Occasionally, I take students on visits to parliaments. The Senedd (Welsh parliament) is wonderful, yet the history of the UK Houses of Parliament is unsurpassable. During a 2019 visit – on the day of the formation of Change UK, a major act of parliamentary courage – our guide explained the role of the Speaker. Vividly, I remember the
Technically yes although there is a precedent of sorts when Speaker Bercow bent the rules to read the word 'another' as allowing him to call unlimited amendments, despite that not being the normal reading of the SO.
I think the issue is making it public. If he had called the Whips in the day before and told them to not play silly buggers because this is serious, he would have had the moral high ground. Instead he's attempted to justify his decision post hoc which looks shifty and tbh he doesn't have the skills to do.
I don't have strong views on whether he stays or goes. But I'm very surprised no Tory on a semi-marginal is on maneuvers to avoid a challenge at the Election
I think this is a bit harsh, but I agree that mistakes were made. However, the mistakes were not procedural but were political (unusual for a former Whip to be so flat-footed...)
It was obvious from a long way out that the SNP were trying to 'trap' Labour (mainly because they told everyone that that's what they were doing). What was needed - and what seemed to be lacking - was the Speaker anticipating the problems. Could he, for instance, have leaked a comment to the effect of "this is all very serious .... heightened emotions ... no time for cheap politics ... consider whether rules relevant in cases like this" and, crucially, signposted to the usual channels that he would do this, whether they liked it or not?
By seemingly not anticipating he boxed himself in by giving the impression he was doing Labour a favour. As I say, it was poor politics (not helped by his general inability to convey complex information in public).
I'm not sure I'm convinced by this argument, but it's certainly more persuasive than the SNP's claims that Hoyle deliberately spurned them. (I can see why they're spinning it this way, because it plays perfectly into their "Westminster hates us" narrative; but it has the unfortunate flaw of not being true.)
We agree! I would only add one slight twist - I think Hoyle should resign even if he'd provided a different explanation. The problem is there are no satisfactory explanations for what he did:
- Scared of violence: terrorists now run the country, this is bad.
- Helping out his old party: the very thing he agreed not to do, this is bad.
- ??? Is there a third?
This is the second time now Labourite speakers have simply ripped up the rules the moment they saw an opportunity to help their preferred political causes, and it seems a global trend. The cases against Trump seem to defy legal logic, but he keeps losing anyway. Mann vs Steyn involved Steyn winning on all points of law and the jury ordered him to pay $1M regardless. The Ampel coalition in Germany talks constantly about banning their opponents on absurd pretexts. Also something easily noticeable in the working world, where left wing managers routinely do things that harm their employers, and which they agreed not to do, in order to advance left wing causes.
I am seriously starting to wonder if it's possible to actually put left wing people in positions of power and expect them to follow any rules at all. We keep getting burned by left or center-left people who seem moderate and reasonable, sometimes even for years, and then one day suddenly everything previously agreed on or written down goes out of the window. Hoyle's behaviour in this regard isn't a big surprise, it fits the type. You really need people who prefer pre-agreed systems over the ad hoc decisions of enlightened intellectuals, and that's one of the core philosophical divides between left and right.
Technically yes although there is a precedent of sorts when Speaker Bercow bent the rules to read the word 'another' as allowing him to call unlimited amendments, despite that not being the normal reading of the SO.
I think the issue is making it public. If he had called the Whips in the day before and told them to not play silly buggers because this is serious, he would have had the moral high ground. Instead he's attempted to justify his decision post hoc which looks shifty and tbh he doesn't have the skills to do.
I don't have strong views on whether he stays or goes. But I'm very surprised no Tory on a semi-marginal is on maneuvers to avoid a challenge at the Election
I think this is a bit harsh, but I agree that mistakes were made. However, the mistakes were not procedural but were political (unusual for a former Whip to be so flat-footed...)
It was obvious from a long way out that the SNP were trying to 'trap' Labour (mainly because they told everyone that that's what they were doing). What was needed - and what seemed to be lacking - was the Speaker anticipating the problems. Could he, for instance, have leaked a comment to the effect of "this is all very serious .... heightened emotions ... no time for cheap politics ... consider whether rules relevant in cases like this" and, crucially, signposted to the usual channels that he would do this, whether they liked it or not?
By seemingly not anticipating he boxed himself in by giving the impression he was doing Labour a favour. As I say, it was poor politics (not helped by his general inability to convey complex information in public).
I'm not sure I'm convinced by this argument, but it's certainly more persuasive than the SNP's claims that Hoyle deliberately spurned them. (I can see why they're spinning it this way, because it plays perfectly into their "Westminster hates us" narrative; but it has the unfortunate flaw of not being true.)
We agree! I would only add one slight twist - I think Hoyle should resign even if he'd provided a different explanation. The problem is there are no satisfactory explanations for what he did:
- Scared of violence: terrorists now run the country, this is bad.
- Helping out his old party: the very thing he agreed not to do, this is bad.
- ??? Is there a third?
This is the second time now Labourite speakers have simply ripped up the rules the moment they saw an opportunity to help their preferred political causes, and it seems a global trend. The cases against Trump seem to defy legal logic, but he keeps losing anyway. Mann vs Steyn involved Steyn winning on all points of law and the jury ordered him to pay $1M regardless. The Ampel coalition in Germany talks constantly about banning their opponents on absurd pretexts. Also something easily noticeable in the working world, where left wing managers routinely do things that harm their employers, and which they agreed not to do, in order to advance left wing causes.
I am seriously starting to wonder if it's possible to actually put left wing people in positions of power and expect them to follow any rules at all. We keep getting burned by left or center-left people who seem moderate and reasonable, sometimes even for years, and then one day suddenly everything previously agreed on or written down goes out of the window. Hoyle's behaviour in this regard isn't a big surprise, it fits the type. You really need people who prefer pre-agreed systems over the ad hoc decisions of enlightened intellectuals, and that's one of the core philosophical divides between left and right.