Brexit Poll: Public increasingly onside and confident that PM is taking the correct approach and will get the right deal.
The proportion of the public that approve of the government's preparations for Brexit stood at 53 percent, ORB found, up 15 points from a poll last month when only 38 percent approved, with 62 percent disapproving.
The poll also found that 47 percent agreed that May would get the right deal for Britain, with just 29 percent disagreeing. In January, it was evenly split at 35 percent between those who agreed and disagreed.
Does the POTUS usually address Parliament during State visits?
Reagan, George W Bush and Obama have all had State visits to the UK and both Reagan and Obama addressed the joint Houses of Parliament during those visits. GW did not.
Bill Clinton has also addressed the joint Houses but his was not a State visit.
Therefore Bercow is way out of line.
Oh and on the same subject, the only two Presidents since WW2 not to meet the monarch are Kennedy and Carter.
Presumably Kennedy did not survive long enough, Carter was shortchanged by the extensive Silver jubilee celebrations.
Yep I had thought of the reason for Kennedy but forgot the Jubilee which seems the probable reason.
Bill Cash is now worried about making sure Theresa May doesn't breach the Commission's limité classification of confidential documents during the negotiations.
Looking back at the way he behaved when Xi Jinping was over for a State visit, he really is a loose cannon. He seems to utterly lack any self awareness or the possibility that he could cause serious damage to diplomatic relations by his idiotic comments.
Looking back at the way he behaved when Xi Jinping was over for a State visit, he really is a loose cannon. He seems to utterly lack any self awareness or the possibility that he could cause serious damage to diplomatic relations by his idiotic comments.
Parliament has become a " safe place". Will Bercow be calling for an end to Parliamentary Privilege next so MPs can sue anyone who says anything they don't like?
Brexit Poll: Public increasingly onside and confident that PM is taking the correct approach and will get the right deal.
The proportion of the public that approve of the government's preparations for Brexit stood at 53 percent, ORB found, up 15 points from a poll last month when only 38 percent approved, with 62 percent disapproving.
The poll also found that 47 percent agreed that May would get the right deal for Britain, with just 29 percent disagreeing. In January, it was evenly split at 35 percent between those who agreed and disagreed.
Looking back at the way he behaved when Xi Jinping was over for a State visit, he really is a loose cannon. He seems to utterly lack any self awareness or the possibility that he could cause serious damage to diplomatic relations by his idiotic comments.
Him and Trump are like two peas in a pod then!
Just because Trump is a complete lunatic does not give Bercow the excuse to behave in the same way.
Does the POTUS usually address Parliament during State visits?
Reagan, George W Bush and Obama have all had State visits to the UK and both Reagan and Obama addressed the joint Houses of Parliament during those visits. GW did not.
Bill Clinton has also addressed the joint Houses but his was not a State visit.
Therefore Bercow is way out of line.
Oh and on the same subject, the only two Presidents since WW2 not to meet the monarch are Kennedy and Carter.
Presumably Kennedy did not survive long enough, Carter was shortchanged by the extensive Silver jubilee celebrations.
Yep I had thought of the reason for Kennedy but forgot the Jubilee which seems the probable reason.
What about Gerald Ford?
Incidentally, I recall, unique for becoming President without running for either the post or VP post.
I get that an invitation to address the House of Commons is, by definition, one for the House of Commons (and that an invitation to address both Houses is by extension partly one for the House of Commons and one that it can withdraw from unilaterally). I get that the Speaker speaks for the House of Commons and so can refuse the invitation on the House of Commons' behalf.
But can't he be overridden by a vote among MPs if they so choose?
Could some constitutional expert opine?
I have no idea. He is after all elected by the Commons so I would assume he answerable to them.
But he is also only Speaker for the Commons. I assume his power doesn't extend to the whole of Parliament. Moreover whilst I detest Trump I would be concerned about the Speaker denying the right to address British MPs to the position of the President. It is rather like the old adage that you salute the rank not the person.
Hence my question upthread on the past history of PsOTUS addressing Parliament...
Much of this problem may be placed at the PM's door. The unseemly haste to fall over themselves to offer a full state visit within days of Trump taking office has come home to roost. It placed the Queen in a very ugly position and offered the governments opponents boundless opportunities.
Speaker Bercow has emphasized the independence of the Commons over the executive just as in the past his predecessors did over monarchy.
I am sure Trump will understand that point, and be overjoyed at the rich historical pageantry and tradition of the whole thing.
As I posted on the previous thread, I think this is disgraceful behaviour by Bercow. He is supposed to be an independent Speaker, not a politician expressing views on the merits or otherwise of a US President.
(For the avoidance of doubt, I am not supporting Trump. This shouldn't need saying, but a lot of people, even here, don't seem to understand the concept that a judge or a Speaker shouldn't express political views or make political decisions).
I thought the Speaker was supposed to uphold the dignity of the House. Denying access to Trump seems to be completely in keeping with that responsibility.
Mr. W, the independence of the Commons? Didn't half the House (Labour and SNP) applaud whilst the Conservative half was silent?
And why's Xi Jinping alright but not Trump?
Whether some members clap or not is irrelevant. The Speaker is not an arm of government and will act in the interests of the Commons.
I don't think the invitiation to the President of China was the correct decision but it was an independent choice of the Commons authorities as is this one.
Mr. W, how can the Speaker claim either to be neutral or speak for the House when the majority party is stony-faced and the leftwing minority half is clapping gleefully as he intervenes in foreign affairs?
Mr. W, how can the Speaker claim either to be neutral or speak for the House when the majority party is stony-faced and the leftwing minority half is clapping gleefully as he intervenes in foreign affairs?
Much of this problem may be placed at the PM's door. The unseemly haste to fall over themselves to offer a full state visit within days of Trump taking office has come home to roost. It placed the Queen in a very ugly position and offered the governments opponents boundless opportunities.
Speaker Bercow has emphasized the independence of the Commons over the executive just as in the past his predecessors did over monarchy.
The key to why this is unacceptable behaviour by Bercow is contained in your phrase "offered the government's opponents boundless opportunities."
It's up to the government's opponents to avail themselves of such opportunities. Someone who is supposed to be neutral is, or should be, by definition not one of the government's opponents.
The Speaker may be the governments opponent if he/she feels it is in the interests of the Commons. Being impartial doesn't mean not making decisions that might be not favorable to HMG.
The Speaker is somewhat like an executive judge for the Commons. Verdicts are given.
And, whilst I'm procrastinating, I think this is very serious indeed. The real reason Rome won the Second Punic War wasn't because of a given general or army. It was because of the rock-solid constitutional position and the pathological patriotism of the people. That meant it could absorb the immense damage Hannibal repeatedly dealt it.
When Carthage suffered a comparable blow at Zama, it couldn't recover because it lacked that resilience.
This, more than anything else, emphasises that the brilliance of an individual is outweighed by the stability and strength of political institutions.
I think Trump's an oaf. I wouldn't have voted for him. I wouldn't've offered him a state visit either (official, perhaps). However, that is the business of the Government.
The Speaker's role is be a neutral, objective umpire. He is not there to play the game but to officiate. Now he's stuck his leg out, put the ball in the net, and is running around with his shirt over his head whilst half the players applaud him.
But for that cheap shot, leaving aside the considerable difficulty this may well cause the Government, it may change, and weaken, the function of the Speaker forever. How can he be seen as neutral after this? Diplomatic and foreign affairs are not his business. But he has waded in anyway.
Before Flavius Phocas in the 7th century, Byzantium had no history of mutilation [emperors had to be perfect - that is to say, physically whole and without deformity]. Phocas was a sadist and mutilated the former emperor Maurice, as well as others. After him, for about eight centuries, mutilation was common practice for imperial rivals who lost.
One man's bad practice became a template for his successors and a habit for his people. Maybe this will be a one off. I hope so. But from now on every MP will need to consider the party political angle very carefully when voting for a new Speaker. Because the modernising supply teacher has decided he can ignore common sense and convention and start playing the game, as well as being the referee.
I think people sometimes underestimate the importance of institutions. It's why Blair was idiotic to think Holyrood would slay the SNP. It's why those who want to carve England up into petty fiefdoms are wrong. And it's why the Speaker should long ago have taken a leaf out of Her Majesty's book, and learned the art of being silent on controversial political matters.
Is there any topic you won't link to Carthage and Rome? I do agree with you though... Institutions are extremely important. I don't really understand why Bercow has done this. If the house had instructed him thus... No problem.
Bercow will now be spit roasted over every state visit which involved trips /addresses to Parliament when he was Speaker by regimes with dodgy human rights records or genuinely discriminatory laws.The man is a complete idiot.
Bercow will now be spit roasted over every state visit which involved trips /addresses to Parliament when he was Speaker by regimes with dodgy human rights records or genuinely discriminatory laws.The man is a complete idiot.
And, whilst I'm procrastinating, I think this is very serious indeed. The real reason Rome won the Second Punic War wasn't because of a given general or army. It was because of the rock-solid constitutional position and the pathological patriotism of the people. That meant it could absorb the immense damage Hannibal repeatedly dealt it.
When Carthage suffered a comparable blow at Zama, it couldn't recover because it lacked that resilience.
This, more than anything else, emphasises that the brilliance of an individual is outweighed by the stability and strength of political institutions.
I think Trump's an oaf. I wouldn't have voted for him. I wouldn't've offered him a state visit either (official, perhaps). However, that is the business of the Government.
The Speaker's role is be a neutral, objective umpire. He is not there to play the game but to officiate. Now he's stuck his leg out, put the ball in the net, and is running around with his shirt over his head whilst half the players applaud him.
But for that cheap shot, leaving aside the considerable difficulty this may well cause the Government, it may change, and weaken, the function of the Speaker forever. How can he be seen as neutral after this? Diplomatic and foreign affairs are not his business. But he has waded in anyway.
Before Flavius Phocas in the 7th century, Byzantium had no history of mutilation [emperors had to be perfect - that is to say, physically whole and without deformity]. Phocas was a sadist and mutilated the former emperor Maurice, as well as others. After him, for about eight centuries, mutilation was common practice for imperial rivals who lost.
One man's bad practice became a template for his successors and a habit for his people. Maybe this will be a one off. I hope so. But from now on every MP will need to consider the party political angle very carefully when voting for a new Speaker. Because the modernising supply teacher has decided he can ignore common sense and convention and start playing the game, as well as being the referee.
I think people sometimes underestimate the importance of institutions. It's why Blair was idiotic to think Holyrood would slay the SNP. It's why those who want to carve England up into petty fiefdoms are wrong. And it's why the Speaker should long ago have taken a leaf out of Her Majesty's book, and learned the art of being silent on controversial political matters.
Good rule of thumb: what would Betty Boothroyd do?
Agreed. It's ok for certain religions to treat women like shite, hate the rest of the world, not condemn their followers from terrorism and hate democracy to come to Parliament, but an elected head of state. F*cking Liberal Elite is completely out of control.
Mr. W, how can the Speaker claim either to be neutral or speak for the House when the majority party is stony-faced and the leftwing minority half is clapping gleefully as he intervenes in foreign affairs?
Mr. W, how can the Speaker claim either to be neutral or speak for the House when the majority party is stony-faced and the leftwing minority half is clapping gleefully as he intervenes in foreign affairs?
The Speaker isn't there to be the cheer leader for the majority party or the minority but to act in the interests of the Commons. Neither they or the Government may like his decisions but again like your "umpire" or a rugby referee analogy, the team must accept the verdict and play on.
Did you expect Bercow to produce the Dalai Lama from his frock coat?
It's impossible to separate the invitation from the person invited. Had it been Robert Mugabe or Gerry Adams I wonder whether the bleating would be as loud?
Agreed. It's ok for certain religions to treat women like shite, hate the rest of the world, not condemn their followers from terrorism and hate democracy to come to Parliament, but an elected head of state. F*cking Liberal Elite is completely out of control.
Strudent is right; it's like all those JCR meetings in the 80s passing motions of no confidence in the chairman of Barclays because South Africa.
It's impossible to separate the invitation from the person invited. Had it been Robert Mugabe or Gerry Adams I wonder whether the bleating would be as loud?
Mr. W, how can the Speaker claim either to be neutral or speak for the House when the majority party is stony-faced and the leftwing minority half is clapping gleefully as he intervenes in foreign affairs?
The Speaker isn't there to be the cheer leader for the majority party or the minority but to act in the interests of the Commons. Neither they or the Government may like his decisions but again like your "umpire" or a rugby referee analogy, the team must accept the verdict and play on.
Did you expect Bercow to produce the Dalai Lama from his frock coat?
It's impossible to separate the invitation from the person invited. Had it been Robert Mugabe or Gerry Adams I wonder whether the bleating would be as loud?
Gerry Adams has been free to make a speech in parliament for many years...
The Gollum of British Politics has always been partial and partisan towards the Left.
The Conservatives should have run a candidate against him in 2015.
Looking at his actions, I'm unsure that it's as simple as that. His actions seem more designed to inflate his own ego than to protect parliament or any particular party. At times he acts as if he is larger to the role, rather than subsidiary to it.
However he seems to have been generally much better since his wife's prominence declined after her affair.
Mr. W, how can the Speaker claim either to be neutral or speak for the House when the majority party is stony-faced and the leftwing minority half is clapping gleefully as he intervenes in foreign affairs?
The Speaker isn't there to be the cheer leader for the majority party or the minority but to act in the interests of the Commons. Neither they or the Government may like his decisions but again like your "umpire" or a rugby referee analogy, the team must accept the verdict and play on.
Did you expect Bercow to produce the Dalai Lama from his frock coat?
Bercow's just a git.
Yep. Everything else is just indulging him by pretending that his opinion is worth a damn.
It's impossible to separate the invitation from the person invited. Had it been Robert Mugabe or Gerry Adams I wonder whether the bleating would be as loud?
It is on the other hand possible to take on board the fact that an invitee is invited by virtue of his office, not of his personal qualities. And don't go trying to turn this into a left/right thing; there is surely cross-party consensus among the non-deranged that Trump is a dangerous and unpleasant man. It's about what we do about it.
Mr. W, how can the Speaker claim either to be neutral or speak for the House when the majority party is stony-faced and the leftwing minority half is clapping gleefully as he intervenes in foreign affairs?
The Speaker isn't there to be the cheer leader for the majority party or the minority but to act in the interests of the Commons. Neither they or the Government may like his decisions but again like your "umpire" or a rugby referee analogy, the team must accept the verdict and play on.
Did you expect Bercow to produce the Dalai Lama from his frock coat?
Bercow's just a git.
Sean as a student of history you well know that has never been a disqualification from high office or success within it.
Mr. rkrkrk, being serious, the Second Punic War is something well worth reading about.
It includes the most audacious march, best/largest ambush, and most perfect battlefield victory in history. It also highlights the importance of strategy, via Quintus Fabius Maximus' excellent work as the Delayer when he was dictator, the importance of institutions over individuals, and has numerous fascinating individuals, as well as bad blood (Hamilcar, Hannibal's father, being a major general late on in the First Punic War).
It's intriguing in itself but also stuffed full of useful political and military lessons.
There may be something I would not link to the Second Punic War. But to paraphrase Hannibal - I will find a way, or make one.
Good evening, Miss JGP.
Mr. W, if the Speaker is content to welcome the unelected leader of a country and party that enjoys the use of secret police to silence political dissent then it is thoroughly hypocritical to oppose the arrival of an elected leader of a country that is freer and fairer in just about every way.
However bad Bercow might be, we should think back ten years and thank (insert deity here) that he's not Michael Martin.
Given the history of Martin's resignation, an interesting question is whether today's announcement means he has enhanced or diminished the standing of the house.
Does the POTUS usually address Parliament during State visits?
Reagan, George W Bush and Obama have all had State visits to the UK and both Reagan and Obama addressed the joint Houses of Parliament during those visits. GW did not.
Bill Clinton has also addressed the joint Houses but his was not a State visit.
Therefore Bercow is way out of line.
Oh and on the same subject, the only two Presidents since WW2 not to meet the monarch are Kennedy and Carter.
One who was murdered in office, the other who failed to win re-election.
The Gollum of British Politics has always been partial and partisan towards the Left.
The Conservatives should have run a candidate against him in 2015.
Looking at his actions, I'm unsure that it's as simple as that. His actions seem more designed to inflate his own ego than to protect parliament or any particular party. At times he acts as if he is larger to the role, rather than subsidiary to it.
However he seems to have been generally much better since his wife's prominence declined after her affair.
On reflection, I think that's correct.
I don't know how anyone with an ounce of self-respect could have chosen that Coat of Arms. It was like something you see advertised in the back of the Sunday Times Magazine (become a Lord of the Manor).
Instinctively, of course, I love what Bercow did. But taking a step back and a deep breath, I think it was absolutely wrong. If it is his call who gets to address Parliament, it shouldn't be. I am afraid I find it deeply troubling. The claps and the cheers from the opposition, the silence from the government benches; it was just wrong.
The state visit invitation was profoundly mistaken and damaging to the UK's standing. But what Bercow has done today is anti-democratic. I actually think his position may now be untenable.
Mr. 1000, and this is another problem. I don't like Trump. I wouldn't've voted for him. But I'm being driven to support him by the overblown reactionary nonsense of his opponents (see also the 'punch a Nazi' excuse for endorsing political violence against those whose opinions are deemed unacceptable).
This might get cheers from the applauding imbeciles on the green benches, but it'll drive the centre and even mild opponents of Trump to defend him.
However bad Bercow might be, we should think back ten years and thank (insert deity here) that he's not Michael Martin.
Given the history of Martin's resignation, an interesting question is whether today's announcement means he has enhanced or diminished the standing of the house.
We've been really unlucky to have Martin and now Bercow. Surely the next one will be half decent?
Instinctively, of course, I love what Bercow did. But taking a step back and a deep breath, I think it was absolutely wrong. If it is his call who gets to address Parliament, it shouldn't be. I am afraid I find it deeply troubling. The claps and the cheers from the opposition, the silence from the government benches; it was just wrong.
The state visit invitation was profoundly mistaken and damaging to the UK's standing. But what Bercow has done today is anti-democratic. I actually think his position may now be untenable.
The critical question is one to which we have yet to have any clear answer, which is whether John Bercow had taken appropriate soundings before making his statement. If he did, then he acted properly.
Mr. Observer, an interesting position, and one I largely agree with. However, I'm not sure I agree with those (you, and Mr. 1000, I think) who believe he can be stripped of the Speakership for this.
Much of this problem may be placed at the PM's door. The unseemly haste to fall over themselves to offer a full state visit within days of Trump taking office has come home to roost. It placed the Queen in a very ugly position and offered the governments opponents boundless opportunities.
Speaker Bercow has emphasized the independence of the Commons over the executive just as in the past his predecessors did over monarchy.
The key to why this is unacceptable behaviour by Bercow is contained in your phrase "offered the government's opponents boundless opportunities."
It's up to the government's opponents to avail themselves of such opportunities. Someone who is supposed to be neutral is, or should be, by definition not one of the government's opponents.
The Speaker may be the governments opponent if he/she feels it is in the interests of the Commons. Being impartial doesn't mean not making decisions that might be not favorable to HMG.
The Speaker is somewhat like an executive judge for the Commons. Verdicts are given.
"May it please your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here"
Instinctively, of course, I love what Bercow did. But taking a step back and a deep breath, I think it was absolutely wrong. If it is his call who gets to address Parliament, it shouldn't be. I am afraid I find it deeply troubling. The claps and the cheers from the opposition, the silence from the government benches; it was just wrong.
The state visit invitation was profoundly mistaken and damaging to the UK's standing. But what Bercow has done today is anti-democratic. I actually think his position may now be untenable.
The critical question is one to which we have yet to have any clear answer, which is whether John Bercow had taken appropriate soundings before making his statement. If he did, then he acted properly.
The silence/cheers suggests this was wildly popular on one side of the house only.
Instinctively, of course, I love what Bercow did. But taking a step back and a deep breath, I think it was absolutely wrong. If it is his call who gets to address Parliament, it shouldn't be. I am afraid I find it deeply troubling. The claps and the cheers from the opposition, the silence from the government benches; it was just wrong.
The state visit invitation was profoundly mistaken and damaging to the UK's standing. But what Bercow has done today is anti-democratic. I actually think his position may now be untenable.
The critical question is one to which we have yet to have any clear answer, which is whether John Bercow had taken appropriate soundings before making his statement. If he did, then he acted properly.
The silence/cheers suggests this was wildly popular on one side of the house only.
If you're a Conservative backbencher who quietly approves of this, would you cheer?
Mr. 1000, and this is another problem. I don't like Trump. I wouldn't've voted for him. But I'm being driven to support him by the overblown reactionary nonsense of his opponents (see also the 'punch a Nazi' excuse for endorsing political violence against those whose opinions are deemed unacceptable).
This might get cheers from the applauding imbeciles on the green benches, but it'll drive the centre and even mild opponents of Trump to defend him.
" But I'm being driven to support him "
It's not a binary choice: it's perfectly possible to say you dislike him and do not support him, and also not support and condemn some of the more egregious acts against him.
Instinctively, of course, I love what Bercow did. But taking a step back and a deep breath, I think it was absolutely wrong. If it is his call who gets to address Parliament, it shouldn't be. I am afraid I find it deeply troubling. The claps and the cheers from the opposition, the silence from the government benches; it was just wrong.
The state visit invitation was profoundly mistaken and damaging to the UK's standing. But what Bercow has done today is anti-democratic. I actually think his position may now be untenable.
The critical question is one to which we have yet to have any clear answer, which is whether John Bercow had taken appropriate soundings before making his statement. If he did, then he acted properly.
Good point. I think we can be confident that SNP and most if not all of Labour would all be firmly against inviting him. Would there be enough angry Tories? I think it would be tight.
A rather ridiculous position by Bercow to take on a sitting POTUS, I expect he will eventually be allowed to speak in the Royal Gallery (where Reagan spoke) unlike Westminster Hall (where Obama did)
Instinctively, of course, I love what Bercow did. But taking a step back and a deep breath, I think it was absolutely wrong. If it is his call who gets to address Parliament, it shouldn't be. I am afraid I find it deeply troubling. The claps and the cheers from the opposition, the silence from the government benches; it was just wrong.
The state visit invitation was profoundly mistaken and damaging to the UK's standing. But what Bercow has done today is anti-democratic. I actually think his position may now be untenable.
The critical question is one to which we have yet to have any clear answer, which is whether John Bercow had taken appropriate soundings before making his statement. If he did, then he acted properly.
Good point. I think we can be confident that SNP and most if not all of Labour would all be firmly against inviting him. Would there be enough angry Tories? I think it would be tight.
A "tight" vote of confidence (which is effectively what a vote on Trumps visit would become) in Speaker B would leave him finished. Just having a vote would be damaging but he'd have to win it handsomely to prove he has confidence of all sides of the House.
Mr. L, perhaps. But I'll believe that when I see it.
Mr. Jessop, that's true. But you still get my point.
Mr. rkrkrk, that's why I think Bercow would narrowly win any vote, and then would have the brazenness to remain in post even if 48% (ahem) of the Commons had no confidence in him.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Gin, for someone with a sense of shame, it would. Bercow's the man who campaigned for the job and got it because Labour wanted to annoy the Conservatives. If he got 301 against 300 votes, he'd stay.
Instinctively, of course, I love what Bercow did. But taking a step back and a deep breath, I think it was absolutely wrong. If it is his call who gets to address Parliament, it shouldn't be. I am afraid I find it deeply troubling. The claps and the cheers from the opposition, the silence from the government benches; it was just wrong.
The state visit invitation was profoundly mistaken and damaging to the UK's standing. But what Bercow has done today is anti-democratic. I actually think his position may now be untenable.
The state visit was flung out far too quickly by May, in particular I'm concerned that (from the subsequent soundings) the palace was pretty much bounced into Trump visiting. That said I think this is appropriate by Bercow.
Instinctively, of course, I love what Bercow did. But taking a step back and a deep breath, I think it was absolutely wrong. If it is his call who gets to address Parliament, it shouldn't be. I am afraid I find it deeply troubling. The claps and the cheers from the opposition, the silence from the government benches; it was just wrong.
The state visit invitation was profoundly mistaken and damaging to the UK's standing. But what Bercow has done today is anti-democratic. I actually think his position may now be untenable.
The critical question is one to which we have yet to have any clear answer, which is whether John Bercow had taken appropriate soundings before making his statement. If he did, then he acted properly.
The silence/cheers suggests this was wildly popular on one side of the house only.
The moaning/bleating suggests this was wildly unpopular on one side of PB only.
"He so despairs at Labour, the party to which he once donated wads of his hard-earned writing cash, that he now supports the Liberal Democrats. Despite encouraging others to join Labour to oust Corbyn last year, he says: “When my membership lapses I shan’t renew it. I don’t believe in the leader and I don’t believe in the policies.” The party is “dead”, he says, just “a sect like the Seventh Day Adventists or Scientologists”. Corbyn himself is “testy and peevish”, and to those who point to the leader’s supposed goodness, he says: “A great deal of evil is done in the world by people who are well-meaning.” http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/author-robert-harris-on-donald-trump-theresa-may-and-the-new-superelite-a3459361.html
Instinctively, of course, I love what Bercow did. But taking a step back and a deep breath, I think it was absolutely wrong. If it is his call who gets to address Parliament, it shouldn't be. I am afraid I find it deeply troubling. The claps and the cheers from the opposition, the silence from the government benches; it was just wrong.
The state visit invitation was profoundly mistaken and damaging to the UK's standing. But what Bercow has done today is anti-democratic. I actually think his position may now be untenable.
Are you suggesting a vote before he's accepted (or rejected) to address Parliament?
Mr. W, how can the Speaker claim either to be neutral or speak for the House when the majority party is stony-faced and the leftwing minority half is clapping gleefully as he intervenes in foreign affairs?
The Speaker isn't there to be the cheer leader for the majority party or the minority but to act in the interests of the Commons.?
Of course the speaker should protect the status of the Commons but perhaps he should have waited until the Commons had expressed a view on the matter rather than grandstanding in his own interests. There was no need for an intervention of this form.
Instinctively, of course, I love what Bercow did. But taking a step back and a deep breath, I think it was absolutely wrong. If it is his call who gets to address Parliament, it shouldn't be. I am afraid I find it deeply troubling. The claps and the cheers from the opposition, the silence from the government benches; it was just wrong.
The state visit invitation was profoundly mistaken and damaging to the UK's standing. But what Bercow has done today is anti-democratic. I actually think his position may now be untenable.
Can't see how this is 'anti-democratic'. Shambolic yes. Embarrassing, maybe.
Ignoring the rights and wrongs of this, it is clear that many who bleat on about "Parliamentary Sovereignty" haven't the foggiest about how the system does (or should) work.
Mr. W, how can the Speaker claim either to be neutral or speak for the House when the majority party is stony-faced and the leftwing minority half is clapping gleefully as he intervenes in foreign affairs?
TSE, if she isn't a politics geek, it probably hasn't got much of a future....
I wonder.... Are the political obsessives on this forum largely married/in relationships with other political obsessives?
I'm married - but to someone with little more than an occasional curiosity in the subject...
Yes my suspicion is that if you're a politics geek it would be very hard to marry someone who held strong views unless they were very similar to your own. Which is surely a small fragment of the population. Far more likely to end up with someone who isn't that fussed...
If Bercow cannot be removed straight way this is another good reason for an immediate General Election.What is he going to be like to like to deal with if things get difficult over the Brexit Parliamentary process if he is behaving like this now?
Does the POTUS usually address Parliament during State visits?
Reagan, George W Bush and Obama have all had State visits to the UK and both Reagan and Obama addressed the joint Houses of Parliament during those visits. GW did not.
Bill Clinton has also addressed the joint Houses but his was not a State visit.
Therefore Bercow is way out of line.
Oh and on the same subject, the only two Presidents since WW2 not to meet the monarch are Kennedy and Carter.
Friend has a date this evening, friend is also editing a website about betting on politics, and then John Bercow does this, should my friend leave his phone at home tonight?
As long as you take a screen-print of Fantasy Footy league table and the compulsion that is the battle for 4th spot as an analogy for the Premier League then the time will race by.
Comments
Xi respects the Chinese constitution ?
:-)
The proportion of the public that approve of the government's preparations for Brexit stood at 53 percent, ORB found, up 15 points from a poll last month when only 38 percent approved, with 62 percent disapproving.
The poll also found that 47 percent agreed that May would get the right deal for Britain, with just 29 percent disagreeing. In January, it was evenly split at 35 percent between those who agreed and disagreed.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-poll-idUKKBN15L1ZE?il=0
Otherwise, switch the phone off.
https://twitter.com/johnharris1969/status/828656051868295168
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/royalty/5125745/Queen-Elizabeth-II-with-Presidents-of-the-United-States.html?image=8
The only president she hasn't met in her reign was LBJ.
Incidentally, I recall, unique for becoming President without running for either the post or VP post.
(If it always was going to be during the recess, The Speaker will look like a grandstanding prat.)
I don't think the invitiation to the President of China was the correct decision but it was an independent choice of the Commons authorities as is this one.
You're right that neither invitation was the Speaker's. Just look how vehemently he's protesting Xi Jinping's presence:
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/828662855029366785
Around £130 available @ ~15/1 for Fillon (or anyone else bar Macron/Le Pen) to win the first round available on betfair - by laying the two favs.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.129013026
Just pointing it out if anyone's interested. Not a betting tip. I'm not on either side of the bet.
The Speaker is somewhat like an executive judge for the Commons. Verdicts are given.
I do agree with you though... Institutions are extremely important.
I don't really understand why Bercow has done this.
If the house had instructed him thus... No problem.
http://www.manchester.ac.uk/discover/news/manchester-appoints-the-rt-hon-john-bercow-mp-as-an-honorary-professor/
What seems worthy of note is that it was arguably a cheap jibe in a public forum that stirred Mr Trump into a genuine run for the Presidency.
Good evening, everyone.
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/828665116967178241
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/828666487481188352
The Conservatives should have run a candidate against him in 2015.
Ah, one of the best speakers in my lifetime, if not the best. – Ans, remain impartial.
Did you expect Bercow to produce the Dalai Lama from his frock coat?
However he seems to have been generally much better since his wife's prominence declined after her affair.
We do not want to revert to the Speakership being in the gift of the government as it effectively was prior to Boothroyd.
It includes the most audacious march, best/largest ambush, and most perfect battlefield victory in history. It also highlights the importance of strategy, via Quintus Fabius Maximus' excellent work as the Delayer when he was dictator, the importance of institutions over individuals, and has numerous fascinating individuals, as well as bad blood (Hamilcar, Hannibal's father, being a major general late on in the First Punic War).
It's intriguing in itself but also stuffed full of useful political and military lessons.
There may be something I would not link to the Second Punic War. But to paraphrase Hannibal - I will find a way, or make one.
Good evening, Miss JGP.
Mr. W, if the Speaker is content to welcome the unelected leader of a country and party that enjoys the use of secret police to silence political dissent then it is thoroughly hypocritical to oppose the arrival of an elected leader of a country that is freer and fairer in just about every way.
Given the history of Martin's resignation, an interesting question is whether today's announcement means he has enhanced or diminished the standing of the house.
I don't know how anyone with an ounce of self-respect could have chosen that Coat of Arms. It was like something you see advertised in the back of the Sunday Times Magazine (become a Lord of the Manor).
Instinctively, of course, I love what Bercow did. But taking a step back and a deep breath, I think it was absolutely wrong. If it is his call who gets to address Parliament, it shouldn't be. I am afraid I find it deeply troubling. The claps and the cheers from the opposition, the silence from the government benches; it was just wrong.
The state visit invitation was profoundly mistaken and damaging to the UK's standing. But what Bercow has done today is anti-democratic. I actually think his position may now be untenable.
This might get cheers from the applauding imbeciles on the green benches, but it'll drive the centre and even mild opponents of Trump to defend him.
But, we shall see.
It wouldn't exactly be career-enhancing.
It's not a binary choice: it's perfectly possible to say you dislike him and do not support him, and also not support and condemn some of the more egregious acts against him.
I think we can be confident that SNP and most if not all of Labour would all be firmly against inviting him. Would there be enough angry Tories? I think it would be tight.
Mr. Jessop, that's true. But you still get my point.
Mr. rkrkrk, that's why I think Bercow would narrowly win any vote, and then would have the brazenness to remain in post even if 48% (ahem) of the Commons had no confidence in him.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Gin, for someone with a sense of shame, it would. Bercow's the man who campaigned for the job and got it because Labour wanted to annoy the Conservatives. If he got 301 against 300 votes, he'd stay.
That said I think this is appropriate by Bercow.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/06/brexit-opportunity-reverse-tragic-decline-marriage-britain/
Cui Bono? Him presumably but how? Plus he can't have been unaware of the consequences and reaction.
"He so despairs at Labour, the party to which he once donated wads of his hard-earned writing cash, that he now supports the Liberal Democrats.
Despite encouraging others to join Labour to oust Corbyn last year, he says: “When my membership lapses I shan’t renew it. I don’t believe in the leader and I don’t believe in the policies.”
The party is “dead”, he says, just “a sect like the Seventh Day Adventists or Scientologists”. Corbyn himself is “testy and peevish”, and to those who point to the leader’s supposed goodness, he says: “A great deal of evil is done in the world by people who are well-meaning.”
http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/author-robert-harris-on-donald-trump-theresa-may-and-the-new-superelite-a3459361.html
It's the little englander brexiteers who are really dangerous;
Imagine a referee hugely popular with one team and loathed by the other. That doesn't engender the feeling he's being even-handed and fair.
He's an attention seeker... it has to be about HIM at all times!
I guess he's not so different from Donald in a lot of ways.
https://lisawallerrogers.com/tag/jimmy-carter-kisses-the-queen-mum/
Mr. HYUFD, Bercow's a shameless oaf. If he has the backing of Labour, SNPs and wet Tories (only needs a handful) he'll win a vote.