Thread by @LittleGravitas

.@LindsayHoyle_MP now has the summer to contemplate what the future for HoC is to be, and what he wants as his legacy as Speaker.

Options:

1) HoC becomes a fossilised institution, honoured in the breach by a rampantly authoritarian Tory government....

[1/?]

@LindsayHoyle_MP ...Gradually, HoC offers less and less scrutiny over runaway Executive power-grabbing.

To achieve this, Sir Lindsay needs to do... precisely nothing. Carry on turning the creaking Parliamentary cogs, as if nothing were wrong.

[2/?]

@LindsayHoyle_MP Option 2) HoC revivifies itself as a (even, the) wellspring of democracy in our country.

To achieve this, Sir Lindsay will need to be bold. With others, he will have to find new ways of working...

[3/?]

@LindsayHoyle_MP ...He will need to challenge the disrespect offered to HoC, almost daily, by a government which actively avoids and spurns scrutiny wherever possible.

So, what will the Speaker do? Nothing, or something? What is to be his legacy?

[4/4]

@LindsayHoyle_MP PS:

I see that @campbellclaret (Alastair, see whole thread) thinks similarly.

bit.ly/3jAhHEc

@LindsayHoyle_MP @campbellclaret PPS:

As @campbellclaret points out in his piece, @LindsayHoyle_MP, the "good chaps" approach on which HoC etiquette and procedure is based *no longer works*.

Change is needed. And it is needed *now*.

@LindsayHoyle_MP @campbellclaret PPPS:

I see I am not alone in my views.

If @LindsayHoyle_MP sees himself as "not a fact checker", what are the implication of that stance for honesty and integrity in HoC?

@MarkEuromark