Speaker Gate.....what Do We Think?

[ToraToraTora]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68366512

So former Labour MP allows Labour amendment to SNP motion before said motion is debated and voted on. Genuine error or conscious bias?

[davebro3]

Got no time for Hoyle - little better than the awful Bercow IMV.

[andy-hughes]

I have always considered Sir Lindsay to be a fair and honourable man, and I think his track record underlines that.

I think he made a genuine mistake, and was trying to be fair as he saw it.

I hope this lapse will not mean the end of his tenure as Speaker. 

[naomi24]

An error of judgement.

[ichkeria]

None of it a very edifying spectacle: no party comes out of it well: shouting about their own interests in the circumstances.
He made an error of judgment probably not foreseeing the cascade of toys from prams after what IMO was a pretty pointless exercise anyway. Move on I say but he's an honourable man and maybe he'll resign 

[Untitled]

the purpose of opposition days is to lend time to parties with significant representation in parliament that are not the official Opposition... they have the right to put forward proposals and by convention only the government may amend 

this is to stop all opposition being monopolised by one party 

keir starmer had the rules bent in his favour in order to prevent a rebellion in his party. this is disgraceful and it defeats the purpose of opposition days... it is shameful that hoyle allowed it and he should absolutely resign. no fan of the SNP at all but they were absolutely correct to kick up a stink. a terrible move by starmer and a disgraceful one by hoyle!!!

[ToraToraTora]

yep, untitled that's a good assessment, BA. Hoyle has been accurate up to now, I don't buy the genuine error theory.

[naomi24]

Why would he do it though when he knows it's not going to go unnoticed?

[mushroom25]

the following appeared on the BBC News-Live feed at about 9am:-

// Nick Watt

Political editor, BBC Newsnight

I have had conversation with MPs, senior Labour MPs who have great fears for their security. These are being taken seriously by the authorities and in some cases there is police protection.

What we are talking about is Labour MPs who voted for the Labour amendment back in November which did not talk about an immediate ceasefire.

They were hounded on social media, and we're talking talking about protests outside homes and that was very much in the mind of Keir Starmer and indeed very much in the mind of the Speaker when he made that statement yesterday.

Essentially what he was worried about is that, had he not allowed the Labour amendment yesterday which did call for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, those Labour MPs would have only had the choice of voting for the SNP motion - which they couldn't do because it talked about how Israel was guilty of collective punishment. Or they could vote for the government motion and that talked about humanitarian pauses.

The Speaker felt that you should give those MPs the ability to vote for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in the way they felt comfortable with.

A member of the shadow cabinet sent me a lengthy heartfelt text saying: "Hounded on social media? Nick it's so much worse than that. I'm really fearful." //

[ichkeria]

"By convention" or "bending the rules" ?

It can't be both and I think you'll find it's the former. 

"this is to stop all opposition being monopolised by one party "

Well in effect the "opposition" was shared by SNP and Labour in the end, although overall the differences between the parties weren't great and I'm not sure what the "terrible move by Starmer" was: it was the Speaker surely? The whole thing - with all the attendant rumpus - is very unedifying. This isn't an issue it seems that nue divides the parties much anyway so to see it descend into farce is particularly unfortunate 

[ichkeria]

The really stupid thing is that the vote will change nothing - whether it's the SNP, Labour or the Tories getting their way. 

[youngmafbog]

There is a problem with MP's being attacked and hounded and that needs to be addressed. Changing things to appease the minorities is wrong.

However I dont think Hoyle needs to resign, just learn from it.

[Untitled]

conventions are pretty serious business in parliament and often carry the weight of rules. the only person who benefited from this was keir starmer, who managed to avoid a rebellion.. it is not the speaker's business to do political favours but to protect the integrity of parliament. that is why his own deputies have written letters of protest.

[youngmafbog]

Ick @9:34.  Agree entirely.

No country in the World would take any notice of our Countries views.  That ship has sailed and its time we got that.

[ToraToraTora]

09:34, yep totally pointless action.

[ichkeria]

Furthermore, a Labour MP has rather naively called for MPs to show the same consensus on Gaza as Ukraine: this is impossible, of course. And motions and debates such as yesterday's, while I am all for debate, merely highlight the inevitable differences. I'd say most MPs would like the fighting there to stop: but as we have seen with the arguments on AB, once you get into the nitty-gritty the differences soon multiply.

[Old_Geezer]

He knew protocol.

Poor decision on his part to flaunt it.

[ichkeria]

I doubt if the Speaker can survive this: 53 and counting have signed a motion. None of it of course related to Gaza, but all to do with petty politics. Not a good look at all.

[DTCwordfan]

The thing that damns him is Beer Warmer going along to his House and 'influencing' him.....impartial this was not. A big error of misjudgement it was and the SNP and Tories were right to walk out. What did the wimpish Libs do - sit on their hands?

[ichkeria]

I would have more sympathy with that argument if it was something related to a motion that had any point to it. As Matt Chorley (no relation) has commented, high horses have been mounted.

[Paul22118]

This just illustrates how persuasive and forceful Starmer can be when his back is against the wall. His little 'chat' in the reason room gives us a flavour of what is, maybe, to come in the future Labour government.