Lindsay Hoyle

[Hurrydash]

Anyone think his behaviour/judgement today is a disgrace for someone supposed to be impartial.

I won't argue with anyone who suggests tories are not always above board but is the alternative any different.

I fear not.

Starmer v Sunak is one very small step up from Trump v Biden.

Don't we deserve better?

Views?

“Starmer v Sunak is one very small step up from Trump v Biden.”

You destroyed your entire argument with this sentence. I loathe Sunak but neither Sunak or Starmer are remotely comparable to Trump. That’s an insane suggestion 🙄.

What's wrong with what he did?

But Biden is the man for the next 4 years.

Does he know what day it is?

I don't think so.

Btw not an argument just a question.

He broke the rules by allowing Labour’s amendment to be heard.

Well he seriously pissed off both the SNP and the tories and then had to apologise,

Not a great look.

Is it?

To be honest, I don't think anyone comes out of this looking good. All of them were playing party politics instead of focusing on the real human suffering in Gaza. That was the shocking thing for me. I can't get overly upset about Lindsay Hoyle breaking with parliamentary convention but I do say a plague on all their houses for using the tragedy in Gaza to try and score points off each other. Disgraceful behaviour.

Totally agree. The whole Gaza situation is a humanitarian tragedy and needs the world to pull together to sort it.

No argument there.

But the reason I started the thread was to see if people want an impartial Speaker who commands respect.

I think Hoyle has acted very ill advisedly and should resign.

That's the discussion I'm looking for here.

I don't think we know enough yet about why he made the decision that he did. There are rumours about pressure from Labour, which of course, he should have resisted. However, he seemed to be suggesting that the decision had been motivated by concerns about MP safety and security. If that's the case, I can see why he might have felt that this was the right approach, even if with hindsight, it wasn't really advisable. I think further investigation is probably needed!

They are just playing the usual games in Westminster rather than actually sorting out real problems.

Joining in with those games and discussing this kind of stuff like it is actually important is not going to help things to change. It's just playing politics too.

*They are just playing the usual games in Westminster rather than actually sorting out real problems.

Joining in with those games and discussing this kind of stuff like it is actually important is not going to help things to change. It's just playing politics too.*

I disagree. Not with your comments on the party political games.

They are all a disgrace,

But this goes to the integrity of the Speaker.

If his judgment can't be trusted that's a big big problem for our democracy.

I agree with @DontSetYourselfOnFireToKeepOthersWarm. The furore about the speaker merely detracts from the important issues. The only reason why the Tories and the SNP are upset is because they were getting all excited about the prospect of humiliating Starmer by forcing a Labour loss.

I wish that all of them would just focus on the actual issues. People are dying. If they had really wanted to call for a cease-fire, they could have worked collaboratively to reach some sort of cross-party consensus that a majority of MPs could have signed up for, but they chose to make it party political instead.

Our democracy was already a sham. This is just chocolate sprinkles on top.

I think Hoyle probably made a misjudged attempt at taking the heat out of the situation. It failed, but I have not seen any evidence yet to suggest that his decision was motivated by partiality towards Labour. We've had two MPs murdered in recent years. Another has stood down recently for the sake of his family's safety. Another had protesters outside his family home. Feelings are running high with regard to the Gaza issue. Perhaps Hoyle simply didn't want to force anyone into a position where they might feel that their safety was going to be at risk.

The whole thing was just daft. I “call” for the moon on a stick.

Well, I guess point of the motion wasn't really to call for anything. The sole purpose was to create division within the Labour Party.

The SNP probably would have called for the moon on a stick if they had believed that they could use it to humiliate Starmer.

None of this helps the hostages or the innocent people of Gaza in the slightest, and the reality is that most of our politicians from all parties are too preoccupied with their own political fortunes to care.

@MrsBennetsPoorNerves

Yes, to everything you said.

I don't think you can say he's biased at all. The whole debate on a ceasefire is a sham because it's not our decision. This is an issue for Israel and governments should be putting pressure on Israel to end this conflict. Debating ceasefires is purely pointless.

The fact that he moved to push a motion that was labours motion as opposed to the SNP seems like splitting hairs and Starmer and the SNP should not be trying to score political points when civilians are being murdered because of where they live.

I'm amazed at our politicians to be honest they are all utterly useless and let's be honest if Corbyn was running the Labour party he would have made his views crystal clear and there would be none of this pampering to all sides.

Israel has the right to defend it's self but there are limitations to that argument. You can't kill innocent people in search of justice...it's just wrong plain and simple....

I'm amazed in 2024 that we still have wars, the Ukraine and now this. These mad men killing for power and greed and our own politicians fanning the flames behind the scenes....it really disgusts me. Behind every conflict there are men making money....

Totally agree. If there was one thing all of the parties should have collaborated on to come to a consensus it was this. None of them emerge smelling of roses.

I'm really not bothered by what Lindsay Hoyle said or did. He maybe made a mistake here but I really can't get het up over it as so many others seem determined to do. I don't think he should be forced to resign although it wouldn't surprise me if he now were to do so. I like him as a speaker and he has brought recalcitrant MPs to heel on many occasions, including my own one at least once (Kemi Badenoch).

I hope he stays.

As I understand it Sir Lindsey did was he did because he felt MPs were being threatened if they didn't vote a certain way.

There was a group outside in Parliament Square projecting questionable words onto Big Ben that could be construed as intimidatory.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13112745/big-ben-pro-palestine-protesters-gaza-ceasefire-debate.html

It would appear that the Speaker caved in.

Yes it was bad but due to Starmer

Over 60 votes of no confidence. If he goes Starmer can thank him for taking the hit to save him from rebellion

Labour still has divisions. The Conservatives have divisions. They are not unified parties. The SNP use Westminster conventions for their own ends whilst at the same time openly dismissing its authority. They obviously sought to divide Labour to sow doubt in the minds of Scottish voters who might vote Labour later this year.

Given what MPs are putting up with, Starmer was right to raise the issues. Hoyle probably came up with the wrong solution but he’s a good speaker. 90% of MPs haven’t asked for him to go so he shouldn’t. He’s Labour so it’s a Con speaker next.

This had little to do with Sunak and Starmer at the despatch box.(Plus we need to stop using words like HATE about elected MPs) We have had combative PMQs for a long time now. Parliament was very rowdy during Thatcher’s premiership. What we have is very deep seated views on Israel and Gaza and the Palestinians. We are impotent to do anything other than posturing so the debate was in many ways worthless. If Palestine was solvable it would have been by now. It’s a problem of biblical proportions and older than the bible stories. No one can solve it!

All very valid points.

However, I think the key issue here is Hoyle screwed up. He knows he did and apologised twice.

Reason his position has to be questioned is not because he did Starmer a favour by suppressing the divisions in the Labour Party. That's just political noise.

But as I understand it he said his decision was in part at least based on a desire for protecting MPs from violence from Palestinians.

Surely that is the police's job?

Or am I missing something?

It hasn't suppressed the divisions in any party. They are all still there and as strong as ever.

Absolutely no need for Hoyle to resign.

There hasn't been a decent speaker since Betty Boothroyd.

I loved Betty Boothroyd. Absolutely fantastic, and she could near enough silence the bear garden that is the House of Commons by just being there.