Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Keir Starmer


rb14
 Share

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Rushies tash said:

 

Grrr. Society isn't exactly how I think it should be and anyone who thinks differently to me is not only wrong, but a fucking idiot.

 

 

This is why the Tories consistently get voted back in. They are always able to unite under a common goal. The left would be able to argue amongst themselves in an empty room.

 

I don't think this is the left though, as such, that's why I used the term in quotes. It's misappropriated the term.

 

It's an angry, but loud, fringe minority that doesn't care about winning, but just wants to be enraged.

 

There's plenty on the right too, but they have more avenues to fume, more fringe movements and more media outlets.

 

The fringes are impossible to appease though. There'll be people in ukip for whom UKIP will never be right wing enough. If corbyn had won, there'd be people for whom Corbyn would never be left enoogh. The minute he, say, postponed a pledge to get rid of trident because the unions were on his case, he'd have been called a sellout by more than a few.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

 

I don't think this is the left though, as such, that's why I used the term in quotes. It's misappropriated the term.

 

It's an angry, but loud, fringe minority that doesn't care about winning, but just wants to be enraged.

 

There's plenty on the right too, but they have more avenues to fume, more fringe movements and more media outlets.

 

The fringes are impossible to appease though. There'll be people in ukip for whom UKIP will never be right wing enough. If corbyn had won, there'd be people for whom Corbyn would never be left enoogh. The minute he, say, postponed a pledge to get rid of trident because the unions were on his case, he'd have been called a sellout by more than a few.

 

I agree. It just seems way more prominent on the left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rushies tash said:

 

I agree. It just seems way more prominent on the left.

 

I suppose it's probably a broader chuch. The left used to be easier to define based on social and economic beliefs, now on both sides of the pond it's become a repository for "everyone who's not tory/republican".

 

It's unstable and hard to lead.

 

I think voter reform is the only way around it, long term.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Section_31 said:

 

I suppose it's probably a broader chuch. The left used to be easier to define based on social and economic beliefs, now on both sides of the pond it's become a repository for "everyone who's not tory/republican".

 

It's unstable and hard to lead.

 

I think voter reform is the only way around it, long term.

 

I would love nothing more than PR in this country. The fact that there's no appetite for it amongst the two major parties makes me suspicious as fuck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Section_31 said:

The genocide enabler stuff is nuts. The anti starmer/pro corbyn stuff has attracted a hard core of mentalists who are every bit as hardline as Trump supporters. They see what they want and don't see what they don't want to see. It's batshit.

 

Corbyn literally took money from Russia and Iran, but if you even mentioned the fact, let alone suggested it bought those countries a smidgen of influence, they'd set upon you like a pack of wolves.

 

Now those same people are pushing the idea that Starmer is bought and paid for by another country, without a shred of evidence, and certainly no awareness of irony. It's fair to say consistency is not their strong suit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Strontium said:

 

Corbyn literally took money from Russia and Iran, but if you even mentioned the fact, let alone suggested it bought those countries a smidgen of influence, they'd set upon you like a pack of wolves.

 

Now those same people are pushing the idea that Starmer is bought and paid for by another country, without a shred of evidence, and certainly no awareness of irony. It's fair to say consistency is not their strong suit.

 

Have you verifiable evidence of this? Genuine question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rushies tash said:

Have you verifiable evidence of this? Genuine question.

 

You ought to know now I wouldn't write something like that if I didn't. He was paid appearance fees by Russia Today and Iran's Press TV. It's a matter of public record.

 

In the interests of fairness, I should point out he is by no means the only MP to have been paid money by those countries to appear on their TV stations, plenty of other politicians on both left and right have done so. I'm really only making a point about a double standard being applied to Starmer by a subset of his supporters.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Strontium said:

 

You ought to know now I wouldn't write something like that if I didn't. He was paid appearance fees by Russia Today and Iran's Press TV. It's a matter of public record.

 

In the interests of fairness, I should point out he is by no means the only MP to have been paid money by those countries to appear on their TV stations, plenty of other politicians on both left and right have done so. I'm really only making a point about a double standard being applied to Starmer by a subset of his supporters.

 

In the reply I originally drafted, I  actually said that you wouldn't have posted if you didn't, but deleted it as it got too wordy. Regardless, I think being paid to do an interview is a bit different to being paid to lobby or change legislation or foreign policy.

 

I happen to think you're right about Starmer as well. I think it's convenient for some to think he's in the pocket of different interests, rather than simply trying to make Labour electable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Rushies tash said:

 

I would love nothing more than PR in this country. The fact that there's no appetite for it amongst the two major parties makes me suspicious as fuck.


Nothing to be suspicious about. First past the post suits their hegemony. Democracy is a distant second.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Accessibility LinksSkip to content

 

MENU

 

sunday february 25 2024

 

Subscribe

 

You are reading this article for free.

 

Enjoy unlimited articles, free for one month.

 

View offer

 

After a week of chaos, Sir Lindsay Hoyle is running out of options

 

The SNP and the Conservatives are readying a fresh attack on the beleaguered Speaker of the House of Commons

 

Caroline Wheeler

 

 

Tim Shipman

 

 

Harry Yorke

 

and 

 

John Boothman

 

Sunday February 25 2024, 12.01am, The Sunday Times

 

Share

 

Sir Lindsay Hoyle could be forgiven for hoping that the chaos that had threatened to engulf him last week was receding. That after a weekend in their constituencies, the MPs who called for his resignation would feel they had made their point.

 

In fact the opposite appears to be true.

 

The Speaker faces a fresh threat this week after the SNP called for a Brexit-style “meaningful vote” on an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.

 

It was Hoyle’s handling of the party’s motion on the same issue — allowing Labour to amend it — that triggered the outrage in parliament.

 

Now Stephen Flynn, the SNP’s Westminster leader, is keen for a rerun. He says he wants to “refocus the discussion away from the Westminster circus and onto what really matters: doing everything we can to secure an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and Israel”.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

 

Worryingly for the Speaker, Flynn wants a “meaningful vote” on the issue — a controversial procedure used during the Brexit wars fought by Theresa May’s government. Such motions are not normally amendable or binding on the government but when John Bercow was Speaker, he on occasion broke parliamentary convention and made them so.

 

The affair has helped SNP’s Westminster leader Stephen Flynn to paint the Commons as rotten to the core and biased against the nationalists

 

JESSICA TAYLOR/UK PARLIAMENT/AFP

 

Tory MPs said at the time that Bercow’s meddling contributed to May’s inability to pass her Brexit deal, despite three attempts. In the current case it would also open the door to an opposition party setting policy on a highly controversial topic.

 

Hoyle has been warned by senior Tories that granting the SNP such a vote would be seen as another significant departure from protocol, following last week’s debacle. It would also put him on a collision course with Simon Hart, the chief whip, who is understood to have written to him to raise his concerns.

 

Hoyle was told it would only “add to the tensions” that erupted in parliament last week. The warning has been interpreted by the Speaker’s allies as a veiled threat that the Tories could yet move to topple him.

 

SPONSORED

 

It leaves him two options, each unpalatable. He can either grant a debate, which could reignite efforts to oust him, or refuse — and risk a fresh outburst of wrath from the SNP. The nationalists are well versed in disruptive tactics and would be an irritant the Speaker could do without.

 

Last week Hoyle was left clinging to his job after 72 MPs, 30 of them from the SNP, backed an early day motion, initiated by William Wragg, the Conservative MP, calling for him to resign.

 

The row began on Wednesday, after he took the unusual step of overruling advice from his clerks to allow a vote on a Labour amendment to an SNP motion to call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. This allowed Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, to sidestep a rebellion from his MPs. It provoked a furious backlash from the Conservatives.

 

Labour bosses had feared rebel MPs would defy the party whip by supporting the strongly worded SNP motion.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

 

As the first vote approached, Penny Mordaunt, the Commons leader, accused the Speaker of “undermining the confidence” of the House in him, announcing that the Conservatives would take no further part in the proceedings. This lead to a mass walkout by Tory and SNP MPs. Senior Labour sources have said this was because the Conservatives lacked support for their motion.

 

After various points of order calling for the Speaker to return to the chamber to explain himself, and shouts of “resign”, a visibly emotional Hoyle told the Commons he had made his decision because of concerns about the security of MPs and their families, alluding to threats issued to politicians over their stances on the war. “I regret … that it has ended up in this position, it was never my intention,” the former Labour MP said. “I did not want it to end like this.”

 

The chaotic scenes reminded many MPs of the tenure of John Bercow as Speaker

 

TIMES PHOTOGRAPHER JACK HILL

 

However, that did not stop him from facing a barrage of criticism. Rebecca Harris, a senior whip, complained to colleagues about Hoyle going the “full Bercow” — a reference to his predecessor’s laissez faire approach to convention. Another said the Speaker would be “out of a job by Tuesday”.

Much of the fury stemmed from reports that Starmer had met Hoyle minutes before he made his decision to allow the Labour and government amendments. MPs near the dingy “reasons room” behind the Commons chamber say that Hoyle met senior figures with his clerks present — but then kicked them out so he could speak to Starmer privately.

 

A witness produced a contemporaneous note of events in the corridor behind the Speaker’s chair and passed it to the Tory whips’ office. Those who have seen it say the Speaker retreated there with his clerks after prime minister’s questions, while a doorkeeper stood guard and sent away MPs who tried to talk to him, including Labour’s Zarah Sultana.

 

A short while later Sir Alan Campbell, Labour’s chief whip, was allowed in by the doorkeeper. Ten minutes later he came out looking “deeply unhappy”.

 

Campbell disappeared at high speed through the “No” lobby. At this point other Labour whips and several MPs gathered behind the Speaker’s chair, near the reasons room, talking loudly of how “Keir is going to fix the Speaker”.

 

Chris Elmore, a Labour whip, told one group of Labour MPs to “use every procedural measure possible to delay”, using points of order during the ten-minute rule bill. Chris Bryant even forced a vote to eat up more time.

 

Sir Keir Starmer has denied making threats during his meeting with the Speaker

 

JACOB KING/PA

 

ADVERTISEMENT

 

Ten minutes after he left, Campbell returned to the reasons room with Starmer. Both were immediately admitted by the doorkeeper and the clerks “kicked out”, and after five minutes alone with Hoyle, the Labour leader and his chief whip emerged smiling.

 

The clerks then returned to the room for another five minutes, during which time it is believed they protested against Hoyle’s decision on the standing orders, before Hoyle went to the Speaker’s chair to announce his ruling to MPs.

 

Hoyle’s allies dispute this version of events. They say the Speaker had decided what he would do before seeing Starmer.

 

Hoyle asked Tom Goldsmith, the Commons clerk and an authority on procedure for the chamber, to publish his advice, which said that his decision represented a “departure from the long-established convention for dealing with such amendments on opposition days, [made] during that morning’s ‘Speaker’s conference’ meeting”.

 

They also claim he spelt out the likely outcome of his decision to Owen Thompson, the SNP chief whip, before his unprompted meeting with Starmer.

 

Both Starmer and Hoyle deny any threats were made during the meeting — but that has not stopped Neale Hanvey, an Alba Party MP, reporting the Labour leader to the privileges committee over allegations of intimidating the Speaker.

 

A cabinet minister said: “It is most unusual to see Starmer and Campbell without the clerks present while Labour MPs, in a co-ordinated action in the chamber, were busy buying time. It is disgraceful. They should never have put the Speaker in that position and he shouldn’t have gone along with it, but he has apologised. This looks as though it’s a serious breach of parliamentary process. What we appear to have seen is something more befitting a banana republic.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

 

“It shows that the leader of the Labour Party is a slippery lawyer who shilly-shallies around in terror that 100 of his own MPs would vote with the SNP.”

 

Sir Lindsay Hoyle has admitted making mistakes after his handling of the SNP motion triggered outrage in parliament

 

NORDIN CATIC/GETTY

 

SNP MPs believe that throughout their discussions with the Speaker “it was all about pleasing Labour”.

 

Going forward, one idea being discussed is to engage in guerrilla tactics to disrupt parliament, which would raise the SNP’s profile and unite the party in a general election year.

 

The government has for now decided not to move against Hoyle, with cabinet ministers Michael Gove, James Cleverly and Mordaunt instead seeking to shift the blame onto Starmer.

 

However, while ministers have been told they cannot join the campaign to oust Hoyle, in private several junior mid-ranking ministers condemned his handling of the controversy. They include transport minister Anthony Browne, technology minister Saqib Bhatti, health minister Maria Caulfield and defence minister James Cartlidge.

 

From an SNP point of view, last week was a good one. They feel they are at the centre of the row and believe they have dragged Starmer kicking and screaming into calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.

 

In November, they embarrassed Starmer when they split his party by attracting 56 Labour MPs to support a ceasefire, including ten frontbenchers.

 

This affair has done Flynn no end of good within the party. He has brought his MPs together in what is a challenging period for the SNP, has burnished his future leadership credentials, and has allowed his supporters to paint Westminster as rotten to the core and biased against the nationalists.

 

Conservative Party

 

Labour Party

 

UK politics

 

Keir Starmer

 

Related articles

 

LEADING ARTICLE

 

Fear Factor

 

February 22 2024, 9.30pm

 

The Times Leading Articles

 

PATRICK MAGUIRE

 

Hoyle is falling into the same trap as Bercow

 

February 22 2024, 9.00pm

 

Patrick Maguire

 

POLITICS

 

PM criticises Hoyle for ‘bending to intimidation by extremists’

 

February 22 2024, 8.30pm

 

Steven Swinford

 

 

Oliver Wright

 

 

Matt Dathan

 

Like what you have read?

 

Enjoy unlimited articles, free for one month.View offer

 

Already a subscriber? Login

 

PREVIOUS ARTICLE

 

Previous article

 

NEXT ARTICLE

 

Next article

 

BACK TO TOP

 

Get in touchAbout usContact usHelpThe Times Editorial ComplaintsThe Sunday Times Editorial ComplaintsPlace an announcementClassified advertisingDisplay advertisingThe Times correctionsThe Sunday Times correctionsCareers

 

More from The Times and The Sunday TimesThe Times e-paperThe Sunday Times e-paperThe Sunday Times Wine ClubTimes Print GalleryThe Times ArchiveTimes Crossword ClubSunday Times DrivingTimes+The Sunday Times Rich ListTravelGood University GuideSchools GuideNewslettersBest Places to LiveBest Places to StayTimes AppointmentsPodcastsTimes Money MentorTimes LuxurySportswomen of the Year AwardsBest Places to WorkPuzzles

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Rushies tash said:

 

I agree. It just seems way more prominent on the left.

Thats bollocks.

 

The right are permanently enraged and in recent years they have had everything they wanted. But its still not enough

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/02/2024 at 19:31, Section_31 said:

Nobody seems to care that labour have as much influence on the situation as the Boy Scouts, that's what's making all this utterly bonkers.

 

If Netenyahu was poised to pull the trigger on a fresh wave of cluster bombings and was on the blower to Starmer saying "I'm a bit dubious, but if you tell me I'm good to go ill sign off', then fair enough.

 

Labour has no control over sanctions, the military, it can't lobby other governments, it can't stop arms sales, it can't do a single thing. Nothing it says or does will have any impact, at all.

 

The genocide enabler stuff is nuts. The anti starmer/pro corbyn stuff has attracted a hard core of mentalists who are every bit as hardline as Trump supporters. They see what they want and don't see what they don't want to see. It's batshit.

 

Did you say the same when Starmer was visiting Ukraine? Did anyone mention it on the Ukraine thread when Starmer/Labour were giving speeches in the HoC rightly condemning Putin. Did you call those showing genuine concerns for Ukrainian citizens 'mentalists'?

 

 

As for seeing what they want to see. I don't think the millions who march through London reallly 'want' to see children with limbs torn apart. That's what's being shown on news and social media throughout the world for the past 4 months and on a daily basis.

 

The vast majority of the billions who have marched/protested for a ceasefire from places such as Yemen, Australia, America, Brazil; London, Washington etc are not 'mentalists they are humanitarians. 

 

 

The vast majority of people throughout the four corners of the earth would like every politician to use whatever voice they've been given (however small their contribution may be or be received) to call for an end to the killing of innocent lives by an occupation force. Elected politicians should be clear where they stand for the people they represent  it's part of their job. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Section_31 said:

Labour, for the last time, I told you to call back those Israeli troops.

 

 

n8uqyc03rhl21.jpg

 

Why bother having a shadow foreign secretary then? Why bother having a shadow foreign policy at all. Why bother drawing up Labours own bill Instead of just go along with the SNP motion. Why discuss the amendment with people as high ranking as these? 

 

 

20240226_133444.jpg

 

 

https://www.thenational.scot/news/24141846.sky-news-deletes-tweet-keir-starmer-admitting-talks-isaac-herzog/?s=09

 

 

 

Why bother being in opposition? He's the future PM of a country which had a bit of an involvement in setting up the country in 48. It would be bizzare for the leader of the Labour Party to not voice an opinion. Why, if its all an irrelevance doesn't Starmer take the position of the vast majority of people of this country? 

 

 

As for the Israelis. Their is a reason they're on our TV screens spouting propaganda every 10 minutes. Also a reason inviting Labour MPs over there on jollys. Unless you think they're doing it out of the goodness of their heart. 

 

 

The Leader of the Labour Party has a lot more influence than most politicians throughout the world. Why doesn't Starmer oppose? Because he's positioned the Labour Party into a position where the Israeli faction has far to much influence. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exellent summary of last week's pantomime by Peter Oborne if you've got a few minutes. 

 

What he doesn't say is the speaker nor Starmer hadn't raised any concerns over MPs safety until he decided to let the SNP have their motion as planned. Plus in the times of the IRA, Brighton bombings etc Parliament wasn't cowering like last Wednesday. 

 

Just a smokescreen and a dangerous one which has given the far right the opportunity to cause division. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 26/02/2024 at 05:42, redinblack said:

Thats bollocks.

 

The right are permanently enraged and in recent years they have had everything they wanted. But its still not enough

Behave,  they are as bad as each other . Neither will debate anything reasonably and seem to think screaming insults is a good response to a difficult question. Tolerance of alternative viewpoints is a thing of the past . Sadly a lot of it has been media driven and the rest by clueless fuckers.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

George Galloway winning 40% of the vote in Rochdale is a kick in the balls for Starmer 

The problem is Labour have already come out and sid not our fault, he only won because we didn't put a candidate forward. 

Just heard local radio pushing the same narrative.  

They know what is happening is wrong  but can't call out the official narrative.  

Nothing is allowed to change. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...