The Truth Behind Lindsay Hoyle's SHOCKING Reaction to Protestors

Right, so Lindsay Hoyle the Speaker of the House of Commons and a guy now as famous for being allegedly under the thumb of Keir Starmer, due to that now infamously sabotaged ceasefire vote as he is for being generally weak and not having the authority to maintain order in the Commons for very long. Well he’s back on my radar once again for the worst of reasons once more, because not only are his pro Israel leanings well recorded, and arguably he’s under more scrutiny for these, since his father, the late Doug Hoyle founded the Labour Friends of Israel Lobby, but following that botched ceasefire vote back in February, you kind of hoped he’d have a bit of self reflection in the meantime. Instead, when confronted by his own constituents about the ceasefire vote, he chose to ignore them, to film them and as he left in his car, he was photographed appearing to be actually laughing at them. That’s not the actions of a guy who is contrite and self reflecting. Those are the actions of a man who thinks he’s untouchable, so perhaps its time that Speakers of the House of Commons learned they are absolutely not.
Right, so Lindsay Hoyle again it is and once again he’s being taken to task over Israel, his own Israel leanings, his impartiality, his honesty and his credibility that has been questioned by ordinary people in his constituency this time around, the matter of that ceasefire vote back in February, brought by the SNP on an SNP Opposition Day once more seeing him being challenged for that in public.
Just to cast your mind back to what exactly happened previously, which sets the tone for where we are now, some 3 months later, the SNP were bringing a ceasefire vote as an Opposition Day motion, they only get 3 of these Opposition Day debates versus Labour for example getting 17 of them, so to use one of their precious days to call for a ceasefire in Gaza was a big deal, but they got well and truly shafted. Rules you see. House of Commons Standing Orders are rules and Standing 31 relates to Opposition Day debates where, to give the relevant party its say on its day, the rule is according to the standing order, that their motion will be heard first in the event that the government lays down an amendment, and if the government lays down an amendment, no other opposition parties get to bring an amendment themselves, because by convention, their amendment would have to be heard before the motion. No good on an Opposition Day debate, because the relevant party, in this case the SNP, could see their motion amended before they even bring it. It’s their day. Hence the need for exceptional rules on Opposition Days. This got set aside arbitrarily by Hoyle apparently after Keir Starmer leant on him, that is the allegation. The official line is that Starmer convinced him somehow, no details given, but the allegations are that Starmer threatened him, threatened Hoyle that Labour would withdraw support for him following the next General Election, where the Speaker once more must be selected and Hoyle would quite like to stay in post.
What we saw here was a blatant breaking of convention therefore and the rules that govern these things. For a start, to set aside a standing order should have required a vote. There was none, Hoyle took it upon himself to do this, again adding weight to the threat allegation.
Adding further fuel to the fire that this was a blatant stitch up, was the fact Hoyle justified this at the time, as an attempt to broaden the debate, when no such thing was needed and it broke rules to do so. However his story is inconsistent, because when he was dragged back to Parliament to justify this decision after the vote, both the SNP and the Tories were incensed at what Hoyle had done, he hid behind allegations of a terrorist threat to MPs, which we’ve still seen no evidence for. Now MP safety is of course a valid concern, two MPs have been murdered in recent years, but to say there is a threat after the vote, having not mentioned it previously, smacks of weaponising those deaths, weaponising the threat of an attack, why after all did Hoyle not just say this up front as his justification? Broadening the debate doesn’t remove such a threat if credible and how does Starmer fit into that picture? If the threat was genuine, Hoyle ought to have called all Party leaders in to discuss it, but that didn’t happen either. All we know is that Starmer went to see him, Starmer admitted as much, and all of a sudden rules were being broken.
This incident has continued to follow Hoyle it seems, as on Friday, back in his constituency of Chorley, in Lancashire, this happened:
Nothing quite like engaging with your constituents is there? The anger they showed is understandable, people still don’t know why Hoyle did what he did and there didn’t seem to be much effort on his part to explain himself to his constituents. Any efforts to investigate what happened have been stymied, so do we have a Speaker that is controlled by Keir Starmer or is he truly independent and in a position of actual authority? That has been called into question and with Starmer looking to be the next Prime Minister, should be extremely concerning if Hoyle is as is alleged, putting his own career prospects first and unable to stand up to Starmer.
Instead of engaging with his constituents, he hurriedly got back in his car, but not before taking some photos of those demanding their parliamentary representative answer to them, what plans do you have for those then Lindsay? Going to call the police on your constituents for daring to ask you some questions? Perhaps you felt threatened, perhaps you felt they might have been terrorists despite the minders you evidently had and certainly we shouldn’t make light of legitimate threats of such against our MPs and I certainly condemn the real thing, but this certainly wasn’t that and indeed if you take MPs safety and security so seriously, so seriously in fact that you set aside standing orders on a ceasefire debate in parliament, as you indeed claimed, then what was this face all about as your car drove away? Pointing and laughing at your own constituents is that? Certainly looks that way and certainly implies to me, that you were not in anyway afraid for your safety whatsoever. Is that appropriate conduct for an MP to their constituents? Can’t imagine that makes them want to vote for you, but of course, Hoyle might feel he’s untouchable in that regard too, since by convention, parties do not stand against an incumbent Speaker, the main parties at least anyway. It is only a convention though and if that face, laughing and pointing seemingly at his own constituents, doesn’t prompt some to stand against Hoyle and break what is a preposterous convention anyway, giving the Speaker a free pass into parliament, especially one who behaves like this, if he truly is laughing at his own constituents after having seemingly stitched up a ceasefire vote they want answers over, not only would he in which case have indeed weaponised threats against MPs previously, but even if true, doesn’t actually take them seriously by his apparent conduct here.
Hoyle has been the MP for Chorley since 1997. He’s quite comfortable there, a little too comfortable perhaps and absolutely should have to defend his seat and he in fact will be as at time of writing at least one Party is fielding a candidate against him, the Greens, who do not follow this convention of not standing against the Speaker. I daresay there may be more candidates to come yet, I understand George Galloway’s Workers Party are not ruling it out for one.
Now Hoyle has a not indecent majority of 17,392, which he won in 2019, his first election as Speaker and therefore only had a Green and a former Brexit Party candidate, who ran as an Independent standing against him. This was a big step up from his previous majorities though, clearly a benefit of the Tories and Lib Dems not standing against him anymore, his majorities have historically been quite modest though, so actually he’s ripe for an upset in my view if the right candidate stood against him. Additionally, Lancashire has been somewhat uncomfortable territory for Labour of late, Hoyle’s Party, even if as Speaker he is strictly speaking unaffiliated. Labour have just lost control of Oldham Borough Council, in Lancashire and of course the Rochdale by-election went terribly for Labour, seeing George Galloway himself return to parliament, and there were also the huge losses of 20 councillors in Pendle, who resigned in protest from the Labour Party over Keir Starmer and his horrible stance on Israel and Gaza. For a traditional Labour heartland, there is significant discontent and Starmer aside, Hoyle is in no small part bringing more of that down on himself with his actions here towards people who wish to hold to account, yet despite being their elected representative, Speaker or not, he doesn’t seem keen on letting them do that, and in fact appears to find the idea of them doing so funny.
Frankly Hoyle’s position is already untenable, but his apparent conduct towards his own constituents should make it doubly so. I went into more detail over Hoyle alleged caving in to Keir Starmer in this video recommendation here and I’ll hopefully catch you on the next vid. Cheers folks.