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.
Is it wise to set the precedent that threats to MPs will result in proceedings in the commons being modified? Don't like an upcoming vote? Storm a few constituency offices and they'll tone it down in response.
I think there's always been an element of snobbery wrt Lindsay Hoyle, probably mainly because of his accent.
I think that's true but that's something that has set the UK apart from other countries for years. Why else did English private schools have elocution lessons......
Yes, as is attacking a music festival, slaughtering innocents, abducting, raping etc.
Clown
Which bit do you find funny? I hate what is happening in Gaza, but I am aware that its been and still is a two way affair, Hamas has the power to release the hostages and ask for a ceasefire.
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?
No. Standing Orders are what govern proceedings. Not only did Hoyle quote SO31 as the reason for selecting amendments in the order chosen, he cited previous precedents where that had happened.
Again, it was in order. He then went on to bemoan the "outdated" SO31 forcing this process. This is wholly different to Bercow who got off on making the rules up as he saw fit.
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?
Call a meeting with all the leaders to agree the way forward
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.
Is it wise to set the precedent that threats to MPs will result in proceedings in the commons being modified? Don't like an upcoming vote? Storm a few constituency offices and they'll tone it down in response.
Blistering stuff from Mordaunt just now in the Commons. I'm not sure she's actually helping matters, but it's astonishing that she's not front-runner for next Tory leader.
I enjoy a teacher Mordant 1 .. 2 .. 3 ..4 rant.
But "putting his Party before the Country" thrown by a Tory Minister against *anybody* else at the moment demolishes the whole effect.
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.
Is it wise to set the precedent that threats to MPs will result in proceedings in the commons being modified? Don't like an upcoming vote? Storm a few constituency offices and they'll tone it down in response.
That is the real danger here
That’s already a danger. And it needs cross-party attention and cross-party remedies.
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?
The clerk said no such thing. He wrote to Hoyle stating that his actions "represent a departure from the long-established convention"
He then notes that:
a) Your decision is not specifically precluded by any Standing Order; b) The Speaker and his Deputies have complete discretion regarding the order in which to call Members to speak; c) The Speaker has discretion over which amendments to select; d) There have been two occasions in the last 25 years or so when an amendment has been moved by an opposition party Member from a party other than the one to which the day had been allotted (as well as one when a government backbencher moved an amendment) and on one of those occasions, the Official Opposition Member was called to move his amendment before a minister was called – however, in those few circumstances, no Government amendment had been tabled; and e) You have been motivated by giving the House what you considered to be the widest choice of decisions on alternative propositions, on a subject of immense importance, on which people in and outside the House have the strongest of views.
Latest EMA, including that YouGov poll at 10% weighting, has a Labour majority of 272. And Greens increasing their number of seats by 100% with Bristol Central.
Blistering stuff from Mordaunt just now in the Commons. I'm not sure she's actually helping matters, but it's astonishing that she's not front-runner for next Tory leader.
I enjoy a teacher Mordant 1 .. 2 .. 3 ..4 rant.
But "putting his Party before the Country" thrown by a Tory Minister against *anybody* else at the moment demolishes the whole effect.
It would be a bit more credible if it wasn't a Tory government that illegally prorogued parliament.
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?
Insofar as the press have a place of work, Gazan journos (the ones left alive anyway) could probably give you chapter and verse on that.
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
If you count "he was in the wrong but has apologised, let's all take a moment to reflect" as being supportive!
Mordaunt's been vigorously stirring the pot - faint praise for Hoyle, tipping ordure over Winterton, praising the clerks for the advice that Hoyle ignored, damning them for the advice on whether last night's vote stands... and, above all else, hinting at dark deeds from the opposition whilst portraying the government's antics as the principled defence of the poor, weak SNP.
Completely contradictory nonsense, of course - it can't all be right (not even half of it can!) - but she's certainly making the most of the opportunity...
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.
Having the “widest of debates” doesn’t make any difference. Those who have been threatened or feel threatened are going to vote for whatever they think will lead to that threat going away. When that happens democracy has been badly damaged because an MP is now clearly biddable by threat and intimidation.
It also leaves those MPs who wish to vote for what they truly blieve in and think is the best option under greater focus as potential targets for threat and intimidation.
Political and “community” leaders should be shouting from the rooftops that threatening those who they disagree with is abhorrent and not tolerable instead of pandering to the vile sections who want to damage our democracy.
All the party leaders should stand together and say that they won’t be calling for any sort of ceasefire until threats and intimidation stop so carry on and your side gets no help or act like decent human beings and protest or lobby lawfully and considerately and more progress is made.
Ultimately this will lead to a necessity of making certain votes secret where MPs are not named for how they voted.
So it’s the wrong way round to demand parliament behaves in a certain way to pressure with threats when in fact Parliament, the police, the security services should be smashing anyone who threatens MPs and their families or staff. It should be an automatic very long prison sentence.
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.
Is it wise to set the precedent that threats to MPs will result in proceedings in the commons being modified? Don't like an upcoming vote? Storm a few constituency offices and they'll tone it down in response.
I don't think anyone changed their vote or opinion in response to threats, it's just that they objected to being put into a position of voting against a ceasefire because the SNP had bundled that with the accusation of collective punishment. So an MP who didn't accept that it was collective punishment would then be accused of voting against a ceasefire.
That seems to be a normal part of Parliamentary games, which is actually lame and something we should have a think about. But in this case it is also putting MPs in danger by being dishonest about their views.
What Hoyle should have done, given the seriousness of the situation, was to bring the parties together so they could have a grown-up discussion (obvs in secret, lol) to get everyone to agree to head this off. The way in which he took his decision makes him look like a Labour patsy, and once the trust in Independence is gone there's no amount of apologising that can bring it back.
I don't think he did anything all that wrong, but he probably does have to go now.
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
SKS snookered himself and the Speaker saved him. It doesn't really matter, for the sake of the impact the Speakers decision will have, whether this was a purely partisan act from the SNP or not. SKS didn't lead the parliamentary movement in favour of a ceasefire, so the SNP took the wind from him - that's a consequence of his actions. SKS whipped his MPs against the SNP motion and looked like he was going to have a big rebellion on his hands - that's a consequence of his actions. Instead of dealing with the situation, which was of his own making, he went to the Speaker and seems to have twisted his arm - either via the threat of unseating him in the next parliament, or leveraging threats against MPs. Either way - he refused to take any responsibility for the political mess he had made and instead made the Speaker fix it for him (essentially throwing him under the bus for good measure).
Maybe this is a skill set that makes you look forward to a Starmer premiership - it doesn't make me think any better of him.
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.
Is it wise to set the precedent that threats to MPs will result in proceedings in the commons being modified? Don't like an upcoming vote? Storm a few constituency offices and they'll tone it down in response.
Sounds fine with me.
{Looks at the mailing list for the Rondas Campesinas}
Might be a bit rough on the Leftists, but hey, it's all about protesting. Right?
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?
The clerk said no such thing. He wrote to Hoyle stating that his actions "represent a departure from the long-established convention"
He then notes that:
a) Your decision is not specifically precluded by any Standing Order; b) The Speaker and his Deputies have complete discretion regarding the order in which to call Members to speak; c) The Speaker has discretion over which amendments to select; d) There have been two occasions in the last 25 years or so when an amendment has been moved by an opposition party Member from a party other than the one to which the day had been allotted (as well as one when a government backbencher moved an amendment) and on one of those occasions, the Official Opposition Member was called to move his amendment before a minister was called – however, in those few circumstances, no Government amendment had been tabled; and e) You have been motivated by giving the House what you considered to be the widest choice of decisions on alternative propositions, on a subject of immense importance, on which people in and outside the House have the strongest of views.
In "vain hope that this season's F1 will be more competitive than last year" news, in today's testing so far, Perez is matching Leclerc's time while Norris is half a second faster (with Sainz fastest, although he's on a quicker tyre).
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
SKS snookered himself and the Speaker saved him. It doesn't really matter, for the sake of the impact the Speakers decision will have, whether this was a purely partisan act from the SNP or not. SKS didn't lead the parliamentary movement in favour of a ceasefire, so the SNP took the wind from him - that's a consequence of his actions. SKS whipped his MPs against the SNP motion and looked like he was going to have a big rebellion on his hands - that's a consequence of his actions. Instead of dealing with the situation, which was of his own making, he went to the Speaker and seems to have twisted his arm - either via the threat of unseating him in the next parliament, or leveraging threats against MPs. Either way - he refused to take any responsibility for the political mess he had made and instead made the Speaker fix it for him (essentially throwing him under the bus for good measure).
Maybe this is a skill set that makes you look forward to a Starmer premiership - it doesn't make me think any better of him.
Centrist Dads and SKS fans disagree apparently.
They seem to find excuses for anything/everything the authoritarian principle free spineless weasel does.
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.
Is it wise to set the precedent that threats to MPs will result in proceedings in the commons being modified? Don't like an upcoming vote? Storm a few constituency offices and they'll tone it down in response.
I don't think anyone changed their vote or opinion on response to threats, it's just that they objected to being put into a position of voting against a ceasefire because the SNP had bundled that with the accusation of collective punishment. So an MP who didn't accept that it was collective punishment would then be accused of voting against a ceasefire.
That seems to be a normal part of Parliamentary games, which is actually lame and something we should have a think about. But in this case it is also putting MPs in danger by being dishonest about their views.
What Hoyle should have done, given the seriousness of the situation, was to bring the parties together so they could have a grown-up discussion (obvs in secret, lol) to get everyone to agree to head this off. The way in which he took his decision makes him look like a Labour patsy, and once the trust in Independence is gone there's no amount of apologising that can bring it back.
I don't think he did anything all that wrong, but he probably does have to go now.
I mean the accusation of "collective punishment" was part of what was considered in at the ICJ and they said it merited further investigation. Saying that Israel is committing collective punishment is not particularly incendiary.
If SKS didn't want to put his MPs in a position of voting against a ceasefire he could have a) used Labour opposition motions to table a motion on a ceasefire or b) not whipped his own MPs to vote against the SNP motion. He put himself in that position after months of political weaselling - that's SKSs fault, not the SNPs.
Why should the SNP, if they believe the wording of their motion, water it down for the benefit of other (opposing) political parties? Especially when SKS had done all the work of putting himself in a corner on the issue. Is it the job of the Speaker to help the LOTO out of sticky political situations? Was the motion out of order? No. So his job was to allow the SNP to table a motion on their opposition day - not let Labour propose an alternative 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.
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?
The clerk said no such thing. He wrote to Hoyle stating that his actions "represent a departure from the long-established convention"
He then notes that:
a) Your decision is not specifically precluded by any Standing Order; b) The Speaker and his Deputies have complete discretion regarding the order in which to call Members to speak; c) The Speaker has discretion over which amendments to select; d) There have been two occasions in the last 25 years or so when an amendment has been moved by an opposition party Member from a party other than the one to which the day had been allotted (as well as one when a government backbencher moved an amendment) and on one of those occasions, the Official Opposition Member was called to move his amendment before a minister was called – however, in those few circumstances, no Government amendment had been tabled; and e) You have been motivated by giving the House what you considered to be the widest choice of decisions on alternative propositions, on a subject of immense importance, on which people in and outside the House have the strongest of views.
The Tories and their fellow travellers really need to take a step back and smell the cordite.
This is developing into a SNP v Speaker spat and is coming to Scotland all the way to the GE
SNP v the English Westminster
SNP bound together with the Tories now in every way. Incompetence. Corruption. Arrogance. And putting partisan bickering and their own survival as a higher priority than the safety of MPs or civilians in Gaza.
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?
The clerk said no such thing. He wrote to Hoyle stating that his actions "represent a departure from the long-established convention"
He then notes that:
a) Your decision is not specifically precluded by any Standing Order; b) The Speaker and his Deputies have complete discretion regarding the order in which to call Members to speak; c) The Speaker has discretion over which amendments to select; d) There have been two occasions in the last 25 years or so when an amendment has been moved by an opposition party Member from a party other than the one to which the day had been allotted (as well as one when a government backbencher moved an amendment) and on one of those occasions, the Official Opposition Member was called to move his amendment before a minister was called – however, in those few circumstances, no Government amendment had been tabled; and e) You have been motivated by giving the House what you considered to be the widest choice of decisions on alternative propositions, on a subject of immense importance, on which people in and outside the House have the strongest of views.
The Tories and their fellow travellers really need to take a step back and smell the cordite.
This is developing into a SNP v Speaker spat and is coming to Scotland all the way to the GE
SNP v the English Westminster
SNP bound together with the Tories now in every way. Incompetence. Corruption. Arrogance. And putting partisan bickering and their own survival as a higher priority than the safety of MPs or civilians in Gaza.
You and I know it does not make the slightest bit of difference to the conflict in Gaza
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?
The clerk said no such thing. He wrote to Hoyle stating that his actions "represent a departure from the long-established convention"
He then notes that:
a) Your decision is not specifically precluded by any Standing Order; b) The Speaker and his Deputies have complete discretion regarding the order in which to call Members to speak; c) The Speaker has discretion over which amendments to select; d) There have been two occasions in the last 25 years or so when an amendment has been moved by an opposition party Member from a party other than the one to which the day had been allotted (as well as one when a government backbencher moved an amendment) and on one of those occasions, the Official Opposition Member was called to move his amendment before a minister was called – however, in those few circumstances, no Government amendment had been tabled; and e) You have been motivated by giving the House what you considered to be the widest choice of decisions on alternative propositions, on a subject of immense importance, on which people in and outside the House have the strongest of views.
The Tories and their fellow travellers really need to take a step back and smell the cordite.
This is developing into a SNP v Speaker spat and is coming to Scotland all the way to the GE
SNP v the English Westminster
SNP bound together with the Tories now in every way. Incompetence. Corruption. Arrogance. And putting partisan bickering and their own survival as a higher priority than the safety of MPs or civilians in Gaza.
Back in their happy zone. The SNP need the Tories.
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.
Is it wise to set the precedent that threats to MPs will result in proceedings in the commons being modified? Don't like an upcoming vote? Storm a few constituency offices and they'll tone it down in response.
I don't think anyone changed their vote or opinion on response to threats, it's just that they objected to being put into a position of voting against a ceasefire because the SNP had bundled that with the accusation of collective punishment. So an MP who didn't accept that it was collective punishment would then be accused of voting against a ceasefire.
That seems to be a normal part of Parliamentary games, which is actually lame and something we should have a think about. But in this case it is also putting MPs in danger by being dishonest about their views.
What Hoyle should have done, given the seriousness of the situation, was to bring the parties together so they could have a grown-up discussion (obvs in secret, lol) to get everyone to agree to head this off. The way in which he took his decision makes him look like a Labour patsy, and once the trust in Independence is gone there's no amount of apologising that can bring it back.
I don't think he did anything all that wrong, but he probably does have to go now.
I mean the accusation of "collective punishment" was part of what was considered in at the ICJ and they said it merited further investigation. Saying that Israel is committing collective punishment is not particularly incendiary.
If SKS didn't want to put his MPs in a position of voting against a ceasefire he could have a) used Labour opposition motions to table a motion on a ceasefire or b) not whipped his own MPs to vote against the SNP motion. He put himself in that position after months of political weaselling - that's SKSs fault, not the SNPs.
Why should the SNP, if they believe the wording of their motion, water it down for the benefit of other (opposing) political parties? Especially when SKS had done all the work of putting himself in a corner on the issue. Is it the job of the Speaker to help the LOTO out of sticky political situations? Was the motion out of order? No. So his job was to allow the SNP to table a motion on their opposition day - not let Labour propose an alternative motion.
It's neither here nor there whether you or I think that collective punishment is a reasonable interpretation of events - it's as clear as anything that the purpose of its inclusion in the motion was to force Labour MPs to vote against a ceasefire. I don't see what is wrong with showing a vote on an amendment? How can democracy function if MPs are unable to record their will by voting on amendments?
It's one of the aspects of Parliamentary procedure that I find most odd.
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?
No, the Clerk advised it would breach precedent, but was within the Speaker's power.
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?
The clerk said no such thing. He wrote to Hoyle stating that his actions "represent a departure from the long-established convention"
He then notes that:
a) Your decision is not specifically precluded by any Standing Order; b) The Speaker and his Deputies have complete discretion regarding the order in which to call Members to speak; c) The Speaker has discretion over which amendments to select; d) There have been two occasions in the last 25 years or so when an amendment has been moved by an opposition party Member from a party other than the one to which the day had been allotted (as well as one when a government backbencher moved an amendment) and on one of those occasions, the Official Opposition Member was called to move his amendment before a minister was called – however, in those few circumstances, no Government amendment had been tabled; and e) You have been motivated by giving the House what you considered to be the widest choice of decisions on alternative propositions, on a subject of immense importance, on which people in and outside the House have the strongest of views.
The Tories and their fellow travellers really need to take a step back and smell the cordite.
This is developing into a SNP v Speaker spat and is coming to Scotland all the way to the GE
SNP v the English Westminster
SNP bound together with the Tories now in every way. Incompetence. Corruption. Arrogance. And putting partisan bickering and their own survival as a higher priority than the safety of MPs or civilians in Gaza.
You and I know it does not make the slightest bit of difference to the conflict in Gaza
Of course! But what the Tories and SNP have shown is that they are incapable of even pretending that it does. A motion was passed for an immediate ceasefire. If any of them actually cared about it, that would be a Good Thing.
But that wasn't the issue being debated, which actually was "Labour are in trouble lets force them to split". The Constenation and Uproar being because they didn't succeed.
Latest EMA, including that YouGov poll at 10% weighting, has a Labour majority of 272. And Greens increasing their number of seats by 100% with Bristol Central.
Though we haven't fished in those waters for decades apparently.
Or have we? In the linked story, Russia says we caught 500,000 tonnes last year; we say nothing. They could be lying; there are precedents; or there might be some technicalities around who owns the trawlers versus who owns the licences.
One aspect of the Hoyle farrago insufficiently discussed is that if he is brought down now, the Tories get to choose his replacement, if they have a degree of unity. If it waits until after the election, it'll almost certainly be a Labour appointment.
One aspect of the Hoyle farrago insufficiently discussed is that if he is brought down now, the Tories get to choose his replacement, if they have a degree of unity. If it waits until after the election, it'll almost certainly be a Labour appointment.
Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker.
If it happens I suspect he'll face Lab/LD opposition at the general election which would be the first time a Speaker hasn't stood unopposed since 1987, I think.
That seems to Baxter to about 34 Tory seats; the other bit of good news is that Tugendhat is one of them.
We brave defenders of the NOM hypothesis have statistical miracles to perform. OTOH, SFAICS, no-one is suggesting remotely that Labour will actually win about 527 seats. Are they?
One aspect of the Hoyle farrago insufficiently discussed is that if he is brought down now, the Tories get to choose his replacement, if they have a degree of unity. If it waits until after the election, it'll almost certainly be a Labour appointment.
Also remarkable that our PB Scots Experts are all assuming the SNP were posting their motion out of malice against Slab, etc. It's a dangerous potential blind spot. Hardy anyone here seems to appreciate that they might honestly consider their motion the right thing to do, whether one agrees with it or not.
Latest EMA, including that YouGov poll at 10% weighting, has a Labour majority of 272. And Greens increasing their number of seats by 100% with Bristol Central.
It's time for Truss.
Imagine the theatre of Theresa May deposing Sunak in a coup and calling an immediate election.
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.
Is it wise to set the precedent that threats to MPs will result in proceedings in the commons being modified? Don't like an upcoming vote? Storm a few constituency offices and they'll tone it down in response.
I don't think anyone changed their vote or opinion on response to threats, it's just that they objected to being put into a position of voting against a ceasefire because the SNP had bundled that with the accusation of collective punishment. So an MP who didn't accept that it was collective punishment would then be accused of voting against a ceasefire.
That seems to be a normal part of Parliamentary games, which is actually lame and something we should have a think about. But in this case it is also putting MPs in danger by being dishonest about their views.
What Hoyle should have done, given the seriousness of the situation, was to bring the parties together so they could have a grown-up discussion (obvs in secret, lol) to get everyone to agree to head this off. The way in which he took his decision makes him look like a Labour patsy, and once the trust in Independence is gone there's no amount of apologising that can bring it back.
I don't think he did anything all that wrong, but he probably does have to go now.
I mean the accusation of "collective punishment" was part of what was considered in at the ICJ and they said it merited further investigation. Saying that Israel is committing collective punishment is not particularly incendiary.
If SKS didn't want to put his MPs in a position of voting against a ceasefire he could have a) used Labour opposition motions to table a motion on a ceasefire or b) not whipped his own MPs to vote against the SNP motion. He put himself in that position after months of political weaselling - that's SKSs fault, not the SNPs.
Why should the SNP, if they believe the wording of their motion, water it down for the benefit of other (opposing) political parties? Especially when SKS had done all the work of putting himself in a corner on the issue. Is it the job of the Speaker to help the LOTO out of sticky political situations? Was the motion out of order? No. So his job was to allow the SNP to table a motion on their opposition day - not let Labour propose an alternative motion.
It's neither here nor there whether you or I think that collective punishment is a reasonable interpretation of events - it's as clear as anything that the purpose of its inclusion in the motion was to force Labour MPs to vote against a ceasefire. I don't see what is wrong with showing a vote on an amendment? How can democracy function if MPs are unable to record their will by voting on amendments?
It's one of the aspects of Parliamentary procedure that I find most odd.
More deadly still, the intention was to force Labour to vote either for or against the concept of Israel being guilty of 'collective punishment' - a war crime. The movement as a whole is split down the middle on this - the 'we are the next highly responsible government' bit of course wanting to run a mile from discussing the issue, and the left as a whole, including most Labour members and 100% of the rest, wanting to affirm it.
One aspect of the Hoyle farrago insufficiently discussed is that if he is brought down now, the Tories get to choose his replacement, if they have a degree of unity. If it waits until after the election, it'll almost certainly be a Labour appointment.
Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker.
If it happens I suspect he'll face Lab/LD opposition at the general election which would be the first time a Speaker hasn't stood unopposed since 1987, I think.
I don't count Farage in 2010.
That would be outrageously disrespectful from the LDs/Labour. Although I suspect it would be just the one ( LDs) and not the other.
Nonetheless I can't see JRM as Speaker, despite him being the most appropriate candidate for the job, helping to encourage Conservative voters out on polling day. He sort of personifies why voters might not like the Conservatives.
"Andrew Crook, president of the National Federation of Fish Friers, told Sky News: "British vessels have not fished in Russian waters for decades so it's a bit of a moot point."
One aspect of the Hoyle farrago insufficiently discussed is that if he is brought down now, the Tories get to choose his replacement, if they have a degree of unity. If it waits until after the election, it'll almost certainly be a Labour appointment.
Also remarkable that our PB Scots Experts are all assuming the SNP were posting their motion out of malice against Slab, etc. It's a dangerous potential blind spot. Hardy anyone here seems to appreciate that they might honestly consider their motion the right thing to do, whether one agrees with it or not.
They *might* have considered the motion to be the right thing to do, *and* posted it out of malice against SLab.
I doubt it'll do anything to help people in Scotland. Who surely are the people the SNP - who are not the GNP - are there to serve?
Regarding the Tories hitting 20% with YouGov. Is that lowest ever YouGov, or did Truss do worse?
Truss hit 19% with YouGov.
20-21 October 2022. CON 19% LAB 56% LDM 10% SNP 4% GRN 4% RFM 5%
The most recent poll, with changes from the above poll. CON 20% +1 LAB 46% -10 LDM 9% -1 SNP 4% n/c GRN 7% +3 RFM 13% +8
It's suggestive of Sunak winning back a lot of voters on the centre-right, who were desperate enough under Truss to say they would vote Labour, but having lost almost as many voters to Reform, on his right.
Is there any way he can hold onto votes from both flanks, and take his vote up to 30%?
That seems to Baxter to about 34 Tory seats; the other bit of good news is that Tugendhat is one of them.
We brave defenders of the NOM hypothesis have statistical miracles to perform. OTOH, SFAICS, no-one is suggesting remotely that Labour will actually win about 527 seats. Are they?
Why? Tugendhat is competent and moderate.
Though Yougov seems to have higher voteshares for Labour than other pollsters and higher Reform voteshares especially. If they have 13% for Reform today that is even higher than the 12% UKIP got in 2015 and would be the highest voteshare ever at a UK general election for a party right of the Tories
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.
Agreed. And besides doing nothing to improve the prospects of peace in Palestine, it'll do nothing to improve faith or engagement with politics here at home either.
All the froth and breathless Westminster chatter generated by this is completely disproportionate to the level of interest and importance in the real world.
Who is going to look at our politicians' self-important posturing and bickering over obscure parliamentary procedure and be enthused by the democratic process or feel that it serves their needs?
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.
Is it wise to set the precedent that threats to MPs will result in proceedings in the commons being modified? Don't like an upcoming vote? Storm a few constituency offices and they'll tone it down in response.
I don't think anyone changed their vote or opinion on response to threats, it's just that they objected to being put into a position of voting against a ceasefire because the SNP had bundled that with the accusation of collective punishment. So an MP who didn't accept that it was collective punishment would then be accused of voting against a ceasefire.
That seems to be a normal part of Parliamentary games, which is actually lame and something we should have a think about. But in this case it is also putting MPs in danger by being dishonest about their views.
What Hoyle should have done, given the seriousness of the situation, was to bring the parties together so they could have a grown-up discussion (obvs in secret, lol) to get everyone to agree to head this off. The way in which he took his decision makes him look like a Labour patsy, and once the trust in Independence is gone there's no amount of apologising that can bring it back.
I don't think he did anything all that wrong, but he probably does have to go now.
I mean the accusation of "collective punishment" was part of what was considered in at the ICJ and they said it merited further investigation. Saying that Israel is committing collective punishment is not particularly incendiary.
If SKS didn't want to put his MPs in a position of voting against a ceasefire he could have a) used Labour opposition motions to table a motion on a ceasefire or b) not whipped his own MPs to vote against the SNP motion. He put himself in that position after months of political weaselling - that's SKSs fault, not the SNPs.
Why should the SNP, if they believe the wording of their motion, water it down for the benefit of other (opposing) political parties? Especially when SKS had done all the work of putting himself in a corner on the issue. Is it the job of the Speaker to help the LOTO out of sticky political situations? Was the motion out of order? No. So his job was to allow the SNP to table a motion on their opposition day - not let Labour propose an alternative motion.
It's neither here nor there whether you or I think that collective punishment is a reasonable interpretation of events - it's as clear as anything that the purpose of its inclusion in the motion was to force Labour MPs to vote against a ceasefire. I don't see what is wrong with showing a vote on an amendment? How can democracy function if MPs are unable to record their will by voting on amendments?
It's one of the aspects of Parliamentary procedure that I find most odd.
SNP used their opposition day motion to put forward a motion they wrote. That is their prerogative. Labour then amended that motion to be more amenable to them, and a vote was taken on that first - essentially taking away the SNPs opposition day motion prerogatives. That is a bad precedent. It doesn't matter if the motive was a sincere belief in the collective punishment of Palestinians or was a way to play politics - votes are held all the times on things that are pushed for political reasons; that is the nature of politics.
If SKS didn't like the motion as written, he could vote against it and say on the record that he supports a ceasefire, doesn't agree with the full language of the motion, and make clear that he would put in a motion on the next Labour opposition day, and whip his MPs to do the same. Would that mean he has to deal with a rebellion from his own MPs - sure; that's politics. Would that mean the SNP could crow about Labour voting down their motion and claim they took leadership on the issue - sure; that's politics. Instead SKS leaned on the Speaker to solve his own political problem with a procedural solution. And the Speaker acquiesced, against precedent and advise from his own Clerk, and made new precedent that could become an issue for future opposition day motions - something the SNP will always care about (as they will always likely be a party of opposition) and something the Tories now care about (because they are soon to be in opposition again).
Opposition day motions exist to allow minority parties and independent MPs to have the opportunities to have motions they have written be voted on. That they chose the wording of the motion is the point. It is a form, however small, of power for minority parties. Again - I don't care about tradition or the rules of parliament - but I do think that anything that reduces the ability of smaller parties to propose the things they want in the way they want is bad.
One aspect of the Hoyle farrago insufficiently discussed is that if he is brought down now, the Tories get to choose his replacement, if they have a degree of unity. If it waits until after the election, it'll almost certainly be a Labour appointment.
Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker.
If it happens I suspect he'll face Lab/LD opposition at the general election which would be the first time a Speaker hasn't stood unopposed since 1987, I think.
I don't count Farage in 2010.
That would be outrageously disrespectful from the LDs/Labour. Although I suspect it would be just one and not the other
Nonetheless I can't see JRM as Speaker, despite him being the most appropriate candidate for the job, helping to encourage Conservative voters out on polling day. He sort of personifies why voters might not like the Conservatives.
The last 25 years of speakerdom, if you count yesterday as a resumption of the past, has been an exercise in hammering nails into both the Good Chaps and the Grand Old Man theories of government. The model for Speakers both in character, conduct and how the players should treat them is the best international rugby union referees. It won't always get everything right, but you know where you are with them, and you know what a decision means, and you know what you can and cannot say to them.
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?
No, the Clerk advised it would breach precedent, but was within the Speaker's power.
As the last Speaker discovered, just because you have in theory an extraordinary amount of power, doesn’t mean that it’s prudent to ever use it.
See also the King refusing to enact a law passed by Parliament.
That seems to Baxter to about 34 Tory seats; the other bit of good news is that Tugendhat is one of them.
We brave defenders of the NOM hypothesis have statistical miracles to perform. OTOH, SFAICS, no-one is suggesting remotely that Labour will actually win about 527 seats. Are they?
Why? Tugendhat is competent and moderate.
Though Yougov seems to have higher voteshares for Labour than other pollsters and higher Reform voteshares especially. If they have 13% for Reform today that is even higher than the 12% UKIP got in 2015 and would be the highest voteshare ever at a UK general election for a party right of the Tories
Which is why it would be excellent news, if there were but 34 Tory MPs, that the best available leader would be among the rump.
I’m confused by this - because I can’t think or see what the trigger is for such a significant drop in Tory voting over the past week
Conservative party poll shares from YouGov in February: 21, 22, 24, 20.
You could interpret that as a gradual strengthening in Tory support and then a sudden collapse, but I think it's more likely random variation around the mean.
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?
No, the Clerk advised it would breach precedent, but was within the Speaker's power.
As the last Speaker discovered, just because you have in theory an extraordinary amount of power, doesn’t mean that it’s prudent to ever use it.
See also the King refusing to enact a law passed by Parliament.
Thinking about it, obviously it's a constitutional nonsense but the Queen herself would likely have made an excellent speaker were she not born into her role.
That seems to Baxter to about 34 Tory seats; the other bit of good news is that Tugendhat is one of them.
We brave defenders of the NOM hypothesis have statistical miracles to perform. OTOH, SFAICS, no-one is suggesting remotely that Labour will actually win about 527 seats. Are they?
Why? Tugendhat is competent and moderate.
Though Yougov seems to have higher voteshares for Labour than other pollsters and higher Reform voteshares especially. If they have 13% for Reform today that is even higher than the 12% UKIP got in 2015 and would be the highest voteshare ever at a UK general election for a party right of the Tories
Which is why it would be excellent news, if there were but 34 Tory MPs, that the best available leader would be among the rump.
Oh I see, he holds Tonbridge then albeit Barclay who holds Cambridgeshire NE might still beat him
One aspect of the Hoyle farrago insufficiently discussed is that if he is brought down now, the Tories get to choose his replacement, if they have a degree of unity. If it waits until after the election, it'll almost certainly be a Labour appointment.
Also remarkable that our PB Scots Experts are all assuming the SNP were posting their motion out of malice against Slab, etc. It's a dangerous potential blind spot. Hardy anyone here seems to appreciate that they might honestly consider their motion the right thing to do, whether one agrees with it or not.
The SNP had put forward two opposition day motions, one seeking backing for £28bn annual UK funding for green energy, the other on Gaza.
I have a bit of difficulty with the notion that the fact of the choice of topic and wording of both motions, which in both cases lent itself to causing splits in the Labour ranks, was entirely coincidental to their actual intent.
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.
Is it wise to set the precedent that threats to MPs will result in proceedings in the commons being modified? Don't like an upcoming vote? Storm a few constituency offices and they'll tone it down in response.
I don't think anyone changed their vote or opinion on response to threats, it's just that they objected to being put into a position of voting against a ceasefire because the SNP had bundled that with the accusation of collective punishment. So an MP who didn't accept that it was collective punishment would then be accused of voting against a ceasefire.
That seems to be a normal part of Parliamentary games, which is actually lame and something we should have a think about. But in this case it is also putting MPs in danger by being dishonest about their views.
What Hoyle should have done, given the seriousness of the situation, was to bring the parties together so they could have a grown-up discussion (obvs in secret, lol) to get everyone to agree to head this off. The way in which he took his decision makes him look like a Labour patsy, and once the trust in Independence is gone there's no amount of apologising that can bring it back.
I don't think he did anything all that wrong, but he probably does have to go now.
I mean the accusation of "collective punishment" was part of what was considered in at the ICJ and they said it merited further investigation. Saying that Israel is committing collective punishment is not particularly incendiary.
If SKS didn't want to put his MPs in a position of voting against a ceasefire he could have a) used Labour opposition motions to table a motion on a ceasefire or b) not whipped his own MPs to vote against the SNP motion. He put himself in that position after months of political weaselling - that's SKSs fault, not the SNPs.
Why should the SNP, if they believe the wording of their motion, water it down for the benefit of other (opposing) political parties? Especially when SKS had done all the work of putting himself in a corner on the issue. Is it the job of the Speaker to help the LOTO out of sticky political situations? Was the motion out of order? No. So his job was to allow the SNP to table a motion on their opposition day - not let Labour propose an alternative motion.
It's neither here nor there whether you or I think that collective punishment is a reasonable interpretation of events - it's as clear as anything that the purpose of its inclusion in the motion was to force Labour MPs to vote against a ceasefire. I don't see what is wrong with showing a vote on an amendment? How can democracy function if MPs are unable to record their will by voting on amendments?
It's one of the aspects of Parliamentary procedure that I find most odd.
SNP used their opposition day motion to put forward a motion they wrote. That is their prerogative. Labour then amended that motion to be more amenable to them, and a vote was taken on that first - essentially taking away the SNPs opposition day motion prerogatives. That is a bad precedent. It doesn't matter if the motive was a sincere belief in the collective punishment of Palestinians or was a way to play politics - votes are held all the times on things that are pushed for political reasons; that is the nature of politics.
If SKS didn't like the motion as written, he could vote against it and say on the record that he supports a ceasefire, doesn't agree with the full language of the motion, and make clear that he would put in a motion on the next Labour opposition day, and whip his MPs to do the same. Would that mean he has to deal with a rebellion from his own MPs - sure; that's politics. Would that mean the SNP could crow about Labour voting down their motion and claim they took leadership on the issue - sure; that's politics. Instead SKS leaned on the Speaker to solve his own political problem with a procedural solution. And the Speaker acquiesced, against precedent and advise from his own Clerk, and made new precedent that could become an issue for future opposition day motions - something the SNP will always care about (as they will always likely be a party of opposition) and something the Tories now care about (because they are soon to be in opposition again).
Opposition day motions exist to allow minority parties and independent MPs to have the opportunities to have motions they have written be voted on. That they chose the wording of the motion is the point. It is a form, however small, of power for minority parties. Again - I don't care about tradition or the rules of parliament - but I do think that anything that reduces the ability of smaller parties to propose the things they want in the way they want is bad.
By allowing Labour's amendment to be debated and voted on it allows debate to concentrate on the key point if difference between the SNP and Labour positions - whether Israel is guilty of inducing collective punishment on Gaza.
Who does it help to not let MPs vote on that?
It only helps those who wish to create division by lying about the position of their opponents.
One aspect of the Hoyle farrago insufficiently discussed is that if he is brought down now, the Tories get to choose his replacement, if they have a degree of unity. If it waits until after the election, it'll almost certainly be a Labour appointment.
Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker.
If it happens I suspect he'll face Lab/LD opposition at the general election which would be the first time a Speaker hasn't stood unopposed since 1987, I think.
I don't count Farage in 2010.
That would be outrageously disrespectful from the LDs/Labour. Although I suspect it would be just one and not the other
Nonetheless I can't see JRM as Speaker, despite him being the most appropriate candidate for the job, helping to encourage Conservative voters out on polling day. He sort of personifies why voters might not like the Conservatives.
The last 25 years of speakerdom, if you count yesterday as a resumption of the past, has been an exercise in hammering nails into both the Good Chaps and the Grand Old Man theories of government. The model for Speakers both in character, conduct and how the players should treat them is the best international rugby union referees. It won't always get everything right, but you know where you are with them, and you know what a decision means, and you know what you can and cannot say to them.
Nigel Owens is a farmer who detests the Welsh Labour administration. Find him a safe Conservative seat and install him as Speaker.
One aspect of the Hoyle farrago insufficiently discussed is that if he is brought down now, the Tories get to choose his replacement, if they have a degree of unity. If it waits until after the election, it'll almost certainly be a Labour appointment.
Also remarkable that our PB Scots Experts are all assuming the SNP were posting their motion out of malice against Slab, etc. It's a dangerous potential blind spot. Hardy anyone here seems to appreciate that they might honestly consider their motion the right thing to do, whether one agrees with it or not.
The SNP had put forward two opposition day motions, one seeking backing for £28bn annual UK funding for green energy, the other on Gaza.
I have a bit of difficulty with the notion that the fact of the choice of topic and wording of both motions, which in both cases lent itself to causing splits in the Labour ranks, was entirely coincidental to their actual intent.
It doesn't matter if the point of the motions was to cause rifts within Labour ranks, because it's their motion day to do with what they want. Lots of opposition day motions are put forward for political reasons. The issue here is, instead of dealing with the consequences of his own political manoeuvring, SKS played to the ref and the ref bent the rules for him in a way that may lead to that being more common, and reduces the power of minority voices in the House. That, overall, is a bad thing.
One aspect of the Hoyle farrago insufficiently discussed is that if he is brought down now, the Tories get to choose his replacement, if they have a degree of unity. If it waits until after the election, it'll almost certainly be a Labour appointment.
Also remarkable that our PB Scots Experts are all assuming the SNP were posting their motion out of malice against Slab, etc. It's a dangerous potential blind spot. Hardy anyone here seems to appreciate that they might honestly consider their motion the right thing to do, whether one agrees with it or not.
The SNP had put forward two opposition day motions, one seeking backing for £28bn annual UK funding for green energy, the other on Gaza.
I have a bit of difficulty with the notion that the fact of the choice of topic and wording of both motions, which in both cases lent itself to causing splits in the Labour ranks, was entirely coincidental to their actual intent.
Causing splits? *Causing*? When Slab, as TUD observed earlier, actually voted to agree, pretty much, with the SNP on the question at issue?
Seriously, it's a bit like saying "I blame the SNP because they made that motion and it rained afterwards". The way SKS has been dealing with the Corbynite and socialist wing of Labour, I think *any* motion that wasn't along the lines of congratulating Mrs McTavish on the successful rescue of her budgie by the Scottish Fire Service would reveal the splits in the Labour ranks on whatever it was about.
That seems to Baxter to about 34 Tory seats; the other bit of good news is that Tugendhat is one of them.
We brave defenders of the NOM hypothesis have statistical miracles to perform. OTOH, SFAICS, no-one is suggesting remotely that Labour will actually win about 527 seats. Are they?
Why? Tugendhat is competent and moderate.
Though Yougov seems to have higher voteshares for Labour than other pollsters and higher Reform voteshares especially. If they have 13% for Reform today that is even higher than the 12% UKIP got in 2015 and would be the highest voteshare ever at a UK general election for a party right of the Tories
Is there any strong evidence for his ministerial competence ?
He played to the gallery as chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, notably over the withdrawal from Afghanistan (after the event), but didn't display any great powers of analysis in the role.
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.
Is it wise to set the precedent that threats to MPs will result in proceedings in the commons being modified? Don't like an upcoming vote? Storm a few constituency offices and they'll tone it down in response.
I don't think anyone changed their vote or opinion on response to threats, it's just that they objected to being put into a position of voting against a ceasefire because the SNP had bundled that with the accusation of collective punishment. So an MP who didn't accept that it was collective punishment would then be accused of voting against a ceasefire.
That seems to be a normal part of Parliamentary games, which is actually lame and something we should have a think about. But in this case it is also putting MPs in danger by being dishonest about their views.
What Hoyle should have done, given the seriousness of the situation, was to bring the parties together so they could have a grown-up discussion (obvs in secret, lol) to get everyone to agree to head this off. The way in which he took his decision makes him look like a Labour patsy, and once the trust in Independence is gone there's no amount of apologising that can bring it back.
I don't think he did anything all that wrong, but he probably does have to go now.
I mean the accusation of "collective punishment" was part of what was considered in at the ICJ and they said it merited further investigation. Saying that Israel is committing collective punishment is not particularly incendiary.
If SKS didn't want to put his MPs in a position of voting against a ceasefire he could have a) used Labour opposition motions to table a motion on a ceasefire or b) not whipped his own MPs to vote against the SNP motion. He put himself in that position after months of political weaselling - that's SKSs fault, not the SNPs.
Why should the SNP, if they believe the wording of their motion, water it down for the benefit of other (opposing) political parties? Especially when SKS had done all the work of putting himself in a corner on the issue. Is it the job of the Speaker to help the LOTO out of sticky political situations? Was the motion out of order? No. So his job was to allow the SNP to table a motion on their opposition day - not let Labour propose an alternative motion.
It's neither here nor there whether you or I think that collective punishment is a reasonable interpretation of events - it's as clear as anything that the purpose of its inclusion in the motion was to force Labour MPs to vote against a ceasefire. I don't see what is wrong with showing a vote on an amendment? How can democracy function if MPs are unable to record their will by voting on amendments?
It's one of the aspects of Parliamentary procedure that I find most odd.
SNP used their opposition day motion to put forward a motion they wrote. That is their prerogative. Labour then amended that motion to be more amenable to them, and a vote was taken on that first - essentially taking away the SNPs opposition day motion prerogatives. That is a bad precedent. It doesn't matter if the motive was a sincere belief in the collective punishment of Palestinians or was a way to play politics - votes are held all the times on things that are pushed for political reasons; that is the nature of politics.
If SKS didn't like the motion as written, he could vote against it and say on the record that he supports a ceasefire, doesn't agree with the full language of the motion, and make clear that he would put in a motion on the next Labour opposition day, and whip his MPs to do the same. Would that mean he has to deal with a rebellion from his own MPs - sure; that's politics. Would that mean the SNP could crow about Labour voting down their motion and claim they took leadership on the issue - sure; that's politics. Instead SKS leaned on the Speaker to solve his own political problem with a procedural solution. And the Speaker acquiesced, against precedent and advise from his own Clerk, and made new precedent that could become an issue for future opposition day motions - something the SNP will always care about (as they will always likely be a party of opposition) and something the Tories now care about (because they are soon to be in opposition again).
Opposition day motions exist to allow minority parties and independent MPs to have the opportunities to have motions they have written be voted on. That they chose the wording of the motion is the point. It is a form, however small, of power for minority parties. Again - I don't care about tradition or the rules of parliament - but I do think that anything that reduces the ability of smaller parties to propose the things they want in the way they want is bad.
By allowing Labour's amendment to be debated and voted on it allows debate to concentrate on the key point if difference between the SNP and Labour positions - whether Israel is guilty of inducing collective punishment on Gaza.
Who does it help to not let MPs vote on that?
It only helps those who wish to create division by lying about the position of their opponents.
My problem with the SNP motion was that collective punishment does not equal genocide and genocide is what I see in Gaza.
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?
No, the Clerk advised it would breach precedent, but was within the Speaker's power.
As the last Speaker discovered, just because you have in theory an extraordinary amount of power, doesn’t mean that it’s prudent to ever use it.
See also the King refusing to enact a law passed by Parliament.
Thinking about it, obviously it's a constitutional nonsense but the Queen herself would likely have made an excellent speaker were she not born into her role.
She really wouldn't.
The Speaker constantly has to make judgments such as who to call in debate, whether or not to allow emergency motions or questions, adjudicating points of order and so on. They also need to maintain order in a fractious chamber. These aren't straightforward matters at all, and they carry significant scope for embarrassment, accusations of bias etc.
Whilst the Queen had a great deal of respect, that's partly because she avoided saying much - at least not without meticulous planning. That simply isn't a luxury afforded to the Speaker, and there is no reason to think she'd have been particularly good at it.
One aspect of the Hoyle farrago insufficiently discussed is that if he is brought down now, the Tories get to choose his replacement, if they have a degree of unity. If it waits until after the election, it'll almost certainly be a Labour appointment.
Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker.
If it happens I suspect he'll face Lab/LD opposition at the general election which would be the first time a Speaker hasn't stood unopposed since 1987, I think.
I don't count Farage in 2010.
That would be outrageously disrespectful from the LDs/Labour. Although I suspect it would be just the one ( LDs) and not the other.
Nonetheless I can't see JRM as Speaker, despite him being the most appropriate candidate for the job, helping to encourage Conservative voters out on polling day. He sort of personifies why voters might not like the Conservatives.
I dislike the notion that 80,000 or so voters should have no effective choice in their MP just because he or she happens to be Speaker.
It'd be much better if, once elected, the Speaker automatically becomes MP for a special constituency of 'the Palace of Westminster', and a by-election is held in their previous constituency to enable proper representation for the voters there.
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.
Is it wise to set the precedent that threats to MPs will result in proceedings in the commons being modified? Don't like an upcoming vote? Storm a few constituency offices and they'll tone it down in response.
I don't think anyone changed their vote or opinion on response to threats, it's just that they objected to being put into a position of voting against a ceasefire because the SNP had bundled that with the accusation of collective punishment. So an MP who didn't accept that it was collective punishment would then be accused of voting against a ceasefire.
That seems to be a normal part of Parliamentary games, which is actually lame and something we should have a think about. But in this case it is also putting MPs in danger by being dishonest about their views.
What Hoyle should have done, given the seriousness of the situation, was to bring the parties together so they could have a grown-up discussion (obvs in secret, lol) to get everyone to agree to head this off. The way in which he took his decision makes him look like a Labour patsy, and once the trust in Independence is gone there's no amount of apologising that can bring it back.
I don't think he did anything all that wrong, but he probably does have to go now.
I mean the accusation of "collective punishment" was part of what was considered in at the ICJ and they said it merited further investigation. Saying that Israel is committing collective punishment is not particularly incendiary.
If SKS didn't want to put his MPs in a position of voting against a ceasefire he could have a) used Labour opposition motions to table a motion on a ceasefire or b) not whipped his own MPs to vote against the SNP motion. He put himself in that position after months of political weaselling - that's SKSs fault, not the SNPs.
Why should the SNP, if they believe the wording of their motion, water it down for the benefit of other (opposing) political parties? Especially when SKS had done all the work of putting himself in a corner on the issue. Is it the job of the Speaker to help the LOTO out of sticky political situations? Was the motion out of order? No. So his job was to allow the SNP to table a motion on their opposition day - not let Labour propose an alternative motion.
It's neither here nor there whether you or I think that collective punishment is a reasonable interpretation of events - it's as clear as anything that the purpose of its inclusion in the motion was to force Labour MPs to vote against a ceasefire. I don't see what is wrong with showing a vote on an amendment? How can democracy function if MPs are unable to record their will by voting on amendments?
It's one of the aspects of Parliamentary procedure that I find most odd.
SNP used their opposition day motion to put forward a motion they wrote. That is their prerogative. Labour then amended that motion to be more amenable to them, and a vote was taken on that first - essentially taking away the SNPs opposition day motion prerogatives. That is a bad precedent. It doesn't matter if the motive was a sincere belief in the collective punishment of Palestinians or was a way to play politics - votes are held all the times on things that are pushed for political reasons; that is the nature of politics.
If SKS didn't like the motion as written, he could vote against it and say on the record that he supports a ceasefire, doesn't agree with the full language of the motion, and make clear that he would put in a motion on the next Labour opposition day, and whip his MPs to do the same. Would that mean he has to deal with a rebellion from his own MPs - sure; that's politics. Would that mean the SNP could crow about Labour voting down their motion and claim they took leadership on the issue - sure; that's politics. Instead SKS leaned on the Speaker to solve his own political problem with a procedural solution. And the Speaker acquiesced, against precedent and advise from his own Clerk, and made new precedent that could become an issue for future opposition day motions - something the SNP will always care about (as they will always likely be a party of opposition) and something the Tories now care about (because they are soon to be in opposition again).
Opposition day motions exist to allow minority parties and independent MPs to have the opportunities to have motions they have written be voted on. That they chose the wording of the motion is the point. It is a form, however small, of power for minority parties. Again - I don't care about tradition or the rules of parliament - but I do think that anything that reduces the ability of smaller parties to propose the things they want in the way they want is bad.
By allowing Labour's amendment to be debated and voted on it allows debate to concentrate on the key point if difference between the SNP and Labour positions - whether Israel is guilty of inducing collective punishment on Gaza.
Who does it help to not let MPs vote on that?
It only helps those who wish to create division by lying about the position of their opponents.
No - it also helps the Labour leadership in avoiding a rebellion because they chose not to put forward a ceasefire motion earlier, and helps them not look like the SNP is taking leadership on an issue they had let slip by the wayside. This was avoidable if SKS had shown any actual leadership. But he refused to. So the SNP took the initiative on the issue, meaning they got to choose the wording. That is a consequence of SKSs own actions.
One aspect of the Hoyle farrago insufficiently discussed is that if he is brought down now, the Tories get to choose his replacement, if they have a degree of unity. If it waits until after the election, it'll almost certainly be a Labour appointment.
Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker.
If it happens I suspect he'll face Lab/LD opposition at the general election which would be the first time a Speaker hasn't stood unopposed since 1987, I think.
I don't count Farage in 2010.
That would be outrageously disrespectful from the LDs/Labour. Although I suspect it would be just the one ( LDs) and not the other.
Nonetheless I can't see JRM as Speaker, despite him being the most appropriate candidate for the job, helping to encourage Conservative voters out on polling day. He sort of personifies why voters might not like the Conservatives.
I dislike the notion that 80,000 or so voters should have no effective choice in their MP just because he or she happens to be Speaker.
It'd be much better if, once elected, the Speaker automatically becomes MP for a special constituency of 'the Palace of Westminster', and a by-election is held in their previous constituency to enable proper representation for the voters there.
This is...possibly the best suggestion I have read in approx 13 years on PB. Well done @david_herdson
Comments
'MY FATHER'S CAR
IS A JAG-U-AR'
Westminster voting intention:
LAB: 46% (+2)
CON: 20% (-4)
REF: 13% (+2)
LDEM: 9% (-)
GRN: 7% (-1)
via @YouGov, 20 - 21 Feb
Still waiting.
Again, it was in order. He then went on to bemoan the "outdated" SO31 forcing this process. This is wholly different to Bercow who got off on making the rules up as he saw fit.
@BritainElects
·
56m
📊 Labour lead at 26pts
Westminster voting intention:
LAB: 46% (+2)
CON: 20% (-4)
REF: 13% (+2)
LDEM: 9% (-)
GRN: 7% (-1)
via
@YouGov
, 20 - 21 Feb
Congrats! 👍
But "putting his Party before the Country" thrown by a Tory Minister against *anybody* else at the moment demolishes the whole effect.
And it needs cross-party attention and cross-party remedies.
He then notes that:
a) Your decision is not specifically precluded by any Standing Order;
b) The Speaker and his Deputies have complete discretion regarding the order in which to call Members to speak;
c) The Speaker has discretion over which amendments to select;
d) There have been two occasions in the last 25 years or so when an amendment has been moved by an opposition party Member from a party other than the one to which the day had been allotted (as well as one when a government backbencher moved an amendment) and on one of those occasions, the Official Opposition Member was called to move his amendment before a minister was called – however, in those few circumstances, no Government amendment had been tabled; and
e) You have been motivated by giving the House what you considered to be the widest choice of decisions on alternative propositions, on a subject of immense importance, on which people in and outside the House have the strongest of views.
So, a departure from convention. But (a) in order, (b & c) in his discretion, (d) with precedent and (e) motivated by an honest rationale. https://depositedpapers.parliament.uk/depositedpaper/2286140/files
The Tories and their fellow travellers really need to take a step back and smell the cordite.
And Greens increasing their number of seats by 100% with Bristol Central.
Anyway its a bit rich where was he when Abbott, Corbyn and Sultana faced actual physical threats
Not running to the speaker with his own threats to be sure
Minor procedural skulduggery in comparison.
Mordaunt's been vigorously stirring the pot - faint praise for Hoyle, tipping ordure over Winterton, praising the clerks for the advice that Hoyle ignored, damning them for the advice on whether last night's vote stands... and, above all else, hinting at dark deeds from the opposition whilst portraying the government's antics as the principled defence of the poor, weak SNP.
Completely contradictory nonsense, of course - it can't all be right (not even half of it can!) - but she's certainly making the most of the opportunity...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/21/liz-truss-deep-state-cpac-far-right
https://news.sky.com/story/russia-pulls-out-of-fishing-deal-and-tells-britons-to-lose-weight-13078051
Bad news for fish and chips!
It also leaves those MPs who wish to vote for what they truly blieve in and think is the best option under greater focus as potential targets for threat and intimidation.
Political and “community” leaders should be shouting from the rooftops that threatening those who they disagree with is abhorrent and not tolerable instead of pandering to the vile sections who want to damage our democracy.
All the party leaders should stand together and say that they won’t be calling for any sort of ceasefire until threats and intimidation stop so carry on and your side gets no help or act like decent human beings and protest or lobby lawfully and considerately and more progress is made.
Ultimately this will lead to a necessity of making certain votes secret where MPs are not named for how they voted.
So it’s the wrong way round to demand parliament behaves in a certain way to pressure with threats when in fact Parliament, the police, the security services should be smashing anyone who threatens MPs and their families or staff. It should be an automatic very long prison sentence.
That seems to be a normal part of Parliamentary games, which is actually lame and something we should have a think about. But in this case it is also putting MPs in danger by being dishonest about their views.
What Hoyle should have done, given the seriousness of the situation, was to bring the parties together so they could have a grown-up discussion (obvs in secret, lol) to get everyone to agree to head this off. The way in which he took his decision makes him look like a Labour patsy, and once the trust in Independence is gone there's no amount of apologising that can bring it back.
I don't think he did anything all that wrong, but he probably does have to go now.
Maybe this is a skill set that makes you look forward to a Starmer premiership - it doesn't make me think any better of him.
{Looks at the mailing list for the Rondas Campesinas}
Might be a bit rough on the Leftists, but hey, it's all about protesting. Right?
SNP v the English Westminster
https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1760652225649512896
They seem to find excuses for anything/everything the authoritarian principle free spineless weasel does.
If SKS didn't want to put his MPs in a position of voting against a ceasefire he could have a) used Labour opposition motions to table a motion on a ceasefire or b) not whipped his own MPs to vote against the SNP motion. He put himself in that position after months of political weaselling - that's SKSs fault, not the SNPs.
Why should the SNP, if they believe the wording of their motion, water it down for the benefit of other (opposing) political parties? Especially when SKS had done all the work of putting himself in a corner on the issue. Is it the job of the Speaker to help the LOTO out of sticky political situations? Was the motion out of order? No. So his job was to allow the SNP to table a motion on their opposition day - not let Labour propose an alternative motion.
The SNP need the Tories.
It's one of the aspects of Parliamentary procedure that I find most odd.
https://twitter.com/RailStory/status/1760243218103345274
The world's changed a lot in 220 years.
Personal note: my dad's banker was a direct ancestor of Trevithick .
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/02/04/the-liz-truss-comeback-is-on/
But that wasn't the issue being debated, which actually was "Labour are in trouble lets force them to split". The Constenation and Uproar being because they didn't succeed.
Is that lowest ever YouGov, or did Truss do worse?
I think he was referring to Putin not SKS
If it happens I suspect he'll face Lab/LD opposition at the general election which would be the first time a Speaker hasn't stood unopposed since 1987, I think.
I don't count Farage in 2010.
We brave defenders of the NOM hypothesis have statistical miracles to perform. OTOH, SFAICS, no-one is suggesting remotely that Labour will actually win about 527 seats. Are they?
Nonetheless I can't see JRM as Speaker, despite him being the most appropriate candidate for the job, helping to encourage Conservative voters out on polling day. He sort of personifies why voters might not like the Conservatives.
I doubt it'll do anything to help people in Scotland. Who surely are the people the SNP - who are not the GNP - are there to serve?
CON 19%
LAB 56%
LDM 10%
SNP 4%
GRN 4%
RFM 5%
The most recent poll, with changes from the above poll.
CON 20% +1
LAB 46% -10
LDM 9% -1
SNP 4% n/c
GRN 7% +3
RFM 13% +8
It's suggestive of Sunak winning back a lot of voters on the centre-right, who were desperate enough under Truss to say they would vote Labour, but having lost almost as many voters to Reform, on his right.
Is there any way he can hold onto votes from both flanks, and take his vote up to 30%?
Though Yougov seems to have higher voteshares for Labour than other pollsters and higher Reform voteshares especially. If they have 13% for Reform today that is even higher than the 12% UKIP got in 2015 and would be the highest voteshare ever at a UK general election for a party right of the Tories
All the froth and breathless Westminster chatter generated by this is completely disproportionate to the level of interest and importance in the real world.
Who is going to look at our politicians' self-important posturing and bickering over obscure parliamentary procedure and be enthused by the democratic process or feel that it serves their needs?
A plague on all their houses.
If SKS didn't like the motion as written, he could vote against it and say on the record that he supports a ceasefire, doesn't agree with the full language of the motion, and make clear that he would put in a motion on the next Labour opposition day, and whip his MPs to do the same. Would that mean he has to deal with a rebellion from his own MPs - sure; that's politics. Would that mean the SNP could crow about Labour voting down their motion and claim they took leadership on the issue - sure; that's politics. Instead SKS leaned on the Speaker to solve his own political problem with a procedural solution. And the Speaker acquiesced, against precedent and advise from his own Clerk, and made new precedent that could become an issue for future opposition day motions - something the SNP will always care about (as they will always likely be a party of opposition) and something the Tories now care about (because they are soon to be in opposition again).
Opposition day motions exist to allow minority parties and independent MPs to have the opportunities to have motions they have written be voted on. That they chose the wording of the motion is the point. It is a form, however small, of power for minority parties. Again - I don't care about tradition or the rules of parliament - but I do think that anything that reduces the ability of smaller parties to propose the things they want in the way they want is bad.
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/8w0a2xhvy8/TheTimes_VI_Results_221021_W.pdf
See also the King refusing to enact a law passed by Parliament.
21, 22, 24, 20.
You could interpret that as a gradual strengthening in Tory support and then a sudden collapse, but I think it's more likely random variation around the mean.
I have a bit of difficulty with the notion that the fact of the choice of topic and wording of both motions, which in both cases lent itself to causing splits in the Labour ranks, was entirely coincidental to their actual intent.
Who does it help to not let MPs vote on that?
It only helps those who wish to create division by lying about the position of their opponents.
Though I doubt that's his natural habitat.
Seriously, it's a bit like saying "I blame the SNP because they made that motion and it rained afterwards". The way SKS has been dealing with the Corbynite and socialist wing of Labour, I think *any* motion that wasn't along the lines of congratulating Mrs McTavish on the successful rescue of her budgie by the Scottish Fire Service would reveal the splits in the Labour ranks on whatever it was about.
NEW THREAD
He played to the gallery as chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, notably over the withdrawal from Afghanistan (after the event), but didn't display any great powers of analysis in the role.
The Speaker constantly has to make judgments such as who to call in debate, whether or not to allow emergency motions or questions, adjudicating points of order and so on. They also need to maintain order in a fractious chamber. These aren't straightforward matters at all, and they carry significant scope for embarrassment, accusations of bias etc.
Whilst the Queen had a great deal of respect, that's partly because she avoided saying much - at least not without meticulous planning. That simply isn't a luxury afforded to the Speaker, and there is no reason to think she'd have been particularly good at it.
It'd be much better if, once elected, the Speaker automatically becomes MP for a special constituency of 'the Palace of Westminster', and a by-election is held in their previous constituency to enable proper representation for the voters there.