|
|
Post by Totheleft on Feb 22, 2024 10:41:20 GMT
Why what had starmer done but put forward another amendments it's is Democratic right.are you against that even you should be able to comprehend, just by reading the many critical factual accounts of yesterday, the problem But to spell it out for you: Parliament, not the government, the institution itself, decrees that from time to time a particular opposition party, and on other set occasions, individual members who are chosen by ballot, are presented with the opportunity to place before the house a motion for debate and vote. That the government or other opposition groups may not wish to have that debate is neither relevant nor should it ever be. This is how the system has worked since Charles the Second. The process set down is that the debate proceeds between the person or party allocated the right to bring their matter to the house, and their brittanic majesty’s government. While other opposition members may be called by the speaker to voice their view, the business under debate is that placed before the house by the party or member given leave to bring it, and the government Yesterday the Speaker of the House whose real job is to protect the elected members of all sides from the wrath of the King chose to break with this protocol and chose instead of allowing the SNP business to be placed before the house, chose instead to hear a different item of business argued by Labour and Tory. The SNP motion was ignored. The decision to breach this protocol was Hoyle’s to make. It is the Speaker’s job to declare the order of business and to call those who he sees wish to make contributions. It is he who should rightly face the wrath not of MP’s, not even of parties, but of Parliament as an institution and of the King too, for he has pissed the best part of five hundred years of agreement on how things should be done, agreed at the cost of christ knows how many lives including that of a monarch , up the wall. I don’t actually expect you to understand the gravity of this. Your posting history itself lays testimony to the soundness of my beliefs. But i feel that it is worth setting down, if only for others, the reality of what has gone on here. instead of allowing the SNP business to be placed before the house, chose instead to hear a different item of business argued by Labour and Tory. The SNP motion was ignored. No he did not jgnor the SNP he put forward both arguments. What's wrong with that |
|
|
|
Post by Hutchyns on Feb 22, 2024 10:42:29 GMT
totheleft
While you might be correct that there's no strict rule preventing Hoyle from acting as he did, if you make a shockingly biased and unethical decision it's unrealistic to expect everyone to say 'end of' and think no more about it ..... it would be wrong for Hoyle to be able to act as he did and expect to be immune from criticism.
Yesterday he was a disgrace to the position he holds, and that needs to be impressed upon him loud and clear.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Feb 22, 2024 10:43:42 GMT
What did he do wrong it's he decision on what can be debated on End off. The clue is in 'broke the rules'. I'm not defending what Lindsay Hoyle did, but he very clearly broke convention, not rules. |
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Feb 22, 2024 10:44:02 GMT
Hoyle didn't brake any rules it's up to the speaker to decide what can be debated What rule did he break Brake the rules? Well he did accelerate the departure of a lot of members from the house in disgust at what went on  They acted like cry babies they should of allowed the vote go On what was they scared of losinh |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Feb 22, 2024 10:48:51 GMT
The clue is in 'broke the rules'. I'm not defending what Lindsay Hoyle did, but he very clearly broke convention, not rules. If Hoyle had of pulled that stunt in favour of the Tories we'd never hear the end of it, Labour would be DEMANDING resignations, DEMANDING inquiries, they would be DEMANDING it's investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, double standard hypocrites, because it's Labour it's fine, they can do and say as they please, because the lefties are in control. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 22, 2024 10:52:42 GMT
The clue is in 'broke the rules'. I'm not defending what Lindsay Hoyle did, but he very clearly broke convention, not rules. isnt that what the uk parliament largely operates under though ? Convention , rather than rule? He broke precedent, and acted against the advice of his senior advisor. His position is now largely in my opinion untenable , and starmer looks corrupt as fuck. To save his blushes on a symbolic vote , where any normal labour leader striding along on the side of what is right , without breaking sweat ,starmer come out of this looking terrible , throwing parliament and the speaker under a bus to save his blushes. Arguably , he has created an even bigger story , whereas if say 100 labour mps had rebelled against the party leadership line , it would have been headline news for a day then gone. This could drag on a while , the longer Hoyle clings on , the longer this will stay in the news I think. Much to starmers dismay. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Feb 22, 2024 10:56:29 GMT
Well if Hoyle gets the boot, I hope this sends a message LOUD and clear, Starmer/Labour are not worth putting your job on the line.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hutchyns on Feb 22, 2024 10:57:09 GMT
totheleft
Let's ask the SNP .... firstly their leader Stephen Flynn, and then Ian Blackford.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 22, 2024 11:02:44 GMT
Well if Hoyle gets the boot, I hope this sends a message LOUD and clear, Starmer/Labour are not worth putting your job on the line. clearly Hoyle deserves the boot. No backbone , no common sense , and no dignity. I would have told starmer to fuck off , do your worst , and the prospect of labour mps in government potentially losing me my job would to my mind seem the lesser of two evils if you were boxed in a corner. Now , he has kept his job for the minute , but his position is untenable , and he is clinging on under a dark cloud. Im beginning to wonder is it uk politicians running the uk parliament , or is it everyone from Washington , the Israeli Knesset ,Brussels and fack knows where else. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 22, 2024 11:04:18 GMT
The clue is in 'broke the rules'. I'm not defending what Lindsay Hoyle did, but he very clearly broke convention, not rules. It's mob rule Andy and no amount of lefty excuses can hide that fact...Just imagine it it were the Tories who tried this stunt... |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Feb 22, 2024 11:15:41 GMT
I'm not defending what Lindsay Hoyle did, but he very clearly broke convention, not rules. It's mob rule Andy and no amount of lefty excuses can hide that fact...Just imagine it it were the Tories who tried this stunt... I don't disagree, I was just correcting FS's mistake. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Feb 22, 2024 11:17:32 GMT
Brake the rules? Well he did accelerate the departure of a lot of members from the house in disgust at what went on They acted like cry babies they should of allowed the vote go On what was they scared of losinh Well if we are believing what we’ve been told Hoyle was scared of losing his position which he may well do anyway but the ones scared were labour mp’s scared of some of their constituents. And I will repeat what I’ve said before I certainly have no time for Nutanyahu or what he’s now doing but by the same token we cannot be governed by mob rule either. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Feb 22, 2024 11:22:23 GMT
I'm not defending what Lindsay Hoyle did, but he very clearly broke convention, not rules. isnt that what the uk parliament largely operates under though ? Convention , rather than rule? He broke precedent, and acted against the advice of his senior advisor. His position is now largely in my opinion untenable , and starmer looks corrupt as fuck. To save his blushes on a symbolic vote , where any normal labour leader striding along on the side of what is right , without breaking sweat ,starmer come out of this looking terrible , throwing parliament and the speaker under a bus to save his blushes. Arguably , he has created an even bigger story , whereas if say 100 labour mps had rebelled against the party leadership line , it would have been headline news for a day then gone. This could drag on a while , the longer Hoyle clings on , the longer this will stay in the news I think. Much to starmers dismay. I don't disagree with most of that. There's a lot of unhappy MP's, for sure. Enough to oust him, or force him to resign? Unsure. Will it be forgotten about by the public? Almost certainly. They don't vote for the speaker anyway, as already pointed out. Political pantomime, definitely, great for groups like ours to discuss. Don't think Jenny from the block will remember come next week. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Feb 22, 2024 11:22:57 GMT
It's mob rule Andy and no amount of lefty excuses can hide that fact...Just imagine it it were the Tories who tried this stunt... I don't disagree, I was just correcting FS's mistake. Well Andy convention or rule is a play on words fact is he and Starmer behaved badly and it doesn’t look good. Another fact is Nutanyahu doesn’t give a toss about the HoC but we should isn’t there enough going on with the post office affair where let’s face it no party comes out of this well,some individuals do. Things like this can only shake public confidence more which is at an all time low for so many of our institutions. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Feb 22, 2024 11:22:59 GMT
57 at the moment, and if what I'm listening to is accurate, pressure is mounting on Hoyle to resign. |
|
