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.
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.
There are a lot more than two people involved. Hoyle has an "open door" policy, and met a lot of MPs this week. Which probably accounts for the several conflicting stories.
(((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.
As long as they don't interrupt the MP's surgery, or prevent people attending.
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.
That doesn't actually name Starmer, as Watt goes on to say that "the Speaker met multiple MPs this week because he has an open door policy".
Ribgy also reported that multiple Labour MPs had plead with him earlier in the week to allow them to vote on the Labour amendment.
It's true that it doesn't name Starmer specifically, but if it was the case that Labour figures threatened the Speaker would it really be done behind his back? How would the threat be effective if not backed up by the leadership implicitly?
I was surprised by the initial story as I cannot imagine Starmer being incautious enough to threaten the Speaker and then have internal sources admit to him doing it.
So assuming for the moment the source did not lie to the BBC either they were mistaken, or they let it slip when they were not supposed to, or Starmer authorised the reveal knowing it would be denied so he looks machiavellian and powerful?
All rather murky, I still don't see how Labour benefit from undermining the Speaker's position, so the source going beyond what they were meant to seems plausible.
(((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.
Carrying a firearm for self defence is specifically allowed, in law, at the discretion of the Home Secretary. Further, such weapons are actually provided by the state. As is range time and training.
The reason, usually, is a significant threat to life. Quite a few politicians in Northern Ireland carry.
The Shinners whinned, a while back, that their PPWs were a bit old, and not cool. They wanted SIGs.
The number of actual murders of MPs and assaults on same is getting to a level - at what point can you make a legitimate argument that your life is at specific risk?
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.
That doesn't actually name Starmer, as Watt goes on to say that "the Speaker met multiple MPs this week because he has an open door policy".
Ribgy also reported that multiple Labour MPs had plead with him earlier in the week to allow them to vote on the Labour amendment.
It's true that it doesn't name Starmer specifically, but if it was the case that Labour figures threatened the Speaker would it really be done behind his back? How would the threat be effective if not backed up by the leadership implicitly?
I was surprised by the initial story as I cannot imagine Starmer being incautious enough to threaten the Speaker and then have internal sources admit to him doing it.
So assuming for the moment the source did not lie to the BBC either they were mistaken, or they let it slip when they were not supposed to, or Starmer authorised the reveal knowing it would be denied so he looks machiavellian and powerful?
My first reaction on hearing this story was that Starmer had suddenly developed balls.
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.
Sir Keir Starmer has "categorically" denied threatening Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle to select Labour's amendment in the Gaza ceasefire debate. The Labour leader said he "simply urged" Sir Lindsay to have "the broadest possible debate" by putting a number of options in front of MPs. "I can categorically tell you that I did not threaten the Speaker in any way whatsoever," he said."
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.
That doesn't actually name Starmer, as Watt goes on to say that "the Speaker met multiple MPs this week because he has an open door policy".
Ribgy also reported that multiple Labour MPs had plead with him earlier in the week to allow them to vote on the Labour amendment.
It's true that it doesn't name Starmer specifically, but if it was the case that Labour figures threatened the Speaker would it really be done behind his back? How would the threat be effective if not backed up by the leadership implicitly?
I was surprised by the initial story as I cannot imagine Starmer being incautious enough to threaten the Speaker and then have internal sources admit to him doing it.
So assuming for the moment the source did not lie to the BBC either they were mistaken, or they let it slip when they were not supposed to, or Starmer authorised the reveal knowing it would be denied so he looks machiavellian and powerful?
My first reaction on hearing this story was that Starmer had suddenly developed balls.
Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, is responding to Flynn.
He says he made a judgment call that did not end up where he expected. He regrets it. He apologises to the SNP. He has made a mistake. He says he will allow an emergency debate under standing order 24 on this.
He will defend all MPs, he says.
He says he never ever wants to pick up a folder to pick up a note about an MP being murdered.
He says he has been shown material that is “absolutely frightening” about the threats to MPs.
Guardian
The police need to act and act hard on this before our democracy goes the way of US where GOP people backed Trump's election fraud nonsense because they were scared for their families.
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.
The very best are in Japan. And Switzerland
Hmm. Having traveled on trains a bit around the world:
Japan: excellent - clean, punctual, quick. System runs like clockwork. Including when it goes wrong, when then it all grinds to a halt. Good value.
Switzerland: very good. Also clean and punctual. But: can be horribly expensive; also, punctual because they're frequently slow.
France: better than Switzerland. Proper 21st century railway (despite 19th/20th century infrastructure). Let down only by iffy stations.
Germany: not nearly as good as you'd expect; frequent delays. Good quality though.
Benelux: Functional.
Italy: Pleasant.
Greece: Probably on strike. If not, slow. Quite good quality though.
Austria: mix of Germany and Switzerland. Naturlich.
Bulgaria: Bloody horrible.
Russia: Excellent, if slow. Everything works. Probably because it dare not do otherwise.
Thailand: not a big network but it works. Great value.
General rule: always go with the cheap option - you meet more normal people that way. (The exception is if travelling overnight, in which case upgrade as far as you can)
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.
There are a lot more than two people involved. Hoyle has an "open door" policy, and met a lot of MPs this week. Which probably accounts for the several conflicting stories.
I was watching PMQs and then the subsequent extraordinary delaying tactics by Labour mps with points of order whilst Starmer was with Hoyle
Starmer has just admitted on Sky he had the discussion with Hoyle
So Starmer is either a flip flopper and weak or a ruthless politician who threatened the Speaker. Being thought of as the latter does have some upsides for Starmer .
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.
Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, is responding to Flynn.
He says he made a judgment call that did not end up where he expected. He regrets it. He apologises to the SNP. He has made a mistake. He says he will allow an emergency debate under standing order 24 on this.
He will defend all MPs, he says.
He says he never ever wants to pick up a folder to pick up a note about an MP being murdered.
He says he has been shown material that is “absolutely frightening” about the threats to MPs.
Guardian
The police need to act and act hard on this before our democracy goes the way of US where GOP people backed Trump's election fraud nonsense because they were scared for their families.
I still fail to see how allowing the labour amendment would have added to the debate yesterday, other than to ensure that SKS did not have a massive mutiny amongst Labour MPs.
Sir Keir Starmer has "categorically" denied threatening Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle to select Labour's amendment in the Gaza ceasefire debate. The Labour leader said he "simply urged" Sir Lindsay to have "the broadest possible debate" by putting a number of options in front of MPs. "I can categorically tell you that I did not threaten the Speaker in any way whatsoever," he said."
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.
I've spent an hour looking into it and barely have a grasp of what is going on.
To most people it's just going to look like stupid Westminster bubble bollocks. And it's even worse for the Tories, who now find themselves siding with the SNP!
If Hoyle resigns then the agitation for a GE will only grow. This feels like the clogged Brexit parliament now.
Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, is responding to Flynn.
He says he made a judgment call that did not end up where he expected. He regrets it. He apologises to the SNP. He has made a mistake. He says he will allow an emergency debate under standing order 24 on this.
He will defend all MPs, he says.
He says he never ever wants to pick up a folder to pick up a note about an MP being murdered.
He says he has been shown material that is “absolutely frightening” about the threats to MPs.
Guardian
The police need to act and act hard on this before our democracy goes the way of US where GOP people backed Trump's election fraud nonsense because they were scared for their families.
I understand that the idea of "going American" on threats to MPs was discussed, some time ago. That is, identify and prosecute as a default.
The police pushed back with the volume of prosecutions that would be required.
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.
That doesn't actually name Starmer, as Watt goes on to say that "the Speaker met multiple MPs this week because he has an open door policy".
Ribgy also reported that multiple Labour MPs had plead with him earlier in the week to allow them to vote on the Labour amendment.
It's true that it doesn't name Starmer specifically, but if it was the case that Labour figures threatened the Speaker would it really be done behind his back? How would the threat be effective if not backed up by the leadership implicitly?
I was surprised by the initial story as I cannot imagine Starmer being incautious enough to threaten the Speaker and then have internal sources admit to him doing it.
So assuming for the moment the source did not lie to the BBC either they were mistaken, or they let it slip when they were not supposed to, or Starmer authorised the reveal knowing it would be denied so he looks machiavellian and powerful?
All rather murky, I still don't see how Labour benefit from undermining the Speaker's position, so the source going beyond what they were meant to seems plausible.
You're assuming that there was a "threat", and that it was effective.
As I've said, it seems more likely to me that he caved in to sob stories from a number of Labour MPs about potential threats to them.
I don't think he should have done so, but equally I find myself in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with Mark Francois, that he shouldn't be sacked for it.
Yes, as is attacking a music festival, slaughtering innocents, abducting, raping etc.
Exactly but that is the trouble. Each side's outrages trigger the extremists on the other side. If there is to be peace, there has to be subjugation or, as in Northern Ireland, an agreement not to be provoked. Israel is currently exploring the first option.
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.
That doesn't actually name Starmer, as Watt goes on to say that "the Speaker met multiple MPs this week because he has an open door policy".
Ribgy also reported that multiple Labour MPs had plead with him earlier in the week to allow them to vote on the Labour amendment.
It's true that it doesn't name Starmer specifically, but if it was the case that Labour figures threatened the Speaker would it really be done behind his back? How would the threat be effective if not backed up by the leadership implicitly?
I was surprised by the initial story as I cannot imagine Starmer being incautious enough to threaten the Speaker and then have internal sources admit to him doing it.
So assuming for the moment the source did not lie to the BBC either they were mistaken, or they let it slip when they were not supposed to, or Starmer authorised the reveal knowing it would be denied so he looks machiavellian and powerful?
All rather murky, I still don't see how Labour benefit from undermining the Speaker's position, so the source going beyond what they were meant to seems plausible.
You're assuming that there was a "threat", and that it was effective.
As I've said, it seems more likely to me that he caved in to sob stories from a number of Labour MPs about potential threats to them.
I don't think he should have done so, but equally I find myself in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with Mark Francois, that he shouldn't be sacked for it.
I agree with you and it is not an uncomfortable position
Sir Keir Starmer has "categorically" denied threatening Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle to select Labour's amendment in the Gaza ceasefire debate. The Labour leader said he "simply urged" Sir Lindsay to have "the broadest possible debate" by putting a number of options in front of MPs. "I can categorically tell you that I did not threaten the Speaker in any way whatsoever," he said."
I think Hoyle should have said he spoke to Starmer. That wasn’t particularly clear yesterday and it looks a bit murky because he formed the same opinion as Starmer was allegedly putting to him.
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.
Depends what you believe the shenanigans were. Some are claiming Starmer threatened to boot him after the next election. Others claim he got a bunch of representation from MPs who were worried about their safety if they couldn’t vote for a motion that threaded the needle between the two positions.
Had the Tories not submitted what was effectively a wrecking amendment then the vote would have been between Labour and SNP versions of the motion. Normally (for some reason of ancient and silly precedent) only the government amendment would be selected. Hoyle chose to hear both amendments, his reasoning being it was a matter of conscience of some gravity. The SNP are upset because they didn’t get to vote on their motion (legit, although it was an obviously bad faith motion in the first place). The Tories are upset because they had procedural jujitsu pulled on them and they’re the only ones allowed to do that dammit.
The Tories withdrew their motion because there were enough Tory rebels to pass Labour’s amendment and then they and the SNP stormed out.
I get that the SNP motion was uncomfortable for Starmer who short months ago was saying it was legitimate for Israel to cut off food and water supplies to Gazan civilians (aka collective punishment), but if the Labour Scottish sub branch was passing motions last weekend that specifically mentioned collective punishment, how was sticking to the line they generally have for the last few months 'bad faith' on the part of the SNP?
Because it included language that was obviously designed to make it unpalatable to Labour MPs. It was a nice bit of clever drafting, but if they’d wanted genuine consensus and not a fight they’d have put up a clean “this house supports an immediate ceasefire” motion. But they didn’t, they included language on collective punishment that they knew Labour MPs would not accept. The motion was written in bad faith to cause Labour political problems. Labour figured out how to break the trap. Tough.
Perhaps if Labour had had genuine consultations and discussions with the SNP rather than lying about it, 'genuine consensus' might have happened. Unlikely, but it definitely wasn't going to happen with all the bad faith smoke screens that Labour were pumping out.
Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, is responding to Flynn.
He says he made a judgment call that did not end up where he expected. He regrets it. He apologises to the SNP. He has made a mistake. He says he will allow an emergency debate under standing order 24 on this.
He will defend all MPs, he says.
He says he never ever wants to pick up a folder to pick up a note about an MP being murdered.
He says he has been shown material that is “absolutely frightening” about the threats to MPs.
Guardian
The police need to act and act hard on this before our democracy goes the way of US where GOP people backed Trump's election fraud nonsense because they were scared for their families.
I understand that the idea of "going American" on threats to MPs was discussed, some time ago. That is, identify and prosecute as a default.
The police pushed back with the volume of prosecutions that would be required.
Really?
Jeez.
Well, we might as well just give up then and just let the far right and the theocrats alternate their death threats to our MPs and let that run the country.
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.
Foreign policy not in the remit of Westminster, as opposed to Holyrood? You really, totally, don't think that is a typo in your post?
Wise MPs would shut up and move on. The SNP have an interest in painting the picture of a broken Westminster system. Otherwise, shut up and solve the important things, such as our strategic nuclear deterrent potentially being useless at a time where Putin is on the march.
Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, is responding to Flynn.
He says he made a judgment call that did not end up where he expected. He regrets it. He apologises to the SNP. He has made a mistake. He says he will allow an emergency debate under standing order 24 on this.
He will defend all MPs, he says.
He says he never ever wants to pick up a folder to pick up a note about an MP being murdered.
He says he has been shown material that is “absolutely frightening” about the threats to MPs.
Guardian
The police need to act and act hard on this before our democracy goes the way of US where GOP people backed Trump's election fraud nonsense because they were scared for their families.
I understand that the idea of "going American" on threats to MPs was discussed, some time ago. That is, identify and prosecute as a default.
The police pushed back with the volume of prosecutions that would be required.
Really?
Jeez.
Well, we might as well just give up then and just let the far right and the theocrats alternate their death threats to our MPs and let that run the country.
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.
That doesn't actually name Starmer, as Watt goes on to say that "the Speaker met multiple MPs this week because he has an open door policy".
Ribgy also reported that multiple Labour MPs had plead with him earlier in the week to allow them to vote on the Labour amendment.
It's true that it doesn't name Starmer specifically, but if it was the case that Labour figures threatened the Speaker would it really be done behind his back? How would the threat be effective if not backed up by the leadership implicitly?
I was surprised by the initial story as I cannot imagine Starmer being incautious enough to threaten the Speaker and then have internal sources admit to him doing it.
So assuming for the moment the source did not lie to the BBC either they were mistaken, or they let it slip when they were not supposed to, or Starmer authorised the reveal knowing it would be denied so he looks machiavellian and powerful?
All rather murky, I still don't see how Labour benefit from undermining the Speaker's position, so the source going beyond what they were meant to seems plausible.
You're assuming that there was a "threat", and that it was effective.
As I've said, it seems more likely to me that he caved in to sob stories from a number of Labour MPs about potential threats to them.
I don't think he should have done so, but equally I find myself in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with Mark Francois, that he shouldn't be sacked for it.
I'm not assuming there was a threat and it was effective - my conclusion in that post was that I find it plausible the unnamed Labour source behind the claim went stronger than they were supposed to, as I don't see why Keir would a) threaten b) tacitly admit to it through a senior Labour source.
What I was saying is that if there was a threat then it need not have been made directly by Starmer to have come from Starmer, since it was noted the Watt post does not say Starmer. Indeed if one was made it would be crazy for it not to have been with his blessing, since it would have no weight behind it otherwise.
And I've said several times I don't think he should be sacked and they need to move on.
Presumably Sunak is trying to decide what his best option is, before choosing the opposite.
The obvious answer is for the PM (and the government) to rise above the issue, get on with the job and paint this as all as silly opposition squabbles. Why they don't do that is bizarre to me.
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.
There are a lot more than two people involved. Hoyle has an "open door" policy, and met a lot of MPs this week. Which probably accounts for the several conflicting stories.
I was watching PMQs and then the subsequent extraordinary delaying tactics by Labour mps with points of order whilst Starmer was with Hoyle
Starmer has just admitted on Sky he had the discussion with Hoyle
Yes, we know. Having a discussion with Hoyle is fine is - as stated - it was to plead for a broad vote to protect the safety of MPs. Starmer and Hoyle both say the same. Only the tittle-tattle put about yesterday disagreed, and so far hasn't been substantiated.
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.
The very best are in Japan. And Switzerland
Hmm. Having traveled on trains a bit around the world:
Japan: excellent - clean, punctual, quick. System runs like clockwork. Including when it goes wrong, when then it all grinds to a halt. Good value.
Switzerland: very good. Also clean and punctual. But: can be horribly expensive; also, punctual because they're frequently slow.
France: better than Switzerland. Proper 21st century railway (despite 19th/20th century infrastructure). Let down only by iffy stations.
Germany: not nearly as good as you'd expect; frequent delays. Good quality though.
Benelux: Functional.
Italy: Pleasant.
Greece: Probably on strike. If not, slow. Quite good quality though.
Austria: mix of Germany and Switzerland. Naturlich.
Bulgaria: Bloody horrible.
Russia: Excellent, if slow. Everything works. Probably because it dare not do otherwise.
Thailand: not a big network but it works. Great value.
General rule: always go with the cheap option - you meet more normal people that way. (The exception is if travelling overnight, in which case upgrade as far as you can)
Great summary thanks, although honestly, if I was the sort of person who wanted to meet 'normal people' is it likely I'd be posting on PB?
Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, is responding to Flynn.
He says he made a judgment call that did not end up where he expected. He regrets it. He apologises to the SNP. He has made a mistake. He says he will allow an emergency debate under standing order 24 on this.
He will defend all MPs, he says.
He says he never ever wants to pick up a folder to pick up a note about an MP being murdered.
He says he has been shown material that is “absolutely frightening” about the threats to MPs.
Guardian
The police need to act and act hard on this before our democracy goes the way of US where GOP people backed Trump's election fraud nonsense because they were scared for their families.
I suspect the GOP people vote the way they do because it’s what they wish to do - the threats just give them cover to do so.
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.
The very best are in Japan. And Switzerland
Hmm. Having traveled on trains a bit around the world:
Japan: excellent - clean, punctual, quick. System runs like clockwork. Including when it goes wrong, when then it all grinds to a halt. Good value.
Switzerland: very good. Also clean and punctual. But: can be horribly expensive; also, punctual because they're frequently slow.
France: better than Switzerland. Proper 21st century railway (despite 19th/20th century infrastructure). Let down only by iffy stations.
Germany: not nearly as good as you'd expect; frequent delays. Good quality though.
Benelux: Functional.
Italy: Pleasant.
Greece: Probably on strike. If not, slow. Quite good quality though.
Austria: mix of Germany and Switzerland. Naturlich.
Bulgaria: Bloody horrible.
Russia: Excellent, if slow. Everything works. Probably because it dare not do otherwise.
Thailand: not a big network but it works. Great value.
General rule: always go with the cheap option - you meet more normal people that way. (The exception is if travelling overnight, in which case upgrade as far as you can)
I found Italy very punctual as well. The guards seem to use a stop watch before releasing the train.
Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, is responding to Flynn.
He says he made a judgment call that did not end up where he expected. He regrets it. He apologises to the SNP. He has made a mistake. He says he will allow an emergency debate under standing order 24 on this.
He will defend all MPs, he says.
He says he never ever wants to pick up a folder to pick up a note about an MP being murdered.
He says he has been shown material that is “absolutely frightening” about the threats to MPs.
Guardian
The police need to act and act hard on this before our democracy goes the way of US where GOP people backed Trump's election fraud nonsense because they were scared for their families.
I understand that the idea of "going American" on threats to MPs was discussed, some time ago. That is, identify and prosecute as a default.
The police pushed back with the volume of prosecutions that would be required.
Really?
Jeez.
Well, we might as well just give up then and just let the far right and the theocrats alternate their death threats to our MPs and let that run the country.
It's not helped by partisanship: for instance people who complain that Diane Abbott was the most abused MP. When the study was for female MPs, and the abuse of male MPs was, apparently, unimportant.
Most people will say Hoyle apologized , accepted his error and MPs should accept that .
The SNP and Tories continuing to go after him just looks spiteful .
You can't have a speaker who has demonstrated that he is not impartial
He has been very fair during his time as Speaker . Because of what’s happened he would likely have gone that extra mile in the future. The SNP should accept the apology instead of just looking vindictive and unwilling to accept an earnest apology .
The SNP were deliberately trying to embarrass Labour with their motion, as they’d successfully done in November.
That’s politics of course, but this issue right now is deeply toxic and MP fears of violence are real.
The Speaker made a judgment call. No rules were broken, debate was not stifled, but convention was discarded. I’m not sure what I decision I might have made in his position. He has, in any case, apologised for how things turned out.
Calls for a VONC in the Speaker are absurd and grotesque.
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.
I've spent an hour looking into it and barely have a grasp of what is going on.
To most people it's just going to look like stupid Westminster bubble bollocks. And it's even worse for the Tories, who now find themselves siding with the SNP!
If Hoyle resigns then the agitation for a GE will only grow. This feels like the clogged Brexit parliament now.
Most people will say Hoyle apologized , accepted his error and MPs should accept that .
The SNP and Tories continuing to go after him just looks spiteful .
You can't have a speaker who has demonstrated that he is not impartial
He has been very fair during his time as Speaker . Because of what’s happened he would likely have gone that extra mile in the future. The SNP should accept the apology instead of just looking vindictive and unwilling to accept an earnest apology .
They've lost 1/3 of their opposition days per year. Is that being reinstated?
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.
That doesn't actually name Starmer, as Watt goes on to say that "the Speaker met multiple MPs this week because he has an open door policy".
Ribgy also reported that multiple Labour MPs had plead with him earlier in the week to allow them to vote on the Labour amendment.
It's true that it doesn't name Starmer specifically, but if it was the case that Labour figures threatened the Speaker would it really be done behind his back? How would the threat be effective if not backed up by the leadership implicitly?
I was surprised by the initial story as I cannot imagine Starmer being incautious enough to threaten the Speaker and then have internal sources admit to him doing it.
So assuming for the moment the source did not lie to the BBC either they were mistaken, or they let it slip when they were not supposed to, or Starmer authorised the reveal knowing it would be denied so he looks machiavellian and powerful?
My first reaction on hearing this story was that Starmer had suddenly developed balls.
Now you've restarted the trans debate.
Puberty, surely? Starmer's balls finally dropped, whilst the speaker dropped a bollock...
Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, is responding to Flynn.
He says he made a judgment call that did not end up where he expected. He regrets it. He apologises to the SNP. He has made a mistake. He says he will allow an emergency debate under standing order 24 on this.
He will defend all MPs, he says.
He says he never ever wants to pick up a folder to pick up a note about an MP being murdered.
He says he has been shown material that is “absolutely frightening” about the threats to MPs.
Guardian
The police need to act and act hard on this before our democracy goes the way of US where GOP people backed Trump's election fraud nonsense because they were scared for their families.
I understand that the idea of "going American" on threats to MPs was discussed, some time ago. That is, identify and prosecute as a default.
The police pushed back with the volume of prosecutions that would be required.
Really?
Jeez.
Well, we might as well just give up then and just let the far right and the theocrats alternate their death threats to our MPs and let that run the country.
I suspect the problem is that if your prosecute every threat people would go to ground and the serious threats would appear from “nowhere”.
(((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.
Carrying a firearm for self defence is specifically allowed, in law, at the discretion of the Home Secretary. Further, such weapons are actually provided by the state. As is range time and training.
The reason, usually, is a significant threat to life. Quite a few politicians in Northern Ireland carry.
The Shinners whinned, a while back, that their PPWs were a bit old, and not cool. They wanted SIGs.
The number of actual murders of MPs and assaults on same is getting to a level - at what point can you make a legitimate argument that your life is at specific risk?
Gun Jesus provides..
"...Thanks for tuning in to another video on ForgottenWeapons.com. I'm Ian McCollum, and this is in fact a British L66A1 pistol. Which is in fact a Walther PP in calibre .22 Long Rifle purchased directly from Walther. In 1974 the British government purchased about 3,000, maybe 3,200, of these pistols specifically to issue them out as personal defence weapons to the Ulster Defence Regiment. These guys were of course stationed up in Northern Ireland. It was a dangerous place to be for obvious reasons. And while they had rifles and regular small arms available on duty, a lot of these guys did not have arms available off duty. And that is the purpose of the L66.
It was actually issued out as a personal protective weapon, something that you could in fact conceal carry. Guys who did this would get a military permit card saying that they were authorised to carry it. And I've seen accounts from a number of veterans of the period who said that they were issued these out, and they appreciated having them from time to time. So let's take a closer look, because there are a few distinct things that differentiate this from any other commercial Walther..."
Most people will say Hoyle apologized , accepted his error and MPs should accept that .
The SNP and Tories continuing to go after him just looks spiteful .
You can't have a speaker who has demonstrated that he is not impartial
He has been very fair during his time as Speaker . Because of what’s happened he would likely have gone that extra mile in the future. The SNP should accept the apology instead of just looking vindictive and unwilling to accept an earnest apology .
They've lost 1/3 of their opposition days per year. Is that being reinstated?
Labour should offer one of their days as a gesture of goodwill . The Speaker has already offered an emergency debate and why aren’t the SNP moaning about the Tory tactics , because they pulled their amendment the SNP ended up without a vote .
Regardless the SNP and Tories bringing down the Speaker is a very poor look .
I note almost every centrist Dad here is fine with what Starmer and Hoyle have done
My general reaction when Erskine May needs to be referred to is despair and despondence about how badly our elected representatives behave. My specific reaction here not particularly different. As far as I can tell Starmer was pushing his luck, Hoyle maybe wrong call and definitely poor communication, then the SNP and Tories threw toys out of pram. Not going to make me look favourably on any of them.
The truth is of course all this is unimportant in the grander scheme.
On that note, I'm guessing Israel doesn't really give a hoot about the PR of all this now. Some of the stuff coming out the Knesset is utterly bonkers.
I note almost every centrist Dad here is fine with what Starmer and Hoyle have done
My general reaction when Erskine May needs to be referred to is despair and despondence about how badly our elected representatives behave. My specific reaction here not particularly different. As far as I can tell Starmer was pushing his luck, Hoyle maybe wrong call and definitely poor communication, then the SNP and Tories threw toys out of pram. Not going to make me look favourably on any of them.
Both SNP and the Tories were playing point scoring games while the issue has degenerated into one where violence was likely.
The threats made to MPs, at root are the most unacceptable thing here, but if one way of protecting MPs against those unacceptable threats is to have the widest debate, then that is something that should be done.
I think those saying the speaker should have consulted more widely before making his decision have a point, but I think the broad brush of the decision made was correct here.
The SNP and the Conservative front bench here should take care that they are not seen to be standing against measures that assist the safety of MPs. Mordaunt's performance at the despatch box, in particular, was shameful. They should talk with the speaker and seek to de-escalate not escalate.
If I put myself in the shoes of an MP, I'd have wanted to vote for a ceasefire but would have had difficulty supporting the SNP's wording and having the options available to be able to do that would be essential.
Most people will say Hoyle apologized , accepted his error and MPs should accept that .
The SNP and Tories continuing to go after him just looks spiteful .
You can't have a speaker who has demonstrated that he is not impartial
He has been very fair during his time as Speaker . Because of what’s happened he would likely have gone that extra mile in the future. The SNP should accept the apology instead of just looking vindictive and unwilling to accept an earnest apology .
They've lost 1/3 of their opposition days per year. Is that being reinstated?
Labour should offer one of their days as a gesture of goodwill . The Speaker has already offered an emergency debate and why aren’t the SNP moaning about the Tory tactics , because they pulled their amendment the SNP ended up without a vote .
Regardless the SNP and Tories bringing down the Speaker is a very poor look .
I'd thought the debate was on the procedural issue and I see Graun had to check themselvesd - just posted on their feed it's about the conflict or rather the one outside Westmister. Still, it's not what the SNP have a right to normally, and they should be given that.
If we set all of the partisan bickering aside, did parliament not achieve yesterday what (supposedly) all parties wanted? It debated and passed a motion calling for a ceasefire.
What else matters? Israel and Hamas will ignore it anyway.
Starmer Soprano ruthless Mafia boss threatening to stick a horses head in Hoyles bed ! Or the spineless gimp Sunak !
There is definitely some dissonance in the Tory criticism of Starmer. Do they want the public to believe he is a weak flip flopper who will be manipulated by the left and the SNP or is he a ruthless authoritarian who will do anything to get his way?
The combination of both just doesn't sound particularly plausible.
The threats made to MPs, at root are the most unacceptable thing here, but if one way of protecting MPs against those unacceptable threats is to have the widest debate, then that is something that should be done.
I think those saying the speaker should have consulted more widely before making his decision have a point, but I think the broad brush of the decision made was correct here.
The SNP and the Conservative front bench here should take care that they are not seen to be standing against measures that assist the safety of MPs. Mordaunt's performance at the despatch box, in particular, was shameful. They should talk with the speaker and seek to de-escalate not escalate.
If I put myself in the shoes of an MP, I'd have wanted to vote for a ceasefire but would have had difficulty supporting the SNP's wording and having the options available to be able to do that would be essential.
Why wasn't that brought up and discussed with all parties well in advance (as others have queried)? That's a non-partisan issue affecting par;liamentary business. It is a serious one and needs to be done properly.
It's not something that SKS should be allowed to use in a partisan situation to get himself out of a tight spot.
The threats made to MPs, at root are the most unacceptable thing here, but if one way of protecting MPs against those unacceptable threats is to have the widest debate, then that is something that should be done.
I think those saying the speaker should have consulted more widely before making his decision have a point, but I think the broad brush of the decision made was correct here.
The SNP and the Conservative front bench here should take care that they are not seen to be standing against measures that assist the safety of MPs. Mordaunt's performance at the despatch box, in particular, was shameful. They should talk with the speaker and seek to de-escalate not escalate.
If I put myself in the shoes of an MP, I'd have wanted to vote for a ceasefire but would have had difficulty supporting the SNP's wording and having the options available to be able to do that would be essential.
Bearing in mind that David Amess and Jo Cox were killed and other like Timms have nearly died, MPs safety needs to be taken very seriously. It's not a subject for party games.
Can you imagine working in a place where two colleagues were murdered for doing their job?
Bearing in mind that David Amess and Jo Cox were killed and other like Timms have nearly died, MPs safety needs to be taken very seriously. It's not a subject for party games.
Can you imagine working in a place where two colleagues were murdered for doing their job?
I note almost every centrist Dad here is fine with what Starmer and Hoyle have done
My general reaction when Erskine May needs to be referred to is despair and despondence about how badly our elected representatives behave. My specific reaction here not particularly different. As far as I can tell Starmer was pushing his luck, Hoyle maybe wrong call and definitely poor communication, then the SNP and Tories threw toys out of pram. Not going to make me look favourably on any of them.
But isn't the problem here that Erskine May was looked into and then wilfully ignored?
If we set all of the partisan bickering aside, did parliament not achieve yesterday what (supposedly) all parties wanted? It debated and passed a motion calling for a ceasefire.
What else matters? Israel and Hamas will ignore it anyway.
Conclusion: there are people who value partisan bickering more than they value calling for a ceasefire.
The threats made to MPs, at root are the most unacceptable thing here, but if one way of protecting MPs against those unacceptable threats is to have the widest debate, then that is something that should be done.
I think those saying the speaker should have consulted more widely before making his decision have a point, but I think the broad brush of the decision made was correct here.
The SNP and the Conservative front bench here should take care that they are not seen to be standing against measures that assist the safety of MPs. Mordaunt's performance at the despatch box, in particular, was shameful. They should talk with the speaker and seek to de-escalate not escalate.
If I put myself in the shoes of an MP, I'd have wanted to vote for a ceasefire but would have had difficulty supporting the SNP's wording and having the options available to be able to do that would be essential.
Labour should have used one of their opposition days to put their motion
I note almost every centrist Dad here is fine with what Starmer and Hoyle have done
My general reaction when Erskine May needs to be referred to is despair and despondence about how badly our elected representatives behave. My specific reaction here not particularly different. As far as I can tell Starmer was pushing his luck, Hoyle maybe wrong call and definitely poor communication, then the SNP and Tories threw toys out of pram. Not going to make me look favourably on any of them.
But isn't the problem here that Erskine May was looked into and then wilfully ignored?
I shall leave that for the subject experts, which is definitely not me.
If we set all of the partisan bickering aside, did parliament not achieve yesterday what (supposedly) all parties wanted? It debated and passed a motion calling for a ceasefire.
What else matters? Israel and Hamas will ignore it anyway.
Conclusion: there are people who value partisan bickering more than they value calling for a ceasefire.
The ceasefire calls are for domestic party political reasons rather than international diplomacy anyway so swings and roundabouts.
The threats made to MPs, at root are the most unacceptable thing here, but if one way of protecting MPs against those unacceptable threats is to have the widest debate, then that is something that should be done.
I think those saying the speaker should have consulted more widely before making his decision have a point, but I think the broad brush of the decision made was correct here.
The SNP and the Conservative front bench here should take care that they are not seen to be standing against measures that assist the safety of MPs. Mordaunt's performance at the despatch box, in particular, was shameful. They should talk with the speaker and seek to de-escalate not escalate.
If I put myself in the shoes of an MP, I'd have wanted to vote for a ceasefire but would have had difficulty supporting the SNP's wording and having the options available to be able to do that would be essential.
Mordaunt is actually supportive of the Speaker
She needs to stfu with the outrage . The Tories pulling their amendment was a big part of the problem . Now she’s trying to score political points .
The threats made to MPs, at root are the most unacceptable thing here, but if one way of protecting MPs against those unacceptable threats is to have the widest debate, then that is something that should be done.
I think those saying the speaker should have consulted more widely before making his decision have a point, but I think the broad brush of the decision made was correct here.
The SNP and the Conservative front bench here should take care that they are not seen to be standing against measures that assist the safety of MPs. Mordaunt's performance at the despatch box, in particular, was shameful. They should talk with the speaker and seek to de-escalate not escalate.
If I put myself in the shoes of an MP, I'd have wanted to vote for a ceasefire but would have had difficulty supporting the SNP's wording and having the options available to be able to do that would be essential.
Labour should have used one of their opposition days to put their motion
Not hijack SNP's one by threatening the Speaker
Yep, 4 opportunities for Labour to lay motions nixxing the SNP's obvious tactic post October 17th:
05/12/2023, 09/01/2024, 23/01/2024, 06/02/2024 could have done it on any one of those days.
The threats made to MPs, at root are the most unacceptable thing here, but if one way of protecting MPs against those unacceptable threats is to have the widest debate, then that is something that should be done.
I think those saying the speaker should have consulted more widely before making his decision have a point, but I think the broad brush of the decision made was correct here.
The SNP and the Conservative front bench here should take care that they are not seen to be standing against measures that assist the safety of MPs. Mordaunt's performance at the despatch box, in particular, was shameful. They should talk with the speaker and seek to de-escalate not escalate.
If I put myself in the shoes of an MP, I'd have wanted to vote for a ceasefire but would have had difficulty supporting the SNP's wording and having the options available to be able to do that would be essential.
Labour should have used one of their opposition days to put their motion
Not hijack SNP's one by threatening the Speaker
How could they bump their day before the SNP one?
Great idea shame about the fundamental flaw in your argument
I note almost every centrist Dad here is fine with what Starmer and Hoyle have done
My general reaction when Erskine May needs to be referred to is despair and despondence about how badly our elected representatives behave. My specific reaction here not particularly different. As far as I can tell Starmer was pushing his luck, Hoyle maybe wrong call and definitely poor communication, then the SNP and Tories threw toys out of pram. Not going to make me look favourably on any of them.
But isn't the problem here that Erskine May was looked into and then wilfully ignored?
I shall leave that for the subject experts, which is definitely not me.
The Clerk prsetty much said so? But like you IANAE.
If we set all of the partisan bickering aside, did parliament not achieve yesterday what (supposedly) all parties wanted? It debated and passed a motion calling for a ceasefire.
What else matters? Israel and Hamas will ignore it anyway.
Conclusion: there are people who value partisan bickering more than they value calling for a ceasefire.
There are people (the SNP) who seem happy for violence to occur to score political points for lols
The threats made to MPs, at root are the most unacceptable thing here, but if one way of protecting MPs against those unacceptable threats is to have the widest debate, then that is something that should be done.
I think those saying the speaker should have consulted more widely before making his decision have a point, but I think the broad brush of the decision made was correct here.
The SNP and the Conservative front bench here should take care that they are not seen to be standing against measures that assist the safety of MPs. Mordaunt's performance at the despatch box, in particular, was shameful. They should talk with the speaker and seek to de-escalate not escalate.
If I put myself in the shoes of an MP, I'd have wanted to vote for a ceasefire but would have had difficulty supporting the SNP's wording and having the options available to be able to do that would be essential.
Agreed re Mordaunt totally partisan and hypocritical, real playing to the gallery.
I note almost every centrist Dad here is fine with what Starmer and Hoyle have done
My general reaction when Erskine May needs to be referred to is despair and despondence about how badly our elected representatives behave. My specific reaction here not particularly different. As far as I can tell Starmer was pushing his luck, Hoyle maybe wrong call and definitely poor communication, then the SNP and Tories threw toys out of pram. Not going to make me look favourably on any of them.
But isn't the problem here that Erskine May was looked into and then wilfully ignored?
I shall leave that for the subject experts, which is definitely not me.
The Clerk prsetty much said so? But like you IANAE.
Clerk says it’s impossible - Labour says without it we have reason (see the attached documents) that this will lead to attacks and possibly another mirder.
What would you do in those circumstances - follow the clerk or do something else?
Comments
Which probably accounts for the several conflicting stories.
I was surprised by the initial story as I cannot imagine Starmer being incautious enough to threaten the Speaker and then have internal sources admit to him doing it.
So assuming for the moment the source did not lie to the BBC either they were mistaken, or they let it slip when they were not supposed to, or Starmer authorised the reveal knowing it would be denied so he looks machiavellian and powerful?
All rather murky, I still don't see how Labour benefit from undermining the Speaker's position, so the source going beyond what they were meant to seems plausible.
The reason, usually, is a significant threat to life. Quite a few politicians in Northern Ireland carry.
The Shinners whinned, a while back, that their PPWs were a bit old, and not cool. They wanted SIGs.
The number of actual murders of MPs and assaults on same is getting to a level - at what point can you make a legitimate argument that your life is at specific risk?
"Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention (20-21 Feb)
Con: 20% (-4 from 14-15 Feb)
Lab: 46% (+2)
Lib Dem: 9% (=)
Reform UK: 13% (+2)
Green: 7% (-1)
SNP: 4% (+1)"
Ouch !!
Sir Keir Starmer has "categorically" denied threatening Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle to select Labour's amendment in the Gaza ceasefire debate.
The Labour leader said he "simply urged" Sir Lindsay to have "the broadest possible debate" by putting a number of options in front of MPs.
"I can categorically tell you that I did not threaten the Speaker in any way whatsoever," he said."
https://news.sky.com/story/uk-politics-sunak-starmer-general-election-vote-labour-tories-speaker-sky-news-politics-hub-12593360
He says he made a judgment call that did not end up where he expected. He regrets it. He apologises to the SNP. He has made a mistake. He says he will allow an emergency debate under standing order 24 on this.
He will defend all MPs, he says.
He says he never ever wants to pick up a folder to pick up a note about an MP being murdered.
He says he has been shown material that is “absolutely frightening” about the threats to MPs.
Guardian
The police need to act and act hard on this before our democracy goes the way of US where GOP people backed Trump's election fraud nonsense because they were scared for their families.
Japan: excellent - clean, punctual, quick. System runs like clockwork. Including when it goes wrong, when then it all grinds to a halt. Good value.
Switzerland: very good. Also clean and punctual. But: can be horribly expensive; also, punctual because they're frequently slow.
France: better than Switzerland. Proper 21st century railway (despite 19th/20th century infrastructure). Let down only by iffy stations.
Germany: not nearly as good as you'd expect; frequent delays. Good quality though.
Benelux: Functional.
Italy: Pleasant.
Greece: Probably on strike. If not, slow. Quite good quality though.
Austria: mix of Germany and Switzerland. Naturlich.
Bulgaria: Bloody horrible.
Russia: Excellent, if slow. Everything works. Probably because it dare not do otherwise.
Thailand: not a big network but it works. Great value.
General rule: always go with the cheap option - you meet more normal people that way. (The exception is if travelling overnight, in which case upgrade as far as you can)
Starmer has just admitted on Sky he had the discussion with Hoyle
I was pointing out that there isn't actually a source for the claim that Starmer threatened Hoyle. The Watt tweet is quite ambiguous on that point.
https://www.seat61.com
To most people it's just going to look like stupid Westminster bubble bollocks. And it's even worse for the Tories, who now find themselves siding with the SNP!
If Hoyle resigns then the agitation for a GE will only grow. This feels like the clogged Brexit parliament now.
The police pushed back with the volume of prosecutions that would be required.
As I've said, it seems more likely to me that he caved in to sob stories from a number of Labour MPs about potential threats to them.
I don't think he should have done so, but equally I find myself in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with Mark Francois, that he shouldn't be sacked for it.
The SNP and Tories continuing to go after him just looks spiteful .
Of course by the same token I blame all you fuckers for wasting my life by telling me when I asked but there you go.
Jeez.
Well, we might as well just give up then and just let the far right and the theocrats alternate their death threats to our MPs and let that run the country.
https://x.com/KevinASchofield/status/1760636088010289312?s=20
Presumably Sunak is trying to decide what his best option is, before choosing the opposite.
What I was saying is that if there was a threat then it need not have been made directly by Starmer to have come from Starmer, since it was noted the Watt post does not say Starmer. Indeed if one was made it would be crazy for it not to have been with his blessing, since it would have no weight behind it otherwise.
And I've said several times I don't think he should be sacked and they need to move on.
Perhaps they did not threaten him.
Portugal is very good as well.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/05/diane-abbott-more-abused-than-any-other-mps-during-election
(Note the URL compared to the actual headline, which was altered., but people *still* refer to it..)
That’s politics of course, but this issue right now is deeply toxic and MP fears of violence are real.
The Speaker made a judgment call. No rules were broken, debate was not stifled, but convention was discarded. I’m not sure what I decision I might have made in his position. He has, in any case, apologised for how things turned out.
Calls for a VONC in the Speaker are absurd and grotesque.
"...Thanks for tuning in to another video on ForgottenWeapons.com. I'm Ian McCollum, and this is in fact a British L66A1 pistol. Which is in fact a Walther PP in calibre .22 Long Rifle purchased directly from Walther. In 1974 the British government purchased about 3,000, maybe 3,200, of these pistols specifically to issue them out as personal defence weapons to the Ulster Defence Regiment. These guys were of course stationed up in Northern Ireland. It was a dangerous place to be for obvious reasons. And while they had rifles and regular small arms available on duty, a lot of these guys did not have arms available off duty. And that is the purpose of the L66.
It was actually issued out as a personal protective weapon, something that you could in fact conceal carry. Guys who did this would get a military permit card saying that they were authorised to carry it. And I've seen accounts from a number of veterans of the period who said that they were issued these out, and they appreciated having them from time to time. So let's take a closer look, because there are a few distinct things that differentiate this from any other commercial Walther..."
"British L66A1: A Pistol for Northern Ireland", Ian McCollum/Forgotten Weapons, 18 Nov 2020, YouTube, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isej7X4CHjE
Regardless the SNP and Tories bringing down the Speaker is a very poor look .
I simply urge
You threaten
He considers the safety of MPs.
But not excited about the alternative, either.
But it also behoves MPs not to play political games around such explosive issues.
On that note, I'm guessing Israel doesn't really give a hoot about the PR of all this now. Some of the stuff coming out the Knesset is utterly bonkers.
So I have zero sympathy with anyone
The threats made to MPs, at root are the most unacceptable thing here, but if one way of protecting MPs against those unacceptable threats is to have the widest debate, then that is something that should be done.
I think those saying the speaker should have consulted more widely before making his decision have a point, but I think the broad
brush of the decision made was correct here.
The SNP and the Conservative front bench here should take care that they are not seen to be standing against measures that assist the safety of MPs. Mordaunt's performance at the despatch box, in particular, was shameful. They should talk with the speaker and seek to de-escalate not escalate.
If I put myself in the shoes of an MP, I'd have wanted to vote for a ceasefire but would have had difficulty supporting the SNP's wording and having the options available to be able to do that would be essential.
What else matters? Israel and Hamas will ignore it anyway.
The combination of both just doesn't sound particularly plausible.
It's not something that SKS should be allowed to use in a partisan situation to get himself out of a tight spot.
Can you imagine working in a place where two colleagues were murdered for doing their job?
Not hijack SNP's one by threatening the Speaker
05/12/2023, 09/01/2024, 23/01/2024, 06/02/2024 could have done it on any one of those days.
Great idea shame about the fundamental flaw in your argument
What would you do in those circumstances - follow the clerk or do something else?