Mr. Leon, while I find the black/white stuff interesting, it's not reverse racism. It's just racism.
Well yes. It is. Its pure racism
And there are far worse examples than what I’ve showed - go and look on TwiX
I don’t want to spam the site with AI images or text
This is also a major reputational hit for Google. All this time everyone’s been kinda presuming they are sitting on some fabulous AI that they just haven’t released
Not so. This image generator - besides being dreadfully woke and calamitously racist - is seriously poor. Way behind much smaller competitors like Midjourney
So what the fuck are Google doing? This is THE tech of the moment. They do have deepmind which is producing good stuff but Google itself apparently has fuck all
And they are far far behind OpenAI
And this race could be winner-takes-all
This is why content moderation is so error prone and laborious. Context is everything. A lot of campaigners — anti-racist, transphobia, self-harm, drugs — seem to think it must be easy to filter "bad" things from the internet but it is incredibly difficult, and it is all too easy to end up over censoring/filtering content, or flipping the bias the wrong way.
You can take a "bad word" and in one context it's racism, in another the user is part of the group being targetted and is referring to themself, or it might be a lyric, or a quote from a book, or a discussion about the bad word. Or it might even be a discussion of any of those uses and the difficulty of determining context clearly. Context can be huge, just think of all the things we recognise from our shared culture that you would understand the origin of from a short quote alone with no other information, even though I might be referring to an event decades ago.
So an attempt to make more diverse images (some people think this is good) leads to images of Black Nazis (whoops your context wasn't aware that a Black Nazi would have been incredible rare or non-existant). Even Google aren't smart enough to get this stuff right all the time.
It occurs to me that we will know we have a real AGI or even artificial superintelligence when they don't make these sort of mistakes.
All true I’m sure
And yet Dall-e and Midjourney and stable diffusion have NOT made these terrible errors in their image creation
And it’s not like this would be hard to spot. You could red team the model for an hour and you’d say “er, wait, it’s apparently racist and it’s anti white we can’t release this”
Did they not do that? Are they so woke they didn’t actually notice - or even care? They certainly care now and I’d say the main developer’s job might be gone
This is Google. They have virtually infinite money. How did they fuck up so badly?
Because testing has long been out of fashion in tech circles. We are past the heyday of Move Fast and Break Things (because software can easily be fixed after the fact) but that is often still what happens.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges I spoke to an MP yesterday who told me he had weighed up his own physical safety when deciding on how to vote on yesterday’s Gaza motion. We have crossed a line now. We are not a properly functioning democracy if this is a factor in how our elected representatives act.
I just don't take this in good faith. I'm sorry, but the same line was trotted out by SCOTUS post Dobbs when people all over the US started protested the leak that they were going to destroy Roe and essentially make abortion illegal in multiple states, and practically illegal in many more - and it was BS then too. With great power comes great responsibility; and great consequences if you misuse that power. I think online and physical harassment should not happen to anyone, but that doesn't mean all forms of showing disgust with the person tasked to represent you is a threat.
It has become a pattern amongst powerful people, now that social media and such allows people to directly respond to them, to cast all forms of criticism as a threat, or as abuse. And much of the time it just isn't - it's average people sharing their opinion to powerful people who aren't used to having average people question them in such a manner.
So aside from firebombings, racist graffiti on offices, threatening letters, emails, phone calls... There is no actual threat to MPs.
Oh, and a few murders.
Gotcha.
I think I have it right that Stephen Timms and David Amess were attacked by individuals with Islamist motivation. And Jo Cox by an individual with a Far Right motivation.
Yup - semi-demi-fascist scumbags come in Salted, Unsalted, Roasted and Plain Nuts. All the flavours.
I have a special place in my heart for those who think that thuggery, racism etc is OK as long as it is wrapped up in some stuff in an old book.
EDIT: Come to think of it, how long until Mein Kamf is an Old Book of Faith - 100 years? 1,000?
"I have served under three speakers. Lindsay Hoyle is head and shoulders above the rest. He is fair, kind and a protector of back benchers. He is not a bully nor a grandstander nor pompous. He has my full support."
Rt Hon Ben Wallace MP. Well said.
They could do worse. His knuckles have been whacked, job done.
If SKS did not visit the Speaker yesterday to persuade him to allow the Labour amendment,Im surprised he has not personally confirmed this..
Starmer visit is not contested
Why is Starmer not facing any flack for doing that then?
He solved the issue in a way that means he'll avoid the flack as the average man on the street isn't bothered about Standing Order 31 rules on 3rd party opposition days. But it is key for the speaker.
Hoyle had the look of a man that realised his good nature had been taken advantage of and used by Starmer for political purposes (As evidenced by Lucy Powell's speech and the immediate self congratulatory Labour ceasefire tweets on X) when he issued his apology.
As per @Dura_Ace comment Starmer had his own self interest in mind in this one. Which was fair enough.
Blistering stuff from Mordaunt just now in the Commons. I'm not sure she's actually helping matters, but it's astonishing that she's not front-runner for next Tory leader.
Being a PM stan is so 2023.
Remember when she came out from behind the rostrum and did the "ISIS Finger". #pm4pm
Mr. Leon, while I find the black/white stuff interesting, it's not reverse racism. It's just racism.
Well yes. It is. Its pure racism
And there are far worse examples than what I’ve showed - go and look on TwiX
I don’t want to spam the site with AI images or text
This is also a major reputational hit for Google. All this time everyone’s been kinda presuming they are sitting on some fabulous AI that they just haven’t released
Not so. This image generator - besides being dreadfully woke and calamitously racist - is seriously poor. Way behind much smaller competitors like Midjourney
So what the fuck are Google doing? This is THE tech of the moment. They do have deepmind which is producing good stuff but Google itself apparently has fuck all
And they are far far behind OpenAI
And this race could be winner-takes-all
This is why content moderation is so error prone and laborious. Context is everything. A lot of campaigners — anti-racist, transphobia, self-harm, drugs — seem to think it must be easy to filter "bad" things from the internet but it is incredibly difficult, and it is all too easy to end up over censoring/filtering content, or flipping the bias the wrong way.
You can take a "bad word" and in one context it's racism, in another the user is part of the group being targetted and is referring to themself, or it might be a lyric, or a quote from a book, or a discussion about the bad word. Or it might even be a discussion of any of those uses and the difficulty of determining context clearly. Context can be huge, just think of all the things we recognise from our shared culture that you would understand the origin of from a short quote alone with no other information, even though I might be referring to an event decades ago.
So an attempt to make more diverse images (some people think this is good) leads to images of Black Nazis (whoops your context wasn't aware that a Black Nazi would have been incredible rare or non-existant). Even Google aren't smart enough to get this stuff right all the time.
It occurs to me that we will know we have a real AGI or even artificial superintelligence when they don't make these sort of mistakes.
All true I’m sure
And yet Dall-e and Midjourney and stable diffusion have NOT made these terrible errors in their image creation
And it’s not like this would be hard to spot. You could red team the model for an hour and you’d say “er, wait, it’s apparently racist and it’s anti white we can’t release this”
Did they not do that? Are they so woke they didn’t actually notice - or even care? They certainly care now and I’d say the main developer’s job might be gone
This is Google. They have virtually infinite money. How did they fuck up so badly?
Because testing has long been out of fashion in tech circles. We are past the heyday of Move Fast and Break Things (because software can easily be fixed after the fact) but that is often still what happens.
If SKS did not visit the Speaker yesterday to persuade him to allow the Labour amendment,Im surprised he has not personally confirmed this..
Starmer visit is not contested
Why is Starmer not facing any flack for doing that then?
He did, yesterday, when it was put about that he threatened the speaker's position if he did not acquiesce. The story has evolved in that Starmer argued that his MPs were receiving death threats and that his motion was designed to unify all of the opinions and move past the narrow partisanship which weaponises the issue.
This is the simple truth about BJO calling Starmer a "genocide enabler" - death threats against MPs as a result. Wherever you stand on this issue, we can't have government by mob. On any issue.
Why not government by mob?
I'll sort out my own mob, so it will be other people sitting on the chair with the dynamite under it, watching a slow fuse.
If SKS did not visit the Speaker yesterday to persuade him to allow the Labour amendment,Im surprised he has not personally confirmed this..
Starmer visit is not contested
Why is Starmer not facing any flack for doing that then?
Party leader visiting the Speaker isn't an issue. What he said *might* be.
If the Speaker confirms that he was threatened by SKS then surely SKS is finished
He won't. Assuming the journalists did not simply make up the story then either a senior Labour source made it up - and for what reason would they do that when it put pressure on Hoyle? - or it is true but neither Hoyle nor Starmer will admit to it (it benefits neither to confess at this point) so it will not be proven.
Blistering stuff from Mordaunt just now in the Commons. I'm not sure she's actually helping matters, but it's astonishing that she's not front-runner for next Tory leader.
Being a PM stan is so 2023.
Remember when she came out from behind the rostrum and did the "ISIS Finger". #pm4pm
But her sword game is awesome, and surely that’s all that’s required for the top job?
If SKS did not visit the Speaker yesterday to persuade him to allow the Labour amendment,Im surprised he has not personally confirmed this..
Starmer visit is not contested
Why is Starmer not facing any flack for doing that then?
He did, yesterday, when it was put about that he threatened the speaker's position if he did not acquiesce. The story has evolved in that Starmer argued that his MPs were receiving death threats and that his motion was designed to unify all of the opinions and move past the narrow partisanship which weaponises the issue.
This is the simple truth about BJO calling Starmer a "genocide enabler" - death threats against MPs as a result. Wherever you stand on this issue, we can't have government by mob. On any issue.
Imagine this site's reaction if Sunak had done something like this
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges I spoke to an MP yesterday who told me he had weighed up his own physical safety when deciding on how to vote on yesterday’s Gaza motion. We have crossed a line now. We are not a properly functioning democracy if this is a factor in how our elected representatives act.
I just don't take this in good faith. I'm sorry, but the same line was trotted out by SCOTUS post Dobbs when people all over the US started protested the leak that they were going to destroy Roe and essentially make abortion illegal in multiple states, and practically illegal in many more - and it was BS then too. With great power comes great responsibility; and great consequences if you misuse that power. I think online and physical harassment should not happen to anyone, but that doesn't mean all forms of showing disgust with the person tasked to represent you is a threat.
It has become a pattern amongst powerful people, now that social media and such allows people to directly respond to them, to cast all forms of criticism as a threat, or as abuse. And much of the time it just isn't - it's average people sharing their opinion to powerful people who aren't used to having average people question them in such a manner.
The level of threats and abuse around what is going on in Palestine is egregious.
Azerbaijan recently ethnically cleansed Nagorno-Karabakh, but basically no-one in the UK even raised an eyebrow. Large numbers of people have died or been displaced in fighting in Yemen, Sudan and Myanmar, but you see little reporting on any of this. Ditto the ongoing conflict in Syria. No MP has been made to feel unsafe over any of these.
What is happening in Gaza, and Israel/Palestine more broadly, is horrendous and I'm all for people in the UK paying attention to these events, and campaigning for a better way. However, the level of outrage around Palestine is now, and has for some years, been so much greater than other tragedies. This is because parts of the Left have made Palestine a cause célèbre. This had led to a level of protest that leaves politicians and communities feeling threatened. This is not a good thing. This has done nothing to actually improve the situation in Israel/Palestine.
Good post. Passion for and interest in other matters is a good thing. But the level of it on this specific issue is outsized.
If SKS did not visit the Speaker yesterday to persuade him to allow the Labour amendment,Im surprised he has not personally confirmed this..
Starmer visit is not contested
Why is Starmer not facing any flack for doing that then?
He solved the issue in a way that means he'll avoid the flack as the average man on the street isn't bothered about Standing Order 31 rules on 3rd party opposition days. But it is key for the speaker.
Hoyle had the look of a man that realised his good nature had been taken advantage of and used by Starmer for political purposes (As evidenced by Lucy Powell's speech and the immediate self congratulatory Labour ceasefire tweets on X) when he issued his apology.
As per @Dura_Ace comment Starmer had his own self interest in mind in this one. Which was fair enough.
The more I think about it the only actual solution was for the speaker to reject the wording of the SNP motion as the incendiary device it was designed to be.
And I don’t think that was an option hence the mess.
Seriously I look at this and think SKS was the only grown up in the room who saw the proposals for the tripwire they were
I think Hoyle made a poor call and is legitimately and reasonably facing heat for it, but forcing a resignation over it would just be dumb and disproportionate. Poor calls happen, move on.
What benefit would there be to anyone in doing so, when he's otherwise not been an awful Speaker? Who will replace him and will him being forced out make them well inclined to those forcing him out?
He has set a pretty significant precedent for future parliaments and future Speakers - by forcing him out of the chair parliament is saying this precedent is bad and they won't let it stand. It would essentially tell future Speakers that if you follow this precedent (because I don't think there is a way to go back on it now) they will, too, be forced out.
He's already apologises for events, that itself and the furore would I think make any Speaker including him cautious about doing it again.
New things happen to develop new precedent, but it only becomes convention if it keeps on happening. Many things are potentially possible based on if they've happened before but nonetheless advice and guidance mean they almost never do.
I don't understand a system that says other parties can propose amendments, but they're never picked.
The 3rd party days propositions for debate come rarely. On the whole of course they will always lose the vote - they are the third party. But their proposal gets lost in a fog of procedure if there are multiple amendments. Hence the convention.
Labour of course didn't want to have to vote on either the SNP or the government's proposal, as they have to carefully tread a line as the Labour party is (irrevocably??) split between its social democrat Israel wing and its socialist/Marxist/radical/woke pro Palestine wing.
People are massively underestimating how this is, once fully unfurled, an election changing issue for Labour. But Starmer knows. It's a Black Swan on the horizon. He had to avoid a vote because it would reveal a massive split. But can he keep it hidden?
Nah, beyond a few sites like this few people have strong views on Gaza.
If SKS did not visit the Speaker yesterday to persuade him to allow the Labour amendment,Im surprised he has not personally confirmed this..
Starmer visit is not contested
Why is Starmer not facing any flack for doing that then?
He did, yesterday, when it was put about that he threatened the speaker's position if he did not acquiesce. The story has evolved in that Starmer argued that his MPs were receiving death threats and that his motion was designed to unify all of the opinions and move past the narrow partisanship which weaponises the issue.
This is the simple truth about BJO calling Starmer a "genocide enabler" - death threats against MPs as a result. Wherever you stand on this issue, we can't have government by mob. On any issue.
Imagine this site's reaction if Sunak had something like this
We'd be absolutely astonished. As it would be a sign he was good at politics.
I think Hoyle made a poor call and is legitimately and reasonably facing heat for it, but forcing a resignation over it would just be dumb and disproportionate. Poor calls happen, move on.
What benefit would there be to anyone in doing so, when he's otherwise not been an awful Speaker? Who will replace him and will him being forced out make them well inclined to those forcing him out?
He has set a pretty significant precedent for future parliaments and future Speakers - by forcing him out of the chair parliament is saying this precedent is bad and they won't let it stand. It would essentially tell future Speakers that if you follow this precedent (because I don't think there is a way to go back on it now) they will, too, be forced out.
He's already apologises for events, that itself and the furore would I think make any Speaker including him cautious about doing it again.
New things happen to develop new precedent, but it only becomes convention if it keeps on happening. Many things are potentially possible based on if they've happened before but nonetheless advice and guidance mean they almost never do.
I don't understand a system that says other parties can propose amendments, but they're never picked.
I suspect that you don't have to pull very hard at the whole concept of Opposition Debates too hard for it to fall apart like a cheap suit.
See the way that the government can ignore votes that go against it, and often whips its side to abstain.
The SNP and the Conservatives both put up motions that were designed to lose and to put people's backs up. Even if the whole situation wasn't an emotional powder keg, that's crazy.
Only in Westminster is a motion that pretty much everyone is willing to support seen as a bad thing.
Blistering stuff from Mordaunt just now in the Commons. I'm not sure she's actually helping matters, but it's astonishing that she's not front-runner for next Tory leader.
Being a PM stan is so 2023.
Remember when she came out from behind the rostrum and did the "ISIS Finger". #pm4pm
But her sword game is awesome, and surely that’s all that’s required for the top job?
Right now they'd take that as at least one positive to be had.
Blistering stuff from Mordaunt just now in the Commons. I'm not sure she's actually helping matters, but it's astonishing that she's not front-runner for next Tory leader.
Being a PM stan is so 2023.
Remember when she came out from behind the rostrum and did the "ISIS Finger". #pm4pm
Surely that's the aiming for the Tory prostate pose ?
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges I spoke to an MP yesterday who told me he had weighed up his own physical safety when deciding on how to vote on yesterday’s Gaza motion. We have crossed a line now. We are not a properly functioning democracy if this is a factor in how our elected representatives act.
I just don't take this in good faith. I'm sorry, but the same line was trotted out by SCOTUS post Dobbs when people all over the US started protested the leak that they were going to destroy Roe and essentially make abortion illegal in multiple states, and practically illegal in many more - and it was BS then too. With great power comes great responsibility; and great consequences if you misuse that power. I think online and physical harassment should not happen to anyone, but that doesn't mean all forms of showing disgust with the person tasked to represent you is a threat.
It has become a pattern amongst powerful people, now that social media and such allows people to directly respond to them, to cast all forms of criticism as a threat, or as abuse. And much of the time it just isn't - it's average people sharing their opinion to powerful people who aren't used to having average people question them in such a manner.
So aside from firebombings, racist graffiti on offices, threatening letters, emails, phone calls... There is no actual threat to MPs.
Oh, and a few murders.
Gotcha.
Obviously I'm not endorsing acts of violence such as murder or firebombings, or threatening letters or emails. But we have to have a reasonable line.
Taking the firebombing as an example; I look at articles like this:
This article, unnecessarily in my opinion, notes that protests happened outside a different MPs surgery. What has that got to do with the issue of violence? It's the conflation of what I see as good faith engagement in democracy - protest - with this, typically anonymous, violence and threats of violence that I think is bad. Obviously threats against MPs should be taken seriously if they are serious, but we cannot have a situation where people are not allowed to protest MPs out of some general "fear for their safety" - anyone could say that about any protest or demonstration, any mass gathering or just anyone passing them in the street. You need probable cause to strip people of what I think is an important and legitimate method of political expression.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges I spoke to an MP yesterday who told me he had weighed up his own physical safety when deciding on how to vote on yesterday’s Gaza motion. We have crossed a line now. We are not a properly functioning democracy if this is a factor in how our elected representatives act.
I just don't take this in good faith. I'm sorry, but the same line was trotted out by SCOTUS post Dobbs when people all over the US started protested the leak that they were going to destroy Roe and essentially make abortion illegal in multiple states, and practically illegal in many more - and it was BS then too. With great power comes great responsibility; and great consequences if you misuse that power. I think online and physical harassment should not happen to anyone, but that doesn't mean all forms of showing disgust with the person tasked to represent you is a threat.
It has become a pattern amongst powerful people, now that social media and such allows people to directly respond to them, to cast all forms of criticism as a threat, or as abuse. And much of the time it just isn't - it's average people sharing their opinion to powerful people who aren't used to having average people question them in such a manner.
The level of threats and abuse around what is going on in Palestine is egregious.
Azerbaijan recently ethnically cleansed Nagorno-Karabakh, but basically no-one in the UK even raised an eyebrow. Large numbers of people have died or been displaced in fighting in Yemen, Sudan and Myanmar, but you see little reporting on any of this. Ditto the ongoing conflict in Syria. No MP has been made to feel unsafe over any of these.
What is happening in Gaza, and Israel/Palestine more broadly, is horrendous and I'm all for people in the UK paying attention to these events, and campaigning for a better way. However, the level of outrage around Palestine is now, and has for some years, been so much greater than other tragedies. This is because parts of the Left have made Palestine a cause célèbre. This had led to a level of protest that leaves politicians and communities feeling threatened. This is not a good thing. This has done nothing to actually improve the situation in Israel/Palestine.
Good post. Passion for and interest in other matters is a good thing. But the level of it on this specific issue is outsized.
Makes you wonder.
Heard a story that an MP who has a personal protective weapon (from association with NI) got close to using it when threatened with a knife.
What would @148grss make of an MP doing the Mozambique Drill on a constituent?
EDIT: How long before MPs not involved in Northern Ireland start asking for personal protective weapons?
If SKS did not visit the Speaker yesterday to persuade him to allow the Labour amendment,Im surprised he has not personally confirmed this..
Starmer visit is not contested
Why is Starmer not facing any flack for doing that then?
He did, yesterday, when it was put about that he threatened the speaker's position if he did not acquiesce. The story has evolved in that Starmer argued that his MPs were receiving death threats and that his motion was designed to unify all of the opinions and move past the narrow partisanship which weaponises the issue.
This is the simple truth about BJO calling Starmer a "genocide enabler" - death threats against MPs as a result. Wherever you stand on this issue, we can't have government by mob. On any issue.
Imagine this site's reaction if Sunak had something like this
We'd be absolutely astonished. As it would be a sign he was good at politics.
Im not sure bullying/threatening the speaker is good politics
What has happened to Trump in the last day or two?
His popularity has cratered and his supporters seem to be deserting him.
Not reflected in the betting though.
I cannot imagine what has happened recently or might happen in the coming months to cause people to desert Trump if they have stuck with him up to this point.
What exactly did Hoyle do, again? It is an outrage and I am outraged but I can't quite pin down what he did.
Very nuanced front page of the Graun today illustrating whatever point it was.
Went against the advice of his top clerk, see Tom Goldsmith's letter on X (Other social media is available) for procedure.
Only took soundings from Starmer prior to going against the advice of Goldsmith.
On one of only 3 out of 20 parliamentary days per session per sitting allocated to the SNP, the above actions effectively high-jacking the day away from them.
OK thanks makes sense. So he f**ked the SNP by privileging Lab and everyone disliked that.
Why did he do it and what did the Cons want, for example.
Out of a fear of reprisals on MPs. But here's another point, you don't just change parliamentary procedure after hearing one captain with his own interests for fear of the mob.
It's interesting, as I don't really give a fig about tradition or the minutia of parliamentary procedure, but I do think anything that removes the (little) power minority parties have is bad. By essentially allowing the Labour amendment to get voted on first, Hoyle took away the SNP motion on their day to do motions. If Hoyle took away one of the Labour days and gave the SNP another day as recompense (essentially admitting that he did, in fact, reduce the ability for the SNP to put forward a motion on the day that should have heard their motion) I would be fine with that; but I doubt Hoyle would do that because I suspect there is no precedent for such thing and it would be too close to admitting to doing something he shouldn't have done.
At the end of the day Starmer had snookered himself politically by pissing off his base (and many MPs) by being mealy mouthed on a ceasefire in Gaza. Sure, the SNP may have been playing politics with the issue, but they're politicians - making your opponents face the consequences of their political decisions by doing politics with issues is their job. Getting the Speaker to save him (and reportedly threatening to oust him in the next parliament if he didn't) is Starmer refusing to deal with the consequences of his actions by just squashing democratic opposition.
This could be a gold mine for the SNP. Westminster trickery to deny them one of the only days they have to propose motions, and a motion that likely had support by many SNP (and ScotLab) voters, all to save the Starmer from a backbench (and potentially frontbench) rebellion. Another argument for Scotland and their representatives being ignored by the Westminster system in favour of a political elite based in England.
Not so much Westminster trickery but new trickery made up on the spot by SKS. Like he suddenly decides there's no such thing as an offside rule, scores what he claims is a goal, and bullies the referee into agreeing.
But SKS is likely going to be the next PM - and this situation sets a precedent. Now no opposition party can ever feel safe in the understanding that their opposition day motion won't be scuppered by the Speaker letting it be reworded and then voted on by the bigger (majority English) parties. To me it would be a wasted opportunity if the SNP did not take this fury away and campaign on it. It may sound dull and procedural and boring, but at the end of the day the voice of minority parties has been diminished within the Westminster system after this ruling by Hoyle.
Which also affects the Tories after they (probably) lose the next election, of course, the LDs, and Labour next time they lose an election. Indeed, I hope the Tories try that on SKS the next opposition day motion. Or indeed the SNP try it. If only to force the question to a head.
It may be a Westminster bubble concern but soon to be opposition parties and smaller parties have a right to be annoyed and upset. I rarely say this but I totally get the SNPs fury here. They don't get many opportunities to lead a conversation.
Have the LDs weighed in on the principles at play here?
How can they? They don't have principles just a desire to jump on bandwagons.
Well have that done that then?
I'm curious about how they played it, but even for the standard difficulty for the LDs at getting attention it's been quiet.
If SKS did not visit the Speaker yesterday to persuade him to allow the Labour amendment,Im surprised he has not personally confirmed this..
Starmer visit is not contested
Why is Starmer not facing any flack for doing that then?
Party leader visiting the Speaker isn't an issue. What he said *might* be.
If the Speaker confirms that he was threatened by SKS then surely SKS is finished
He won't. Assuming the journalists did not simply make up the story then either a senior Labour source made it up - and for what reason would they do that when it put pressure on Hoyle? - or it is true but neither Hoyle nor Starmer will admit to it (it benefits neither to confess at this point) so it will not be proven.
When was it reported that the source for the "threatening the Speaker" story (which has been formally denied) was Labour ?
Seems more likely that either a Conservative or SNP MP jumped to that conclusion on fairly scant evidence.
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.
Ha. I’ve just done it and several other lines. Took the Caledonian Sleeper to Inverness ten days ago and it was wonderful. Coming over the Drumochter Pass when there was still snow was magical.
Then last Friday I took the Inverness to Kyle of Lochalsh line which is absolutely stunning. I was lucky with the weather. Just breathtakingly beautiful.
On Sunday I took the West Highland line from Fort William to Glasgow which … well the superlatives simply roll on and on.
I took the Caledonian Sleeper to FW not long ago too and if anything that was even lovelier, although FW doesn’t compare as a town to the city of Inverness.
Three of the world’s most scenic railway journeys right there, right here, on our doorstep.
Highly highly recommended.
xx
The Inverness to fort William line is stunning
Yet few people know of it. Mad
Incredibly the DK Guide to Scotland barely mentions that line or the other three I’ve mentioned. All of which would get a double page spread if they were anywhere else on the planet. Utterly bizarre.
The West Highland Line has several times been voted the most beautiful railway journey in the world.
Thoroughly recommend these routes. There’s something quite magical about sleeping out of Euston, or indeed hitting on board bar @Leon and waking up to sunrise in the Highlands.
One of my favourite things about the Inverness Kyle line is that there’s a station called “Muir of Ord”
I’ve been on that line a couple of times and I always faintly hope that the station - being so remote - is literally named after one guy, Muir, from Ord, who stands there in the middle of the forest and occasionally gets on the train
To those who complain about the Caledonian Sleeper being pricey, well … maybe … but ...
For c. £200 Club Class you're getting a night’s accommodation with breakfast + the travel itself in some style + the views
I had a solid 7 hours’ sleep with lovely sheets and duvet. Took my shower in my room. Was served my proper coffee and Scottish porridge and watched a snowy sunrise over the Cairngorms, to arrive in beautiful Inverness. A while back on the other side I woke in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs in time for the climb up across stunning Rannoch Moor.
Worth every penny of £200 in my book.
I had to go to Aberdeen for the RSS Conference. I wanted to go by Caledonian Sleeper but it sold out the week I went to the travel agent. I went by plane instead. It wasn't as nice. The faff involved in front door to taxi to airport to flight to airport to taxi to hotel is not good. I hate trains but sleepers look much more fun and yes, 200 pounds would have been worth it.
How can anyone - especially a PBer - “hate trains”?
😶
I get that an early morning commute from Stockport to Walsall might not be as romantic as the trans Siberian but still - trains!
Agree. I find I get bored driving after about 100 miles, particularly if on a motorway and I hate the hassle of flying. I have done 2 trips around Italy by train and 1 across Portugal and my regular French cycle trip involves a lot of trains (10 for the last trip) to get to/from our start/end points. They are all really enjoyable and the European trains tend to be on time and very cheap.
French trains are great. They all gripe about the TER but compared to Northern Rail at its worst they’re almost flawless.
Can someone please do something about the wifi on the Eurostar, while we are about it.
I’m on the Eurostar in april. Is it still suffering hideous queues at the termini?
They are better. STP is now ok (used to be queuing round the corner) and they stand there helpfully with the train number and time.
The absurdity of the two customs gates persists (WHICH YOU VOTED FOR, ahem) so it can be luck of the draw at Gare du Nord.
The French border playing silly buggers? You amaze me. Whenever major border problems with the EU are raised, it always seems to be with France. I'm not a massive European traveller, but both of my experiences of leaving/entering the EU since Britain left the EU have been no less seamless than they were when we were a member. But neither of these have involved France.
We're going to Europe in August - the plan is to get the ferry from Hull to Rotterdam, spend time in the low countries, then come back through the tunnel. I have some misgivings about including France in my itinerary because of the potential for silly buggers being played - but it will save us about £250 if we can suck up that risk.
I believe we asked them to take back control. So they did.
But the French playing silly buggers at the border happened before 2016 too, didn't it? It's hardly new.
Nope. Pre-Bxit there was one set of gates.
Wait until the new visa system is introduced for entering the EU. That has the potential to cause chaos
If SKS did not visit the Speaker yesterday to persuade him to allow the Labour amendment,Im surprised he has not personally confirmed this..
Starmer visit is not contested
Why is Starmer not facing any flack for doing that then?
He did, yesterday, when it was put about that he threatened the speaker's position if he did not acquiesce. The story has evolved in that Starmer argued that his MPs were receiving death threats and that his motion was designed to unify all of the opinions and move past the narrow partisanship which weaponises the issue.
This is the simple truth about BJO calling Starmer a "genocide enabler" - death threats against MPs as a result. Wherever you stand on this issue, we can't have government by mob. On any issue.
Imagine this site's reaction if Sunak had something like this
We'd be absolutely astonished. As it would be a sign he was good at politics.
Im not sure bullying/threatening the speaker is good politics
If SKS did not visit the Speaker yesterday to persuade him to allow the Labour amendment,Im surprised he has not personally confirmed this..
Starmer visit is not contested
Why is Starmer not facing any flack for doing that then?
He solved the issue in a way that means he'll avoid the flack as the average man on the street isn't bothered about Standing Order 31 rules on 3rd party opposition days. But it is key for the speaker.
Hoyle had the look of a man that realised his good nature had been taken advantage of and used by Starmer for political purposes (As evidenced by Lucy Powell's speech and the immediate self congratulatory Labour ceasefire tweets on X) when he issued his apology.
As per @Dura_Ace comment Starmer had his own self interest in mind in this one. Which was fair enough.
The more I think about it the only actual solution was for the speaker to reject the wording of the SNP motion as the incendiary device it was designed to be.
And I don’t think that was an option hence the mess.
Seriously I look at this and think SKS was the only grown up in the room who saw the proposals for the tripwire they were
Really ?
Of course the SNP's motion was a tripwire for Labour. And it was their day to lay it as Starmer has straddled Gaza/Hamas fence like every other issue under the sun.
The clerk of the house was very very clear in his letter that Hoyle screwed up acquiescing to Starmer's demands.
Anyway Starmer can't have it both ways, that ridiculous self congratulatory speech by Powell that got rightly cut off at the knees by Winterton and claiming he acted for the safety of MPs. Except he did have the SNP's cake and eat it allowed as Hoyle allowed.
It was a shrewd political move for sure by Starmer enabled by a piss weak speaker, I expect Boothroyd would have told him to sling his hook out of her room pleading for a change in procedure minutes before the vote.
What exactly did Hoyle do, again? It is an outrage and I am outraged but I can't quite pin down what he did.
Very nuanced front page of the Graun today illustrating whatever point it was.
Went against the advice of his top clerk, see Tom Goldsmith's letter on X (Other social media is available) for procedure.
Only took soundings from Starmer prior to going against the advice of Goldsmith.
On one of only 3 out of 20 parliamentary days per session per sitting allocated to the SNP, the above actions effectively high-jacking the day away from them.
OK thanks makes sense. So he f**ked the SNP by privileging Lab and everyone disliked that.
Why did he do it and what did the Cons want, for example.
Out of a fear of reprisals on MPs. But here's another point, you don't just change parliamentary procedure after hearing one captain with his own interests for fear of the mob.
It's interesting, as I don't really give a fig about tradition or the minutia of parliamentary procedure, but I do think anything that removes the (little) power minority parties have is bad. By essentially allowing the Labour amendment to get voted on first, Hoyle took away the SNP motion on their day to do motions. If Hoyle took away one of the Labour days and gave the SNP another day as recompense (essentially admitting that he did, in fact, reduce the ability for the SNP to put forward a motion on the day that should have heard their motion) I would be fine with that; but I doubt Hoyle would do that because I suspect there is no precedent for such thing and it would be too close to admitting to doing something he shouldn't have done.
At the end of the day Starmer had snookered himself politically by pissing off his base (and many MPs) by being mealy mouthed on a ceasefire in Gaza. Sure, the SNP may have been playing politics with the issue, but they're politicians - making your opponents face the consequences of their political decisions by doing politics with issues is their job. Getting the Speaker to save him (and reportedly threatening to oust him in the next parliament if he didn't) is Starmer refusing to deal with the consequences of his actions by just squashing democratic opposition.
This could be a gold mine for the SNP. Westminster trickery to deny them one of the only days they have to propose motions, and a motion that likely had support by many SNP (and ScotLab) voters, all to save the Starmer from a backbench (and potentially frontbench) rebellion. Another argument for Scotland and their representatives being ignored by the Westminster system in favour of a political elite based in England.
Not so much Westminster trickery but new trickery made up on the spot by SKS. Like he suddenly decides there's no such thing as an offside rule, scores what he claims is a goal, and bullies the referee into agreeing.
But SKS is likely going to be the next PM - and this situation sets a precedent. Now no opposition party can ever feel safe in the understanding that their opposition day motion won't be scuppered by the Speaker letting it be reworded and then voted on by the bigger (majority English) parties. To me it would be a wasted opportunity if the SNP did not take this fury away and campaign on it. It may sound dull and procedural and boring, but at the end of the day the voice of minority parties has been diminished within the Westminster system after this ruling by Hoyle.
Which also affects the Tories after they (probably) lose the next election, of course, the LDs, and Labour next time they lose an election. Indeed, I hope the Tories try that on SKS the next opposition day motion. Or indeed the SNP try it. If only to force the question to a head.
It may be a Westminster bubble concern but soon to be opposition parties and smaller parties have a right to be annoyed and upset. I rarely say this but I totally get the SNPs fury here. They don't get many opportunities to lead a conversation.
Have the LDs weighed in on the principles at play here?
How can they? They don't have principles just a desire to jump on bandwagons.
Well have that done that then?
I'm curious about how they played it, but even for the standard difficulty for the LDs at getting attention it's been quiet.
Moran's local track record is abysmal. She has nothing constructive to say on any local issue. It's always about her and nothing to do with the people she is meant to serve.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges I spoke to an MP yesterday who told me he had weighed up his own physical safety when deciding on how to vote on yesterday’s Gaza motion. We have crossed a line now. We are not a properly functioning democracy if this is a factor in how our elected representatives act.
I just don't take this in good faith. I'm sorry, but the same line was trotted out by SCOTUS post Dobbs when people all over the US started protested the leak that they were going to destroy Roe and essentially make abortion illegal in multiple states, and practically illegal in many more - and it was BS then too. With great power comes great responsibility; and great consequences if you misuse that power. I think online and physical harassment should not happen to anyone, but that doesn't mean all forms of showing disgust with the person tasked to represent you is a threat.
It has become a pattern amongst powerful people, now that social media and such allows people to directly respond to them, to cast all forms of criticism as a threat, or as abuse. And much of the time it just isn't - it's average people sharing their opinion to powerful people who aren't used to having average people question them in such a manner.
So aside from firebombings, racist graffiti on offices, threatening letters, emails, phone calls... There is no actual threat to MPs.
Oh, and a few murders.
Gotcha.
Obviously I'm not endorsing acts of violence such as murder or firebombings, or threatening letters or emails. But we have to have a reasonable line.
Taking the firebombing as an example; I look at articles like this:
This article, unnecessarily in my opinion, notes that protests happened outside a different MPs surgery. What has that got to do with the issue of violence? It's the conflation of what I see as good faith engagement in democracy - protest - with this, typically anonymous, violence and threats of violence that I think is bad. Obviously threats against MPs should be taken seriously if they are serious, but we cannot have a situation where people are not allowed to protest MPs out of some general "fear for their safety" - anyone could say that about any protest or demonstration, any mass gathering or just anyone passing them in the street. You need probable cause to strip people of what I think is an important and legitimate method of political expression.
IMV protest is only 'good faith engagement' if it is non-threatening and accepts that there are other reasonable contrary views.
Protest is not 'good faith engagement' if it harms, threatens to harm, or causes genuine fear.
If SKS did not visit the Speaker yesterday to persuade him to allow the Labour amendment,Im surprised he has not personally confirmed this..
Starmer visit is not contested
Why is Starmer not facing any flack for doing that then?
Party leader visiting the Speaker isn't an issue. What he said *might* be.
If the Speaker confirms that he was threatened by SKS then surely SKS is finished
He won't. Assuming the journalists did not simply make up the story then either a senior Labour source made it up - and for what reason would they do that when it put pressure on Hoyle? - or it is true but neither Hoyle nor Starmer will admit to it (it benefits neither to confess at this point) so it will not be proven.
When was it reported that the source for the "threatening the Speaker" story (which has been formally denied) was Labour ?
Seems more likely that either a Conservative or SNP MP jumped to that conclusion on fairly scant evidence.
It was reported several times from BBC Newsnight via the live text updates on the story yesterday.
Subsequently the Speaker's office denied it, and so there is the question of if that is true or if the BBC's source misled them.
But I don't quite know how it has developed that the claim is seen as some invention by opponents or of unclear source (someone called it a Tory invention yesterday). It's pretty clear that someone lied - a journalist, the Speaker, or the journalist's source. But the claim was reported as coming from Labour.
Senior Labour figures told BBC Newsnight Sir Lindsay was left in no doubt Labour was prepared to see him replaced as Speaker after the next general election unless he selected the party's ceasefire amendment for a vote.
They said it was made clear to the Speaker he would need Labour votes to be re-elected and this might not be forthcoming.
However, a source close to the Speaker said the suggestion he was pressurised was "absolutely untrue".
If SKS did not visit the Speaker yesterday to persuade him to allow the Labour amendment,Im surprised he has not personally confirmed this..
Starmer visit is not contested
Why is Starmer not facing any flack for doing that then?
He did, yesterday, when it was put about that he threatened the speaker's position if he did not acquiesce. The story has evolved in that Starmer argued that his MPs were receiving death threats and that his motion was designed to unify all of the opinions and move past the narrow partisanship which weaponises the issue.
This is the simple truth about BJO calling Starmer a "genocide enabler" - death threats against MPs as a result. Wherever you stand on this issue, we can't have government by mob. On any issue.
Imagine this site's reaction if Sunak had done something like this
Sunak *has* done this. Repeatedly. As did Truss (the vote on fracking fiasco) and Boris. With growing rows between the treasury bench and the Speaker.
If SKS did not visit the Speaker yesterday to persuade him to allow the Labour amendment,Im surprised he has not personally confirmed this..
Starmer visit is not contested
Why is Starmer not facing any flack for doing that then?
Party leader visiting the Speaker isn't an issue. What he said *might* be.
If the Speaker confirms that he was threatened by SKS then surely SKS is finished
He won't. Assuming the journalists did not simply make up the story then either a senior Labour source made it up - and for what reason would they do that when it put pressure on Hoyle? - or it is true but neither Hoyle nor Starmer will admit to it (it benefits neither to confess at this point) so it will not be proven.
When was it reported that the source for the "threatening the Speaker" story (which has been formally denied) was Labour ?
Seems more likely that either a Conservative or SNP MP jumped to that conclusion on fairly scant evidence.
SKS is being accused by many MPs in Parliament of threatening the speaker yesterday, yet he has not issued a statement to clarify what happened. I find his silence rather telling.
Blistering stuff from Mordaunt just now in the Commons. I'm not sure she's actually helping matters, but it's astonishing that she's not front-runner for next Tory leader.
Being a PM stan is so 2023.
Remember when she came out from behind the rostrum and did the "ISIS Finger". #pm4pm
Is this anything to do with Anna Soubry and Nigel Farage?
If SKS did not visit the Speaker yesterday to persuade him to allow the Labour amendment,Im surprised he has not personally confirmed this..
Starmer visit is not contested
Why is Starmer not facing any flack for doing that then?
Party leader visiting the Speaker isn't an issue. What he said *might* be.
If the Speaker confirms that he was threatened by SKS then surely SKS is finished
He won't. Assuming the journalists did not simply make up the story then either a senior Labour source made it up - and for what reason would they do that when it put pressure on Hoyle? - or it is true but neither Hoyle nor Starmer will admit to it (it benefits neither to confess at this point) so it will not be proven.
When was it reported that the source for the "threatening the Speaker" story (which has been formally denied) was Labour ?
Seems more likely that either a Conservative or SNP MP jumped to that conclusion on fairly scant evidence.
If SKS did not visit the Speaker yesterday to persuade him to allow the Labour amendment,Im surprised he has not personally confirmed this..
Starmer visit is not contested
Why is Starmer not facing any flack for doing that then?
He solved the issue in a way that means he'll avoid the flack as the average man on the street isn't bothered about Standing Order 31 rules on 3rd party opposition days. But it is key for the speaker.
Hoyle had the look of a man that realised his good nature had been taken advantage of and used by Starmer for political purposes (As evidenced by Lucy Powell's speech and the immediate self congratulatory Labour ceasefire tweets on X) when he issued his apology.
As per @Dura_Ace comment Starmer had his own self interest in mind in this one. Which was fair enough.
The more I think about it the only actual solution was for the speaker to reject the wording of the SNP motion as the incendiary device it was designed to be.
And I don’t think that was an option hence the mess.
Seriously I look at this and think SKS was the only grown up in the room who saw the proposals for the tripwire they were
Really ?
Of course the SNP's motion was a tripwire for Labour. And it was their day to lay it as Starmer has straddled Gaza/Hamas fence like every other issue under the sun.
The clerk of the house was very very clear in his letter that Hoyle screwed up acquiescing to Starmer's demands.
Anyway Starmer can't have it both ways, that ridiculous self congratulatory speech by Powell that got rightly cut off at the knees by Winterton and claiming he acted for the safety of MPs. Except he did have the SNP's cake and eat it allowed as Hoyle allowed.
It was a shrewd political move for sure by Starmer enabled by a piss weak speaker, I expect Boothroyd would have told him to sling his hook out of her room pleading for a change in procedure minutes before the vote.
Maybe - but given the threats been made to MPs at the moment I’m surprised anyone wants to go anywhere near politics.
They are braver (and far stupider because they are doing it hopefully knowing the downsides) than I am.
If SKS did not visit the Speaker yesterday to persuade him to allow the Labour amendment,Im surprised he has not personally confirmed this..
Starmer visit is not contested
Why is Starmer not facing any flack for doing that then?
He did, yesterday, when it was put about that he threatened the speaker's position if he did not acquiesce. The story has evolved in that Starmer argued that his MPs were receiving death threats and that his motion was designed to unify all of the opinions and move past the narrow partisanship which weaponises the issue.
This is the simple truth about BJO calling Starmer a "genocide enabler" - death threats against MPs as a result. Wherever you stand on this issue, we can't have government by mob. On any issue.
Imagine this site's reaction if Sunak had done something like this
Sunak *has* done this. Repeatedly. As did Truss (the vote on fracking fiasco) and Boris. With growing rows between the treasury bench and the Speaker.
Went to his Office and told him unless he did something then his Party would withdraw support for him? Sunak has upset the Speaker but has never threatened him
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.
Ha. I’ve just done it and several other lines. Took the Caledonian Sleeper to Inverness ten days ago and it was wonderful. Coming over the Drumochter Pass when there was still snow was magical.
Then last Friday I took the Inverness to Kyle of Lochalsh line which is absolutely stunning. I was lucky with the weather. Just breathtakingly beautiful.
On Sunday I took the West Highland line from Fort William to Glasgow which … well the superlatives simply roll on and on.
I took the Caledonian Sleeper to FW not long ago too and if anything that was even lovelier, although FW doesn’t compare as a town to the city of Inverness.
Three of the world’s most scenic railway journeys right there, right here, on our doorstep.
Highly highly recommended.
xx
The Inverness to fort William line is stunning
Yet few people know of it. Mad
Incredibly the DK Guide to Scotland barely mentions that line or the other three I’ve mentioned. All of which would get a double page spread if they were anywhere else on the planet. Utterly bizarre.
The West Highland Line has several times been voted the most beautiful railway journey in the world.
Thoroughly recommend these routes. There’s something quite magical about sleeping out of Euston, or indeed hitting on board bar @Leon and waking up to sunrise in the Highlands.
One of my favourite things about the Inverness Kyle line is that there’s a station called “Muir of Ord”
I’ve been on that line a couple of times and I always faintly hope that the station - being so remote - is literally named after one guy, Muir, from Ord, who stands there in the middle of the forest and occasionally gets on the train
To those who complain about the Caledonian Sleeper being pricey, well … maybe … but ...
For c. £200 Club Class you're getting a night’s accommodation with breakfast + the travel itself in some style + the views
I had a solid 7 hours’ sleep with lovely sheets and duvet. Took my shower in my room. Was served my proper coffee and Scottish porridge and watched a snowy sunrise over the Cairngorms, to arrive in beautiful Inverness. A while back on the other side I woke in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs in time for the climb up across stunning Rannoch Moor.
Worth every penny of £200 in my book.
I had to go to Aberdeen for the RSS Conference. I wanted to go by Caledonian Sleeper but it sold out the week I went to the travel agent. I went by plane instead. It wasn't as nice. The faff involved in front door to taxi to airport to flight to airport to taxi to hotel is not good. I hate trains but sleepers look much more fun and yes, 200 pounds would have been worth it.
How can anyone - especially a PBer - “hate trains”?
😶
I get that an early morning commute from Stockport to Walsall might not be as romantic as the trans Siberian but still - trains!
Agree. I find I get bored driving after about 100 miles, particularly if on a motorway and I hate the hassle of flying. I have done 2 trips around Italy by train and 1 across Portugal and my regular French cycle trip involves a lot of trains (10 for the last trip) to get to/from our start/end points. They are all really enjoyable and the European trains tend to be on time and very cheap.
French trains are great. They all gripe about the TER but compared to Northern Rail at its worst they’re almost flawless.
Can someone please do something about the wifi on the Eurostar, while we are about it.
I’m on the Eurostar in april. Is it still suffering hideous queues at the termini?
They are better. STP is now ok (used to be queuing round the corner) and they stand there helpfully with the train number and time.
The absurdity of the two customs gates persists (WHICH YOU VOTED FOR, ahem) so it can be luck of the draw at Gare du Nord.
The French border playing silly buggers? You amaze me. Whenever major border problems with the EU are raised, it always seems to be with France. I'm not a massive European traveller, but both of my experiences of leaving/entering the EU since Britain left the EU have been no less seamless than they were when we were a member. But neither of these have involved France.
We're going to Europe in August - the plan is to get the ferry from Hull to Rotterdam, spend time in the low countries, then come back through the tunnel. I have some misgivings about including France in my itinerary because of the potential for silly buggers being played - but it will save us about £250 if we can suck up that risk.
I believe we asked them to take back control. So they did.
But the French playing silly buggers at the border happened before 2016 too, didn't it? It's hardly new.
Nope. Pre-Bxit there was one set of gates.
Wait until the new visa system is introduced for entering the EU. That has the potential to cause chaos
Every major Western country is now introducing something similar, including the UK. The smart countries combine visa-on-arrival rules with biometric scanners at ports of entry and advanced air passenger data.
IIRC the EU scheme will be valid for three years and renewable online, after the initial entry and fingerprint scan.
If SKS did not visit the Speaker yesterday to persuade him to allow the Labour amendment,Im surprised he has not personally confirmed this..
Starmer visit is not contested
Why is Starmer not facing any flack for doing that then?
He did, yesterday, when it was put about that he threatened the speaker's position if he did not acquiesce. The story has evolved in that Starmer argued that his MPs were receiving death threats and that his motion was designed to unify all of the opinions and move past the narrow partisanship which weaponises the issue.
This is the simple truth about BJO calling Starmer a "genocide enabler" - death threats against MPs as a result. Wherever you stand on this issue, we can't have government by mob. On any issue.
I don’t think the story evolved. It was the Labour line from the start that they’d argued to the Speaker this point about MPs’ safety.
"...Sir Edward Leigh (Con) told the Commons that the Speaker has admitted he made a mistake. The Commons should now “move on”, he said. He said he was opposed to a no confidence motion.
He also called for a government debate on Gaza, to allow all amendments to be considered...
If SKS did not visit the Speaker yesterday to persuade him to allow the Labour amendment,Im surprised he has not personally confirmed this..
Starmer visit is not contested
Why is Starmer not facing any flack for doing that then?
He solved the issue in a way that means he'll avoid the flack as the average man on the street isn't bothered about Standing Order 31 rules on 3rd party opposition days. But it is key for the speaker.
Hoyle had the look of a man that realised his good nature had been taken advantage of and used by Starmer for political purposes (As evidenced by Lucy Powell's speech and the immediate self congratulatory Labour ceasefire tweets on X) when he issued his apology.
As per @Dura_Ace comment Starmer had his own self interest in mind in this one. Which was fair enough.
The more I think about it the only actual solution was for the speaker to reject the wording of the SNP motion as the incendiary device it was designed to be.
And I don’t think that was an option hence the mess.
Seriously I look at this and think SKS was the only grown up in the room who saw the proposals for the tripwire they were
The speaker should have rejected it, as being something outwith the competence of this Parliament.
The SNP runs their own Parliament, if they wish to submit totally meaningless motions on international conflict.
"...Sir Edward Leigh (Con) told the Commons that the Speaker has admitted he made a mistake. The Commons should now “move on”, he said. He said he was opposed to a no confidence motion.
He also called for a government debate on Gaza, to allow all amendments to be considered...
Measured and reasonable.
He's also one of the longest serving MPs, so if MPs are looking for a temporary Speaker to see them through to the GE...
If SKS did not visit the Speaker yesterday to persuade him to allow the Labour amendment,Im surprised he has not personally confirmed this..
Starmer visit is not contested
Why is Starmer not facing any flack for doing that then?
Party leader visiting the Speaker isn't an issue. What he said *might* be.
If the Speaker confirms that he was threatened by SKS then surely SKS is finished
He won't. Assuming the journalists did not simply make up the story then either a senior Labour source made it up - and for what reason would they do that when it put pressure on Hoyle? - or it is true but neither Hoyle nor Starmer will admit to it (it benefits neither to confess at this point) so it will not be proven.
When was it reported that the source for the "threatening the Speaker" story (which has been formally denied) was Labour ?
Seems more likely that either a Conservative or SNP MP jumped to that conclusion on fairly scant evidence.
It was reported several times from BBC Newsnight via the live text updates on the story yesterday.
Subsequently the Speaker's office denied it, and so there is the question of if that is true or if the BBC's source misled them.
But I don't quite know how it has developed that the claim is seen as some invention by opponents or of unclear source (someone called it a Tory invention yesterday). It's pretty clear that someone lied - a journalist, the Speaker, or the journalist's source. But the claim was reported as coming from Labour.
Senior Labour figures told BBC Newsnight Sir Lindsay was left in no doubt Labour was prepared to see him replaced as Speaker after the next general election unless he selected the party's ceasefire amendment for a vote.
They said it was made clear to the Speaker he would need Labour votes to be re-elected and this might not be forthcoming.
However, a source close to the Speaker said the suggestion he was pressurised was "absolutely untrue".
I think it's a pretty bad look for the SNP/Tories to force the Speaker to resign. Both are parties projected to lose seats at the next GE - regardless of the facts, it just makes them look like sore losers.
If SKS did not visit the Speaker yesterday to persuade him to allow the Labour amendment,Im surprised he has not personally confirmed this..
Starmer visit is not contested
Why is Starmer not facing any flack for doing that then?
Party leader visiting the Speaker isn't an issue. What he said *might* be.
If the Speaker confirms that he was threatened by SKS then surely SKS is finished
He won't. Assuming the journalists did not simply make up the story then either a senior Labour source made it up - and for what reason would they do that when it put pressure on Hoyle? - or it is true but neither Hoyle nor Starmer will admit to it (it benefits neither to confess at this point) so it will not be proven.
When was it reported that the source for the "threatening the Speaker" story (which has been formally denied) was Labour ?
Seems more likely that either a Conservative or SNP MP jumped to that conclusion on fairly scant evidence.
Is it threatening to say "Don't forget the speaker is elected after a general election - don't assume Labour's support..."?
If SKS did not visit the Speaker yesterday to persuade him to allow the Labour amendment,Im surprised he has not personally confirmed this..
Starmer visit is not contested
Why is Starmer not facing any flack for doing that then?
He solved the issue in a way that means he'll avoid the flack as the average man on the street isn't bothered about Standing Order 31 rules on 3rd party opposition days. But it is key for the speaker.
Hoyle had the look of a man that realised his good nature had been taken advantage of and used by Starmer for political purposes (As evidenced by Lucy Powell's speech and the immediate self congratulatory Labour ceasefire tweets on X) when he issued his apology.
As per @Dura_Ace comment Starmer had his own self interest in mind in this one. Which was fair enough.
The more I think about it the only actual solution was for the speaker to reject the wording of the SNP motion as the incendiary device it was designed to be.
And I don’t think that was an option hence the mess.
Seriously I look at this and think SKS was the only grown up in the room who saw the proposals for the tripwire they were
How dare the Nats adopt divisive and incendiary language calling for an immediate ceasefire and criticising the collective punishment of 2.2 million Gazans. That’s Scottish Labour’s job.
If SKS did not visit the Speaker yesterday to persuade him to allow the Labour amendment,Im surprised he has not personally confirmed this..
Starmer visit is not contested
Why is Starmer not facing any flack for doing that then?
He did, yesterday, when it was put about that he threatened the speaker's position if he did not acquiesce. The story has evolved in that Starmer argued that his MPs were receiving death threats and that his motion was designed to unify all of the opinions and move past the narrow partisanship which weaponises the issue.
This is the simple truth about BJO calling Starmer a "genocide enabler" - death threats against MPs as a result. Wherever you stand on this issue, we can't have government by mob. On any issue.
Imagine this site's reaction if Sunak had done something like this
Sunak *has* done this. Repeatedly. As did Truss (the vote on fracking fiasco) and Boris. With growing rows between the treasury bench and the Speaker.
Went to his Office and told him unless he did something then his Party would withdraw support for him? Sunak has upset the Speaker but has never threatened him
That was what allegedly happened and appears to have been fed by the Tories. That does not appear to be what actually happened.
I think it's a pretty bad look for the SNP/Tories to force the Speaker to resign. Both are parties projected to lose seats at the next GE - regardless of the facts, it just makes them look like sore losers.
But the Speaker really, really fu**ed up last night. And it was an unforced error.
He will not be accused of being Starmer's fan, however fair or unfair that might be.
More importantly IMV, he potentially placed non-Labour MPs in increased danger, not less.
Lots of anonymous sources saying stuff yesterday which is being flatly denied today.
This is what Natasha Clark from LBC posted on X last night
"Multiple Tory MPs say Penny Mordaunt pulled tonight’s amendment because govt did not have votes to support Israel ‘humanitarian pause’ motion."
Rumour is that too many Tories had told Whips they were minded to back the Labour motion in favour of full fat ceasefire... When this was put to her this morning, Caulfield replied: "No, that’s definitely not true"...
I think it's a pretty bad look for the SNP/Tories to force the Speaker to resign. Both are parties projected to lose seats at the next GE - regardless of the facts, it just makes them look like sore losers.
Just listened to an emotional appeal of support from an unexpected source in Mark Francois who commented on how supportive the Speaker was when his best friend and colleague, Sir David Amess was murdered
He wants to re-run yesterday’s debate in government time with Lindsay Hoyle in the chair
"...Sir Edward Leigh (Con) told the Commons that the Speaker has admitted he made a mistake. The Commons should now “move on”, he said. He said he was opposed to a no confidence motion.
He also called for a government debate on Gaza, to allow all amendments to be considered...
Measured and reasonable...
Not words I would normally associate with him. But credit where it's due.
If SKS did not visit the Speaker yesterday to persuade him to allow the Labour amendment,Im surprised he has not personally confirmed this..
Starmer visit is not contested
Why is Starmer not facing any flack for doing that then?
He did, yesterday, when it was put about that he threatened the speaker's position if he did not acquiesce. The story has evolved in that Starmer argued that his MPs were receiving death threats and that his motion was designed to unify all of the opinions and move past the narrow partisanship which weaponises the issue.
This is the simple truth about BJO calling Starmer a "genocide enabler" - death threats against MPs as a result. Wherever you stand on this issue, we can't have government by mob. On any issue.
Imagine this site's reaction if Sunak had done something like this
Sunak *has* done this. Repeatedly. As did Truss (the vote on fracking fiasco) and Boris. With growing rows between the treasury bench and the Speaker.
Went to his Office and told him unless he did something then his Party would withdraw support for him? Sunak has upset the Speaker but has never threatened him
That was what allegedly happened and appears to have been fed by the Tories. That does not appear to be what actually happened.
Again, why this thing about it being 'fed by the Tories'? That makes it sound like the Tories made it up.
Now, they've definitely seized on it, but it is not as though they invented it, they are making use of stories in the press, and not the Tory client press either but the BBC. Who may well be wrong, it's denied after all, but that's on them if so.
If SKS did not visit the Speaker yesterday to persuade him to allow the Labour amendment,Im surprised he has not personally confirmed this..
Starmer visit is not contested
Why is Starmer not facing any flack for doing that then?
He did, yesterday, when it was put about that he threatened the speaker's position if he did not acquiesce. The story has evolved in that Starmer argued that his MPs were receiving death threats and that his motion was designed to unify all of the opinions and move past the narrow partisanship which weaponises the issue.
This is the simple truth about BJO calling Starmer a "genocide enabler" - death threats against MPs as a result. Wherever you stand on this issue, we can't have government by mob. On any issue.
Imagine this site's reaction if Sunak had done something like this
Sunak *has* done this. Repeatedly. As did Truss (the vote on fracking fiasco) and Boris. With growing rows between the treasury bench and the Speaker.
Went to his Office and told him unless he did something then his Party would withdraw support for him? Sunak has upset the Speaker but has never threatened him
That was what allegedly happened and appears to have been fed by the Tories. That does not appear to be what actually happened.
For the speaker to break Parliamentary Standing orders and to go against warnings given to him by the Clerk of the House, the threat must have been real.
If SKS did not visit the Speaker yesterday to persuade him to allow the Labour amendment,Im surprised he has not personally confirmed this..
Starmer visit is not contested
Why is Starmer not facing any flack for doing that then?
He did, yesterday, when it was put about that he threatened the speaker's position if he did not acquiesce. The story has evolved in that Starmer argued that his MPs were receiving death threats and that his motion was designed to unify all of the opinions and move past the narrow partisanship which weaponises the issue.
This is the simple truth about BJO calling Starmer a "genocide enabler" - death threats against MPs as a result. Wherever you stand on this issue, we can't have government by mob. On any issue.
Imagine this site's reaction if Sunak had done something like this
Sunak *has* done this. Repeatedly. As did Truss (the vote on fracking fiasco) and Boris. With growing rows between the treasury bench and the Speaker.
Went to his Office and told him unless he did something then his Party would withdraw support for him? Sunak has upset the Speaker but has never threatened him
That was what allegedly happened and appears to have been fed by t he Tories. That does not appear to be what actually happened.
If SKS did not visit the Speaker yesterday to persuade him to allow the Labour amendment,Im surprised he has not personally confirmed this..
Starmer visit is not contested
Why is Starmer not facing any flack for doing that then?
He did, yesterday, when it was put about that he threatened the speaker's position if he did not acquiesce. The story has evolved in that Starmer argued that his MPs were receiving death threats and that his motion was designed to unify all of the opinions and move past the narrow partisanship which weaponises the issue.
This is the simple truth about BJO calling Starmer a "genocide enabler" - death threats against MPs as a result. Wherever you stand on this issue, we can't have government by mob. On any issue.
Imagine this site's reaction if Sunak had done something like this
Sunak *has* done this. Repeatedly. As did Truss (the vote on fracking fiasco) and Boris. With growing rows between the treasury bench and the Speaker.
Went to his Office and told him unless he did something then his Party would withdraw support for him? Sunak has upset the Speaker but has never threatened him
That was what allegedly happened and appears to have been fed by the Tories. That does not appear to be what actually happened.
For the speaker to break Parliamentary Standing orders and to go against warnings given to him by the Clerk of the House, the threat must have been real.
The Speaker has provided an explanation as to why he went against convention in this case. People may disagree with that explanation justifying that decision, but had the BBC story not come out it would have been reasonable enough that outrage would have been far less, possibly confined to the SNP and some Tory grumbling. So it is possible he made the call for the reasons he says he did, not due to threats.
Looks like the average is overreacting to one recent poll with a sample size of 1,100 from American Research Group. YouGov shows zero swing over the same period.
Unfortunately, I think this is more 538's problem than Trump's.
If SKS did not visit the Speaker yesterday to persuade him to allow the Labour amendment,Im surprised he has not personally confirmed this..
Starmer visit is not contested
Why is Starmer not facing any flack for doing that then?
He did, yesterday, when it was put about that he threatened the speaker's position if he did not acquiesce. The story has evolved in that Starmer argued that his MPs were receiving death threats and that his motion was designed to unify all of the opinions and move past the narrow partisanship which weaponises the issue.
This is the simple truth about BJO calling Starmer a "genocide enabler" - death threats against MPs as a result. Wherever you stand on this issue, we can't have government by mob. On any issue.
Imagine this site's reaction if Sunak had done something like this
Sunak *has* done this. Repeatedly. As did Truss (the vote on fracking fiasco) and Boris. With growing rows between the treasury bench and the Speaker.
Went to his Office and told him unless he did something then his Party would withdraw support for him? Sunak has upset the Speaker but has never threatened him
That was what allegedly happened and appears to have been fed by the Tories. That does not appear to be what actually happened.
For the speaker to break Parliamentary Standing orders and to go against warnings given to him by the Clerk of the House, the threat must have been real.
He did not break standing orders. His actions were in order. Not conventional, but not out of order.
Looks like the average is overreacting to one recent poll with a sample size of 1,100 from American Research Group. YouGov shows zero swing over the same period.
Unfortunately, I think this is more 538's problem than Trump's.
Looks like the average is overreacting to one recent poll with a sample size of 1,100 from American Research Group. YouGov shows zero swing over the same period.
Unfortunately, I think this is more 538's problem than Trump's.
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.
Ha. I’ve just done it and several other lines. Took the Caledonian Sleeper to Inverness ten days ago and it was wonderful. Coming over the Drumochter Pass when there was still snow was magical.
Then last Friday I took the Inverness to Kyle of Lochalsh line which is absolutely stunning. I was lucky with the weather. Just breathtakingly beautiful.
On Sunday I took the West Highland line from Fort William to Glasgow which … well the superlatives simply roll on and on.
I took the Caledonian Sleeper to FW not long ago too and if anything that was even lovelier, although FW doesn’t compare as a town to the city of Inverness.
Three of the world’s most scenic railway journeys right there, right here, on our doorstep.
Highly highly recommended.
xx
The Inverness to fort William line is stunning
Yet few people know of it. Mad
Incredibly the DK Guide to Scotland barely mentions that line or the other three I’ve mentioned. All of which would get a double page spread if they were anywhere else on the planet. Utterly bizarre.
The West Highland Line has several times been voted the most beautiful railway journey in the world.
Thoroughly recommend these routes. There’s something quite magical about sleeping out of Euston, or indeed hitting on board bar @Leon and waking up to sunrise in the Highlands.
One of my favourite things about the Inverness Kyle line is that there’s a station called “Muir of Ord”
I’ve been on that line a couple of times and I always faintly hope that the station - being so remote - is literally named after one guy, Muir, from Ord, who stands there in the middle of the forest and occasionally gets on the train
To those who complain about the Caledonian Sleeper being pricey, well … maybe … but ...
For c. £200 Club Class you're getting a night’s accommodation with breakfast + the travel itself in some style + the views
I had a solid 7 hours’ sleep with lovely sheets and duvet. Took my shower in my room. Was served my proper coffee and Scottish porridge and watched a snowy sunrise over the Cairngorms, to arrive in beautiful Inverness. A while back on the other side I woke in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs in time for the climb up across stunning Rannoch Moor.
Worth every penny of £200 in my book.
I had to go to Aberdeen for the RSS Conference. I wanted to go by Caledonian Sleeper but it sold out the week I went to the travel agent. I went by plane instead. It wasn't as nice. The faff involved in front door to taxi to airport to flight to airport to taxi to hotel is not good. I hate trains but sleepers look much more fun and yes, 200 pounds would have been worth it.
How can anyone - especially a PBer - “hate trains”?
😶
I get that an early morning commute from Stockport to Walsall might not be as romantic as the trans Siberian but still - trains!
Agree. I find I get bored driving after about 100 miles, particularly if on a motorway and I hate the hassle of flying. I have done 2 trips around Italy by train and 1 across Portugal and my regular French cycle trip involves a lot of trains (10 for the last trip) to get to/from our start/end points. They are all really enjoyable and the European trains tend to be on time and very cheap.
French trains are great. They all gripe about the TER but compared to Northern Rail at its worst they’re almost flawless.
Can someone please do something about the wifi on the Eurostar, while we are about it.
I’m on the Eurostar in april. Is it still suffering hideous queues at the termini?
They are better. STP is now ok (used to be queuing round the corner) and they stand there helpfully with the train number and time.
The absurdity of the two customs gates persists (WHICH YOU VOTED FOR, ahem) so it can be luck of the draw at Gare du Nord.
The French border playing silly buggers? You amaze me. Whenever major border problems with the EU are raised, it always seems to be with France. I'm not a massive European traveller, but both of my experiences of leaving/entering the EU since Britain left the EU have been no less seamless than they were when we were a member. But neither of these have involved France.
We're going to Europe in August - the plan is to get the ferry from Hull to Rotterdam, spend time in the low countries, then come back through the tunnel. I have some misgivings about including France in my itinerary because of the potential for silly buggers being played - but it will save us about £250 if we can suck up that risk.
I believe we asked them to take back control. So they did.
But the French playing silly buggers at the border happened before 2016 too, didn't it? It's hardly new.
Nope. Pre-Bxit there was one set of gates.
Wait until the new visa system is introduced for entering the EU. That has the potential to cause chaos
Every major Western country is now introducing something similar, including the UK. The smart countries combine visa-on-arrival rules with biometric scanners at ports of entry and advanced air passenger data.
IIRC the EU scheme will be valid for three years and renewable online, after the initial entry and fingerprint scan.
Sure, but it's the initial entry bit that is the main problem, especially at the Ports and Channel Tunnel for cars as the system doesn't seem to be designed for that.
"The system is expected to cause significant delays. The Port of Dover has previously estimated the additional requirements were likely to add up to 10 minutes for a family of five in a vehicle on their first trip after the EES is introduced, compared with about 45-90 seconds.
Eurotunnel reportedly estimates the average time for processing a car through the French frontier will rise from less than 60 seconds to 5-7 minutes."
If SKS did not visit the Speaker yesterday to persuade him to allow the Labour amendment,Im surprised he has not personally confirmed this..
Starmer visit is not contested
Why is Starmer not facing any flack for doing that then?
He did, yesterday, when it was put about that he threatened the speaker's position if he did not acquiesce. The story has evolved in that Starmer argued that his MPs were receiving death threats and that his motion was designed to unify all of the opinions and move past the narrow partisanship which weaponises the issue.
This is the simple truth about BJO calling Starmer a "genocide enabler" - death threats against MPs as a result. Wherever you stand on this issue, we can't have government by mob. On any issue.
Imagine this site's reaction if Sunak had done something like this
Sunak *has* done this. Repeatedly. As did Truss (the vote on fracking fiasco) and Boris. With growing rows between the treasury bench and the Speaker.
Went to his Office and told him unless he did something then his Party would withdraw support for him? Sunak has upset the Speaker but has never threatened him
That was what allegedly happened and appears to have been fed by the Tories. That does not appear to be what actually happened.
For the speaker to break Parliamentary Standing orders and to go against warnings given to him by the Clerk of the House, the threat must have been real.
He did not break standing orders. His actions were in order. Not conventional, but not out of order.
He overruled convention against his Clerks advice but also was able to use his discretion
If SKS did not visit the Speaker yesterday to persuade him to allow the Labour amendment,Im surprised he has not personally confirmed this..
Starmer visit is not contested
Why is Starmer not facing any flack for doing that then?
He did, yesterday, when it was put about that he threatened the speaker's position if he did not acquiesce. The story has evolved in that Starmer argued that his MPs were receiving death threats and that his motion was designed to unify all of the opinions and move past the narrow partisanship which weaponises the issue.
This is the simple truth about BJO calling Starmer a "genocide enabler" - death threats against MPs as a result. Wherever you stand on this issue, we can't have government by mob. On any issue.
Imagine this site's reaction if Sunak had done something like this
Sunak *has* done this. Repeatedly. As did Truss (the vote on fracking fiasco) and Boris. With growing rows between the treasury bench and the Speaker.
Went to his Office and told him unless he did something then his Party would withdraw support for him? Sunak has upset the Speaker but has never threatened him
That was what allegedly happened and appears to have been fed by the Tories. That does not appear to be what actually happened.
For the speaker to break Parliamentary Standing orders and to go against warnings given to him by the Clerk of the House, the threat must have been real.
The Speaker has provided an explanation as to why he went against convention in this case. People may disagree with that explanation justifying that decision, but but had the BBC story not come out it would have been reasonable enough that outrage would have been far less, possibly confined to the SNP and some Tory grumbling. So it is possible he made the call for the reasons he says he did, not due to threats.
The "Starmer took advantage of his good nature" account does sound more likely, purely from a psychological point of view.
It would be more likely to succeed than an open threat, I think - and would have been far less risky for Starmer if the attempt had been unsuccessful.
If SKS did not visit the Speaker yesterday to persuade him to allow the Labour amendment,Im surprised he has not personally confirmed this..
Starmer visit is not contested
Why is Starmer not facing any flack for doing that then?
He did, yesterday, when it was put about that he threatened the speaker's position if he did not acquiesce. The story has evolved in that Starmer argued that his MPs were receiving death threats and that his motion was designed to unify all of the opinions and move past the narrow partisanship which weaponises the issue.
This is the simple truth about BJO calling Starmer a "genocide enabler" - death threats against MPs as a result. Wherever you stand on this issue, we can't have government by mob. On any issue.
Imagine this site's reaction if Sunak had done something like this
Sunak *has* done this. Repeatedly. As did Truss (the vote on fracking fiasco) and Boris. With growing rows between the treasury bench and the Speaker.
Went to his Office and told him unless he did something then his Party would withdraw support for him? Sunak has upset the Speaker but has never threatened him
That was what allegedly happened and appears to have been fed by the Tories. That does not appear to be what actually happened.
For the speaker to break Parliamentary Standing orders and to go against warnings given to him by the Clerk of the House, the threat must have been real.
The Speaker has provided an explanation as to why he went against convention in this case. People may disagree with that explanation justifying that decision, but had the BBC story not come out it would have been reasonable enough that outrage would have been far less, possibly confined to the SNP and some Tory grumbling. So it is possible he made the call for the reasons he says he did, not due to threats.
How would debating the Labour motion mean there would be more of a debate on the subject to protect MPs?
Jon Craig said last night on Sky that the idea that the protection of MPs was the reason for the allowance of the Labour amendment was nonsense.
If SKS did not visit the Speaker yesterday to persuade him to allow the Labour amendment,Im surprised he has not personally confirmed this..
Starmer visit is not contested
Why is Starmer not facing any flack for doing that then?
He did, yesterday, when it was put about that he threatened the speaker's position if he did not acquiesce. The story has evolved in that Starmer argued that his MPs were receiving death threats and that his motion was designed to unify all of the opinions and move past the narrow partisanship which weaponises the issue.
This is the simple truth about BJO calling Starmer a "genocide enabler" - death threats against MPs as a result. Wherever you stand on this issue, we can't have government by mob. On any issue.
Imagine this site's reaction if Sunak had done something like this
Sunak *has* done this. Repeatedly. As did Truss (the vote on fracking fiasco) and Boris. With growing rows between the treasury bench and the Speaker.
Went to his Office and told him unless he did something then his Party would withdraw support for him? Sunak has upset the Speaker but has never threatened him
That was what allegedly happened and appears to have been fed by the Tories. That does not appear to be what actually happened.
For the speaker to break Parliamentary Standing orders and to go against warnings given to him by the Clerk of the House, the threat must have been real.
He did not break standing orders. His actions were in order. Not conventional, but not out of order.
And, as Maggie said,
Advisers advise...
I hope this doesn't happen often. But assuming that the SNP wouldn't redraft their motion to make it more palatable for others (and why should they?) the alternative actions would have led to a worse outcome all round... wouldn't they?
"...Sir Edward Leigh (Con) told the Commons that the Speaker has admitted he made a mistake. The Commons should now “move on”, he said. He said he was opposed to a no confidence motion.
He also called for a government debate on Gaza, to allow all amendments to be considered...
We don't need another debate on Gaza. They twatted about with it yesterday and ended up embarrassing themselves. It might make them feel all important but no one else cares, least of all the people of Gaza or the Israelis. If they were discussing sanctions and aid, real efforts to solve something then that'd be different.
If SKS did not visit the Speaker yesterday to persuade him to allow the Labour amendment,Im surprised he has not personally confirmed this..
Starmer visit is not contested
Why is Starmer not facing any flack for doing that then?
He did, yesterday, when it was put about that he threatened the speaker's position if he did not acquiesce. The story has evolved in that Starmer argued that his MPs were receiving death threats and that his motion was designed to unify all of the opinions and move past the narrow partisanship which weaponises the issue.
This is the simple truth about BJO calling Starmer a "genocide enabler" - death threats against MPs as a result. Wherever you stand on this issue, we can't have government by mob. On any issue.
Imagine this site's reaction if Sunak had done something like this
Sunak *has* done this. Repeatedly. As did Truss (the vote on fracking fiasco) and Boris. With growing rows between the treasury bench and the Speaker.
Went to his Office and told him unless he did something then his Party would withdraw support for him? Sunak has upset the Speaker but has never threatened him
That was what allegedly happened and appears to have been fed by the Tories. That does not appear to be what actually happened.
For the speaker to break Parliamentary Standing orders and to go against warnings given to him by the Clerk of the House, the threat must have been real.
The Speaker has provided an explanation as to why he went against convention in this case. People may disagree with that explanation justifying that decision, but had the BBC story not come out it would have been reasonable enough that outrage would have been far less, possibly confined to the SNP and some Tory grumbling. So it is possible he made the call for the reasons he says he did, not due to threats.
How would debating the Labour motion mean there would be more of a debate on the subject to protect MPs?
Jon Craig said last night on Sky that the idea that the protection of MPs was the reason for the allowance of the Labour amendment was nonsense.
Just because someone's reasoning was nonsense does not mean it could not be sincere.
I don't know if he was threatened and I suspect the two people involved will never admit otherwise so it won't be proven, but people make decisions for stupid reasons too, so threats are not the only explanation of why he made the call.
If SKS did not visit the Speaker yesterday to persuade him to allow the Labour amendment,Im surprised he has not personally confirmed this..
Starmer visit is not contested
Why is Starmer not facing any flack for doing that then?
He did, yesterday, when it was put about that he threatened the speaker's position if he did not acquiesce. The story has evolved in that Starmer argued that his MPs were receiving death threats and that his motion was designed to unify all of the opinions and move past the narrow partisanship which weaponises the issue.
This is the simple truth about BJO calling Starmer a "genocide enabler" - death threats against MPs as a result. Wherever you stand on this issue, we can't have government by mob. On any issue.
Imagine this site's reaction if Sunak had done something like this
Sunak *has* done this. Repeatedly. As did Truss (the vote on fracking fiasco) and Boris. With growing rows between the treasury bench and the Speaker.
Went to his Office and told him unless he did something then his Party would withdraw support for him? Sunak has upset the Speaker but has never threatened him
That was what allegedly happened and appears to have been fed by the Tories. That does not appear to be what actually happened.
For the speaker to break Parliamentary Standing orders and to go against warnings given to him by the Clerk of the House, the threat must have been real.
The Speaker has provided an explanation as to why he went against convention in this case. People may disagree with that explanation justifying that decision, but had the BBC story not come out it would have been reasonable enough that outrage would have been far less, possibly confined to the SNP and some Tory grumbling. So it is possible he made the call for the reasons he says he did, not due to threats.
How would debating the Labour motion mean there would be more of a debate on the subject to protect MPs?
Jon Craig said last night on Sky that the idea that the protection of MPs was the reason for the allowance of the Labour amendment was nonsense.
Finding wording that most MPs could agree to is less likely to lead to threats than having a motion carefully worded to get most MPs to vote against it.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges I spoke to an MP yesterday who told me he had weighed up his own physical safety when deciding on how to vote on yesterday’s Gaza motion. We have crossed a line now. We are not a properly functioning democracy if this is a factor in how our elected representatives act.
I just don't take this in good faith. I'm sorry, but the same line was trotted out by SCOTUS post Dobbs when people all over the US started protested the leak that they were going to destroy Roe and essentially make abortion illegal in multiple states, and practically illegal in many more - and it was BS then too. With great power comes great responsibility; and great consequences if you misuse that power. I think online and physical harassment should not happen to anyone, but that doesn't mean all forms of showing disgust with the person tasked to represent you is a threat.
It has become a pattern amongst powerful people, now that social media and such allows people to directly respond to them, to cast all forms of criticism as a threat, or as abuse. And much of the time it just isn't - it's average people sharing their opinion to powerful people who aren't used to having average people question them in such a manner.
The level of threats and abuse around what is going on in Palestine is egregious.
Azerbaijan recently ethnically cleansed Nagorno-Karabakh, but basically no-one in the UK even raised an eyebrow. Large numbers of people have died or been displaced in fighting in Yemen, Sudan and Myanmar, but you see little reporting on any of this. Ditto the ongoing conflict in Syria. No MP has been made to feel unsafe over any of these.
What is happening in Gaza, and Israel/Palestine more broadly, is horrendous and I'm all for people in the UK paying attention to these events, and campaigning for a better way. However, the level of outrage around Palestine is now, and has for some years, been so much greater than other tragedies. This is because parts of the Left have made Palestine a cause célèbre. This had led to a level of protest that leaves politicians and communities feeling threatened. This is not a good thing. This has done nothing to actually improve the situation in Israel/Palestine.
Good post. Passion for and interest in other matters is a good thing. But the level of it on this specific issue is outsized.
Makes you wonder.
Heard a story that an MP who has a personal protective weapon (from association with NI) got close to using it when threatened with a knife.
What would @148grss make of an MP doing the Mozambique Drill on a constituent?
EDIT: How long before MPs not involved in Northern Ireland start asking for personal protective weapons?
Of course people have the right to self defence - although carrying a weapon for self defence is illegal in this country, and I don't see why MPs should be placed above other people who are also dealing with the public.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges I spoke to an MP yesterday who told me he had weighed up his own physical safety when deciding on how to vote on yesterday’s Gaza motion. We have crossed a line now. We are not a properly functioning democracy if this is a factor in how our elected representatives act.
I just don't take this in good faith. I'm sorry, but the same line was trotted out by SCOTUS post Dobbs when people all over the US started protested the leak that they were going to destroy Roe and essentially make abortion illegal in multiple states, and practically illegal in many more - and it was BS then too. With great power comes great responsibility; and great consequences if you misuse that power. I think online and physical harassment should not happen to anyone, but that doesn't mean all forms of showing disgust with the person tasked to represent you is a threat.
It has become a pattern amongst powerful people, now that social media and such allows people to directly respond to them, to cast all forms of criticism as a threat, or as abuse. And much of the time it just isn't - it's average people sharing their opinion to powerful people who aren't used to having average people question them in such a manner.
So aside from firebombings, racist graffiti on offices, threatening letters, emails, phone calls... There is no actual threat to MPs.
Oh, and a few murders.
Gotcha.
Obviously I'm not endorsing acts of violence such as murder or firebombings, or threatening letters or emails. But we have to have a reasonable line.
Taking the firebombing as an example; I look at articles like this:
This article, unnecessarily in my opinion, notes that protests happened outside a different MPs surgery. What has that got to do with the issue of violence? It's the conflation of what I see as good faith engagement in democracy - protest - with this, typically anonymous, violence and threats of violence that I think is bad. Obviously threats against MPs should be taken seriously if they are serious, but we cannot have a situation where people are not allowed to protest MPs out of some general "fear for their safety" - anyone could say that about any protest or demonstration, any mass gathering or just anyone passing them in the street. You need probable cause to strip people of what I think is an important and legitimate method of political expression.
IMV protest is only 'good faith engagement' if it is non-threatening and accepts that there are other reasonable contrary views.
Protest is not 'good faith engagement' if it harms, threatens to harm, or causes genuine fear.
Okay - so people outside an MPs surgery with a clear political purpose to their protest shouldn't be an issue.
If SKS did not visit the Speaker yesterday to persuade him to allow the Labour amendment,Im surprised he has not personally confirmed this..
Starmer visit is not contested
Why is Starmer not facing any flack for doing that then?
He did, yesterday, when it was put about that he threatened the speaker's position if he did not acquiesce. The story has evolved in that Starmer argued that his MPs were receiving death threats and that his motion was designed to unify all of the opinions and move past the narrow partisanship which weaponises the issue.
This is the simple truth about BJO calling Starmer a "genocide enabler" - death threats against MPs as a result. Wherever you stand on this issue, we can't have government by mob. On any issue.
Imagine this site's reaction if Sunak had done something like this
Sunak *has* done this. Repeatedly. As did Truss (the vote on fracking fiasco) and Boris. With growing rows between the treasury bench and the Speaker.
Went to his Office and told him unless he did something then his Party would withdraw support for him? Sunak has upset the Speaker but has never threatened him
That was what allegedly happened and appears to have been fed by the Tories. That does not appear to be what actually happened.
Looks like the average is overreacting to one recent poll with a sample size of 1,100 from American Research Group. YouGov shows zero swing over the same period.
Unfortunately, I think this is more 538's problem than Trump's.
That was a bit harsh on 538. All methods of creating a time series average will have problems with the endpoints, which is a problem for us, because it's the most recent endpoint we're interested in.
If you follow the graph on the opinion poll page for the UK election you will see that the latest but if the average is only provisional, and often changes when more data comes in. Arguably the average at the endpoints should be omitted, and not shown, or at least dashed to show its provisional nature - but, like I said, it's the but people are most interested in.
Comments
I have a special place in my heart for those who think that thuggery, racism etc is OK as long as it is wrapped up in some stuff in an old book.
EDIT: Come to think of it, how long until Mein Kamf is an Old Book of Faith - 100 years? 1,000?
Hoyle had the look of a man that realised his good nature had been taken advantage of and used by Starmer for political purposes (As evidenced by Lucy Powell's speech and the immediate self congratulatory Labour ceasefire tweets on X) when he issued his apology.
As per @Dura_Ace comment Starmer had his own self interest in mind in this one. Which was fair enough.
Remember when she came out from behind the rostrum and did the "ISIS Finger". #pm4pm
I'll sort out my own mob, so it will be other people sitting on the chair with the dynamite under it, watching a slow fuse.
Sounds good to me.
His popularity has cratered
and his supporters seem to be deserting him.
Not reflected in the betting though.
And I don’t think that was an option hence the mess.
Seriously I look at this and think SKS was the only grown up in the room who saw the proposals for the tripwire they were
https://flo.uri.sh/visualisation/16419671/embed?auto=1
As it would be a sign he was good at politics.
See the way that the government can ignore votes that go against it, and often whips its side to abstain.
The SNP and the Conservatives both put up motions that were designed to lose and to put people's backs up. Even if the whole situation wasn't an emotional powder keg, that's crazy.
Only in Westminster is a motion that pretty much everyone is willing to support seen as a bad thing.
Taking the firebombing as an example; I look at articles like this:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/dec/25/police-investigate-suspected-arson-conservative-mp-mike-freer-office
This article, unnecessarily in my opinion, notes that protests happened outside a different MPs surgery. What has that got to do with the issue of violence? It's the conflation of what I see as good faith engagement in democracy - protest - with this, typically anonymous, violence and threats of violence that I think is bad. Obviously threats against MPs should be taken seriously if they are serious, but we cannot have a situation where people are not allowed to protest MPs out of some general "fear for their safety" - anyone could say that about any protest or demonstration, any mass gathering or just anyone passing them in the street. You need probable cause to strip people of what I think is an important and legitimate method of political expression.
Heard a story that an MP who has a personal protective weapon (from association with NI) got close to using it when threatened with a knife.
What would @148grss make of an MP doing the Mozambique Drill on a constituent?
EDIT: How long before MPs not involved in Northern Ireland start asking for personal protective weapons?
I'm curious about how they played it, but even for the standard difficulty for the LDs at getting attention it's been quiet.
Seems more likely that either a Conservative or SNP MP jumped to that conclusion on fairly scant evidence.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/19/eu-fingerprint-checks-uk-travellers-british-passengers-entry-exit-system-facial-scans
It's a dirty business.
Of course the SNP's motion was a tripwire for Labour. And it was their day to lay it as Starmer has straddled Gaza/Hamas fence like every other issue under the sun.
The clerk of the house was very very clear in his letter that Hoyle screwed up acquiescing to Starmer's demands.
Anyway Starmer can't have it both ways, that ridiculous self congratulatory speech by Powell that got rightly cut off at the knees by Winterton and claiming he acted for the safety of MPs. Except he did have the SNP's cake and eat it allowed as Hoyle allowed.
It was a shrewd political move for sure by Starmer enabled by a piss weak speaker, I expect Boothroyd would have told him to sling his hook out of her room pleading for a change in procedure minutes before the vote.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/donald-trump/
I am glad she won't be my MP soon
Protest is not 'good faith engagement' if it harms, threatens to harm, or causes genuine fear.
Subsequently the Speaker's office denied it, and so there is the question of if that is true or if the BBC's source misled them.
But I don't quite know how it has developed that the claim is seen as some invention by opponents or of unclear source (someone called it a Tory invention yesterday). It's pretty clear that someone lied - a journalist, the Speaker, or the journalist's source. But the claim was reported as coming from Labour.
Senior Labour figures told BBC Newsnight Sir Lindsay was left in no doubt Labour was prepared to see him replaced as Speaker after the next general election unless he selected the party's ceasefire amendment for a vote.
They said it was made clear to the Speaker he would need Labour votes to be re-elected and this might not be forthcoming.
However, a source close to the Speaker said the suggestion he was pressurised was "absolutely untrue".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68357080
Or is that different somehow?
https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1760315363542122769?t=-pvEm9ji4qAwvmpxXjL-ug&s=19
They are braver (and far stupider because they are doing it hopefully knowing the downsides) than I am.
https://twitter.com/Int_Machines
I'm quite excited about this one.
IIRC the EU scheme will be valid for three years and renewable online, after the initial entry and fingerprint scan.
"...Sir Edward Leigh (Con) told the Commons that the Speaker has admitted he made a mistake. The Commons should now “move on”, he said. He said he was opposed to a no confidence motion.
He also called for a government debate on Gaza, to allow all amendments to be considered...
They stood up for the SNP . Bless, pass me the sick bag !
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
The SNP runs their own Parliament, if they wish to submit totally meaningless motions on international conflict.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
He's also one of the longest serving MPs, so if MPs are looking for a temporary Speaker to see them through to the GE...
He will not be accused of being Starmer's fan, however fair or unfair that might be.
More importantly IMV, he potentially placed non-Labour MPs in increased danger, not less.
German economic downturn deepens unexpectedly in February
Business activity in the manufacturing sector fell to 42.3 in February from 45.5 the month before, well below analysts' forecasts for a rise to 46.1.
This is what Natasha Clark from LBC posted on X last night
"Multiple Tory MPs say Penny Mordaunt pulled tonight’s amendment because govt did not have votes to support Israel ‘humanitarian pause’ motion."
Rumour is that too many Tories had told Whips they were minded to back the Labour motion in favour of full fat ceasefire...
When this was put to her this morning, Caulfield replied:
"No, that’s definitely not true"...
He wants to re-run yesterday’s debate in government time with Lindsay Hoyle in the chair
But credit where it's due.
Now, they've definitely seized on it, but it is not as though they invented it, they are making use of stories in the press, and not the Tory client press either but the BBC. Who may well be wrong, it's denied after all, but that's on them if so.
Chilling.....
https://twitter.com/ireallyhateyou/status/1760354792663142557
https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1760315363542122769?t=cGiOHaiVlCZfFUxQNEsxlg&s=19
Unfortunately, I think this is more 538's problem than Trump's.
"The system is expected to cause significant delays. The Port of Dover has previously estimated the additional requirements were likely to add up to 10 minutes for a family of five in a vehicle on their first trip after the EES is introduced, compared with about 45-90 seconds.
Eurotunnel reportedly estimates the average time for processing a car through the French frontier will rise from less than 60 seconds to 5-7 minutes."
It would be more likely to succeed than an open threat, I think - and would have been far less risky for Starmer if the attempt had been unsuccessful.
Jon Craig said last night on Sky that the idea that the protection of MPs was the reason for the allowance of the Labour amendment was nonsense.
https://x.com/theipaper/status/1760352769553080404?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Advisers advise...
I hope this doesn't happen often. But assuming that the SNP wouldn't redraft their motion to make it more palatable for others (and why should they?) the alternative actions would have led to a worse outcome all round... wouldn't they?
https://twitter.com/tweetSP0RT/status/1760645157836210668
I don't know if he was threatened and I suspect the two people involved will never admit otherwise so it won't be proven, but people make decisions for stupid reasons too, so threats are not the only explanation of why he made the call.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJpus3eLiDE
Ribgy also reported that multiple Labour MPs had plead with him earlier in the week to allow them to vote on the Labour amendment.
If you follow the graph on the opinion poll page for the UK election you will see that the latest but if the average is only provisional, and often changes when more data comes in. Arguably the average at the endpoints should be omitted, and not shown, or at least dashed to show its provisional nature - but, like I said, it's the but people are most interested in.