Categories
Options
John Bercow – denied a peerage by BoJo on his retirement – now joins Labour – politicalbetting.com
John Bercow – denied a peerage by BoJo on his retirement – now joins Labour – politicalbetting.com
Generally speaking Speakers do not take part in the political debate once they have retired. Generally speaking, as well they are elevated to the House of Lords on their retirement but that didn’t happen with BoJoj who over-ruled this long-standing precedent.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
As for attack dog for Labour....the Red Wall aren't going to be impressed are they Mike...Mr Stop Brexit as many of them see him giving it large... will just remind all those Brexit voters that between him and Starmer weren't on their side (or that of democracy).
He isn't a powerful speakers, he comes across as arrogant and pompous.
Bercow has simply confirmed what Tories long knew about him. If he'd had any self-respect he'd have resigned the Speakership many years ago when he realised he couldn't be impartial and fulfill the role properly, that he besmirched the job is not a reason to reward him.
Not a massive fan of him, but perhaps another sign the 'Blue Wall' in the South of England is not as firm as it once was.
There are some of signs of the Blue Wall being in bad repair, this isn't one of them.
A good base to build on. It isn't just the Home Counties that are unhappy about the arrogance of Central government.
Indeed, his response was publicly to abuse those individuals in the media.
That is way more important than anything to do with Johnson's machinations.
Where are we on this? Has due process been completed?
If an investigation has happened and JB has been found to have done nothing, then I would support a peerage for him. If not, the question of a peerage cannot arise until the allegations are properly investigated.
If he is found to have bullied his staff, then clearly a peerage would be absurd.
ETA same as for dishonourable Speakers.
I think Bercow is an arsehole who made some blatantly partisan decisions for poor reasons (ie ones that were only reasonably explained by his own political wishes), but he did also stand up for parliament against government which is a good thing.
I think Speakers generally getting a peerage was a reasonable convention, but I wonder if it will go the way of ex PMs being elevated to the Lords, as to give Hoyle one when he stands down would, though more understandable, make it clear that if you are a Speaker disliked by government you won't get one, rather than it just no longer being the norm.
Interestingly Lord Sumption, a favourite of some, is quite positive about Bercow in his latest book.
It's fair to say many in the Conservative ranks have had very little time for John Bercow for many years. He wasn't the Speaker they wanted him to be and the vitriol is all fairly petty and predictable.
It happens with defections whether it's an MP, an ex-MP or a Parish Councillor. Leaving the party and joining another Party is the ultimate political sin from which there is rarely much in the way of redemption.
It may be Bercow will be a more effective "attack dog" than most in the current Labour Party - I don't know. Starmer has, especially through the pandemic, opted for "responsible opposition" because, he has probably reasoned, no one wins any prizes for opposing the Government at a time of crisis.
The problem is most crises generally are short in duration and "normal service" is resumed but the coronavirus has dominated political and public life for 15 months and inevitably the vacuum of opposition looks obvious when it's not being filled by the Official Opposition. Ask the question "what would a Starmer-led Government have done in March 2020 with the same information and expert advice the Johnson Government had at the time and the answer is probably much the same.
To be constructive (or responsible) therefore makes you complicit in the mistakes made because you'd have probably made the same mistakes had you been in office. That significantly neutralises aspects of the political fallout of the coronavirus.
Being so close to the Government nullifies the principal point of Opposition which is to provide not only a critique of the Government's policy but also a distinctive alternative approach.
That is the core of Starmer's problem - it is not Johnson who has been weakened politically by coronavirus but Starmer. The current crisis helps the governing party because the opposition approach leaves it trying to run with both legs tied together and one arm tied behind its back.
Once the public health threat of coronavirus eases and focus switches to the economic impact, I imagine Starmer and his team will (or at least they should) be looking to be more critical and more distinctive. That said, there is a point in opposition when you accept some of what the Government has done as being valid - indeed, one can argue Governments change for one of two reasons - either because the present approach has clearly failed and something new is needed (1979, 2010) or because the current approach is fine but the Opposition convince they could do it better (1997).
Johnson has though, ensured the ennoblement of almost as many questionable people in 18 months as Harold Wilson did in a dozen years.
Lets be clear
Bercow is vile
I must have meant "Loony left" by "progressive Labour", at least I hope I did. If asked now I would have thought Progressive/Blairites were the same
Edit: I will expand. Martin was a poor Speaker in many ways but he was not personally a bully nor was he arrogant and self serving. Martin was a poor Speaker but, from what I can see, a reasonable human being. Bercow sits in the permanently peed-in section of the human gene pool. He failed not just as a Speaker but as an sentient creature.
https://twitter.com/Holbornlolz/status/1406324733457702912
We've all had our differences over Brexit, the election, Covid, the EU, Trump...
Finally, the one thing that unites us all comes along.
Bercow. Let us all hate TOGETHER.
One, some will basically go 'I thought he had probably already joined Labour'. Two, others might suggest it is motivated by pettiness at not having been given a Peerage (whether or not one feels that decision was petty of Boris or justified). Three, that Bercow is a controversial figure and not a bipartisanly respected ex Speaker, means the gain of 'major figure defects' is more limited.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1406325730615730182
No Speaker in modern times has done more to tarnish their office than John Bercow.
But it only works while the Great Leader is winning and set to continue winning. Once the post-Johnson era becomes even a faint glow on the horizon, his ability to bribe and threaten people into line weakens. The same is true for all leaders, of course, which is why PMs tend to avoid talking about their retirement. It's also why Dom C made sure to mention Johnson's departure plans in his latest screed.
But BoJo has taken it up to 11. As with many Johnson innovations, it's not so much the fact of what he does, but the degree and the lack of shame. And it will work brilliantly for a while, like driving round corners 5 mph faster than the rest does. And then, at some point, it will stop working horribly. It's the when that is unpredictable.
The illegal searching of Damian Green's office was utterly disgraceful. It happened on Martin's watch and he should have gone for it.
Bercow clunk on for as long as he could, doing ever more damage, like a barnacle.
I have never liked him, but the problem is mostly in the archaic position of the speaker, and of the antiquated ruritarian rules that Parliament works to.
PBers triggered by Bercow
PBers triggered by the BBC
PBers triggered by Independent SAGE
And it is certainly true that some of the rules of parliament will be antiquated and its workings improved, but I must say that people do tend to ascribe too much to procedure when the actual problems lay elsewhere (eg balance of powers, political culture).
Heck, some are convinced that we'd have more engagement with politics if some very minor, trivial, ceremonial orpresentational aspects were altered, which strikes me as rather optimistic. Rules and procedure are far less of an issue than people generally think.
"They found that warmer temperatures (above 20° Celsius), increased humidity, and higher levels of UV radiation were moderately associated with a lower reproductive number (a measurement of how many new infections are caused by a single infected person in a fully susceptible population), meaning that these factors were likewise associated with decreased person-to-person transmission. Of the three factors, absolute humidity played the greatest role."
"In total, Chen and the members of his research team determined 17.5% of the virus’ reproductive number was attributable to meteorological factors."
https://news.yale.edu/2021/06/14/heat-humidity-and-uv-rays-linked-covid-19-spread-ysph-finds
But also in failing to detect that it was a serious issue - remember when the redacted version was issued and entire pages were blacked out apart from the number at the bottom.
I can't comment on Martin's personality - but I perhaps agree with RT on that.
But if we take her back to the shelter, she'll be put down, so we're stuck with her for another 15 or so years.
And he was a much better speaker than BoZo is PM
Edit, not the right one but I remember it. Guido posted it at the time of the expenses scandal
Edit 2: found it https://youtu.be/6Q6I6_WK2d8
The negatives were:
1. His personal bullying of underlings and then the use of his office to cover it up. (Albeit one should remember than Ms Patel is probably guilty of that too.)
2. The way he allowed his personal political beliefs to affect his role as Speaker, particularly as regards Brexit.
The positive was:
1. He stood up for backbench MPs against the Executive, which given that the Executive has steadily gained power relative to the Legislature is no bad thing.
In general, he's a failure. But I'd put him slightly higher up the ladder of Speakers than Martin - albeit in the same way I'd rather have Syphilis than Herpes.
A problem which faces many ‘powerful’ people who retire.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/06/19/exclusive-matt-hancock-kept-boris-johnson-dark-covid-vaccines/
Because the thing is, I don't see how one can say he is a powerful figure - are ex-Speakers powerful people generally? No. Their contributions are rare and that in itself may give it some weight. So what about Bercow personally makes him a powerful figure? Who does he have influence with? What power will come from his contributions in politics?
I meant the other one, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q6I6_WK2d8
This is harder edged, but very good:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzIwlcAtqpc
I have met both John Bercow and Boris Johnson and the former was much politer then the latter - and really very charming. It surprised me because it did not fit with the public image. My husband has worked with him professionally - in relation to a planning matter in his constituency - and was impressed by his hard work and attention to detail. Husband is rarely impressed by anyone, let alone politicians, so I place a great deal of value on his opinion. He does not give praise easily.
Perhaps there is more to Bercow than the rather one-sided view many on here seem to have?
On topic, I am not sure it will make a great deal of difference to Labour.
Politics is a brutal business, and when enemies are made a lot of shit gets thrown at people - but the amount of shit thrown at Bercow, and its breadth, is not normal political mucking about either. It's clearly not imaginary.
There are also examples of his poor Speakership which are unrelated to politics, as in the Clerk example I gave for instance. And criticism of him departing from procedure or convention with just cause (other than for political wishes) is a reasonable critique as well.
And we now know that key vaccine success info which was known would dramatically improve the outlook of the Imperial model was known about (just hadn't apparently plugged into the model) so it was known that the SAGE modelling released to accompany the decision was inaccurately pessimistic in its range of likely projections.
And of course the revised vaccine data was plugged into the model a few days later and Imperial officially downgraded their forecasts....
Very, very yappy dog - she'll start yapping long before the Amazon driver or postman reaches the front door, but she's completely harmless.
1. That report was into allegations of bullying and harassment by House of Commons staff and MPs not just Bercow.
2. Very few of her recommendations have been implemented and this is because MPs themselves have refused to take the steps she recommended.
3. A new Speaker could certainly do more to deal with the issues raised and implement her recommendations. If little or nothing has been done since November 2019, that is down to the new Speaker, one Lindsay Hoyle.
Which on balance, i consider a good thing.
I cannot say I've ever been a fan of 'irritating the right people' either, though each to their own. I think it becomes far too easy to find oneself defending awful things/people well past the point of reasonableness because they are irritating people we might like to see irritated (aka the Laurence Fox problem). It becomes tribalism by another name - sure, X is a terrible person/did a terrible thing, but look at how much Y hate them!