Irrevelant thread...America is in anarchy. We have widespread looting, a truck attempted to run down 1000s of people, and mobs have beaten individuals, while the police seem incapable of maintaining law and order and the orange man is just making it worse.
You cite "custom and practice" as a reason for giving Bercow a peerage? It is precisely because Bercow did NOT follow custom and practice that he doesn't deserve a peerage. He abused his position as Speaker overtly, deliberately, systematically, repeatedly, continuously to bully, belittle and intimidate people, and to undermine the normal practices and procedures of parliament.
Besides, the reason for him not getting a peerage is not even because of the above abominable behaviour; it is because of the technicality that he was nominated by the Labour Party despite not being of the Labour Party.
Irrevelant thread...America is in anarchy. We have widespread looting, a truck attempted to run down 1000s of people, and mobs have beaten individuals, while the police seem incapable of maintaining law and order and the orange man is just making it worse.
You don't get to pull an "irrelevant" on this site unleas your post has a betting angle
Irrevelant thread...America is in anarchy. We have widespread looting, a truck attempted to run down 1000s of people, and mobs have beaten individuals, while the police seem incapable of maintaining law and order and the orange man is just making it worse.
You don't get to pull an "irrelevant" on this site unleas your post has a betting angle
I guess it might impact on the presidential election, or even on Biden's VP pick on the offchance any of the names in the frame say anything interesting and relevant. We have already witnessed the fake news that it is all somehow Amy Klobuchar's fault.
ETA and might also give cover to China in Hong Kong.
Header's final line: Real Tories don’t ignore longstanding traditions.
Ignoring conventions is, as we have also seen in the United States, the new orthodoxy. It is not just that Boris is ignoring the convention that the Speaker gets ermine; he is also blocking Labour's nominations, including that of Bercow.
But then he dragged HMQ into politics, had the Queen's Speech for the session that never was and never was intended, and prorogued parliament. He conducted a Stalinist purge of Conservative opponents including former Chancellors and other ministers and grandees. The election campaign included a disregard of truth and accountability.
So regardless of what hypothetical real Tories might or might not do, it is hard to see any relevance to analysing or predicting the current Prime Minister's actions. Quite simply, he is not playing by the old rules, and he never has been.
Irrevelant thread...America is in anarchy. We have widespread looting, a truck attempted to run down 1000s of people, and mobs have beaten individuals, while the police seem incapable of maintaining law and order and the orange man is just making it worse.
You don't get to pull an "irrelevant" on this site unleas your post has a betting angle
I guess it might impact on the presidential election, or even on Biden's VP pick on the offchance any of the names in the frame say anything interesting and relevant. We have already witnessed the fake news that it is all somehow Amy Klobuchar's fault.
ETA and might also give cover to China in Hong Kong.
It's hard to call what it'll do to the presidential election. On the one hand Trump's whole thing is division and getting people riled up against minorities, and that's what this does. On the other hand he said he'd make America great again. This... doesn't seem great...
Also think about... well, all the other candidates. Kamala the cop, KLOBUCHAR who admittedly unfairly had a really bad police-killing-black-people news cycle, Pete Buttigieg whose main screw up was on this specific issue...
People laugh at the Democrats for screwing everything up but that's a *lot* of bullets to dodge...
I guess I am not a real Tory then. It rather depends on what you think Bercow was doing. Either you think Bercow was empowering the House, or you think he was doing everything possible to frustrate the will of the elected Govt. Thow in his dislikeable and arrogant nature and he in my opinion only has himself to blame. Furthermore.he went on and on and on after he said he would go... and the allegations of bullying cannot be ignored.
Boris is indeed small-minded and petty; rather like Cameron and Osborne who blocked Gordon Brown's appointment to the IMF. Nothing new here.
To give Brown the IMF would have been like giving matches to a child with a petrol can in his hand. The petty little shit Brown cut the the incomingPrime Ministers salary by (was it 50K??)as his last act upon leaving... as ye so so shall ye reap. Brown was a terrible PM whom few if any mourn his political passing.
Bercow believed the will of the house overrode everything else right up to the point that the second reading couldn't be reput of Boris' Brexit bill. It was his daft games that probably helped Dom to be able to stay as ultimately Brexiteers realise what he did for them.
Nah, Bercow made a big play of going against convention as Speaker. This is the result.
Bercow's main downfall, even beyond his abrasive Marmite personality, was to be transparently partisan over the great issue of the day. It seems unlikely that either his more discreet predecessors or Speaker Hoyle would have made that choice.
He picked sides and as a consequence only his side favours his elevation. He has no-one to blame for this but himself.
Irrevelant thread...America is in anarchy. We have widespread looting, a truck attempted to run down 1000s of people, and mobs have beaten individuals, while the police seem incapable of maintaining law and order and the orange man is just making it worse.
You don't get to pull an "irrelevant" on this site unleas your post has a betting angle
I guess it might impact on the presidential election, or even on Biden's VP pick on the offchance any of the names in the frame say anything interesting and relevant. We have already witnessed the fake news that it is all somehow Amy Klobuchar's fault.
ETA and might also give cover to China in Hong Kong.
It's hard to call what it'll do to the presidential election. On the one hand Trump's whole thing is division and getting people riled up against minorities, and that's what this does. On the other hand he said he'd make America great again. This... doesn't seem great...
It's not that he's being mean-minded. It's just that the place will be needed for Lord Cummings of Barnard Castle. Unless he is in the Lords, there may be raised eyebrows when he becomes a member of the Cabinet.
Nah, Bercow made a big play of going against convention as Speaker. This is the result.
Bercow's main downfall, even beyond his abrasive Marmite personality, was to be transparently partisan over the great issue of the day. It seems unlikely that either his more discreet predecessors or Speaker Hoyle would have made that choice.
He picked sides and as a consequence only his side favours his elevation. He has no-one to blame for this but himself.
That is the conventional explanation but does it really fit the facts? Remember Bercow first fell out of favour with David Cameron, whose objection was to the Speaker championing backbenchers over the executive. This was portrayed, unfairly and inaccurately, as Bercow being anti-Conservative, and this no doubt coloured the subsequent view of Bercow by many Tory partisans. But note they did not fall out over Brexit.
Nah, Bercow made a big play of going against convention as Speaker. This is the result.
Bercow's main downfall, even beyond his abrasive Marmite personality, was to be transparently partisan over the great issue of the day. It seems unlikely that either his more discreet predecessors or Speaker Hoyle would have made that choice.
He picked sides and as a consequence only his side favours his elevation. He has no-one to blame for this but himself.
Of all the issues in the world Bercows peerage bothers me the least, either way.
I expect he will get it once the government changes. There might even be a sting in the tail as an ex PM doesn't get one either.
Boris is indeed small-minded and petty; rather like Cameron and Osborne who blocked Gordon Brown's appointment to the IMF. Nothing new here.
To give Brown the IMF would have been like giving matches to a child with a petrol can in his hand. The petty little shit Brown cut the the incomingPrime Ministers salary by (was it 50K??)as his last act upon leaving... as ye so so shall ye reap. Brown was a terrible PM whom few if any mourn his political passing.
Brown was the last hope for the Union. He fluffed it.
Nah, Bercow made a big play of going against convention as Speaker. This is the result.
Bercow's main downfall, even beyond his abrasive Marmite personality, was to be transparently partisan over the great issue of the day. It seems unlikely that either his more discreet predecessors or Speaker Hoyle would have made that choice.
He picked sides and as a consequence only his side favours his elevation. He has no-one to blame for this but himself.
That is the conventional explanation but does it really fit the facts? Remember Bercow first fell out of favour with David Cameron, whose objection was to the Speaker championing backbenchers over the executive. This was portrayed, unfairly and inaccurately, as Bercow being anti-Conservative, and this no doubt coloured the subsequent view of Bercow by many Tory partisans. But note they did not fall out over Brexit.
Boris is indeed small-minded and petty; rather like Cameron and Osborne who blocked Gordon Brown's appointment to the IMF. Nothing new here.
To give Brown the IMF would have been like giving matches to a child with a petrol can in his hand. The petty little shit Brown cut the the incomingPrime Ministers salary by (was it 50K??)as his last act upon leaving... as ye so so shall ye reap. Brown was a terrible PM whom few if any mourn his political passing.
Brown was the last hope for the Union. He fluffed it.
Really.. The Union is still there.. Nicola.huffs and puffs but the house hasnt been blown down...
Nah, Bercow made a big play of going against convention as Speaker. This is the result.
Bercow's main downfall, even beyond his abrasive Marmite personality, was to be transparently partisan over the great issue of the day. It seems unlikely that either his more discreet predecessors or Speaker Hoyle would have made that choice.
He picked sides and as a consequence only his side favours his elevation. He has no-one to blame for this but himself.
Of all the issues in the world Bercows peerage bothers me the least, either way.
I expect he will get it once the government changes. There might even be a sting in the tail as an ex PM doesn't get one either.
I expect he will get it once the goverment changes and the bullying charges are settled.
Nah, Bercow made a big play of going against convention as Speaker. This is the result.
Bercow's main downfall, even beyond his abrasive Marmite personality, was to be transparently partisan over the great issue of the day. It seems unlikely that either his more discreet predecessors or Speaker Hoyle would have made that choice.
He picked sides and as a consequence only his side favours his elevation. He has no-one to blame for this but himself.
Of all the issues in the world Bercows peerage bothers me the least, either way.
I expect he will get it once the government changes. There might even be a sting in the tail as an ex PM doesn't get one either.
Who was the last PM to get elevated to the Lords?.. Lady Thatcher. A peerage for a departing PM does not come up with the rations.. indeed several have refused one. I am pretty sure John Major did.
It's not that he's being mean-minded. It's just that the place will be needed for Lord Cummings of Barnard Castle. Unless he is in the Lords, there may be raised eyebrows when he becomes a member of the Cabinet.
Why would Lord Cummings accept a demotion from defacto leader of the Government.
Boris is indeed small-minded and petty; rather like Cameron and Osborne who blocked Gordon Brown's appointment to the IMF. Nothing new here.
To give Brown the IMF would have been like giving matches to a child with a petrol can in his hand. The petty little shit Brown cut the the incomingPrime Ministers salary by (was it 50K??)as his last act upon leaving... as ye so so shall ye reap. Brown was a terrible PM whom few if any mourn his political passing.
Gordon Brown saved the pound, saved the union and saved the world. Forgive me for not shedding crocodile tears at the penury of David Cameron who imposed salary cuts on his Cabinet; easy when you are worth £30 million.
I guess I am not a real Tory then. It rather depends on what you think Bercow was doing. Either you think Bercow was empowering the House, or you think he was doing everything possible to frustrate the will of the elected Govt. Thow in his dislikeable and arrogant nature and he in my opinion only has himself to blame. Furthermore.he went on and on and on after he said he would go... and the allegations of bullying cannot be ignored.
Some of that, perhaps most of it, may be true. However it's interesting that Bercow-bashers are choosing to forget that at one key moment, arguably THE, key moment he saved Brexit. When the vote on 03rd April 2019 was a tie, Bercow cast his deciding vote as 'No.' You may argue that he was simply following precedent, to which the response is that this never seemed to bother him in a vast array of other matters. Bercow could have voted 'Yes' to the Benn Act and that would have handed Parliament further Indicative votes. At that stage it is quite plausible they would have voted for one of the options. Remember that a few days earlier the Commons had only voted down the Customs Union option by 3 votes.
It's not that he's being mean-minded. It's just that the place will be needed for Lord Cummings of Barnard Castle. Unless he is in the Lords, there may be raised eyebrows when he becomes a member of the Cabinet.
Why would Lord Cummings accept a demotion from defacto leader of the Government.
You cite "custom and practice" as a reason for giving Bercow a peerage? It is precisely because Bercow did NOT follow custom and practice that he doesn't deserve a peerage. He abused his position as Speaker overtly, deliberately, systematically, repeatedly, continuously to bully, belittle and intimidate people, and to undermine the normal practices and procedures of parliament.
Besides, the reason for him not getting a peerage is not even because of the above abominable behaviour; it is because of the technicality that he was nominated by the Labour Party despite not being of the Labour Party.
I really dont care if Bercow gets a peerage or not, it is just Eton old boys having a tiff either way.
But are the rules that the LoTO can only nominate someone in his party, so they couldnt have nominated Major Tom for example? That seems very old fashioned if its the case and should change asap.
Boris is indeed small-minded and petty; rather like Cameron and Osborne who blocked Gordon Brown's appointment to the IMF. Nothing new here.
To give Brown the IMF would have been like giving matches to a child with a petrol can in his hand. The petty little shit Brown cut the the incomingPrime Ministers salary by (was it 50K??)as his last act upon leaving... as ye so so shall ye reap. Brown was a terrible PM whom few if any mourn his political passing.
Gordon Brown saved the pound, saved the union and saved the world. Forgive me for not shedding crocodile tears at the penury of David Cameron who imposed salary cuts on his Cabinet; easy when you are worth £30 million.
Quite simply it is constitutionally wrong that a retiring speaker only gets a peerage provided he/she please the government at the time. Dangerous territory.
Quite simply it is constitutionally wrong that a retiring speaker only gets a peerage provided he/she please the government at the time. Dangerous territory.
Dangerous territory to give someone a peerage with such allegations against him. Give him.one in his dotage if you must when there is little time to enjoy it.An immediate award is inappropriate
Quite simply it is constitutionally wrong that a retiring speaker only gets a peerage provided he/she please the government at the time. Dangerous territory.
Dangerous territory to give someone a peerage with such allegations against him. Give him.one in his dotage if you must when there is little time to enjoy it.An immediate award is inappropriate
Inclined to agree, always assuming that 'something is being done' about investigating, properly, said allegations. Throwing suggestions about aimlessly isn't helpful.
Nah, Bercow made a big play of going against convention as Speaker. This is the result.
Bercow's main downfall, even beyond his abrasive Marmite personality, was to be transparently partisan over the great issue of the day. It seems unlikely that either his more discreet predecessors or Speaker Hoyle would have made that choice.
He picked sides and as a consequence only his side favours his elevation. He has no-one to blame for this but himself.
Of all the issues in the world Bercows peerage bothers me the least, either way.
I expect he will get it once the government changes. There might even be a sting in the tail as an ex PM doesn't get one either.
Who was the last PM to get elevated to the Lords?.. Lady Thatcher. A peerage for a departing PM does not come up with the rations.. indeed several have refused one. I am pretty sure John Major did.
It is why I am supremely unbothered either way. We could reduce overcrowding in Parliament significantly by abolishing the Lords entirely. Think of it as a socially distancing measure...
Quite simply it is constitutionally wrong that a retiring speaker only gets a peerage provided he/she please the government at the time. Dangerous territory.
Agreed. It leaves a very nasty stain. The idea that this 'might' prey on the mind of any incumbent Speaker is very dangerous territory indeed.
A similarly petty and insecure man who was unsuitable for the office.
Boris is nothing like Brown. He is closer in style if not substance to Trump.
I think he is very like Brown. He is far less secure than Trump, which is saying something.
Boris Johnson is a man who chews his finger nails.
That might explain the pressure to reopen nail bars! Trump and Boris are both charismatic; each has a background in television. That is increasingly important in politics because the first part of the struggle is to get heard, to get people to listen to you, to grab their attention. Neither is known for deep policy understanding or analysis; there is not much evidence they are even interested in it.
Only a couple of days ago, you suggested that Johnson might be motivated by loyalty to Cummings, and now you suggest that he's mean minded. In both cases, you imply that ordinary human qualities -- whether virtuous or other -- might be ascribed to Johnson. But throughout his career, he has been motivated only by self interest. Having achieved his ambition of being P.M., he acts in line with such Tories as helped him get to be P.M., supported his lawless prorogation of Parliament, and take delight in p.48 of their manifesto. To allow Bercow a peerage, in keeping with tradition, would be to concede that Parliament has a properly democratic role. Luckily for Johnson, most of the electorate won't appreciate that he fails to be constrained by such traditions as have come to go hand in hand with our constitution (such as it is). So it's not as if his decision on Bercow will affect his approval rating. He'll get away with this. Whether he can get away with his abject failure as a leader remains to be seen.
Quite simply it is constitutionally wrong that a retiring speaker only gets a peerage provided he/she please the government at the time. Dangerous territory.
Agreed. It leaves a very nasty stain. The idea that this 'might' prey on the mind of any incumbent Speaker is very dangerous territory indeed.
I would understand the point if there wasn't the bullying allegations, as only without those allegations you could call it politics.
Instead with those allegations outstanding why should Bercow be made a lord when he hasn't behaved in a manner fitting of one.
DJL, yes but Trump is a successful businessman. Johnson has never succeeded in anything. He was a lying journalist who got the sack, a terrible mayor of London and he's a bounder and a cad. He won a famous victory up against the most unelectable Labour leader in history and did so through a pack of lies.
What's amusing if you don't care about Britain (I do for the record) is to watch the whole shebang fall apart.
Quite simply it is constitutionally wrong that a retiring speaker only gets a peerage provided he/she please the government at the time. Dangerous territory.
Giving automatic honours for doing your job is wrong. It should be changed to doing your job to an exceptional level with honour. I know that is not the current guideline but it should be and Bercow would fail on the bullying allegation.
Maybe create something else for ex political roles, but it should be nominal rewards not a seat for life in parliament.
Really struggling to care about Bercow, an arrogant and unpleasant man who apparently bullied his subordinates. He was a curates egg as Speaker, right to stand up for back benchers, right to increase the number and relevancy of urgent questions, right to stop the abuse of Parliamentary procedures by a government in truly desperate straits, wrong to make it so much about him (compare and contrast Hoyle), wrong to express such clear and partisan views on the issue of the day, wrong to ignore precedent when it suited those views and yet to stand on it when it helped his position, wrong to hang on so long from an exaggerated sense of self importance.
I personally would have given him a peerage out of respect for the office, not for him but I would also make it rather irrelevant by abolishing the Lords altogether.
Let's agree that it is entirely right for Tom Watson's mooted peerage to have been rejected. On Bercow, it would be a pity to exclude from parliament someone so knowledgeable about parliamentary procedure and precedent. However his partisan behaviour in destabilising a fragile government at a time of great danger for the future direction of the country makes a peerage for him unconscionable. He is hoist by his own petard of rejecting tradition.
Quite simply it is constitutionally wrong that a retiring speaker only gets a peerage provided he/she please the government at the time. Dangerous territory.
The independent House of Lords Appointments Commission rejected Bercow's nomination. As I understand it Boris hasn't done anything yet but he is unlikely to reject the advice of the Commission.
Sources differ as to whether the Commission went against Bercow due to the bullying allegations or because they felt Corbyn was not entitled to nominate him. But, in my view, the bullying allegations that you seem keen to minimise are enough reason to block a peerage at this stage. Quite simply, the wrong here would be to elevate Bercow while there is an ongoing investigation into allegations of bullying by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. And, since we have an independent commission to decide peerages, it would be completely wrong for Boris to overrule them.
You can attack Boris for not nominating Bercow although, as I say, I think it would be completely wrong to nominate him while he is being investigated for bullying. But refusing to overrule the independent commission is not petty or mean.
I understand the Commission has also blocked Corbyn's nominations for Karie Murphy and John Bercow.
Quite simply it is constitutionally wrong that a retiring speaker only gets a peerage provided he/she please the government at the time. Dangerous territory.
Agreed. It leaves a very nasty stain. The idea that this 'might' prey on the mind of any incumbent Speaker is very dangerous territory indeed.
It preys on my mind that they go into the job expecting baubles at the end of it. No one deserves an automatic shiny thing just because they do a certain job.
Quite simply it is constitutionally wrong that a retiring speaker only gets a peerage provided he/she please the government at the time. Dangerous territory.
Agreed. It leaves a very nasty stain. The idea that this 'might' prey on the mind of any incumbent Speaker is very dangerous territory indeed.
I would understand the point if there wasn't the bullying allegations, as only without those allegations you could call it politics.
Instead with those allegations outstanding why should Bercow be made a lord when he hasn't behaved in a manner fitting of one.
I cannot agree with the accusation Boris has denied Bercow a peerage
I understand Bercow and Karie Murphy are subject to bullying and anti semitism claims and until these have been resolved of course they should not receive peerages
I also understand Tom Watson has been denied a peerage due to his role in the Westminster VIP paedophile allegations
How can anyone suggest these are politically motivated
DJL, yes but Trump is a successful businessman. Johnson has never succeeded in anything. He was a lying journalist who got the sack, a terrible mayor of London and he's a bounder and a cad. He won a famous victory up against the most unelectable Labour leader in history and did so through a pack of lies.
What's amusing if you don't care about Britain (I do for the record) is to watch the whole shebang fall apart.
He is a published author. I understand that can take some doing.
Quite simply it is constitutionally wrong that a retiring speaker only gets a peerage provided he/she please the government at the time. Dangerous territory.
Agreed. It leaves a very nasty stain. The idea that this 'might' prey on the mind of any incumbent Speaker is very dangerous territory indeed.
I would understand the point if there wasn't the bullying allegations, as only without those allegations you could call it politics.
Instead with those allegations outstanding why should Bercow be made a lord when he hasn't behaved in a manner fitting of one.
That I agree with.
Bullying is hard to define and especially in the political world is argued from a partisan point of view . I am not a great Bercow fan and after reading his book even less so as he seems very rude and judgmental to others in it without a need to be. I am also not a fan of the Lords in general but really its up to Boris to be a little bit less petty and grant a peerage in this case if only out of respect for the position of Speaker.
I will agree with Mike on this one after Bercow has been cleared of the allegations against him, but not until then.
I would agree with that. I frankly also cannot understand why Karie Murphy was nominated for a peerage at all. Not is she an absolutely loathsome human being, and under investigation on all sorts of allegations, but she was an utter abject failure in every role she held.
If Starmer nominated her, that was a serious mis-step. I am hoping it was Corbyn.
Let's agree that it is entirely right for Tom Watson's mooted peerage to have been rejected. On Bercow, it would be a pity to exclude from parliament someone so knowledgeable about parliamentary procedure and precedent. However his partisan behaviour in destabilising a fragile government at a time of great danger for the future direction of the country makes a peerage for him unconscionable. He is hoist by his own petard of rejecting tradition.
Your statement about "destabilising a fragile government at a time of great danger for the future direction of the country" is a partisan view. The government was fragile due to themselves. The great danger was created by the government. The future direction of the country was a political issue.
I will agree with Mike on this one after Bercow has been cleared of the allegations against him, but not until then.
I would agree with that. I frankly also cannot understand why Karie Murphy was nominated for a peerage at all. Not is she an absolutely loathsome human being, and under investigation on all sorts of allegations, but she was an utter abject failure in every role she held.
If Starmer nominated her, that was a serious mis-step. I am hoping it was Corbyn.
If the Mail article mentioned earlier in the thread can be believed then it was Corbyn.
DJL, yes but Trump is a successful businessman. Johnson has never succeeded in anything. He was a lying journalist who got the sack, a terrible mayor of London and he's a bounder and a cad. He won a famous victory up against the most unelectable Labour leader in history and did so through a pack of lies.
What's amusing if you don't care about Britain (I do for the record) is to watch the whole shebang fall apart.
He is a published author. I understand that can take some doing.
I seriously dont think anyone can really argue that Johnson has not achieved anything in life!
I will agree with Mike on this one after Bercow has been cleared of the allegations against him, but not until then.
I would agree with that. I frankly also cannot understand why Karie Murphy was nominated for a peerage at all. Not is she an absolutely loathsome human being, and under investigation on all sorts of allegations, but she was an utter abject failure in every role she held.
If Starmer nominated her, that was a serious mis-step. I am hoping it was Corbyn.
I will agree with Mike on this one after Bercow has been cleared of the allegations against him, but not until then.
I would agree with that. I frankly also cannot understand why Karie Murphy was nominated for a peerage at all. Not is she an absolutely loathsome human being, and under investigation on all sorts of allegations, but she was an utter abject failure in every role she held.
If Starmer nominated her, that was a serious mis-step. I am hoping it was Corbyn.
It was Corbyn as was Bercow
Well, in a way that’s good news. But how typical of Corbyn to think of his friends and try to get baubles for them regardless of how inappropriate that is. For the few, not the many to the bitter end.
I don’t think anyone would accuse me of being a fan of Johnson or Cummings, but we still dodged a howitzer shell with Corbyn.
Sadly, this was always going to be the case in India.
Mumbai is full of densely populated shanty towns, a population that doesn’t understand the concept of social distancing and a healthcare system unable to cope at the best of times.
Sadly, this was always going to be the case in India.
Mumbai is full of densely populated shanty towns, a population that doesn’t understand the concept of social distancing and a healthcare system unable to cope at the best of times.
I will agree with Mike on this one after Bercow has been cleared of the allegations against him, but not until then.
I would agree with that. I frankly also cannot understand why Karie Murphy was nominated for a peerage at all. Not is she an absolutely loathsome human being, and under investigation on all sorts of allegations, but she was an utter abject failure in every role she held...
Indeed - but there are problems with all this in that there seems to be no public explanation for the denial of Bercow's peerage, so it might just as easily be pique (as evidenced in several of the posts here) as any concern for the bullying allegations.
I don't really give a crap whether he gets a peerage or not, but I do care about the office of the Speaker, and I note Hoyle's view on this seems to accord with Mike's.
Quite simply it is constitutionally wrong that a retiring speaker only gets a peerage provided he/she please the government at the time. Dangerous territory.
Giving automatic honours for doing your job is wrong. It should be changed to doing your job to an exceptional level with honour. I know that is not the current guideline but it should be and Bercow would fail on the bullying allegation.
Maybe create something else for ex political roles, but it should be nominal rewards not a seat for life in parliament.
I would like to see awards for gallentry and voluntary work only and the difference in the award being made on basis of what you did not your status.
I will agree with Mike on this one after Bercow has been cleared of the allegations against him, but not until then.
I would agree with that. I frankly also cannot understand why Karie Murphy was nominated for a peerage at all. Not is she an absolutely loathsome human being, and under investigation on all sorts of allegations, but she was an utter abject failure in every role she held...
Indeed - but there are problems with all this in that there seems to be no public explanation for the denial of Bercow's peerage, so it might just as easily be pique (as evidenced in several of the posts here) as any concern for the bullying allegations.
I don't really give a crap whether he gets a peerage or not, but I do care about the office of the Speaker, and I note Hoyle's view on this seems to accord with Mike's.
If Wikipedia is to be believed, the last Speaker who survived to retire from the role and political life not to be offered a peerage was Onslow in 1761 (Grenville and Addington left the role to take positions in government).
However, if he is being properly investigated for bullying that seems to me a reason to hang fire.
If the investigation consists of somebody taking a file out every six weeks, looking at the cover and then putting it back in a desk drawer, that would be different.
DJL, yes but Trump is a successful businessman. Johnson has never succeeded in anything. He was a lying journalist who got the sack, a terrible mayor of London and he's a bounder and a cad. He won a famous victory up against the most unelectable Labour leader in history and did so through a pack of lies.
What's amusing if you don't care about Britain (I do for the record) is to watch the whole shebang fall apart.
He is a published author. I understand that can take some doing.
I seriously dont think anyone can really argue that Johnson has not achieved anything in life!
Find the right post, at the right time, and I reckon you could get this place churning over that precise point for a good 8 hours.
Sadly, this was always going to be the case in India.
Mumbai is full of densely populated shanty towns, a population that doesn’t understand the concept of social distancing and a healthcare system unable to cope at the best of times.
And an utterly inadequate sanitary system.
But they are mainly young apparently it can’t happen when you have such an age profile
Bercow is very crass though - It comes through in his book - There is a bit in it when he talks of playing Boris at tennis. Bercow is an ex county player in his youth but seems to revel in stating he beat him 6-0 6-0 6-0 . A true sportsman and gent (especially when playing an inferior player) would never be as crass as to write that
DJL, yes but Trump is a successful businessman. Johnson has never succeeded in anything. He was a lying journalist who got the sack, a terrible mayor of London and he's a bounder and a cad. He won a famous victory up against the most unelectable Labour leader in history and did so through a pack of lies.
What's amusing if you don't care about Britain (I do for the record) is to watch the whole shebang fall apart.
He is a published author. I understand that can take some doing.
I seriously dont think anyone can really argue that Johnson has not achieved anything in life!
Find the right post, at the right time, and I reckon you could get this place churning over that precise point for a good 8 hours.
The social media wars are coming: Australian Court holds news organisation liable for defamatory comments published under Facebook version of its article.
"In blocking a peerage to Bercow Johnson is also going against the advice of Bercow’s successor, Lindsay Hoyle. Back in December he urged Downing Street to follow “custom and practice”."
I have respect for Lindsay Hoyle, certainly after Bercow, but he's hardly uninterested in this row, is he?
They do if they don't make sense in a particular case, as is arguably true here.
I personally think honours should be earned, rather than be given automatically for doing your job.
Anyway, if the HLAC decided not to recommend Bercow, at least until the allegations are settled, then wouldn't it be a breach of convention for Boris to nominate him?
The vacillating Parliament of 2017-2019 was truly a disgrace, determinedly trying to overturn the referendum result with ever more contorted logic and yet failing to use their remainer majority to actually seize control when they had the chance. Thankfully most of those responsible paid the price when they became accountable to the British people ending their Parliamentary careers. Boris, contrary to the thread header, was completely right to purge his party of those who would not support government policy and he will enjoy the benefit of that ruthlessness throughout this Parliament. I suspect those so keen to jump on the Cummings bandwagon might have reflected on that episode a little more carefully.
It has only just struck me - Wouldn't you have expected a president to have addressed the nation by now? Wonder what is going through Trump's mind at the moment?
It has only just struck me - Wouldn't you have expected a president to have addressed the nation by now? Wonder what is going through Trump's mind at the moment?
I will agree with Mike on this one after Bercow has been cleared of the allegations against him, but not until then.
I would agree with that. I frankly also cannot understand why Karie Murphy was nominated for a peerage at all. Not is she an absolutely loathsome human being, and under investigation on all sorts of allegations, but she was an utter abject failure in every role she held...
Indeed - but there are problems with all this in that there seems to be no public explanation for the denial of Bercow's peerage, so it might just as easily be pique (as evidenced in several of the posts here) as any concern for the bullying allegations.
I don't really give a crap whether he gets a peerage or not, but I do care about the office of the Speaker, and I note Hoyle's view on this seems to accord with Mike's.
If Wikipedia is to be believed, the last Speaker who survived to retire from the role and political life not to be offered a peerage was Onslow in 1761 (Grenville and Addington left the role to take positions in government).
However, if he is being properly investigated for bullying that seems to me a reason to hang fire.
If the investigation consists of somebody taking a file out every six weeks, looking at the cover and then putting it back in a desk drawer, that would be different.
The latter is a fair point. Why on earth has this investigation not been resolved already one way or another? We really want to avoid the American scenario where someone being "under investigation" for this or that simply becomes a smear.
The vacillating Parliament of 2017-2019 was truly a disgrace, determinedly trying to overturn the referendum result with ever more contorted logic and yet failing to use their remainer majority to actually seize control when they had the chance. Thankfully most of those responsible paid the price when they became accountable to the British people ending their Parliamentary careers. Boris, contrary to the thread header, was completely right to purge his party of those who would not support government policy and he will enjoy the benefit of that ruthlessness throughout this Parliament. I suspect those so keen to jump on the Cummings bandwagon might have reflected on that episode a little more carefully.
It has only just struck me - Wouldn't you have expected a president to have addressed the nation by now? Wonder what is going through Trump's mind at the moment?
"In blocking a peerage to Bercow Johnson is also going against the advice of Bercow’s successor, Lindsay Hoyle. Back in December he urged Downing Street to follow “custom and practice”."
I have respect for Lindsay Hoyle, certainly after Bercow, but he's hardly uninterested in this row, is he?
They do if they don't make sense in a particular case, as is arguably true here.
I personally think honours should be earned, rather than be given automatically for doing your job.
Anyway, if the HLAC decided not to recommend Bercow, at least until the allegations are settled, then wouldn't it be a breach of convention for Boris to nominate him?
Johnson has now created a new rule - outgoing speakers only get elevated to a peerage if they have pleased the government of the day. That is a constitutional outrage.
It has only just struck me - Wouldn't you have expected a president to have addressed the nation by now? Wonder what is going through Trump's mind at the moment?
I’d imagine he’s been locked up by his advisors, perhaps to be rolled out tomorrow to read a carefully written statement that doesn’t simply open mouth to insert foot.
The vacillating Parliament of 2017-2019 was truly a disgrace, determinedly trying to overturn the referendum result with ever more contorted logic and yet failing to use their remainer majority to actually seize control when they had the chance. Thankfully most of those responsible paid the price when they became accountable to the British people ending their Parliamentary careers. Boris, contrary to the thread header, was completely right to purge his party of those who would not support government policy and he will enjoy the benefit of that ruthlessness throughout this Parliament. I suspect those so keen to jump on the Cummings bandwagon might have reflected on that episode a little more carefully.
I still think this will play badly for SKS as he was one of the chief architects of using all sorts of parliamentary procedure to overturn the referendum result.
DJL, yes but Trump is a successful businessman. Johnson has never succeeded in anything. He was a lying journalist who got the sack, a terrible mayor of London and he's a bounder and a cad. He won a famous victory up against the most unelectable Labour leader in history and did so through a pack of lies.
What's amusing if you don't care about Britain (I do for the record) is to watch the whole shebang fall apart.
He is a published author. I understand that can take some doing.
I seriously dont think anyone can really argue that Johnson has not achieved anything in life!
To make a debate of it, you'd need to throw in the word 'worthwhile'
I will agree with Mike on this one after Bercow has been cleared of the allegations against him, but not until then.
I would agree with that. I frankly also cannot understand why Karie Murphy was nominated for a peerage at all. Not is she an absolutely loathsome human being, and under investigation on all sorts of allegations, but she was an utter abject failure in every role she held...
Indeed - but there are problems with all this in that there seems to be no public explanation for the denial of Bercow's peerage, so it might just as easily be pique (as evidenced in several of the posts here) as any concern for the bullying allegations.
I don't really give a crap whether he gets a peerage or not, but I do care about the office of the Speaker, and I note Hoyle's view on this seems to accord with Mike's.
If Wikipedia is to be believed, the last Speaker who survived to retire from the role and political life not to be offered a peerage was Onslow in 1761 (Grenville and Addington left the role to take positions in government).
However, if he is being properly investigated for bullying that seems to me a reason to hang fire.
If the investigation consists of somebody taking a file out every six weeks, looking at the cover and then putting it back in a desk drawer, that would be different.
He has been accused of bullying by ex Black Rod David Leakey and others and this is still unresolved
"In blocking a peerage to Bercow Johnson is also going against the advice of Bercow’s successor, Lindsay Hoyle. Back in December he urged Downing Street to follow “custom and practice”."
I have respect for Lindsay Hoyle, certainly after Bercow, but he's hardly uninterested in this row, is he?
They do if they don't make sense in a particular case, as is arguably true here.
I personally think honours should be earned, rather than be given automatically for doing your job.
Anyway, if the HLAC decided not to recommend Bercow, at least until the allegations are settled, then wouldn't it be a breach of convention for Boris to nominate him?
Johnson has now created a new rule - outgoing speakers only get elevated to a peerage if they have pleased the government of the day. That is a constitutional outrage.
I don't think he has created that rule. I don't think anyone has, but if they have, it's the HLAC.
The Commission's mandate is to ensure that political nominations meet the "highest standards of propriety". Nobody can say that Bercow does until the bullying allegations are resolved.
The vacillating Parliament of 2017-2019 was truly a disgrace, determinedly trying to overturn the referendum result with ever more contorted logic and yet failing to use their remainer majority to actually seize control when they had the chance. Thankfully most of those responsible paid the price when they became accountable to the British people ending their Parliamentary careers. Boris, contrary to the thread header, was completely right to purge his party of those who would not support government policy and he will enjoy the benefit of that ruthlessness throughout this Parliament. I suspect those so keen to jump on the Cummings bandwagon might have reflected on that episode a little more carefully.
I still think this will play badly for SKS as he was one of the chief architects of using all sorts of parliamentary procedure to overturn the referendum result.
If brexit features at the next election at all it will be because it is either a great success or a disaster, the history of who did what in 2019 will be irrelevant.
The vacillating Parliament of 2017-2019 was truly a disgrace, determinedly trying to overturn the referendum result with ever more contorted logic and yet failing to use their remainer majority to actually seize control when they had the chance. Thankfully most of those responsible paid the price when they became accountable to the British people ending their Parliamentary careers. Boris, contrary to the thread header, was completely right to purge his party of those who would not support government policy and he will enjoy the benefit of that ruthlessness throughout this Parliament. I suspect those so keen to jump on the Cummings bandwagon might have reflected on that episode a little more carefully.
So you don't agree with Burke's position, then?
Not when Parliament itself has committed to respecting a referendum result and then been elected on that basis in the 2017 election, no. But Burke never contemplated such duplicity.
"In blocking a peerage to Bercow Johnson is also going against the advice of Bercow’s successor, Lindsay Hoyle. Back in December he urged Downing Street to follow “custom and practice”."
I have respect for Lindsay Hoyle, certainly after Bercow, but he's hardly uninterested in this row, is he?
They do if they don't make sense in a particular case, as is arguably true here.
I personally think honours should be earned, rather than be given automatically for doing your job.
Anyway, if the HLAC decided not to recommend Bercow, at least until the allegations are settled, then wouldn't it be a breach of convention for Boris to nominate him?
Johnson has now created a new rule - outgoing speakers only get elevated to a peerage if they have pleased the government of the day. That is a constitutional outrage.
Even in bold that is not the case for Bercow.
He has to answer David Leakey and other bullying claims and let that be resolved first
Comments
Besides, the reason for him not getting a peerage is not even because of the above abominable behaviour; it is because of the technicality that he was nominated by the Labour Party despite not being of the Labour Party.
ETA and might also give cover to China in Hong Kong.
Ignoring conventions is, as we have also seen in the United States, the new orthodoxy. It is not just that Boris is ignoring the convention that the Speaker gets ermine; he is also blocking Labour's nominations, including that of Bercow.
But then he dragged HMQ into politics, had the Queen's Speech for the session that never was and never was intended, and prorogued parliament. He conducted a Stalinist purge of Conservative opponents including former Chancellors and other ministers and grandees. The election campaign included a disregard of truth and accountability.
So regardless of what hypothetical real Tories might or might not do, it is hard to see any relevance to analysing or predicting the current Prime Minister's actions. Quite simply, he is not playing by the old rules, and he never has been.
(£)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coronavirus-dominic-cummings-uproar-threatens-union-veteran-tories-say-pbb85pfk8
https://twitter.com/Nowooski/status/1267217069231099905
Also think about... well, all the other candidates. Kamala the cop, KLOBUCHAR who admittedly unfairly had a really bad police-killing-black-people news cycle, Pete Buttigieg whose main screw up was on this specific issue...
People laugh at the Democrats for screwing everything up but that's a *lot* of bullets to dodge...
He picked sides and as a consequence only his side favours his elevation. He has no-one to blame for this but himself.
I expect he will get it once the government changes. There might even be a sting in the tail as an ex PM doesn't get one either.
A similarly petty and insecure man who was unsuitable for the office.
On 03 April 2019 Bercow helped save Brexit.
Boris Johnson is a man who chews his finger nails.
But are the rules that the LoTO can only nominate someone in his party, so they couldnt have nominated Major Tom for example? That seems very old fashioned if its the case and should change asap.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8374831/Tom-Watsons-peerage-rejected-support-false-VIP-paedophile-ring-claims-Carl-Beech.html
The affair stinks. Lives were ruined and Tom Watson has never once apologised for his part in it.
To allow Bercow a peerage, in keeping with tradition, would be to concede that Parliament has a properly democratic role. Luckily for Johnson, most of the electorate won't appreciate that he fails to be constrained by such traditions as have come to go hand in hand with our constitution (such as it is). So it's not as if his decision on Bercow will affect his approval rating. He'll get away with this. Whether he can get away with his abject failure as a leader remains to be seen.
Instead with those allegations outstanding why should Bercow be made a lord when he hasn't behaved in a manner fitting of one.
What's amusing if you don't care about Britain (I do for the record) is to watch the whole shebang fall apart.
Maybe create something else for ex political roles, but it should be nominal rewards not a seat for life in parliament.
I personally would have given him a peerage out of respect for the office, not for him but I would also make it rather irrelevant by abolishing the Lords altogether.
On Bercow, it would be a pity to exclude from parliament someone so knowledgeable about parliamentary procedure and precedent. However his partisan behaviour in destabilising a fragile government at a time of great danger for the future direction of the country makes a peerage for him unconscionable. He is hoist by his own petard of rejecting tradition.
Sources differ as to whether the Commission went against Bercow due to the bullying allegations or because they felt Corbyn was not entitled to nominate him. But, in my view, the bullying allegations that you seem keen to minimise are enough reason to block a peerage at this stage. Quite simply, the wrong here would be to elevate Bercow while there is an ongoing investigation into allegations of bullying by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. And, since we have an independent commission to decide peerages, it would be completely wrong for Boris to overrule them.
You can attack Boris for not nominating Bercow although, as I say, I think it would be completely wrong to nominate him while he is being investigated for bullying. But refusing to overrule the independent commission is not petty or mean.
I understand the Commission has also blocked Corbyn's nominations for Karie Murphy and John Bercow.
I understand Bercow and Karie Murphy are subject to bullying and anti semitism claims and until these have been resolved of course they should not receive peerages
I also understand Tom Watson has been denied a peerage due to his role in the Westminster VIP paedophile allegations
How can anyone suggest these are politically motivated
If Starmer nominated her, that was a serious mis-step. I am hoping it was Corbyn.
I don’t think anyone would accuse me of being a fan of Johnson or Cummings, but we still dodged a howitzer shell with Corbyn.
Mumbai is full of densely populated shanty towns, a population that doesn’t understand the concept of social distancing and a healthcare system unable to cope at the best of times.
I don't really give a crap whether he gets a peerage or not, but I do care about the office of the Speaker, and I note Hoyle's view on this seems to accord with Mike's.
https://twitter.com/PhilipRucker/status/1267244996547284997
However, if he is being properly investigated for bullying that seems to me a reason to hang fire.
If the investigation consists of somebody taking a file out every six weeks, looking at the cover and then putting it back in a desk drawer, that would be different.
Do you want to play a game?
Off to write a book.
https://www.afr.com/companies/media-and-marketing/media-lose-facebook-defamation-case-mull-appeal-20200601-p54yar
I have respect for Lindsay Hoyle, certainly after Bercow, but he's hardly uninterested in this row, is he?
"Real Tories don’t ignore longstanding traditions."
They do if they don't make sense in a particular case, as is arguably true here.
I personally think honours should be earned, rather than be given automatically for doing your job.
Anyway, if the HLAC decided not to recommend Bercow, at least until the allegations are settled, then wouldn't it be a breach of convention for Boris to nominate him?
I am delighted he's been blocked from having a peerage.
The Commission's mandate is to ensure that political nominations meet the "highest standards of propriety". Nobody can say that Bercow does until the bullying allegations are resolved.
Aren't most of the riots in Democrat run states?
He has to answer David Leakey and other bullying claims and let that be resolved first