The fact he is willing to accept the deal rather than try to engineer Remain (or a No Deal) as many are doing shows his quality.
More like lack of it , a sheeple being herded into the pen , lacking the intelligence to think for himself and have some principles. Just do as ordered and keep taking the cash.
Except he's now indicating if the current instruction fails he won't follow an order to support no deal. We shall see next week if he means that.
Which misses the point that it’s utterly unrealistic to think that you might reverse the move towards an over dominant executive as part of some carefully planned process. That a government with essentially no majority has been able to exert an iron grip on the parliamentary timetable demonstrates how far down that road we were.
The general point is correct, but I don’t think it apples in such extraordinary circumstances.
Also the "rules" here are a bunch of vaguely-defined precedents. If there's one reason why you might want a system composed of vaguely-defined precedents, it's so you can adapt if the letter of the rules starts to conflict with their original purpose.
What you've got here is a system designed to avoid business getting obstructed and stalled. Normally the government wants to get things done, and MPs want to do the stalling and obstructing. But in this case it's the government that's doing the stalling and obstructing, and the amendment was specifically to stop faffing around and get let things get done...
I could accept that more if Bercows responses had not seemed to indicate he paid a lot less thought than that in terms of, whatever the merits of the decision, what it might mean for future business. It's not a clear cut thing and it may be ok but he personally seems to have been winging it for rather obvious personal reasons. The mutual hatred between him and the government doesn't help his defence or the government's attacks of course, since we cannot take either at face value (does anyone actually believe his decisions are not motivated in part by that hatred, and likewise the criticisms of him? Dont make me laugh), and respectable people are falling on both sides of it.
Bercow’s personal motivations aren’t really of great concern at this point, compared to the substantive issue. I have no love for him at all, and an early departure would be welcome - but on this I think he was, on balance, right.
Clerks should be listened to carefully in such matters. Nature of the job is you may be ignored or overruled but the people who look after the procedures tend to have reasonable opinions on them.
*cough* I have worked as a clerk*cough*
No issues with Clerks, but the pathetic attempt to push that guy as a "senior clerk" as if that means he is suddenly an expert on parliamentary rules just because he was a clerk , is pretty pathetic. Some dope trying to make his pathetic whine about Bercow seem relevant.
The fact he is willing to accept the deal rather than try to engineer Remain (or a No Deal) as many are doing shows his quality.
More like lack of it , a sheeple being herded into the pen , lacking the intelligence to think for himself and have some principles. Just do as ordered and keep taking the cash.
Except he's now indicating if the current instruction fails he won't follow an order to support no deal. We shall see next week if he means that.
The big unknown about a new election is where the anti-deal vote would go. Leavers could stay solid behind Con resulting in the kind of numbers @RoyalBlue is suggesting or they could split into two between Con and UKIP or whatever party Farage was supporting. It's really hard to tell, and we wouldn't know until the election was called and Farage made his move.
A new Farage party would most likely suffer from the curse of FPTP and have their vote spread too evenly. Even if they got a reasonable percentage they would not be able to build up a lumpy support and would only gain one or two MP, more probably zero again. So, they would simply hurt the Tories and thus help Labour.
I agree, that would be most likely. But if the Tories went to the voters with their hopelessly uncharismatic leader, a deal they all thought was a national betrayal and a record of chaos and division, it's not unthinkable that *most* of their voters would go to Farage. Farage would then end up as the Leader of the Opposition, against Prime Minister Corbyn, which is far closer to Number 10 than he can ever have imagined he'd get. I'm not saying that's the most likely outcome, but if you were Farage, wouldn't you want to give it a shot?
Farage would have a pool of 17.4m pissed off voters to fish in. Why not believe he could also beat Corbyn?
Yes, it's possible.
OTOH Labour Leavers seem somewhat less Brexit-focussed than Tory ones (I think there was something in a recent Kieran Pedley podcast about this) and it's the Tories who'd be running on TMay's deal, whereas Labour would still be offering Leave supporters their rightful unicorns. So I think it's much more likely that Farage would carve the Tory vote in two and only take a small chunk out of Labour, in which case the gods of FPTP would rain their beneficence down on Jeremy Corbyn.
Which misses the point that it’s utterly unrealistic to think that you might reverse the move towards an over dominant executive as part of some carefully planned process. That a government with essentially no majority has been able to exert an iron grip on the parliamentary timetable demonstrates how far down that road we were.
The general point is correct, but I don’t think it apples in such extraordinary circumstances.
Also the "rules" here are a bunch of vaguely-defined precedents. If there's one reason why you might want a system composed of vaguely-defined precedents, it's so you can adapt if the letter of the rules starts to conflict with their original purpose.
What you've got here is a system designed to avoid business getting obstructed and stalled. Normally the government wants to get things done, and MPs want to do the stalling and obstructing. But in this case it's the government that's doing the stalling and obstructing, and the amendment was specifically to stop faffing around and get let things get done...
I could accept that more if Bercows responses had not seemed to indicate he paid a lot less thought than that in terms of, whatever the merits of the decision, what it might mean for future business. It's not a clear cut thing and it may be ok but he personally seems to have been winging it for rather obvious personal reasons. The mutual hatred between him and the government doesn't help his defence or the government's attacks of course, since we cannot take either at face value (does anyone actually believe his decisions are not motivated in part by that hatred, and likewise the criticisms of him? Dont make me laugh), and respectable people are falling on both sides of it.
Bercow’s personal motivations aren’t really of great concern at this point, compared to the substantive issue. I have no love for him at all, and an early departure would be welcome - but on this I think he was, on balance, right.
His motivations aren't of immediate concern but in the longer term I do think motivations for decisions are relevant to note because make the right call for bad reasons and you're pretty likely to make a bad call for the same bad reasons, since being right, on balance, was incidental.
Clerks should be listened to carefully in such matters. Nature of the job is you may be ignored or overruled but the people who look after the procedures tend to have reasonable opinions on them.
*cough* I have worked as a clerk*cough*
No issues with Clerks, but the pathetic attempt to push that guy as a "senior clerk" as if that means he is suddenly an expert on parliamentary rules just because he was a clerk , is pretty pathetic. Some dope trying to make his pathetic whine about Bercow seem relevant.
Er, aren't they trained to be experts on parliamentary rules. Why else would the speaker and MPs consult with them?
Which misses the point that it’s utterly unrealistic to think that you might reverse the move towards an over dominant executive as part of some carefully planned process. That a government with essentially no majority has been able to exert an iron grip on the parliamentary timetable demonstrates how far down that road we were.
The general point is correct, but I don’t think it apples in such extraordinary circumstances.
Also the "rules" here are a bunch of vaguely-defined precedents. If there's one reason why you might want a system composed of vaguely-defined precedents, it's so you can adapt if the letter of the rules starts to conflict with their original purpose.
What you've got here is a system designed to avoid business getting obstructed and stalled. Normally the government wants to get things done, and MPs want to do the stalling and obstructing. But in this case it's the government that's doing the stalling and obstructing, and the amendment was specifically to stop faffing around and get let things get done...
I could accept that more if Bercows responses had not seemed to indicate he paid a lot less thought than that in terms of, whatever the merits of the decision, what it might mean for future business. It's not a clear cut thing and it may be ok but he personally seems to have been winging it for rather obvious personal reasons. The mutual hatred between him and the government doesn't help his defence or the government's attacks of course, since we cannot take either at face value (does anyone actually believe his decisions are not motivated in part by that hatred, and likewise the criticisms of him? Dont make me laugh), and respectable people are falling on both sides of it.
Bercow’s personal motivations aren’t really of great concern at this point, compared to the substantive issue. I have no love for him at all, and an early departure would be welcome - but on this I think he was, on balance, right.
His motivations aren't of immediate concern but in the longer term I do think motivations for decisions are relevant to note because make the right call for bad reasons and you're pretty likely to make a bad call for the same bad reasons, since being right, on balance, was incidental.
In the longer term he ought to be gone, ejected if necessary.
Which misses the point that it’s utterly unrealistic to think that you might reverse the move towards an over dominant executive as part of some carefully planned process. That a government with essentially no majority has been able to exert an iron grip on the parliamentary timetable demonstrates how far down that road we were.
The general point is correct, but I don’t think it apples in such extraordinary circumstances.
Also the "rules" here are a bunch of vaguely-defined precedents. If there's one reason why you might want a system composed of vaguely-defined precedents, it's so you can adapt if the letter of the rules starts to conflict with their original purpose.
What you've got here is a system designed to avoid business getting obstructed and stalled. Normally the government wants to get things done, and MPs want to do the stalling and obstructing. But in this case it's the government that's doing the stalling and obstructing, and the amendment was specifically to stop faffing around and get let things get done...
I could accept that more if Bercows responses had not seemed to indicate he paid a lot less thought than that in terms of, whatever the merits of the decision, what it might mean for future business. It's not a clear cut thing and it may be ok but he personally seems to have been winging it for rather obvious personal reasons. The mutual hatred between him and the government doesn't help his defence or the government's attacks of course, since we cannot take either at face value (does anyone actually believe his decisions are not motivated in part by that hatred, and likewise the criticisms of him? Dont make me laugh), and respectable people are falling on both sides of it.
Bercow’s personal motivations aren’t really of great concern at this point, compared to the substantive issue. I have no love for him at all, and an early departure would be welcome - but on this I think he was, on balance, right.
His to make a bad call for the same bad reasons, since being right, on balance, was incidental.
In the longer term he ought to be gone, ejected if necessary.
Well he's had a good run, near a decade is I think about average for Speakers.
I am surprised I've not seen it brought up that Bercow was opposed to appointing the current clerk of the house, since he had wanted to appoint that Australian lady IIRC. I don't believe that will have played a factor in his decision but I'm surprised not to see 'he's always not liked the person advising him' as a theory.
Clerks should be listened to carefully in such matters. Nature of the job is you may be ignored or overruled but the people who look after the procedures tend to have reasonable opinions on them.
*cough* I have worked as a clerk*cough*
No issues with Clerks, but the pathetic attempt to push that guy as a "senior clerk" as if that means he is suddenly an expert on parliamentary rules just because he was a clerk , is pretty pathetic. Some dope trying to make his pathetic whine about Bercow seem relevant.
Er, aren't they trained to be experts on parliamentary rules. Why else would the speaker and MPs consult with them?
Parliament decides its procedures, not the clerks. The decision may have been messy, but it was the Speaker’s to take.
Bercow features prominently in today’s papers ,understandably, but for all the wrong reasons. The days when the speaker had “neither eyes to see nor lips to speak save as this house gives me Leave” are long gone sadly.
When Parliament ignores its own rules, it brings our parliamentary democracy into disgrace. Bercow should go. He is a disgrace.
There is genuine reason to believe that "Will of the People" no longer exists, hence the need for a #peoplesvote. Leavers have nothing to fear from it if the people genuinely still want Brexit.
I'm all for a second vote, but the typical gap is about 40 years.
You’d be happy to wait that long should A50 be revoked ?
It really is very simple. Parliamentary maths says which of the two available options will we select?
Leave with no deal (default) or remain?
Deal will be voted down. Extention (if permitted) is irrelevant, it will still be default leave with no deal, accept deal or remain after any extension. Deal will still be our jettisoned, leaving the two polar opposite choices.
Additional negotiation will be minimal, any changes making the Brexit softer. As the gap between deal and remain becomes smaller the deal won't grow in popularity
One choice we aren't ready for, no deal and one choice, remain, that maintains all the drivers and triggers that propelled us to Brexit originally.
Great choice!
Perhaps Leavers ought to have considered this when they ushered in this fucking shambles in the first place.
As it has been impossible to agree a Brexit package, we should remain unti a viable compromise can be found.
That's a distraction. You know perfectly well if we remain that will be it, there's no reason to believe more time will lead more people to compromise. If no deal and deal are untenable then those believing that should just argue for remain forevermore. The deal was the compromise.
Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Your average Leaver in the street, from what the BBC found in Chelmsford yesterday, believes we should 'just leave'. However harmful that might be in the short term, and anyway that's all Project Fear.
Having watched this unfold I've come to the view that the sensible option would be for the PM to bite the bullet and announce that whatever the result of the referendum, after two years of negotiation, it was clearly just too complicated and costly to leave. Flat Earthers would have a fit, of course but's demonstrably true.
If a substantial portion of the population conclude that elections cannot be used to change governments or deliver constitutional changes, a smaller minority may resort to other methods to accomplish political change. Is that the kind of society you want to live in?
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nationesolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
They can see we’re in the process of becoming a failing state. And this is just the start. We have a No Deal to cope with yet.
I don't think we'll get No Deal. If Alistair Meeks is correct that 50 Conservatives will not countenance No Deal (and I have no reason to doubt him) then there will be a change of government
I just cannot see how that would work.
If a handful of conservatives who claim that no deal is unacceptable are not willing to sacrifice their careers by bringing down the government and, however temporarily, installing someone who will ensure no deal does not happen, then what is the point of their weeping about no deal? Sure, it is very hard and most just won't be able to do it, but a handful?
They’ll not back Corbyn to be PM and most Labour MPs will not back anyone who is not Corbyn.
Then their howling about no deal is entirely false. Either it must be stopped or it is not so bad if a very likely crap PM like Corbyn is to be worse than what they claim to believe about no deal. I could respect them if they actually believed what they say about no deal.
I agree. If you’re going to take back control you need to do something with it. This is a constitutional crisis that is much too big for everyone who has helped to create it. We are becoming a failing state. There is no good or easy way out from here.
Failing States are places where murder is rife and where basic administration ceases to operate.
You describing London
Even London isn't that bad. A lot of the world is astonishingly violent.
Certainly places that make UK numbers show us as Shangri La
Strange as it may seem,even the USA is not particularly violent, by world standards. The Caribbean, and most of Latin America are horrendous.
Clerks should be listened to carefully in such matters. Nature of the job is you may be ignored or overruled but the people who look after the procedures tend to have reasonable opinions on them.
*cough* I have worked as a clerk*cough*
No issues with Clerks, but the pathetic attempt to push that guy as a "senior clerk" as if that means he is suddenly an expert on parliamentary rules just because he was a clerk , is pretty pathetic. Some dope trying to make his pathetic whine about Bercow seem relevant.
Er, aren't they trained to be experts on parliamentary rules. Why else would the speaker and MPs consult with them?
Parliament decides its procedures, not the clerks. The decision may have been messy, but it was the Speaker’s to take.
Yes. Best hope he gave due consideration to all implications though, as Speakers should if developing new rules. Does that seem likely?
Bercow features prominently in today’s papers ,understandably, but for all the wrong reasons. The days when the speaker had “neither eyes to see nor lips to speak save as this house gives me Leave” are long gone sadly.
When Parliament ignores its own rules, it brings our parliamentary democracy into disgrace. Bercow should go. He is a disgrace.
Everything seems to go from one extreme to the other these days. The previous Speaker, Michael Martin, was well known for never saying anything apart from the absolute bare minimum.
Bercow features prominently in today’s papers ,understandably, but for all the wrong reasons. The days when the speaker had “neither eyes to see nor lips to speak save as this house gives me Leave” are long gone sadly.
When Parliament ignores its own rules, it brings our parliamentary democracy into disgrace. Bercow should go. He is a disgrace.
Except that the House appears to have given him leave. That government business managers found him disobliging is another matter.
It really is very simple. Parliamentary maths says which of the two available options will we select?
Leave with no deal (default) or remain?
Deal will be voted down. Extention (if permitted) is irrelevant, it will still be default leave with no deal, accept deal or remain after any extension. Deal will still be our jettisoned, leaving the two polar opposite choices.
Additional negotiation will be minimal, any changes making the Brexit softer. As the gap between deal and remain becomes smaller the deal won't grow in popularity
One choice we aren't ready for, no deal and one choice, remain, that maintains all the drivers and triggers that propelled us to Brexit originally.
Great choice!
Perhaps Leavers ought to have considered this when they ushered in this fucking shambles in the first place.
As it has been impossible to agree a Brexit package, we should remain unti a viable compromise can be found.
That's a distraction. You know perfectly well if we remain that will be it, there's no reason to believe more time will lead more people to compromise. If no deal and deal are untenable then those believing that should just argue for remain forevermore. The deal was the compromise.
Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Your average Leaver in the street, from what the BBC found in Chelmsford yesterday, believes we should 'just leave'. However harmful that might be in the short term, and anyway that's all Project Fear.
Having watched this unfold I've come to the view that the sensible option would be for the PM to bite the bullet and announce that whatever the result of the referendum, after two years of negotiation, it was clearly just too complicated and costly to leave. Flat Earthers would have a fit, of course but's demonstrably true.
Giving the electorate a massive two fingered salute is never a sensible option in a democracy.
Are the rumours true that the government is now looking at a Hard Brexit ‘Leave Simulator’ for individual ERG voters. Under this programme, individuals can sign up and receive the full Leave experience.
First they receive a blue felt tip pen to colour in their passport and banana bending device. Note they will not receive an actual banana for 12 months,
As time goes by PAYE is adjusted to simulate Leave with higher personal tax rates for members of the programme . A special fuel payment card is included to correct the price of fuel to simulate a lower pound. A weekly lottery takes place to see who has to leave their job that week. The NHS introduces a premium referral programme, that ensures they can wait to be treated by native UK staff.
Five years into the programme, various exclusive new products are shipped to the individual representing the trade deals coming on line. New electronics from North Korea, cars from Russia, toilet rolls from South America and ultimately chlorinated pork scratchings,
Finally, a few years in the programme ends by slowly phasing the individual back to normal to simulate the UKs return to the EU.
Clerks should be listened to carefully in such matters. Nature of the job is you may be ignored or overruled but the people who look after the procedures tend to have reasonable opinions on them.
*cough* I have worked as a clerk*cough*
No issues with Clerks, but the pathetic attempt to push that guy as a "senior clerk" as if that means he is suddenly an expert on parliamentary rules just because he was a clerk , is pretty pathetic. Some dope trying to make his pathetic whine about Bercow seem relevant.
Er, aren't they trained to be experts on parliamentary rules. Why else would the speaker and MPs consult with them?
Parliament decides its procedures, not the clerks. The decision may have been messy, but it was the Speaker’s to take.
A Government strategy based on known, exisiting rules has been left in tatters by the capricious act of a little man who hates it. If ever a Government needed some certainties, this is that time. Instead, we have a side order of chaos.
You know that little comic theatre, where the new Speaker is dragged, oh so reluctantly, to the Chair? Well, I'd love to see him dragged out of it by MPs......
Bercow features prominently in today’s papers ,understandably, but for all the wrong reasons. The days when the speaker had “neither eyes to see nor lips to speak save as this house gives me Leave” are long gone sadly.
When Parliament ignores its own rules, it brings our parliamentary democracy into disgrace. Bercow should go. He is a disgrace.
Except that the House appears to have given him leave. That government business managers found him disobliging is another matter.
Actually, they didn’t. That is what all the fuss is about. He ignored the advice he had been given on the matter.
It really is very simple. Parliamentary maths says which of the two available options will we select?
Leave with no deal (default) or remain?
Deal will be voted down. Extention (if permitted) is irrelevant, it will still be default leave with no deal, accept deal or remain after any extension. Deal will still be our jettisoned, leaving the two polar opposite choices.
Additional negotiation will be minimal, any changes making the Brexit softer. As the gap between deal and remain becomes smaller the deal won't grow in popularity
One choice we aren't ready for, no deal and one choice, remain, that maintains all the drivers and triggers that propelled us to Brexit originally.
Great choice!
Perhaps Leavers ought to have considered this when they ushered in this fucking shambles in the first place.
As it has been impossible to agree a Brexit package, we should remain unti a viable compromise can be found.
That's a distraction. You know perfectly well if we remain that will be it, there's no reason to believe more time will lead more people to compromise. If no deal and deal are untenable then those believing that should just argue for remain forevermore. The deal was the compromise.
Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Your average Leaver in the street, from what the BBC found in Chelmsford yesterday, believes we should 'just leave'. However harmful that might be in the short term, and anyway that's all Project Fear.
Having watched this unfold I've come to the view that the sensible option would be for the PM to bite the bullet and announce that whatever the result of the referendum, after two years of negotiation, it was clearly just too complicated and costly to leave. Flat Earthers would have a fit, of course but's demonstrably true.
If a substantial portion of the population conclude that elections cannot be used to change governments or deliver constitutional changes, a smaller minority may resort to other methods to accomplish political change. Is that the kind of society you want to live in?
It's usually better to face one's opponents on the hustings than the battlefield.
Speakers are typically given a peerage and sit as cross benchers per Erskine May. I wonder if, given Bercow is no fan of slavishly following precedent certain pettiness would see him not given one. I think that unlikely, due to the dignity of his office, but perhaps he would not wish to be a cross benchers. Again, also probably unlikely but he clearly likes to get stuck in and seems to miss the partisan cut and thrust.
The big unknown about a new election is where the anti-deal vote would go. Leavers could stay solid behind Con resulting in the kind of numbers @RoyalBlue is suggesting or they could split into two between Con and UKIP or whatever party Farage was supporting. It's really hard to tell, and we wouldn't know until the election was called and Farage made his move.
A new Farage party would most likely suffer from the curse of FPTP and have their vote spread too evenly. Even if they got a reasonable percentage they would not be able to build up a lumpy support and would only gain one or two MP, more probably zero again. So, they would simply hurt the Tories and thus help Labour.
I agree, that would be most likely. But if the Tories went to the voters with their hopelessly uncharismatic leader, a deal they all thought was a national betrayal and a record of chaos and division, it's not unthinkable that *most* of their voters would go to Farage. Farage would then end up as the Leader of the Opposition, against Prime Minister Corbyn, which is far closer to Number 10 than he can ever have imagined he'd get. I'm not saying that's the most likely outcome, but if you were Farage, wouldn't you want to give it a shot?
Farage would have a pool of 17.4m pissed off voters to fish in. Why not believe he could also beat Corbyn?
Yes, it's possible.
OTOH Labour Leavers seem somewhat less Brexit-focussed than Tory ones (I think there was something in a recent Kieran Pedley podcast about this) and it's the Tories who'd be running on TMay's deal, whereas Labour would still be offering Leave supporters their rightful unicorns. So I think it's much more likely that Farage would carve the Tory vote in two and only take a small chunk out of Labour, in which case the gods of FPTP would rain their beneficence down on Jeremy Corbyn.
Labour Leave inclined voters are not so Brexit-focussed because they know their party is led by a genuine Brexiteer.
Speakers are typically given a peerage and sit as cross benchers per Erskine May. I wonder if, given Bercow is no fan of slavishly following precedent certain pettiness would see him not given one. I think that unlikely, due to the dignity of his office, but perhaps he would not wish to be a cross benchers. Again, also probably unlikely but he clearly likes to get stuck in and seems to miss the partisan cut and thrust.
The big unknown about a new election is where the anti-deal vote would go. Leavers could stay solid behind Con resulting in the kind of numbers @RoyalBlue is suggesting or they could split into two between Con and UKIP or whatever party Farage was supporting. It's really hard to tell, and we wouldn't know until the election was called and Farage made his move.
A new Farage party would most likely suffer from the curse of FPTP and have their vote spread too evenly. Even if they got a reasonable percentage they would not be able to build up a lumpy support and would only gain one or two MP, more probably zero again. So, they would simply hurt the Tories and thus help Labour.
I agree, that would be most likely. But if the Tories went to the voters with their hopelessly uncharismatic leader, a deal they all thought was a national betrayal and a record of chaos and division, it's not unthinkable that *most* of their voters would go to Farage. Farage would then end up as the Leader of the Opposition, against Prime Minister Corbyn, which is far closer to Number 10 than he can ever have imagined he'd get. I'm not saying that's the most likely outcome, but if you were Farage, wouldn't you want to give it a shot?
Farage would have a pool of 17.4m pissed off voters to fish in. Why not believe he could also beat Corbyn?
Yes, it's possible.
OTOH Labour Leavers seem somewhat less Brexit-focussed than Tory ones (I think there was something in a recent Kieran Pedley podcast about this) and it's the Tories who'd be running on TMay's deal, whereas Labour would still be offering Leave supporters their rightful unicorns. So I think it's much more likely that Farage would carve the Tory vote in two and only take a small chunk out of Labour, in which case the gods of FPTP would rain their beneficence down on Jeremy Corbyn.
Labour Leave inclined voters are not so Brexit-focussed because they know their party is led by a genuine Brexiteer.
The shit-storm starts when he doesn't deliver it....
Another chance for macron to see his popularity dip.
Christophe Dettinger the former boxing heavyweight champion of France goes to court. He is becoming a cause celebre for the gilets jaunes after getting cuaght up in a police confrontation and boxing his way out of it. He has handed himself in to police and is on a charge but the public is dipping in to their pockets to fund his defence and now crowds are turning up outside the court. On the other hand his boxing whacked two police officers and one of them is off duty recovering despite all his riot gear. The state cant be seen to back down. Either way this will now play out to mid February and keep the gilets jaunes motivated,
The big unknown about a new election is where the anti-deal vote would go. Leavers could stay solid behind Con resulting in the kind of numbers @RoyalBlue is suggesting or they could split into two between Con and UKIP or whatever party Farage was supporting. It's really hard to tell, and we wouldn't know until the election was called and Farage made his move.
A new Farage party would most likely suffer from the curse of FPTP and have their vote spread too evenly. Even if they got a reasonable percentage they would not be able to build up a lumpy support and would only gain one or two MP, more probably zero again. So, they would simply hurt the Tories and thus help Labour.
I agree, that would be most likely. But if the Tories went to the voters with their hopelessly uncharismatic leader, a deal they all thought was a national betrayal and a record of chaos and division, it's not unthinkable that *most* of their voters would go to Farage. Farage would then end up as the Leader of the Opposition, against Prime Minister Corbyn, which is far closer to Number 10 than he can ever have imagined he'd get. I'm not saying that's the most likely outcome, but if you were Farage, wouldn't you want to give it a shot?
Farage would have a pool of 17.4m pissed off voters to fish in. Why not believe he could also beat Corbyn?
Yes, it's possible.
OTOH Labour Leavers seem somewhat less Brexit-focussed than Tory ones (I think there was something in a recent Kieran Pedley podcast about this) and it's the Tories who'd be running on TMay's deal, whereas Labour would still be offering Leave supporters their rightful unicorns. So I think it's much more likely that Farage would carve the Tory vote in two and only take a small chunk out of Labour, in which case the gods of FPTP would rain their beneficence down on Jeremy Corbyn.
Labour Leave inclined voters are not so Brexit-focussed because they know their party is led by a genuine Brexiteer.
The shit-storm starts when he doesn't deliver it....
Speakers are typically given a peerage and sit as cross benchers per Erskine May. I wonder if, given Bercow is no fan of slavishly following precedent certain pettiness would see him not given one. I think that unlikely, due to the dignity of his office, but perhaps he would not wish to be a cross benchers. Again, also probably unlikely but he clearly likes to get stuck in and seems to miss the partisan cut and thrust.
He 'd take the Labour whip.
He does from his wife doesn’t he ? She was chasing a Labour candidature a few years back.
Speakers are typically given a peerage and sit as cross benchers per Erskine May. I wonder if, given Bercow is no fan of slavishly following precedent certain pettiness would see him not given one. I think that unlikely, due to the dignity of his office, but perhaps he would not wish to be a cross benchers. Again, also probably unlikely but he clearly likes to get stuck in and seems to miss the partisan cut and thrust.
When I was at Primary School a guy called Ted Heath had just won an election. I had been very interested and done my little bit of leafleting for the party. My school teacher thought it would be a good idea to have a mock Parliament in the class. Actually, it was probably my idea. My teacher, who knew less about politics than me even then decided I should be the Speaker. What a frustrating role that was! I've never forgotten it. In fact it has probably influenced my career choices to this day.
Check my exam answer time, for if the government falls:
Meaningful vote: Tues 15/1 3 day response: Statement on Fri 18/1 VoNC debate: Mon 21/1 Deadline for confidence regain: Mon 4/2 FTPA 7 Thursdays afterwards for GE: Thurs 28/3 Results / first chance to see Queen and form governent:: Fri 29/3 early pm GMT, later CET A50 expires: Fri 29/3 @ 2300 GMT
Jack Ryan has my vote.
But, actually, Corbyn extending A50 prior to testing the confidence of the house, as per David Herdson, starts to make sense against such dates.
Bercow features prominently in today’s papers ,understandably, but for all the wrong reasons. The days when the speaker had “neither eyes to see nor lips to speak save as this house gives me Leave” are long gone sadly.
When Parliament ignores its own rules, it brings our parliamentary democracy into disgrace. Bercow should go. He is a disgrace.
Except that the House appears to have given him leave. That government business managers found him disobliging is another matter.
Actually, they didn’t. That is what all the fuss is about. He ignored the advice he had been given on the matter.
Completely missing the point. And to quote the words of a Speaker defending the authority of parliament over the executive in order to attack another one doing very much the same thing seems pretty odd.
The big unknown about a new election is where the anti-deal vote would go. Leavers could stay solid behind Con resulting in the kind of numbers @RoyalBlue is suggesting or they could split into two between Con and UKIP or whatever party Farage was supporting. It's really hard to tell, and we wouldn't know until the election was called and Farage made his move.
A new Farage party would most likely suffer from the curse of FPTP and have their vote spread too evenly. Even if they got a reasonable percentage they would not be able to build up a lumpy support and would only gain one or two MP, more probably zero again. So, they would simply hurt the Tories and thus help Labour.
I agree, that would be most likely. But if the Tories went to the voters with their hopelessly uncharismatic leader, a deal they all thought was a national betrayal and a record of chaos and division, it's not unthinkable that *most* of their voters would go to Farage. Farage would then end up as the Leader of the Opposition, against Prime Minister Corbyn, which is far closer to Number 10 than he can ever have imagined he'd get. I'm not saying that's the most likely outcome, but if you were Farage, wouldn't you want to give it a shot?
Farage would have a pool of 17.4m pissed off voters to fish in. Why not believe he could also beat Corbyn?
Yes, it's possible.
OTOH Labour Leavers seem somewhat less Brexit-focussed than Tory ones (I think there was something in a recent Kieran Pedley podcast about this) and it's the Tories who'd be running on TMay's deal, whereas Labour would still be offering Leave supporters their rightful unicorns. So I think it's much more likely that Farage would carve the Tory vote in two and only take a small chunk out of Labour, in which case the gods of FPTP would rain their beneficence down on Jeremy Corbyn.
In 2015 the Tories won a number of seats e.g. Vale of Clywd thanks to UKIP.
Of course Tory members would almost certainly elect a No Dealer like Boris if Farage surged soon enough anyway
Valid commentary, obviously. There are, I think, two good arguments for Bercow acting as he did. One general point and one specific to the circumstances.
The general point is this is a decision about procedure that doesn't touch on substantive issues. In other words the decision is about whether parliament is allowed to discuss its own business. The presumption should be yes.
The specific point is that the original implementation assumed the meaningful vote would take place in December. The government pulled that vote on a technicality. The amendment aims to restore the legislation to the original intention, in terms of timing.
Bercow could have made those arguments however, rather than just saying, I get to decide.
I think the deadline for the meaningful vote was 21st January?
I agree that this has happened in response to the delay in that vote. A majority of the House was opposed to that delay and Bercow has found a way for the Commons to fire a warning shot at the Executive to say that it won't accept such shenanigans.
Clerks should be listened to carefully in such matters. Nature of the job is you may be ignored or overruled but the people who look after the procedures tend to have reasonable opinions on them.
*cough* I have worked as a clerk*cough*
No issues with Clerks, but the pathetic attempt to push that guy as a "senior clerk" as if that means he is suddenly an expert on parliamentary rules just because he was a clerk , is pretty pathetic. Some dope trying to make his pathetic whine about Bercow seem relevant.
Er, aren't they trained to be experts on parliamentary rules. Why else would the speaker and MPs consult with them?
Parliament decides its procedures, not the clerks. The decision may have been messy, but it was the Speaker’s to take.
A Government strategy based on known, exisiting rules has been left in tatters by the capricious act of a little man who hates it. If ever a Government needed some certainties, this is that time. Instead, we have a side order of chaos.
You know that little comic theatre, where the new Speaker is dragged, oh so reluctantly, to the Chair? Well, I'd love to see him dragged out of it by MPs......
A strategy based on exploiting rules in order to prevent Parliament considering the matter for weeks at a time.
Your personal animus is risible. I don't like Bercow at all, and would be happy to see him go - but on this, he is right.
The big unknown about a new election is where the anti-deal vote would go. Leavers could stay solid behind Con resulting in the kind of numbers @RoyalBlue is suggesting or they could split into two between Con and UKIP or whatever party Farage was supporting. It's really hard to tell, and we wouldn't know until the election was called and Farage made his move.
A new Farage party would most likely suffer from the curse of FPTP and have their vote spread too evenly. Even if they got a reasonable percentage they would not be able to build up a lumpy support and would only gain one or two MP, more probably zero again. So, they would simply hurt the Tories and thus help Labour.
I agree, that would be most likely. But if the Tories went to the voters with their hopelessly uncharismatic leader, a deal they all thought was a national betrayal and a record of chaos and division, it's not unthinkable that *most* of their voters would go to Farage. Farage would then end up as the Leader of the Opposition, against Prime Minister Corbyn, which is far closer to Number 10 than he can ever have imagined he'd get. I'm not saying that's the most likely outcome, but if you were Farage, wouldn't you want to give it a shot?
Farage would have a pool of 17.4m pissed off voters to fish in. Why not believe he could also beat Corbyn?
Yes, it's possible.
OTOH Labour Leavers seem somewhat less Brexit-focussed than Tory ones (I think there was something in a recent Kieran Pedley podcast about this) and it's the Tories who'd be running on TMay's deal, whereas Labour would still be offering Leave supporters their rightful unicorns. So I think it's much more likely that Farage would carve the Tory vote in two and only take a small chunk out of Labour, in which case the gods of FPTP would rain their beneficence down on Jeremy Corbyn.
In 2015 the Tories won a number of seats e.g. Vale of Clywd thanks to UKIP.
Of course Tory members would almost certainly elect a No Dealer like Boris if Farage surged soon enough anyway
Boris isn't a "no dealer". He is just saying whatever he thinks is to his best tactical advantage at the time. He has no principles and no strategy, and would back an alternative deal, a referendum or remain in different circumstances if he thought it gave him an edge.
Speakers are typically given a peerage and sit as cross benchers per Erskine May. I wonder if, given Bercow is no fan of slavishly following precedent certain pettiness would see him not given one. I think that unlikely, due to the dignity of his office, but perhaps he would not wish to be a cross benchers. Again, also probably unlikely but he clearly likes to get stuck in and seems to miss the partisan cut and thrust.
He 'd take the Labour whip.
He does from his wife doesn’t he ? She was chasing a Labour candidature a few years back.
Not surprising to see the Daily Mail up to its usual tricks either.
After I criticised a Tory MP for a racist joke, the Mail sent a reporter round who doorstepped my wife, sneering at our small house ("I'm sure you have a nicer place tucked away somewhere") and trying to provoke an unguarded comment, and visiting elderly friends who we'd stayed with before and trying to get them to say something negative about me. Didn't endear us to the paper at all.
Bercow features prominently in today’s papers ,understandably, but for all the wrong reasons. The days when the speaker had “neither eyes to see nor lips to speak save as this house gives me Leave” are long gone sadly.
When Parliament ignores its own rules, it brings our parliamentary democracy into disgrace. Bercow should go. He is a disgrace.
Except that the House appears to have given him leave. That government business managers found him disobliging is another matter.
Actually, they didn’t. That is what all the fuss is about. He ignored the advice he had been given on the matter.
Completely missing the point. And to quote the words of a Speaker defending the authority of parliament over the executive in order to attack another one doing very much the same thing seems pretty odd.
If you're going to argue about the matter, at least sort out what you're arguing about.
All very interesting but had you read, and actually understood, what I said, you would have realised that it was the advice from those self same Commons clerks whose virtues you proudly proclaim that Bercow ignored and overrode. Why you dragged Gov business managers in was a pointless red herring - rather like your entire comment as it happens.
The big unknown about a new election is where the anti-deal vote would go. Leavers could stay solid behind Con resulting in the kind of numbers @RoyalBlue is suggesting or they could split into two between Con and UKIP or whatever party Farage was supporting. It's really hard to tell, and we wouldn't know until the election was called and Farage made his move.
A new Farage party would most likely suffer from the curse of FPTP and have their vote spread too evenly. Even if they got a reasonable percentage they would not be able to build up a lumpy support and would only gain one or two MP, more probably zero again. So, they would simply hurt the Tories and thus help Labour.
I agree, that would be most likely. But if the Tories went to the voters with their hopelessly uncharismatic leader, a deal they all thought was a national betrayal and a record of chaos and division, it's not unthinkable that *most* of their voters would go to Farage. Farage would then end up as the Leader of the Opposition, against Prime Minister Corbyn, which is far closer to Number 10 than he can ever have imagined he'd get. I'm not saying that's the most likely outcome, but if you were Farage, wouldn't you want to give it a shot?
Farage would have a pool of 17.4m pissed off voters to fish in. Why not believe he could also beat Corbyn?
Yes, it's possible.
OTOH Labour Leavers seem somewhat less Brexit-focussed than Tory ones (I think there was something in a recent Kieran Pedley podcast about this) and it's the Tories who'd be running on TMay's deal, whereas Labour would still be offering Leave supporters their rightful unicorns. So I think it's much more likely that Farage would carve the Tory vote in two and only take a small chunk out of Labour, in which case the gods of FPTP would rain their beneficence down on Jeremy Corbyn.
In 2015 the Tories won a number of seats e.g. Vale of Clywd thanks to UKIP.
Of course Tory members would almost certainly elect a No Dealer like Boris if Farage surged soon enough anyway
I was going to make the same point.
Vale of Clwyd and Gower are two stand-out Welsh examples.
There are seats were the rise of UKIP hurt Labour and delivered seats to the Tories.
A chaotic Brexit election will be hugely unpredictable.
If Corbyn can get through the election by being all Brexit & Bremain things at the same time, then he will win handsomely -- but it is hard to see that actually happening.
Speakers are typically given a peerage and sit as cross benchers per Erskine May. I wonder if, given Bercow is no fan of slavishly following precedent certain pettiness would see him not given one. I think that unlikely, due to the dignity of his office, but perhaps he would not wish to be a cross benchers. Again, also probably unlikely but he clearly likes to get stuck in and seems to miss the partisan cut and thrust.
He 'd take the Labour whip.
He does from his wife doesn’t he ? She was chasing a Labour candidature a few years back.
He was, of course, a former right wing Tory MP.
Bercow was about as right-wing as you could be in the Tory Party in the 1980s.
Glad for Mackinlay that he's been cleared - must have been a nightmare. The verdict seems fair, nailing the offence so parties don't feel they can just get away with anything, but not spreading the blame on everyone in sight. The judge's comment that CCHQ seems to have decided that anything goes seems entirely credible.
As Mayor of London Khan indirectly exercises the ' Police Commissioner ' powers for Greater London ( minus those reserved due to the Mets national anti terror role. And plus less restricted precepting powers ) Curiously PB Tories are less keen to blame all crime in force areas on other ( white and Tory ) PCCs. Or their own government.
Establishing London as Murder City in popular belief and blaming it solely on it's brown Mayor is just an effective mixing of standard rightwing tropes.
No, nothing to do with race, the Tory mayoral candidate is black for starters.
Plus as the figures show the murder rate in London fell by about 40 a year over the 8 years Boris was in charge at City Hall but has already risen by 20 a year in the 2 years Khan has been in charge at City Hall
Speakers are typically given a peerage and sit as cross benchers per Erskine May. I wonder if, given Bercow is no fan of slavishly following precedent certain pettiness would see him not given one. I think that unlikely, due to the dignity of his office, but perhaps he would not wish to be a cross benchers. Again, also probably unlikely but he clearly likes to get stuck in and seems to miss the partisan cut and thrust.
When I was at Primary School a guy called Ted Heath had just won an election. I had been very interested and done my little bit of leafleting for the party. My school teacher thought it would be a good idea to have a mock Parliament in the class. Actually, it was probably my idea. My teacher, who knew less about politics than me even then decided I should be the Speaker. What a frustrating role that was! I've never forgotten it. In fact it has probably influenced my career choices to this day.
How clever of your teacher to make sure that the one pupil who might have dominated and spoiled the learning of the others was both safely out of the way and in a position to put his knowledge to good use.
Speakers are typically given a peerage and sit as cross benchers per Erskine May. I wonder if, given Bercow is no fan of slavishly following precedent certain pettiness would see him not given one. I think that unlikely, due to the dignity of his office, but perhaps he would not wish to be a cross benchers. Again, also probably unlikely but he clearly likes to get stuck in and seems to miss the partisan cut and thrust.
He 'd take the Labour whip.
He does from his wife doesn’t he ? She was chasing a Labour candidature a few years back.
The big unknown about a new election is where the anti-deal vote would go. Leavers could stay solid behind Con resulting in the kind of numbers @RoyalBlue is suggesting or they could split into two between Con and UKIP or whatever party Farage was supporting. It's really hard to tell, and we wouldn't know until the election was called and Farage made his move.
A new Farage party would most likely suffer from the curse of FPTP and have their vote spread too evenly. Even if they got a reasonable percentage they would not be able to build up a lumpy support and would only gain one or two MP, more probably zero again. So, they would simply hurt the Tories and thus help Labour.
I agree, that would be most likely. But if the Tories went to the voters with their hopelessly uncharismatic leader, a deal they all thought was a national betrayal and a record of chaos and division, it's not unthinkable that *most* of their voters would go to Farage. Farage would then end up as the Leader of the Opposition, against Prime Minister Corbyn, which is far closer to Number 10 than he can ever have imagined he'd get. I'm not saying that's the most likely outcome, but if you were Farage, wouldn't you want to give it a shot?
Farage would have a pool of 17.4m pissed off voters to fish in. Why not believe he could also beat Corbyn?
Yes, it's possible.
OTOH Labour Leavers seem somewhat less Brexit-focussed than Tory ones (I think there was something in a recent Kieran Pedley podcast about this) and it's the Tories who'd be running on TMay's deal, whereas Labour would still be offering Leave supporters their rightful unicorns. So I think it's much more likely that Farage would carve the Tory vote in two and only take a small chunk out of Labour, in which case the gods of FPTP would rain their beneficence down on Jeremy Corbyn.
In 2015 the Tories won a number of seats e.g. Vale of Clywd thanks to UKIP.
Of course Tory members would almost certainly elect a No Dealer like Boris if Farage surged soon enough anyway
Boris isn't a "no dealer". He is just saying whatever he thinks is to his best tactical advantage at the time. He has no principles and no strategy, and would back an alternative deal, a referendum or remain in different circumstances if he thought it gave him an edge.
Boris backed Leave, opposed Chequers and May's Deal, for Leavers he has the best record of any current or former member of May's Cabinet bar Patel or Davis
Why has the government left it soooo late to talk to opposition MPs?
I thought they'd offered briefings to them months ago?
Either way it's too late now.
Lol @ 'briefings', which misses the point utterly.
The point was I assumed they would be seeking to persuade labour mps at those briefings, if they even ended up happening, so what point have I missed exactly? I don't see what provokes mirth - the gov should have been talking to opposition mps via briefings and talks months ago.
The big unknown about a new election is where the anti-deal vote would go. Leavers could stay solid behind Con resulting in the kind of numbers @RoyalBlue is suggesting or they could split into two between Con and UKIP or whatever party Farage was supporting. It's really hard to tell, and we wouldn't know until the election was called and Farage made his move.
A new Farage party would most likely suffer from the curse of FPTP and have their vote spread too evenly. Even if they got a reasonable percentage they would not be able to build up a lumpy support and would only gain one or two MP, more probably zero again. So, they would simply hurt the Tories and thus help Labour.
I agree, that would be most likely. But if the Tories went to the voters with their hopelessly uncharismatic leader, a deal they all thought was a national betrayal and a record of chaos and division, it's not unthinkable that *most* of their voters would go to Farage. Farage would then end up as the Leader of the Opposition, against Prime Minister Corbyn, which is far closer to Number 10 than he can ever have imagined he'd get. I'm not saying that's the most likely outcome, but if you were Farage, wouldn't you want to give it a shot?
Farage would have a pool of 17.4m pissed off voters to fish in. Why not believe he could also beat Corbyn?
Yes, it's possible.
OTOH Labour Leavers seem somewhat less Brexit-focussed than Tory ones (I think there was something in a recent Kieran Pedley podcast about this) and it's the Tories who'd be running on TMay's deal, whereas Labour would still be offering Leave supporters their rightful unicorns. So I think it's much more likely that Farage would carve the Tory vote in two and only take a small chunk out of Labour, in which case the gods of FPTP would rain their beneficence down on Jeremy Corbyn.
In 2015 the Tories won a number of seats e.g. Vale of Clywd thanks to UKIP.
Of course Tory members would almost certainly elect a No Dealer like Boris if Farage surged soon enough anyway
I was going to make the same point.
Vale of Clwyd and Gower are two stand-out Welsh examples.
There are seats were the rise of UKIP hurt Labour and delivered seats to the Tories.
A chaotic Brexit election will be hugely unpredictable.
If Corbyn can get through the election by being all Brexit & Bremain things at the same time, then he will win handsomely -- but it is hard to see that actually happening.
Indeed especially as Yougov ahows he is also losing Remain voters to the LDs
Valid commentary, obviously. There are, I think, two good arguments for Bercow acting as he did. One general point and one specific to the circumstances.
The general point is this is a decision about procedure that doesn't touch on substantive issues. In other words the decision is about whether parliament is allowed to discuss its own business. The presumption should be yes.
The specific point is that the original implementation assumed the meaningful vote would take place in December. The government pulled that vote on a technicality. The amendment aims to restore the legislation to the original intention, in terms of timing.
Bercow could have made those arguments however, rather than just saying, I get to decide.
I think the deadline for the meaningful vote was 21st January?
I agree that this has happened in response to the delay in that vote. A majority of the House was opposed to that delay and Bercow has found a way for the Commons to fire a warning shot at the Executive to say that it won't accept such shenanigans.
I find it very, very difficult to equate Speaker Bercow with Speaker Lenthall, but ......
Valid commentary, obviously. There are, I think, two good arguments for Bercow acting as he did. One general point and one specific to the circumstances.
The general point is this is a decision about procedure that doesn't touch on substantive issues. In other words the decision is about whether parliament is allowed to discuss its own business. The presumption should be yes.
The specific point is that the original implementation assumed the meaningful vote would take place in December. The government pulled that vote on a technicality. The amendment aims to restore the legislation to the original intention, in terms of timing.
Bercow could have made those arguments however, rather than just saying, I get to decide.
I think the deadline for the meaningful vote was 21st January?
I agree that this has happened in response to the delay in that vote. A majority of the House was opposed to that delay and Bercow has found a way for the Commons to fire a warning shot at the Executive to say that it won't accept such shenanigans.
I agree. But the resolution has contradicted an Act of Parliament. S13 (I think, I quoted it yesterday) requires a statement 21 days after the failure to pass the meaningful vote. That has now been reduced to 3 days. Of course if the MV had been in December things would have moved on by now and there would be more time. Which, essentially, is what was both Grieve's and Bercow's point.
The big unknown about a new election is where the anti-deal vote would go. Leavers could stay solid behind Con resulting in the kind of numbers @RoyalBlue is suggesting or they could split into two between Con and UKIP or whatever party Farage was supporting. It's really hard to tell, and we wouldn't know until the election was called and Farage made his move.
A new Farage party would most likely suffer from the curse of FPTP and have their vote spread too evenly. Even if they got a reasonable percentage they would not be able to build up a lumpy support and would only gain one or two MP, more probably zero again. So, they would simply hurt the Tories and thus help Labour.
I agree, that would be most likely. But if the Tories went to the voters with their hopelessly uncharismatic leader, a deal they all thought was a national betrayal and a record of chaos and division, it's not unthinkable that *most* of their voters would go to Farage. Farage would then end up as the Leader of the Opposition, against Prime Minister Corbyn, which is far closer to Number 10 than he can ever have imagined he'd get. I'm not saying that's the most likely outcome, but if you were Farage, wouldn't you want to give it a shot?
Farage would have a pool of 17.4m pissed off voters to fish in. Why not believe he could also beat Corbyn?
Yes, it's possible.
OTOH Labour Leavers seem somewhat less Brexit-focussed than Tory ones (I think there was something in a recent Kieran Pedley podcast about this) and it's the Tories who'd be running on TMay's deal, whereas Labour would still be offering Leave supporters their rightful unicorns. So I think it's much more likely that Farage would carve the Tory vote in two and only take a small chunk out of Labour, in which case the gods of FPTP would rain their beneficence down on Jeremy Corbyn.
In 2015 the Tories won a number of seats e.g. Vale of Clywd thanks to UKIP.
Of course Tory members would almost certainly elect a No Dealer like Boris if Farage surged soon enough anyway
Boris isn't a "no dealer". He is just saying whatever he thinks is to his best tactical advantage at the time. He has no principles and no strategy, and would back an alternative deal, a referendum or remain in different circumstances if he thought it gave him an edge.
Boris backed Leave, opposed Chequers and May's Deal, for Leavers he has the best record of any current or former member of May's Cabinet bar Patel or Davis
Speakers are typically given a peerage and sit as cross benchers per Erskine May. I wonder if, given Bercow is no fan of slavishly following precedent certain pettiness would see him not given one. I think that unlikely, due to the dignity of his office, but perhaps he would not wish to be a cross benchers. Again, also probably unlikely but he clearly likes to get stuck in and seems to miss the partisan cut and thrust.
He 'd take the Labour whip.
He does from his wife doesn’t he ? She was chasing a Labour candidature a few years back.
He was, of course, a former right wing Tory MP.
Bercow was about as right-wing as you could be in the Tory Party in the 1980s.
Bercow features prominently in today’s papers ,understandably, but for all the wrong reasons. The days when the speaker had “neither eyes to see nor lips to speak save as this house gives me Leave” are long gone sadly.
When Parliament ignores its own rules, it brings our parliamentary democracy into disgrace. Bercow should go. He is a disgrace.
Everything seems to go from one extreme to the other these days. The previous Speaker, Michael Martin, was well known for never saying anything apart from the absolute bare minimum.
There was a man promoted way way above his level. A greedy grasping chancer, your typical Scottish Labour waster.
Bercow features prominently in today’s papers ,understandably, but for all the wrong reasons. The days when the speaker had “neither eyes to see nor lips to speak save as this house gives me Leave” are long gone sadly.
When Parliament ignores its own rules, it brings our parliamentary democracy into disgrace. Bercow should go. He is a disgrace.
Except that the House appears to have given him leave. That government business managers found him disobliging is another matter.
Actually, they didn’t. That is what all the fuss is about. He ignored the advice he had been given on the matter.
Completely missing the point. And to quote the words of a Speaker defending the authority of parliament over the executive in order to attack another one doing very much the same thing seems pretty odd.
If you're going to argue about the matter, at least sort out what you're arguing about.
All very interesting but had you read, and actually understood, what I said, you would have realised that it was the advice from those self same Commons clerks whose virtues you proudly proclaim that Bercow ignored and overrode....
As is his prerogative.
Why did I 'drag in' government business managers ? Because they have been instrumental in frustrating the ability of parliament to perform its role.
If you believe the role of the Speaker is to collaborate with a minority government in ensuring that Parliament sits on its hands for weeks at a time, you don't understand the office.
Speakers are typically given a peerage and sit as cross benchers per Erskine May. I wonder if, given Bercow is no fan of slavishly following precedent certain pettiness would see him not given one. I think that unlikely, due to the dignity of his office, but perhaps he would not wish to be a cross benchers. Again, also probably unlikely but he clearly likes to get stuck in and seems to miss the partisan cut and thrust.
When I was at Primary School a guy called Ted Heath had just won an election. I had been very interested and done my little bit of leafleting for the party. My school teacher thought it would be a good idea to have a mock Parliament in the class. Actually, it was probably my idea. My teacher, who knew less about politics than me even then decided I should be the Speaker. What a frustrating role that was! I've never forgotten it. In fact it has probably influenced my career choices to this day.
How clever of your teacher to make sure that the one pupil who might have dominated and spoiled the learning of the others was both safely out of the way and in a position to put his knowledge to good use.
As Mayor of London Khan indirectly exercises the ' Police Commissioner ' powers for Greater London ( minus those reserved due to the Mets national anti terror role. And plus less restricted precepting powers ) Curiously PB Tories are less keen to blame all crime in force areas on other ( white and Tory ) PCCs. Or their own government.
Establishing London as Murder City in popular belief and blaming it solely on it's brown Mayor is just an effective mixing of standard rightwing tropes.
No, nothing to do with race, the Tory mayoral candidate is black for starters.
Plus as the figures show the murder rate in London fell by about 40 a year over the 8 years Boris was in charge at City Hall but has already risen by 20 a year in the 2 years Khan has been in charge at City Hall
TBH I doubt if the London Mayor has much impact on homicides.
Why has the government left it soooo late to talk to opposition MPs?
I thought they'd offered briefings to them months ago?
Either way it's too late now.
Lol @ 'briefings', which misses the point utterly.
The point was I assumed they would be seeking to persuade labour mps at those briefings, if they even ended up happening, so what point have I missed exactly? I don't see what provokes mirth - the gov should have been talking to opposition mps via briefings and talks months ago.
In politics you don't persuade the opposition by briefing them.
Valid commentary, obviously. There are, I think, two good arguments for Bercow acting as he did. One general point and one specific to the circumstances.
The general point is this is a decision about procedure that doesn't touch on substantive issues. In other words the decision is about whether parliament is allowed to discuss its own business. The presumption should be yes.
The specific point is that the original implementation assumed the meaningful vote would take place in December. The government pulled that vote on a technicality. The amendment aims to restore the legislation to the original intention, in terms of timing.
Bercow could have made those arguments however, rather than just saying, I get to decide.
I think the deadline for the meaningful vote was 21st January?
I agree that this has happened in response to the delay in that vote. A majority of the House was opposed to that delay and Bercow has found a way for the Commons to fire a warning shot at the Executive to say that it won't accept such shenanigans.
I find it very, very difficult to equate Speaker Bercow with Speaker Lenthall, but ......
If all the speaker did was act as the house directed the speaker would not reject any amendment on anything ever since it'd be up to the house to decide if it wanted to approve whatever was proposed.
Whether the call that was made was in this case justified or not I go back and forth on, and we know some of the outrage is partisan, but some of the arguments in defence seem to be stretching a bit to expand the noble aim. The speaker decides on various things, despite the famous quote they don't literally only do as directed.
The big unknown about a new election is where the anti-deal vote would go. Leavers could stay solid behind Con resulting in the kind of numbers @RoyalBlue is suggesting or they could split into two between Con and UKIP or whatever party Farage was supporting. It's really hard to tell, and we wouldn't know until the election was called and Farage made his move.
A new Farage party would most likely suffer from the curse of FPTP and have their vote spread too evenly. Even if they got a reasonable percentage they would not be able to build up a lumpy support and would only gain one or two MP, more probably zero again. So, they would simply hurt the Tories and thus help Labour.
I agree, that would be most likely. But if the Tories went to the voters with their hopelessly uncharismatic leader, a deal they all thought was a national betrayal and a record of chaos and division, it's not unthinkable that *most* of their voters would go to Farage. Farage would then end up as the Leader of the Opposition, against Prime Minister Corbyn, which is far closer to Number 10 than he can ever have imagined he'd get. I'm not saying that's the most likely outcome, but if you were Farage, wouldn't you want to give it a shot?
Farage would have a pool of 17.4m pissed off voters to fish in. Why not believe he could also beat Corbyn?
Yes, it's possible.
OTOH Labour Leavers seem somewhat less Brexit-focussed than Tory ones (I think there was something in a recent Kieran Pedley podcast about this) and it's the Tories who'd be running on TMay's deal, whereas Labour would still be offering Leave supporters their rightful unicorns. So I think it's much more likely that Farage would carve the Tory vote in two and only take a small chunk out of Labour, in which case the gods of FPTP would rain their beneficence down on Jeremy Corbyn.
In 2015 the Tories won a number of seats e.g. Vale of Clywd thanks to UKIP.
Of course Tory members would almost certainly elect a No Dealer like Boris if Farage surged soon enough anyway
Boris isn't a "no dealer". He is just saying whatever he thinks is to his best tactical advantage at the time. He has no principles and no strategy, and would back an alternative deal, a referendum or remain in different circumstances if he thought it gave him an edge.
Boris backed Leave, opposed Chequers and May's Deal, for Leavers he has the best record of any current or former member of May's Cabinet bar Patel or Davis
Bercow features prominently in today’s papers ,understandably, but for all the wrong reasons. The days when the speaker had “neither eyes to see nor lips to speak save as this house gives me Leave” are long gone sadly.
When Parliament ignores its own rules, it brings our parliamentary democracy into disgrace. Bercow should go. He is a disgrace.
Except that the House appears to have given him leave. That government business managers found him disobliging is another matter.
Actually, they didn’t. That is what all the fuss is about. He ignored the advice he had been given on the matter.
Completely missing the point. And to quote the words of a Speaker defending the authority of parliament over the executive in order to attack another one doing very much the same thing seems pretty odd.
If you're going to argue about the matter, at least sort out what you're arguing about.
All very interesting but had you read, and actually understood, what I said, you would have realised that it was the advice from those self same Commons clerks whose virtues you proudly proclaim that Bercow ignored and overrode....
As is his prerogative.
Why did I 'drag in' government business managers ? Because they have been instrumental in frustrating the ability of parliament to perform its role.
If you believe the role of the Speaker is to collaborate with a minority government in ensuring that Parliament sits on its hands for weeks at a time, you don't understand the office.
You are arguing in circles. It’s not his prerogative. That is what all the fuss is about.
Why has the government left it soooo late to talk to opposition MPs?
I thought they'd offered briefings to them months ago?
Either way it's too late now.
Lol @ 'briefings', which misses the point utterly.
The point was I assumed they would be seeking to persuade labour mps at those briefings, if they even ended up happening, so what point have I missed exactly? I don't see what provokes mirth - the gov should have been talking to opposition mps via briefings and talks months ago.
In politics you don't persuade the opposition by briefing them.
It would have been, or should have been, the start of the process was my point.
The big unknown about a new election is where the anti-deal vote would go. Leavers could stay solid behind Con resulting in the kind of numbers @RoyalBlue is suggesting or they could split into two between Con and UKIP or whatever party Farage was supporting. It's really hard to tell, and we wouldn't know until the election was called and Farage made his move.
A new abour.
I agree, that would be most likely. But if the Tories went to the voters with their hopelessly uncharismatic ?
Farage would have a pool of 17.4m pissed off voters to fish in. Why not believe he could also beat Corbyn?
Yes, it's possible.
OTOH Labour Leavers seem somewhat less Brexit-focussed than Tory ones (I think there was something in a recent Kieran Pedley podcast about this) and it's the Tories who'd be running on TMay's deal, whereas Labour would still be offering Leave supporters their rightful unicorns. So I think it's much more likely that Farage would carve the Tory vote in two and only take a small chunk out of Labour, in which case the gods of FPTP would rain their beneficence down on Jeremy Corbyn.
In 2015 the Tories won a number of seats e.g. Vale of Clywd thanks to UKIP.
Of course Tory members would almost certainly elect a No Dealer like Boris if Farage surged soon enough anyway
Boris isn't a "no dealer". He is just saying whatever he thinks is to his best tactical advantage at the time. He has no principles and no strategy, and would back an alternative deal, a referendum or remain in different circumstances if he thought it gave him an edge.
Boris backed Leave, opposed Chequers and May's Deal, for Leavers he has the best record of any current or former member of May's Cabinet bar Patel or Davis
Boris considered backing Remain, but eventually backed Leave. Boris not only considered but actually started out supporting Chequers, leading the toast to the PM and her deal in Cabinet. Etc. Listing his previous actions is no clue as to what Boris might support in the future, and indeed as anyone who encountered him as London mayor knows very well, the one thing he hates and avoids more than anything is being held to anything he has said or done before. He genuinely thinks he doesn't have to, and he is with policies as he is with women.
As Mayor of London Khan indirectly exercises the ' Police Commissioner ' powers for Greater London ( minus those reserved due to the Mets national anti terror role. And plus less restricted precepting powers ) Curiously PB Tories are less keen to blame all crime in force areas on other ( white and Tory ) PCCs. Or their own government.
Establishing London as Murder City in popular belief and blaming it solely on it's brown Mayor is just an effective mixing of standard rightwing tropes.
No, nothing to do with race, the Tory mayoral candidate is black for starters.
Plus as the figures show the murder rate in London fell by about 40 a year over the 8 years Boris was in charge at City Hall but has already risen by 20 a year in the 2 years Khan has been in charge at City Hall
TBH I doubt if the London Mayor has much impact on homicides.
Mayors can make a big difference to crime rates if they use their powers effectively as Giuliani showed in New York city, Khan has no clear strategy for tackling crime in London when London needs strong leadership
I don't have a scintilla of sympathy with the Government over yesterday's vote. It wasted a month having shown extreme discourtesy to the House of Commons by yanking a vote and refusing to get the House's agreement to do so when invited to by the Speaker. It then returned to the House a month later having changed absolutely nothing and sought to proceed on a pre-existing timetable that had been put back by a month by its own actions when time was of the essence without getting the authority of the House for doing so.
Glad for Mackinlay that he's been cleared - must have been a nightmare. The verdict seems fair, nailing the offence so parties don't feel they can just get away with anything, but not spreading the blame on everyone in sight. The judge's comment that CCHQ seems to have decided that anything goes seems entirely credible.
I agree. I also feel very sorry for the poor agent who has been dumped with this. I have no doubt that she was doing what she was told to do by people higher up the food chain. Not sure if that is a role I would take on until the rules are seriously clarified.
What drama! And all for free. I used to do a lot of box sets but no need now. Just a matter of what to spend the savings on. Drugs, I suppose.
As to how it ends? Like all of the best shows, impossible to say.
Probably in the best soap tradition, on multiple cliffhangers.
Theresa May requests a six-month extension to the Brexit timetable seconds before being flung from the roof of Parliament by the power-hungry Chief Whip.
The real Jeremy Corbyn manages to escape from his captors and desperately tries to warn the world that he is being impersonated by his evil twin.
The whole of the Lib Dem parliamentary party is massacred by terrorists while attending a wedding in Moldavia.
Michael Gove is abducted by aliens in a flying saucer.
6,000 clones of Jacob Rees-Mogg are discovered in Brazil ....
The opening scene of the following series is easy enough to work out:
The Prime Minister emerges from the shower and Nick Clegg says to him, "David, I just had the strangest dream ..."
Valid commentary, obviously. There are, I think, two good arguments for Bercow acting as he did. One general point and one specific to the circumstances.
The general point is this is a decision about procedure that doesn't touch on substantive issues. In other words the decision is about whether parliament is allowed to discuss its own business. The presumption should be yes.
The specific point is that the original implementation assumed the meaningful vote would take place in December. The government pulled that vote on a technicality. The amendment aims to restore the legislation to the original intention, in terms of timing.
Bercow could have made those arguments however, rather than just saying, I get to decide.
I think the deadline for the meaningful vote was 21st January?
I agree that this has happened in response to the delay in that vote. A majority of the House was opposed to that delay and Bercow has found a way for the Commons to fire a warning shot at the Executive to say that it won't accept such shenanigans.
I agree. But the resolution has contradicted an Act of Parliament. S13 (I think, I quoted it yesterday) requires a statement 21 days after the failure to pass the meaningful vote. That has now been reduced to 3 days. Of course if the MV had been in December things would have moved on by now and there would be more time. Which, essentially, is what was both Grieve's and Bercow's point.
like you I can see arguments both ways, however the point for me is if the speaker is going to make changes just to suit short term expediency then he is undermining his own role. For Bercow who says hes about to bugger off will not have to live with the consequences. His successor will and have to herd 650 cats. I dont think Brexit is the most important vote of my life time and worth tearing up the rule book for. These things have a tendancy to produce unintended consequences and the first is a shower or puffed up prima donnas who now think there are no rules and they should explore the new boundaries. Grieve is as much to blame as Bercow and being a lawyer you might have thought he could have seen what he has just kicked off.
Bercow features prominently in today’s papers ,understandably, but for all the wrong reasons. The days when the speaker had “neither eyes to see nor lips to speak save as this house gives me Leave” are long gone sadly.
When Parliament ignores its own rules, it brings our parliamentary democracy into disgrace. Bercow should go. He is a disgrace.
Everything seems to go from one extreme to the other these days. The previous Speaker, Michael Martin, was well known for never saying anything apart from the absolute bare minimum.
There was a man promoted way way above his level. A greedy grasping chancer, your typical Scottish Labour waster.
You're far too magnanimous this morning Malcolm. Getting soft.
The big unknown about a new election is where the anti-deal vote would go. Leavers could stay solid behind Con resulting in the kind of numbers @RoyalBlue is suggesting or they could split into two between Con and UKIP or whatever party Farage was supporting. It's really hard to tell, and we wouldn't know until the election was called and Farage made his move.
A new abour.
I agree, that would be most likely. But if the Tories went to the voters with their hopelessly uncharismatic ?
Farage would have a pool of 17.4m pissed off voters to fish in. Why not believe he could also beat Corbyn?
Yes, it's possible.
OTOH Labour Leavers seem somewhat less Brexit-focussed than Tory ones (I think there was something in a recent Kieran Pedley podcast about this) and it's the Tories who'd be running on TMay's deal, whereas Labour would still be offering Leave supporters their rightful unicorns. So I think it's much more likely that Farage would carve the Tory vote in two and only take a small chunk out of Labour, in which case the gods of FPTP would rain their beneficence down on Jeremy Corbyn.
In 2015 the Tories won a number of seats e.g. Vale of Clywd thanks to UKIP.
Of course Tory members would almost certainly elect a No Dealer like Boris if Farage surged soon enough anyway
Boris isn't a "no dealer". He is just saying whatever he thinks is to his best tactical advantage at the time. He has no principles and no strategy, and would back an alternative deal, a referendum or remain in different circumstances if he thought it gave him an edge.
Boris backed Leave, opposed Chequers and May's Deal, for Leavers he has the best record of any current or former member of May's Cabinet bar Patel or Davis
Boris considered backing Remain, but eventually backed Leave. Boris not only considered but actually started out supporting Chequers, leading the toast to the PM and her deal in Cabinet. Etc. Listing his previous actions is no clue as to what Boris might support in the future, and indeed as anyone who encountered him as London mayor knows very well, the one thing he hates and avoids more than anything is being held to anything he has said or done before. He genuinely thinks he doesn't have to, and he is with policies as he is with women.
Boris backed Leave, resigned over Chequers and opposed May's Deal when most other Cabinet ministers did not, it is his ultimate actions that matter for Leavers hence he has very high ratings with Leave voters
Why has the government left it soooo late to talk to opposition MPs?
I thought they'd offered briefings to them months ago?
Either way it's too late now.
Lol @ 'briefings', which misses the point utterly.
The point was I assumed they would be seeking to persuade labour mps at those briefings, if they even ended up happening, so what point have I missed exactly? I don't see what provokes mirth - the gov should have been talking to opposition mps via briefings and talks months ago.
In politics you don't persuade the opposition by briefing them.
It would have been, or should have been, the start of the process was my point.
The start of the process (after her majority went down the pan) should have been to offer the opposition a slice of the action - some sort of cross-party involvement; anything from a balance cross-party committee to a government of national unity. Even had it been rejected, as is quite likely, it would have given her the moral high ground now.
Indeed especially as Yougov ahows he is also losing Remain voters to the LDs
I tend to think it is not in Corbyn’s interest to have a Brexit election.
Let the Tories Brexit, take the hit, and then Corbyn can go for the kill.
A Brexit election carries some danger for Corbyn because it is not clear that amiable vagueness is a viable policy for much longer.
The biggest hit for the Tories would be from revoking Brexit not implementing it given the vast majority of Tory voters are now Leavers, indeed if Corbyn was not seen to have opposed Brexit sufficiently that could hit him more due to Labour to LD movement if he failed to back EUref2 with a Remain option
Mayors can make a big difference to crime rates if they use their powers effectively as Giuliani showed in New York city, Khan has no clear strategy for tackling crime in London when London needs strong leadership
Indeed especially as Yougov ahows he is also losing Remain voters to the LDs
I tend to think it is not in Corbyn’s interest to have a Brexit election.
Let the Tories Brexit, take the hit, and then Corbyn can go for the kill.
A Brexit election carries some danger for Corbyn because it is not clear that amiable vagueness is a viable policy for much longer.
The biggest hit for the Tories would be from revoking Brexit not implementing it given the vast majority of Tory voters are now Leavers, indeed if Corbyn was not seen to have opposed Brexit sufficiently that could hit him more due to Labour to LD movement if he failed to back EUref2 with a Remain option
Naive. It obviously depends heavily on how "implementing it" goes.
As Mayor of London Khan indirectly exercises the ' Police Commissioner ' powers for Greater London ( minus those reserved due to the Mets national anti terror role. And plus less restricted precepting powers ) Curiously PB Tories are less keen to blame all crime in force areas on other ( white and Tory ) PCCs. Or their own government.
Establishing London as Murder City in popular belief and blaming it solely on it's brown Mayor is just an effective mixing of standard rightwing tropes.
No, nothing to do with race, the Tory mayoral candidate is black for starters.
Plus as the figures show the murder rate in London fell by about 40 a year over the 8 years Boris was in charge at City Hall but has already risen by 20 a year in the 2 years Khan has been in charge at City Hall
TBH I doubt if the London Mayor has much impact on homicides.
Mayors can make a big difference to crime rates if they use their powers effectively as Giuliani showed in New York city, Khan has no clear strategy for tackling crime in London when London needs strong leadership
Guiliani's success was due to the availability of funds. If we made similar funds available to Khan, we could expect to see similar results.
Valid commentary, obviously. There are, I think, two good arguments for Bercow acting as he did. One general point and one specific to the circumstances.
The general point is this is a decision about procedure that doesn't touch on substantive issues. In other words the decision is about whether parliament is allowed to discuss its own business. The presumption should be yes.
The specific point is that the original implementation assumed the meaningful vote would take place in December. The government pulled that vote on a technicality. The amendment aims to restore the legislation to the original intention, in terms of timing.
Bercow could have made those arguments however, rather than just saying, I get to decide.
I think the deadline for the meaningful vote was 21st January?
I agree that this has happened in response to the delay in that vote. A majority of the House was opposed to that delay and Bercow has found a way for the Commons to fire a warning shot at the Executive to say that it won't accept such shenanigans.
I agree. But the resolution has contradicted an Act of Parliament. S13 (I think, I quoted it yesterday) requires a statement 21 days after the failure to pass the meaningful vote. That has now been reduced to 3 days. Of course if the MV had been in December things would have moved on by now and there would be more time. Which, essentially, is what was both Grieve's and Bercow's point.
like you I can see arguments both ways, however the point for me is if the speaker is going to make changes just to suit short term expediency then he is undermining his own role. For Bercow who says hes about to bugger off will not have to live with the consequences. His successor will and have to herd 650 cats. I dont think Brexit is the most important vote of my life time and worth tearing up the rule book for. These things have a tendancy to produce unintended consequences and the first is a shower or puffed up prima donnas who now think there are no rules and they should explore the new boundaries. Grieve is as much to blame as Bercow and being a lawyer you might have thought he could have seen what he has just kicked off.
I'm sure he does but he's a fanatic, why would that concern him?
I don't have a scintilla of sympathy with the Government over yesterday's vote. It wasted a month having shown extreme discourtesy to the House of Commons by yanking a vote and refusing to get the House's agreement to do so when invited to by the Speaker. It then returned to the House a month later having changed absolutely nothing and sought to proceed on a pre-existing timetable that had been put back by a month by its own actions when time was of the essence without getting the authority of the House for doing so.
Such contempt deserved comeuppance.
NB this is not approval of the Speaker's actions.
Bizarrely Mr M I fully agree with you. May needs a kick but yesterday was not the way to do it.
The big unknown about a new election is where the anti-deal vote would go. Leavers could stay solid behind Con resulting in the kind of numbers @RoyalBlue is suggesting or they could split into two between Con and UKIP or whatever party Farage was supporting. It's really hard to tell, and we wouldn't know until the election was called and Farage made his move.
A new abour.
I agree, that would be most likely. But if the Tories went to the voters with their hopelessly uncharismatic ?
Farage would have a pool of 17.4m pissed off voters to fish in. Why not believe he could also beat Corbyn?
Yes, it's possible.
OTOH Labour Tory vote in two and only take a small chunk out of Labour, in which case the gods of FPTP would rain their beneficence down on Jeremy Corbyn.
In 2015 the Tories won a number of seats e.g. Vale of Clywd thanks to UKIP.
Of course Tory members would almost certainly elect a No Dealer like Boris if Farage surged soon enough anyway
Boris isn't a "no dealer". He is just saying whatever he thinks is to his best tactical advantage at the time. He has no principles and no strategy, and would back an alternative deal, a referendum or remain in different circumstances if he thought it gave him an edge.
Boris backed Leave, opposed Chequers and May's Deal, for Leavers he has the best record of any current or former member of May's Cabinet bar Patel or Davis
Boris considered backing Remain, but eventually backed Leave. Boris not only considered but actually started out supporting Chequers, leading the toast to the PM and her deal in Cabinet. Etc. Listing his previous actions is no clue as to what Boris might support in the future, and indeed as anyone who encountered him as London mayor knows very well, the one thing he hates and avoids more than anything is being held to anything he has said or done before. He genuinely thinks he doesn't have to, and he is with policies as he is with women.
Boris backed Leave, resigned over Chequers and opposed May's Deal when most other Cabinet ministers did not, it is his ultimate actions that matter for Leavers hence he has very high ratings with Leave voters
You have changed your argument. That his actions went down well with Tories was my point. Your point was that he is a "no dealer", which he isn't.
Valid commentary, obviously. There are, I think, two good arguments for Bercow acting as he did. One general point and one specific to the circumstances.
The general point is this is a decision about procedure that doesn't touch on substantive issues. In other words the decision is about whether parliament is allowed to discuss its own business. The presumption should be yes.
The specific point is that the original implementation assumed the meaningful vote would take place in December. The government pulled that vote on a technicality. The amendment aims to restore the legislation to the original intention, in terms of timing.
Bercow could have made those arguments however, rather than just saying, I get to decide.
I think the deadline for the meaningful vote was 21st January?
I agree that this has happened in response to the delay in that vote. A majority of the House was opposed to that delay and Bercow has found a way for the Commons to fire a warning shot at the Executive to say that it won't accept such shenanigans.
I agree. But the resolution has contradicted an Act of Parliament. S13 (I think, I quoted it yesterday) requires a statement 21 days after the failure to pass the meaningful vote. That has now been reduced to 3 days. Of course if the MV had been in December things would have moved on by now and there would be more time. Which, essentially, is what was both Grieve's and Bercow's point.
like you I can see arguments both ways, however the point for me is if the speaker is going to make changes just to suit short term expediency then he is undermining his own role. For Bercow who says hes about to bugger off will not have to live with the consequences. His successor will and have to herd 650 cats. I dont think Brexit is the most important vote of my life time and worth tearing up the rule book for. These things have a tendancy to produce unintended consequences and the first is a shower or puffed up prima donnas who now think there are no rules and they should explore the new boundaries. Grieve is as much to blame as Bercow and being a lawyer you might have thought he could have seen what he has just kicked off.
I don't disagree with that either and the 21 days was not an accident. It was designed, at the time the Act was passed, to give the government some wriggle room in the event they failed at the first attempt. So a careful negotiated scheme which was a part of the deal on the MV provision has been torn apart and it is not hard to see why they are annoyed.
Boris backed Leave, opposed Chequers and May's Deal, for Leavers he has the best record of any current or former member of May's Cabinet bar Patel or Davis
The problem is that he 's a wanker.
The bigger problem is, so are all the alternatives.....
Valid commentary, obviously. There are, I think, two good arguments for Bercow acting as he did. One general point and one specific to the circumstances.
The general point is this is a decision about procedure that doesn't touch on substantive issues. In other words the decision is about whether parliament is allowed to discuss its own business. The presumption should be yes.
The specific point is that the original implementation assumed the meaningful vote would take place in December. The government pulled that vote on a technicality. The amendment aims to restore the legislation to the original intention, in terms of timing.
Bercow could have made those arguments however, rather than just saying, I get to decide.
I think the deadline for the meaningful vote was 21st January?
I agree that this has happened in response to the delay in that vote. A majority of the House was opposed to that delay and Bercow has found a way for the Commons to fire a warning shot at the Executive to say that it won't accept such shenanigans.
I find it very, very difficult to equate Speaker Bercow with Speaker Lenthall, but ......
If all the speaker did was act as the house directed the speaker would not reject any amendment on anything ever since it'd be up to the house to decide if it wanted to approve whatever was proposed.
Whether the call that was made was in this case justified or not I go back and forth on, and we know some of the outrage is partisan, but some of the arguments in defence seem to be stretching a bit to expand the noble aim....
I wouldn't disagree with that - and Bercow was fairly clumsy presenting his justification of the decision. Though not as clumsy as some of the criticism directed at him.
Having said that, the situation was not one which allows leisurely judgment, and I think he made the best of a bad job.
A less contentious figure making the decision might have been preferable, but for now we are stuck with the Speaker we have.
As Mayor of London Khan indirectly exercises the ' Police Commissioner ' powers for Greater London ( minus those reserved due to the Mets national anti terror role. And plus less restricted precepting powers ) Curiously PB Tories are less keen to blame all crime in force areas on other ( white and Tory ) PCCs. Or their own government.
Establishing London as Murder City in popular belief and blaming it solely on it's brown Mayor is just an effective mixing of standard rightwing tropes.
No, nothing to do with race, the Tory mayoral candidate is black for starters.
Plus as the figures show the murder rate in London fell by about 40 a year over the 8 years Boris was in charge at City Hall but has already risen by 20 a year in the 2 years Khan has been in charge at City Hall
TBH I doubt if the London Mayor has much impact on homicides.
Mayors can make a big difference to crime rates if they use their powers effectively as Giuliani showed in New York city, Khan has no clear strategy for tackling crime in London when London needs strong leadership
Guiliani's success was due to the availability of funds. If we made similar funds available to Khan, we could expect to see similar results.
Valid commentary, obviously. There are, I think, two good arguments for Bercow acting as he did. One general point and one specific to the circumstances.
The general point is this is a decision about procedure that doesn't touch on substantive issues. In other words the decision is about whether parliament is allowed to discuss its own business. The presumption should be yes.
The specific point is that the original implementation assumed the meaningful vote would take place in December. The government pulled that vote on a technicality. The amendment aims to restore the legislation to the original intention, in terms of timing.
Bercow could have made those arguments however, rather than just saying, I get to decide.
I think the deadline for the meaningful vote was 21st January?
I agree that this has happened in response to the delay in that vote. A majority of the House was opposed to that delay and Bercow has found a way for the Commons to fire a warning shot at the Executive to say that it won't accept such shenanigans.
I agree. But the resolution has contradicted an Act of Parliament. S13 (I think, I quoted it yesterday) requires a statement 21 days after the failure to pass the meaningful vote. That has now been reduced to 3 days. Of course if the MV had been in December things would have moved on by now and there would be more time. Which, essentially, is what was both Grieve's and Bercow's point.
like you I can see arguments both ways, however the point for me is if the speaker is going to make changes just to suit short term expediency then he is undermining his own role. For Bercow who says hes about to bugger off will not have to live with the consequences. His successor will and have to herd 650 cats. I dont think Brexit is the most important vote of my life time and worth tearing up the rule book for. These things have a tendancy to produce unintended consequences and the first is a shower or puffed up prima donnas who ked off.
I don't disagree with that either and the 21 days was not an accident. It was designed, at the time the Act was placed, to give the government some wriggle room in the event they failed at the first attempt. So a careful negotiated scheme which was a part of the deal on the MV provision has been torn apart and it is not hard to see why they are annoyed.
Valid commentary, obviously. There are, I think, two good arguments for Bercow acting as he did. One general point and one specific to the circumstances.
The general point is this is a decision about procedure that doesn't touch on substantive issues. In other words the decision is about whether parliament is allowed to discuss its own business. The presumption should be yes.
The specific point is that the original implementation assumed the meaningful vote would take place in December. The government pulled that vote on a technicality. The amendment aims to restore the legislation to the original intention, in terms of timing.
Bercow could have made those arguments however, rather than just saying, I get to decide.
I think the deadline for the meaningful vote was 21st January?
I agree that this has happened in response to the delay in that vote. A majority of the House was opposed to that delay and Bercow has found a way for the Commons to fire a warning shot at the Executive to say that it won't accept such shenanigans.
I agree. But the resolution has contradicted an Act of Parliament. S13 (I think, I quoted it yesterday) requires a statement 21 days after the failure to pass the meaningful vote. That has now been reduced to 3 days. Of course if the MV had been in December things would have moved on by now and there would be more time. Which, essentially, is what was both Grieve's and Bercow's point.
like you I can see arguments both ways, however the point for me is if the speaker is going to make changes just to suit short term expediency then he is undermining his own role. For Bercow who says hes about to bugger off will not have to live with the consequences. His successor will and have to herd 650 cats. I dont think Brexit is the most important vote of my life time and worth tearing up the rule book for. These things have a tendancy to produce unintended consequences and the first is a shower or puffed up prima donnas who ked off.
I don't disagree with that either and the 21 days was not an accident. It was designed, at the time the Act was placed, to give the government some wriggle room in the event they failed at the first attempt. So a careful negotiated scheme which was a part of the deal on the MV provision has been torn apart and it is not hard to see why they are annoyed.
But its equally hard to have much sympathy.
No one is really covering themselves with glory.
That is clearly an observation of much wider application!
I don't have a scintilla of sympathy with the Government over yesterday's vote. It wasted a month having shown extreme discourtesy to the House of Commons by yanking a vote and refusing to get the House's agreement to do so when invited to by the Speaker. It then returned to the House a month later having changed absolutely nothing and sought to proceed on a pre-existing timetable that had been put back by a month by its own actions when time was of the essence without getting the authority of the House for doing so.
Such contempt deserved comeuppance.
NB this is not approval of the Speaker's actions.
Cake and eating it!
If the likes of Grieve took such umbrage at May pulling the vote, they should have removed her when they had the chance. It seems to me that they want to stop Brexit, but don't want to be the ones to do it.
But as Bercow said yesterday, unless the government brings primary legislation, nothing will change, and we will be leaving the EU on the 29 March come what may.
Valid commentary, obviously. There are, I think, two good arguments for Bercow acting as he did. One general point and one specific to the circumstances.
The general point is this is a decision about procedure that doesn't touch on substantive issues. In other words the decision is about whether parliament is allowed to discuss its own business. The presumption should be yes.
The specific point is that the original implementation assumed the meaningful vote would take place in December. The government pulled that vote on a technicality. The amendment aims to restore the legislation to the original intention, in terms of timing.
Bercow could have made those arguments however, rather than just saying, I get to decide.
I think the deadline for the meaningful vote was 21st January?
I agree that this has happened in response to the delay in that vote. A majority of the House was opposed to that delay and Bercow has found a way for the Commons to fire a warning shot at the Executive to say that it won't accept such shenanigans.
I agree. But the resolution has contradicted an Act of Parliament. S13 (I think, I quoted it yesterday) requires a statement 21 days after the failure to pass the meaningful vote. That has now been reduced to 3 days. Of course if the MV had been in December things would have moved on by now and there would be more time. Which, essentially, is what was both Grieve's and Bercow's point.
like you I can see arguments both ways, however the point for what he has just kicked off.
I don't disagree with that either and the 21 days was not an accident. It was designed, at the time the Act was passed, to give the government some wriggle room in the event they failed at the first attempt. So a careful negotiated scheme which was a part of the deal on the MV provision has been torn apart and it is not hard to see why they are annoyed.
But its equally hard to have much sympathy.
I have little sympathy for HMG they should have voted before Xmas, but this is just the shoddy gamesmanship the conservatives seem to be addicted to. It started with Camerons no planning for a referendum loss and has continued with May holding the nations feet to the fire and screaming TINA.
Any Conservative trying to push the line of competence deserves to get laughed off the planet.
Indeed especially as Yougov ahows he is also losing Remain voters to the LDs
I tend to think it is not in Corbyn’s interest to have a Brexit election.
Let the Tories Brexit, take the hit, and then Corbyn can go for the kill.
A Brexit election carries some danger for Corbyn because it is not clear that amiable vagueness is a viable policy for much longer.
The biggest hit for the Tories would be from revoking Brexit not implementing it given the vast majority of Tory voters are now Leavers, indeed if Corbyn was not seen to have opposed Brexit sufficiently that could hit him more due to Labour to LD movement if he failed to back EUref2 with a Remain option
I honestly think the LDs are now irrelevant. It will take more than the lightweight Moran to revive them. (The comparison of Layla with Leanne Wood made the other day on here struck me as particularly pungent and valid).
In 2017, the LDs could not win ultra-Remain seats like Cambridge, when they were in second place behind a wafer-thin 2015 majority, had a popular local candidate & they were the only party backing Remain.
For whatever reason, ultra-Remainers see their best chance as recapturing the Labour leadership.
I don't have a scintilla of sympathy with the Government over yesterday's vote. It wasted a month having shown extreme discourtesy to the House of Commons by yanking a vote and refusing to get the House's agreement to do so when invited to by the Speaker. It then returned to the House a month later having changed absolutely nothing and sought to proceed on a pre-existing timetable that had been put back by a month by its own actions when time was of the essence without getting the authority of the House for doing so.
Such contempt deserved comeuppance.
NB this is not approval of the Speaker's actions.
Cake and eating it!
If the likes of Grieve took such umbrage at May pulling the vote, they should have removed her when they had the chance. It seems to me that they want to stop Brexit, but don't want to be the ones to do it.
But as Bercow said yesterday, unless the government brings primary legislation, nothing will change, and we will be leaving the EU on the 29 March come what may.
We don't know who voted against Theresa May in the vote of no confidence. More did so than are on the record as opposing the deal from a Brexit direction.
And your last sentence makes my point. We are in a time-critical phase and the government cannot expect to try to run down the clock in order to forestall discussion of the options.
Comments
OTOH Labour Leavers seem somewhat less Brexit-focussed than Tory ones (I think there was something in a recent Kieran Pedley podcast about this) and it's the Tories who'd be running on TMay's deal, whereas Labour would still be offering Leave supporters their rightful unicorns. So I think it's much more likely that Farage would carve the Tory vote in two and only take a small chunk out of Labour, in which case the gods of FPTP would rain their beneficence down on Jeremy Corbyn.
I am surprised I've not seen it brought up that Bercow was opposed to appointing the current clerk of the house, since he had wanted to appoint that Australian lady IIRC. I don't believe that will have played a factor in his decision but I'm surprised not to see 'he's always not liked the person advising him' as a theory.
The decision may have been messy, but it was the Speaker’s to take.
When Parliament ignores its own rules, it brings our parliamentary democracy into disgrace. Bercow should go. He is a disgrace.
Just over a month until the first F1 reveal, that's announced (think Ferrari is 15 February). Be nice when the season gets underway.
That government business managers found him disobliging is another matter.
First they receive a blue felt tip pen to colour in their passport and banana bending device. Note they will not receive an actual banana for 12 months,
As time goes by PAYE is adjusted to simulate Leave with higher personal tax rates for members of the programme . A special fuel payment card is included to correct the price of fuel to simulate a lower pound. A weekly lottery takes place to see who has to leave their job that week. The NHS introduces a premium referral programme, that ensures they can wait to be treated by native UK staff.
Five years into the programme, various exclusive new products are shipped to the individual representing the trade deals coming on line. New electronics from North Korea, cars from Russia, toilet rolls from South America and ultimately chlorinated pork scratchings,
Finally, a few years in the programme ends by slowly phasing the individual back to normal to simulate the UKs return to the EU.
You know that little comic theatre, where the new Speaker is dragged, oh so reluctantly, to the Chair? Well, I'd love to see him dragged out of it by MPs......
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35621079
Christophe Dettinger the former boxing heavyweight champion of France goes to court. He is becoming a cause celebre for the gilets jaunes after getting cuaght up in a police confrontation and boxing his way out of it. He has handed himself in to police and is on a charge but the public is dipping in to their pockets to fund his defence and now crowds are turning up outside the court. On the other hand his boxing whacked two police officers and one of them is off duty recovering despite all his riot gear. The state cant be seen to back down. Either way this will now play out to mid February and keep the gilets jaunes motivated,
http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2019/01/10/01016-20190110ARTFIG00001-le-boxeur-des-gendarmes-christophe-dettinger-place-en-detention-provisoire.php
He is now an odious, self-serving speaker.
Curiously, there are many who love him in one incarnation, but not the other.
Still, whatever happens, he and his unpleasant wife will be fine.
Meaningful vote: Tues 15/1
3 day response: Statement on Fri 18/1
VoNC debate: Mon 21/1
Deadline for confidence regain: Mon 4/2
FTPA 7 Thursdays afterwards for GE: Thurs 28/3
Results / first chance to see Queen and form governent:: Fri 29/3 early pm GMT, later CET
A50 expires: Fri 29/3 @ 2300 GMT
Jack Ryan has my vote.
But, actually, Corbyn extending A50 prior to testing the confidence of the house, as per David Herdson, starts to make sense against such dates.
Government business managers are not the commons clerks.
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/the-office-of-the-leader-of-the-house-of-commons/about#who-we-are
That would be these guys:
https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/principal/clerk-commons/
If you're going to argue about the matter, at least sort out what you're arguing about.
Of course Tory members would almost certainly elect a No Dealer like Boris if Farage surged soon enough anyway
I agree that this has happened in response to the delay in that vote. A majority of the House was opposed to that delay and Bercow has found a way for the Commons to fire a warning shot at the Executive to say that it won't accept such shenanigans.
Your personal animus is risible. I don't like Bercow at all, and would be happy to see him go - but on this, he is right.
Next.
Vale of Clwyd and Gower are two stand-out Welsh examples.
There are seats were the rise of UKIP hurt Labour and delivered seats to the Tories.
A chaotic Brexit election will be hugely unpredictable.
If Corbyn can get through the election by being all Brexit & Bremain things at the same time, then he will win handsomely -- but it is hard to see that actually happening.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/5651054/Speaker-John-Bercow-called-for-assisted-repatriation-of-immigrants.html
Plus as the figures show the murder rate in London fell by about 40 a year over the 8 years Boris was in charge at City Hall but has already risen by 20 a year in the 2 years Khan has been in charge at City Hall
Either way it's too late now.
Why did I 'drag in' government business managers ? Because they have been instrumental in frustrating the ability of parliament to perform its role.
If you believe the role of the Speaker is to collaborate with a minority government in ensuring that Parliament sits on its hands for weeks at a time, you don't understand the office.
Whether the call that was made was in this case justified or not I go back and forth on, and we know some of the outrage is partisan, but some of the arguments in defence seem to be stretching a bit to expand the noble aim. The speaker decides on various things, despite the famous quote they don't literally only do as directed.
Too short to tempt, could nudge higher, I think.
Let the Tories Brexit, take the hit, and then Corbyn can go for the kill.
A Brexit election carries some danger for Corbyn because it is not clear that amiable vagueness is a viable policy for much longer.
Such contempt deserved comeuppance.
NB this is not approval of the Speaker's actions.
The Prime Minister emerges from the shower and Nick Clegg says to him, "David, I just had the strangest dream ..."
That said, annexing Essex would clearly be the right thing to do.
But its equally hard to have much sympathy.
Having said that, the situation was not one which allows leisurely judgment, and I think he made the best of a bad job.
A less contentious figure making the decision might have been preferable, but for now we are stuck with the Speaker we have.
If the likes of Grieve took such umbrage at May pulling the vote, they should have removed her when they had the chance. It seems to me that they want to stop Brexit, but don't want to be the ones to do it.
But as Bercow said yesterday, unless the government brings primary legislation, nothing will change, and we will be leaving the EU on the 29 March come what may.
Any Conservative trying to push the line of competence deserves to get laughed off the planet.
In 2017, the LDs could not win ultra-Remain seats like Cambridge, when they were in second place behind a wafer-thin 2015 majority, had a popular local candidate & they were the only party backing Remain.
For whatever reason, ultra-Remainers see their best chance as recapturing the Labour leadership.
And your last sentence makes my point. We are in a time-critical phase and the government cannot expect to try to run down the clock in order to forestall discussion of the options.