The New House of Commons Speaker

[Brewster's millions]

Where is this reporting?

You're basing everything off a claim of reporting no one else has seen or heard. They certainly aren't reporting it now, it's nowhere to be seen on their politics homepage and the only Starmer story they have is him denying he did anything.

If you're going to keep telling us your accusations must be true because the BBC stood them up, can you at least provide a link to it?

Do you think they dreamed up the whole issue yesterday then?

It was reported on several pages of the BBC website yesterday and you’re being entirely disingenuous if you pretend otherwise.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

It was widely reported yesterday that Labour had threatened him with de-selection, and that was from the BBC which, contrary to perceived wisdom in here, is not an extension of the Conservative Party.

The Newsnight editor's tweet suggested threats over continuing the Speaker's role after election, not deselection.

 

[meltonblue]

As in existed to be voted on.

It originally existed to be voted on, then went as the conservatives brought their own motion, then came back when Hoyle broke with usual process.

It then went through unopposed because the conservatives didn’t have the numbers to pass their own motion. Previously they would never have done that, they’d have just abstained.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

 

[Brewster's millions]

The Newsnight editor's tweet suggested threats over continuing the Speaker's role after election, not deselection.

Deselection or removal as Speaker, either way it’s a threat made and reported by the BBC, as you say.

 

[domalino]

Do you think they dreamed up the whole issue yesterday then?

It was reported on several pages of the BBC website yesterday and you’re being entirely disingenuous if you pretend otherwise.

So that would be a "no" on you being able to provide a source to back up your claim?

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

The Newsnight editor's tweet suggested threats over continuing the Speaker's role after election, not deselection.

Correct. The tweet (according to "Labour sources") specifically says that they will simply opt not to vote for him at the next speaker election. Which is very different to de-selection. The tweet also says the Speaker's Office are denying any political pressure was exerted, which is important because they have no reason to hide that when he's now coming under immense scrutiny.

Some people will read that tweet as "Keir Starmer marched in and told him he'd get ousted".

Others will read it as "Some MPs went in and reminded the speaker that he needs their votes".

I think it's problematic that tweets like this get trotted out with such little detail, leading people to speculate wildly and draw vastly different conclusions.

In my view using a future speaker's election to get their way is uncouth, they should respect the speaker's independence even when they don't agree with him - and I'd rather Labour didn't engage in this kind of thing if they want to present themselves as morally superior to the Tories.

 

[Brewster's millions]

So that would be a "no" on you being able to provide a source to back up your claim?

I can’t be arsed trawling through the website to provide you with a link to be frank, as you’ll only deny that as well. I remember you arguing that Marlene Headley was a bonafide African Queen even when she clearly wasn’t.

As a substitute you’ll just have to look at the tweets above provided by @MillionMilesAway, which document things quite neatly. Presumably you think that the senior Labour sources quoted here are secretly Tory stooges?

 

[domalino]

I can’t be arsed trawling through the website to provide you with a link to be frank, as you’ll only deny that as well. I remember you arguing that Marlene Headley was a bonafide African Queen even when she clearly wasn’t.

As a substitute you’ll just have to look at the tweets above provided by @MillionMilesAway, which document things quite neatly. Presumably you think that the senior Labour sources quoted here are secretly Tory stooges?

So you went on a massive rant over several comments about how the Labour party was a disgrace for threatening the Speaker with deselection and insisted it must be true because the BBC have published it.


Except they've not published it anywhere on their news website, and the tweets don't have anything to do with deselection.


I think you should call it quits before you dig yourself a bigger hole.

 

[Phil1]

So you went on a massive rant over several comments about how the Labour party was a disgrace for threatening the Speaker with violence and/or deselection and insisted it must be true because the BBC have published it.


Except they've not published it anywhere on their news website, and the tweets don't imply violence or deselection.


I think you should call it quits before you dig yourself a bigger hole.

He doesn’t care about digging holes, his purpose is to try and muddy the waters as often as possible due to the cult he’s in having nothing positive to display in over a decade.