Actually he didn't lie but did not reply to the MP aspect of the question asked. He did state that he did talk to the speaker, nothing unusual about that and stated that he did not threaten him in any way. That's no basis for saying he lied. We have no idea one way or the other.
Speaker of the House of Commons
- Thread starter blup
- Start date
Not saying he lied at all. It was far worse, he got his mates to threaten the speaker about losing his job after the election, then used the safety of mp’s as a means of persuasion. Classic carrot and stick. Interesting that on tv now Cleverly is turning his guns away from the speaker. The toreys calculate they have more to gain by targetting smarmy. The Speaker will have to mind his ps and qs on government business though.
I'd noticed you calling him Smarmy/Stammer rather than Starmer. Not sure if the second of those was a typo! Things like that often indicate real dislike. I always prefer to avoid political nicknames when trying making a serious point.
The fear of violence must not stop Parliament from doing its job and making important decisions. But this was only ever a symbolic and non-binding vote, which the Tories cynically manipulated into a political trap for Labour MPs, using an arcane procedural rule. Normally they wouldn't bother with an amendment to an Opposition Day motion, or even take part in the debate. But they saw an opportunity to damage Labour. That was the shameful part of this whole spectacle. We should now follow Bernard Jenkin's advice and have a proper debate with a real range on options to vote on. Tom Peck, the Times sketch writer, points out that when Mark Francois is the voice of reason, something is very badly wrong.
Last edited:
Its not about disliking him as a person but contempt for his actions, he could yet find himself subject of a recall petition if the torey's play their cards right. I will endeavour not to call him Stammer as I can see that might cause upset. But with people on GD regularly calling for asylum seekers to be machine gunned in the channel, please put it in context.
It's a thing:
Category:Nicknames of politicians - Wikipedia
What grounds?
There are a whole range of reasons why he has breached standards rules. But the speaker can only give notice after the standards process has made its adverse finding, and only then if its more than 6 months to an election so although the process could be started it would almost certainly eat into the 6 months.
I've not heard any mention of that so far. Do you have any examples of which standards might be looked at or maybe links to where this might be being discussed?
Just seen something on order-order. Not been there for years. Somebody from the Alba party has made a complaint. I'd not heard of them before!
From what I've just read, it's a hopeless case.
Last edited:
Isn't that Alex Salmonds lot?
Really, the fuss is an inter-party squabble in the run-up to an election.
Hardly anybody seriously cares about Parliamentary procedure.
But politicians are very interested in making other parties look bad.
BTW I think it is bad practice to say your decision is to bend to threats of violence. It tells people that threats of violence are how to get your own way. I'm not convinced that the life of a politician is more valuable than the life of a milkman or a plasterer. No surprise that politicians think it is.
Hardly anybody seriously cares about Parliamentary procedure.
But politicians are very interested in making other parties look bad.
BTW I think it is bad practice to say your decision is to bend to threats of violence. It tells people that threats of violence are how to get your own way. I'm not convinced that the life of a politician is more valuable than the life of a milkman or a plasterer. No surprise that politicians think it is.
I agree. This should all have been sorted out behind closed doors and then a debate agreed with a range of options to vote on. The way the Tories tried to manipulate this was disgusting.
Hardly that, given the consequences.
Politicians do, and we should. If the Speaker is going to exercise his unfettered discretion because the conventions aren't worth the paper they are or are not written on, that has massive implications for law makers.
Apart from a squabble, what do you think are the consequences?
Political interference by the speaker is a consequence itself
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 15,782
- Reaction score
- 2,371
- Country
There is rumour that he'd done a deal with Starmer, but of course there will be no record of that. according to sky news.." a shadow minister told Sky News that Labour whips told Sir Lindsay they wouldn't back him to carry on as the Commons Speaker after the next election if he didn't pick their party's amendment.".
I don't think he should have changed the process because politicians were being threatened with violence.
The right thing to do is involve the police. it would be very embarrassing if the conservatives fronted a candidate against him and lost.
I think his defence is very weak.
Can't believe the SNP and conservatives aligned
I don't think he should have changed the process because politicians were being threatened with violence.
The right thing to do is involve the police. it would be very embarrassing if the conservatives fronted a candidate against him and lost.
I think his defence is very weak.
Can't believe the SNP and conservatives aligned