[LeatherTrumpet]

An important speech by Andrew Percy MP in the House of Commons today..

https://x.com/Nigel_Farage/status/17...683078135?s=20

[arista]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

An important speech by Andrew Percy MP in the House of Commons today..

https://x.com/Nigel_Farage/status/17...683078135?s=20

Yes I watched
him Live.


He got Angry at the speaker

[LeatherTrumpet]

Connor Tomlinson hits the nail on the head..


"What the Ceasefire Vote fiasco reveals is not the partisan nature of
Parliamentary processes

Rather, in Hoyle fearing that he has made members 'unsafe', he admits that
MPs are intimidated by a group who will resort to violence to advance
Palestinian interests

Everyone in Parliament knows that they have imported a foreign population
who sympathise with Islamists, and who prioritise their ethnic and religious
in-group, at home and abroad, above all else

We have millions marching each week, in support of Hamas' actions on
October 7th

Some among that crowd are deluded Leftists of the Corbyn variety

But a vast number were not born here; or are first-generation immigrants
who do not consider themselves as British more than they do a member of an
international Ummah

The issues debated in Parliament are now determined by whether or not MPs
are sufficiently threatened

Either by the Muslim vote withdrawing support from Labour; or by
surrounding and firebombing the constituency offices of MPs; or murdering
them, as happened to Sir David Amess

And yet, everyone, from the Speaker to Mike Freer, is unwilling to name this
threat

Because they know they are complicit in creating it

Politics and our country doesn't have to be like this. But they have made it so

This Ceasefire Vote will mean nothing to the war between Israel and Palestine

What you are watching is MPs voting to appease a mob to spare their lives"

[arista]

67 MP's now want him gone.

Starmer says he advised hoyle?

[bitontheslide]

they just can't continue with a speaker that a significant number of mp's have lost confidence in. He has to be gone at the soonest opportunity

[DemRed]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Connor Tomlinson hits the nail on the head..



We have millions marching each week, in support of Hamas' actions on
October 7th

I think you will find that 152 countries have voted in the UN for a ceasefire. They are not supporters of Hamas, they don't support a country that occupies territory and has systematically killed over 30,000 civilians, 13000 of whom are children, who are nothing to do with Hamas. Children and adults alike are dying of starvation and sickness because Israel has contaminated the water and the food can't get to them.


This has nothing to do with Left or Right, this is about humanity or the lack of it.
Even Trump recently said what was happening in Palestine was terrible and Netanyahu was the biggest liar he'd ever met.

[Oliver_W]

While I understand it was the SNP's Opposite Day, Lammy's version was much more reasoned and thought out than the "no more fighting plz" version that the SNP excreted. They should have thanked Labour for making it more appealing!

Originally Posted by DemRed

I think you will find that 152 countries have voted in the UN for a ceasefire. They are not supporters of Hamas,

Sure. But maybe this part of LT's post is also true:
Rather, in Hoyle fearing that he has made members 'unsafe', he admits that
MPs are intimidated by a group who will resort to violence to advance Palestinian interests

Don't want another Jo Cox or David Amess.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

While I understand it was the SNP's Opposite Day, Lammy's version was much more reasoned and thought out than the "no more fighting plz" version that the SNP excreted. They should have thanked Labour for making it more appealing!


Sure. But maybe this part of LT's post is also true:
Rather, in Hoyle fearing that he has made members 'unsafe', he admits that
MPs are intimidated by a group who will resort to violence to advance Palestinian interests

Don't want another Jo Cox or David Amess.

The SNP were going to vote FOR the Labour amendment to the SNPs motion.
The SNP rejecting the Con amendment.

That was until the Cons removed their amendment and then the Cons refused to take part in the voting.

I don't get the SNPs moaning now
I can accept they were rightly annoyed 2 amendments to their motion were permitted.

However those amendments were accepted before the debate started by all Parties and all Parties took part in the debate all through.

Then seconds before the votes were due to be taken, the Cons pulled their own amendment and refused to vote at all.

Bizarre and ridiculous.

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

The SNP were going to vote FOR the Labour amendment to the SNPs motion.
The SNP rejecting the Con amendment.

That was until the Cons removed their amendment and then the Cons refused to take part in the voting.

I don't get the SNPs moaning now
I can accept they were rightly annoyed 2 amendments to their motion were permitted.

However those amendments were accepted before the debate started by all Parties and all Parties took part in the debate all through.

Then seconds before the votes were due to be taken, the Cons pulled their own amendment and refused to vote at all.

Bizarre and ridiculous.

i may have misunderstood what was happening, but i believe it was a day dedicated to the SNP opposition where labour basically hijacked it with their own motion, and then the speaker went with the labour motion rather than the SNP one meaning their dedicated opposition day motion was denied to them. If I got that right (from all the mess) then I can see why they were peeved

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

i may have misunderstood what was happening, but i believe it was a day dedicated to the SNP opposition where labour basically hijacked it with their own motion, and then the speaker went with the labour motion rather than the SNP one meaning their dedicated opposition day motion was denied to them. If I got that right (from all the mess) then I can see why they were peeved

That’s how I understand it.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

i may have misunderstood what was happening, but i believe it was a day dedicated to the SNP opposition where labour basically hijacked it with their own motion, and then the speaker went with the labour motion rather than the SNP one meaning their dedicated opposition day motion was denied to them. If I got that right (from all the mess) then I can see why they were peeved

so basically it had nothing to do with Gaza or a ceasefire, just chugging for votes from all sides, pretty disgusting really, it will be difficult to vote for anyo of this shower, think a spoiled vote is incoming

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by Cherie

so basically it had nothing to do with Gaza or a ceasefire, just chugging for votes from all sides, pretty disgusting really, it will be difficult to vote for anyo of this shower, think a spoiled vote is incoming

yeah, for me the whole thing was just political grandstanding, and it did nothing for improving my impression of any of them

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

i may have misunderstood what was happening, but i believe it was a day dedicated to the SNP opposition where labour basically hijacked it with their own motion, and then the speaker went with the labour motion rather than the SNP one meaning their dedicated opposition day motion was denied to them. If I got that right (from all the mess) then I can see why they were peeved

It was the SNPs motion that was being debated
The SNP obviously didn't present an amendment to their own motion.

So the SNP motion stood for debate

However it would have been voted down as a motion certainly by the Conservatives.
Plus Labour would have split with some supporting the SNP motion.
However the vast majority not.

So on its own the SNP motion would have been lost.

So Labour presented an amendment obviously to assist in their own Party divisions.
Then the Cons also presented an amendment later.

The Speaker allowed the SNP motion and the Labour and Con amendments.

Stephen Flynn said as the debate began, the SNP would be supporting the Labour amendment NOT the Con one .

Nobody hijacked it, the Speaker approved BOTH amendments.
The debate went ahead and ALL Parties took part.

I watched it all
You can seek to only blame Labour all you wish.
As I'd expect Cons to do.
However the Cons in my view realised the SNP wouldn't support their amendment and there were Con MPs who indicated they would not support the government's amendment.
So the Con amendment would be defeated.

Then the Cons pulled their amendment seconds before the vote.
Then refused to vote at all on the serious issue.

Then the name calling and blame game went into overdrive.
Turning this serious issue into a disgraceful farce from ALL concerned.

[arista]

[arista]

Its now 71 MP's want him gone

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by arista

Its now 71 MP's want him gone

That's only all the SNP 40+ and 20+ of their new Con allies.

[bitontheslide]

71 mp's that have no confidence in the person that is supposed to provide a fair hand in parliament is a lot though. The problem now is that everything he does will be scrutinised going forward, which will make his position untenable

[LeatherTrumpet]

Excellent article by Charles Moore


This week’s shambles was merely a symptom of a wider malaise: too many in
the West feel the need to apologise for our values

Spoiler:

On June 9 2020, Sir Keir Starmer’s office released a photograph of the Labour leader and his deputy, Angela Rayner, “taking the knee”, in a room in Parliament. It was timed to coincide with the funeral of George Floyd in Minneapolis.

It was literally, metaphorically, and even geographically, a misstep. Kneeling is an act of obeisance, the deferential acceptance of a higher authority. The Leader of the Opposition was making that obeisance in a Parliament whose elected Members are supposed to take the knee to no earthly power.

My impression at the time was that Sir Keir did not fully understand this.

He probably thought he was expressing simple solidarity with victims of racism, but in fact he ceded a dangerous amount of power to an ideology which is itself racist (anti-white and anti-Semitic) and pursues methods that are quasi-revolutionary. Although purging his party of the extremists empowered by Jeremy Corbyn, he was also, unintentionally, giving them aid and comfort.

Little short of four years on, we have the scenes in the House of Commons on Wednesday. The most striking thing about Mr Speaker Hoyle’s action that day was not so much that he defied long-established conventions by handing to Labour an Opposition Day reserved for the SNP – though that was bad – but why he did so.

I am not referring here to the view that Sir Lindsay was trying to save his own job in what might soon be a Labour-controlled House of Commons. I do not know his private motives. I am talking about his publicly stated reasons.

Mr Speaker said he wanted to “prevent further division”. He was worried about the safety of MPs. As he confusedly put it, when he returned to apologise to the House later, “I take very seriously… the danger – that is why I wanted everybody to be able to express their views. I am very, very concerned about the security of all Members.”

It is not the Speaker’s job to “prevent further division”. It is to facilitate division in an orderly way. Indeed, the official word used to describe a vote in Parliament is “a division”. Dividing the House is how parliamentary democracy proceeds. Yet the Speaker himself was frightened. Why?

Because, if we take Sir Lindsay at his word, he feared for “the security of all Members”.

He had been told by some, mostly Labour MPs, that they had been threatened in their constituencies and online. Outside in Parliament Square, a large crowd was calling for whatever ceasefire motion would be most horrible for Israel. He was trying to give time for whatever amendment would cause jittery MPs the least aggro.

The consequence was that a relatively anodyne Labour amendment was passed, with the other parties going on strike in protest at Sir Lindsay’s handling.

The wider effect was that it looked as if Parliament was cowering in terror. The mob, online or out of doors, was affecting what could be said, just as it had intended.

It is striking that the mass lobbies of MPs taking place at present are almost all about Gaza.

The plight of Israel and of Gaza is indeed important, but is it really the issue that dominates the minds of most voters? As voters are saying in the current by-election campaign, “This is Rochdale, not Gaza.” After all, Britain has no direct responsibility for that terrible conflict.

Why am I relating Sir Lindsay’s fiasco on Gaza to Sir Keir’s kneeling at the fate of George Floyd? Because, with the Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests, which bent his knee in the summer of 2020, fear entered the bloodstream of our body politic – fear that if we do not defer to extremism, we might not survive.

The fear is partly of disgrace. This is an era in which the mere accusation of racism can ruin a career, silence a writer, cancel a private bank account. It is also actual physical fear.

In this space three weeks ago, I wrote about the plight of Mike Freer, the Conservative MP for Finchley, who has decided to retire because of the blizzard of threats, insults and worse. His constituency office had been set alight and he was stalked by the Islamist who ended up murdering his parliamentary colleague, Sir David Amess. All the worst threats related to his support for Israel (which makes him, in Islamist minds, a racist).

Because Labour MPs more often sit for seats with big Muslim votes, they receive Gaza-related threats more often than Mr Freer’s fellow Conservatives do. Many, especially moderate Muslim ones, are under intense pressure to support Islamist efforts to help efface the memory of the Hamas massacres and disable Israel’s military campaign.

Immediately after those October massacres, Sir Keir came out strongly in condemnation and boldly in support of Israel’s right of self-defence. But subsequent events, such as the debacle over Labour’s Rochdale candidate, prove how difficult such a stance is within his party. Did his toughness come too late?

When Sir Keir rightly attacked anti-Semitism in his party, he did not analyse its nature clearly enough. It is not like the old Right-wing anti-Semitism which regarded Jews as creepy foreigners. Rather it a lethally political cocktail of two things – whites on the hard Left who hate anything white, Western or British, and Islamists who, for pseudo-religious reasons, see Jews as the eternal enemy and imagine Allah is telling them to take Palestine by slaughter.

This was not a case, as Sir Keir seemed to think, of getting rid of a few hateful nutcases (though Corbyn’s Labour certainly contained some): it required, and requires, a confrontation with an entire ideology.

To speak only of Labour’s “anti-Semitism problem” is to miss the point. It is a subset of Labour’s Muslim problem – its inability to distinguish clearly between most Muslim fellow-citizens, who are much like everyone else, and the extreme activists who infiltrate marches, charities, clubs, schools, universities, youth groups and political parties, and whip up hatred on social media. Politicians – mostly white – repeatedly make the mistake of identifying such noxious characters as “speaking for Muslims”.

And even today, when the Conservatives have been in office so long, only a handful of Cabinet ministers – Michael Gove, Oliver Dowden, Kemi Badenoch, Grant Shapps and Rishi Sunak himself – are surefooted on this subject. The Tories have suffered much less grass-roots party infiltration than Labour, but many of them are equally inclined to appeasement because of ignorance and fear.

Central to BLM, as to Islamism, as to the eco-fanaticism of Just Stop Oil, is the idea that our Western democratic way of life is a greedy, racist, “phobic” fraud. Although some extremists are godless and others are religious fanatics, all unite around a story of exploitation, “colonialism” and victimhood. So self-righteous are they that they take positive pride in besetting not only Parliament but even MPs’ private houses.

They have been brilliant at making people who reject their version of history very uncomfortable, thus inhibiting free speech.

Even in my rough old trade of newspapers, which lives by that freedom, we find ourselves having to navigate ever more carefully a regulatory, legal and cultural environment that is windy about any strong statement in any area of life which might provoke extremist wrath.

In a sense, Mr Speaker is right. The security of MPs, and therefore of a free country, is under threat. But the remedy is the opposite of the one he sought, which invites even more intimidation. Don’t take the knee; fight back.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

71 mp's that have no confidence in the person that is supposed to provide a fair hand in parliament is a lot though. The problem now is that everything he does will be scrutinised going forward, which will make his position untenable

I wouldn't lose any sleep if this Speaker resigned.
I don't think he's a good one or that he has really stamped his authority on parliament.

I'd also agree 70+ is a fair number, however, when Bercow was in his last 2 to 3 years as Speaker, there was likely way over 150 at least Con MPs who detested him.
The DUP too.
Plus he got the backs up of the SNP too even under their better leader in my view of Ian Blackford.

This is a rumbling from the new and not so pleasing Stephen Flynn of the SNP.
Who is far more aggressive.
So he has led his party to call for the Speaker to go.
They've been joined in an unbelievable UNHOLY alliance with only 20+ Con MPs.

This means then, out of around 9 different Parties representatives elected to Westminster.
Only I Party is in major dispute with the Speaker.
All the other Parties leaders have NOT joined the SNP in this at all.

On paper that leaves Speaker Hoyle quite strong.
Plus too, if things stay as they are, in an election in virtually months now, not a year
The SNP are not going to be the 3rd placed Party at Westminster.

The current estimate is they'll be down to just below or above 20 seats.
So that then, would leave this Speaker, unfortunately for me, stronger.

Plus I've read on social media, and heard from people around me
Who don't like to see bullying or unnecessarily getting at people unfairly.
What I'm picking up, is the view the only people bullying this Speaker, are the leader of the SNP, the SNP MPs and a minority of Con MPs .

That's not a good position at all for the SNP to NOW be in seemingly in any alliance with even a minority of the Cons at Westminster.
To bring down in parliament a LABOUR Speaker.
To be replaced by a CON one
That won't likely go down well at all with the former Labour voters in Scotland who flooded to the SNP in 2015.

[bitontheslide]

the speaker should be able to put politics aside. When a new speaker is elected, it's not just about who has a majority in parliament, it's about the consensus of the whole house on who can be fair minded.

Plenty speakers have done dodgy stuff in the past, it's impossible to please everyone. The speaker got it in the neck plenty times during the brexit voting, but his decision this time had serious implications at a time when politics has never been more polarised.

We are on a knife edge, and in those circumstances, it is more important than ever that the speaker is not seen to bow to pressure and he has

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

the speaker should be able to put politics aside. When a new speaker is elected, it's not just about who has a majority in parliament, it's about the consensus of the whole house on who can be fair minded.

Plenty speakers have done dodgy stuff in the past, it's impossible to please everyone. The speaker got it in the neck plenty times during the brexit voting, but his decision this time had serious implications at a time when politics has never been more polarised.

We are on a knife edge, and in those circumstances, it is more important than ever that the speaker is not seen to bow to pressure and he has

I don't disagree with that at all.

However as the dust settles it's, in my view anyhow, the SNP who are looking the worst in this debacle now.

Even on QT in Theresa May's constituency of Maidenhead..
They were saying the Cons were wrong to have Penny Mordaunt pull the government amendment,then refuse to vote at all .

The SNP and Cons looking in any kind of alignment on anything in Westminster is not a good or positive look for the SNP at all.
Under Stephen Flynn.

I don't think Ian Blackford who I like a lot, would have gone as far as Flynn has taken this.

Of course Speakers and deputy Speakers have to put party politics aside and the vast majority of the time they do.

It doesn't change the fact Hoyle is the Speaker from Labour ranks formerly.
If he goes, it would be he's replaced by a CON Speaker.
Again a bad Look for the SNP had they been or will be successful yo depose Hoyle.

[Gusto Brunt]

I thought the current Mr Speaker was in his ealry 80s.

SHOCKED to find out he's only 66.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Gusto Brunt

I thought the current Mr Speaker was in his ealry 80s.

SHOCKED to find out he's only 66.

got to admit I loved this post

[arista]

[joeysteele]

Actually it's an extremely worrying time for MPs of ALL Parties.
Very worrying indeed.