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.
Not sure, it is the right of the opposition to make trouble for the government. He has been very clear that the issue is now resolved and sought to put it behind him. That is the correct approach. Of course if he should end up as PM of a minority government he will find some of the precedents unhelpful but I am pretty sure he would live with that right now.
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.
One of the problems America has is that the division into two sides is so entrenched that everything comes to be seen in terms of the partisan divide. That's the sort of thing that worsens day by day in small increments until it seems insurmountable.
Blocking a peerage for Bercow is one of those things that marks our passage along the same trail. He was an opponent of Johnson's, therefore he must be thwarted.
On the bullying allegations I feel confident that if Bercow had been deemed to have been on the right side then those allegations would have received the same treatment as those made against Patel - a perfunctory investigation followed by exoneration.
My lack of confidence in the impartiality of such inquiries is another symptom of the widening partisan divide.
"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.
"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
How low can Johnson go , not just a lying cheating toerag but also a mean petty vindictive one as well. Big spoilt baby.
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.
wonder if trump and Boris chat online when they are in hiding, escape the boredom
On the bullying allegations I feel confident that if Bercow had been deemed to have been on the right side then those allegations would have received the same treatment as those made against Patel - a perfunctory investigation followed by exoneration.
My lack of confidence in the impartiality of such inquiries is another symptom of the widening partisan divide.
Nope, I think these allegations are far, far harder to dismiss due to the sheer number of allegations.
Even the terminology is cringe worthy. "Elevated". Why does he deserve his gong? It's outdated and it all needs binning. PB is forever moaning about how shite parliament is, and you still want to reward them!
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.
they don't want to announce he has no case to answer David, simple as that. Just nastiness.
"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
How low can Johnson go , not just a lying cheating toerag but also a mean petty vindictive one as well. Big spoilt baby.
Leave it out, Malc! You don't strike me as a cap doffer and forelock tugger!
Morning all and hope you are keeping safe. I am hoping to leave North Cadboll next week for the first time in 3 months as long as Nicola doesn't tighten things up again. Incidentally this life long Tory thinks she has played a blinder in her handling of the PR during this Covid-19 crisis. She has said it as it is in plain English whereas Boris and chums keep giving the impression they are only telling us what they think is enough for us to cope with!
Turning to Bercow, the odious little oaf drove a coach and horses through Parliamentary tradition when he enabled backbenchers to seize the order paper and he has publicly made no secret of his intention to stop Brexit by any means at his disposal. He was "no proper Tory" because he didn't believe the will of 17.4 million people should prevail when he and many of the contributors to this blog knew better. I am delighted if his Peerage has been blocked. I hope post Covid he is subject to a proper enquiry and if it is proved he bullied people or worse, he gold plated pension is reduced accordingly.
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.
It is all pathetic junk from the past, horrific to see these weak simple minded fools plotting , PAYING and begging for baubles to make themselves feel important , rather than the inferior runts that they actually are.
Bercow not getting one is petty and it will probably come back to bite the party so they might as well have not dig in their heels, but speaking as a fan of conventions it's not an outrage when they are not followed or new ones established, even if it may be a mistake.
As others will have noted Bercow himself pointed out how conventions and precedents change - that people are looked into at all before they get one being an example. So even when it's a mistake, and the motivation clearly more about petty things than the allegations, talk of outrage is hyperbole. He wasnt guaranteed one even if he could have reasonably have expected it. No doubt a way will be found for him in the future - and when the idea was first suggested I stated the gov would regret it if they did seek to change the convention.
So yes its petty but let's get real and to pretend that it is more than it is. Bercow either played the game in a way that he knew might have consequences or he was so firm in sticking to his duty and principals that he has provoked a reaction - either way he should not throw a tantrum and people not throw one on his behalf. If he is suffering for his principal then suffering with dignity will make the point better.
Not sure I can grieve much over anybody's failure to get a peerage but pretty sure this example has little to do with bullying and much to do with supporting Parliament against the executive.
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.
they don't want to announce he has no case to answer David, simple as that. Just nastiness.
The longer it drags on the more that is the suspicion Malcolm. Even in the current circumstances a time limit should really be fixed for publication of a report.
Mr. Password, do you not think the bullying allegations ought to be resolved prior to reaching that sort of conclusion?
What do you make of Watson's peerage being blocked?
To add to my earlier comment on impartiality I am reminded of the line in the Acuri report which said something along the lines of there being no evidence of Johnson directing that grants were made to her improperly, but that the officials concerned were aware of the connection between the two and knew that awarding the grants would please their boss without having to be told to do so.
So it will be with many of these internal inquiries. The people involved will know the outcome they are supposed to find and would have to be strong-willed indeed to find otherwise - as well as being free of partisan bias.
On Watson specifically it is not clear to me that he did anything other than make a mistake in good faith. Unfortunately in these times it seems necessary to form a personal judgement on every case, rather than being able to rely on the impartiality and competence of others to do so on your behalf, and it is not possible to consider all of the evidence on every case.
Like doubtless many others I spent far too long on the minutiae of the Cummings case and must avoid repeating the error.
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.
Too late for that. It's why nobody cares if someone is cleared by an investigation or not charged with a crime etc.
"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
So how many schools will we see opening this week? A tiny trickle today I would have thought but hopefully many more by Thursday or Friday. In Scotland the only public authority that takes state education seriously, East Renfrewshire, is looking to open schools for some pupils on 15th June. Those less bothered are waiting until August by which time most kids will have had no meaningful education for 6 months. Better start with the alphabet and numbers up to 10, I reckon.
It may be tradition that he should get a peerage but I doubt it will hurt Boris politically, most Tories loathe Bercow despite the fact he was a former Tory MP. Indeed the current incumbent, Lindsay Hoyle, is far more popular with Tories despite being Labour
Is there a legal limit to how long a household has to last for. Presumably two people could be part of the same household at weekends, but different ones midweek?
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.
they don't want to announce he has no case to answer David, simple as that. Just nastiness.
The longer it drags on the more that is the suspicion Malcolm. Even in the current circumstances a time limit should really be fixed for publication of a report.
There probably are time limits that are just not adhered to. Investigations must be properly done and even simple ones can be more complex than they appear, but its ridiculous how long they can take.
Morning all and hope you are keeping safe. I am hoping to leave North Cadboll next week for the first time in 3 months as long as Nicola doesn't tighten things up again. Incidentally this life long Tory thinks she has played a blinder in her handling of the PR during this Covid-19 crisis. She has said it as it is in plain English whereas Boris and chums keep giving the impression they are only telling us what they think is enough for us to cope with!
So that's the style what about the substance ?
How has Sturgeon 'played a blinder' there ?
As far as I can see Scotland has been worse on testing and at least as bad on care homes and PPE plus messed up on the initial Edinburgh outbreak.
While the government responses to other issues, either good like furloughs or bad like international travel, were outside Sturgeon's level of control.
Not sure I can grieve much over anybody's failure to get a peerage but pretty sure this example has little to do with bullying and much to do with supporting Parliament against the executive.
Do I detect Cummings' hand?
Hes not a puppet master over everyone. The simpler answer is a lot of people dislike Bercow, they dont need Cummings to pull strings. The allegations are key as without them there appears no justification for not following convention, so the motivation only partly matters - the motivation on it's own would not have led to this. But you have to behave really outrageously to cross a standards line, so I doubt itll hold up in the longer term.
Bercow used every trick in the book to subvert and destroy the government and now he expects that government to honour him?
Er no, that's not how it works, I'm afraid. Here's to more such ruthlessness from No. 10!
Government to Honor him? I thought it was the queen on behalf of the country that bestow honors can you try and leave your petty party claptrap behind for a day and argue from a none partisan viewpoint.
Is there a legal limit to how long a household has to last for. Presumably two people could be part of the same household at weekends, but different ones midweek?
As if anyone is going to be paying the slightest attention to the detail of the regulations any more.
Morning all and hope you are keeping safe. I am hoping to leave North Cadboll next week for the first time in 3 months as long as Nicola doesn't tighten things up again. Incidentally this life long Tory thinks she has played a blinder in her handling of the PR during this Covid-19 crisis. She has said it as it is in plain English whereas Boris and chums keep giving the impression they are only telling us what they think is enough for us to cope with!
Turning to Bercow, the odious little oaf drove a coach and horses through Parliamentary tradition when he enabled backbenchers to seize the order paper and he has publicly made no secret of his intention to stop Brexit by any means at his disposal. He was "no proper Tory" because he didn't believe the will of 17.4 million people should prevail when he and many of the contributors to this blog knew better. I am delighted if his Peerage has been blocked. I hope post Covid he is subject to a proper enquiry and if it is proved he bullied people or worse, he gold plated pension is reduced accordingly.
Her messaging has been clear but ultra cautious. She seems to fail to appreciate the economic implications of her decisions. She also seems determined to have different rules in Scotland as a matter of principle with no obvious justification. This has resulted in some confusion, not particularly aided by the BBC who can be unclear about which regulations apply where. Scotland has done particularly poorly in terms of testing capacity and this is going to be a problem as we attempt to come out of lockdown. But she gets a pass mark, I wouldn't quibble with that.
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.
they don't want to announce he has no case to answer David, simple as that. Just nastiness.
The longer it drags on the more that is the suspicion Malcolm. Even in the current circumstances a time limit should really be fixed for publication of a report.
There probably are time limits that are just not adhered to. Investigations must be properly done and even simple ones can be more complex than they appear, but its ridiculous how long they can take.
And when completed get locked in a safe, or did I miss the publication of the Russian interference report?
I don't know what part of the country they are reporting from, but here in Merseyside, I don't know a single school that is even partially reopening today.
My daughter has no date (She's in Year 3 - though Year 1 and 6 for her school are back on the 15th). My four neices have either no date, or 29th June (Year 6). My nephew has no date.
Certainly, my wife is resigned to not getting our daughter back before September, and I suspect that is the case in a lot of places.
"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
How low can Johnson go , not just a lying cheating toerag but also a mean petty vindictive one as well. Big spoilt baby.
Leave it out, Malc! You don't strike me as a cap doffer and forelock tugger!
TWS I would ban honours tomorrow, the whole system is rotten and is pathetic that grown ups are so desperate for little badges to try and prove they are not useless arseholes, they then pollute the benches for many years stealing money from the public purse. It is pathetic.
Not sure I can grieve much over anybody's failure to get a peerage but pretty sure this example has little to do with bullying and much to do with supporting Parliament against the executive.
Do I detect Cummings' hand?
Hes not a puppet master over everyone. The simpler answer is a lot of people dislike Bercow, they dont need Cummings to pull strings. The allegations are key as without them there appears no justification for not following convention, so the motivation only partly matters - the motivation on it's own would not have led to this. But you have to behave really outrageously to cross a standards line, so I doubt itll hold up in the longer term.
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.
Yes, it was Corbyn.
What I don't know is whether Sir Kendrick had the power to withdraw it. If he had that power, then he should have done do.
Like Bercow, it is unconscionable for Murphy to get a peerage at this time whilst her behaviour is under serious question.
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.
they don't want to announce he has no case to answer David, simple as that. Just nastiness.
The longer it drags on the more that is the suspicion Malcolm. Even in the current circumstances a time limit should really be fixed for publication of a report.
There probably are time limits that are just not adhered to. Investigations must be properly done and even simple ones can be more complex than they appear, but its ridiculous how long they can take.
Yes and when they don't like the answers they hide them under the bed.
A much bigger issue than Bercow is that from today a large number of voters no longer have representation in Parliament, thanks to the government’s decision to end remote voting and questioning. I have yet to see any sensible reason why this is happening. Can anyone help?
Bercow not getting one is petty and it will probably come back to bite the party so they might as well have not dig in their heels, but speaking as a fan of conventions it's not an outrage when they are not followed or new ones established, even if it may be a mistake.
As others will have noted Bercow himself pointed out how conventions and precedents change - that people are looked into at all before they get one being an example. So even when it's a mistake, and the motivation clearly more about petty things than the allegations, talk of outrage is hyperbole. He wasnt guaranteed one even if he could have reasonably have expected it. No doubt a way will be found for him in the future - and when the idea was first suggested I stated the gov would regret it if they did seek to change the convention.
So yes its petty but let's get real and to pretend that it is more than it is. Bercow either played the game in a way that he knew might have consequences or he was so firm in sticking to his duty and principals that he has provoked a reaction - either way he should not throw a tantrum and people not throw one on his behalf. If he is suffering for his principal then suffering with dignity will make the point better.
Why are you accusing the House of Lords Appointments Committee of being petty?
Bercow used every trick in the book to subvert and destroy the government and now he expects that government to honour him?
Er no, that's not how it works, I'm afraid. Here's to more such ruthlessness from No. 10!
Government to Honor him? I thought it was the queen on behalf of the country that bestow honors can you try and leave your petty party claptrap behind for a day and argue from a none partisan viewpoint.
I don't know if anyone's told you this mind-blowing fact yet, but politics _is_ partisan...
A much bigger issue than Bercow is that from today a large number of voters no longer have representation in Parliament, thanks to the government’s decision to end remote voting and questioning. I have yet to see any sensible reason why this is happening. Can anyone help?
So how many schools will we see opening this week? A tiny trickle today I would have thought but hopefully many more by Thursday or Friday. In Scotland the only public authority that takes state education seriously, East Renfrewshire, is looking to open schools for some pupils on 15th June. Those less bothered are waiting until August by which time most kids will have had no meaningful education for 6 months. Better start with the alphabet and numbers up to 10, I reckon.
My grandson is back at school today. God knows how they will manage playtimes.
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.
Yes, it was Corbyn.
What I don't know is whether Sir Kendrick had the power to withdraw it. If he had that power, then he should have done do.
Like Bercow, it is unconscionable for Murphy to get a peerage at this time whilst her behaviour is under serious question.
Irony of ironies that Corbyn nominated anyone for the sorry HoL. I would have thought Corbyn an enthusiastic HoL abolishonist. For once I am with him too.
There were serious allegations raised against Bercow years ago that deserve justice and investigation. It is to the shame of the last Parliament that opposition MPs openly put Bercow's usefulness on Brexit ahead of justice.
It's good that the new PM isn't making the same mistake. There is no excuse to elevate Bercow to the Lord's prior to resolving these allegations.
Bercow used every trick in the book to subvert and destroy the government and now he expects that government to honour him?
Er no, that's not how it works, I'm afraid. Here's to more such ruthlessness from No. 10!
Government to Honor him? I thought it was the queen on behalf of the country that bestow honors can you try and leave your petty party claptrap behind for a day and argue from a none partisan viewpoint.
I don't know if anyone's told you this mind-blowing fact yet, but politics _is_ partisan...
Out of interest, apart from posting on here, have you ever done anything for the party you so blindly support? Have you been out on the doorstep with your ‘Tory never wrong attitude’ or stood for election?
At some point the Conservatives are going to be out of power. I hope they can wrap up well for the cold.
They were out of power for 13 years from 1997 to 2010 but managed to survive
Actually, a large part of the problem is their residual paranoia from that time. All this rubbish about a deep state trying to thwart them comes from the belief that government was somehow rigged against them.
Bercow not getting one is petty and it will probably come back to bite the party so they might as well have not dig in their heels, but speaking as a fan of conventions it's not an outrage when they are not followed or new ones established, even if it may be a mistake.
As others will have noted Bercow himself pointed out how conventions and precedents change - that people are looked into at all before they get one being an example. So even when it's a mistake, and the motivation clearly more about petty things than the allegations, talk of outrage is hyperbole. He wasnt guaranteed one even if he could have reasonably have expected it. No doubt a way will be found for him in the future - and when the idea was first suggested I stated the gov would regret it if they did seek to change the convention.
So yes its petty but let's get real and to pretend that it is more than it is. Bercow either played the game in a way that he knew might have consequences or he was so firm in sticking to his duty and principals that he has provoked a reaction - either way he should not throw a tantrum and people not throw one on his behalf. If he is suffering for his principal then suffering with dignity will make the point better.
Why are you accusing the House of Lords Appointments Committee of being petty?
Its petty of the government to have openly talked about withholding even before he stepped down. Its petty that they so desperately want to prevent him for political reasons and are fortunate there are allegations.
I agree that it's not an outrage because they are not in full control of the process.
All jokes aside, I noticed that you can only go to the funeral of a close friend if (and only if) no members of the deceased's household or family members are there.
Idiot. 2m rule still applies. Is that difficult to understand?
Technically you could watch 2 people from the same household have sex outside under the regulations as long as you stay 2 metres from them and had their consent.
Though you would have to keep away from others to avoid public decency infringements
"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.
In Bercow's case, it's by no means as simple as that. Firstly, there is the matter of his alleged bullying conduct towards several members of his staff, and the fact that it is the subject of an unresolved parliamentary investigation. Secondly, precedent and tradition meant nothing to Bercow in 2019 when he was quite content to throw the parliamentary rule book out of the window to suit his own political purposes. It is not a matter even that he disregarded neutrality in order to stand in the way of the government of the day (or "failed to please" as you put it), it is that he trashed precedent in order to do so.
Likewise, it is reasonable to refuse Karie Murphy's nomination whilst she is under active investigation for alleged anti-semitic offences. Bercow could hardly be granted a Lordship if Murphy is refused on similar grounds. So at least there is consistency in the PM's actions.
The refusal that I have difficulty with is that of Tom Watson. Whatever his errors in believing the paedophile accuser, he was not the only one to be taken in and his motives were good. He acted in good faith to try and shake the cage in the face of what he thought was an establishment cover up. He's being refused a peerage for no more than an error of judgement made in good faith, despite decades of long service to the Labour Party.
At some point the Conservatives are going to be out of power. I hope they can wrap up well for the cold.
They were out of power for 13 years from 1997 to 2010 but managed to survive
They remained on their desolate island as the 'nasty party' for the duration, but the bridges off the island remained intact. Cummings and Johnson are busy razing those bridges to the ground.
Morning all and hope you are keeping safe. I am hoping to leave North Cadboll next week for the first time in 3 months as long as Nicola doesn't tighten things up again. Incidentally this life long Tory thinks she has played a blinder in her handling of the PR during this Covid-19 crisis. She has said it as it is in plain English whereas Boris and chums keep giving the impression they are only telling us what they think is enough for us to cope with!
Turning to Bercow, the odious little oaf drove a coach and horses through Parliamentary tradition when he enabled backbenchers to seize the order paper and he has publicly made no secret of his intention to stop Brexit by any means at his disposal. He was "no proper Tory" because he didn't believe the will of 17.4 million people should prevail when he and many of the contributors to this blog knew better. I am delighted if his Peerage has been blocked. I hope post Covid he is subject to a proper enquiry and if it is proved he bullied people or worse, he gold plated pension is reduced accordingly.
Her messaging has been clear but ultra cautious. She seems to fail to appreciate the economic implications of her decisions. She also seems determined to have different rules in Scotland as a matter of principle with no obvious justification. This has resulted in some confusion, not particularly aided by the BBC who can be unclear about which regulations apply where. Scotland has done particularly poorly in terms of testing capacity and this is going to be a problem as we attempt to come out of lockdown. But she gets a pass mark, I wouldn't quibble with that.
The BBC have been woeful, they don't seem to be aware that they are BBC Scotland, they just parrot Westminster, lie about the numbers just to get at SNP.
At some point the Conservatives are going to be out of power. I hope they can wrap up well for the cold.
True enough, but I doubt this Bercow stuff will feature much in any score settling - the opposition will continue to get their share of peerage so any score settling will be proportionate as it wont be in a new govs interest to do otherwise.
Bercow used every trick in the book to subvert and destroy the government and now he expects that government to honour him?
Er no, that's not how it works, I'm afraid. Here's to more such ruthlessness from No. 10!
Government to Honor him? I thought it was the queen on behalf of the country that bestow honors can you try and leave your petty party claptrap behind for a day and argue from a none partisan viewpoint.
I don't know if anyone's told you this mind-blowing fact yet, but politics _is_ partisan...
Out of interest, apart from posting on here, have you ever done anything for the party you so blindly support? Have you been out on the doorstep with your ‘Tory never wrong attitude’ or stood for election?
In the words of Evelyn Waugh, I drink for the College
So how many schools will we see opening this week? A tiny trickle today I would have thought but hopefully many more by Thursday or Friday. In Scotland the only public authority that takes state education seriously, East Renfrewshire, is looking to open schools for some pupils on 15th June. Those less bothered are waiting until August by which time most kids will have had no meaningful education for 6 months. Better start with the alphabet and numbers up to 10, I reckon.
My grandson is back at school today. God knows how they will manage playtimes.
Well, the children will go and play (probably) so social distancing will go out the window within 3 seconds.
Unless they don't intend to let them out at playtime. I know our school is considering this.
At some point the Conservatives are going to be out of power. I hope they can wrap up well for the cold.
They were out of power for 13 years from 1997 to 2010 but managed to survive
Actually, a large part of the problem is their residual paranoia from that time. All this rubbish about a deep state trying to thwart them comes from the belief that government was somehow rigged against them.
Some Tory posters on this site have similar issues, believing that they have to fight dirty because Blair somehow cheated by winning in 1997, rather than merely running on a popular centrist platform against an exhausted and demoralised government. Tories don't have a divine right to run this country, the peaceful transfer of power between competing political parties with a well informed electorate helped by a fair and independent media should be something that we all aspire to, instead of some kind of politics as total war mindset in which the truth is the first casualty.
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.
Yes, it was Corbyn.
What I don't know is whether Sir Kendrick had the power to withdraw it. If he had that power, then he should have done do.
Like Bercow, it is unconscionable for Murphy to get a peerage at this time whilst her behaviour is under serious question.
Irony of ironies that Corbyn nominated anyone for the sorry HoL. I would have thought Corbyn an enthusiastic HoL abolishonist. For once I am with him too.
Idiot. 2m rule still applies. Is that difficult to understand?
Technically you could watch 2 people from the same household have sex outside under the regulations as long as you stay 2 metres from them and had their consent.
Though you would have to keep away from others to avoid public decency infringements
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.
Yes, it was Corbyn.
What I don't know is whether Sir Kendrick had the power to withdraw it. If he had that power, then he should have done do.
Like Bercow, it is unconscionable for Murphy to get a peerage at this time whilst her behaviour is under serious question.
Irony of ironies that Corbyn nominated anyone for the sorry HoL. I would have thought Corbyn an enthusiastic HoL abolishonist. For once I am with him too.
I'll cut him some slack on that front - the system is what it is and it just made things more difficult to not appoint anyone (though I seem to recall a thread that he barely had). Getting rid of it completely would be a task to consider once in power.
A much bigger issue than Bercow is that from today a large number of voters no longer have representation in Parliament, thanks to the government’s decision to end remote voting and questioning. I have yet to see any sensible reason why this is happening. Can anyone help?
Boris loathes scrutiny?
To paraphrase the sainted Margaret - "We are a dictatorship"
At some point the Conservatives are going to be out of power. I hope they can wrap up well for the cold.
True enough, but I doubt this Bercow stuff will feature much in any score settling - the opposition will continue to get their share of peerage so any score settling will be proportionate as it wont be in a new govs interest to do otherwise.
I wouldn't be so sure. In the absence of deliberate steps to de-escalate the partisan conflict we can expect the situation to deteriorate further.
There's lots of potential to do so with the House of Lords because any partisan change can be justified on the basis of the inadequacy of the status quo.
At some point the Conservatives are going to be out of power. I hope they can wrap up well for the cold.
They were out of power for 13 years from 1997 to 2010 but managed to survive
Actually, a large part of the problem is their residual paranoia from that time. All this rubbish about a deep state trying to thwart them comes from the belief that government was somehow rigged against them.
It's almost impressive that that can sustain itself 10 years into government. If the tories do hold onto power in 2024 gid forbid how long labours paranoia will last if they win in 2029.
Deep state is of course an awfully convenient excuse for governments to get to play the game of opposition. Cannot say I've heard it used commonly in the UK like the US but it's not unheard of (and of course probably just gets called The Establishment)
FPT... regarding the reducing the Vanguard fleet to 3 boats.
HMS Vanguard has now been in refit for 53 months. In her 2004 refit she had the "Core H" reactor installed which was designed to be never refuelled or removed from the boat in its life. Well, guess what, the tories delayed the replacement Vanguard in the 2010 SDSR so they now have to try.
I think the rumours about retiring HMS Vanguard are basically an acknowledgement that it's probably going to be impossible to refuel it so the whole refit has been a colossal waste of time and money.
CASD with a three boat fleet is just about possible as we've had a three boat fleet boat for nearly five years since the Vanguard fiasco began. The real crunch will come in the next 2-3 years when Victorious will be overdue for her Long Overhaul Period (but not refuelling). You definitely can't do CASD with 2 boats. The original requirement for CASD with the Vanguard specified 5 boats...
Who on here is still sticking by updated government guidance?
I’m at the stage where not only am I not, I haven’t the slightest idea or interest what it is. I’m taking my own view about what’s appropriate now.
In a way, though, that was Boris's guidance, wasn't it? He said "Use your common sense", and I assume that's what you're doing.
Having rules and regulations that fit everybody's social interactions was never going to happen. Either they would be relative simple, and be inappropriate to the diversity and complexity of private life, or they would run to thousands of pages, and nobody would ever read them, much less follow them. Or they would be somewhere in between, and fall between both stools.
A much bigger issue than Bercow is that from today a large number of voters no longer have representation in Parliament, thanks to the government’s decision to end remote voting and questioning. I have yet to see any sensible reason why this is happening. Can anyone help?
It stops scrutiny of the government. Hope that helps.
Democrat-backed Antifa deliberately starting riots in Democrat cities in Democrat states, against Democrat-controlled PDs.
Yep, all Trump's fault.
The mental gymnastics are hilarious; I mean on the one hand the left attacks him for supposedly acting like a king, and then makes out he's a failure because he doesn't have absolute power over their mob. Which is it?
At some point the Conservatives are going to be out of power. I hope they can wrap up well for the cold.
They were out of power for 13 years from 1997 to 2010 but managed to survive
Actually, a large part of the problem is their residual paranoia from that time. All this rubbish about a deep state trying to thwart them comes from the belief that government was somehow rigged against them.
Some Tory posters on this site have similar issues, believing that they have to fight dirty because Blair somehow cheated by winning in 1997, rather than merely running on a popular centrist platform against an exhausted and demoralised government. Tories don't have a divine right to run this country, the peaceful transfer of power between competing political parties with a well informed electorate helped by a fair and independent media should be something that we all aspire to, instead of some kind of politics as total war mindset in which the truth is the first casualty.
By electing someone like Corbyn as leader, to my mind Labour were to the ones to declare total war on us. If he had somehow managed to win, that would have been the end of the British economy and society as most people know it.
Since then, they've managed to acquire a dull, normal-looking mask, but we know what lies beneath, because we've seen it with our own eyes for the last 5 years and aren't going to forget any time soon.
In the face of that, the Tories are not showing even 10% of the ruthlessness they should to ensure that Labour never goes down that path again.
That's just silly. I'm not a fan of remote operations but if they cannot go back to regular procedures they should keep the remote ones. Theres no point adopting yet new procedures.
Idiot. 2m rule still applies. Is that difficult to understand?
Technically you could watch 2 people from the same household have sex outside under the regulations as long as you stay 2 metres from them and had their consent.
Though you would have to keep away from others to avoid public decency infringements
So how many schools will we see opening this week? A tiny trickle today I would have thought but hopefully many more by Thursday or Friday. In Scotland the only public authority that takes state education seriously, East Renfrewshire, is looking to open schools for some pupils on 15th June. Those less bothered are waiting until August by which time most kids will have had no meaningful education for 6 months. Better start with the alphabet and numbers up to 10, I reckon.
I suggest that part at least of your post applies only to Scotland. As far as England is concerned, many schools have been open right the way through, for example the primary where my grandson teaches. Whether they have provided an education, as normally understood, is a different matter. My grandson, for example, doesn't feel he has provided as good an education to those he's been 'looking after' as he would normally do.
By electing someone like Corbyn as leader, to my mind Labour were to the ones to declare total war on us. If he had somehow managed to win, that would have been the end of the British economy and society as most people know it.
Rather ironic that it is happening under your party in that case
At some point the Conservatives are going to be out of power. I hope they can wrap up well for the cold.
They were out of power for 13 years from 1997 to 2010 but managed to survive
Actually, a large part of the problem is their residual paranoia from that time. All this rubbish about a deep state trying to thwart them comes from the belief that government was somehow rigged against them.
Some Tory posters on this site have similar issues, believing that they have to fight dirty because Blair somehow cheated by winning in 1997, rather than merely running on a popular centrist platform against an exhausted and demoralised government. Tories don't have a divine right to run this country, the peaceful transfer of power between competing political parties with a well informed electorate helped by a fair and independent media should be something that we all aspire to, instead of some kind of politics as total war mindset in which the truth is the first casualty.
By electing someone like Corbyn as leader, to my mind Labour were to the ones to declare total war on us. If he had somehow managed to win, that would have been the end of the British economy and society as most people know it.
Since then, they've managed to acquire a dull, normal-looking mask, but we know what lies beneath, because we've seen it with our own eyes for the last 5 years and aren't going to forget any time soon.
In the face of that, the Tories are not showing even 10% of the ruthlessness they should to ensure that Labour never goes down that path again.
Except we now have an extremist Tory PM prepared to abandon traditional constitutional element by only wanting to reward a speaker who has pleased them. Any government that has Cummings as a key figure is not in a position to give lectures on bullying.
At some point the Conservatives are going to be out of power. I hope they can wrap up well for the cold.
They were out of power for 13 years from 1997 to 2010 but managed to survive
Actually, a large part of the problem is their residual paranoia from that time. All this rubbish about a deep state trying to thwart them comes from the belief that government was somehow rigged against them.
Some Tory posters on this site have similar issues, believing that they have to fight dirty because Blair somehow cheated by winning in 1997, rather than merely running on a popular centrist platform against an exhausted and demoralised government. Tories don't have a divine right to run this country, the peaceful transfer of power between competing political parties with a well informed electorate helped by a fair and independent media should be something that we all aspire to, instead of some kind of politics as total war mindset in which the truth is the first casualty.
By electing someone like Corbyn as leader, to my mind Labour were to the ones to declare total war on us. If he had somehow managed to win, that would have been the end of the British economy and society as most people know it.
Since then, they've managed to acquire a dull, normal-looking mask, but we know what lies beneath, because we've seen it with our own eyes for the last 5 years and aren't going to forget any time soon.
In the face of that, the Tories are not showing even 10% of the ruthlessness they should to ensure that Labour never goes down that path again.
What a silly partisan response to a well balanced post. The divisive approach of the New Tory Right is every bit as depressing as the mindlessness of the Corbynistas.
Who on here is still sticking by updated government guidance?
I’m at the stage where not only am I not, I haven’t the slightest idea or interest what it is. I’m taking my own view about what’s appropriate now.
Fishing makes the point that it was impossible to have exhaustive rules for a more complex phase, so I think personal views will come to predominate.
I'm acting no different than a week ago, but then the only real difference during lockdown was I went to the shops less and had an excuse not to see family
Who on here is still sticking by updated government guidance?
I’m at the stage where not only am I not, I haven’t the slightest idea or interest what it is. I’m taking my own view about what’s appropriate now.
In a way, though, that was Boris's guidance, wasn't it? He said "Use your common sense", and I assume that's what you're doing.
I’m taking the view that government guidance is no longer following the science but what is politically convenient.
The nerds, geeks and camp followers will read the new guidance and quote from it. Joanna Public will not because it looks like a pile of gobble-de-gook and she has other things to do.
By electing someone like Corbyn as leader, to my mind Labour were to the ones to declare total war on us. If he had somehow managed to win, that would have been the end of the British economy and society as most people know it.
Since then, they've managed to acquire a dull, normal-looking mask, but we know what lies beneath, because we've seen it with our own eyes for the last 5 years and aren't going to forget any time soon.
In the face of that, the Tories are not showing even 10% of the ruthlessness they should to ensure that Labour never goes down that path again.
You didn't agree with the past leader of the opposition so you feel total ruthlessness is needed now? I see.
Democracy isn't just for people you think are sort of OK, you know.If you don't allow people with a quite different view to take part, you are narrowing the definition. In the same way, I think Farage is unscrupulous and deluded, but it's never occurred to me that he should be ruthlessly prevented from influencing British politics.
The effect of trying to ensure that people with unwelcome views don't win elections is to make them give up and try something else, as we're currently seeing with marginalised people in the US. It's not a route to pursue.
Comments
Blocking a peerage for Bercow is one of those things that marks our passage along the same trail. He was an opponent of Johnson's, therefore he must be thwarted.
Mr. Password, do you not think the bullying allegations ought to be resolved prior to reaching that sort of conclusion?
What do you make of Watson's peerage being blocked?
My lack of confidence in the impartiality of such inquiries is another symptom of the widening partisan divide.
Turning to Bercow, the odious little oaf drove a coach and horses through Parliamentary tradition when he enabled backbenchers to seize the order paper and he has publicly made no secret of his intention to stop Brexit by any means at his disposal. He was "no proper Tory" because he didn't believe the will of 17.4 million people should prevail when he and many of the contributors to this blog knew better. I am delighted if his Peerage has been blocked. I hope post Covid he is subject to a proper enquiry and if it is proved he bullied people or worse, he gold plated pension is reduced accordingly.
As others will have noted Bercow himself pointed out how conventions and precedents change - that people are looked into at all before they get one being an example. So even when it's a mistake, and the motivation clearly more about petty things than the allegations, talk of outrage is hyperbole. He wasnt guaranteed one even if he could have reasonably have expected it. No doubt a way will be found for him in the future - and when the idea was first suggested I stated the gov would regret it if they did seek to change the convention.
So yes its petty but let's get real and to pretend that it is more than it is. Bercow either played the game in a way that he knew might have consequences or he was so firm in sticking to his duty and principals that he has provoked a reaction - either way he should not throw a tantrum and people not throw one on his behalf. If he is suffering for his principal then suffering with dignity will make the point better.
Do I detect Cummings' hand?
So it will be with many of these internal inquiries. The people involved will know the outcome they are supposed to find and would have to be strong-willed indeed to find otherwise - as well as being free of partisan bias.
On Watson specifically it is not clear to me that he did anything other than make a mistake in good faith. Unfortunately in these times it seems necessary to form a personal judgement on every case, rather than being able to rely on the impartiality and competence of others to do so on your behalf, and it is not possible to consider all of the evidence on every case.
Like doubtless many others I spent far too long on the minutiae of the Cummings case and must avoid repeating the error.
Er no, that's not how it works, I'm afraid. Here's to more such ruthlessness from No. 10!
How has Sturgeon 'played a blinder' there ?
As far as I can see Scotland has been worse on testing and at least as bad on care homes and PPE plus messed up on the initial Edinburgh outbreak.
While the government responses to other issues, either good like furloughs or bad like international travel, were outside Sturgeon's level of control.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-52854688
I don't know what part of the country they are reporting from, but here in Merseyside, I don't know a single school that is even partially reopening today.
My daughter has no date (She's in Year 3 - though Year 1 and 6 for her school are back on the 15th). My four neices have either no date, or 29th June (Year 6). My nephew has no date.
Certainly, my wife is resigned to not getting our daughter back before September, and I suspect that is the case in a lot of places.
What I don't know is whether Sir Kendrick had the power to withdraw it. If he had that power, then he should have done do.
Like Bercow, it is unconscionable for Murphy to get a peerage at this time whilst her behaviour is under serious question.
It's good that the new PM isn't making the same mistake. There is no excuse to elevate Bercow to the Lord's prior to resolving these allegations.
I agree that it's not an outrage because they are not in full control of the process.
That's harsh, although I can see the logic.
Though you would have to keep away from others to avoid public decency infringements
Likewise, it is reasonable to refuse Karie Murphy's nomination whilst she is under active investigation for alleged anti-semitic offences. Bercow could hardly be granted a Lordship if Murphy is refused on similar grounds. So at least there is consistency in the PM's actions.
The refusal that I have difficulty with is that of Tom Watson. Whatever his errors in believing the paedophile accuser, he was not the only one to be taken in and his motives were good. He acted in good faith to try and shake the cage in the face of what he thought was an establishment cover up. He's being refused a peerage for no more than an error of judgement made in good faith, despite decades of long service to the Labour Party.
Unless they don't intend to let them out at playtime. I know our school is considering this.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/jeremy-corbyn-puts-john-bercow-and-tom-watson-into-house-of-lords
https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1267347183013150720?s=21
I’m at the stage where not only am I not, I haven’t the slightest idea or interest what it is. I’m taking my own view about what’s appropriate now.
Real Tories are not in charge.
There's lots of potential to do so with the House of Lords because any partisan change can be justified on the basis of the inadequacy of the status quo.
Deep state is of course an awfully convenient excuse for governments to get to play the game of opposition. Cannot say I've heard it used commonly in the UK like the US but it's not unheard of (and of course probably just gets called The Establishment)
HMS Vanguard has now been in refit for 53 months. In her 2004 refit she had the "Core H" reactor installed which was designed to be never refuelled or removed from the boat in its life. Well, guess what, the tories delayed the replacement Vanguard in the 2010 SDSR so they now have to try.
I think the rumours about retiring HMS Vanguard are basically an acknowledgement that it's probably going to be impossible to refuel it so the whole refit has been a colossal waste of time and money.
CASD with a three boat fleet is just about possible as we've had a three boat fleet boat for nearly five years since the Vanguard fiasco began. The real crunch will come in the next 2-3 years when Victorious will be overdue for her Long Overhaul Period (but not refuelling). You definitely can't do CASD with 2 boats. The original requirement for CASD with the Vanguard specified 5 boats...
Having rules and regulations that fit everybody's social interactions was never going to happen. Either they would be relative simple, and be inappropriate to the diversity and complexity of private life, or they would run to thousands of pages, and nobody would ever read them, much less follow them. Or they would be somewhere in between, and fall between both stools.
Yep, all Trump's fault.
The mental gymnastics are hilarious; I mean on the one hand the left attacks him for supposedly acting like a king, and then makes out he's a failure because he doesn't have absolute power over their mob. Which is it?
Since then, they've managed to acquire a dull, normal-looking mask, but we know what lies beneath, because we've seen it with our own eyes for the last 5 years and aren't going to forget any time soon.
In the face of that, the Tories are not showing even 10% of the ruthlessness they should to ensure that Labour never goes down that path again.
We had two friends with a dog over yesterday afternoon. I regret nothing.
Whether they have provided an education, as normally understood, is a different matter.
My grandson, for example, doesn't feel he has provided as good an education to those he's been 'looking after' as he would normally do.
I'm acting no different than a week ago, but then the only real difference during lockdown was I went to the shops less and had an excuse not to see family
Democracy isn't just for people you think are sort of OK, you know.If you don't allow people with a quite different view to take part, you are narrowing the definition. In the same way, I think Farage is unscrupulous and deluded, but it's never occurred to me that he should be ruthlessly prevented from influencing British politics.
The effect of trying to ensure that people with unwelcome views don't win elections is to make them give up and try something else, as we're currently seeing with marginalised people in the US. It's not a route to pursue.