The situation has developed not necessarily to Kemi Badenoch’s advantage – politicalbetting.com
Comments
-
Speaking of whom..ydoethur said:
It certainly would be if Rees-Mogg got it.turbotubbs said:
So what - he's 67 now, time to retire. Its probably not a bad thing for a new parliament to have a new speaker (that by convention would be an ex-conservative).Pulpstar said:
Yes but in the next parliament they almost certainly will.nico679 said:
In this parliament Labour can do zip to remove Hoyle , they don’t have the votes . Craig is being his customary drama queen believing any old nonsense he’s told .Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is what Jon Craig of Sky reportednico679 said:
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky reporting that Starmer threatened to remove Hoyle as speaker if he did not select the labour amendment
This is the one to watch as this develops
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-live-defence-secretary-to-make-commons-statement-after-failed-nuclear-deterrent-launch-12593360
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
Presumably JRM would prefer full fat male breast milk to nasty woke skimmed.
0 -
Something that looks like a giant dildo ought to be right up your... street ?Leon said:
It's an ugly looking thing in the wrong place. Sticking up out of lovely Fitzroviaalgarkirk said:
Agree. But in terms of quality, it deserves Grade I listing. In its day it was an astonishment to be admired. If only other high buildings in London were as interesting.AlsoLei said:
Not much of an asset, these days. The microwave network it was built for was switched off decades ago. The tower itself was used for mobile network control, but that was moved to Vodafone's Newbury site in the mid 2010s. There's a broadcast switching hub in the base, or was until recently - but that could be done anywhere, there's no need for it to be in the middle of London.DecrepiterJohnL said:BT Tower sold to MCR Hotels in £275m deal
https://news.sky.com/story/bt-tower-dials-in-new-future-after-275m-sale-to-hotel-chain-13076819
Another asset sold overseas. MCR Hotels is American.
Otherwise, it's just a very expensive corporate hospitality site. It's Grade II listed, so can't easily be altered to be suitable for anything BT might actually need.
Flogging it to be used as a hotel is probably the best thing that can be done with it.
Pull it down, and London's skyline would begin to make more sense (not hard)
2 -
He just endorsed Hoyle’s decision. Not sure if that’s real or mischief making.MoonRabbit said:
Mogg would be great speaker 👍🏻ydoethur said:
It certainly would be if Rees-Mogg got it.turbotubbs said:
So what - he's 67 now, time to retire. Its probably not a bad thing for a new parliament to have a new speaker (that by convention would be an ex-conservative).Pulpstar said:
Yes but in the next parliament they almost certainly will.nico679 said:
In this parliament Labour can do zip to remove Hoyle , they don’t have the votes . Craig is being his customary drama queen believing any old nonsense he’s told .Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is what Jon Craig of Sky reportednico679 said:
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky reporting that Starmer threatened to remove Hoyle as speaker if he did not select the labour amendment
This is the one to watch as this develops
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-live-defence-secretary-to-make-commons-statement-after-failed-nuclear-deterrent-launch-12593360
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .0 -
In sense of style, it would be atompunk, or the British versionGardenwalker said:The BT Tower is an outstanding example of British techno-modernist-futurism, which probably has an actual name.
Other examples include “Dan Dare”, the TARDIS console, and the Blue Streak missile.
0 -
Did he say “Tory MPs allege” at beginning of claiming it?Big_G_NorthWales said:
No - it was immediately after Hoyle's decision and live on Sky by CraigOnboardG1 said:
Was that on twitter or earlier in the day? I’ve been through the liveblog and the only post from Jon Craig was on the SNP backing Labour’s amendment.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is what Jon Craig of Sky reportednico679 said:
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky reporting that Starmer threatened to remove Hoyle as speaker if he did not select the labour amendment
This is the one to watch as this develops
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-live-defence-secretary-to-make-commons-statement-after-failed-nuclear-deterrent-launch-12593360
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
It would be difficult for Sky news to know/prove either way.0 -
@kateferguson4
🚨🚨🚨
Hearing the SNP are seeking urgent discussions with Tories about getting rid of Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle after todays Gaza amendment row
https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/17603047674341501980 -
Very useful for when the Tories have as many MPs as the SNP now have after the election.No_Offence_Alan said:
I don't know why the Tories are moaning.Scott_xP said:@nicholaswatt
Another Tory MP tells me: this is the moment Lyndsay Hoyle goes from being Lyndsay Hoyle to being John Bercow
In the next parliament it means their amendments can be taken to hijack SNP or Lib Dem opposition motions.0 -
What was the Gaza amendment row? (KISS pls)0
-
I just love how some PB shrewdie thinks it would be better to fire more useless missiles we'll never use at nothing rather than let people keep a bit more of their own money. I thought it was meant to be the younger generation who are educationally subnormal.Dura_Ace said:
Part of the problem was that we only had three boats to maintain the CASD because they had to saw Vanguard in half to refuel her and it took seven years. So very limited opportunities to dedicate a boat to testing.Benpointer said:
Feels like this might be a better use of any recent boost to the Treasury coffers than f*cking tax cuts that we can clearly ill-afford.Dura_Ace said:
That's not really up to the UK because we don't have a test range and probably don't have another test airframe prepared. So it's up to the USN and Lockheed-Martin.Casino_Royale said:And another test is needed ASAP - preferably more than one - where it is seen publicly to work.
The situation could very definitely be improved by much more regular test firings but every Trident shot is 20 million quid so the MoD prefer to "validate" via software simulation.
Mind you every other public service would have a similar claim.0 -
Oh great, the nits and the spartans teaming up...williamglenn said:@kateferguson4
🚨🚨🚨
Hearing the SNP are seeking urgent discussions with Tories about getting rid of Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle after todays Gaza amendment row
https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/17603047674341501980 -
Did you ever get to dine in the revolving restaurant? (Would have been a private invite probably, since it hasn't been open to the public since 1971).Leon said:
It's an ugly looking thing in the wrong place. Sticking up out of lovely Fitzroviaalgarkirk said:
Agree. But in terms of quality, it deserves Grade I listing. In its day it was an astonishment to be admired. If only other high buildings in London were as interesting.AlsoLei said:
Not much of an asset, these days. The microwave network it was built for was switched off decades ago. The tower itself was used for mobile network control, but that was moved to Vodafone's Newbury site in the mid 2010s. There's a broadcast switching hub in the base, or was until recently - but that could be done anywhere, there's no need for it to be in the middle of London.DecrepiterJohnL said:BT Tower sold to MCR Hotels in £275m deal
https://news.sky.com/story/bt-tower-dials-in-new-future-after-275m-sale-to-hotel-chain-13076819
Another asset sold overseas. MCR Hotels is American.
Otherwise, it's just a very expensive corporate hospitality site. It's Grade II listed, so can't easily be altered to be suitable for anything BT might actually need.
Flogging it to be used as a hotel is probably the best thing that can be done with it.
Pull it down, and London's skyline would begin to make more sense (not hard)0 -
It's an SNP opposition day, so normally they have control over the voting and what amendments can be put forward.TOPPING said:What was the Gaza amendment row? (KISS pls)
Hoyle's allowed a labour amendment, effectively bringing them into play when maybe he shouldn't have done.
As I understand it.2 -
So threatening and intimidating MPs works. Useful to know for a multitude of interest groups.AlsoLei said:
The convention was that only government amendments should be selected for opposition motions?nico679 said:
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky reporting that Starmer threatened to remove Hoyle as speaker if he did not select the labour amendment
This is the one to watch as this develops
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-live-defence-secretary-to-make-commons-statement-after-failed-nuclear-deterrent-launch-12593360
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
Yeah, that looks outdated for me. Fine for a two party world, but not when we have significant numbers of MPs from third and fourth parties.
Beth Rigby's reporting that the deciding factor was that MPs feared for their safety if a way wasn't found to defuse the issue:
On the matter on pressure on Speaker. Am told that many MPs made a personal pleas to Sir Lindsay about amendments. MPs' have growing concerns for personal safety after incidents of confrontations & protests over the Israel-Hamas war.
https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/17603060656341240180 -
After the next election, by a vote of the House, I'd guess ?turbotubbs said:
How would he do that?Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky reporting that Starmer threatened to remove Hoyle as speaker if he did not select the labour amendment
This is the one to watch as this develops
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-live-defence-secretary-to-make-commons-statement-after-failed-nuclear-deterrent-launch-12593360
Hardly an idle threat.0 -
Where I have sympathy (!) for the SNP is they don’t get many opposition days. It should be SNP motion vs government amendmentAlsoLei said:
The convention was that only government amendments should be selected for opposition motions?nico679 said:
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky reporting that Starmer threatened to remove Hoyle as speaker if he did not select the labour amendment
This is the one to watch as this develops
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-live-defence-secretary-to-make-commons-statement-after-failed-nuclear-deterrent-launch-12593360
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
Yeah, that looks outdated for me. Fine for a two party world, but not when we have significant numbers of MPs from third and fourth parties.
Beth Rigby's reporting that the deciding factor was that MPs feared for their safety if a way wasn't found to defuse the issue:
On the matter on pressure on Speaker. Am told that many MPs made a personal pleas to Sir Lindsay about amendments. MPs' have growing concerns for personal safety after incidents of confrontations & protests over the Israel-Hamas war.
https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1760306065634124018
Labour have grabbed the airtime.
Will the SNP get to put down an amendment on the next Labour oppo day? I doubt it somehow!
1 -
Mogg is surely going to lose though, isn't he?ydoethur said:
It certainly would be if Rees-Mogg got it.turbotubbs said:
So what - he's 67 now, time to retire. Its probably not a bad thing for a new parliament to have a new speaker (that by convention would be an ex-conservative).Pulpstar said:
Yes but in the next parliament they almost certainly will.nico679 said:
In this parliament Labour can do zip to remove Hoyle , they don’t have the votes . Craig is being his customary drama queen believing any old nonsense he’s told .Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is what Jon Craig of Sky reportednico679 said:
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky reporting that Starmer threatened to remove Hoyle as speaker if he did not select the labour amendment
This is the one to watch as this develops
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-live-defence-secretary-to-make-commons-statement-after-failed-nuclear-deterrent-launch-12593360
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .0 -
Looks awfully like the video from a very early US test launch of Trident II - decades back, IIRC.Theuniondivvie said:Lol, is this the actual footage of the missile launch? Hope someone puts the Curb Your Enthusiasm music to it.
https://x.com/TyrelWallace/status/1760219532566597717?s=20
The video quality is certainly not modern.1 -
Yep it’s a frigging mess because everyone needs their own exact wording to protect their viewpoint.williamglenn said:@kateferguson4
🚨🚨🚨
Hearing the SNP are seeking urgent discussions with Tories about getting rid of Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle after todays Gaza amendment row
https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1760304767434150198
Meanwhile your typical MP is being attacked on both sides because people don’t grasp that we have sod all say in what is happening being a small country x,000 miles away1 -
No - he didn't refer to them just commenting that a furious row was heard between Hoyle, Starmer and the shadow chief whip whilst labour mps were delaying the decision by asking an extraordinary number of lengthy points of orderMoonRabbit said:
Did he say “Tory MPs allege” at beginning of claiming it?Big_G_NorthWales said:
No - it was immediately after Hoyle's decision and live on Sky by CraigOnboardG1 said:
Was that on twitter or earlier in the day? I’ve been through the liveblog and the only post from Jon Craig was on the SNP backing Labour’s amendment.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is what Jon Craig of Sky reportednico679 said:
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky reporting that Starmer threatened to remove Hoyle as speaker if he did not select the labour amendment
This is the one to watch as this develops
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-live-defence-secretary-to-make-commons-statement-after-failed-nuclear-deterrent-launch-12593360
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
It would be difficult for Sky news to know/prove either way.
Craig did say the SNP were furious as were conservative mps
I would just say I watched Sky throughout PMQs, points of order, and then Jon Craig comments which immediately followed1 -
Then Starmer can threaten to bring him back.williamglenn said:@kateferguson4
🚨🚨🚨
Hearing the SNP are seeking urgent discussions with Tories about getting rid of Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle after todays Gaza amendment row
https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1760304767434150198
0 -
SNP teaming up with Tories will play *really well* north of the border...williamglenn said:@kateferguson4
🚨🚨🚨
Hearing the SNP are seeking urgent discussions with Tories about getting rid of Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle after todays Gaza amendment row
https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/17603047674341501980 -
1979 all over again!ydoethur said:
SNP teaming up with Tories will play *really well* north of the border...williamglenn said:@kateferguson4
🚨🚨🚨
Hearing the SNP are seeking urgent discussions with Tories about getting rid of Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle after todays Gaza amendment row
https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/17603047674341501981 -
I went up, as a child, when it was open to the public. And was invited up again, by BT in 2012, as a special guest being one of the London councillors peripherally involved in preparing for the Olympics.Andy_JS said:
Did you ever get to dine in the revolving restaurant? (Would have been a private invite probably, since it hasn't been open to the public since 1971).Leon said:
It's an ugly looking thing in the wrong place. Sticking up out of lovely Fitzroviaalgarkirk said:
Agree. But in terms of quality, it deserves Grade I listing. In its day it was an astonishment to be admired. If only other high buildings in London were as interesting.AlsoLei said:
Not much of an asset, these days. The microwave network it was built for was switched off decades ago. The tower itself was used for mobile network control, but that was moved to Vodafone's Newbury site in the mid 2010s. There's a broadcast switching hub in the base, or was until recently - but that could be done anywhere, there's no need for it to be in the middle of London.DecrepiterJohnL said:BT Tower sold to MCR Hotels in £275m deal
https://news.sky.com/story/bt-tower-dials-in-new-future-after-275m-sale-to-hotel-chain-13076819
Another asset sold overseas. MCR Hotels is American.
Otherwise, it's just a very expensive corporate hospitality site. It's Grade II listed, so can't easily be altered to be suitable for anything BT might actually need.
Flogging it to be used as a hotel is probably the best thing that can be done with it.
Pull it down, and London's skyline would begin to make more sense (not hard)0 -
Re this whole row on the amendment,
The fact is that the Parliament of this country (which has precisely zilch influence on whether or not the fighting in Gaza stops), is getting itself so worked up about the nuances in the wording of motions that will make absolutely no difference, is incredibly depressing. Its student union politics.
4 -
SNP losing 80% of their seats would be an eyebrow raiser, but probably good news for Starmer.Slackbladder said:
1979 all over again!ydoethur said:
SNP teaming up with Tories will play *really well* north of the border...williamglenn said:@kateferguson4
🚨🚨🚨
Hearing the SNP are seeking urgent discussions with Tories about getting rid of Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle after todays Gaza amendment row
https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1760304767434150198
Has he yet again played a blinder? Got the amendment he wanted, removed a speaker he doesn't like *and* fucked the SNP over all in one move?0 -
ThxSlackbladder said:
It's an SNP opposition day, so normally they have control over the voting and what amendments can be put forward.TOPPING said:What was the Gaza amendment row? (KISS pls)
Hoyle's allowed a labour amendment, effectively bringing them into play when maybe he shouldn't have done.
As I understand it.0 -
Labour will be happy for Hoyle stay on until the GE . Why would Labour want to get rid of him now . Tories of course have the votes to remove him after his decision today.Andy_JS said:
They would have the votes if the Tories feel like changing the Speaker as well. I don't know whether any or many of them do feel like that.nico679 said:
In this parliament Labour can do zip to remove Hoyle , they don’t have the votes . Craig is being his customary drama queen believing any old nonsense he’s told .Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is what Jon Craig of Sky reportednico679 said:
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky reporting that Starmer threatened to remove Hoyle as speaker if he did not select the labour amendment
This is the one to watch as this develops
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-live-defence-secretary-to-make-commons-statement-after-failed-nuclear-deterrent-launch-12593360
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
This is the first time Hoyle has made a controversial decision so it does look over the top to remove him .0 -
Sky news used to be quite good on politics. It’s recently gone completely hyperbolic, more interested in drama than journalism.boulay said:
So threatening and intimidating MPs works. Useful to know for a multitude of interest groups.AlsoLei said:
The convention was that only government amendments should be selected for opposition motions?nico679 said:
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky reporting that Starmer threatened to remove Hoyle as speaker if he did not select the labour amendment
This is the one to watch as this develops
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-live-defence-secretary-to-make-commons-statement-after-failed-nuclear-deterrent-launch-12593360
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
Yeah, that looks outdated for me. Fine for a two party world, but not when we have significant numbers of MPs from third and fourth parties.
Beth Rigby's reporting that the deciding factor was that MPs feared for their safety if a way wasn't found to defuse the issue:
On the matter on pressure on Speaker. Am told that many MPs made a personal pleas to Sir Lindsay about amendments. MPs' have growing concerns for personal safety after incidents of confrontations & protests over the Israel-Hamas war.
https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1760306065634124018
Sky’s lefty and ultra woke breakfast show is completely unwatchable now.0 -
It does. From memory maybe late 1980s. Steve Bell drew one If cartoon based on that test.Malmesbury said:
Looks awfully like the video from a very early US test launch of Trident II - decades back, IIRC.Theuniondivvie said:Lol, is this the actual footage of the missile launch? Hope someone puts the Curb Your Enthusiasm music to it.
https://x.com/TyrelWallace/status/1760219532566597717?s=20
The video quality is certainly not modern.
Ah - found it. 1989.
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2013/january/trident-ii-flipping-flop1 -
Rather different analysis here:ydoethur said:
SNP losing 80% of their seats would be an eyebrow raiser, but probably good news for Starmer.Slackbladder said:
1979 all over again!ydoethur said:
SNP teaming up with Tories will play *really well* north of the border...williamglenn said:@kateferguson4
🚨🚨🚨
Hearing the SNP are seeking urgent discussions with Tories about getting rid of Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle after todays Gaza amendment row
https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1760304767434150198
Has he yet again played a blinder? Got the amendment he wanted, removed a speaker he doesn't like *and* fucked the SNP over all in one move?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/21/stakes-are-high-as-snp-and-labour-wrestle-over-gaza-ceasefire-call0 -
In sense of style, it would be atompunk, or the British version. Architecturally it would be modernist, specifically the Modern Movement. I did some work on this back in my old alternate history daysGardenwalker said:The BT Tower is an outstanding example of British techno-modernist-futurism, which probably has an actual name.
Other examples include “Dan Dare”, the TARDIS console, and the Blue Streak missile.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberpunk_derivatives
https://www.architecture.com/explore-architecture/modernism
https://www.mainstreammodern.co.uk/casestudies.aspx/Detail/230/post-office-tower
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberpunk_derivatives
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/an-alternate-trek.298075/post-8478607
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/an-alternate-trek.298075/post-8478628
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/an-alternate-trek.298075/post-8533176
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/an-alternate-trek.298075/post-8535167
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/an-alternate-trek.298075/post-85351672 -
If it is true that Labour essentially told Hoyle they would unseat him if he didn’t call the amendment, which is what the BBC are suggesting, then the other parties should remove the Speaker.nico679 said:
Labour will be happy for Hoyle stay on until the GE . Why would Labour want to get rid of him now . Tories of course have the votes to remove him after his decision today.Andy_JS said:
They would have the votes if the Tories feel like changing the Speaker as well. I don't know whether any or many of them do feel like that.nico679 said:
In this parliament Labour can do zip to remove Hoyle , they don’t have the votes . Craig is being his customary drama queen believing any old nonsense he’s told .Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is what Jon Craig of Sky reportednico679 said:
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky reporting that Starmer threatened to remove Hoyle as speaker if he did not select the labour amendment
This is the one to watch as this develops
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-live-defence-secretary-to-make-commons-statement-after-failed-nuclear-deterrent-launch-12593360
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
This is the first time Hoyle has made a controversial decision so it does look over the top to remove him .
To bow to party political pressure is exactly what a Speaker shouldn’t do, so I’d say they’re well within their rights.
1 -
It seems it depends on whether the government accepts labours amendment or calls for a vote on theirs which puts labour back in the same position as if their amendment hadn't been calledydoethur said:
SNP losing 80% of their seats would be an eyebrow raiser, but probably good news for Starmer.Slackbladder said:
1979 all over again!ydoethur said:
SNP teaming up with Tories will play *really well* north of the border...williamglenn said:@kateferguson4
🚨🚨🚨
Hearing the SNP are seeking urgent discussions with Tories about getting rid of Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle after todays Gaza amendment row
https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1760304767434150198
Has he yet again played a blinder? Got the amendment he wanted, removed a speaker he doesn't like *and* fucked the SNP over all in one move?0 -
Ben Bradshaw is also being a bit economical with the truth. She has met with Transgender and the LGB Alliance. They are not groups Bradshaw approves of. But that is not the point. There are differing opinions and listening to the views of groups other than Stonewall (whose approach has been recently criticised by the courts in recent legal judgments) and Mermaids, currently under investigation by the Charity Commission for serious governance issues, is sensible. He's pissed off that she won't just listen to Stonewall.RochdalePioneers said:
Yep. Yet another lie told by her at the dispatch box. Lying on a multitude of subjects and on repeated occasions.TheScreamingEagles said:The Equalities minister Kemi Badenoch has not met with any LGBT organisations since getting the job in September 2022, but has met two groups which campaign against trans rights, according to a freedom of information request highlighted by Labour MP Ben Bradshaw #PMQs
https://x.com/adambienkov/status/1760282225621270646?s=46
No wonder Tory members are such fans.
It is not an "extensive" list as claimed by Ms Badenoch. But it is certainly wider than, say, the Labour Party, which won't even allow Labour Womens Declaration to have a stall at Labour Conference.
(I will declare an interest here in that I played a very small part in helping with their response a while back to some proposals put forward by Anneliese Dodds.)
1 -
Taking the bigger picture, the fact that opposition parties don’t have some sort of right to table amendments is a denial of rights that they should have - at the end of the day a (united) majority government will win every vote, and it should be a fundamental principle of democracy that amendments that are serious and proper are taken and debated, to give opposing views their voice. That’s the way every local council works, and it is shameful that our parliament is so archaic in its procedure.nico679 said:
Labour will be happy for Hoyle stay on until the GE . Why would Labour want to get rid of him now . Tories of course have the votes to remove him after his decision today.Andy_JS said:
They would have the votes if the Tories feel like changing the Speaker as well. I don't know whether any or many of them do feel like that.nico679 said:
In this parliament Labour can do zip to remove Hoyle , they don’t have the votes . Craig is being his customary drama queen believing any old nonsense he’s told .Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is what Jon Craig of Sky reportednico679 said:
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky reporting that Starmer threatened to remove Hoyle as speaker if he did not select the labour amendment
This is the one to watch as this develops
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-live-defence-secretary-to-make-commons-statement-after-failed-nuclear-deterrent-launch-12593360
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
This is the first time Hoyle has made a controversial decision so it does look over the top to remove him .2 -
SNP to vote for the Labour motion now.0
-
Well it is the left we're talking about here.numbertwelve said:Re this whole row on the amendment,
The fact is that the Parliament of this country (which has precisely zilch influence on whether or not the fighting in Gaza stops), is getting itself so worked up about the nuances in the wording of motions that will make absolutely no difference, is incredibly depressing. Its student union politics.0 -
Vanilla dupe0
-
I agree, with the added thought that we should just abandon the strategic nuclear deterrent and invest in far cheaper tactical nuclear weapons, with various payloads and delivery systems, such as by air. These are independent, and are way scarier to dodgy dictators and bad regimes than a doomsday weapon that we'd only ever use when we've been obliterated in a nuclear strike, and then probably wouldn't work anyway.Leon said:
Personally, I have always felt we should have gone the French route, and developed our own truly indy deterrent. Expensive, but ultimately worth itFrankBooth said:
Is it wise of us to have a nuclear deterrent that is dependent upon another country? Is it in the US's interest for us to have a functioning system or would it be better that we didn't so we'd then be more reliant on Uncle Sam?Leon said:Who is making our Trident missiles? Is it Boeing?
"Boeing 757-200 Diverted From Route After Suffering Damage To One Of Its Wings"
https://x.com/zerohedge/status/1760302382905237815?s=20
Jeez. It sounds like the wing simply.... fell apart
????
Instead we have ended up with a deterrent wholly dependent on the goodwill of an ally, who might be minded to tell us to fuck off, and now it seems it possibly doesn't work?
We should be urgently looking into the development of an entirely UK deterrent. Perhaps we could unite with Australia, as part of AUKUS, I dunno. They must fancy having a deterrent with China looming...0 -
No it doesn’t. The Tories and SNP should walk the walk and remove him, if they are mouthing off he’s gone bercow and is in Starmer’s pocket, but then don’t actually act and do anything about it? He can easily be replaced by his able deputies who won’t be in Starmer’s pocket.nico679 said:
Labour will be happy for Hoyle stay on until the GE . Why would Labour want to get rid of him now . Tories of course have the votes to remove him after his decision today.Andy_JS said:
They would have the votes if the Tories feel like changing the Speaker as well. I don't know whether any or many of them do feel like that.nico679 said:
In this parliament Labour can do zip to remove Hoyle , they don’t have the votes . Craig is being his customary drama queen believing any old nonsense he’s told .Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is what Jon Craig of Sky reportednico679 said:
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky reporting that Starmer threatened to remove Hoyle as speaker if he did not select the labour amendment
This is the one to watch as this develops
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-live-defence-secretary-to-make-commons-statement-after-failed-nuclear-deterrent-launch-12593360
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
This is the first time Hoyle has made a controversial decision so it does look over the top to remove him .0 -
It's a opposition day, so bugger all to do with the government, surely ?Big_G_NorthWales said:
It seems it depends on whether the government accepts labours amendment or calls for a vote on theirs which puts labour back in the same position as if their amendment hadn't been calledydoethur said:
SNP losing 80% of their seats would be an eyebrow raiser, but probably good news for Starmer.Slackbladder said:
1979 all over again!ydoethur said:
SNP teaming up with Tories will play *really well* north of the border...williamglenn said:@kateferguson4
🚨🚨🚨
Hearing the SNP are seeking urgent discussions with Tories about getting rid of Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle after todays Gaza amendment row
https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1760304767434150198
Has he yet again played a blinder? Got the amendment he wanted, removed a speaker he doesn't like *and* fucked the SNP over all in one move?0 -
It's a Bercowesque Brexit type of precedent.Pulpstar said:IIUC this is 1 of 3 SNP opposition days. Labour have 17. Hoyle is effectively surrendering the day to Labour because it'd be awkward for them if the SNP had as much control if normal procedures were followed. Goldsmith notes this in his acerbic letter.
This to my mind is the worst day of Hoyle's speakership.
Spoiler: This is not a good thing.2 -
So Tory MPs are the source of the so called Labour threat to remove Hoyle !
Basically a load of tosh.0 -
I do see that, and can also see how the ordering of the amendments - with the Labour one to be called first - exacerbates the insult felt by the SNP.StillWaters said:
Where I have sympathy (!) for the SNP is they don’t get many opposition days. It should be SNP motion vs government amendmentAlsoLei said:
The convention was that only government amendments should be selected for opposition motions?nico679 said:
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky reporting that Starmer threatened to remove Hoyle as speaker if he did not select the labour amendment
This is the one to watch as this develops
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-live-defence-secretary-to-make-commons-statement-after-failed-nuclear-deterrent-launch-12593360
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
Yeah, that looks outdated for me. Fine for a two party world, but not when we have significant numbers of MPs from third and fourth parties.
Beth Rigby's reporting that the deciding factor was that MPs feared for their safety if a way wasn't found to defuse the issue:
On the matter on pressure on Speaker. Am told that many MPs made a personal pleas to Sir Lindsay about amendments. MPs' have growing concerns for personal safety after incidents of confrontations & protests over the Israel-Hamas war.
https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1760306065634124018
Labour have grabbed the airtime.
Will the SNP get to put down an amendment on the next Labour oppo day? I doubt it somehow!
On the other hand, the SNP's main opponent at the moment is Labour, and Flynn does his best to turn PMQs into LOTOQs every week.
There doesn't seem to be any sign of a return to two party politics in the near future, so we do need to have some way of dealing with situations in which the opposition parties have taken significantly different positions.1 -
lols....and the brave brave SNP bravely ran away..Nigelb said:SNP to vote for the Labour motion now.
0 -
So we can now go back to thinking Starmer's not a misunderstood tactical genius again.
Thank goodness for that.0 -
Spartans being Spartans.. all blusternico679 said:So Tory MPs are the source of the so called Labour threat to remove Hoyle !
Basically a load of tosh.0 -
Yeah, I was just looking for that myself... I think it's this, from 1986:Malmesbury said:
Looks awfully like the video from a very early US test launch of Trident II - decades back, IIRC.Theuniondivvie said:Lol, is this the actual footage of the missile launch? Hope someone puts the Curb Your Enthusiasm music to it.
https://x.com/TyrelWallace/status/1760219532566597717?s=20
The video quality is certainly not modern.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5nZ-SwngnE
(from what i read about recent test, the booster didn't ignite at all...)1 -
As someone with direct interest in LGBT issues I find the endless bickering of the different advocacy groups to be pitiful. But that is not exactly news - part of the reason I stayed in the closet so long was that the LGBsoc at university wasn't remotely welcoming of bisexuals.Cyclefree said:
Ben Bradshaw is also being a bit economical with the truth. She has met with Transgender and the LGB Alliance. They are not groups Bradshaw approves of. But that is not the point. There are differing opinions and listening to the views of groups other than Stonewall (whose approach has been recently criticised by the courts in recent legal judgments) and Mermaids, currently under investigation by the Charity Commission for serious governance issues, is sensible. He's pissed off that she won't just listen to Stonewall.RochdalePioneers said:
Yep. Yet another lie told by her at the dispatch box. Lying on a multitude of subjects and on repeated occasions.TheScreamingEagles said:The Equalities minister Kemi Badenoch has not met with any LGBT organisations since getting the job in September 2022, but has met two groups which campaign against trans rights, according to a freedom of information request highlighted by Labour MP Ben Bradshaw #PMQs
https://x.com/adambienkov/status/1760282225621270646?s=46
No wonder Tory members are such fans.
It is not an "extensive" list as claimed by Ms Badenoch. But it is certainly wider than, say, the Labour Party, which won't even allow Labour Womens Declaration to have a stall at Labour Conference.
(I will declare an interest here in that I played a very small part in helping with their response a while back to some proposals put forward by Anneliese Dodds.)
My position is relatively simple - let people be people. The main problem with politicising it is that antis - and the current Tory party are anti - get away with it.1 -
Er,1988 surely. The 1986 is when the boat was launched.AlsoLei said:
Yeah, I was just looking for that myself... I think it's this, from 1986:Malmesbury said:
Looks awfully like the video from a very early US test launch of Trident II - decades back, IIRC.Theuniondivvie said:Lol, is this the actual footage of the missile launch? Hope someone puts the Curb Your Enthusiasm music to it.
https://x.com/TyrelWallace/status/1760219532566597717?s=20
The video quality is certainly not modern.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5nZ-SwngnE
That would tie up with the article I found?1 -
With the best will in the world, it would be very difficult to describe "Transgender [Trend? Omitted word?]" and "LGB Alliance" as LGBT+ organisations, since they are defined in contradistinction to the "T" part.Cyclefree said:
Ben Bradshaw is also being a bit economical with the truth. She has met with Transgender and the LGB Alliance. They are not groups Bradshaw approves of. But that is not the point. There are differing opinions and listening to the views of groups other than Stonewall (whose approach has been recently criticised by the courts in recent legal judgments) and Mermaids, currently under investigation by the Charity Commission for serious governance issues, is sensible. He's pissed off that she won't just listen to Stonewall.RochdalePioneers said:
Yep. Yet another lie told by her at the dispatch box. Lying on a multitude of subjects and on repeated occasions.TheScreamingEagles said:The Equalities minister Kemi Badenoch has not met with any LGBT organisations since getting the job in September 2022, but has met two groups which campaign against trans rights, according to a freedom of information request highlighted by Labour MP Ben Bradshaw #PMQs
https://x.com/adambienkov/status/1760282225621270646?s=46
No wonder Tory members are such fans.
It is not an "extensive" list as claimed by Ms Badenoch. But it is certainly wider than, say, the Labour Party, which won't even allow Labour Womens Declaration to have a stall at Labour Conference.
(I will declare an interest here in that I played a very small part in helping with their response a while back to some proposals put forward by Anneliese Dodds.)
By analogy, it's like inviting the Church of Satan to a consultation on Christian church regulation and not inviting the Roman Catholic Church.3 -
How many dodgy regimes would believe we'd use even a tactical nuke? I certainly don't...Luckyguy1983 said:
I agree, with the added thought that we should just abandon the strategic nuclear deterrent and invest in far cheaper tactical nuclear weapons, with various payloads and delivery systems, such as by air. These are independent, and are way scarier to dodgy dictators and bad regimes than a doomsday weapon that we'd only ever use when we've been obliterated in a nuclear strike, and then probably wouldn't work anyway.Leon said:
Personally, I have always felt we should have gone the French route, and developed our own truly indy deterrent. Expensive, but ultimately worth itFrankBooth said:
Is it wise of us to have a nuclear deterrent that is dependent upon another country? Is it in the US's interest for us to have a functioning system or would it be better that we didn't so we'd then be more reliant on Uncle Sam?Leon said:Who is making our Trident missiles? Is it Boeing?
"Boeing 757-200 Diverted From Route After Suffering Damage To One Of Its Wings"
https://x.com/zerohedge/status/1760302382905237815?s=20
Jeez. It sounds like the wing simply.... fell apart
????
Instead we have ended up with a deterrent wholly dependent on the goodwill of an ally, who might be minded to tell us to fuck off, and now it seems it possibly doesn't work?
We should be urgently looking into the development of an entirely UK deterrent. Perhaps we could unite with Australia, as part of AUKUS, I dunno. They must fancy having a deterrent with China looming...
0 -
Looks like Tories and SNP working together will remove Hoyle tommorow. Take that Starmer 🧨numbertwelve said:
If it is true that Labour essentially told Hoyle they would unseat him if he didn’t call the amendment, which is what the BBC are suggesting, then the other parties should remove the Speaker.nico679 said:
Labour will be happy for Hoyle stay on until the GE . Why would Labour want to get rid of him now . Tories of course have the votes to remove him after his decision today.Andy_JS said:
They would have the votes if the Tories feel like changing the Speaker as well. I don't know whether any or many of them do feel like that.nico679 said:
In this parliament Labour can do zip to remove Hoyle , they don’t have the votes . Craig is being his customary drama queen believing any old nonsense he’s told .Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is what Jon Craig of Sky reportednico679 said:
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky reporting that Starmer threatened to remove Hoyle as speaker if he did not select the labour amendment
This is the one to watch as this develops
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-live-defence-secretary-to-make-commons-statement-after-failed-nuclear-deterrent-launch-12593360
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
This is the first time Hoyle has made a controversial decision so it does look over the top to remove him .
To bow to party political pressure is exactly what a Speaker shouldn’t do, so I’d say they’re well within their rights.0 -
He's a brilliant lawyer with a brilliant trap to ensnare his opponents.ydoethur said:So we can now go back to thinking Starmer's not a misunderstood tactical genius again.
Thank goodness for that.
Starmer: Richard Rampton
SNP: David Irving.0 -
She consulted with the folk who agree with her, then ?viewcode said:
With the best will in the world, it would be very difficult to describe "Transgender [Trend? Omitted word?]" and "LGB Alliance" as LGBT+ organisations, since they are defined in contradistinction to the "T" part.Cyclefree said:
Ben Bradshaw is also being a bit economical with the truth. She has met with Transgender and the LGB Alliance. They are not groups Bradshaw approves of. But that is not the point. There are differing opinions and listening to the views of groups other than Stonewall (whose approach has been recently criticised by the courts in recent legal judgments) and Mermaids, currently under investigation by the Charity Commission for serious governance issues, is sensible. He's pissed off that she won't just listen to Stonewall.RochdalePioneers said:
Yep. Yet another lie told by her at the dispatch box. Lying on a multitude of subjects and on repeated occasions.TheScreamingEagles said:The Equalities minister Kemi Badenoch has not met with any LGBT organisations since getting the job in September 2022, but has met two groups which campaign against trans rights, according to a freedom of information request highlighted by Labour MP Ben Bradshaw #PMQs
https://x.com/adambienkov/status/1760282225621270646?s=46
No wonder Tory members are such fans.
It is not an "extensive" list as claimed by Ms Badenoch. But it is certainly wider than, say, the Labour Party, which won't even allow Labour Womens Declaration to have a stall at Labour Conference.
(I will declare an interest here in that I played a very small part in helping with their response a while back to some proposals put forward by Anneliese Dodds.)
By analogy, it's like inviting the Church of Satan to a consultation on Christian church regulation and not inviting the Roman Catholic Church.0 -
Well, David Irving did get tripped up in court over a letter written by a senior figure in a National(ist) party on the stationery of the aforesaid National(ist) Party thanking him for his attendance and speech at a rally.TheScreamingEagles said:
He's a brilliant lawyer with a brilliant trap to ensnare his opponents.ydoethur said:So we can now go back to thinking Starmer's not a misunderstood tactical genius again.
Thank goodness for that.
Starmer: Richard Rampton
SNP: David Irving.
Immediately after he had told the judge he had never spoken at a BNP rally, and had no links with them...0 -
Uniondivvie please explain. Are you fake news?Carnyx said:
It does. From memory maybe late 1980s. Steve Bell drew one If cartoon based on that test.Malmesbury said:
Looks awfully like the video from a very early US test launch of Trident II - decades back, IIRC.Theuniondivvie said:Lol, is this the actual footage of the missile launch? Hope someone puts the Curb Your Enthusiasm music to it.
https://x.com/TyrelWallace/status/1760219532566597717?s=20
The video quality is certainly not modern.
Ah - found it. 1989.
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2013/january/trident-ii-flipping-flop0 -
This is a plot point in the gay rom-com "Bros", a film nobody saw.RochdalePioneers said:
...As someone with direct interest in LGBT issues I find the endless bickering of the different advocacy groups to be pitiful...Cyclefree said:
Ben Bradshaw is also being a bit economical with the truth. She has met with Transgender and the LGB Alliance. They are not groups Bradshaw approves of. But that is not the point. There are differing opinions and listening to the views of groups other than Stonewall (whose approach has been recently criticised by the courts in recent legal judgments) and Mermaids, currently under investigation by the Charity Commission for serious governance issues, is sensible. He's pissed off that she won't just listen to Stonewall.RochdalePioneers said:
Yep. Yet another lie told by her at the dispatch box. Lying on a multitude of subjects and on repeated occasions.TheScreamingEagles said:The Equalities minister Kemi Badenoch has not met with any LGBT organisations since getting the job in September 2022, but has met two groups which campaign against trans rights, according to a freedom of information request highlighted by Labour MP Ben Bradshaw #PMQs
https://x.com/adambienkov/status/1760282225621270646?s=46
No wonder Tory members are such fans.
It is not an "extensive" list as claimed by Ms Badenoch. But it is certainly wider than, say, the Labour Party, which won't even allow Labour Womens Declaration to have a stall at Labour Conference.
(I will declare an interest here in that I played a very small part in helping with their response a while back to some proposals put forward by Anneliese Dodds.)
0 -
@OwenJones84ydoethur said:So we can now go back to thinking Starmer's not a misunderstood tactical genius again.
Thank goodness for that.
If this was Boris Johnson behaving like this, quite rightly, “centrist” commentators would be howling in outrage.
They’d call it thuggery, blackmail and an assault on the democratic system.
Let’s see how they respond to this, shall we!
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/17603175609422031531 -
I don't recall Mr Rampton nobbling the learned Mr Justice Gray and changing the court procedures to suit himself.TheScreamingEagles said:
He's a brilliant lawyer with a brilliant trap to ensnare his opponents.ydoethur said:So we can now go back to thinking Starmer's not a misunderstood tactical genius again.
Thank goodness for that.
Starmer: Richard Rampton
SNP: David Irving.0 -
The BT Tower is pretty much the only thing of interest in Fitzrovia and by standing clear of surrounding buildings, serves as a landmark for much of North London.Leon said:
It's an ugly looking thing in the wrong place. Sticking up out of lovely Fitzroviaalgarkirk said:
Agree. But in terms of quality, it deserves Grade I listing. In its day it was an astonishment to be admired. If only other high buildings in London were as interesting.AlsoLei said:
Not much of an asset, these days. The microwave network it was built for was switched off decades ago. The tower itself was used for mobile network control, but that was moved to Vodafone's Newbury site in the mid 2010s. There's a broadcast switching hub in the base, or was until recently - but that could be done anywhere, there's no need for it to be in the middle of London.DecrepiterJohnL said:BT Tower sold to MCR Hotels in £275m deal
https://news.sky.com/story/bt-tower-dials-in-new-future-after-275m-sale-to-hotel-chain-13076819
Another asset sold overseas. MCR Hotels is American.
Otherwise, it's just a very expensive corporate hospitality site. It's Grade II listed, so can't easily be altered to be suitable for anything BT might actually need.
Flogging it to be used as a hotel is probably the best thing that can be done with it.
Pull it down, and London's skyline would begin to make more sense (not hard)0 -
Why would Boris Johnson be quite right in behaving like this?williamglenn said:
@OwenJones84ydoethur said:So we can now go back to thinking Starmer's not a misunderstood tactical genius again.
Thank goodness for that.
If this was Boris Johnson behaving like this, quite rightly, “centrist” commentators would be howling in outrage.
They’d call it thuggery, blackmail and an assault on the democratic system.
Let’s see how they respond to this, shall we!
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/17603175609422031531 -
That is because of the Inquiry's Terms of Reference not because the Judge is not doing his job.Nigelb said:.
Of course not.Cyclefree said:This should be fun viewing - https://committees.parliament.uk/event/20798/formal-meeting-oral-evidence-session/
Pity neither Sarah Munby nor Grant Shapps are being called to answer questions about the memo.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68146054
...The revelations uncovered by the BBC also raise serious questions for the public inquiry by Sir Wyn Williams, as to whether it is adequately scrutinising what the government knew about the Post Office's internal investigations.
In UKGI's 2022 statement to the inquiry, there was no reference to Tim Parker's letter to Baroness Neville-Rolfe of 21 June 2016, notifying her he was calling off Deloitte's investigation.
In 2018, two years after completing his review, Sir Jonathan Swift, formerly First Treasury Counsel - the top civil lawyer at Her Majesty's Treasury - was appointed to be a High Court judge. He received a knighthood in the same year.
However, in the list of upcoming witnesses at the Williams inquiry, his name is absent...,/i>
The ToR were drawn up by politicians so it is no surprise that they have been carefully drawn to avoid detailed scrutiny of them.0 -
Good catch.ydoethur said:
Why would Boris Johnson be quite right in behaving like this?williamglenn said:
@OwenJones84ydoethur said:So we can now go back to thinking Starmer's not a misunderstood tactical genius again.
Thank goodness for that.
If this was Boris Johnson behaving like this, quite rightly, “centrist” commentators would be howling in outrage.
They’d call it thuggery, blackmail and an assault on the democratic system.
Let’s see how they respond to this, shall we!
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/17603175609422031530 -
I was thinking more the trap of persuading Irving to agree to a trial by judge rather than jury because Rampton/Julius argued that the issues were so complex that members of the public wouldn't be able to comprehend Irving's arguments whereas only a judge could.Carnyx said:
I don't recall Mr Rampton nobbling the learned Mr Justice Gray and changing the court procedures to suit himself.TheScreamingEagles said:
He's a brilliant lawyer with a brilliant trap to ensnare his opponents.ydoethur said:So we can now go back to thinking Starmer's not a misunderstood tactical genius again.
Thank goodness for that.
Starmer: Richard Rampton
SNP: David Irving.
Anyhoo, if the SNP are voting for Labour's amendment then it's all good.0 -
Well, in one way he did. He asked Irving to translate a document, as the translator wasn't present. He then gave Irving one that he'd apparently picked up by mistake, and got him to read a translation into the record.Carnyx said:
I don't recall Mr Rampton nobbling the learned Mr Justice Gray and changing the court procedures to suit himself.TheScreamingEagles said:
He's a brilliant lawyer with a brilliant trap to ensnare his opponents.ydoethur said:So we can now go back to thinking Starmer's not a misunderstood tactical genius again.
Thank goodness for that.
Starmer: Richard Rampton
SNP: David Irving.
Three weeks later, Irving found that this was actually a crucial extract from a longer letter that he had deliberately mistranslated in one of his books. He realised this when Rampton read his translation back to him...0 -
Oh good god, I…. I…. agree with Owen Jones.williamglenn said:
@OwenJones84ydoethur said:So we can now go back to thinking Starmer's not a misunderstood tactical genius again.
Thank goodness for that.
If this was Boris Johnson behaving like this, quite rightly, “centrist” commentators would be howling in outrage.
They’d call it thuggery, blackmail and an assault on the democratic system.
Let’s see how they respond to this, shall we!
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1760317560942203153
I think I need a lie down.
1 -
I think the IRA were behind the reason it was closed to the public in 1971 (they planted a bomb in the men's toilets) but that's no reason for the foot-dragging for decades after.
No other city would let such a great asset as a revolving restaurant with great views of their capital just lie defunct.3 -
Well yes.Cyclefree said:
That is because of the Inquiry's Terms of Reference not because the Judge is not doing his job.Nigelb said:.
Of course not.Cyclefree said:This should be fun viewing - https://committees.parliament.uk/event/20798/formal-meeting-oral-evidence-session/
Pity neither Sarah Munby nor Grant Shapps are being called to answer questions about the memo.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68146054
...The revelations uncovered by the BBC also raise serious questions for the public inquiry by Sir Wyn Williams, as to whether it is adequately scrutinising what the government knew about the Post Office's internal investigations.
In UKGI's 2022 statement to the inquiry, there was no reference to Tim Parker's letter to Baroness Neville-Rolfe of 21 June 2016, notifying her he was calling off Deloitte's investigation.
In 2018, two years after completing his review, Sir Jonathan Swift, formerly First Treasury Counsel - the top civil lawyer at Her Majesty's Treasury - was appointed to be a High Court judge. He received a knighthood in the same year.
However, in the list of upcoming witnesses at the Williams inquiry, his name is absent...,/i>
The ToR were drawn up by politicians so it is no surprise that they have been carefully drawn to avoid detailed scrutiny of them.
But the result is that the enquiry is not adequately scrutinising the government, as the article says.
The judge can be entirely innocent of blame without changing that.0 -
Ignoring the analogy, what commentators away from PB miss is that Starmer is first and foremost a lawyer who knows his way through the rulebook, any rulebook. He used the Labour Party's rules to best Corbyn and the left, and Parliamentary rules to oust Boris Johnson, and now we see it again. The irony is that Starmer would probably make a better Speaker than Prime Minister.TheScreamingEagles said:
He's a brilliant lawyer with a brilliant trap to ensnare his opponents.ydoethur said:So we can now go back to thinking Starmer's not a misunderstood tactical genius again.
Thank goodness for that.
Starmer: Richard Rampton
SNP: David Irving.2 -
I mean, the SNP could have picked a topic that the Commons has some power to do something about. If they want to waste one of their days on silly games, that’s on them.Pulpstar said:IIUC this is 1 of 3 SNP opposition days. Labour have 17. Hoyle is effectively surrendering the day to Labour because it'd be awkward for them if the SNP had as much control if normal procedures were followed. Goldsmith notes this in his acerbic letter.
This to my mind is the worst day of Hoyle's speakership.1 -
Pretty that, isn't it? Do they do displays at events?Carnyx said:
It does. From memory maybe late 1980s. Steve Bell drew one If cartoon based on that test.Malmesbury said:
Looks awfully like the video from a very early US test launch of Trident II - decades back, IIRC.Theuniondivvie said:Lol, is this the actual footage of the missile launch? Hope someone puts the Curb Your Enthusiasm music to it.
https://x.com/TyrelWallace/status/1760219532566597717?s=20
The video quality is certainly not modern.
Ah - found it. 1989.
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2013/january/trident-ii-flipping-flop
2 -
Like any pro I started my original post with a question.MoonRabbit said:
Uniondivvie please explain. Are you fake news?Carnyx said:
It does. From memory maybe late 1980s. Steve Bell drew one If cartoon based on that test.Malmesbury said:
Looks awfully like the video from a very early US test launch of Trident II - decades back, IIRC.Theuniondivvie said:Lol, is this the actual footage of the missile launch? Hope someone puts the Curb Your Enthusiasm music to it.
https://x.com/TyrelWallace/status/1760219532566597717?s=20
The video quality is certainly not modern.
Ah - found it. 1989.
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2013/january/trident-ii-flipping-flop
All charges dropped.2 -
He’ll be complete rubbish then. Sacked already. 🤦♀️OnboardG1 said:
He just endorsed Hoyle’s decision. Not sure if that’s real or mischief making.MoonRabbit said:
Mogg would be great speaker 👍🏻ydoethur said:
It certainly would be if Rees-Mogg got it.turbotubbs said:
So what - he's 67 now, time to retire. Its probably not a bad thing for a new parliament to have a new speaker (that by convention would be an ex-conservative).Pulpstar said:
Yes but in the next parliament they almost certainly will.nico679 said:
In this parliament Labour can do zip to remove Hoyle , they don’t have the votes . Craig is being his customary drama queen believing any old nonsense he’s told .Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is what Jon Craig of Sky reportednico679 said:
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky reporting that Starmer threatened to remove Hoyle as speaker if he did not select the labour amendment
This is the one to watch as this develops
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-live-defence-secretary-to-make-commons-statement-after-failed-nuclear-deterrent-launch-12593360
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
Got to respect precedent and mannerly behaviour, and not back down to bully’s.
Starmer should have been taken to the cells in the basement, the speaker has that power where MPs step out of line.0 -
Starmer's
timidityruthlessness in play again. While of course it's true that what the HoC votes on today is unimportant to Israel, it's very important to the Labour Party. Starmer's trying to stop Gaza being a festering sore that causes division within his party up to the GE. He thinks they can unite under his amendment.
As is often the case, he's probably right. We'll see.
As with Boris, Starmer's opponents make the repeated mistake of underestimating him.0 -
Whether he's right or wrong, his grammar is so bad and the result so incoherent even Warren G. Harding would blink.numbertwelve said:
Oh good god, I…. I…. agree with Owen Jones.williamglenn said:
@OwenJones84ydoethur said:So we can now go back to thinking Starmer's not a misunderstood tactical genius again.
Thank goodness for that.
If this was Boris Johnson behaving like this, quite rightly, “centrist” commentators would be howling in outrage.
They’d call it thuggery, blackmail and an assault on the democratic system.
Let’s see how they respond to this, shall we!
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1760317560942203153
I think I need a lie down.
How did an idiot like that ever get into uni?0 -
Labour say it’s not true.numbertwelve said:
If it is true that Labour essentially told Hoyle they would unseat him if he didn’t call the amendment, which is what the BBC are suggesting, then the other parties should remove the Speaker.nico679 said:
Labour will be happy for Hoyle stay on until the GE . Why would Labour want to get rid of him now . Tories of course have the votes to remove him after his decision today.Andy_JS said:
They would have the votes if the Tories feel like changing the Speaker as well. I don't know whether any or many of them do feel like that.nico679 said:
In this parliament Labour can do zip to remove Hoyle , they don’t have the votes . Craig is being his customary drama queen believing any old nonsense he’s told .Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is what Jon Craig of Sky reportednico679 said:
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky reporting that Starmer threatened to remove Hoyle as speaker if he did not select the labour amendment
This is the one to watch as this develops
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-live-defence-secretary-to-make-commons-statement-after-failed-nuclear-deterrent-launch-12593360
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
This is the first time Hoyle has made a controversial decision so it does look over the top to remove him .
To bow to party political pressure is exactly what a Speaker shouldn’t do, so I’d say they’re well within their rights.0 -
I mentioned it a few weeks ago, I accidentally visited some PB threads from early 2022 and there were some PBers asking why Starmer was focussing on Partygate with such obscure questions on a non story.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Ignoring the analogy, what commentators away from PB miss is that Starmer is first and foremost a lawyer who knows his way through the rulebook, any rulebook. He used the Labour Party's rules to best Corbyn and the left, and Parliamentary rules to oust Boris Johnson, and now we see it again. The irony is that Starmer would probably make a better Speaker than Prime Minister.TheScreamingEagles said:
He's a brilliant lawyer with a brilliant trap to ensnare his opponents.ydoethur said:So we can now go back to thinking Starmer's not a misunderstood tactical genius again.
Thank goodness for that.
Starmer: Richard Rampton
SNP: David Irving.
I won't name and shame those posters.3 -
The Tories could vote for the SNP motion in a game of bluff and counter bluff. Ideally sufficient Tories would abstain to ensure it was passed on the votes of Labour rebels.Slackbladder said:
1979 all over again!ydoethur said:
SNP teaming up with Tories will play *really well* north of the border...williamglenn said:@kateferguson4
🚨🚨🚨
Hearing the SNP are seeking urgent discussions with Tories about getting rid of Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle after todays Gaza amendment row
https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/17603047674341501980 -
What Neville Chamberlain said.Fairliered said:
The Tories could vote for the SNP motion in a game of bluff and counter bluff. Ideally sufficient Tories would abstain to ensure it was passed on the votes of Labour rebels.Slackbladder said:
1979 all over again!ydoethur said:
SNP teaming up with Tories will play *really well* north of the border...williamglenn said:@kateferguson4
🚨🚨🚨
Hearing the SNP are seeking urgent discussions with Tories about getting rid of Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle after todays Gaza amendment row
https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/17603047674341501980 -
Ah well, that's the matter settled then.bondegezou said:
Labour say it’s not true.numbertwelve said:
If it is true that Labour essentially told Hoyle they would unseat him if he didn’t call the amendment, which is what the BBC are suggesting, then the other parties should remove the Speaker.nico679 said:
Labour will be happy for Hoyle stay on until the GE . Why would Labour want to get rid of him now . Tories of course have the votes to remove him after his decision today.Andy_JS said:
They would have the votes if the Tories feel like changing the Speaker as well. I don't know whether any or many of them do feel like that.nico679 said:
In this parliament Labour can do zip to remove Hoyle , they don’t have the votes . Craig is being his customary drama queen believing any old nonsense he’s told .Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is what Jon Craig of Sky reportednico679 said:
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky reporting that Starmer threatened to remove Hoyle as speaker if he did not select the labour amendment
This is the one to watch as this develops
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-live-defence-secretary-to-make-commons-statement-after-failed-nuclear-deterrent-launch-12593360
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
This is the first time Hoyle has made a controversial decision so it does look over the top to remove him .
To bow to party political pressure is exactly what a Speaker shouldn’t do, so I’d say they’re well within their rights.1 -
What Mandy Rhys-Davies said!bondegezou said:
Labour say it’s not true.numbertwelve said:
If it is true that Labour essentially told Hoyle they would unseat him if he didn’t call the amendment, which is what the BBC are suggesting, then the other parties should remove the Speaker.nico679 said:
Labour will be happy for Hoyle stay on until the GE . Why would Labour want to get rid of him now . Tories of course have the votes to remove him after his decision today.Andy_JS said:
They would have the votes if the Tories feel like changing the Speaker as well. I don't know whether any or many of them do feel like that.nico679 said:
In this parliament Labour can do zip to remove Hoyle , they don’t have the votes . Craig is being his customary drama queen believing any old nonsense he’s told .Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is what Jon Craig of Sky reportednico679 said:
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky reporting that Starmer threatened to remove Hoyle as speaker if he did not select the labour amendment
This is the one to watch as this develops
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-live-defence-secretary-to-make-commons-statement-after-failed-nuclear-deterrent-launch-12593360
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
This is the first time Hoyle has made a controversial decision so it does look over the top to remove him .
To bow to party political pressure is exactly what a Speaker shouldn’t do, so I’d say they’re well within their rights.0 -
It would be unbeerable.TheScreamingEagles said:
I mentioned it a few weeks ago, I accidentally visited some PB threads from early 2022 and there were some PBers asking why Starmer was focussing on Partygate with such obscure questions on a non story.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Ignoring the analogy, what commentators away from PB miss is that Starmer is first and foremost a lawyer who knows his way through the rulebook, any rulebook. He used the Labour Party's rules to best Corbyn and the left, and Parliamentary rules to oust Boris Johnson, and now we see it again. The irony is that Starmer would probably make a better Speaker than Prime Minister.TheScreamingEagles said:
He's a brilliant lawyer with a brilliant trap to ensnare his opponents.ydoethur said:So we can now go back to thinking Starmer's not a misunderstood tactical genius again.
Thank goodness for that.
Starmer: Richard Rampton
SNP: David Irving.
I won't name and shame those posters.0 -
Is there any actual evidence that Starmer 'threatened the Speaker', or are we just accepting Tory spin at face value ?DecrepiterJohnL said:
Ignoring the analogy, what commentators away from PB miss is that Starmer is first and foremost a lawyer who knows his way through the rulebook, any rulebook. He used the Labour Party's rules to best Corbyn and the left, and Parliamentary rules to oust Boris Johnson, and now we see it again. The irony is that Starmer would probably make a better Speaker than Prime Minister.TheScreamingEagles said:
He's a brilliant lawyer with a brilliant trap to ensnare his opponents.ydoethur said:So we can now go back to thinking Starmer's not a misunderstood tactical genius again.
Thank goodness for that.
Starmer: Richard Rampton
SNP: David Irving.
If the latter is the case, then I'm sure all those waxing outraged will turn their fire on the spinners.1 -
From the BBC:bondegezou said:
Labour say it’s not true.numbertwelve said:
If it is true that Labour essentially told Hoyle they would unseat him if he didn’t call the amendment, which is what the BBC are suggesting, then the other parties should remove the Speaker.nico679 said:
Labour will be happy for Hoyle stay on until the GE . Why would Labour want to get rid of him now . Tories of course have the votes to remove him after his decision today.Andy_JS said:
They would have the votes if the Tories feel like changing the Speaker as well. I don't know whether any or many of them do feel like that.nico679 said:
In this parliament Labour can do zip to remove Hoyle , they don’t have the votes . Craig is being his customary drama queen believing any old nonsense he’s told .Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is what Jon Craig of Sky reportednico679 said:
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky reporting that Starmer threatened to remove Hoyle as speaker if he did not select the labour amendment
This is the one to watch as this develops
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-live-defence-secretary-to-make-commons-statement-after-failed-nuclear-deterrent-launch-12593360
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
This is the first time Hoyle has made a controversial decision so it does look over the top to remove him .
To bow to party political pressure is exactly what a Speaker shouldn’t do, so I’d say they’re well within their rights.
“ Senior Labour figures have told BBC Newsnight that the commons speaker Sir Lyndsay Hoyle was left in no doubt that Labour was prepared to see him fall as speaker after the general election unless he called its Gaza amendment.
Newsnight has been told that it was made clear that Hoyle would need Labour votes to be re-elected after the general election and this might not be forthcoming.
That would effectively mean he would lose the speakership.”
0 -
I think you can trust politicians to tell the truth. I mean, take Kemi Badenoch. People thought she was lying and then it turned out… oh.ydoethur said:
What Mandy Rhys-Davies said!bondegezou said:
Labour say it’s not true.numbertwelve said:
If it is true that Labour essentially told Hoyle they would unseat him if he didn’t call the amendment, which is what the BBC are suggesting, then the other parties should remove the Speaker.nico679 said:
Labour will be happy for Hoyle stay on until the GE . Why would Labour want to get rid of him now . Tories of course have the votes to remove him after his decision today.Andy_JS said:
They would have the votes if the Tories feel like changing the Speaker as well. I don't know whether any or many of them do feel like that.nico679 said:
In this parliament Labour can do zip to remove Hoyle , they don’t have the votes . Craig is being his customary drama queen believing any old nonsense he’s told .Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is what Jon Craig of Sky reportednico679 said:
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky reporting that Starmer threatened to remove Hoyle as speaker if he did not select the labour amendment
This is the one to watch as this develops
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-live-defence-secretary-to-make-commons-statement-after-failed-nuclear-deterrent-launch-12593360
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
This is the first time Hoyle has made a controversial decision so it does look over the top to remove him .
To bow to party political pressure is exactly what a Speaker shouldn’t do, so I’d say they’re well within their rights.2 -
SNP down to 2 seats at the general election?Slackbladder said:
1979 all over again!ydoethur said:
SNP teaming up with Tories will play *really well* north of the border...williamglenn said:@kateferguson4
🚨🚨🚨
Hearing the SNP are seeking urgent discussions with Tories about getting rid of Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle after todays Gaza amendment row
https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1760304767434150198
I would love that.0 -
How can you tell when politicians are lying to you?bondegezou said:
I think you can trust politicians to tell the truth. I mean, take Kemi Badenoch. People thought she was lying and then it turned out… oh.ydoethur said:
What Mandy Rhys-Davies said!bondegezou said:
Labour say it’s not true.numbertwelve said:
If it is true that Labour essentially told Hoyle they would unseat him if he didn’t call the amendment, which is what the BBC are suggesting, then the other parties should remove the Speaker.nico679 said:
Labour will be happy for Hoyle stay on until the GE . Why would Labour want to get rid of him now . Tories of course have the votes to remove him after his decision today.Andy_JS said:
They would have the votes if the Tories feel like changing the Speaker as well. I don't know whether any or many of them do feel like that.nico679 said:
In this parliament Labour can do zip to remove Hoyle , they don’t have the votes . Craig is being his customary drama queen believing any old nonsense he’s told .Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is what Jon Craig of Sky reportednico679 said:
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky reporting that Starmer threatened to remove Hoyle as speaker if he did not select the labour amendment
This is the one to watch as this develops
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-live-defence-secretary-to-make-commons-statement-after-failed-nuclear-deterrent-launch-12593360
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
This is the first time Hoyle has made a controversial decision so it does look over the top to remove him .
To bow to party political pressure is exactly what a Speaker shouldn’t do, so I’d say they’re well within their rights.
Their lips move.0 -
I was going off Sky News: “A Labour Party spokesperson has said the claim is "completely untrue".” https://news.sky.com/story/politics-live-defence-secretary-to-make-commons-statement-after-failed-nuclear-deterrent-launch-12593360numbertwelve said:
From the BBC:bondegezou said:
Labour say it’s not true.numbertwelve said:
If it is true that Labour essentially told Hoyle they would unseat him if he didn’t call the amendment, which is what the BBC are suggesting, then the other parties should remove the Speaker.nico679 said:
Labour will be happy for Hoyle stay on until the GE . Why would Labour want to get rid of him now . Tories of course have the votes to remove him after his decision today.Andy_JS said:
They would have the votes if the Tories feel like changing the Speaker as well. I don't know whether any or many of them do feel like that.nico679 said:
In this parliament Labour can do zip to remove Hoyle , they don’t have the votes . Craig is being his customary drama queen believing any old nonsense he’s told .Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is what Jon Craig of Sky reportednico679 said:
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky reporting that Starmer threatened to remove Hoyle as speaker if he did not select the labour amendment
This is the one to watch as this develops
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-live-defence-secretary-to-make-commons-statement-after-failed-nuclear-deterrent-launch-12593360
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
This is the first time Hoyle has made a controversial decision so it does look over the top to remove him .
To bow to party political pressure is exactly what a Speaker shouldn’t do, so I’d say they’re well within their rights.
“ Senior Labour figures have told BBC Newsnight that the commons speaker Sir Lyndsay Hoyle was left in no doubt that Labour was prepared to see him fall as speaker after the general election unless he called its Gaza amendment.
Newsnight has been told that it was made clear that Hoyle would need Labour votes to be re-elected after the general election and this might not be forthcoming.
That would effectively mean he would lose the speakership.”0 -
Mm, a bit of an overreaction. They could have checked people's bags at the entrance if they were really so worried...Casino_Royale said:I think the IRA were behind the reason it was closed to the public in 1971 (they planted a bomb in the men's toilets) but that's no reason for the foot-dragging for decades after.
No other city would let such a great asset as a revolving restaurant with great views of their capital just lie defunct.
It's a bit like bins at railway stations. After an IRA bomb in the early 90s, there still aren't any bins at main termini - you have find one of the roving cleaners and hand them any rubbish you may have. Elsewhere, they have special clear plastic bags hanging from flimsy loops, ripe for attack from foxes and seagulls.
Meanwhile, in Northern Ireland, every station is peppered with bog standard bins containing cheap as chips black binbags...1 -
And when two sets of politicians are saying the opposite of each other ?ydoethur said:
How can you tell when politicians are lying to you?bondegezou said:
I think you can trust politicians to tell the truth. I mean, take Kemi Badenoch. People thought she was lying and then it turned out… oh.ydoethur said:
What Mandy Rhys-Davies said!bondegezou said:
Labour say it’s not true.numbertwelve said:
If it is true that Labour essentially told Hoyle they would unseat him if he didn’t call the amendment, which is what the BBC are suggesting, then the other parties should remove the Speaker.nico679 said:
Labour will be happy for Hoyle stay on until the GE . Why would Labour want to get rid of him now . Tories of course have the votes to remove him after his decision today.Andy_JS said:
They would have the votes if the Tories feel like changing the Speaker as well. I don't know whether any or many of them do feel like that.nico679 said:
In this parliament Labour can do zip to remove Hoyle , they don’t have the votes . Craig is being his customary drama queen believing any old nonsense he’s told .Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is what Jon Craig of Sky reportednico679 said:
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky reporting that Starmer threatened to remove Hoyle as speaker if he did not select the labour amendment
This is the one to watch as this develops
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-live-defence-secretary-to-make-commons-statement-after-failed-nuclear-deterrent-launch-12593360
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
This is the first time Hoyle has made a controversial decision so it does look over the top to remove him .
To bow to party political pressure is exactly what a Speaker shouldn’t do, so I’d say they’re well within their rights.
Their lips move.0 -
Why does the Speaker have to be a job for life? It makes more sense to me to elect a new one every Parliament. Or every session. Parliament is supposed to be some sort of standard bearer for democracy, yet they are frit of having competitive elections. Go figure.0
-
He did history. Like Boris.ydoethur said:
Whether he's right or wrong, his grammar is so bad and the result so incoherent even Warren G. Harding would blink.numbertwelve said:
Oh good god, I…. I…. agree with Owen Jones.williamglenn said:
@OwenJones84ydoethur said:So we can now go back to thinking Starmer's not a misunderstood tactical genius again.
Thank goodness for that.
If this was Boris Johnson behaving like this, quite rightly, “centrist” commentators would be howling in outrage.
They’d call it thuggery, blackmail and an assault on the democratic system.
Let’s see how they respond to this, shall we!
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1760317560942203153
I think I need a lie down.
How did an idiot like that ever get into uni?0 -
“Understanding is a three edged sword, there is my side, your side and the truth.” (I don’t need to tell some of you the source of that quote.)Nigelb said:
And when two sets of politicians are saying the opposite of each other ?ydoethur said:
How can you tell when politicians are lying to you?bondegezou said:
I think you can trust politicians to tell the truth. I mean, take Kemi Badenoch. People thought she was lying and then it turned out… oh.ydoethur said:
What Mandy Rhys-Davies said!bondegezou said:
Labour say it’s not true.numbertwelve said:
If it is true that Labour essentially told Hoyle they would unseat him if he didn’t call the amendment, which is what the BBC are suggesting, then the other parties should remove the Speaker.nico679 said:
Labour will be happy for Hoyle stay on until the GE . Why would Labour want to get rid of him now . Tories of course have the votes to remove him after his decision today.Andy_JS said:
They would have the votes if the Tories feel like changing the Speaker as well. I don't know whether any or many of them do feel like that.nico679 said:
In this parliament Labour can do zip to remove Hoyle , they don’t have the votes . Craig is being his customary drama queen believing any old nonsense he’s told .Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is what Jon Craig of Sky reportednico679 said:
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky reporting that Starmer threatened to remove Hoyle as speaker if he did not select the labour amendment
This is the one to watch as this develops
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-live-defence-secretary-to-make-commons-statement-after-failed-nuclear-deterrent-launch-12593360
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
This is the first time Hoyle has made a controversial decision so it does look over the top to remove him .
To bow to party political pressure is exactly what a Speaker shouldn’t do, so I’d say they’re well within their rights.
Their lips move.0 -
NEW THREAD
0 -
The eternal dilemma, senior sources keen to show that they're tough and can kick arse, while also not revealing that they've finagled the system to avoid a damaging vote. Couldn't resist the first option obviously.numbertwelve said:
From the BBC:bondegezou said:
Labour say it’s not true.numbertwelve said:
If it is true that Labour essentially told Hoyle they would unseat him if he didn’t call the amendment, which is what the BBC are suggesting, then the other parties should remove the Speaker.nico679 said:
Labour will be happy for Hoyle stay on until the GE . Why would Labour want to get rid of him now . Tories of course have the votes to remove him after his decision today.Andy_JS said:
They would have the votes if the Tories feel like changing the Speaker as well. I don't know whether any or many of them do feel like that.nico679 said:
In this parliament Labour can do zip to remove Hoyle , they don’t have the votes . Craig is being his customary drama queen believing any old nonsense he’s told .Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is what Jon Craig of Sky reportednico679 said:
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky reporting that Starmer threatened to remove Hoyle as speaker if he did not select the labour amendment
This is the one to watch as this develops
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-live-defence-secretary-to-make-commons-statement-after-failed-nuclear-deterrent-launch-12593360
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
This is the first time Hoyle has made a controversial decision so it does look over the top to remove him .
To bow to party political pressure is exactly what a Speaker shouldn’t do, so I’d say they’re well within their rights.
“ Senior Labour figures have told BBC Newsnight that the commons speaker Sir Lyndsay Hoyle was left in no doubt that Labour was prepared to see him fall as speaker after the general election unless he called its Gaza amendment.
Newsnight has been told that it was made clear that Hoyle would need Labour votes to be re-elected after the general election and this might not be forthcoming.
That would effectively mean he would lose the speakership.”0 -
And then have someone quibbling about a complaint that no Christians had been invited, because "there are differing opinions".viewcode said:
With the best will in the world, it would be very difficult to describe "Transgender [Trend? Omitted word?]" and "LGB Alliance" as LGBT+ organisations, since they are defined in contradistinction to the "T" part.Cyclefree said:
Ben Bradshaw is also being a bit economical with the truth. She has met with Transgender and the LGB Alliance. They are not groups Bradshaw approves of. But that is not the point. There are differing opinions and listening to the views of groups other than Stonewall (whose approach has been recently criticised by the courts in recent legal judgments) and Mermaids, currently under investigation by the Charity Commission for serious governance issues, is sensible. He's pissed off that she won't just listen to Stonewall.RochdalePioneers said:
Yep. Yet another lie told by her at the dispatch box. Lying on a multitude of subjects and on repeated occasions.TheScreamingEagles said:The Equalities minister Kemi Badenoch has not met with any LGBT organisations since getting the job in September 2022, but has met two groups which campaign against trans rights, according to a freedom of information request highlighted by Labour MP Ben Bradshaw #PMQs
https://x.com/adambienkov/status/1760282225621270646?s=46
No wonder Tory members are such fans.
It is not an "extensive" list as claimed by Ms Badenoch. But it is certainly wider than, say, the Labour Party, which won't even allow Labour Womens Declaration to have a stall at Labour Conference.
(I will declare an interest here in that I played a very small part in helping with their response a while back to some proposals put forward by Anneliese Dodds.)
By analogy, it's like inviting the Church of Satan to a consultation on Christian church regulation and not inviting the Roman Catholic Church.0 -
Hmm.. sounds like we’re going to get into he said she said, then.bondegezou said:
I was going off Sky News: “A Labour Party spokesperson has said the claim is "completely untrue".” https://news.sky.com/story/politics-live-defence-secretary-to-make-commons-statement-after-failed-nuclear-deterrent-launch-12593360numbertwelve said:
From the BBC:bondegezou said:
Labour say it’s not true.numbertwelve said:
If it is true that Labour essentially told Hoyle they would unseat him if he didn’t call the amendment, which is what the BBC are suggesting, then the other parties should remove the Speaker.nico679 said:
Labour will be happy for Hoyle stay on until the GE . Why would Labour want to get rid of him now . Tories of course have the votes to remove him after his decision today.Andy_JS said:
They would have the votes if the Tories feel like changing the Speaker as well. I don't know whether any or many of them do feel like that.nico679 said:
In this parliament Labour can do zip to remove Hoyle , they don’t have the votes . Craig is being his customary drama queen believing any old nonsense he’s told .Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is what Jon Craig of Sky reportednico679 said:
I don’t believe this and Labour don’t have the votes for it this side of the GE .Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky reporting that Starmer threatened to remove Hoyle as speaker if he did not select the labour amendment
This is the one to watch as this develops
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-live-defence-secretary-to-make-commons-statement-after-failed-nuclear-deterrent-launch-12593360
The so called precedent looked ridiculous anyway .
This is the first time Hoyle has made a controversial decision so it does look over the top to remove him .
To bow to party political pressure is exactly what a Speaker shouldn’t do, so I’d say they’re well within their rights.
“ Senior Labour figures have told BBC Newsnight that the commons speaker Sir Lyndsay Hoyle was left in no doubt that Labour was prepared to see him fall as speaker after the general election unless he called its Gaza amendment.
Newsnight has been told that it was made clear that Hoyle would need Labour votes to be re-elected after the general election and this might not be forthcoming.
That would effectively mean he would lose the speakership.”
For what it’s worth, as noted above I find the student politics aspect of the whole debate, amendments etc very depressing. That said as a point of principle Hoyle shouldn’t be bowing to pressure from one party (if that is what he did). We don’t want the incoming government party to have compromised the Speaker’s position in such a way.
So yes on principle if it does transpire that is what occurred, I think he should lose the chair.0 -
Which is exactly what Labour have done. They won't even listen to their own party members with a different view. So a bit rich of them to try and take the moral high ground.Nigelb said:
She consulted with the folk who agree with her, then ?viewcode said:
With the best will in the world, it would be very difficult to describe "Transgender [Trend? Omitted word?]" and "LGB Alliance" as LGBT+ organisations, since they are defined in contradistinction to the "T" part.Cyclefree said:
Ben Bradshaw is also being a bit economical with the truth. She has met with Transgender and the LGB Alliance. They are not groups Bradshaw approves of. But that is not the point. There are differing opinions and listening to the views of groups other than Stonewall (whose approach has been recently criticised by the courts in recent legal judgments) and Mermaids, currently under investigation by the Charity Commission for serious governance issues, is sensible. He's pissed off that she won't just listen to Stonewall.RochdalePioneers said:
Yep. Yet another lie told by her at the dispatch box. Lying on a multitude of subjects and on repeated occasions.TheScreamingEagles said:The Equalities minister Kemi Badenoch has not met with any LGBT organisations since getting the job in September 2022, but has met two groups which campaign against trans rights, according to a freedom of information request highlighted by Labour MP Ben Bradshaw #PMQs
https://x.com/adambienkov/status/1760282225621270646?s=46
No wonder Tory members are such fans.
It is not an "extensive" list as claimed by Ms Badenoch. But it is certainly wider than, say, the Labour Party, which won't even allow Labour Womens Declaration to have a stall at Labour Conference.
(I will declare an interest here in that I played a very small part in helping with their response a while back to some proposals put forward by Anneliese Dodds.)
By analogy, it's like inviting the Church of Satan to a consultation on Christian church regulation and not inviting the Roman Catholic Church.0 -
Really? Telling someone that if he makes a decision you disagree with, you will vote against him at the next election? What's wrong with that?numbertwelve said:
Oh good god, I…. I…. agree with Owen Jones.williamglenn said:
@OwenJones84ydoethur said:So we can now go back to thinking Starmer's not a misunderstood tactical genius again.
Thank goodness for that.
If this was Boris Johnson behaving like this, quite rightly, “centrist” commentators would be howling in outrage.
They’d call it thuggery, blackmail and an assault on the democratic system.
Let’s see how they respond to this, shall we!
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1760317560942203153
I think I need a lie down.0
