Labour's Excuses: Disgusting, Deceptive, and Dangerous

Lindsay Hoyle, Labour MPs, and Starmer's media outriders are all parroting the same duplicitous post hoc lies about how they had to debase parliamentary procedure for the safety of MPs.

The Speaker Lindsay Hoyle and Keir Starmer colluded to subvert parliamentary democracy purely in order to strip reference to Israeli "collective punishment" out of the ceasefire motion.

When they first announced they were going to do this, they were all oh-so bullish about it.

Senior Labour figures bragged to their mates in the press that they’d bullied Hoyle into binning parliamentary procedure by threatening to oust him as speaker if he didn’t go along with their appalling games.

Hoyle made absolutely no mention of potential threats to MPs when he announced what he was going to do. Instead he provoked jeering and consternation by claiming the established way of doing things "reflects an outdated approach" before threatening to oust a dissenting SNP MP from the chamber to prevent them from voting for a ceasefire (something which his stitch up achieved in the end anyway).

Compare Hoyle’s bullish attitude shortly after his stitch-up meeting with Starmer, with his manipulative post hoc justification for what he did after the chaotic scenes he caused.

Before

After

The contrast between his bullish and confrontational attitude on the day, and his emotionally manipulative post-hoc justification afterwards couldn’t be more stark.

Here’s just some of the stuff that’s wrong with this absurd Starmerite narrative that Hoyle had to bin parliamentary procedure and side with Starmer in order to protect MPs from potential harm.

⚪Labour MPs bragged to their mates in the media that they made Hoyle do what he did by threatening his position as speaker.

⚪ Hoyle himself stated that he was doing it for 'procedural reasons', rather than for the safety of MPs.

⚪ The implication that MPs lives would be in danger were they to have debated a motion that referenced Israeli "collective punishment" of Palestinian civilians rather than one that didn’t is downright absurd.

⚪ It’s beyond depraved to invoke the horrific killings of MPs by a far-right extremist (Jo Cox) and an Islamist terrorist (David Amess) to portray overwhelmingly peaceful Palestinian solidarity campaigners as a threat to the safety of politicians.

⚪ The only violent scenes relating to a Pro-Palestine protest occurred after Suella Braverman incited a far-right mob to attack police at a statue that the march was never going anywhere near! If anyone is to blame for demonstrable political violence in relation to Palestine, it’s the rabble-rousing politicians that incited it.

⚪ Citing potential terrorist violence in order to rip up established procedures sets an extremely dangerous precedent that clearly incentivises violent threats against MPs from people who expect they can influence political processes through threats and intimidation.

⚪ MPs have a long proven track record of fabricating threats and abuse. Remember all the lies and insinuations about the notorious brick through Angela Eagle’s window? Matt Hancock’s team cynically lying that an aide had been punched by a "Corbynite thug" outside a Leeds hospital? and Tory MP Lucy Allen getting caught red-handed faking a death threat? And consider how many of them laughed and made jokes when Jeremy Corbyn was actually violently assaulted, and how so many of them had nothing to say when a murderous extreme-right terrorist plotted to assassinate him. Given this duplicitous track record, what many of them say should be taken with a large shovel of salt.

⚪ MPs centring themselves as the primary victims in all of this is utterly obscene. 30,000 people are dead; almost two million people have been displaced from their homes; and the bombardment of civilians and destruction of civilian infrastructure is still going on. It’s a manmade humanitarian disaster, and these narcissistic freaks think they’re the main characters!

⚪ It’s beyond absurd to pretend that creating a parliamentary farce like that would reduce public anger at politicians rather than making it worse.

⚪ Using their own abuse of parliamentary processes to portray accountability and peaceful protest as violent threats and intimidation in order to agitate for even more clampdowns on the right to protest is profoundly cynical, and the kind of stuff you’d expect from a fascist party, not one that supposedly represents the interests of the trade union movement.

Lindsay Hoyle, countless Labour MPs, and Starmer’s willing outriders in the media are pushing this disgusting, deceptive, and downright dangerous narrative in order to switch negative attention away from themselves over what they did, and onto the public.

They’re pushing this ludicrous narrative as hard as they can, and unfortunately there’s a load of absolute saps out there who will believe it just because this depraved nonsense is being repeated so much.