Talk:Lindsay Hoyle

message: This page requires a photo Matthewfelgate 21:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An official photo has been added. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: This article has already been updated to reflect Hoyle's election as speaker, but it incorrectly says he is the current speaker. Her Majesty has not yet confirmed the new speaker, and the position remains vacant until this occurs. Adam Black GB (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It is worth noting that the official title is "Speaker Elect" until approbation, per Erskine May. The Pony Toast 🍞 (Talk) 20:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize, the correct title and punctuation is "Speaker elect". I have updated the article to reflect this. The Pony Toast 🍞 (Talk) 20:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speaker of the House of Commons 

message: The article for Speaker of the House of Commons (United Kingdom) says this:
:
But there is no indication there that residence is obligatory, at least while the House is sitting. Perhaps this should be clarified? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he is not required to live there but it would make sense for him to do so when he's in London. During the prorogation debate there was film of Bercow arriving at the Palace of Westminster in the morning, so he had clearly not spent the night there. Lard Almighty (talk) 10:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Lard. I am assuming that, like me, you have reached that conclusion via WP:OR, rather than via a positive declarative source. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I think that to say he is required to use the residence we would need sources to support that claim. Otherwise I don't think we need sources to justify omitting that claim. I think he is required to use some of the rooms for state purposes, but I can find no source that says he is required to use the apartment as his residence. Lard Almighty (talk) 11:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, same here. I agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Residence 

message: Does any mention of this belong in the lead section when we don't even know how it will end up? Is this already a defining event in Hoyle's life/ career? How would we know? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's so fundamental that no one would challenge is factual accuracy, why does it need a source there? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Does anyone object to the removal of these four names? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't. Lard Almighty (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Now removed. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This edit restores the names of Sir Graham Brady  and Stephen Flynn, with the edit summary "" This looks like both WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL. I don't think any names should be given unless their significance is fully explained to the reader, with the support of WP:RS sources. Where is any threshold of 15% defined?? Has it been widely discussed in reliable sources?  Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Brady and Flynn are mentioned in the first Independent source, but not in the second. Their possible role or significance is not discussed. Why is the 1922 Committee relevant? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand Flynn being mentioned, as he was one of the most vociferous speakers, since the SNP were so snubbed (although the article doesn't really explain this). But Brady and 1922 Committee? Not so sure. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Day Motion of no confidence. 

message: George Galloway is the Leader of and sits as the Workers Party of Britain's MP. He does not sit as an Independent politician as mentioned in an unworthy reversion that deleted Galloway's input in signing the EDM, that has garnered the support of 14% of all MPs. I propose to reverse the revert, made without consensus by @Lard Almighty who gave their reason as, "His party didn't have standing in parliament so he is effectively an independent MP. No more notable than any of the other signatories."
It is notable that Galloway as the most recent, elected MP in Parliament, chose to sign the EDM, within three weeks of being sworn in as the MP. It is without precedent for the Leader of a Party, to do so. Jaymailsays (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The Workers Party has no standing as a party in the Commons. As such, its MP is just another MP. Whatever  role he may hold in the party he belongs to is irrelevant. Therefore his signature is no more notable than any other. And as you are the one making a change that has been challenged by two editors, it is up to you to gain consensus, not us. Lard Almighty (talk) 05:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by, "no standing as a party in the Commons"? The Commons own website accords standing to his Workers party https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/61908 similar to Caroline Lucus and the Green Party. https://members.parliament.uk/member/3930/contact  Your reversal of the edit raises suspicions. Jaymailsays (talk) 06:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Parties need a certain number of MPs to be recognised in the Commons for various purposes. His party doesn't have enough MPs so Galloway's party is not recognised and he is a not recognised as the leader of a party. He is treated as an independent MP. As such, his signature is no more notable than any other MP. Lard Almighty (talk) 06:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: An EDM is certainly not one of those unrecognised purposes. He signed the EDM in his capacity as leader of his party not as an Independent.  Jaymailsays (talk) 06:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The EDM has 92 signatures. Stephen Flynn and William Wragg obviously need to be mentioned. But I've yet to see a convincing argument for why Graham Brady in named. Why George Galloway? He wasn't even an MP when the motion was tabled. Why does he deserve a mention, but not the other 98 signatories? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It is indeed about parliamentary procedure (and EDMs form part of parliamentary procedure). Galloway is not the leader of a parliamentary party, and therefore can only act in the Commons as an individual MP. Therefore, he can only sign things like EDMs as an individual MP. And as an individual MP, he is no more notable in this regard than any other individual MP. Lard Almighty (talk) 09:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source for the Workers Party not being a parliamentary party? To me, it seems it is named just the same as other small parties like the Greens here .  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  The source is Erkine May's Parliamentary Procedure. Look at the EDM itself. Galloway's party is not listed with his name. That puts paid to the claim he "signed on behalf of his party". As I said, it's standard parliamentary procedure. He is a single MP, and while in certain contexts the party he represents is named, for procedural purposes such as this (or things like having automatic rights to seats in standing committees), he is not a member of a recognised parliamentary group. Lard Almighty (talk) 04:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You raise a fair point regarding that Galloway's party is not listed under his name. Do you have a page or section for Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice as it is 500 page long book?  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

text: I think Brady is certainly worth mentioning considering his influence among backbenchers (being chair of the 1922 committee) as RSs highlight: .  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that article certainly names plenty of others. It even suggests that it wasn't Brady acting alone, but as part of a 1922 Committee plot, reinforcing the idea that Brady is more of a figure-head than some kind of crypto-political leader. Those votes were of much greater concern in the first few hours and days. But now that things have largely petered out, are they really still that significant? Nothing has actually happened. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

text: I mean it is not clear in the article whether Brady led the charge or was simply listening to members of the committee (we cannot know due to undisclosed details) but I am happy to add "chairman Graham Brady along with the rest of the 1922 executive voted in favour of the EDM".  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that's a fact, which the source reports. But is your assessment of significance based on just that one source? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:   Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 23:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Just looking at the first one.... "" Why don't we add all those names? Is Brady really "in charge" of that committee, or just an elected Chairman? Did he vote as chairman or just as an MP? I'm not sure that's clear to anyone, least of all to us Wikipedia editors. Aren't cabinet members deemed to be at least as significant as back-bencher committee chairmen? Why no mention of Rishi Sunak? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I am happy to add more names. It is clear from RSs that they deem Brady to be an important signatory regardless.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 17:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm really not sure why, as the 1922 Committee is really just a Tory club that has no say on the running of the house. In his role as chairman, Brady would not be expected to request an actual vote of no confidence. There are plenty of others who would want to do that. But yes, we have to follow the RS sources. I guess you'd want to establish some sort of consensus, for adding any extra names, here first. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Similarly, The Independent says: "" I've not checked the others, but you get the picture... Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Hi there, sorry I was not aware there was ongoing discussion for this. I have just self-reverted for the meanwhile.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restore George Galloway's Signature of EDM