Could anything else so succinctly demonstrate the power that Parliament has to hold the government to account – or rather the lack of it?
Commons Speaker Lyndsay Hoyle suspended a sitting of the House of Commons on Thursday (December 8) after discovering that Michael Gove had failed to deliver a full copy of a ministerial statement on the opening of a new coal mine, either to him or to Opposition parties.
This meant the Speaker was unable to select the MPs who would question the minister on the decision, because nobody had the information needed to inform such questions.
This is a breach of the Ministerial Code and by rights, Gove should have resigned.
But, as Maximilien Robespierre observes in the video below, he’s not going to resign.
He won’t be punished by prime minister Rishi Sunak.
And the Commons sitting was suspended for just five minutes.
Pathetic. Toothless. Pointless.
Here’s the clip:
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Time and time again, Tory ministers have been told that their statements to the House of Commons have to be made in a very particular way, which is:
not after announcing what they’re doing to the media first, and
not without giving Opposition parties full access to the contents of their speech.
But Michael Gove – who has been in government on and off since 2010 and therefore should know better – broke those rules yet again, and this time Commons Speaker Lyndsay Hoyle had had enough.
He suspended the sitting of the Commons – firstly for five minutes and then for a longer period, in order to investigate Gove’s reasons for failing to supply more than a brief summary of his long speech before he delivered it and to provide Opposition parties with a chance to absorb what he had said and formulate questions on it.
Was Gove trying to avoid letting his fellow MPs have the chance to ask pertinent questions?
Or is he just incompetent?
As always, it’s hard to separate idiocy from intent with this lot.
The whole saga was captured on video, so you can watch it for yourself:
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Hoyle’s law: this is a stock image but it shows how Commons Speaker Lyndsay Hoyle probably feels about the government right now.
When This Writer tweeted on Sunday that a broadcast direct to the nation, rather than a press conference, by Boris Johnson would require a televised response from opposition parties, I didn’t realise that the best person for the job would by Lyndsay Hoyle.
The Commons Speaker seems to be far more keen to actually oppose Johnson – whether it be on the so-called ‘Plan B’ for dealing with Covid-19’s Omicron variant, corruption, or any other offence to the nation – than Keir Starmer.
Here he is, announcing his indignation after Johnson yet again bypassed Parliament to announce the government’s latest Covid strategy in a pre-recorded, televised statement – and then failed to give Parliament even the courtesy of his attendance to provide the same information the following day:
Mr Speaker puts on the record his disappointment that Boris Johnson is not in the House to make the covid-19 statement.. I'm really, really disappointed that once again this House has become 2nd runner-up to TV news… we're going to have to play hardball. pic.twitter.com/W6Bd7JJAON
Hoyle is right: Parliament comes first. Johnson’s decision to sidestep Parliament is characteristic of the kind of prime minister he is – one who thinks he can do anything he likes, whenever he likes, and takes the approval of MPs for granted.
Sadly, Starmer is living evidence supporting such a belief – because the Labour leader was indeed given an opportunity to speak to the nation.
Rather than take the opportunity to analyse Johnson’s plans and provide a constructive critique, showing why it doesn’t make sense (why are schools left out of the plans yet again?), Starmer instead dived so far into Johnson’s posterior that next time the PM gives a speech you may be able to see Starmer waving from the back of his throat.
“We must do everything we can to protect the NHS”
Labour leader Keir Starmer says his party supports the government’s plan to get “every adult boosted by the end of the month"
But worse, by offering unqualified support for Johnson’s half-arse ideas, Starmer has missed his chance to make demands that could have made a huge difference to working people who are struggling. For example:
If Boris Johnson does not have the votes of his own Party to pass required Covid legislation then the Party of Labour should at least require that statutory sick pay be significantly increased if it is the votes of our MPs that will be needed.
This is elementary stuff for Parliamentarians – especially opposition leaders.
And now, as Johnson faces rebellion by up to 70 of his own Conservative MPs, he will still win his vote because Starmer has whipped Labour to support it unconditionally.
Yes, it will be galling for Johnson to know he has to rely on Labour for his motion to pass.
But it will be even more galling for former, and potential, Labour voters to know that the leader of the party best-placed to take over from Johnson is most likely to carry on making exactly the same mistakes as the Tory.
If anybody wants to see real opposition, they’re going to have to look beyond England’s borders.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Hoyle in action: he was probably shouting at someone who dared suggest a government minister was telling a porkie.
What a shame that the House of Commons now has Lindsay Hoyle as its Speaker; a man who would rather turn a blind eye to corruption than tackle it.
If he is really more interested in his own expected peerage than in running a fair and honest chamber – as some have suggested – then he’s part of the problem.
It seems he has appeared on the BBC’s Westminster Hour, trying to justify his refusal to alter Commons rules to make lying to the House more difficult:
“What are we going to do? Are we going to let it deteriorate to that level so every time someone speaks you’re a liar? That’s not a good way of debate, that is not the art of debate. I think it’s about proving who’s right and who’s wrong, not taking a simplistic view and saying, ‘well that’s very easy, you’re lying’. There are ways of exposing that, let’s use the right ways. If you feel that somebody has misled inadvertently, let’s get it on the record… and if you need to hold people to account, do it through a substantive motion. And if you give real answers, you won’t have that problem.”
Shall we go through it slowly?
“What are we going to do? Are we going to let it deteriorate to that level so every time someone speaks you’re a liar? That’s not a good way of debate, that is not the art of debate.”
Nobody has suggested this. It is disengenuous of Hoyle even to suggest it. Why did he not use an example that has happened, such as the moment when one of his deputies threw out Dawn Butler after she pointed out how Boris Johnson had lied to MPs – with examples?
He didn’t mention that because it would have undermined his argument.
” I think it’s about proving who’s right and who’s wrong, not taking a simplistic view and saying, ‘well that’s very easy, you’re lying’.”
Again, nobody has done this. They have simply called for an archaic rule, saying they cannot counter lies immediately, to be removed for the good of the reputation of the House of Commons. Dawn Butler put up her proof and was thrown out, remember.
“If you feel that somebody has misled inadvertently, let’s get it on the record… and if you need to hold people to account, do it through a substantive motion.”
The problem is not with ministers misleading “inadvertently” – it is with outright lies, as Hoyle knows very well. And the problem with making a substantive motion about another MP’s lies is that Hoyle chooses which matters are debated and will pass over a motion about lying, every time.
Won’t he?
It’s time for a vote of “no confidence” in the Speaker of the House of Commons.
The good news is that there is a petition calling on MPs to legislate against lying in Parliament, as discussed on This Site here.
It has reached the 100,000-signature threshold to be considered for debate – and may therefore be considered to be exactly the kind of “substantive motion” that Hoyle said he wanted to see.
And has he approved it for debate? No.
A response to the petition states: “The Government does not intend to introduce legislation of this nature,” and concludes: “The House has determined that how Members conduct themselves in the Chamber, including their adherence to the principles of public life, is a matter for the Speaker, and Parliament is responsible for its own procedures.”
Corrupt.
ADDITIONAL: This writer has submitted a complaint to the BBC about the way it has reported this matter on its website:
“Report was not fair/accurate
“In your article, Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle: I’ve received death threats, you reported: “Labour MP Dawn Butler was suspended from the Commons in July for claiming Prime Minister Boris Johnson had “lied to the House and the country over and over again” and refusing to withdraw her accusation. “Using such language was “not a good way of debate”, Sir Lindsay said, adding: “That is not the art of debate – I think it’s about proving who’s right and who’s wrong, not taking a simplistic view and saying, ‘Well, that’s very easy. You’re lying.'”” This was not what happened on the day, as your own BBC Politics Twitter account shows here: https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1418230091201622024 Ms Butler did not simply say Boris Johnson had lied – she provided examples of his falsehoods. In so doing, she met Lindsay Hoyle’s requirement by proving that Mr Johnson had done wrong. Your article is therefore not properly balanced and is unfair to Ms Butler. Please publish a further article, setting this error right. It will not be enough to amend the article you have already published, which should be removed, as people are unlikely to re-read it, having read it already.”
It won’t do any good because the BBC likes to whitewash itself, especially when it is found to have been biased in favour of political corruption.
But it puts the Corporation’s pro-Tory reporters on notice that they’re being watched.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. This includes scrolling or continued navigation. more information
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.
