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?
Someone (I cannot remember who) said the other day that Bercow has said he was only going to serve a certain length of time as speaker (again, I cannot remember what the period was).
Since his last few predecessors lasted around 7-9 years in the role, it'd hardly be unusual for him to go around now. Could this be a cynical move to cement his legacy in the minds of the public? Or even one to create a great big row that would cause him to go, but one on which the majority of the public might agree with him?
I loathe Trump, but Bercow should be stripped of the Speakership for this stunt.
I’m in two minds quite honestly, one says ignore the speaker’s outburst and go ahead with the address, thus exposing the impotency of his position – and the other is to just ignore him period, his overinflated ego would hate that even more.
To be fair, it was about three centuries before Martin got topped.
Mr. Jessop, doing that by buggering up the role and making MPs have to consider partisan politics when choosing his successor would be a very Bercow way to screw things up whilst getting himself attention.
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.
I think you make a fair point. I don't see it as a left/right question but one of hypocrisy. If Trump is acting outside the law (of his own country) and uses exclusion as a racist weapon then anything other than exclusion would be a slap in the face to those countries and peoples he's targeted
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.
No the critical question is whether he has the authority to do what he did. What power does Bercow have over Parliament outside of the Commons chamber. I assume he has no power over the Lords and therefore there must be a line of demarcation or a neutral zone between the two.
Mr. Dean, Parliamentary sovereignty doesn't mean the Speaker is, or should be, involved in Foreign affairs.
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.
On a speech in Westminster Hall, probably not a speech in the Royal Gallery though, even most wet Tories and some Labour MPs would vote for that but Bercow has ruled that out as well
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..
The haste of this state visit was a result of Brexit which the Queen supported. If she didn't want to be bounced into having to invite every passing despot for tea, she should have thought a bit harder about some of the advantages of being in the EU.
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.
No the critical question is whether he has the authority to do what he did. What power does Bercow have over Parliament outside of the Commons chamber. I assume he has no power over the Lords and therefore there must be a line of demarcation or a neutral zone between the two.
Considering invitations to the two areas discussed come either in his name or jointly in his name then yes he had the authority to do what he did. But like the monarch it is how he uses his authority that is more important than what authority he has.
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.
Carter visited Newcastle - much better than a trip to Windsor for a cu of tea with Liz.
I saw his motorcade. It was also the day our secondary double glazing was being fitted. I'm not sure which I found more exciting at the time.
The dumb bit is, if you wanted to embarrass Trump, surely the best way would be to invite him to speak, and then there to be a derisory turnout.
Plus the speaking bit. He is bound to make an arse of himself. But the Speaker is well out of order. May will be diminished if she does not respond to this.
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.
Carter visited Newcastle - much better than a trip to Windsor for a cu of tea with Liz.
I saw his motorcade. It was also the day our secondary double glazing was being fitted. I'm not sure which I found more exciting at the time.
Carter still met the Queen and the Queen Mother though as I showed earlier
Interesting that Tory MPs are now coming out in support of the Speaker. Theresa May is in danger of looking embarrassingly isolated. She really doesn't seem to have any idea of the man she's dealing with. Saying you can't separate the office from the man in this case doesn't make sense. He's behaving like a dictator.
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..
The haste of this state visit was a result of Brexit which the Queen supported. If she didn't want to be bounced into having to invite every passing despot for tea, she should have thought a bit harder about some of the advantages of being in the EU.
Strange, I seem to recall her entertaining despots while we were in the EU.
Interesting that Tory MPs are now coming out in support of the Speaker. Theresa May is in danger of looking embarrassingly isolated. She really doesn't seem to have any idea of the man she's dealing with. Saying you can't separate the office from the man in this case doesn't make sense. He's behaving like a dictator.
The President of China is a dictator and he got an invite. Who are these Tory MPs? The Tory MPs I am seeing on Twitter at the moment oppose Bercow
The dumb bit is, if you wanted to embarrass Trump, surely the best way would be to invite him to speak, and then there to be a derisory turnout.
Trump addressing a half-empty Chamber would be quite a sight!
The camera angles would probably be kind. And even if only half the MPs turned up, it would still look a full house to the American media - just because it is normally bursting at the seams.
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.
Carter visited Newcastle - much better than a trip to Windsor for a cu of tea with Liz.
I saw his motorcade. It was also the day our secondary double glazing was being fitted. I'm not sure which I found more exciting at the time.
Carter still met the Queen and the Queen Mother though as I showed earlier
Woodrew Wilson visited Carlisle, and spent the whole day there..
The dumb bit is, if you wanted to embarrass Trump, surely the best way would be to invite him to speak, and then there to be a derisory turnout.
Trump addressing a half-empty Chamber would be quite a sight!
The camera angles would probably be kind. And even if only half the MPs turned up, it would still look a full house to the American media - just because it is normally bursting at the seams.
It would be in Westminster hall, not the chamber. Still, you are correct about the angles.
Interesting that Tory MPs are now coming out in support of the Speaker. Theresa May is in danger of looking embarrassingly isolated. She really doesn't seem to have any idea of the man she's dealing with. Saying you can't separate the office from the man in this case doesn't make sense. He's behaving like a dictator.
The President of China is a dictator and he got an invite. Who are these Tory MPs? The Tory MPs I am seeing on Twitter at the moment oppose Bercow
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.
Carter visited Newcastle - much better than a trip to Windsor for a cu of tea with Liz.
I saw his motorcade. It was also the day our secondary double glazing was being fitted. I'm not sure which I found more exciting at the time.
Carter still met the Queen and the Queen Mother though as I showed earlier
Woodrew Wilson visited Carlisle, and spent the whole day there..
Interesting that Tory MPs are now coming out in support of the Speaker. Theresa May is in danger of looking embarrassingly isolated. She really doesn't seem to have any idea of the man she's dealing with. Saying you can't separate the office from the man in this case doesn't make sense. He's behaving like a dictator.
The President of China is a dictator and he got an invite. Who are these Tory MPs? The Tory MPs I am seeing on Twitter at the moment oppose 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 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..
The haste of this state visit was a result of Brexit which the Queen supported. If she didn't want to be bounced into having to invite every passing despot for tea, she should have thought a bit harder about some of the advantages of being in the EU.
Horsesh*t. We had Mugabe, Mobutu, Ceaușescu and Xi Jinping over for dinner and a speech while we were in the EU.
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.
Carter visited Newcastle - much better than a trip to Windsor for a cu of tea with Liz.
I saw his motorcade. It was also the day our secondary double glazing was being fitted. I'm not sure which I found more exciting at the time.
Carter still met the Queen and the Queen Mother though as I showed earlier
Woodrew Wilson visited Carlisle, and spent the whole day there..
The delights of Carlisle
Wasn't his family from Carlisle? Think there is a plaque in the town centre.
Mr. Roger, Trump has been overruled by a judge. That's not very dictatory.
Look at the rest of his actions, including his recent rather 'interesting' tweets about any terrorist attack being the fault of the judges who refused to lift the ban. Also witness his attacks on the 'bad' media (i.e. the bits that do not support him).
He's pretty much constantly attacking the judiciary. Then again, given the hysterical over-reaction by many on here over the A50 court case, perhaps false attacks on the judiciary are in vogue.
As I've said passim, you need to look at such actions in relation to the New Dictator's Handbook (tm). Worryingly, it's similar to how both Putin and Erdogan started. I hope he doesn't continue down the same path.
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.
Carter visited Newcastle - much better than a trip to Windsor for a cu of tea with Liz.
I saw his motorcade. It was also the day our secondary double glazing was being fitted. I'm not sure which I found more exciting at the time.
Carter still met the Queen and the Queen Mother though as I showed earlier
Woodrew Wilson visited Carlisle, and spent the whole day there..
He must have been easily pleased. (Or maybe, it prevented him from having to go to Scotland?)
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?
Someone (I cannot remember who) said the other day that Bercow has said he was only going to serve a certain length of time as speaker (again, I cannot remember what the period was).
Since his last few predecessors lasted around 7-9 years in the role, it'd hardly be unusual for him to go around now. Could this be a cynical move to cement his legacy in the minds of the public? Or even one to create a great big row that would cause him to go, but one on which the majority of the public might agree with him?
It seems rather inconsistent for someone who relies upon respect for the office he holds to bar a holder of a rather greater office because of personal qualities.
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.
Carter visited Newcastle - much better than a trip to Windsor for a cu of tea with Liz.
I saw his motorcade. It was also the day our secondary double glazing was being fitted. I'm not sure which I found more exciting at the time.
Carter still met the Queen and the Queen Mother though as I showed earlier
Woodrew Wilson visited Carlisle, and spent the whole day there..
The delights of Carlisle
Wasn't his family from Carlisle? Think there is a plaque in the town centre.
I loathe Trump, but Bercow should be stripped of the Speakership for this stunt.
Agreed. First order of business tomorrow should be a motion of no confidence in the Speaker.
Don't you think the Conservatives government has learnt the lesson of their last bungled attempt to eject Bercow?
The fact is Bercow enjoys huge cross party support including a significant minority of Conservative MP's.
He may have lost a bit of that support today!
Or gained some, although not really the point.
The Conservative government should not repeat their appalling misjudgement at the end of the last parliament that damaged William Hague's reputation,
Effectively supporting Trump over Bercow and trying to rid a Speaker on the issue would result in a humiliation for May.
Bercow has already humiliated himself quite enough with the hypocrisy of listening to the Emir of Kuwait and the President of China but not the President of the United States. The sheer sycophancy he gave the Obamas and the complete refusal to listen to his successor is a totally unwarranted interference in the domestic politics of our most significant ally, yes he may have preferred the Obamas personally but it is totally disrespectful of the office the American people have just elected Trump to
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.
Carter visited Newcastle - much better than a trip to Windsor for a cu of tea with Liz.
I saw his motorcade. It was also the day our secondary double glazing was being fitted. I'm not sure which I found more exciting at the time.
Carter still met the Queen and the Queen Mother though as I showed earlier
Woodrew Wilson visited Carlisle, and spent the whole day there..
He must have been easily pleased. (Or maybe, it prevented him from having to go to Scotland?)
It has a very nice wall .... Seems to be a POTUS thing.
Interesting that Tory MPs are now coming out in support of the Speaker. Theresa May is in danger of looking embarrassingly isolated. She really doesn't seem to have any idea of the man she's dealing with. Saying you can't separate the office from the man in this case doesn't make sense. He's behaving like a dictator.
Mr. Jessop, Trump comes out with some stuff that varies between unworthy and alarming. That doesn't make him a tyrant.
It's logically indefensible to sit down and listen politely to Xi Jinping, then claim Donald Trump is beyond the pale.
Anyway, I must be off.
The problem is that (as two examples), neither Putin or Erdogan started off as they've ended up, and I rather doubt that either planned to. But he's making similar sounds to the ones they made after they'd been in power for a few years.
He's not a tyrant. But he could become one, and he's standing on that road. We have to hope he intends, and will, step off it.
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.
Carter visited Newcastle - much better than a trip to Windsor for a cu of tea with Liz.
I saw his motorcade. It was also the day our secondary double glazing was being fitted. I'm not sure which I found more exciting at the time.
Carter still met the Queen and the Queen Mother though as I showed earlier
Woodrew Wilson visited Carlisle, and spent the whole day there..
The delights of Carlisle
Wasn't his family from Carlisle? Think there is a plaque in the town centre.
EDIT: Just Googled it. Woodrow Wilson's mother was born in Carlisle.
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?
Someone (I cannot remember who) said the other day that Bercow has said he was only going to serve a certain length of time as speaker (again, I cannot remember what the period was).
Since his last few predecessors lasted around 7-9 years in the role, it'd hardly be unusual for him to go around now. Could this be a cynical move to cement his legacy in the minds of the public? Or even one to create a great big row that would cause him to go, but one on which the majority of the public might agree with him?
It seems rather inconsistent for someone who relies upon respect for the office he holds to bar a holder of a rather greater office because of personal qualities.
Yes. I'm not necessarily in favour of this move for several reasons including past history and future precedent.
However, whether it's *right* or not will depend on conversations Bercow may or may not have had with others in the commons.
My post was just musing on Bercow's reasoning, if any.
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. "
Mr Jessop,
That's exactly the point. I think Jezza is a disaster overall, but he does make the odd good point. Rare, I grant you, but no one is all bad, even politicians. He does represent a viewpoint. Trump is honest, he says and tweets what he feels like. But there is a group who would criticise him even if he gave away his fortune to an LBGT charity and revealed himself as an angel from Heaven. For that group, it is was binary choice, and they made that choice on the basis of their version of Top Trumps.
If he's in any way racist or sexist, he loses on everything.
Interesting that Tory MPs are now coming out in support of the Speaker. Theresa May is in danger of looking embarrassingly isolated. She really doesn't seem to have any idea of the man she's dealing with. Saying you can't separate the office from the man in this case doesn't make sense. He's behaving like a dictator.
Yet if he was an actual dictator we'd have no problems not just inviting him but calling it an honour to do so?
Astonishing behaviour by Bercow - he has squarely lost all independence on anything to do with the US and Trump. Wholly compromised his position.
I don't want him to be independent over the US; he is the speaker of the House of Commons. The question is whether his intervention was out of order or not.
Bercow is a self indulgent, extravagant person with public funds and likes to associate himself with the Left even though he was an extreme right winger in his younger days.
Astonishing behaviour by Bercow - he has squarely lost all independence on anything to do with the US and Trump. Wholly compromised his position.
I don't want him to be independent over the US; he is the speaker of the House of Commons. The question is whether his intervention was out of order or not.
I fail to see how his being Speaker supports your first sentence. The Speaker of the House of Commons is not a position that is meant to have a position over the US, he is meant to be impartial over foreign policy.
@GuardianAnushka: House of Lords spokesperson: “The Lord Speaker was not consulted by Mr Bercow... The Lord Speaker will make his own statement tomorrow..."
Effectively supporting Trump over Bercow and trying to rid a Speaker on the issue would result in a humiliation for May.
But should Bercow be effectively saying that the democratically elected head of our closest ally is worse than the dictator of China?
This looks very, very serious to me.
So lay a motion before the house requiring that Trump be permitted to speak before both houses, if the government can pass the motion the speaker will be put back in his box and have to follow the will of the house without having to actually dethrone him.
I loathe Trump, but Bercow should be stripped of the Speakership for this stunt.
Agreed. First order of business tomorrow should be a motion of no confidence in the Speaker.
Don't you think the Conservatives government has learnt the lesson of their last bungled attempt to eject Bercow?
The fact is Bercow enjoys huge cross party support including a significant minority of Conservative MP's.
He may have lost a bit of that support today!
Or gained some, although not really the point.
The Conservative government should not repeat their appalling misjudgement at the end of the last parliament that damaged William Hague's reputation,
Effectively supporting Trump over Bercow and trying to rid a Speaker on the issue would result in a humiliation for May.
Bercow has already humiliated himself quite enough with the hypocrisy of listening to the Emir of Kuwait and the President of China but not the President of the United States. The sheer sycophancy he gave the Obamas and the complete refusal to listen to his successor is a totally unwarranted interference in the domestic politics of our most significant ally, yes he may have preferred the Obamas personally but it is totally disrespectful of the office the American people have just elected Trump too
It may has escaped your notice that President Trump doesn't yet have full rein of the Palace of Westminster and that thanks to the independence of the Speaker.
You may argue the merits of it but I'm content that the most powerful man on earth should know he's subject to the the writ of others be they the MP for Buckingham or "so called judges".
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. "
Mr Jessop,
That's exactly the point. I think Jezza is a disaster overall, but he does make the odd good point. Rare, I grant you, but no one is all bad, even politicians. He does represent a viewpoint. Trump is honest, he says and tweets what he feels like. But there is a group who would criticise him even if he gave away his fortune to an LBGT charity and revealed himself as an angel from Heaven. For that group, it is was binary choice, and they made that choice on the basis of their version of Top Trumps.
If he's in any way racist or sexist, he loses on everything.
There's extremists on both sides: look at the way certain people on here laud *anything* he does. They would acclaim him even if he was to drop his pants in the palace and mooned the Queen. In the Throne Room, perhaps?
I'll criticise or praise Trump on his words and actions. Sadly he's giving me far too much ammunition to criticise him, and little, if any, to praise.
The only move I've supported has been his concentration on infrastructure, which is much-needed, long overdue and politically astute.
@GuardianAnushka: House of Lords spokesperson: “The Lord Speaker was not consulted by Mr Bercow... The Lord Speaker will make his own statement tomorrow..."
That will be interesting and what if he contradicts Bercow
One minor puzzle is the prominence of the SNP MPs in applauding Bercow. I am pretty certain their leaders would greatly prefer them to keep their heads down and say nothing. Except, possibly, "Och, a squirrel!" and "Menie Estate? What Menie Estate?"
@GuardianAnushka: House of Lords spokesperson: “The Lord Speaker was not consulted by Mr Bercow... The Lord Speaker will make his own statement tomorrow..."
As Bercow said, he is one of the other three keyholders.
I loathe Trump, but Bercow should be stripped of the Speakership for this stunt.
Agreed. First order of business tomorrow should be a motion of no confidence in the Speaker.
Don't you think the Conservatives government has learnt the lesson of their last bungled attempt to eject Bercow?
The fact is Bercow enjoys huge cross party support including a significant minority of Conservative MP's.
He may have lost a bit of that support today!
Or gained some, although not really the point.
The Conservative government should not repeat their appalling misjudgement at the end of the last parliament that damaged William Hague's reputation,
Effectively supporting Trump over Bercow and trying to rid a Speaker on the issue would result in a humiliation for May.
Bercow has already humiliated himself quite enough with the hypocrisy of listening to the Emir of Kuwait and the President of China but not the President of the United States. The sheer sycophancy he gave the Obamas and the complete refusal to listen to his successor is a totally unwarranted interference in the domestic politics of our most significant ally, yes he may have preferred the Obamas personally but it is totally disrespectful of the office the American people have just elected Trump too
It may has escaped your notice that President Trump doesn't yet have full rein of the Palace of Westminster and that thanks to the independence of the Speaker.
You may argue the merits of it but I'm content that the most powerful man on earth should know he's subject to the the writ of others be they the MP for Buckingham or "so called judges".
Rather refreshing.
Christ of a bike some people need to stop flaunting their virtue and look at the realpolitik.
Its not just Trump, what message are we sending to 65m Americans that voted for Trump, and many million more that didn't but respect the office of President ? That we respect the office of the President of People's Republic of China a party placeman elected by no one, with over a thousand political prisoners held in psychiatric facilities, and yet we dont respect the democratically elected President of the United States.
I guess if there is a fuss in the USA and they decided they dont want to do a deal with us any more that would suit you just fine.
@GuardianAnushka: House of Lords spokesperson: “The Lord Speaker was not consulted by Mr Bercow... The Lord Speaker will make his own statement tomorrow..."
That will be interesting and what if he contradicts Bercow
Astonishing behaviour by Bercow - he has squarely lost all independence on anything to do with the US and Trump. Wholly compromised his position.
I don't want him to be independent over the US; he is the speaker of the House of Commons. The question is whether his intervention was out of order or not.
I fail to see how his being Speaker supports your first sentence. The Speaker of the House of Commons is not a position that is meant to have a position over the US, he is meant to be impartial over foreign policy.
Astonishing behaviour by Bercow - he has squarely lost all independence on anything to do with the US and Trump. Wholly compromised his position.
I don't want him to be independent over the US; he is the speaker of the House of Commons. The question is whether his intervention was out of order or not.
I fail to see how his being Speaker supports your first sentence. The Speaker of the House of Commons is not a position that is meant to have a position over the US, he is meant to be impartial over foreign policy.
Is he? What if we were at war?
Even then. The Speaker has no official view on policy, he is a functionary that chairs the meetings of the House and supervises the administration of its procedures.
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. "
Mr Jessop,
That's exactly the point. I think Jezza is a disaster overall, but he does make the odd good point. Rare, I grant you, but no one is all bad, even politicians. He does represent a viewpoint. Trump is honest, he says and tweets what he feels like. But there is a group who would criticise him even if he gave away his fortune to an LBGT charity and revealed himself as an angel from Heaven. For that group, it is was binary choice, and they made that choice on the basis of their version of Top Trumps.
If he's in any way racist or sexist, he loses on everything.
There's extremists on both sides: look at the way certain people on here laud *anything* he does. They would acclaim him even if he was to drop his pants in the palace and mooned the Queen. In the Throne Room, perhaps?
I'll criticise or praise Trump on his words and actions. Sadly he's giving me far too much ammunition to criticise him, and little, if any, to praise.
The only move I've supported has been his concentration on infrastructure, which is much-needed, long overdue and politically astute.
There really is hardly anyone who "lauds anything Trump does," there's at most two or three posters who do or did, and less so than they used to. And if they do, you should answer their Trump-lauding posts as and when they are posted rather than making broad and unprovable general statements. There is, I hope, a coalition of the more-or-less sane who recognise that Trump is dangerous and unstable and that the practical question is how best to limit his potential to damage us. The very worst possible answer to that question, is to do things which have 0% chance of damaging him and 100% chance of enraging him and making him hostile to us - which is exactly what Bercow has done.
Christ of a bike some people need to stop flaunting their virtue and look at the realpolitik.
Realpolitik is based on mutual interests, not friendship. That was May's fundamental mistake in rushing to offer Trump a state visit without having considered the implications of his agenda.
Effectively supporting Trump over Bercow and trying to rid a Speaker on the issue would result in a humiliation for May.
But should Bercow be effectively saying that the democratically elected head of our closest ally is worse than the dictator of China?
This looks very, very serious to me.
Hopefully Bercow has learnt the mistake of the Chinese visit.
I don't envy PM May's predicament. She has to flash her wares at Trump (oh dear) and retain her modesty for home viewers - taking the Elizabeth I of England option. Going to war with Speaker Bercow isn't an option.
@danbloom1: Source claims the Lord Speaker - who also holds keys to W Hall - was "irritated by the lack of consultation" over John Bercow's speech today
Effectively supporting Trump over Bercow and trying to rid a Speaker on the issue would result in a humiliation for May.
But should Bercow be effectively saying that the democratically elected head of our closest ally is worse than the dictator of China?
This looks very, very serious to me.
So lay a motion before the house requiring that Trump be permitted to speak before both houses, if the government can pass the motion the speaker will be put back in his box and have to follow the will of the house without having to actually dethrone him.
@GuardianAnushka: House of Lords spokesperson: “The Lord Speaker was not consulted by Mr Bercow... The Lord Speaker will make his own statement tomorrow..."
That will be interesting and what if he contradicts Bercow
The Speaker, Lords Speaker and Lord Chamberlain each effectively have a veto.
Christ of a bike some people need to stop flaunting their virtue and look at the realpolitik.
Realpolitik is based on mutual interests, not friendship. That was May's fundamental mistake in rushing to offer Trump a state visit without having considered the implications of his agenda.
We are where we are. Is the interest of the country best followed by further pissing off the most powerful man in the world ? No dont answer that, we know you dont have the best interests of this country at heart.
Interesting that Tory MPs are now coming out in support of the Speaker. Theresa May is in danger of looking embarrassingly isolated. She really doesn't seem to have any idea of the man she's dealing with. Saying you can't separate the office from the man in this case doesn't make sense. He's behaving like a dictator.
Yet if he was an actual dictator we'd have no problems not just inviting him but calling it an honour to do so?
Exactly - this is virtue signalling gone mad and hypocrisy of the highest degree.
@GuardianAnushka: House of Lords spokesperson: “The Lord Speaker was not consulted by Mr Bercow... The Lord Speaker will make his own statement tomorrow..."
That will be interesting and what if he contradicts Bercow
The Speaker, Lords Speaker and Lord Chamberlain each effectively have a veto.
If Mr Bercow is a PB follower, perhaps he was just fed up of Brexit threads & wanted us to have something else to talk about.
@GuardianAnushka: House of Lords spokesperson: “The Lord Speaker was not consulted by Mr Bercow... The Lord Speaker will make his own statement tomorrow..."
That will be interesting and what if he contradicts Bercow
The Speaker, Lords Speaker and Lord Chamberlain each effectively have a veto.
I loathe Trump, but Bercow should be stripped of the Speakership for this stunt.
Agreed. First order of business tomorrow should be a motion of no confidence in the Speaker.
Don't you think the Conservatives government has learnt the lesson of their last bungled attempt to eject Bercow?
The fact is Bercow enjoys huge cross party support including a significant minority of Conservative MP's.
He may have lost a bit of that support today!
Or gained some, although not really the point.
The Conservative government should not repeat their appalling misjudgement at the end of the last parliament that damaged William Hague's reputation,
Effectively supporting Trump over Bercow and trying to rid a Speaker on the issue would result in a humiliation for May.
Bercow has already humiliated himself quite enough with the hypocrisy of listening to the Emir of Kuwait and the President of China but not the President of the United States. The sheer sycophancy he gave the Obamas and the complete refusal to listen to his successor is a totally unwarranted interference in the domestic politics of our most significant ally, yes he may have preferred the Obamas personally but it is totally disrespectful of the office the American people have just elected Trump too
It may has escaped your notice that President Trump doesn't yet have full rein of the Palace of Westminster and that thanks to the independence of the Speaker.
You may argue the merits of it but I'm content that the most powerful man on earth should know he's subject to the the writ of others be they the MP for Buckingham or "so called judges".
Rather refreshing.
In theory a lovely point, but it depends on Trump having some knowledge of how the UK constitution works. His anti-judge tweets show beyond doubt that he hasn't the first idea of or interest in how the US constitution works, so why would he understand ours? He'll just think: can't these people make their minds up one way or the other?
One minor puzzle is the prominence of the SNP MPs in applauding Bercow. I am pretty certain their leaders would greatly prefer them to keep their heads down and say nothing. Except, possibly, "Och, a squirrel!" and "Menie Estate? What Menie Estate?"
We are very lucky to have such insights into the preferences of SNP 'leaders'.
Comments
Since his last few predecessors lasted around 7-9 years in the role, it'd hardly be unusual for him to go around now. Could this be a cynical move to cement his legacy in the minds of the public? Or even one to create a great big row that would cause him to go, but one on which the majority of the public might agree with him?
To be fair, it was about three centuries before Martin got topped.
Mr. Jessop, doing that by buggering up the role and making MPs have to consider partisan politics when choosing his successor would be a very Bercow way to screw things up whilst getting himself attention.
(He'll stay for anyone taking notes for tips)
HM is the epitome of objectivity and neutrality.
Unlike her eldest son.
Mr. Pulpstar, I agree. Bercow won't get turfed out over this, though he's diminished the role of Speaker for a long time.
Davies has no power. Bercow does. They might both be berks but only one has the power to cause a diplomatic incident.
It is not Foreign Affairs only though. As far as what goes on in HofC his word is LAW. He can lock people up after all.
I saw his motorcade. It was also the day our secondary double glazing was being fitted. I'm not sure which I found more exciting at the time.
The fact is Bercow enjoys huge cross party support including a significant minority of Conservative MP's.
https://nytimes.com/2017/02/05/us/politics/trump-white-house-aides-strategy.html?_r=1
He's pretty much constantly attacking the judiciary. Then again, given the hysterical over-reaction by many on here over the A50 court case, perhaps false attacks on the judiciary are in vogue.
As I've said passim, you need to look at such actions in relation to the New Dictator's Handbook (tm). Worryingly, it's similar to how both Putin and Erdogan started. I hope he doesn't continue down the same path.
The Conservative government should not repeat their appalling misjudgement at the end of the last parliament that damaged William Hague's reputation,
Effectively supporting Trump over Bercow and trying to rid a Speaker on the issue would result in a humiliation for May.
It's logically indefensible to sit down and listen politely to Xi Jinping, then claim Donald Trump is beyond the pale.
Anyway, I must be off.
This looks very, very serious to me.
He's not a tyrant. But he could become one, and he's standing on that road. We have to hope he intends, and will, step off it.
However, whether it's *right* or not will depend on conversations Bercow may or may not have had with others in the commons.
My post was just musing on Bercow's reasoning, if any.
Look, I'd rather Trump hadn't become POTUS as well. If I'd had a vote I'd have held my nose and voted for Hilary.
But we are where we are and we've got to deal with Trump. The Speaker of the Commons insulting the POTUS so publicly like this is very, very serious.
Mr Jessop,
That's exactly the point. I think Jezza is a disaster overall, but he does make the odd good point. Rare, I grant you, but no one is all bad, even politicians. He does represent a viewpoint. Trump is honest, he says and tweets what he feels like. But there is a group who would criticise him even if he gave away his fortune to an LBGT charity and revealed himself as an angel from Heaven. For that group, it is was binary choice, and they made that choice on the basis of their version of Top Trumps.
If he's in any way racist or sexist, he loses on everything.
https://twitter.com/Pundamentalism/status/828688259588976642
You may argue the merits of it but I'm content that the most powerful man on earth should know he's subject to the the writ of others be they the MP for Buckingham or "so called judges".
Rather refreshing.
I'll criticise or praise Trump on his words and actions. Sadly he's giving me far too much ammunition to criticise him, and little, if any, to praise.
The only move I've supported has been his concentration on infrastructure, which is much-needed, long overdue and politically astute.
Its not just Trump, what message are we sending to 65m Americans that voted for Trump, and many million more that didn't but respect the office of President ? That we respect the office of the President of People's Republic of China a party placeman elected by no one, with over a thousand political prisoners held in psychiatric facilities, and yet we dont respect the democratically elected President of the United States.
I guess if there is a fuss in the USA and they decided they dont want to do a deal with us any more that would suit you just fine.
I don't envy PM May's predicament. She has to flash her wares at Trump (oh dear) and retain her modesty for home viewers - taking the Elizabeth I of England option. Going to war with Speaker Bercow isn't an option.
The man is also a first class hypocrite.
And nope, i'm no Trump fan boy