing a game and got annoyed when the Speaker took away their ball. The SNP had some right to be annoyed (it was their ball) but the Tories were more like the cowards in the playground shouting 'fight fight' and then sulking when one doesn't break out.
    Labour were playing games too, though. There is very lttle difference in the three parties positions. I heard a labour MP blathering on about hot a pause is not good enough and it must be a ceasefire. Sorry, both mean the same thing.
    For some reason the SNP don’t want Hamas to be mentioned. The government want a humanitarian pause, but that’s not good enough for Labour because the war can start again. Well yes, but a ceasefire can be broken too…
    Labour probably would have supported the SNP motion but for the mention of collective punishment. That bit was deliberately inserted to ensure a Labour split. It was not necessary to get support for a ceasefire. It also seems that a lot of Tories would have supported the Labour motion if it had gone to a division. It may well have been the one that reflected the majority view in the House. The government clearly did not want to risk that.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,772
    nico679 said:

    DavidL said:

    On other matters, Hoyle has been a poor speaker throughout. I won’t be sorry if this brings him down, as frankly it should.

    Well, that's quite the point.

    His speakership wouldn't have been mentioned yesterday had he been a good speaker.

    The fact it was tells you he's not particularly widely respected.
    He’s at least the best Speaker they’ve had since Boothroyd (though given the two intervening ones, that’s not saying much). I think he’s a decent man and I think he cares about the HoC so he clearly meets the job requirements. I think part of the problem is he has made playing by the rulebook his shtick (particularly in light of his predecessor’s… inventiveness) so when he didn’t the fall is more severe.

    That said, I did mention yesterday that for the senior Labour sources to approach Newsnight to essentially say he was leant on, there must be some in the Labour Party who would prefer him to not be there. They must have known that would become a story and he could lose his job over it.
    I must say that I barely notice him most of the time. Which is a massive step up from Bercow, of course.
    Bercow was a symptom not the cause though . If May hadn’t blown the election and had a healthy majority there would have been little controversy around Bercow .
    The controversy around Bercow started long before May's tenure as PM, didn't it?
  • eekeek Posts: 24,866
    edited February 22
    nico679 said:

    The Commons should have reached a united position and sent a clear message even if it would have been ignored by Israel .

    That at least would have had some merit . Instead parties have tried to score political points . The SNP motion was controversial because of certain language and the Tories amendment didn’t go far enough . Both were clearly designed to cause a problem for Labour .

    The speaker was wrong to allow the Labour amendment but I do think it was done with the best of intentions to allow all MPs a vote .

    And that’s the problem - a lot of Labour MPs were saying we can’t vote for the SNP motion because it upset one set of people but if we don’t it upsets a different set of people / a different set of Labour MPs. I suspect many MPs also emphasized a risk of violence because it seems to be threatened a lot nowadays and with 2 MPs killed while working it’s a clear risk.

    I do wonder if the speaker missed a trick and didn’t give the SNP a chance to change their wording but beyond that I can see why he ignored precedent and allowed Labour compromise wording to be voted on

    What annoys me though is that this is student level politics on a subject that Parliament has no actual say
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,466

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:
    I'd go.

    I've never been that far north and it'd be a great excuse to ride the amazingly scenic Far North Line.

    Might even combine with a ferry trip to the Orkneys.
    The north coast of Britain is stunning. Make the trip.
    Really tempting to take Friday off and just disappear tonight and catch the sleep train to Inverness. I'd be there by lunchtime tomorrow.

    Trouble is the Caledonian sells out well in advance, and I'm not sure my wife would welcome me abandoning her with two young kids all weekend.
    When I was 17 my dad saved tokens from Sainsburys and bought cheap ba tickets from Gatwick to Inverness. We spent the weekend touring the north coast to Skye and flew back from Glasgow.

    Worth it!
    Amazing!

    I'm such a train nerd. I'd love to do the full Caledonian sleeper.

    Expensive though.
    It's well worth it. I've done the Aberdeen leg many times going home to see my folks in Fife, and the Glasgow leg, but my favourite was the Fort William one. Going to sleep in Euston then waking up in the West Highlands with a cup of tea in the lounge car... Just beautiful. If you can find some affordable tickets, take the kids. They will never forget it.
    In the old days, it was boiled eggs and toast in a proper restaurant car while bouncing over the Rannoch Moor peat ....
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,169

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:
    I'd go.

    I've never been that far north and it'd be a great excuse to ride the amazingly scenic Far North Line.

    Might even combine with a ferry trip to the Orkneys.
    The north coast of Britain is stunning. Make the trip.
    Really tempting to take Friday off and just disappear tonight and catch the sleep train to Inverness. I'd be there by lunchtime tomorrow.

    Trouble is the Caledonian sells out well in advance, and I'm not sure my wife would welcome me abandoning her with two young kids all weekend.
    When I was 17 my dad saved tokens from Sainsburys and bought cheap ba tickets from Gatwick to Inverness. We spent the weekend touring the north coast to Skye and flew back from Glasgow.

    Worth it!
    Amazing!

    I'm such a train nerd. I'd love to do the full Caledonian sleeper.

    Expensive though.
    It's well worth it. I've done the Aberdeen leg many times going home to see my folks in Fife, and the Glasgow leg, but my favourite was the Fort William one. Going to sleep in Euston then waking up in the West Highlands with a cup of tea in the lounge car... Just beautiful. If you can find some affordable tickets, take the kids. They will never forget it.
    That's great advice. I'll look into it.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,865
    IanB2 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:
    I'd go.

    I've never been that far north and it'd be a great excuse to ride the amazingly scenic Far North Line.

    Might even combine with a ferry trip to the Orkneys.
    The north coast of Britain is stunning. Make the trip.
    It’s among my regrets that I’ll never have been north of Inverness, although I have been on a cruise, which included a visit to the Orkney Islands.
    Put a map of the UK on your birthday list....
    I’ve never been further North on mainland UK than …
  • Scotland? If the weather is nice at Easter I am going to take a few days to drive the 4 points of the (Scottish) compass. Peterhead > Mull of Galloway > Ardnamurchan > Dunnet Head. With a night camping in the car. For YouTube of course, so the whole trip would be a business expense...
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,138
    OT just looking at the Quinnipiac poll, nearly 70% of voters think Biden is too old to serve.
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/

    However he leads the next-youngest candidate, Donald Trump, 49-45. And if they give a working-age woman the GOP nomination instead of Trump she gets a grand total of 27%, while another 27% want to vote for either RFK Jr, who is 70, or Jill Stein, who is 73.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,466
    edited February 22

    There is clearly a growing threat to MPs of all parties. You would have hoped this would bring MPs together, not send them off into partisan bickering.

    Unfortunately, for some MPs, partisan bickering is what gives them life.

    Labour aren't innocent in this- they also use the opposition day process to craft motions which the government can't support but it would be awkward to vote against.

    But this much spluttering over a vote that is pure virtue signalling... ugh.

    Meanwhile,

    What no one in Westminster managed to mention, is that they weren’t the only parliament debating such matters that afternoon. Over in Jerusalem, the Israeli Knesset quietly announced it would never recognise a Palestinian state. That the “two state solution” is, as far as they’re concerned, finished.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f52c8f29-4fac-4642-a0c9-752aa7ec4c4a?shareToken=058fe1ea7897d11fb082a09a2446e9df
    When the political game-playing surrounds wind farms and the like, the public normally shrug their shoulders and say 'let them have their fun.' But when the issue at hand involves 30,000 people losing their lives, they expect better and are rightly angry when their leaders act like children.

    In essence, the SNP and Tories were playing a game and got annoyed when the Speaker took away their ball. The SNP had some right to be annoyed (it was their ball) but the Tories were more like the cowards in the playground shouting 'fight fight' and then sulking when one doesn't break out.
    Labour were playing games too, though. There is very lttle difference in the three parties positions. I heard a labour MP blathering on about hot a pause is not good enough and it must be a ceasefire. Sorry, both mean the same thing.
    For some reason the SNP don’t want Hamas to be mentioned. The government want a humanitarian pause, but that’s not good enough for Labour because the war can start again. Well yes, but a ceasefire can be broken too…
    Labour probably would have supported the SNP motion but for the mention of collective punishment. That bit was deliberately inserted to ensure a Labour split. It was not necessary to get support for a ceasefire. It also seems that a lot of Tories would have supported the Labour motion if it had gone to a division. It may well have been the one that reflected the majority view in the House. The government clearly did not want to risk that.
    Whatever one thinks about thje collective punishment question, the SNP leadership happen to know rather more directly than other parties what is going on in the ME. Which is something I haven't seen acknowledged on PB very much in the last 24 hours. PB Experts On Scotland are absolutely convinced it's solely game playing, but that manifestly isn't the case.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,459

    Leon said:
    I'd go.

    I've never been that far north and it'd be a great excuse to ride the amazingly scenic Far North Line.

    Might even combine with a ferry trip to the Orkneys.
    The famous loop around the top of Scotland is genuinely magnificent. The Orkneys are great - especially skara brae and the stone circles and Kirkwall with its mad Viking cathedral

    Stay in John o groats which is such a dump you can get cheap accommodation

    Don’t stay in wick

    The Caledonian sleeper is of course wondrous. The full Euston to fort William service is the one you want. Going to sleep with scotch in the buffet car around Watford - waking up in glencoe. Glorious. But yes, pricey
  • sbjme19sbjme19 Posts: 116
    When one MP follows another on Today you notice the contrast. Creasey giving a lucid discussion of the threat to MPs and regret that Gaza was not properly voted on, Caulfield with all her y'knows, totally partisan referring only to Tory MPs who'd been harmed, just trying to make political points.
  • UnpopularUnpopular Posts: 778
    DavidL said:

    Jonathan said:

    Leon said:
    I'd go.

    I've never been that far north and it'd be a great excuse to ride the amazingly scenic Far North Line.

    Might even combine with a ferry trip to the Orkneys.
    The north coast of Britain is stunning. Make the trip.
    It’s among my regrets that I’ll never have been north of Inverness, although I have been on a cruise, which included a visit to the Orkney Islands.
    I'm doing a trial in Inverness again today about people from the far north. I sometimes wonder if the weather has an effect on their behaviour. No doubt I am getting a distorted view.
    If you talk to Invernesians about people from the far north, they would whole-heartedly agree. There's nothing you can say about the people from Caithness that is beyond the pale for Highlanders. When that refugee in Thurso wanted to go back to Afghanistan because while in Afghanistan he might die, in Thurso he died everyday, the Daily Mail was full of outrage at his ungratefulness. There was a lot of sympathy for him in Inverness.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,640

    nico679 said:

    DavidL said:

    On other matters, Hoyle has been a poor speaker throughout. I won’t be sorry if this brings him down, as frankly it should.

    Well, that's quite the point.

    His speakership wouldn't have been mentioned yesterday had he been a good speaker.

    The fact it was tells you he's not particularly widely respected.
    He’s at least the best Speaker they’ve had since Boothroyd (though given the two intervening ones, that’s not saying much). I think he’s a decent man and I think he cares about the HoC so he clearly meets the job requirements. I think part of the problem is he has made playing by the rulebook his shtick (particularly in light of his predecessor’s… inventiveness) so when he didn’t the fall is more severe.

    That said, I did mention yesterday that for the senior Labour sources to approach Newsnight to essentially say he was leant on, there must be some in the Labour Party who would prefer him to not be there. They must have known that would become a story and he could lose his job over it.
    I must say that I barely notice him most of the time. Which is a massive step up from Bercow, of course.
    Bercow was a symptom not the cause though . If May hadn’t blown the election and had a healthy majority there would have been little controversy around Bercow .
    The controversy around Bercow started long before May's tenure as PM, didn't it?
    The real drama started after the 2017 election. Which I admit was compulsive viewing with some of those dramatic votes with razor thin winning majorities .

    Since then it’s all been a bit dull until last night .
This discussion has been closed.