Now Lord Lothian, or maybe "The Kerr" north of the border. Married to a Fitzalan-Howard as well, a confluence of three ancient families there, the Earls of Arundel and the Dukes of Norfolk.
than avowedly political stance which cannot possibly be without some hypocrisy - anything relying on sexism or human rights to not do something will have some , given the reality of nations we deal with in some places - are actually quite troubling coming from the speaker.
The Daily Mail have a helpful round up of Speaker Bercow's favoured dictators & human rights abusers:
However ghastly Trump is he - and his country - is not remotely in the same league as some of these.....
In any case, I doubt Trump wants to speak to Parliament (neither Reagan nor Bush did) - what he wants is bling - and the Royals have that by the shovel load......
I think the point is that Trump has personally been shown to be a racist and misogynist which is why Bercow doesn't want him in parliament. Parliament has a plaque where Barack Obama spoke to parliament. It's all about Barack Obama not Mr President.
It is the person of Trump who's being rejected not his office. The same I'm sure would have applied to the the Chinese leader if he had ever been recorded saying his money entitled him to grab whomever he wished by the pussy and and banned various religeous groups on a whim and then damned his own judiciary for declaring his edicts illegal.
He doesn't need to declare that they're already beholden to his whim, surely? And leaders in officially sexist and homophobic places may not need to or have able to be caught personally saying horrible things, does that make inviting them ok?
I deeply dislike trump, but I just dont know that the speaker should be getting so involved in foreign affairs. If use of Westminster halls by consensus of both speakers and the lord great chamberlain, he surely should have spoken with them first, and if they disagree with his stance and still felt the need to say no, well at least he sought their views. Do we know if he did?
Mark Senior: where I was on Sunday only window posters were Lib Dem, two!!!. Days of posters as an indicator seem long gone. I think in the end it will be between Labour and the Lib Dems, simply because of the latters leaflet game. Going back to what was his name Sebastian somebody. Just seen him on Sky News. Appears to answer all my earlier questions. What does he really know what people are thinking as they shop, say at Tescos in Trent Vale?
Mark Senior: where I was on Sunday only window posters were Lib Dem, two!!!. Days of posters as an indicator seem long gone. I think in the end it will be between Labour and the Lib Dems, simply because of the latters leaflet game. Going back to what was his name Sebastian somebody. Just seen him on Sky News. Appears to answer all my earlier questions. What does he really know what people are thinking as they shop, say at Tescos in Trent Vale?
If you went on window posters alone Ed Miliband would now be PM. Tories tend to think them a bit common, most Tory posters if there are any tend to be in farmers' fields
Sounds like a pretty comfortable hold is incoming. For all the corbyn woes, enough people in the party are motivated to get off their butts to avoid electoral embarrassment, and stoke (get it!?) a fire under local support.
I can see it was gone over plenty yesterday, but for what it's worth my initial reaction to bercows statement was that initially it sounded reasonable, it wasn't up to him to invite trump to the uk but it's not up to the pm to invite someone to speak in Westminster hall, but that for all I dislike trump and am discouraged by May, the implications of such an avowedly political stance which cannot possibly be without some hypocrisy - anything relying on sexism or human rights to not do something will have some , given the reality of nations we deal with in some places - are actually quite troubling coming from the speaker. Nice eyes to see or ears to hear but that the house directs him perhaps, but it seems an unnecessary complication with his office.
But then bercow can be a bit false at Hines - his excuse for trying to hire someone unsuited to the role of clerk was he was t allowed to split the two aspects of the job -which may well have been a good idea - for which he apparently saw no recourse other than hiring someone unable to do both aspects rather than find so done who could.
The Tories do not pose an existential risk to Labour, UKIP does. In addition, whether fairly or unfairly within Labour ranks UKIP is seen as a party of the far right that it is important to defeat for that reason alone. All wings of the party are deeply motivated to ensure that UKIP does not get a foothold. Whether it is enough or not remains to be seen.
Which also implies a willingness to divert resources from Copeland if necessary, even at the cost of losing to the Tories, if the prize is keeping UKIP from winning (or even being close to winning?) Stoke?
I don't think so. As a longstanding local campaigner Gill Troughton has got lots of local activists involved, and there does seem to be a lot of support from her Church and from Christians on the Left, as well as both public sector and nuclear unions. The Shadow Chancellor was campaigning there yesterday, and quite a few other MPs too. Copeland is not being sidelined. I suspect that Tim Farron has soft pedalled in Copeland though. There has not been anything on my LD daily emails calling for help.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab) On a point of order, Mr Speaker. First, is it in order for the Prime Minister to refer to a Member of this House not by her own name, but by the name of her husband? Secondly, for the record, I have never been a lady, and it will take a great deal more than being married to a knight of the realm to make me one.
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May) Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not in any way intend to be disorderly in this House, and if the hon. Lady is concerned about the reference that I made to her, then of course I will apologise for that. I have to say to her, though, that for the last 36 years I have been referred to by my husband’s name. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker Order. No sedentary shrieking from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is required. I have the matter in hand. Two points, very simply: first of all, I thank the Prime Minister for what she has just said. Secondly, in so far as there is any uncertainty on this matter, let me dispel that uncertainty. I do so from my own knowledge and on the professional advice of the Clerk. We refer in this Chamber to Members by their constituencies or, if they have a title—for example, shadow Minister—by their title. To refer to them by another name is not the right thing to do. But the Prime Minister has said what she has said, and I thank her for that. We will leave this matter there.
Does the last paragraph also apply to the Speaker? I seem to remember Bercow referring to members by name during the debates yesterday. Also,I thought the custom of 'naming' an MP was a part of the disciplinary procedure, just before banning from the house.
Quentin Letts on why Speaker Bercow may have been itching after the limelight:
This is a Speaker who aches to be the centre of attention. The past week or so, when MPs have been grabbing headlines with their Brexit and Trump agitations, has not been easy for him. He has felt upstaged. Yesterday he also had to endure the rare spectacle of Theresa May raising merriment when she snotted Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry.
The details are wearisome but the exchange ended with Mrs May calling chi-chi socialist Miss Thornberry by her married name, ‘Lady Nugee’ (her husband is a judicial knight). Miss Thornberry became comically indignant – Hattie Jacques stung on the rump by a horsefly. She went stomping up to Bercow and made a point of order to complain, all meaty forearms and juddering chins, that ‘I have never been a Lady!’
Mrs May amiably said she was sorry if she had upset the old baggage by uttering her married name but she, May, had always been happy to use her husband’s surname.
This brought another cascade of cheers from the Tories. All this Bercow watched, swishing his tail, desperate to become involved and hating the way the Conservatives were prospering.
Unworthy behaviour by Theresa May, casually mocking every woman who has chosen not to take her husband's name and putting herself on a par with those who refer to Gideon.
No one could ever accuse the daily Mail of embracing either feminism or the 21st century.
Quentin Letts on why Speaker Bercow may have been itching after the limelight:
Unworthy behaviour by Theresa May, casually mocking every woman who has chosen not to take her husband's name and putting herself on a par with those who refer to Gideon.
I found that a bit confusing. Would she not refer to her as the Honourable Member for Islington South and Finsbury? Why was she using a name at all?
I don't have my copy of erskine May to hand, but there are times members are referred to by title, usually leader of the opposition, shadow x and so on, but perhaps those who are entities to a, er, title can go by that too? Could Douglas Hogg have been called viscount hailsham in the chamber? On the basis the lords have to use such as they don't have constituencies, nor does their title name necessarily match their surname, so those with a title in the commons could too?
He's no longer Douglas Hogg, but Douglas Hailsham (or that's what he calls himself)
From a sample size of one I recall on tv (I suspect you move in such circles more than I) I imagine that's common behaviour (that is, not unusual, not 'the behaviour of a commoner'), as I heard once my favourite named peer, Thomas Galloway Dunlop du Roy de bliquy Galbraith, second baron Strathclyde, tends to go by tom Strathclyde. And of course there was Michael ancram.
Jack W would be your man to answer bur yes, I think it is normal for a peer to take their title as their surname. When signing, they traditionally use only their primary title, IIRC, so I imagine it derives from that.
As an aside, Ancram is an exception because that 'surname' (his real surname is Kerr) comes from a courtesy title that he went by when heir to his father's marquessate. Now that he's inherited that, he'd be known as Michael Lothian following the usual formula but he continues to use his former title (which is of course actually held by him) as a surname. It is perhaps helpful that he has no sons so the courtesy title isn't currently in use.
Firstly, even if tapes existed of Xi Jinping saying something dodgy, you think Chinese media would report it? Secondly, there are a huge number of political prisoners in China. Thirdly Bercow was also happy to welcome leaders from the Middle East, not renowned for their progressive ways.
Quentin Letts on why Speaker Bercow may have been itching after the limelight:
Unworthy behaviour by Theresa May, casually mocking every woman who has chosen not to take her husband's name and putting herself on a par with those who refer to Gideon.
I found that a bit confusing. Would she not refer to her as the Honourable Member for Islington South and Finsbury? Why was she using a name at all?
I don't have my copy of erskine May to hand, but there are times members are referred to by title, usually leader of the opposition, shadow x and so on, but perhaps those who are entities to a, er, title can go by that too? Could Douglas Hogg have been called viscount hailsham in the chamber? On the basis the lords have to use such as they don't have constituencies, nor does their title name necessarily match their surname, so those with a title in the commons could too?
He's no longer Douglas Hogg, but Douglas Hailsham (or that's what he calls himself)
From a sample size of one I recall on tv (I suspect you move in such circles more than I) I imagine that's common behaviour (that is, not unusual, not 'the behaviour of a commoner'), as I heard once my favourite named peer, Thomas Galloway Dunlop du Roy de bliquy Galbraith, second baron Strathclyde, tends to go by tom Strathclyde. And of course there was Michael ancram.
Jack W would be your man to answer bur yes, I think it is normal for a peer to take their title as their surname. When signing, they traditionally use only their primary title, IIRC, so I imagine it derives from that.
As an aside, Ancram is an exception because that 'surname' (his real surname is Kerr) comes from a courtesy title that he went by when heir to his father's marquessate. Now that he's inherited that, he'd be known as Michael Lothian following the usual formula but he continues to use his former title (which is of course actually held by him) as a surname. It is perhaps helpful that he has no sons so the courtesy title isn't currently in use.
I do love it when someone has a hereditary peerage, but they are also granted a life peerage to get back into the Lords (which I think has happened with Hailsham?).
Viscount Thurso on the other hand, IIRC, was in the Lords, became an MP when the reforms came in, and is now back in as a heritary peer having one that glorious election with 7 candidates and 3 eligible voters for LD heritary peerage.
Quentin Letts on why Speaker Bercow may have been itching after the limelight:
This is a Speaker who aches to be the centre of attention. The past week or so, when MPs have been grabbing headlines with their Brexit and Trump agitations, has not been easy for him. He has felt upstaged. Yesterday he also had to endure the rare spectacle of Theresa May raising merriment when she snotted Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry.
The details are wearisome but the exchange ended with Mrs May calling chi-chi socialist Miss Thornberry by her married name, ‘Lady Nugee’ (her husband is a judicial knight). Miss Thornberry became comically indignant – Hattie Jacques stung on the rump by a horsefly. She went stomping up to Bercow and made a point of order to complain, all meaty forearms and juddering chins, that ‘I have never been a Lady!’
Mrs May amiably said she was sorry if she had upset the old baggage by uttering her married name but she, May, had always been happy to use her husband’s surname.
This brought another cascade of cheers from the Tories. All this Bercow watched, swishing his tail, desperate to become involved and hating the way the Conservatives were prospering.
It was naughty - but Thornberry's got that smug 'do you know who I am?' air to her that deserves to be taken down a peg or two......and for Labour MPs who have spent decades referring to a former Prime Minister by her husband's name it is more than a bit rich.....now everybody knows how to push Lady Nugee's buttons.....
It's pretty bad manners to insist on calling someone a name that's different from the one they've publically said they wish to use [within reason, she doesn't get to call herself HM Queen]. Quite rightly there should be no expectation on a woman to change her surname after marrying these days.
I don't believe Thatcher ever objected to changing her surname?
I dislike Donald Trump. But I have no problem with the office of President of the United States, duly elected to such post. It is a title that bestows much authority.
As is the title of Speaker of the House of Commons. By wading in to comment on the holder of the post, the post itself loses its shine. And that is another success that Donald Trump can chalk up, as those who rush head-long to be part of the self-righteous, holier-than-thou gang declaiming Trump lose all sense of proportion. The post of Speaker of the House of Commons is that little bit more ordinary today, Mr Speaker.
It is the person of Trump who's being rejected not his office. The same I'm sure would have applied to the the Chinese leader if he had ever been recorded saying his money entitled him to grab whomever he wished by the pussy and and banned various religeous groups on a whim and then damned his own judiciary for declaring his edicts illegal.
Your lack of knowledge of China comes to the fore again.
Chinese leaders keep many concubines as a right of their power and influence. They dont just ban religions they persecute and kill their members, and their judicial system is completely subordinate to the party hierarchy, apart from that, good comparison.
The reaction to Trump — it lacks the rigour of a response — has followed the grammar of identity politics. I am appalled. You are not appalled enough. We are virtuous. They are racists. This is all well and good but achieves nothing beyond giving the speaker a warm glow of virtue.
Racist is bit passe.
2016: Your a racist 2017: Your a white supremacist 2018: ?
*You're
The difference between 'knowing your shit and knowing you're shit'.......
Is why I'm such a fan of the Oxford comma.
So...
Don't keep us in suspense. How did your friend's date go?
My friend has secured a second date for Thursday.
She's into politics and likes Corbyn.
Your friend is not really trying to match Sean T is he? Presumably not in the never kiss a Tory brigade.
She's a Manchester United fan which might be a deal breaker.
Well at least your friend can give her plenty to laugh about.
On Sunday Leicester were very poor, but United are looking a much better team than last year. I think they will make top four.
I thought we were very poor on Sunday for most of the first half. Pogba is seriously off form compared to where he was a month ago and Ibra did almost nothing (except score of course). But Leicester are in trouble. Big trouble.
Leicester played well and a tight defence for the first 40 min, but heads dropped after the first goal. Gray and Ndidi were our only decent players. I am hopeful forca win against Derby to buck them up, but have bet on relegation since November. Still reasonable value at 2.5.
The Speaker’s statement yesterday about Donald Trump was unsurprising in terms of its –
Party politics. Watch the video – and note how often he turns to the Opposition benches for support, fixing on the Government ones only for his final blast.
Double Standard. He was content to wave through an address by the President of China in Westminster Hall, a country that doesn’t practice equality before the law and has no independent judiciary to speak of.
Rudeness. As he himself conceded, any address to both houses by a visitor in Westminster is a matter for two other people – and not just him. This morning’s Times confirm that one of them, the Lords Speaker, was not consulted before his statement.
Self-importance… “I am grateful…I will say this…I must say…I would myself…I am even more strongly opposed…I operate on advice…I perhaps do not have…I would not wish to…I conclude by saying…I feel very strongly.”
…And animalistic cunning. He knows that although he doesn’t have the confidence of one of the two main parties, he can push his luck just a bit further on this issue.
Firstly, even if tapes existed of Xi Jinping saying something dodgy, you think Chinese media would report it? Secondly, there are a huge number of political prisoners in China. Thirdly Bercow was also happy to welcome leaders from the Middle East, not renowned for their progressive ways.
You don't understand.
Xi Jinping is, by all accounts, personally civilised. He signs off on the torture, imprisonment of dissidents, racist policies against minorities etc quietly, as office paperwork - mostly by inference and euphemism, of course at his pay grade. In diplomatic situations he is probably quietly pleasant.
Stoke Central is actually 12th on the UKIP target list and Leigh is not in the top 100 so if UKIP don't win Stoke Central they won't win Leigh. On present national polling Labour should hold Stoke with a reduced majority but we will see http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/ukip
Stoke Central is existential for both UKIP and Labour. If Labour loses it faces potential meltdown in its heartlands. If UKIP loses, it's hard to see where it can ever win. A Tory win in Copeland, ion the other hand, will merely tell us what we already know: Labour under Corbyn is going to be heavily defeated by the Tories at the next GE.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab) On a point of order, Mr Speaker. First, is it in order for the Prime Minister to refer to a Member of this House not by her own name, but by the name of her husband? Secondly, for the record, I have never been a lady, and it will take a great deal more than being married to a knight of the realm to make me one.
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May) Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not in any way intend to be disorderly in this House, and if the hon. Lady is concerned about the reference that I made to her, then of course I will apologise for that. I have to say to her, though, that for the last 36 years I have been referred to by my husband’s name. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker Order. No sedentary shrieking from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is required. I have the matter in hand. Two points, very simply: first of all, I thank the Prime Minister for what she has just said. Secondly, in so far as there is any uncertainty on this matter, let me dispel that uncertainty. I do so from my own knowledge and on the professional advice of the Clerk. We refer in this Chamber to Members by their constituencies or, if they have a title—for example, shadow Minister—by their title. To refer to them by another name is not the right thing to do. But the Prime Minister has said what she has said, and I thank her for that. We will leave this matter there.
Does the last paragraph also apply to the Speaker? I seem to remember Bercow referring to members by name during the debates yesterday. Also,I thought the custom of 'naming' an MP was a part of the disciplinary procedure, just before banning from the house.
Yes - the Speaker (or a deputy in the Chair) is the only one who will refer to an MP by name rather than constituency.
Sounds like a pretty comfortable hold is incoming. For all the corbyn woes, enough people in the party are motivated to get off their butts to avoid electoral embarrassment, and stoke (get it!?) a fire under local support.
The Tories do not pose an existential risk to Labour, UKIP does. In addition, whether fairly or unfairly within Labour ranks UKIP is seen as a party of the far right that it is important to defeat for that reason alone. All wings of the party are deeply motivated to ensure that UKIP does not get a foothold. Whether it is enough or not remains to be seen.
Which also implies a willingness to divert resources from Copeland if necessary, even at the cost of losing to the Tories, if the prize is keeping UKIP from winning (or even being close to winning?) Stoke?
I don't think so. As a longstanding local campaigner Gill Troughton has got lots of local activists involved, and there does seem to be a lot of support from her Church and from Christians on the Left, as well as both public sector and nuclear unions. The Shadow Chancellor was campaigning there yesterday, and quite a few other MPs too. Copeland is not being sidelined. I suspect that Tim Farron has soft pedalled in Copeland though. There has not been anything on my LD daily emails calling for help.
Labour has enough resources to fight both Copeland and Stoke hard . The Lib Dems are certainly concentrating on Stoke and the Lib Dem call centre in Bradford has moved on from Rotherham Brinsworth to Stoke . Lib Dem activists in Stoke are not as numerous as Witney or Richmond but given the nature of the housing enough to deliver lot of leaflets/personal addressed letters between now and polling day .
Mr. Observer, whilst it's important, I wonder if you're slightly over-egging the Stoke cake. UKIP have generally underperformed in by-elections, so this would be more of the same.
@bbcnickrobinsonWhat makes the Speaker's snub to Trump so extraordinary is that it's a deliberate & very public assault on Prime Minister's foreign policy.
Yep - this is how I see it. The invitation to Trump was a dreadful error of judgement and one that has damaged the UK's international standing. But the Speaker has no right to pass judgement on it - either directly or implicitly. He crossed a thick red line and I don't see how he gets back to the other side. As a result, he has damaged the standing of his own office and, therefore, of the House of Commons. What was done to a Tory government yesterday can now more easily be done to a government of another hue tomorrow. I like Bercow, but I think his position is now untenable.
Quentin Letts on why Speaker Bercow may have been itching after the limelight:
This is a Speaker who aches to be the centre of attention. The past week or so, when MPs have been grabbing headlines with their Brexit and Trump agitations, has not been easy for him. He has felt upstaged. Yesterday he also had to endure the rare spectacle of Theresa May raising merriment when she snotted Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry.
The details are wearisome but the exchange ended with Mrs May calling chi-chi socialist Miss Thornberry by her married name, ‘Lady Nugee’ (her husband is a judicial knight). Miss Thornberry became comically indignant – Hattie Jacques stung on the rump by a horsefly. She went stomping up to Bercow and made a point of order to complain, all meaty forearms and juddering chins, that ‘I have never been a Lady!’
Mrs May amiably said she was sorry if she had upset the old baggage by uttering her married name but she, May, had always been happy to use her husband’s surname.
This brought another cascade of cheers from the Tories. All this Bercow watched, swishing his tail, desperate to become involved and hating the way the Conservatives were prospering.
A lot of amateur psychoanalysis to cover up that Bercow is a Tory.
He's a prat. Responding to this will not be easy for the government but it is necessary.
He's a prat covers it pretty well...
The problem is that if you do go ahead with The speech I can see various leftie MPs not turning up or keckling or something equally asinine
It would be popcorn time. Trump does rallies in front of tame audiences, not speeches. His Inaugeration address showed how inarticulate he is.
Perhaps #twitler could tweet it in...
Inarticulate is not the right word, perhaps, as any speech would surely be written for him but you have identified the crux of the matter. Trump does not do set speeches and there is no obvious reason to believe he ever wanted to address parliament. Clearly Bercow is a prat of the first water (as well as a Tory) but the whole poisonous debate was set in train by those who first formed the fantasy of Trump addressing both houses.
Quentin Letts on why Speaker Bercow may have been itching after the limelight:
This is a Speaker who aches to be the centre of attention. The past week or so, when MPs have been grabbing headlines with their Brexit and Trump agitations, has not been easy for him. He has felt upstaged. Yesterday he also had to endure the rare spectacle of Theresa May raising merriment when she snotted Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry.
The details are wearisome but the exchange ended with Mrs May calling chi-chi socialist Miss Thornberry by her married name, ‘Lady Nugee’ (her husband is a judicial knight). Miss Thornberry became comically indignant – Hattie Jacques stung on the rump by a horsefly. She went stomping up to Bercow and made a point of order to complain, all meaty forearms and juddering chins, that ‘I have never been a Lady!’
Mrs May amiably said she was sorry if she had upset the old baggage by uttering her married name but she, May, had always been happy to use her husband’s surname.
This brought another cascade of cheers from the Tories. All this Bercow watched, swishing his tail, desperate to become involved and hating the way the Conservatives were prospering.
It was naughty - but Thornberry's got that smug 'do you know who I am?' air to her that deserves to be taken down a peg or two......and for Labour MPs who have spent decades referring to a former Prime Minister by her husband's name it is more than a bit rich.....now everybody knows how to push Lady Nugee's buttons.....
It's pretty bad manners to insist on calling someone a name that's different from the one they've publically said they wish to use [within reason, she doesn't get to call herself HM Queen]. Quite rightly there should be no expectation on a woman to change her surname after marrying these days.
I don't believe Thatcher ever objected to changing her surname?
Thatcher was technically Lady Margaret Thatcher between when Denis was given a baronetcy (which must have been a proxy for the hereditory peerage she turned down), and her taking her life peerage. She didn't use the 'Lady' title, preferring to remain Mrs T.
Quentin Letts on why Speaker Bercow may have been itching after the limelight:
This is a Speaker who aches to be the centre of attention. The past week or so, when MPs have been grabbing headlines with their Brexit and Trump agitations, has not been easy for him. He has felt upstaged. Yesterday he also had to endure the rare spectacle of Theresa May raising merriment when she snotted Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry.
The details are wearisome but the exchange ended with Mrs May calling chi-chi socialist Miss Thornberry by her married name, ‘Lady Nugee’ (her husband is a judicial knight). Miss Thornberry became comically indignant – Hattie Jacques stung on the rump by a horsefly. She went stomping up to Bercow and made a point of order to complain, all meaty forearms and juddering chins, that ‘I have never been a Lady!’
Mrs May amiably said she was sorry if she had upset the old baggage by uttering her married name but she, May, had always been happy to use her husband’s surname.
This brought another cascade of cheers from the Tories. All this Bercow watched, swishing his tail, desperate to become involved and hating the way the Conservatives were prospering.
It was naughty - but Thornberry's got that smug 'do you know who I am?' air to her that deserves to be taken down a peg or two......and for Labour MPs who have spent decades referring to a former Prime Minister by her husband's name it is more than a bit rich.....now everybody knows how to push Lady Nugee's buttons.....
It's pretty bad manners to insist on calling someone a name that's different from the one they've publically said they wish to use [within reason, she doesn't get to call herself HM Queen]. Quite rightly there should be no expectation on a woman to change her surname after marrying these days.
I don't believe Thatcher ever objected to changing her surname?
Seems to me political ‘discussion' in much of the Northern Anglophone area (Canada excepted) has now descended to a somewhat unpleasant level, a level not seen even in the Southern. There they tend to be directly offensive, not subtle!
Bringing Mrs T into this is irrelevant; it was extremely uncommon in the 50’s and early 60’s for married women to be referred to by other than their husbands name, the traditional way. The ‘keeping one’s maiden name’ practice really only developed in the 80’s.
@bbcnickrobinsonWhat makes the Speaker's snub to Trump so extraordinary is that it's a deliberate & very public assault on Prime Minister's foreign policy.
What was done to a Tory government yesterday can now more easily be done to a government of another hue tomorrow.
Very key point. Not that speakers have never been accused of being political or partisan before, but there is now a very significant example of precedent that any future can defend themselves with should they be minded to deliver a slap down to the government or opposition to make a political point.
than avowedly political stance which cannot possibly be without some hypocrisy - anything relying on sexism or human rights to not do something will have some , given the reality of nations we deal with in some places - are actually quite troubling coming from the speaker.
The Daily Mail have a helpful round up of Speaker Bercow's favoured dictators & human rights abusers:
However ghastly Trump is he - and his country - is not remotely in the same league as some of these.....
In any case, I doubt Trump wants to speak to Parliament (neither Reagan nor Bush did) - what he wants is bling - and the Royals have that by the shovel load......
I think the point is that Trump has personally been shown to be a racist and misogynist which is why Bercow doesn't want him in parliament. Parliament has a plaque where Barack Obama spoke to parliament. It's all about Barack Obama not Mr President.
It is the person of Trump who's being rejected not his office. The same I'm sure would have applied to the the Chinese leader if he had ever been recorded saying his money entitled him to grab whomever he wished by the pussy and and banned various religeous groups on a whim and then damned his own judiciary for declaring his edicts illegal.
Quentin Letts on why Speaker Bercow may have been itching after the limelight:
This is a Speaker who aches to be the centre of attention. The past week or so, when MPs have been grabbing headlines with their Brexit and Trump agitations, has not been easy for him. He has felt upstaged. Yesterday he also had to endure the rare spectacle of Theresa May raising merriment when she snotted Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry.
The details are wearisome but the exchange ended with Mrs May calling chi-chi socialist Miss Thornberry by her married name, ‘Lady Nugee’ (her husband is a judicial knight). Miss Thornberry became comically indignant – Hattie Jacques stung on the rump by a horsefly. She went stomping up to Bercow and made a point of order to complain, all meaty forearms and juddering chins, that ‘I have never been a Lady!’
Mrs May amiably said she was sorry if she had upset the old baggage by uttering her married name but she, May, had always been happy to use her husband’s surname.
This brought another cascade of cheers from the Tories. All this Bercow watched, swishing his tail, desperate to become involved and hating the way the Conservatives were prospering.
A lot of amateur psychoanalysis to cover up that Bercow is a Tory.
He's a prat. Responding to this will not be easy for the government but it is necessary.
He's a prat covers it pretty well...
The problem is that if you do go ahead with The speech I can see various leftie MPs not turning up or keckling or something equally asinine
It would be popcorn time. Trump does rallies in front of tame audiences, not speeches. His Inaugeration address showed how inarticulate he is.
Perhaps #twitler could tweet it in...
Inarticulate is not the right word, perhaps, as any speech would surely be written for him but you have identified the crux of the matter. Trump does not do set speeches and there is no obvious reason to believe he ever wanted to address parliament. Clearly Bercow is a prat of the first water (as well as a Tory) but the whole poisonous debate was set in train by those who first formed the fantasy of Trump addressing both houses.
I seem to recall reading that Trump wrote his own inaugural speech. But I may be wrong.
@bbcnickrobinsonWhat makes the Speaker's snub to Trump so extraordinary is that it's a deliberate & very public assault on Prime Minister's foreign policy.
. I like Bercow, but I think his position is now untenable.
You are not alone:
Iraqi-born Tory MP Nadhim Zahawi, who sharply criticised Mr Trump's travel ban after learning he could be caught up in it, has suggested Mr Bercow was a hypocrite.
Mr Zahawi said the Speaker had invited Chinese president Xi Jinping despite MPs being unhappy about his policy on Tibet, and the emir of Kuwait, which bans British dual nationals of Israeli origin, to speak in Parliament.
Mr Bercow should now "think about" his position and explain his remarks to Parliament, Mr Zahawi said.
Was there much moral outrage on here over the Xi Jinping state visit, or was that still a time when Cameron & Osborne were routinely fawned over? I forget.
@bbcnickrobinsonWhat makes the Speaker's snub to Trump so extraordinary is that it's a deliberate & very public assault on Prime Minister's foreign policy.
. I like Bercow, but I think his position is now untenable.
You are not alone:
Iraqi-born Tory MP Nadhim Zahawi, who sharply criticised Mr Trump's travel ban after learning he could be caught up in it, has suggested Mr Bercow was a hypocrite.
Mr Zahawi said the Speaker had invited Chinese president Xi Jinping despite MPs being unhappy about his policy on Tibet, and the emir of Kuwait, which bans British dual nationals of Israeli origin, to speak in Parliament.
Mr Bercow should now "think about" his position and explain his remarks to Parliament, Mr Zahawi said.
Quentin Letts on why Speaker Bercow may have been itching after the limelight:
This is a Speaker who aches to be the centre of attention. The past week or so, when MPs have been grabbing headlines with their Brexit and Trump agitations, has not been easy for him. He has felt upstaged. Yesterday he also had to endure the rare spectacle of Theresa May raising merriment when she snotted Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry.
The details are wearisome but the exchange ended with Mrs May calling chi-chi socialist Miss Thornberry by her married name, ‘Lady Nugee’ (her husband is a judicial knight). Miss Thornberry became comically indignant – Hattie Jacques stung on the rump by a horsefly. She went stomping up to Bercow and made a point of order to complain, all meaty forearms and juddering chins, that ‘I have never been a Lady!’
Mrs May amiably said she was sorry if she had upset the old baggage by uttering her married name but she, May, had always been happy to use her husband’s surname.
This brought another cascade of cheers from the Tories. All this Bercow watched, swishing his tail, desperate to become involved and hating the way the Conservatives were prospering.
A lot of amateur psychoanalysis to cover up that Bercow is a Tory.
He's a prat. Responding to this will not be easy for the government but it is necessary.
He's a prat covers it pretty well...
The problem is that if you do go ahead with The speech I can see various leftie MPs not turning up or keckling or something equally asinine
It would be popcorn time. Trump does rallies in front of tame audiences, not speeches. His Inaugeration address showed how inarticulate he is.
Perhaps #twitler could tweet it in...
Inarticulate is not the right word, perhaps, as any speech would surely be written for him but you have identified the crux of the matter. Trump does not do set speeches and there is no obvious reason to believe he ever wanted to address parliament. Clearly Bercow is a prat of the first water (as well as a Tory) but the whole poisonous debate was set in train by those who first formed the fantasy of Trump addressing both houses.
Which may well have been labour MPs. Getting your opponent to deny something that they might not have been planning to do but which it looks good to have stopped is a technique as old as the hills.
Sources close to Mr Bercow said he was officially only required to be politically neutral on domestic matters, and insisted that the convention did not apply to international matters. (from Telegraph)
Surely that's rubbish?
Translated ' Speaker only required to be neutral on domestic politics but can oppose government and support opposition in international affairs'.....
Was there much moral outrage on here over the Xi Jinping state visit, or was that still a time when Cameron & Osborne were routinely fawned over? I forget.
Rightly or wrongly, we have higher expectations of the Americans.
The comments on the Telegraph editorial are amusing. If Trump looks at these and is minded to, he would have a fertile field to feed his twitter feed from.
@bbcnickrobinsonWhat makes the Speaker's snub to Trump so extraordinary is that it's a deliberate & very public assault on Prime Minister's foreign policy.
. I like Bercow, but I think his position is now untenable.
You are not alone:
Iraqi-born Tory MP Nadhim Zahawi, who sharply criticised Mr Trump's travel ban after learning he could be caught up in it, has suggested Mr Bercow was a hypocrite.
Mr Zahawi said the Speaker had invited Chinese president Xi Jinping despite MPs being unhappy about his policy on Tibet, and the emir of Kuwait, which bans British dual nationals of Israeli origin, to speak in Parliament.
Mr Bercow should now "think about" his position and explain his remarks to Parliament, Mr Zahawi said.
Miss Vance, that line from Bercow's people is utter bullshit.
He's also compounding his self-pleasing moment of political intervention by trying to create not merely a precedent but a convention that the Speaker can intervene in Foreign matters as of right.
Very Blair. All tactics, and hang the long term problems it'll create for the constitutional arrangements of the country.
Apart from the hyperbole, this is a description of a lot of Marxist/Trotskyist methodologies. The Left Is Right, anything else is evil and any means to suppress it is allowed. We've seen it display across this country many times before.
Yes, definitely. I saw a version of this on Ace of Spades the other week and every sentence of it is true - everything from the Saul Alinsky playbook Rules for Radicals.
If Bercow has to go, then why are people suggesting Jacob Rees-Mogg as a replacement? You'd be changing one narcissistic self-publicist with another. Both are far too fond of their own voices, which perversely is counter to the role of speaker.
Instead, let's look at the deputy speakers who seem to have been doing a reasonable job. Lindsay Hoyle might make an excellent speaker if he wanted the job.
Wasn't there also a convention (first broken by Labour with Martin) that the speaker is chosen from the ranks of the main opposition party to the government? Or am I misremembering?
Stoke Central is actually 12th on the UKIP target list and Leigh is not in the top 100 so if UKIP don't win Stoke Central they won't win Leigh. On present national polling Labour should hold Stoke with a reduced majority but we will see http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/ukip
Stoke Central is existential for both UKIP and Labour. If Labour loses it faces potential meltdown in its heartlands. If UKIP loses, it's hard to see where it can ever win. A Tory win in Copeland, ion the other hand, will merely tell us what we already know: Labour under Corbyn is going to be heavily defeated by the Tories at the next GE.
Yes high stakes for UKIP and Labour in Stoke. Copeland is just a bonus for May really given no governing party has gained a seat in a by election for 35 years
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Patrick and his ilk are at least as scared as they are angry. For an Old Bailey jury convicted a man of murdering Jo Cox - Patrick no doubt thought it was justifiable homicide.
than avowedly political stance which cannot possibly be without some hypocrisy - anything relying on sexism or human rights to not do something will have some , given the reality of nations we deal with in some places - are actually quite troubling coming from the speaker.
The Daily Mail have a helpful round up of Speaker Bercow's favoured dictators & human rights abusers:
However ghastly Trump is he - and his country - is not remotely in the same league as some of these.....
In any case, I doubt Trump wants to speak to Parliament (neither Reagan nor Bush did) - what he wants is bling - and the Royals have that by the shovel load......
Quentin Letts on why Speaker Bercow may have been itching after the limelight:
Unworthy behaviour by Theresa May, casually mocking every woman who has chosen not to take her husband's name and putting herself on a par with those who refer to Gideon.
I found that a bit confusing. Would she not refer to her as the Honourable Member for Islington South and Finsbury? Why was she using a name at all?
I don't have my copy of erskine May to hand, but there are times members are referred to by title, usually leader of the opposition, shadow x and so on, but perhaps those who are entities to a, er, title can go by that too? Could Douglas Hogg have been called viscount hailsham in the chamber? On the basis the lords have to use such as they don't have constituencies, nor does their title name necessarily match their surname, so those with a title in the commons could too?
He's no longer Douglas Hogg, but Douglas Hailsham (or that's what he calls himself)
From a sample size of one I recall on tv (I suspect you move in such circles more than I) I imagine that's common behaviour (that is, not unusual, not 'the behaviour of a commoner'), as I heard once my favourite named peer, Thomas Galloway Dunlop du Roy de bliquy Galbraith, second baron Strathclyde, tends to go by tom Strathclyde. And of course there was Michael ancram.
Jack W would be your man to answer bur yes, I think it is normal for a peer to take their title as their surname. When signing, they traditionally use only their primary title, IIRC, so I imagine it derives from that.
As an aside, Ancram is an exception because that 'surname' (his real surname is Kerr) comes from a courtesy title that he went by when heir to his father's marquessate. Now that he's inherited that, he'd be known as Michael Lothian following the usual formula but he continues to use his former title (which is of course actually held by him) as a surname. It is perhaps helpful that he has no sons so the courtesy title isn't currently in use.
Correct David.
The Marquess of Lothian isn't short of the odd title. He is also :
Earl of Lothian Earl of Ancram Viscount of Briene Lord Newbattle Lord Jedburgh Lord Kerr of Newbattle Lord Kerr of Nisbet, Langnewtoun, and Dolphinstoun Baron Kerr of Monteviot (Life Peerage)
Lothian is also one of five co-heirs to the Barony of Butler - abeyant since 1905 and also Chief of Clan Kerr. His brother, Lord Ralph Kerr, is heir presumptive to all the hereditary peerages.
Was there much moral outrage on here over the Xi Jinping state visit, or was that still a time when Cameron & Osborne were routinely fawned over? I forget.
Rightly or wrongly, we have higher expectations of the Americans.
There were protests from quite a few people, especially over the treatment of Tibet and it’s people. IIRC the police were involved.
Apart from the hyperbole, this is a description of a lot of Marxist/Trotskyist methodologies. The Left Is Right, anything else is evil and any means to suppress it is allowed. We've seen it display across this country many times before.
Well, I certainly don’t recognise myself. But I suppose I wouldn’t.
Let me "throw a curveball" as our American friends would say - what's wrong with hypocrisy ? Why does everyone have to be ruthlessly consistent about everything all the time ? People aren't in "real life" so why are politicians ruthlessly pilloried if they veer off some imagined path of principle ?
The indignation when a Labour politician condemned private schools yet sent their own child to such a school or when Boris Johnson, having one day supported Cameron, then fronted up to the LEAVE campaign and now this...
If democracy has shown us anything, it's that electorates will vote for any idiot who promises them biscuits and gravy (another Americanism). Unlike the Emir of Kuwait or the President of China who don't have to go through the democratic ritual and dance the populist dance, Trump is somehow "better" than them and more deserving of the right to pontificate before Parliament.
The line seems to be that some people over here don't like Trump and his policies but the American people voted him into office and that makes them right and the anti-Trump crowd wrong and let's have a jolly good gloat at the fact a person disliked by some prominent people won because it's good to see the "metropolitan lefty-liberal elite" (or some permutation thereof, which has apparently enslaved Britain for the past 40 years and prevented us thinking for ourselves until the day of Glorious Liberation last June) coming unstuck and being made to look foolish.
Please.
The curiosity for me is all those who claimed Trump and the vote to LEAVE were a message from the "angry people" seem unwilling or unable to understand that their anger has been replaced by a new anger from those who voted Clinton or REMAIN. The pro-Brexit pro-Trump crowd (and variations thereof) now have to recognise they didn't and don't have a monopoly on being angry and perhaps this new anger will prove more powerful than their old anger.
I dislike Donald Trump. But I have no problem with the office of President of the United States, duly elected to such post. It is a title that bestows much authority.
As is the title of Speaker of the House of Commons. By wading in to comment on the holder of the post, the post itself loses its shine. And that is another success that Donald Trump can chalk up, as those who rush head-long to be part of the self-righteous, holier-than-thou gang declaiming Trump lose all sense of proportion. The post of Speaker of the House of Commons is that little bit more ordinary today, Mr Speaker.
If we take a hypothetical example (just) of a man who is simultaniously Grand Dragon of the Klu Klux Klan and POTUS. How to find a way of not offending our multicultural population at the same time as not damaging our relationship with our only remaining friend post Brexit??
The obvious solution; Afternoon tea and a ride down the Mall with our UNELECTED head of State but no invitation to our ELECTED parliament the bosom of our democracy.
If Bercow has to go, then why are people suggesting Jacob Rees-Mogg as a replacement? You'd be changing one narcissistic self-publicist with another. Both are far too fond of their own voices, which perversely is counter to the role of speaker.
Instead, let's look at the deputy speakers who seem to have been doing a reasonable job. Lindsay Hoyle might make an excellent speaker if he wanted the job.
Wasn't there also a convention (first broken by Labour with Martin) that the speaker is chosen from the ranks of the main opposition party to the government? Or am I misremembering?
I think the convention was that it swopped between the two main parties, but labour broke that when Martin was appointed.
Mr. Stodge, there's hypocrisy, and there's hypocrisy which also means you're stepping into the partisan political realm, vacating the umpire's chair of neutrality which is meant to be your professional seat.
Edited extra bit: also, you may not have seen this but one of the Speaker's people has told the media that the 'neutrality' only applies to domestic affairs, not foreign matters.
So, the self-absorbed oaf is now trying to make is a matter of right for himself and his successors to intervene in partisan politics.
Let me "throw a curveball" as our American friends would say - what's wrong with hypocrisy ? Why does everyone have to be ruthlessly consistent about everything all the time ? People aren't in "real life" so why are politicians ruthlessly pilloried if they veer off some imagined path of principle ?
The indignation when a Labour politician condemned private schools yet sent their own child to such a school or when Boris Johnson, having one day supported Cameron, then fronted up to the LEAVE campaign and now this...
What's wrong with hypocrisy? Everything. But what's hypocritical about BoJo supporting Cameron as PM but fronting up the Leave campaign. The two things aren't mutually exclusive.
If Bercow has to go, then why are people suggesting Jacob Rees-Mogg as a replacement? You'd be changing one narcissistic self-publicist with another. Both are far too fond of their own voices, which perversely is counter to the role of speaker.
Instead, let's look at the deputy speakers who seem to have been doing a reasonable job. Lindsay Hoyle might make an excellent speaker if he wanted the job.
Wasn't there also a convention (first broken by Labour with Martin) that the speaker is chosen from the ranks of the main opposition party to the government? Or am I misremembering?
I think the convention was that it swopped between the two main parties, but labour broke that when Martin was appointed.
Ah thanks (and to Mr Dancer)
I've just checked on Wonkypedia, and it appears more complex than that:
Martin's initial appointment as Speaker caused controversy as his election broke a recent pattern in the House that the post of Speaker alternated between the two main political parties (the Conservative Party and the Labour Party). As Martin's immediate predecessor Betty Boothroyd had been a Labour MP, it was argued that the new Speaker should have come from the Conservative benches.[8] However, contrary to popular belief, there is no tradition of party alternation in the Speakership. In fact, from the Act of Union in 1801 until 1992, every Speaker elected came from the benches of whichever party was in government at the time of transition (see List of Speakers of the British House of Commons) – a convention which had, by coincidence, led to alternation between Labour and Conservative Speakers being elected between 1965 (Horace King, the first Speaker elected from the Labour Party) and 1983 (Bernard Weatherill). It was actually Betty Boothroyd's election as Speaker in 1992 (while the Conservatives were in office) that broke this convention, and the election of Martin merely reverted to previous tradition by selecting the Speaker from the government benches.
If Bercow has to go, then why are people suggesting Jacob Rees-Mogg as a replacement? You'd be changing one narcissistic self-publicist with another. Both are far too fond of their own voices, which perversely is counter to the role of speaker.
Instead, let's look at the deputy speakers who seem to have been doing a reasonable job. Lindsay Hoyle might make an excellent speaker if he wanted the job.
Wasn't there also a convention (first broken by Labour with Martin) that the speaker is chosen from the ranks of the main opposition party to the government? Or am I misremembering?
I think the convention was that it swopped between the two main parties, but labour broke that when Martin was appointed.
It's never been a convention - that is an urban myth. it just happened to work like that a few times by coincidence.
EDIT: I see that JosiasJessop beat me to it by a few seconds with the full Wiki explanation.
Let me "throw a curveball" as our American friends would say - what's wrong with hypocrisy ? Why does everyone have to be ruthlessly consistent about everything all the time ? People aren't in "real life" so why are politicians ruthlessly pilloried if they veer off some imagined path of principle ?
The indignation when a Labour politician condemned private schools yet sent their own child to such a school or when Boris Johnson, having one day supported Cameron, then fronted up to the LEAVE campaign and now this...
If democracy has shown us anything, it's that electorates will vote for any idiot who promises them biscuits and gravy (another Americanism). Unlike the Emir of Kuwait or the President of China who don't have to go through the democratic ritual and dance the populist dance, Trump is somehow "better" than them and more deserving of the right to pontificate before Parliament.
The line seems to be that some people over here don't like Trump and his policies but the American people voted him into office and that makes them right and the anti-Trump crowd wrong and let's have a jolly good gloat at the fact a person disliked by some prominent people won because it's good to see the "metropolitan lefty-liberal elite" (or some permutation thereof, which has apparently enslaved Britain for the past 40 years and prevented us thinking for ourselves until the day of Glorious Liberation last June) coming unstuck and being made to look foolish.
Please.
The curiosity for me is all those who claimed Trump and the vote to LEAVE were a message from the "angry people" seem unwilling or unable to understand that their anger has been replaced by a new anger from those who voted Clinton or REMAIN. The pro-Brexit pro-Trump crowd (and variations thereof) now have to recognise they didn't and don't have a monopoly on being angry and perhaps this new anger will prove more powerful than their old anger.
We'll see.
Trump lost the popular vote. Their system is designedly undemocratic, i.e. a rural vote is of more value than an urban one.
I dislike Donald Trump. But I have no problem with the office of President of the United States, duly elected to such post. It is a title that bestows much authority.
As is the title of Speaker of the House of Commons. By wading in to comment on the holder of the post, the post itself loses its shine. And that is another success that Donald Trump can chalk up, as those who rush head-long to be part of the self-righteous, holier-than-thou gang declaiming Trump lose all sense of proportion. The post of Speaker of the House of Commons is that little bit more ordinary today, Mr Speaker.
If we take a hypothetical example (just) of a man who is simultaniously Grand Dragon of the Klu Klux Klan and POTUS. How to find a way of not offending our multicultural population at the same time as not damaging our relationship with our only remaining friend post Brexit??
The obvious solution; Afternoon tea and a ride down the Mall with our UNELECTED head of State but no invitation to our ELECTED parliament the bosom of our democracy.
The wisdom of Soloman. Well done Bercow!
You know that the Klan was a Democrat Party creation and the last Klan member in Congress was a Democrat, yes?
Lindsay Hoyle might make an excellent speaker if he wanted the job.
That would wind the SNP up no end. Salmond nearly had an aneurism last night when Hoyle shut down an SNP MP (Cherry 'Scotland is England's biggest export market') who the SNP Whips had asked could speak briefly announced she'd speak as long as she liked.....
I dislike Donald Trump. But I have no problem with the office of President of the United States, duly elected to such post. It is a title that bestows much authority.
As is the title of Speaker of the House of Commons. By wading in to comment on the holder of the post, the post itself loses its shine. And that is another success that Donald Trump can chalk up, as those who rush head-long to be part of the self-righteous, holier-than-thou gang declaiming Trump lose all sense of proportion. The post of Speaker of the House of Commons is that little bit more ordinary today, Mr Speaker.
If we take a hypothetical example (just) of a man who is simultaniously Grand Dragon of the Klu Klux Klan and POTUS. How to find a way of not offending our multicultural population at the same time as not damaging our relationship with our only remaining friend post Brexit??
The obvious solution; Afternoon tea and a ride down the Mall with our UNELECTED head of State but no invitation to our ELECTED parliament the bosom of our democracy.
The wisdom of Soloman. Well done Bercow!
You know that the Klan was a Democrat Party creation and the last Klan member in Congress was a Democrat, yes?
Probably, since the number of times you've mentioned it must be approaching double figures,
If Bercow has to go, then why are people suggesting Jacob Rees-Mogg as a replacement? You'd be changing one narcissistic self-publicist with another. Both are far too fond of their own voices, which perversely is counter to the role of speaker.
Instead, let's look at the deputy speakers who seem to have been doing a reasonable job. Lindsay Hoyle might make an excellent speaker if he wanted the job.
Wasn't there also a convention (first broken by Labour with Martin) that the speaker is chosen from the ranks of the main opposition party to the government? Or am I misremembering?
I think the convention was that it swopped between the two main parties, but labour broke that when Martin was appointed.
It's never been a convention - that is an urban myth. it just happened to work like that a few times by coincidence.
EDIT: I see that JosiasJessop beat me to it by a few seconds with the full Wiki explanation.
The links with the Klansmen even got an episode in House of Cards.
Apart from the hyperbole, this is a description of a lot of Marxist/Trotskyist methodologies. The Left Is Right, anything else is evil and any means to suppress it is allowed. We've seen it display across this country many times before.
Well, I certainly don’t recognise myself. But I suppose I wouldn’t.
I should have said Stalinism, apologies a bit of the 'Peoples Front of Judea vs The Judean People Front' error.
Let me "throw a curveball" as our American friends would say - what's wrong with hypocrisy ? Why does everyone have to be ruthlessly consistent about everything all the time ? People aren't in "real life" so why are politicians ruthlessly pilloried if they veer off some imagined path of principle ?
The indignation when a Labour politician condemned private schools yet sent their own child to such a school or when Boris Johnson, having one day supported Cameron, then fronted up to the LEAVE campaign and now this...
If democracy has shown us anything, it's that electorates will vote for any idiot who promises them biscuits and gravy (another Americanism). Unlike the Emir of Kuwait or the President of China who don't have to go through the democratic ritual and dance the populist dance, Trump is somehow "better" than them and more deserving of the right to pontificate before Parliament.
The line seems to be that some people over here don't like Trump and his policies but the American people voted him into office and that makes them right and the anti-Trump crowd wrong and let's have a jolly good gloat at the fact a person disliked by some prominent people won because it's good to see the "metropolitan lefty-liberal elite" (or some permutation thereof, which has apparently enslaved Britain for the past 40 years and prevented us thinking for ourselves until the day of Glorious Liberation last June) coming unstuck and being made to look foolish.
Please.
The curiosity for me is all those who claimed Trump and the vote to LEAVE were a message from the "angry people" seem unwilling or unable to understand that their anger has been replaced by a new anger from those who voted Clinton or REMAIN. The pro-Brexit pro-Trump crowd (and variations thereof) now have to recognise they didn't and don't have a monopoly on being angry and perhaps this new anger will prove more powerful than their old anger.
We'll see.
Trump lost the popular vote. Their system is designedly undemocratic, i.e. a rural vote is of more value than an urban one.
Our system can, just as easily - and has, in the past - produce results where the party that comes second in terms of votes "wins" in terms of seats
Yes, definitely. I saw a version of this on Ace of Spades the other week and every sentence of it is true - everything from the Saul Alinsky playbook Rules for Radicals.
It's a shame but there it is. In this country Blair got the ball rolling by politicising everything. Every appointment, every honour, every job, every policy was politically driven. (By Alastair Campbell - spit). Every little thing that is not in tune with progressive ideology gets labelled Nazi. Those of us not indoctrinated in the lefty religion find the thought process frankly weird. Remember Hattie hateperson trying to bully everyone into wearing 'This is what a feminist looks likje' T-shirts. Just deranged. Worship at the EU altar is likewise hard to fathom. And thus the rest of us - the majority of the population - are starting to move from weary or bemused acceptance of this shit to a more self confident outright rejection. I know I have. Those who been on PB for a while will note the angrier tone of my posting in recent months. I have become intolerant of the intolerance of the left. I'm happy for lefties to be lefties but they must stop trying to make everyone else into lefties. Stop dressing up as vaginas and blocking runways and tweeting your lives away and accept that most people ain't 'right on'. And STFU for a while.
Lindsay Hoyle might make an excellent speaker if he wanted the job.
That would wind the SNP up no end. Salmond nearly had an aneurism last night when Hoyle shut down an SNP MP (Cherry 'Scotland is England's biggest export market') who the SNP Whips had asked could speak briefly announced she'd speak as long as she liked.....
I haven't seen the intervention in question, and only the reporting, but surely Hoyle was in the right about that?
If Bercow has to go, then why are people suggesting Jacob Rees-Mogg as a replacement? You'd be changing one narcissistic self-publicist with another. Both are far too fond of their own voices, which perversely is counter to the role of speaker.
Instead, let's look at the deputy speakers who seem to have been doing a reasonable job. Lindsay Hoyle might make an excellent speaker if he wanted the job.
Wasn't there also a convention (first broken by Labour with Martin) that the speaker is chosen from the ranks of the main opposition party to the government? Or am I misremembering?
I think the convention was that it swopped between the two main parties, but labour broke that when Martin was appointed.
It's never been a convention - that is an urban myth. it just happened to work like that a few times by coincidence.
EDIT: I see that JosiasJessop beat me to it by a few seconds with the full Wiki explanation.
The links with the Klansmen even got an episode in House of Cards.
Oh that reminds me - I've got Season 4 lined up but unwatched as yet. Cheers for that!
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Patrick and his ilk are at least as scared as they are angry. For an Old Bailey jury convicted a man of murdering Jo Cox - Patrick no doubt thought it was justifiable homicide.
I keep wondering what he puts in to GOOGLE to access these dingbat websites? Is this what's known as the 'dark web'?
Thatcher was technically Lady Margaret Thatcher between when Denis was given a baronetcy (which must have been a proxy for the hereditory peerage she turned down), and her taking her life peerage. She didn't use the 'Lady' title, preferring to remain Mrs T.
Not so David. From Feb 1991 as wife of a baronet Margaret Thatcher became Lady Thatcher. Lady Margaret Thatcher would imply she was the daughter of a hereditary peer of the rank of Earl and above. If she had not become life peer in 1992 she would on her husbands death in 2003 have become Margaret, Lady Thatcher or the Dowager Lady Thatcher to distinguish herself from the wife of Sir Mark Thatcher Bt.
Let me "throw a curveball" as our American friends would say - what's wrong with hypocrisy ? Why does everyone have to be ruthlessly consistent about everything all the time ? People aren't in "real life" so why are politicians ruthlessly pilloried if they veer off some imagined path of principle ?
The indignation when a Labour politician condemned private schools yet sent their own child to such a school or when Boris Johnson, having one day supported Cameron, then fronted up to the LEAVE campaign and now this...
If democracy has shown us anything, it's that electorates will vote for any idiot who promises them biscuits and gravy (another Americanism). Unlike the Emir of Kuwait or the President of China who don't have to go through the democratic ritual and dance the populist dance, Trump is somehow "better" than them and more deserving of the right to pontificate before Parliament.
The line seems to be that some people over here don't like Trump and his policies but the American people voted him into office and that makes them right and the anti-Trump crowd wrong and let's have a jolly good gloat at the fact a person disliked by some prominent people won because it's good to see the "metropolitan lefty-liberal elite" (or some permutation thereof, which has apparently enslaved Britain for the past 40 years and prevented us thinking for ourselves until the day of Glorious Liberation last June) coming unstuck and being made to look foolish.
Please.
The curiosity for me is all those who claimed Trump and the vote to LEAVE were a message from the "angry people" seem unwilling or unable to understand that their anger has been replaced by a new anger from those who voted Clinton or REMAIN. The pro-Brexit pro-Trump crowd (and variations thereof) now have to recognise they didn't and don't have a monopoly on being angry and perhaps this new anger will prove more powerful than their old anger.
We'll see.
Trump lost the popular vote. Their system is designedly undemocratic, i.e. a rural vote is of more value than an urban one.
Nonsense - votes in Philadelphia, Milwaukee or Detroit are worth far more than those in rural Wyoming, Nebraska or Vermont.
Yes, definitely. I saw a version of this on Ace of Spades the other week and every sentence of it is true - everything from the Saul Alinsky playbook Rules for Radicals.
It's a shame but there it is. In this country Blair got the ball rolling by politicising everything. Every appointment, every honour, every job, every policy was politically driven. (By Alastair Campbell - spit). Every little thing that is not in tune with progressive ideology gets labelled Nazi. Those of us not indoctrinated in the lefty religion find the thought process frankly weird. Remember Hattie hateperson trying to bully everyone into wearing 'This is what a feminist looks likje' T-shirts. Just deranged. Worship at the EU altar is likewise hard to fathom. And thus the rest of us - the majority of the population - are starting to move from weary or bemused acceptance of this shit to a more self confident outright rejection. I know I have. Those who been on PB for a while will note the angrier tone of my posting in recent months. I have become intolerant of the intolerance of the left. I'm happy for lefties to be lefties but they must stop trying to make everyone else into lefties. Stop dressing up as vaginas and blocking runways and tweeting your lives away and accept that most people ain't 'right on'. And STFU for a while.
That's very Timothy McVeigh. Having been called every name under the sun by right wingers on here and been accused of every kind of treachery, I am inclined to see things in a more nuanced light than the author of the article. I note that there are very few left wing militias in the US, and that left wing psycopaths rarely carry out mass shootings of black churchgoers or bombings of federal buildings.
I dislike Donald Trump. But I have no problem with the office of President of the United States, duly elected to such post. It is a title that bestows much authority.
As is the title of Speaker of the House of Commons. By wading in to comment on the holder of the post, the post itself loses its shine. And that is another success that Donald Trump can chalk up, as those who rush head-long to be part of the self-righteous, holier-than-thou gang declaiming Trump lose all sense of proportion. The post of Speaker of the House of Commons is that little bit more ordinary today, Mr Speaker.
If we take a hypothetical example (just) of a man who is simultaniously Grand Dragon of the Klu Klux Klan and POTUS. How to find a way of not offending our multicultural population at the same time as not damaging our relationship with our only remaining friend post Brexit??
The obvious solution; Afternoon tea and a ride down the Mall with our UNELECTED head of State but no invitation to our ELECTED parliament the bosom of our democracy.
The wisdom of Soloman. Well done Bercow!
You know that the Klan was a Democrat Party creation and the last Klan member in Congress was a Democrat, yes?
Probably, since the number of times you've mentioned it must be approaching double figures,
Let me "throw a curveball" as our American friends would say - what's wrong with hypocrisy ? Why does everyone have to be ruthlessly consistent about everything all the time ? People aren't in "real life" so why are politicians ruthlessly pilloried if they veer off some imagined path of principle ?
The indignation when a Labour politician condemned private schools yet sent their own child to such a school or when Boris Johnson, having one day supported Cameron, then fronted up to the LEAVE campaign and now this...
If democracy has shown us anything, it's that electorates will vote for any idiot who promises them biscuits and gravy (another Americanism). Unlike the Emir of Kuwait or the President of China who don't have to go through the democratic ritual and dance the populist dance, Trump is somehow "better" than them and more deserving of the right to pontificate before Parliament.
The line seems to be that some people over here don't like Trump and his policies but the American people voted him into office and that makes them right and the anti-Trump crowd wrong and let's have a jolly good gloat at the fact a person disliked by some prominent people won because it's good to see the "metropolitan lefty-liberal elite" (or some permutation thereof, which has apparently enslaved Britain for the past 40 years and prevented us thinking for ourselves until the day of Glorious Liberation last June) coming unstuck and being made to look foolish.
Please.
The curiosity for me is all those who claimed Trump and the vote to LEAVE were a message from the "angry people" seem unwilling or unable to understand that their anger has been replaced by a new anger from those who voted Clinton or REMAIN. The pro-Brexit pro-Trump crowd (and variations thereof) now have to recognise they didn't and don't have a monopoly on being angry and perhaps this new anger will prove more powerful than their old anger.
We'll see.
Since the game is that we decide who to vote for based on their pronouncements about their personal values and policy intentions, and whoever wins gets a shot at putting these into practice on our behalf and at our expense, it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect politicians to be a bit less hypocritical than the average person (or, more correctly, for the career penalty for being found out to be more so to be greater). In an ideal world, of course.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Patrick and his ilk are at least as scared as they are angry. For an Old Bailey jury convicted a man of murdering Jo Cox - Patrick no doubt thought it was justifiable homicide.
Up yer bum! Cox's murder was awful. The fact you assume I think otherwise says alot more about how lefties see righties than it does about how I view the violent murder by a lunatic of a popular and well-intentioned MP. You make my point for me.
On topic have most, pretty much all on here not had this down as a safe and easy hold from the start? UKIP really don't do well at FPTP elections, they have too low a ceiling and are too divisive. It is also not obvious what their point is at the moment. This may change if the government contrives a soft Brexit but at the moment they seem to have very little to add.
Yes - the expectations management has been dreadful. If Labour hold Stoke, even if they lose Copeland that will still be held as a plus for Corbyn even though the loss of any safe seat to the government in a by-election should be terminal for him.
Incidentally the phone call has come and the inspectors are in from 9am. So if anybody who likes me could keep their fingers crossed and Mr Eagles and Mr Wisemann could refrain from sticking pins in their wax models of me for the next couple of days, I would be most grateful.
Yes, definitely. I saw a version of this on Ace of Spades the other week and every sentence of it is true - everything from the Saul Alinsky playbook Rules for Radicals.
It's a shame but there it is. In this country Blair got the ball rolling by politicising everything. Every appointment, every honour, every job, every policy was politically driven. (By Alastair Campbell - spit). Every little thing that is not in tune with progressive ideology gets labelled Nazi. Those of us not indoctrinated in the lefty religion find the thought process frankly weird. Remember Hattie hateperson trying to bully everyone into wearing 'This is what a feminist looks likje' T-shirts. Just deranged. Worship at the EU altar is likewise hard to fathom. And thus the rest of us - the majority of the population - are starting to move from weary or bemused acceptance of this shit to a more self confident outright rejection. I know I have. Those who been on PB for a while will note the angrier tone of my posting in recent months. I have become intolerant of the intolerance of the left. I'm happy for lefties to be lefties but they must stop trying to make everyone else into lefties. Stop dressing up as vaginas and blocking runways and tweeting your lives away and accept that most people ain't 'right on'. And STFU for a while.
I've really noticed Righties getting a lot more assertive on social media - inc myself. I don't get much abuse - probably because I rarely throw it about, but I've seen a fair number of soft-left/liberals being pushed rightwards because of the OTT SJWers.
I did LOL when Penny Red was called a Nazi by some crazy vagina.
Let me "throw a curveball" as our American friends would say - what's wrong with hypocrisy ? Why does everyone have to be ruthlessly consistent about everything all the time ? People aren't in "real life" so why are politicians ruthlessly pilloried if they veer off some imagined path of principle ?
The indignation when a Labour politician condemned private schools yet sent their own child to such a school or when Boris Johnson, having one day supported Cameron, then fronted up to the LEAVE campaign and now this...
If democracy has shown us anything, it's that electorates will vote for any idiot who promises them biscuits and gravy (another Americanism). Unlike the Emir of Kuwait or the President of China who don't have to go through the democratic ritual and dance the populist dance, Trump is somehow "better" than them and more deserving of the right to pontificate before Parliament.
The line seems to be that some people over here don't like Trump and his policies but the American people voted him into office and that makes them right and the anti-Trump crowd wrong and let's have a jolly good gloat at the fact a person disliked by some prominent people won because it's good to see the "metropolitan lefty-liberal elite" coming unstuck and being made to look foolish.
Please.
The curiosity for me is all those who claimed Trump and the vote to LEAVE were a message from the "angry people" seem unwilling or unable to understand that their anger has been replaced by a new anger from those who voted Clinton or REMAIN. The pro-Brexit pro-Trump crowd (and variations thereof) now have to recognise they didn't and don't have a monopoly on being angry and perhaps this new anger will prove more powerful than their old anger.
We'll see.
Trump lost the popular vote. Their system is designedly undemocratic, i.e. a rural vote is of more value than an urban one.
Trump campaigned to win the majority of the Electoral College votes - not the popular vote. Those are the rules of the election. His loss in California alone was greater than the gap in the popular vote.
Now it can be argued that the allocation of the Electoral College votes is not fair on a purely proportionate basis (the 2 senator-equivalent votes boosts the importance of the smaller states) - however the EC was specifically designed to give the smaller states some protection against being overwhelmed by the large ones. (NB - even if we removed the 2 bonus EC votes, Trump would have won the EC - as his margin was greater than 20). The problem the Democrats had (as the Tories have in the UK) is that their votes are not distributed optimally for the type of election being held.
(Had 100,000 Americans voted differently, it would be Madam President.)
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Patrick and his ilk are at least as scared as they are angry. For an Old Bailey jury convicted a man of murdering Jo Cox - Patrick no doubt thought it was justifiable homicide.
Up yer bum! Cox's murder was awful. The fact you assume I think otherwise says alot more about how lefties see righties than it does about how I view the violent murder by a lunatic* of a popular and well-intentioned MP. You make my point for me.
*by a right wing lunatic shouting Britain First. Just for clarity, like.
Re Lady Nugee alias Emily, Jacqui Smith's husband was happy to write letters to the local paper in support of Labour's polices, without disclosing that he was working for her, or that he was married to her.
Sometimes the device of using a maiden name does have its advantages.
"Mr Timney had a series of letters published in the Redditch Advertiser backing Ms Smith’s identity card plans and attacking the Tories over schools, without revealing that he was married to the woman responsible for the policies."
Lindsay Hoyle might make an excellent speaker if he wanted the job.
That would wind the SNP up no end. Salmond nearly had an aneurism last night when Hoyle shut down an SNP MP (Cherry 'Scotland is England's biggest export market') who the SNP Whips had asked could speak briefly announced she'd speak as long as she liked.....
I haven't seen the intervention in question, and only the reporting, but surely Hoyle was in the right about that?
Cherry fluffed it - the SNP Whips had asked for a brief additional speech and Cherry suggested she'd go on & on.....but its all grist to the SNP's grievance mill......
Yes, definitely. I saw a version of this on Ace of Spades the other week and every sentence of it is true - everything from the Saul Alinsky playbook Rules for Radicals.
It's a shame but there it is. In this country Blair got the ball rolling by politicising everything. Every appointment, every honour, every job, every policy was politically driven. (By Alastair Campbell - spit). Every little thing that is not in tune with progressive ideology gets labelled Nazi. Those of us not indoctrinated in the lefty religion find the thought process frankly weird. Remember Hattie hateperson trying to bully everyone into wearing 'This is what a feminist looks likje' T-shirts. Just deranged. Worship at the EU altar is likewise hard to fathom. And thus the rest of us - the majority of the population - are starting to move from weary or bemused acceptance of this shit to a more self confident outright rejection. I know I have. Those who been on PB for a while will note the angrier tone of my posting in recent months. I have become intolerant of the intolerance of the left. I'm happy for lefties to be lefties but they must stop trying to make everyone else into lefties. Stop dressing up as vaginas and blocking runways and tweeting your lives away and accept that most people ain't 'right on'. And STFU for a while.
How long would you like that while to be?
Actually I'm not sure I do want lefties to STFU. But I do want righties to punch back just as hard and with just as much energy and cunning. Lefties have been trying to close down discussion of many subjects for too long. Alternative views should be heard. So...I expect our politics to become more confrontational, unmentionables to get mentioned. The left nastified politics. OK. Happy to play by those rules. Don't like it - but the alternative of returning to reasoned debate and no bullying/shaming/no-platforming/closedown doesn't appear to be on offer.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Patrick and his ilk are at least as scared as they are angry. For an Old Bailey jury convicted a man of murdering Jo Cox - Patrick no doubt thought it was justifiable homicide.
Up yer bum! Cox's murder was awful. The fact you assume I think otherwise says alot more about how lefties see righties than it does about how I view the violent murder by a lunatic* of a popular and well-intentioned MP. You make my point for me.
*by a right wing lunatic shouting Britain First. Just for clarity, like.
How I see right-wingers depends a lot on their facial expression. The same as it does for anyone else.
Yes, definitely. I saw a version of this on Ace of Spades the other week and every sentence of it is true - everything from the Saul Alinsky playbook Rules for Radicals.
It's a shame but there it is. In this country Blair got the ball rolling by politicising everything. Every appointment, every honour, every job, every policy was politically driven. (By Alastair Campbell - spit). Every little thing that is not in tune with progressive ideology gets labelled Nazi. Those of us not indoctrinated in the lefty religion find the thought process frankly weird. Remember Hattie hateperson trying to bully everyone into wearing 'This is what a feminist looks likje' T-shirts. Just deranged. Worship at the EU altar is likewise hard to fathom. And thus the rest of us - the majority of the population - are starting to move from weary or bemused acceptance of this shit to a more self confident outright rejection. I know I have. Those who been on PB for a while will note the angrier tone of my posting in recent months. I have become intolerant of the intolerance of the left. I'm happy for lefties to be lefties but they must stop trying to make everyone else into lefties. Stop dressing up as vaginas and blocking runways and tweeting your lives away and accept that most people ain't 'right on'. And STFU for a while.
"Stop dressing up as vaginas"? I've been to Berman and Nathans many times but I've never come across one of those!!
I dislike Donald Trump. But I have no problem with the office of President of the United States, duly elected to such post. It is a title that bestows much authority.
As is the title of Speaker of the House of Commons. By wading in to comment on the holder of the post, the post itself loses its shine. And that is another success that Donald Trump can chalk up, as those who rush head-long to be part of the self-righteous, holier-than-thou gang declaiming Trump lose all sense of proportion. The post of Speaker of the House of Commons is that little bit more ordinary today, Mr Speaker.
If we take a hypothetical example (just) of a man who is simultaniously Grand Dragon of the Klu Klux Klan and POTUS. How to find a way of not offending our multicultural population at the same time as not damaging our relationship with our only remaining friend post Brexit??
The obvious solution; Afternoon tea and a ride down the Mall with our UNELECTED head of State but no invitation to our ELECTED parliament the bosom of our democracy.
The wisdom of Soloman. Well done Bercow!
You know that the Klan was a Democrat Party creation and the last Klan member in Congress was a Democrat, yes?
To regard that as in any way relevant today would require an ignorance (deliberate or otherwise) of the last five or six decades of US politics.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Patrick and his ilk are at least as scared as they are angry. For an Old Bailey jury convicted a man of murdering Jo Cox - Patrick no doubt thought it was justifiable homicide.
Up yer bum! Cox's murder was awful. The fact you assume I think otherwise says alot more about how lefties see righties than it does about how I view the violent murder by a lunatic of a popular and well-intentioned MP. You make my point for me.
There's an interesting post from Scott Adams on a similar subject
"One of the most underrated qualities of Republicans is that they police their own ranks. If you have a problem with a violent Republican racist, call some Republicans. They’ll solve it for you.
But don’t call a Republican if you are simply offended by another person’s opinion. In that situation you want to call some Democrats to ridicule and physically attack the person with the objectionable opinion.
By the way, I’m not a Republican. This is just an observation. I’ve been watching Democrats not police their own ranks – after the Berkeley violence for example – and it occurred to me that you don’t see that on the Republican side. Republicans generally appreciate free speech, but if someone attacks your family, your country, or your freedom in some physical form, keep some Republicans on speed dial.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Patrick and his ilk are at least as scared as they are angry. For an Old Bailey jury convicted a man of murdering Jo Cox - Patrick no doubt thought it was justifiable homicide.
Up yer bum! Cox's murder was awful. The fact you assume I think otherwise says alot more about how lefties see righties than it does about how I view the violent murder by a lunatic* of a popular and well-intentioned MP. You make my point for me.
*by a right wing lunatic shouting Britain First. Just for clarity, like.
Indeed, the judgment was very clear. Mental illness played no part in the crime. As such, there is no reason why Mair shouldn't face the death penalty (other than it not being law at the time of the killing, but you know what I mean).
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Patrick and his ilk are at least as scared as they are angry. For an Old Bailey jury convicted a man of murdering Jo Cox - Patrick no doubt thought it was justifiable homicide.
Up yer bum! Cox's murder was awful. The fact you assume I think otherwise says alot more about how lefties see righties than it does about how I view the violent murder by a lunatic of a popular and well-intentioned MP. You make my point for me.
She was murdered by a right wing terrorist shouting Britain First. Just as dozens of Americans have been murdered by right wing terrorists - and six Canadians were a couple of weeks ago.
Since the game is that we decide who to vote for based on their pronouncements about their personal values and policy intentions, and whoever wins gets a shot at putting these into practice on our behalf and at our expense, it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect politicians to be a bit less hypocritical than the average person (or, more correctly, for the career penalty for being found out to be more so to be greater). In an ideal world, of course.
Fair comment, Ian, and you are right in an ideal world.
The problem is when the newly elected leader finds things aren't as they supposed/imagined. were led to believe and they are forced to confront the possibility their campaigning pronouncements were at best naïve and at worst dangerously wrong.
Having or being allowed a degree of flexibility is the ideal because if the world changes unexpectedly (a 9/11 type incident), all your campaign pledges may need to be revised/reviewed/supplanted by a more immediate requirement.
Comments
I deeply dislike trump, but I just dont know that the speaker should be getting so involved in foreign affairs. If use of Westminster halls by consensus of both speakers and the lord great chamberlain, he surely should have spoken with them first, and if they disagree with his stance and still felt the need to say no, well at least he sought their views. Do we know if he did?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8921578/John-Bercow-unveils-his-37000-portrait-and-coat-of-arms-complete-with-ladder-rainbow-and-pink-triangles.html
As an aside, Ancram is an exception because that 'surname' (his real surname is Kerr) comes from a courtesy title that he went by when heir to his father's marquessate. Now that he's inherited that, he'd be known as Michael Lothian following the usual formula but he continues to use his former title (which is of course actually held by him) as a surname. It is perhaps helpful that he has no sons so the courtesy title isn't currently in use.
Firstly, even if tapes existed of Xi Jinping saying something dodgy, you think Chinese media would report it? Secondly, there are a huge number of political prisoners in China. Thirdly Bercow was also happy to welcome leaders from the Middle East, not renowned for their progressive ways.
Viscount Thurso on the other hand, IIRC, was in the Lords, became an MP when the reforms came in, and is now back in as a heritary peer having one that glorious election with 7 candidates and 3 eligible voters for LD heritary peerage.
I don't believe Thatcher ever objected to changing her surname?
As is the title of Speaker of the House of Commons. By wading in to comment on the holder of the post, the post itself loses its shine. And that is another success that Donald Trump can chalk up, as those who rush head-long to be part of the self-righteous, holier-than-thou gang declaiming Trump lose all sense of proportion. The post of Speaker of the House of Commons is that little bit more ordinary today, Mr Speaker.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/14/china-s-concubine-culture-lives-on-in-mistress-villages.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Falun_Gong
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/world/asia/china-christians-zhejiang.html
Chinese leaders keep many concubines as a right of their power and influence. They dont just ban religions they persecute and kill their members, and their judicial system is completely subordinate to the party hierarchy, apart from that, good comparison.
That tells me all I need to know, betting-wise. I'm off to top-up on Labour at odds of 10/11 with Betfred, BetfairEx, etc. But DYOR.
Let’s be clear.
The Speaker’s statement yesterday about Donald Trump was unsurprising in terms of its –
Party politics. Watch the video – and note how often he turns to the Opposition benches for support, fixing on the Government ones only for his final blast.
Double Standard. He was content to wave through an address by the President of China in Westminster Hall, a country that doesn’t practice equality before the law and has no independent judiciary to speak of.
Rudeness. As he himself conceded, any address to both houses by a visitor in Westminster is a matter for two other people – and not just him. This morning’s Times confirm that one of them, the Lords Speaker, was not consulted before his statement.
Self-importance… “I am grateful…I will say this…I must say…I would myself…I am even more strongly opposed…I operate on advice…I perhaps do not have…I would not wish to…I conclude by saying…I feel very strongly.”
…And animalistic cunning. He knows that although he doesn’t have the confidence of one of the two main parties, he can push his luck just a bit further on this issue.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/02/bercows-trump-outburst-was-uncharacteristic-of-him.html
Xi Jinping is, by all accounts, personally civilised. He signs off on the torture, imprisonment of dissidents, racist policies against minorities etc quietly, as office paperwork - mostly by inference and euphemism, of course at his pay grade. In diplomatic situations he is probably quietly pleasant.
This makes him far more moral than Trump.
Bringing Mrs T into this is irrelevant; it was extremely uncommon in the 50’s and early 60’s for married women to be referred to by other than their husbands name, the traditional way. The ‘keeping one’s maiden name’ practice really only developed in the 80’s.
Good day all.
Iraqi-born Tory MP Nadhim Zahawi, who sharply criticised Mr Trump's travel ban after learning he could be caught up in it, has suggested Mr Bercow was a hypocrite.
Mr Zahawi said the Speaker had invited Chinese president Xi Jinping despite MPs being unhappy about his policy on Tibet, and the emir of Kuwait, which bans British dual nationals of Israeli origin, to speak in Parliament.
Mr Bercow should now "think about" his position and explain his remarks to Parliament, Mr Zahawi said.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/07/john-bercow-faces-calls-think-position-bid-silence-donald-trump/
https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/828879864837111809
(from Telegraph)
Surely that's rubbish?
Translated ' Speaker only required to be neutral on domestic politics but can oppose government and support opposition in international affairs'.....
http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2017/02/06/the-left-hates-you-act-accordingly-n2281602
He's also compounding his self-pleasing moment of political intervention by trying to create not merely a precedent but a convention that the Speaker can intervene in Foreign matters as of right.
Very Blair. All tactics, and hang the long term problems it'll create for the constitutional arrangements of the country.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/02/watch-theresa-may-puts-lady-nugee-place/
Instead, let's look at the deputy speakers who seem to have been doing a reasonable job. Lindsay Hoyle might make an excellent speaker if he wanted the job.
Wasn't there also a convention (first broken by Labour with Martin) that the speaker is chosen from the ranks of the main opposition party to the government? Or am I misremembering?
The Marquess of Lothian isn't short of the odd title. He is also :
Earl of Lothian
Earl of Ancram
Viscount of Briene
Lord Newbattle
Lord Jedburgh
Lord Kerr of Newbattle
Lord Kerr of Nisbet, Langnewtoun, and Dolphinstoun
Baron Kerr of Monteviot (Life Peerage)
Lothian is also one of five co-heirs to the Barony of Butler - abeyant since 1905 and also Chief of Clan Kerr. His brother, Lord Ralph Kerr, is heir presumptive to all the hereditary peerages.
IIRC the police were involved.
The convention is largely fiction, I think. Here's a Speaker list, and they seem to largely be from the governing party.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Speakers_of_the_British_House_of_Commons
Let me "throw a curveball" as our American friends would say - what's wrong with hypocrisy ? Why does everyone have to be ruthlessly consistent about everything all the time ? People aren't in "real life" so why are politicians ruthlessly pilloried if they veer off some imagined path of principle ?
The indignation when a Labour politician condemned private schools yet sent their own child to such a school or when Boris Johnson, having one day supported Cameron, then fronted up to the LEAVE campaign and now this...
If democracy has shown us anything, it's that electorates will vote for any idiot who promises them biscuits and gravy (another Americanism). Unlike the Emir of Kuwait or the President of China who don't have to go through the democratic ritual and dance the populist dance, Trump is somehow "better" than them and more deserving of the right to pontificate before Parliament.
The line seems to be that some people over here don't like Trump and his policies but the American people voted him into office and that makes them right and the anti-Trump crowd wrong and let's have a jolly good gloat at the fact a person disliked by some prominent people won because it's good to see the "metropolitan lefty-liberal elite" (or some permutation thereof, which has apparently enslaved Britain for the past 40 years and prevented us thinking for ourselves until the day of Glorious Liberation last June) coming unstuck and being made to look foolish.
Please.
The curiosity for me is all those who claimed Trump and the vote to LEAVE were a message from the "angry people" seem unwilling or unable to understand that their anger has been replaced by a new anger from those who voted Clinton or REMAIN. The pro-Brexit pro-Trump crowd (and variations thereof) now have to recognise they didn't and don't have a monopoly on being angry and perhaps this new anger will prove more powerful than their old anger.
We'll see.
The obvious solution; Afternoon tea and a ride down the Mall with our UNELECTED head of State but no invitation to our ELECTED parliament the bosom of our democracy.
The wisdom of Soloman. Well done Bercow!
I'm fairly sure that's not true of more than a small subset of 'non-lefties'.
Edited extra bit: also, you may not have seen this but one of the Speaker's people has told the media that the 'neutrality' only applies to domestic affairs, not foreign matters.
So, the self-absorbed oaf is now trying to make is a matter of right for himself and his successors to intervene in partisan politics.
I've just checked on Wonkypedia, and it appears more complex than that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Martin,_Baron_Martin_of_Springburn#Appointment
EDIT: I see that JosiasJessop beat me to it by a few seconds with the full Wiki explanation.
https://order-order.com/2017/02/07/bercows-praise-human-rights-abusers-welcomed-parliament/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism
Summarised by The Ends Justify The Means.
In this country Blair got the ball rolling by politicising everything. Every appointment, every honour, every job, every policy was politically driven. (By Alastair Campbell - spit). Every little thing that is not in tune with progressive ideology gets labelled Nazi. Those of us not indoctrinated in the lefty religion find the thought process frankly weird. Remember Hattie hateperson trying to bully everyone into wearing 'This is what a feminist looks likje' T-shirts. Just deranged. Worship at the EU altar is likewise hard to fathom.
And thus the rest of us - the majority of the population - are starting to move from weary or bemused acceptance of this shit to a more self confident outright rejection. I know I have. Those who been on PB for a while will note the angrier tone of my posting in recent months.
I have become intolerant of the intolerance of the left. I'm happy for lefties to be lefties but they must stop trying to make everyone else into lefties. Stop dressing up as vaginas and blocking runways and tweeting your lives away and accept that most people ain't 'right on'. And STFU for a while.
Cheers for that!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38890993
I did LOL when Penny Red was called a Nazi by some crazy vagina.
Now it can be argued that the allocation of the Electoral College votes is not fair on a purely proportionate basis (the 2 senator-equivalent votes boosts the importance of the smaller states) - however the EC was specifically designed to give the smaller states some protection against being overwhelmed by the large ones. (NB - even if we removed the 2 bonus EC votes, Trump would have won the EC - as his margin was greater than 20). The problem the Democrats had (as the Tories have in the UK) is that their votes are not distributed optimally for the type of election being held.
(Had 100,000 Americans voted differently, it would be Madam President.)
Just for clarity, like.
Sometimes the device of using a maiden name does have its advantages.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1165611/Blue-movies-expenses-Jacqui-Smiths-husband-apologises-watching-porn--paid-taxpayer.html
"Mr Timney had a series of letters published in the Redditch Advertiser backing Ms Smith’s identity card plans and attacking the Tories over schools, without revealing that he was married to the woman responsible for the policies."
"One of the most underrated qualities of Republicans is that they police their own ranks. If you have a problem with a violent Republican racist, call some Republicans. They’ll solve it for you.
But don’t call a Republican if you are simply offended by another person’s opinion. In that situation you want to call some Democrats to ridicule and physically attack the person with the objectionable opinion.
By the way, I’m not a Republican. This is just an observation. I’ve been watching Democrats not police their own ranks – after the Berkeley violence for example – and it occurred to me that you don’t see that on the Republican side. Republicans generally appreciate free speech, but if someone attacks your family, your country, or your freedom in some physical form, keep some Republicans on speed dial.
Try it. You’ll be surprised how well it works." http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156850873521/a-thought-experiment-about-republicans
The problem is when the newly elected leader finds things aren't as they supposed/imagined. were led to believe and they are forced to confront the possibility their campaigning pronouncements were at best naïve and at worst dangerously wrong.
Having or being allowed a degree of flexibility is the ideal because if the world changes unexpectedly (a 9/11 type incident), all your campaign pledges may need to be revised/reviewed/supplanted by a more immediate requirement.