Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Why’s Boris making an announcement at 3. 30?

521 replies

ArseInTheCoOpWindow · 31/01/2022 12:18

Is he going to resign?!!

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
SamphiretheStickerist · 01/02/2022 13:57

Scuse the typos. My office is cold and my fingers arthritic Smile

dontcallmelen · 01/02/2022 14:26

@hotdogsjumpingfrogs

The speaker expressed his anger with the comments today. So I guess that is something
It’s a start, maybe his inbox was fuller than usual.
Starlightstarbright1 · 01/02/2022 14:48

Mr Speaker asked me to thank you for your email and to respond on his behalf.

Mr Speaker has asked me to explain that he is not responsible for Members’ contributions and would not seek to intervene unless something is said that is, in parliamentary terms, disorderly.

Nothing occurred yesterday that was, in technical terms, disorderly. That being said, Mr Speaker feels that allegations such as these should not be made lightly - especially in view of the guidance in Erskine May – the definitive guide to parliamentary procedure – about good temper and moderation being the characteristics of parliamentary debate.

Mr Speaker was far from satisfied that these comments were appropriate or helpful on this occasion, even if they did not fall outside the rules. He would like to see more compassionate and reasonable politics in the House of Commons, and these sorts of comments only enflame opinions and create discord.

However, it is not for the Chair to adjudicate on the accuracy or veracity of Members’ contributions, so long as the contents of their words remain orderly. Mr Speaker can only operate within the powers afforded to him by the House and it would not be appropriate for him to play the role of fact checker during, or subsequent to, debates.

If a Member feels that a Minister has been deliberately misleading, as opposed to inadvertently mistaken, they could table a substantive motion criticising the conduct of that Minister and seek to initiate debates on the detail of the Government policy in question, as well as tabling questions to pursue statements made at the dispatch box.

Members are not otherwise allowed to accuse each other of lying unless debating a substantive motion directly addressing the point. Erskine May says that this is to “preserve the character of parliamentary debate” and that “expressions when used in respect of other Members which are regarded with particular seriousness, generally leading to prompt intervention from the Chair and often a requirement on the Member to withdraw the words, include the imputation of false or unavowed motives; the misrepresentation of the language of another and the accusation of misrepresentation; and charges of uttering a deliberate falsehood.” (paragraph 21.24)

The Speaker takes all comments from members of the public very seriously and would like to reassure you that one of his principal concerns is to ensure that the highest standards of debate are maintained in the House of Commons. He always does his utmost to encourage Members to conduct themselves in a dignified and productive manner in the Chamber, and to remind them of the views of the public on this matter. He is aware that there is much to be done in this regard and will continue to press for improvements.

I hope that the above information is helpful. Thank you for taking the time to write and please accept our best wishes.

Kind regards,

Josh Ryder

just recieved reply email from Speakers assistant

DePfeffoff · 01/02/2022 15:01

@SamphiretheStickerist

How dare LH try to make IB say inadvertently when we all know that would be a lie?

Because it is basic tenet of the House. You don't call anyone a liar and if you do the meeting is cloised. He explained it all, repeteatedly, at the time. "Just say 'inadvertently' and we can continue this much needed discussion. Don't force me to have you removed and the debate closed"

It's not that he supports Johnson, just that this is one of the non negotiable rules of the House. It is there to protect Members from various legal allegations, to ensure freedom of speech etc .

IB could have said "apparently inadvertently" and that would have been enough... and he, like all other MPs, know that!

That is both ridiculous and hypocritical, though, isn't it? People can make it transparently obvious by the tone of their voice that they think the lying was anything but inadvertent, but so long as they say the magic word they're in the clear. And for that justification to work, surely it must apply equally to accusing someone of letting a paedophile run free.
DePfeffoff · 01/02/2022 15:03

I had the same response from Josh "the Bot" Ryder.

SamphiretheStickerist · 01/02/2022 16:51

@DePfeffoff
It is when it is being used/abused. See the post above yours, one of the paragraphs has more information on it. The words IB would have said would have been transparent, enforced, face saving and allowed the debate to continue.

It's supposed to be protective, to allow emotive topics to be discussed without any personal attacks. It has been a basic rule for a very long time, is part of the HoC 101 toolkit.

CryingAtTheDiscotheque · 01/02/2022 17:04

The rule dates back to a time when lying to the House was regarded as such a serious contempt that it required a proper debate - ie, it assumes a basic level of honesty and probity that is entirely absent from the govt benches

The rule is no longer fit for purpose and now has the absurd consequence that liars are protected, but those who call them out are punished

longwayoff · 01/02/2022 17:30

If Blakeford had said 'I cant say that it was inadvertent. If I said that I believe it was, it would be a lie.' How would that be dealt with? Would that amount to a refusal to withdraw
as well?

KarenTheGammonRemoaner · 01/02/2022 17:44

and care home too today they say in the paper

BringBackCoffeeCreams · 01/02/2022 17:47

@longwayoff

If Blakeford had said 'I cant say that it was inadvertent. If I said that I believe it was, it would be a lie.' How would that be dealt with? Would that amount to a refusal to withdraw as well?
I wondered that as well. He was being told he had to lie to Parliament. How does that work then?
saddowizca · 01/02/2022 17:55

I feel so utterly powerless. He's obviously completely devoid of any decency, that his position surely can't be tenable.
My MP is Labour so no point in emailing her, I could sign a change petition, but that seems a bit futile.

longwayoff · 01/02/2022 18:17

It's bizarre. Half the country held hostage by the bloody Prime Minister and we have to hope that his bunch of slavish admirers will turn on him and do a Julius Caesar. Apparently, if they don't (Turkeys? Christmas?) we're stuck with him. As above, the rules were set by people who expected and demanded standards of 'common decency' from all players. It reminds me of people saying the famed 'checks and balances' of the US constitution would quell Trump. He very nearly got what he wanted and may still do so. This is part of western democracy teetering. Our system is close to collapse. Very worrying.

Poodles23 · 01/02/2022 18:20

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Poodles23 · 01/02/2022 18:22

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Poodles23 · 01/02/2022 18:22

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

hotdogsjumpingfrogs · 01/02/2022 18:26

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Gardengates · 01/02/2022 18:28

Oh dear @Poodles23

I think you wanted a name change there.

Are you Boris?

HangoverSquare · 01/02/2022 18:33

Don't be silly.

It's Boris' No.1 devoted fan.

Nadine Dorries.

GreenLunchBox · 01/02/2022 18:49

@Starlightstarbright1

Mr Speaker asked me to thank you for your email and to respond on his behalf.

Mr Speaker has asked me to explain that he is not responsible for Members’ contributions and would not seek to intervene unless something is said that is, in parliamentary terms, disorderly.

Nothing occurred yesterday that was, in technical terms, disorderly. That being said, Mr Speaker feels that allegations such as these should not be made lightly - especially in view of the guidance in Erskine May – the definitive guide to parliamentary procedure – about good temper and moderation being the characteristics of parliamentary debate.

Mr Speaker was far from satisfied that these comments were appropriate or helpful on this occasion, even if they did not fall outside the rules. He would like to see more compassionate and reasonable politics in the House of Commons, and these sorts of comments only enflame opinions and create discord.

However, it is not for the Chair to adjudicate on the accuracy or veracity of Members’ contributions, so long as the contents of their words remain orderly. Mr Speaker can only operate within the powers afforded to him by the House and it would not be appropriate for him to play the role of fact checker during, or subsequent to, debates.

If a Member feels that a Minister has been deliberately misleading, as opposed to inadvertently mistaken, they could table a substantive motion criticising the conduct of that Minister and seek to initiate debates on the detail of the Government policy in question, as well as tabling questions to pursue statements made at the dispatch box.

Members are not otherwise allowed to accuse each other of lying unless debating a substantive motion directly addressing the point. Erskine May says that this is to “preserve the character of parliamentary debate” and that “expressions when used in respect of other Members which are regarded with particular seriousness, generally leading to prompt intervention from the Chair and often a requirement on the Member to withdraw the words, include the imputation of false or unavowed motives; the misrepresentation of the language of another and the accusation of misrepresentation; and charges of uttering a deliberate falsehood.” (paragraph 21.24)

The Speaker takes all comments from members of the public very seriously and would like to reassure you that one of his principal concerns is to ensure that the highest standards of debate are maintained in the House of Commons. He always does his utmost to encourage Members to conduct themselves in a dignified and productive manner in the Chamber, and to remind them of the views of the public on this matter. He is aware that there is much to be done in this regard and will continue to press for improvements.

I hope that the above information is helpful. Thank you for taking the time to write and please accept our best wishes.

Kind regards,

Josh Ryder

just recieved reply email from Speakers assistant

I got a similar reply, but from somebody else from the speaker's office
GreenLunchBox · 01/02/2022 18:50

@hotdogsjumpingfrogs

Sock puppet fail *@Poodles23*?
LOL!
Owl55 · 01/02/2022 19:15

The tories want Boris to stay as PM at least until the May Elections , if they lose lots of seats they will oust him , blame everything on him and regroup, most don’t want to be the PM it’s a poisoned chalice with rising prices etc and corruption at the heart of the Tory party and sod the voters . While “Partygate” continues they ignore wasting £90,000 on a plane trip and are ignoring the billions of money that was fraudulently claimed by their friends and Dolores , it’s about time Rishi accepted some responsibility ! Rant over

mum2jakie · 01/02/2022 19:15

Had a response back from my own MP but nothing back from the speaker's office as yet

TheOnlyMrsMac · 01/02/2022 19:22

There's a Reality Check on the BBC News website, which finds no evidence that Keir Starmer was involved at any point in the decision not to charge Saville. It is a slur and a lie - no surprise coming from Boris Johnson.

ParsleySageRosemary · 01/02/2022 19:39

@longwayoff

It's bizarre. Half the country held hostage by the bloody Prime Minister and we have to hope that his bunch of slavish admirers will turn on him and do a Julius Caesar. Apparently, if they don't (Turkeys? Christmas?) we're stuck with him. As above, the rules were set by people who expected and demanded standards of 'common decency' from all players. It reminds me of people saying the famed 'checks and balances' of the US constitution would quell Trump. He very nearly got what he wanted and may still do so. This is part of western democracy teetering. Our system is close to collapse. Very worrying.
Ain’t that the truth. Without a basic level of good faith offered and rewarded by trust there is no law or order. All there is is a bunch of apes with nothing to bind them together, fighting for resources to survive with. No one who does not understand this very basic premise or is not prepared to conduct themselves so as to uphold it belongs anywhere near any public office of any kind.
ClaudineClare · 01/02/2022 19:40

One of the Red Wall Thickos Tories has put forward the analogy of breaking covid rules being akin to parking offences.

twitter.com/Peston/status/1488582435910602755?s=20&t=p5mD5TXQ96cqtnSRDtNDhA

Where have we heard that line being trotted out before?🤷‍♀️

Swipe left for the next trending thread