Speaker of the House of Commons

The winners are the 'mob' who have used threats of violence to influence decision making.
Starmer was trying to protect the fall out from losing the Muslim vote.
All parties have conspired in promoting sectarian violence.
 
The speakers comments about his duty of care are correct. He also expected that all would be voted on. It didn't turn out as he expected. That is why he apologised. Talks behind closed doors have been happening.

Meanwhile the usual - Penny, all labour's fault. SNP get rid of him / resign. A group of 59 have no confidence in him. They have sent letters to some one or the other.

A comment on the bloke himself - he will resign if this can not be sorted out. Sort of bloke he is. Seems there is no mechanism for getting rid of a speaker. ;) Seems Charles may be able to.

My view - forget all of the ranting for the TV media, sort it out and get on with what we pay them for.

LOL A comment from one on holding it all again - no point the same thing will happen. Guess which party.
 
Why did the government withdrawing their amendment mean that the SNP motion couldn't be voted on? It's widely reported, but I've not found anything yet which actually explains this.
 
Notch7 said:
SNP have most to fear from Labour in the next GE

They are being stupid, the SNP are far closer to Labour than Conservatives, yet here they desperately trying to damage Labours chances.
Click to expand...


The SNP want enough MP’s at the next election to force a SNP / Labour coalition
 
And this is what all the fuss is about!!!

  • By parliamentary convention, an opposition party amendment (in this case Labour's) to a motion submitted by another opposition party (the SNP) is not put to a vote when there is also a government amendment
Click to expand...
 
JonathanM said:
I understand now why the SNP were angry. It was their Opposition Day, their motion and it should have been voted on first. All the hoo haa about Labour distracted from that and turned into effectively a debate on Labour's amendemnt. I think a lot of the rest though is confected anger, especially from the Tories. There are lots of ways in which they abuse the Commons procedures when it suits them. One of the lobby journalists got a text from a minister saying "We're not as angry at the Speaker as we're pretending to be!"
Click to expand...
The tories have back tracked but the mis application of the rules was an egregious breach as the yanks like to call it.
 
Tories now saying Starmy is to blame, and he admits having a "conversation" with the Speaker but did not threaten him. He doesn't have to, his term as speaker ends when parliament dissolves at the end of the year. Clear implicit threat. Shameful politicisation of the role.
 
JonathanM said:
Why did the government withdrawing their amendment mean that the SNP motion couldn't be voted on? It's widely reported, but I've not found anything yet which actually explains this.
Click to expand...

It gets more mysterious! It seems that the reason Penny Mordant withdrew the government from the debate was not because of any matter of principle. It was simply that the Tories were worried that too many of their own MPs would support the Labour amendment and that would be embarrassing for the Tories :LOL:

So, the chronology is. SNP put forward their motion. Labour put forward their amendment. In order to cause Labour embarrassment, the government put forward their own amendment. This would normally stop the Labour amendment being voted on. But the speaker goes against precedent and says he is going to change the rules for future debates. He allows both amendments. The government realises that the Labour amendment is actually really popular with MPs, including their own. As a result, they withdraw from the debate to stop their MPs voting for Labour and causing them the embarrassment they had been wanting to inflict on Labour. Which means the Labour amendment now has enough votes to pass because there are no Tories to vote against it. As a result of the Labour amendment passing, there can't be a vote on the SNP motion.
 
Last edited:
I think an NI response is called for. They walked out so dissolve parliament. They can have an election when they settle just what they would do under these particular circumstances. Probably best would be if a party walks out those that are left can get on with what they want to do. Fix it at a stroke. No party would walk out. In this case the SNP and the Tory would have had their vote.
JonathanM said:
too many of their own MPs would support the Labour motion
Click to expand...
It's been mentioned but not so clearly. It also seems Penny has said re the speaker all need a period of reflection.

All conjecture really even one that Labour's bill should not have been read out, no vote on it at all. So people on here might even post a social media post or anything else they may have heard from any source ;) As usual,

By the way at least one Tory agreed with the speakers concerns. I actually heard it. No idea if there is a split in Tory views but it would not surprise me at all if there are.
 
All a load of baloney imo

Mountain out of a mole hill

Give the SNP another day / date for there caper

Problem
Sorted / simples

That Hoyle is a decent enough bloke
 
Any one threatening intimidating an MP should be arrested and banged up for 20 years (?)

I don’t care who they are either
 
Reminds me of a council meeting we attended where we were going to put forward a petition...

At the last minute a point of order was raised so we had to sit through 30 minutes+ of utter bonkers behaviour...

Apparently there was an ongoing appeal to the government regarding the positioning of a mobile phone mast.
A letter had been sent in prior to the local elections by the then ruling nasty party.
However the council was now NOC, so the literal dingbats said they should draft the letter this time.
The argument went on for 20 minutes or so until the mayor said why don't both parties put their names on it?
That was followed by 10 minutes argument about who would forward the motion and who would second it...

Once it was sorted, the mayor said, 'thanks for wasting everyone's time on an issue that could have been sorted out over a packet of crisps and a fizzy drink at playtime break'...

At which point it all kicked off again with the mayor being accused of being disrespectful :LOL:
 
He's going even lower with his latest after the event justification by making out it was related to protecting mp's. Totally irrelevant to the proper and fair application of the rules. But the tory leadership seems to have spun it this way so as to keep relations reasonable for the budget and other government business they want to get through up to the election. But I wouldn't blame them for putting up a candidate against him. Sauce for the goose etc.
 
ellal said:
Reminds me of a council meeting we attended where we were going to put forward a petition...

At the last minute a point of order was raised so we had to sit through 30 minutes+ of utter bonkers behaviour...

Apparently there was an ongoing appeal to the government regarding the positioning of a mobile phone mast.
A letter had been sent in prior to the local elections by the then ruling nasty party.
However the council was now NOC, so the literal dingbats said they should draft the letter this time.
The argument went on for 20 minutes or so until the mayor said why don't both parties put their names on it?
That was followed by 10 minutes argument about who would forward the motion and who would second it...

Once it was sorted, the mayor said, 'thanks for wasting everyone's time on an issue that could have been sorted out over a packet of crisps and a fizzy drink at playtime break'...

At which point it all kicked off again with the mayor being accused of being disrespectful :LOL:
Click to expand...
Jackie Weaver, you don't have the authority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top