Undefined discussion subject.

DavidL said:

OldKingCole said:

DavidL said:

The vacillating Parliament of 2017-2019 was truly a disgrace, determinedly trying to overturn the referendum result with ever more contorted logic and yet failing to use their remainer majority to actually seize control when they had the chance. Thankfully most of those responsible paid the price when they became accountable to the British people ending their Parliamentary careers. Boris, contrary to the thread header, was completely right to purge his party of those who would not support government policy and he will enjoy the benefit of that ruthlessness throughout this Parliament. I suspect those so keen to jump on the Cummings bandwagon might have reflected on that episode a little more carefully.

So you don't agree with Burke's position, then?

Not when Parliament itself has committed to respecting a referendum result and then been elected on that basis in the 2017 election, no. But Burke never contemplated such duplicity.

Come on David get over it already. Brexit is done. Let it go.

kle4 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

MikeSmithson said:

BluestBlue said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

AlastairMeeks said:

HYUFD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

At some point the Conservatives are going to be out of power. I hope they can wrap up well for the cold.

They were out of power for 13 years from 1997 to 2010 but managed to survive

Actually, a large part of the problem is their residual paranoia from that time. All this rubbish about a deep state trying to thwart them comes from the belief that government was somehow rigged against them.

Some Tory posters on this site have similar issues, believing that they have to fight dirty because Blair somehow cheated by winning in 1997, rather than merely running on a popular centrist platform against an exhausted and demoralised government. Tories don't have a divine right to run this country, the peaceful transfer of power between competing political parties with a well informed electorate helped by a fair and independent media should be something that we all aspire to, instead of some kind of politics as total war mindset in which the truth is the first casualty.

By electing someone like Corbyn as leader, to my mind Labour were to the ones to declare total war on us. If he had somehow managed to win, that would have been the end of the British economy and society as most people know it.

Since then, they've managed to acquire a dull, normal-looking mask, but we know what lies beneath, because we've seen it with our own eyes for the last 5 years and aren't going to forget any time soon.

In the face of that, the Tories are not showing even 10% of the ruthlessness they should to ensure that Labour never goes down that path again.

Except we now have an extremist Tory PM prepared to abandon traditional constitutional element by only wanting to reward a speaker who has pleased them. Any government that has Cummings as a key figure is not in a position to give lectures on bullying.

You’d have thought a few key figures in this government would be very chary of a precedent that bullying accusations are a bar to a peerage. But perhaps they don’t think that far ahead.

Many bullies wont realise they are bullies. It is one of those descriptors which is both over and under utilised.

Maybe the good precedent to set is that new members of the House of Lords should be people who can make a significant and positive contribution to it. It seems to me that John Bercow has been distinctively divisive in his role as Speaker. While this may have been partially manufactured by his enemies it is also much to do with his style and character. I can't think a Speaker before (in modern times) who has so often become the story, and I am not convinced that the HoL would be a better place with him in it.

DavidL said:

So how many schools will we see opening this week? A tiny trickle today I would have thought but hopefully many more by Thursday or Friday. In Scotland the only public authority that takes state education seriously, East Renfrewshire, is looking to open schools for some pupils on 15th June. Those less bothered are waiting until August by which time most kids will have had no meaningful education for 6 months. Better start with the alphabet and numbers up to 10, I reckon.

Schools in Scotland closed on 20th March and should return around 11th Aug. I make that roughly 4 & 1/2 months, 2 months of which would be holidays anyway in the normal course of events.

About those numbers up to 10..

david_herdson said:

On topic, I'm afraid I don't agree.

The bullying allegations should be sufficient to merit at least a pause in the process. If they're found to be groundless or exaggerated then there's no reason why a peerage couldn't be awarded later - and I do think that in general, it's a good thing for former Speakers to be appointed to the Lords.

However, that should be a general rule and not a guarantee. Having overseen the expenses scandal and having almost been forced out in consequence of it, Michael Martin should not have received a peerage either. To deny two Speakers in a row would be unfortunate but these things have to be considered case-by-case.

By todays standards it is likely many past speakers would get ruled out. That is not a bad thing at all, giving out honours to the unhonourable demeans honours.

kle4 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

MikeSmithson said:

BluestBlue said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

AlastairMeeks said:

HYUFD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

At some point the Conservatives are going to be out of power. I hope they can wrap up well for the cold.

They were out of power for 13 years from 1997 to 2010 but managed to survive

Actually, a large part of the problem is their residual paranoia from that time. All this rubbish about a deep state trying to thwart them comes from the belief that government was somehow rigged against them.

Some Tory posters on this site have similar issues, believing that they have to fight dirty because Blair somehow cheated by winning in 1997, rather than merely running on a popular centrist platform against an exhausted and demoralised government. Tories don't have a divine right to run this country, the peaceful transfer of power between competing political parties with a well informed electorate helped by a fair and independent media should be something that we all aspire to, instead of some kind of politics as total war mindset in which the truth is the first casualty.

By electing someone like Corbyn as leader, to my mind Labour were to the ones to declare total war on us. If he had somehow managed to win, that would have been the end of the British economy and society as most people know it.

Since then, they've managed to acquire a dull, normal-looking mask, but we know what lies beneath, because we've seen it with our own eyes for the last 5 years and aren't going to forget any time soon.

In the face of that, the Tories are not showing even 10% of the ruthlessness they should to ensure that Labour never goes down that path again.

Except we now have an extremist Tory PM prepared to abandon traditional constitutional element by only wanting to reward a speaker who has pleased them. Any government that has Cummings as a key figure is not in a position to give lectures on bullying.

You’d have thought a few key figures in this government would be very chary of a precedent that bullying accusations are a bar to a peerage. But perhaps they don’t think that far ahead.

Many bullies wont realise they are bullies. It is one of those descriptors which is both over and under utilised.

Indeed. It is interesting that so may supporters of Johnson make a moral issue of the alleged bullying. Johnson has surrounded himself by bullies, has bullied people himself (including the grandson of Winston Churchill) and is an individual who has an amoral attitude to almost all aspects of his life.
If he had been a proper leader and a better politician he would have said something to the effect of: " as it is traditional for a PM to nominate former speakers to the peerage, I will not break that tradition, though I will leave it entirely to the discretion of the Commission to determine whether the allegations against Mr Bercow are a disbarment to such an honour being awarded."

Morning all,

Ignoring the Duffield news - her actions much like Cummings have been somewhat blown out of proportion for me and I hope the media lose interest, I must say the fantastic yougov poll and the news about Bercow's peerage being blocked make for a good Monday morning. I do think some of you lot should be outside at the weekend rather than sat on PB at 4pm on a glorious Sunday afternoon!

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_xP said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I’m taking the view that government guidance is no longer following the science but what is politically convenient.

https://twitter.com/JimCognito2016/status/1267207348688429056

France, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Australia and New Zealand have already eased lockdown

Because they were several weeks ahead of us?

We have still not yet opened restaurants, cafes and hotels like they have however

BluestBlue said:

SouthamObserver said:

BluestBlue said:

SouthamObserver said:

BluestBlue said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

AlastairMeeks said:

HYUFD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

At some point the Conservatives are going to be out of power. I hope they can wrap up well for the cold.

They were out of power for 13 years from 1997 to 2010 but managed to survive

Actually, a large part of the problem is their residual paranoia from that time. All this rubbish about a deep state trying to thwart them comes from the belief that government was somehow rigged against them.

Some Tory posters on this site have similar issues, believing that they have to fight dirty because Blair somehow cheated by winning in 1997, rather than merely running on a popular centrist platform against an exhausted and demoralised government. Tories don't have a divine right to run this country, the peaceful transfer of power between competing political parties with a well informed electorate helped by a fair and independent media should be something that we all aspire to, instead of some kind of politics as total war mindset in which the truth is the first casualty.

By electing someone like Corbyn as leader, to my mind Labour were to the ones to declare total war on us. If he had somehow managed to win, that would have been the end of the British economy and society as most people know it.

Since then, they've managed to acquire a dull, normal-looking mask, but we know what lies beneath, because we've seen it with our own eyes for the last 5 years and aren't going to forget any time soon.

In the face of that, the Tories are not showing even 10% of the ruthlessness they should to ensure that Labour never goes down that path again.

The only way Jeremy Corbyn could ever have taken power is if the British people had voted for him. The idea you should be able to second guess voters and deny them choices they might want to make is fundamentally undemocratic. To be fair, though, your views do seem to be shared by many members of the current government.

'The idea you should be able to second guess voters and deny them choices they might want to make is fundamentally undemocratic.'

You mean the way Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP etc etc spent years trying to subvert the result of the EU Referendum, thus second-guessing voters and denying them choices they might want to make in a fundamentally undemocratic manner?

The simple fact is that given a choice between the sanctity of democracy and their own interests, every side in politics will favour their own interests every single time.

Given that reality, the only question is - what are you prepared to do to be on the side that gets to make the decisions?

If that were the case, governments prior to Boris Johnson's would have sought to close down Parliament to ensure outcomes that suited them. They didn't. But your admission you do not believe in democracy is at least an honest one.

So was I wrong to say that 'Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP etc etc spent years trying to subvert the result of the EU Referendum, thus second-guessing voters and denying them choices they might want to make in a fundamentally undemocratic manner'?

You know that that's 100% right, and it exposes their supposed absolute commitment to democracy as the sham that it is. Well, as Bercow is now finding out, when you bend the rules to your own advantage, the other side notices - and remembers.

If they did do that they only did it because the voters gave them the mandate to do so.

Or did I miss Theresa May's 150 seat majority in 2017?

turbotubbs said:

How about give it some time to actually judge, rather than a few contact tracers moaning to the press?

So you can't find anyone who disagrees with the fact that it's not working, which was the original point

The best you can come up with is it might work at some point in the future, which again is the point.

Until it works, easing lockdown is problematic.

I wonder how many of those worried about Bercow's bullying were also concerned about the allegations against Priti Patel, who, as we know was cleared of this by a highly impartial investigation by the Cabinet Office.

https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1267392153187160067

algarkirk said:

kle4 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

MikeSmithson said:

BluestBlue said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

AlastairMeeks said:

HYUFD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

At some point the Conservatives are going to be out of power. I hope they can wrap up well for the cold.

They were out of power for 13 years from 1997 to 2010 but managed to survive

Actually, a large part of the problem is their residual paranoia from that time. All this rubbish about a deep state trying to thwart them comes from the belief that government was somehow rigged against them.

Some Tory posters on this site have similar issues, believing that they have to fight dirty because Blair somehow cheated by winning in 1997, rather than merely running on a popular centrist platform against an exhausted and demoralised government. Tories don't have a divine right to run this country, the peaceful transfer of power between competing political parties with a well informed electorate helped by a fair and independent media should be something that we all aspire to, instead of some kind of politics as total war mindset in which the truth is the first casualty.

By electing someone like Corbyn as leader, to my mind Labour were to the ones to declare total war on us. If he had somehow managed to win, that would have been the end of the British economy and society as most people know it.

Since then, they've managed to acquire a dull, normal-looking mask, but we know what lies beneath, because we've seen it with our own eyes for the last 5 years and aren't going to forget any time soon.

In the face of that, the Tories are not showing even 10% of the ruthlessness they should to ensure that Labour never goes down that path again.

Except we now have an extremist Tory PM prepared to abandon traditional constitutional element by only wanting to reward a speaker who has pleased them. Any government that has Cummings as a key figure is not in a position to give lectures on bullying.

You’d have thought a few key figures in this government would be very chary of a precedent that bullying accusations are a bar to a peerage. But perhaps they don’t think that far ahead.

Many bullies wont realise they are bullies. It is one of those descriptors which is both over and under utilised.

Maybe the good precedent to set is that new members of the House of Lords should be people who can make a significant and positive contribution to it. It seems to me that John Bercow has been distinctively divisive in his role as Speaker. While this may have been partially manufactured by his enemies it is also much to do with his style and character. I can't think a Speaker before (in modern times) who has so often become the story, and I am not convinced that the HoL would be a better place with him in it.

At some point I expect we shall be asked to swallow Dominic Cummings as a peer. The question should be what the person has to add to the upper house, not what their flaws are.

Are John Bercow's flaws disqualifying? Even if the allegations against him are proven completely, I'm doubtful. Has he huge experience of the dynamics of British politics from the inside? Yes he does.

I very much doubt I'd like John Bercow if I met him. I do, however, think that precedent should have been followed here and he should have been given a peerage. The mere fact that large numbers of Conservatives have a pathological hatred of him is not relevant.

HYUFD said:

It may be tradition that he should get a peerage but I doubt it will hurt Boris politically, most Tories loathe Bercow despite the fact he was a former Tory MP. Indeed the current incumbent, Lindsay Hoyle, is far more popular with Tories despite being Labour

Because he's a better Speaker? With Hoyle in the chair it's all about the House. With Bercow in the chair it was all about Bercow.

The Grauniad version:

John Bercow will not be awarded a peerage despite being nominated by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, it has been reported.

The nomination of the former Speaker of the House of Commons will not be passed on to the Queen for approval because he is the subject of an investigation into alleged wrongdoing and will not pass a “propriety test” unless he is cleared before the nominations are sent.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/30/john-bercow-will-not-get-peerage-despite-corbyn-nomination

So Johnson should have nominated an alleged bully?

Nigel_Foremain said:

I wonder how many of those worried about Bercow's bullying were also concerned about the allegations against Priti Patel, who, as we know was cleared of this by a highly impartial investigation by the Cabinet Office.

She doesn't deserve a peerage either. But it's funnier because Bercow is desperate for one and she isn't.

turbotubbs said:

Pulpstar said:

nichomar said:

A simple question and probably shows my ignorance, why does the R number appear to go up even when the number of new cases reduces. I’ve watched the number of new cases reduce in Valencia drop dramatically with 0 yesterday but the R number creeps upwards to 1?

1 person having the disease and passing to another person and that person passing to another person means an "R" of 1, whereas 100 people passing to 70 and those 70 passing to 49 means an "R" of 0.7.

After 3 periods of transmission you have 3 people infected in the first scenario and 219 total in the second but the R for the second scenario is lower.

This is why you want to push R down so much more early.

R is not related to the number of cases. (As Mark Drakeford also seems not to understand). If you don't change your behaviour for three weeks the R won't change, but if it is less than 1, the number of cases will. You could go from R = 0.5 to R = 0.9 by allowing some things to open, but the cases will still fall overall (as people recover). This is the tightrope that all countries coming out of lockdown and indeed Sweden, have to walk. In Sweden's case their informal lockdown (self behaviour, not state closure) seems to have left them with an R much closer to 1, and thus only a very slow decline in cases (and deaths) than places with a lockdown.

It really is a nonsense and it is frightening that our policy seems to be built around this mythical number. To determine R one needs to make a series of assumptions. You can assume that a person becomes infected is infectious for a period of time. How long? We really have no idea but the fact that people in hospitals get infected suggest its longer than we think, at least in some cases. We have to assume that person has a certain number of meaningful contacts. We have to assume that the people he or she comes in contact with have average vulnerability (something that clearly would not apply to those working on a care home, for example). And we have to assume that the level of infectivity is something we can usefully average. What we know in fact is that some people, for reasons we do not understand, can infect hundreds of people in a very short time. Others can literally share a bed with their partner night after night without infecting them.

You can obviously take a statistical average of infectivity but it does not tell you anything useful. What is clear is that super spreaders need to be traced and isolated very fast or numbers will increase. For the rest of us common sense precautions and self isolation is probably enough.

We need far more work done on how people are still being infected so many weeks into lockdown. Who are they? What age are they? What environments are causing that infection to spread? And then we need to concentrate on those weak spots whilst building the capacity to identify and trace super spreaders in the general population. I see little evidence we are doing either of these things.

BluestBlue said:

Sandpit said:

LOL at the basketball writer in the US, who was Tweeting his support for the rioters - until they turned up to his own gated community...
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1267127192330346500

To coin a phrase, a conservative is a Wokeist whose gated community has been set on fire by 'protesters with legitimate grievances'

During the LA riots, a friend in the US Marines went back to see her parents.

She ended up confiscating a worrying amount of weapons from neighbours - very liberal bunch, but when they thought the rioters were coming their way.

Apparently, someone in the film world had access to a firearms-for-movies company. For various reasons, these are often real weapons, not blank firing.

As she described it, it was a disaster just waiting to happen - people with no gun knowledge, largely irrational fear and very heavy weaponry.

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

StuartDickson said:

Coronavirus: Dominic Cummings uproar threatens Union, veteran Tories say

(£)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coronavirus-dominic-cummings-uproar-threatens-union-veteran-tories-say-pbb85pfk8

Does Andy Maciver read PB?

“It is ridiculous to think Jackson Carlaw will be first minister, and it was never a possibility with Ruth Davidson either even though we went through the period where people thought it might be possible, which was just self-indulgent rubbish from people that hadn’t analysed the mood properly.”

SNP down to just 47% in a Scotch subsample with Opinium at the weekend, Scottish Tories and Scottish Labour on 50% combined, giving the prospect of a Unionist majority at Holyrood next year under PR

I usually deplore the 'fixed it for ya' thing, but I'll make an exception in this case.

'down to just 47%' is so good it doesn't need fixing.

Mr HYUFD is also momentarily forgetting that there is such a thing as the Scottish Green Party, with a non-negligible representation at Holyrood.

Malmesbury said:

BluestBlue said:

Sandpit said:

LOL at the basketball writer in the US, who was Tweeting his support for the rioters - until they turned up to his own gated community...
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1267127192330346500

To coin a phrase, a conservative is a Wokeist whose gated community has been set on fire by 'protesters with legitimate grievances'

During the LA riots, a friend in the US Marines went back to see her parents.

She ended up confiscating a worrying amount of weapons from neighbours - very liberal bunch, but when they thought the rioters were coming their way.

Apparently, someone in the film world had access to a firearms-for-movies company. For various reasons, these are often real weapons, not blank firing.

As she described it, it was a disaster just waiting to happen - people with no gun knowledge, largely irrational fear and very heavy weaponry.

What did they have? Browning M2HB 0.5s?

Malmesbury said:

BluestBlue said:

Sandpit said:

LOL at the basketball writer in the US, who was Tweeting his support for the rioters - until they turned up to his own gated community...
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1267127192330346500

To coin a phrase, a conservative is a Wokeist whose gated community has been set on fire by 'protesters with legitimate grievances'

During the LA riots, a friend in the US Marines went back to see her parents.

She ended up confiscating a worrying amount of weapons from neighbours - very liberal bunch, but when they thought the rioters were coming their way.

Apparently, someone in the film world had access to a firearms-for-movies company. For various reasons, these are often real weapons, not blank firing.

As she described it, it was a disaster just waiting to happen - people with no gun knowledge, largely irrational fear and very heavy weaponry.

I do smile when listening to the occasional US liberal talking about turning the culture war into an actual war - clearly they don’t realise that the hillbillies on the other side all have guns and know how to use them!

nichomar said:

Pulpstar said:

nichomar said:

A simple question and probably shows my ignorance, why does the R number appear to go up even when the number of new cases reduces. I’ve watched the number of new cases reduce in Valencia drop dramatically with 0 yesterday but the R number creeps upwards to 1?

1 person having the disease and passing to another person and that person passing to another person means an "R" of 1, whereas 100 people passing to 70 and those 70 passing to 49 means an "R" of 0.7.

After 3 periods of transmission you have 3 people infected in the first scenario and 219 total in the second but the R for the second scenario is lower.

This is why you want to push R down so much more early.

So at low rates of infection R number is not the best indicator and raw data about new infections is? I had guessed the answer but needed confirmation. So are we now obsessed by R?

You need both.

R is handy as a lighthouse to navigate to/away from, and if R strays above 1 and stays there it's very bad news indeed. It goes back to what was happening in February / March; infection rates were low but growing rapidly, which is why they ended up high. Comparing the possibilities;

low infection / low R: put out the bunting, the outbreak is on the way out.
high infection / low R: you're in lockdown, but need to stay there for a while
low infection / high R: you need to do something to avoid a rerun of the Spring
high infection / high R: you need to get the band to start playing "Nearer My God To Thee"

That's the root of the worries of Public Health people; that the UK's infection rate is a lot higher than our neighbours, and we're taking much more of a gamble in relaxing lockdown now than they are. It doesn't have to lead to a second peak, but it's going to need some excellent reflexes for the next few weeks.

The other thing to consider is that we can't measure R directly; we can only infer it from the behaviour of raw infection data.

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

StuartDickson said:

Coronavirus: Dominic Cummings uproar threatens Union, veteran Tories say

(£)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coronavirus-dominic-cummings-uproar-threatens-union-veteran-tories-say-pbb85pfk8

Does Andy Maciver read PB?

“It is ridiculous to think Jackson Carlaw will be first minister, and it was never a possibility with Ruth Davidson either even though we went through the period where people thought it might be possible, which was just self-indulgent rubbish from people that hadn’t analysed the mood properly.”

SNP down to just 47% in a Scotch subsample with Opinium at the weekend, Scottish Tories and Scottish Labour on 50% combined, giving the prospect of a Unionist majority at Holyrood next year under PR

I usually deplore the 'fixed it for ya' thing, but I'll make an exception in this case.

'down to just 47%' is so good it doesn't need fixing.

Mr HYUFD is also momentarily forgetting that there is such a thing as the Scottish Green Party, with a non-negligible representation at Holyrood.

If Scottish Labour and the Scottish Tories alone are already on 50%, if the Scottish LDs get just 1% there could be a Unionist majority at Holyrood 2021 under PR there even if the SNP and Greens combined get 49%

CarlottaVance said:

TOPPING said:

CarlottaVance said:

HYUFD said:

It may be tradition that he should get a peerage but I doubt it will hurt Boris politically, most Tories loathe Bercow despite the fact he was a former Tory MP. Indeed the current incumbent, Lindsay Hoyle, is far more popular with Tories despite being Labour

Because he's a better Speaker? With Hoyle in the chair it's all about the House. With Bercow in the chair it was all about Bercow.

The Grauniad version:

John Bercow will not be awarded a peerage despite being nominated by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, it has been reported.

The nomination of the former Speaker of the House of Commons will not be passed on to the Queen for approval because he is the subject of an investigation into alleged wrongdoing and will not pass a “propriety test” unless he is cleared before the nominations are sent.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/30/john-bercow-will-not-get-peerage-despite-corbyn-nomination

So Johnson should have nominated an alleged bully?

People can allege anything. And often do. I would have no problem with it all waiting until he has been found "guilty" or cleared.

Three of Corbyn's nominations have not been proceeded with because of questions over propriety - Bercow, Watson and Murphy. I doubt Watson will ever get it because his position on the bogus (Tory only, funnily enough) claims is well known. Bercow and Murphy are still under investigation (EHRC, Labour antisemitism in Murphy's case.)

OGH is arguing that Bercow should have been sent to the Lords irrespective of the outcome of the bullying allegations.

Whilst I agree with you principle, let’s not pretend that if it wasn’t for the Brexit stuff, nobody would really give two sh*ts about the bullying allegations.

CarlottaVance said:

TOPPING said:

CarlottaVance said:

HYUFD said:

It may be tradition that he should get a peerage but I doubt it will hurt Boris politically, most Tories loathe Bercow despite the fact he was a former Tory MP. Indeed the current incumbent, Lindsay Hoyle, is far more popular with Tories despite being Labour

Because he's a better Speaker? With Hoyle in the chair it's all about the House. With Bercow in the chair it was all about Bercow.

The Grauniad version:

John Bercow will not be awarded a peerage despite being nominated by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, it has been reported.

The nomination of the former Speaker of the House of Commons will not be passed on to the Queen for approval because he is the subject of an investigation into alleged wrongdoing and will not pass a “propriety test” unless he is cleared before the nominations are sent.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/30/john-bercow-will-not-get-peerage-despite-corbyn-nomination

So Johnson should have nominated an alleged bully?

People can allege anything. And often do. I would have no problem with it all waiting until he has been found "guilty" or cleared.

Three of Corbyn's nominations have not been proceeded with because of questions over propriety - Bercow, Watson and Murphy. I doubt Watson will ever get it because his position on the bogus (Tory only, funnily enough) claims is well known. Bercow and Murphy are still under investigation (EHRC, Labour antisemitism in Murphy's case.)

OGH is arguing that Bercow should have been sent to the Lords irrespective of the outcome of the bullying allegations.

Again, do you believe that bullying should be an absolute bar to membership of the House of Lords?

Just so we have a benchmark for future Conservative applications.

AlastairMeeks said:

CarlottaVance said:

HYUFD said:

It may be tradition that he should get a peerage but I doubt it will hurt Boris politically, most Tories loathe Bercow despite the fact he was a former Tory MP. Indeed the current incumbent, Lindsay Hoyle, is far more popular with Tories despite being Labour

Because he's a better Speaker? With Hoyle in the chair it's all about the House. With Bercow in the chair it was all about Bercow.

The Grauniad version:

John Bercow will not be awarded a peerage despite being nominated by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, it has been reported.

The nomination of the former Speaker of the House of Commons will not be passed on to the Queen for approval because he is the subject of an investigation into alleged wrongdoing and will not pass a “propriety test” unless he is cleared before the nominations are sent.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/30/john-bercow-will-not-get-peerage-despite-corbyn-nomination

So Johnson should have nominated an alleged bully?

Do you think that bullying is a complete bar on entry in the House of Lords?

I don't think someone should "automatically" get a peerage when investigations into their alleged bullying behaviour are under way.

Do you?

Mexicanpete said:

Gallowgate said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_xP said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I’m taking the view that government guidance is no longer following the science but what is politically convenient.

https://twitter.com/JimCognito2016/status/1267207348688429056

France, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Australia and New Zealand have already eased lockdown

Because they were several weeks ahead of us?

It doesn’t matter. Lockdown is over for all intents and purposes whether you like it or not. People have had enough.

Johnson's misconceived Sunday evening fireside chat ended it. I would say the mixed messages presented were ill conceived for this lockdown and certainly for any required future lockdowns.

Intermediate lockdown where you can do some things and not other things makes for trickier messaging. Needless to say, Johnson mismanaged this, as he does with everything else.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1267392153187160067

This is ridiculous. It is verging on ridiculous that MPs should be required to vote in person, even in normal circumstances, when owing to illness, pregnancy, or other exceptional factors they should not be required to.

The idea they should be required to attend IN THE MIDDLE OF A PANDEMIC beggars belief.

Proxy voting exists now right? So can’t ALL Labour MPs essentially assign the same proxy? Thus Keir Starmer walks through the lobby on behalf of all 202 Labour MPs?

AlastairMeeks said:

CarlottaVance said:

TOPPING said:

CarlottaVance said:

HYUFD said:

It may be tradition that he should get a peerage but I doubt it will hurt Boris politically, most Tories loathe Bercow despite the fact he was a former Tory MP. Indeed the current incumbent, Lindsay Hoyle, is far more popular with Tories despite being Labour

Because he's a better Speaker? With Hoyle in the chair it's all about the House. With Bercow in the chair it was all about Bercow.

The Grauniad version:

John Bercow will not be awarded a peerage despite being nominated by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, it has been reported.

The nomination of the former Speaker of the House of Commons will not be passed on to the Queen for approval because he is the subject of an investigation into alleged wrongdoing and will not pass a “propriety test” unless he is cleared before the nominations are sent.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/30/john-bercow-will-not-get-peerage-despite-corbyn-nomination

So Johnson should have nominated an alleged bully?

People can allege anything. And often do. I would have no problem with it all waiting until he has been found "guilty" or cleared.

Three of Corbyn's nominations have not been proceeded with because of questions over propriety - Bercow, Watson and Murphy. I doubt Watson will ever get it because his position on the bogus (Tory only, funnily enough) claims is well known. Bercow and Murphy are still under investigation (EHRC, Labour antisemitism in Murphy's case.)

OGH is arguing that Bercow should have been sent to the Lords irrespective of the outcome of the bullying allegations.

Again, do you believe that bullying should be an absolute bar to membership of the House of Lords?

Just so we have a benchmark for future Conservative applications.

Again, do you think elevation to the Lords should be irrespective of the outcomes of investigations currently underway?

brokenwheel said:

Dura_Ace said:

brokenwheel said:

Still not explaining how this has anything to do with Trump.

Because, through word and deed, he has created a climate in which structural racism flourishes.

Ah, I see we're at the scraping the barrel stage.

Yes, what happens in PDs in Democrat cities in Democrat states is totally Trump's fault and there has never been anything like this happen before Trump became president.

It's truly amazing the level of control Trump has over white Antifa kids.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

CarlottaVance said:

AlastairMeeks said:

CarlottaVance said:

HYUFD said:

It may be tradition that he should get a peerage but I doubt it will hurt Boris politically, most Tories loathe Bercow despite the fact he was a former Tory MP. Indeed the current incumbent, Lindsay Hoyle, is far more popular with Tories despite being Labour

Because he's a better Speaker? With Hoyle in the chair it's all about the House. With Bercow in the chair it was all about Bercow.

The Grauniad version:

John Bercow will not be awarded a peerage despite being nominated by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, it has been reported.

The nomination of the former Speaker of the House of Commons will not be passed on to the Queen for approval because he is the subject of an investigation into alleged wrongdoing and will not pass a “propriety test” unless he is cleared before the nominations are sent.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/30/john-bercow-will-not-get-peerage-despite-corbyn-nomination

So Johnson should have nominated an alleged bully?

Do you think that bullying is a complete bar on entry in the House of Lords?

I don't think someone should "automatically" get a peerage when investigations into their alleged bullying behaviour are under way.

Do you?

Let's assume the person in question was Gordon Brown, former Prime Minister, famous thrower of mobile phones.

I'd regard his past position as far more important than his misdeeds, even though I was never a fan of his.

Here we have a former Speaker of ten year's standing, one of the most influential figures of the political scene over that time.

The allegations do not reflect well on him. Do they change the fact that he was one of the most influential figures of the political scene over the last ten years? No they don't. Nor are the allegations sufficiently serious to warrant his exclusion.

So yes, I do think that John Bercow specifically should get a peerage, even though investigations into his alleged bullying are still ongoing.

Do tell me which bit of that you disagree with. Just so we can understand why things are magically different for the next Conservative bully who's up for consideration.

Theuniondivvie said:

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

StuartDickson said:

Coronavirus: Dominic Cummings uproar threatens Union, veteran Tories say

(£)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coronavirus-dominic-cummings-uproar-threatens-union-veteran-tories-say-pbb85pfk8

Does Andy Maciver read PB?

“It is ridiculous to think Jackson Carlaw will be first minister, and it was never a possibility with Ruth Davidson either even though we went through the period where people thought it might be possible, which was just self-indulgent rubbish from people that hadn’t analysed the mood properly.”

SNP down to just 47% in a Scotch subsample with Opinium at the weekend, Scottish Tories and Scottish Labour on 50% combined, giving the prospect of a Unionist majority at Holyrood next year under PR

I usually deplore the 'fixed it for ya' thing, but I'll make an exception in this case.

'down to just 47%' is so good it doesn't need fixing.

Mr HYUFD is also momentarily forgetting that there is such a thing as the Scottish Green Party, with a non-negligible representation at Holyrood.

The Greens only burst onto Unionist memories when they disagree with the SNP about something or call SCons lying pish talkers.

I'm not Ross Greer's number 1 fan but he has a talent for getting under Tory skin.

https://twitter.com/Ross_Greer/status/1267032947233886208?s=20

Everyone involved in the Yes campaign has a story about Greer.

And not the good kind of story.

Andy_Cooke said:

Gallowgate said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_xP said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I’m taking the view that government guidance is no longer following the science but what is politically convenient.

https://twitter.com/JimCognito2016/status/1267207348688429056

France, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Australia and New Zealand have already eased lockdown

Because they were several weeks ahead of us?

It doesn’t matter. Lockdown is over for all intents and purposes whether you like it or not. People have had enough.

It doesn't matter whether we like it or not.
It only matters if the virus likes it or not.

Well it doesn’t. We cant all cower in our homes indefinitely. The virus is not going anywhere for the time being.

Mexicanpete said:

brokenwheel said:

Dura_Ace said:

brokenwheel said:

Still not explaining how this has anything to do with Trump.

Because, through word and deed, he has created a climate in which structural racism flourishes.

Ah, I see we're at the scraping the barrel stage.

Yes, what happens in PDs in Democrat cities in Democrat states is totally Trump's fault and there has never been anything like this happen before Trump became president.

It's truly amazing the level of control Trump has over white Antifa kids.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

To virtue signal you must have virtue in the first place.

TOPPING said:

CarlottaVance said:

TOPPING said:

CarlottaVance said:

HYUFD said:

It may be tradition that he should get a peerage but I doubt it will hurt Boris politically, most Tories loathe Bercow despite the fact he was a former Tory MP. Indeed the current incumbent, Lindsay Hoyle, is far more popular with Tories despite being Labour

Because he's a better Speaker? With Hoyle in the chair it's all about the House. With Bercow in the chair it was all about Bercow.

The Grauniad version:

John Bercow will not be awarded a peerage despite being nominated by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, it has been reported.

The nomination of the former Speaker of the House of Commons will not be passed on to the Queen for approval because he is the subject of an investigation into alleged wrongdoing and will not pass a “propriety test” unless he is cleared before the nominations are sent.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/30/john-bercow-will-not-get-peerage-despite-corbyn-nomination

So Johnson should have nominated an alleged bully?

People can allege anything. And often do. I would have no problem with it all waiting until he has been found "guilty" or cleared.

Three of Corbyn's nominations have not been proceeded with because of questions over propriety - Bercow, Watson and Murphy. I doubt Watson will ever get it because his position on the bogus (Tory only, funnily enough) claims is well known. Bercow and Murphy are still under investigation (EHRC, Labour antisemitism in Murphy's case.)

OGH is arguing that Bercow should have been sent to the Lords irrespective of the outcome of the bullying allegations.

I think he probably should have been. Alternatively I'm sure all incumbent peers would be happy to have their positions reassessed depending on their behaviour over the past few years.

I think there is a difference between an individual (and no doubt there are some first class boors in the Lords) and someone who had a duty of care to the members of staff in one half of parliament and, if the allegations are true, failed badly in that role. IF Bercow was that bully - why would you send him back into the house?

Nigel_Foremain said:

AlastairMeeks said:

CarlottaVance said:

TOPPING said:

CarlottaVance said:

HYUFD said:

It may be tradition that he should get a peerage but I doubt it will hurt Boris politically, most Tories loathe Bercow despite the fact he was a former Tory MP. Indeed the current incumbent, Lindsay Hoyle, is far more popular with Tories despite being Labour

Because he's a better Speaker? With Hoyle in the chair it's all about the House. With Bercow in the chair it was all about Bercow.

The Grauniad version:

John Bercow will not be awarded a peerage despite being nominated by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, it has been reported.

The nomination of the former Speaker of the House of Commons will not be passed on to the Queen for approval because he is the subject of an investigation into alleged wrongdoing and will not pass a “propriety test” unless he is cleared before the nominations are sent.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/30/john-bercow-will-not-get-peerage-despite-corbyn-nomination

So Johnson should have nominated an alleged bully?

People can allege anything. And often do. I would have no problem with it all waiting until he has been found "guilty" or cleared.

Three of Corbyn's nominations have not been proceeded with because of questions over propriety - Bercow, Watson and Murphy. I doubt Watson will ever get it because his position on the bogus (Tory only, funnily enough) claims is well known. Bercow and Murphy are still under investigation (EHRC, Labour antisemitism in Murphy's case.)

OGH is arguing that Bercow should have been sent to the Lords irrespective of the outcome of the bullying allegations.

Again, do you believe that bullying should be an absolute bar to membership of the House of Lords?

Just so we have a benchmark for future Conservative applications.

I do hope that those that have been bullied by Cummings and, therefore also by Boris Johnson (through executive oversight) get their allegations in soon!

You'll find out, magically, that was an entirely different sort of bullying allegation, should one come forward. It will have been "politically motivated" or "insufficiently serious" or some such bullshit.

CarlottaVance said:

TOPPING said:

CarlottaVance said:

HYUFD said:

It may be tradition that he should get a peerage but I doubt it will hurt Boris politically, most Tories loathe Bercow despite the fact he was a former Tory MP. Indeed the current incumbent, Lindsay Hoyle, is far more popular with Tories despite being Labour

Because he's a better Speaker? With Hoyle in the chair it's all about the House. With Bercow in the chair it was all about Bercow.

The Grauniad version:

John Bercow will not be awarded a peerage despite being nominated by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, it has been reported.

The nomination of the former Speaker of the House of Commons will not be passed on to the Queen for approval because he is the subject of an investigation into alleged wrongdoing and will not pass a “propriety test” unless he is cleared before the nominations are sent.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/30/john-bercow-will-not-get-peerage-despite-corbyn-nomination

So Johnson should have nominated an alleged bully?

People can allege anything. And often do. I would have no problem with it all waiting until he has been found "guilty" or cleared.

Three of Corbyn's nominations have not been proceeded with because of questions over propriety - Bercow, Watson and Murphy. I doubt Watson will ever get it because his position on the bogus (Tory only, funnily enough) claims is well known. Bercow and Murphy are still under investigation (EHRC, Labour antisemitism in Murphy's case.)

OGH is arguing that Bercow should have been sent to the Lords irrespective of the outcome of the bullying allegations.

Genuine questions -

- Has a government every over-ruled the Appointments Commission and put someone in the House of Lords?
- Is over-ruling the commission recognised in the system as an option. i.e. rules saying specifically this is an option
- What would over-ruling the commision be considered as? - argy-bargy in politics, or over throwing the effective mandate of the commision? Or what?

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Beibheirli_C said:

@MikeSmithson said "Real Tories don’t ignore longstanding traditions"

Real Tories are not in charge.

Thank goodness.

“If we only went by precedent, manifestly nothing would ever change."

The lunatic fringe that are clearly so aligned with your divisive world view (a very small world called Little England) will have their day. That day will soon come to an end when people wake up and realise. The Clown's days, much like his populist ally in the US, are very much numbered.

If it's divisive to take bullying allegations seriously I'm content to be divisive.

Ponder your language with your interlocutors over the time you have been on PB. Vigorous, passionate, incisive. But also, perhaps, opinionated, aggressive, bullying?

I have absolutely no idea of the charges' validity against Bercow. Just that bullying allegations are just that, allegations.

The allegations are just that, allegations. There's a simple solution that is fair to all parties: have a free and fair investigation.

There is no reason to prejudge an investigation. If the investigation clears Bercow he should get his ermine. If Leakey is right he shouldn't. Is that unreasonable?

No it isn’t unreasonable. But that doesn’t mean you have to pretend this has nothing to do with Brexit. As I said before, if it wasn’t for the Brexit shenanigans, nobody would give two hoots about the bullying allegations. Don’t be so naive to think otherwise.

Gallowgate said:

CarlottaVance said:

TOPPING said:

CarlottaVance said:

HYUFD said:

It may be tradition that he should get a peerage but I doubt it will hurt Boris politically, most Tories loathe Bercow despite the fact he was a former Tory MP. Indeed the current incumbent, Lindsay Hoyle, is far more popular with Tories despite being Labour

Because he's a better Speaker? With Hoyle in the chair it's all about the House. With Bercow in the chair it was all about Bercow.

The Grauniad version:

John Bercow will not be awarded a peerage despite being nominated by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, it has been reported.

The nomination of the former Speaker of the House of Commons will not be passed on to the Queen for approval because he is the subject of an investigation into alleged wrongdoing and will not pass a “propriety test” unless he is cleared before the nominations are sent.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/30/john-bercow-will-not-get-peerage-despite-corbyn-nomination

So Johnson should have nominated an alleged bully?

People can allege anything. And often do. I would have no problem with it all waiting until he has been found "guilty" or cleared.

Three of Corbyn's nominations have not been proceeded with because of questions over propriety - Bercow, Watson and Murphy. I doubt Watson will ever get it because his position on the bogus (Tory only, funnily enough) claims is well known. Bercow and Murphy are still under investigation (EHRC, Labour antisemitism in Murphy's case.)

OGH is arguing that Bercow should have been sent to the Lords irrespective of the outcome of the bullying allegations.

Whilst I agree with you principle, let’s not pretend that if it wasn’t for the Brexit stuff, nobody would really give two sh*ts about the bullying allegations.

I agree. Its Cummings in reverse and two wrongs do not make a right. Its a symptom of our increasing partisanship and our side right or wrong. Of course, the Speaker should not really have had a side and that is a part of the problem.

Fishing said:

MikeSmithson said:

Fishing said:

"In blocking a peerage to Bercow Johnson is also going against the advice of Bercow’s successor, Lindsay Hoyle. Back in December he urged Downing Street to follow “custom and practice”."

I have respect for Lindsay Hoyle, certainly after Bercow, but he's hardly uninterested in this row, is he?

"Real Tories don’t ignore longstanding traditions."

They do if they don't make sense in a particular case, as is arguably true here.

I personally think honours should be earned, rather than be given automatically for doing your job.

Anyway, if the HLAC decided not to recommend Bercow, at least until the allegations are settled, then wouldn't it be a breach of convention for Boris to nominate him?

Johnson has now created a new rule - outgoing speakers only get elevated to a peerage if they have pleased the government of the day. That is a constitutional outrage.

I don't think he has created that rule. I don't think anyone has, but if they have, it's the HLAC.

The Commission's mandate is to ensure that political nominations meet the "highest standards of propriety". Nobody can say that Bercow does until the bullying allegations are resolved.

That is all very fine but is there any actual investigation going on and, if so, who is doing it? Because it is awfully slow, if so, and it really should not be. This is unfair both to Bercow and those making the allegations.

algarkirk said:

kle4 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

MikeSmithson said:

BluestBlue said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

AlastairMeeks said:

HYUFD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

At some point the Conservatives are going to be out of power. I hope they can wrap up well for the cold.

They were out of power for 13 years from 1997 to 2010 but managed to survive

Actually, a large part of the problem is their residual paranoia from that time. All this rubbish about a deep state trying to thwart them comes from the belief that government was somehow rigged against them.

Some Tory posters on this site have similar issues, believing that they have to fight dirty because Blair somehow cheated by winning in 1997, rather than merely running on a popular centrist platform against an exhausted and demoralised government. Tories don't have a divine right to run this country, the peaceful transfer of power between competing political parties with a well informed electorate helped by a fair and independent media should be something that we all aspire to, instead of some kind of politics as total war mindset in which the truth is the first casualty.

By electing someone like Corbyn as leader, to my mind Labour were to the ones to declare total war on us. If he had somehow managed to win, that would have been the end of the British economy and society as most people know it.

Since then, they've managed to acquire a dull, normal-looking mask, but we know what lies beneath, because we've seen it with our own eyes for the last 5 years and aren't going to forget any time soon.

In the face of that, the Tories are not showing even 10% of the ruthlessness they should to ensure that Labour never goes down that path again.

Except we now have an extremist Tory PM prepared to abandon traditional constitutional element by only wanting to reward a speaker who has pleased them. Any government that has Cummings as a key figure is not in a position to give lectures on bullying.

You’d have thought a few key figures in this government would be very chary of a precedent that bullying accusations are a bar to a peerage. But perhaps they don’t think that far ahead.

Many bullies wont realise they are bullies. It is one of those descriptors which is both over and under utilised.

Maybe the good precedent to set is that new members of the House of Lords should be people who can make a significant and positive contribution to it. It seems to me that John Bercow has been distinctively divisive in his role as Speaker. While this may have been partially manufactured by his enemies it is also much to do with his style and character. I can't think a Speaker before (in modern times) who has so often become the story, and I am not convinced that the HoL would be a better place with him in it.

Great post. Balanced and insightful.

brokenwheel said:

Mexicanpete said:

brokenwheel said:

Dura_Ace said:

brokenwheel said:

Still not explaining how this has anything to do with Trump.

Because, through word and deed, he has created a climate in which structural racism flourishes.

Ah, I see we're at the scraping the barrel stage.

Yes, what happens in PDs in Democrat cities in Democrat states is totally Trump's fault and there has never been anything like this happen before Trump became president.

It's truly amazing the level of control Trump has over white Antifa kids.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

To virtue signal you must have virtue in the first place.

Often those who "virtue signal" have little virtue at all. Boris Johnson hiding behind the allegations of bullying made against Bercow is an example of political virtue signalling. Virtue signalling is often an indicator of small minded people. Johnson is a man of little virtue, little talent and little competence. In spite of his flabby 17 stones, he is indeed a little man.

fox327 said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/AndrewSparrow/status/1267381405912313856

"@AndrewSparrow
PM has not met five tests for easing lockdown, says Association of Directors of Public Health - https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2020/jun/01/uk-coronavirus-live-england-schools-reopen-lockdown-eases-covid-19-latest-updates?page=with:block-5ed4be498f084df971c8d582#block-5ed4be498f084df971c8d582 …"

Government decisions are often dictated by one of two groups of people, the government itself and the people of the UK. Medical professionals like the Association of Directors of Public Health usually target their messaging at the government as if the people don't matter and would not understand. These doctors want to decide how the country is run, so it is time for them to try to show some appreciation of democracy and economics if they want to be listened to by everyone.

I guess the people of the UK learning that they know far less than the doctors will have useful long-term consequences, but it'll be painful in the short term.

DavidL said:

Gallowgate said:

CarlottaVance said:

TOPPING said:

CarlottaVance said:

HYUFD said:

It may be tradition that he should get a peerage but I doubt it will hurt Boris politically, most Tories loathe Bercow despite the fact he was a former Tory MP. Indeed the current incumbent, Lindsay Hoyle, is far more popular with Tories despite being Labour

Because he's a better Speaker? With Hoyle in the chair it's all about the House. With Bercow in the chair it was all about Bercow.

The Grauniad version:

John Bercow will not be awarded a peerage despite being nominated by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, it has been reported.

The nomination of the former Speaker of the House of Commons will not be passed on to the Queen for approval because he is the subject of an investigation into alleged wrongdoing and will not pass a “propriety test” unless he is cleared before the nominations are sent.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/30/john-bercow-will-not-get-peerage-despite-corbyn-nomination

So Johnson should have nominated an alleged bully?

People can allege anything. And often do. I would have no problem with it all waiting until he has been found "guilty" or cleared.

Three of Corbyn's nominations have not been proceeded with because of questions over propriety - Bercow, Watson and Murphy. I doubt Watson will ever get it because his position on the bogus (Tory only, funnily enough) claims is well known. Bercow and Murphy are still under investigation (EHRC, Labour antisemitism in Murphy's case.)

OGH is arguing that Bercow should have been sent to the Lords irrespective of the outcome of the bullying allegations.

Whilst I agree with you principle, let’s not pretend that if it wasn’t for the Brexit stuff, nobody would really give two sh*ts about the bullying allegations.

I agree. Its Cummings in reverse and two wrongs do not make a right. Its a symptom of our increasing partisanship and our side right or wrong. Of course, the Speaker should not really have had a side and that is a part of the problem.

I agree. I mean, I personally don’t really care whether he gets a peerage or not. It is of no consequence to me. What I do care about is people righteously pretending they suddenly care about bullying in public life.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

House of Lords = House of UNELECTED HAS-BEENS!

On that, Sunil, we agree. Dynamite the whole place and replace it with a house elected by proportional representation.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1267392153187160067

I'm with you on this one. Either they are back per usual or use the exceptional measures you had set up, a midway doesnt work here.

Let's not forget Bercow has hardly been doing himself any favours with the HoC authorities:

The House of Commons has severely criticised John Bercow after he named staff members without their prior knowledge in his autobiography.

A spokesman for the house said it was “unacceptable” for the former Speaker to identify current and former members of staff for “the purpose of financial gain or commercial success”.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/06/house-of-commons-criticises-john-bercow-autobiography-for-naming-staff

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Beibheirli_C said:

@MikeSmithson said "Real Tories don’t ignore longstanding traditions"

Real Tories are not in charge.

Thank goodness.

“If we only went by precedent, manifestly nothing would ever change."

The lunatic fringe that are clearly so aligned with your divisive world view (a very small world called Little England) will have their day. That day will soon come to an end when people wake up and realise. The Clown's days, much like his populist ally in the US, are very much numbered.

If it's divisive to take bullying allegations seriously I'm content to be divisive.

Ponder your language with your interlocutors over the time you have been on PB. Vigorous, passionate, incisive. But also, perhaps, opinionated, aggressive, bullying?

I have absolutely no idea of the charges' validity against Bercow. Just that bullying allegations are just that, allegations.

The allegations are just that, allegations. There's a simple solution that is fair to all parties: have a free and fair investigation.

There is no reason to prejudge an investigation. If the investigation clears Bercow he should get his ermine. If Leakey is right he shouldn't. Is that unreasonable?

It's very reasonable. I could have lived with the peerage not being subject to entry requirements in this particular instrance although I also appreciate that where does one draw the line.

Cyclefree said:

Fishing said:

MikeSmithson said:

Fishing said:

"In blocking a peerage to Bercow Johnson is also going against the advice of Bercow’s successor, Lindsay Hoyle. Back in December he urged Downing Street to follow “custom and practice”."

I have respect for Lindsay Hoyle, certainly after Bercow, but he's hardly uninterested in this row, is he?

"Real Tories don’t ignore longstanding traditions."

They do if they don't make sense in a particular case, as is arguably true here.

I personally think honours should be earned, rather than be given automatically for doing your job.

Anyway, if the HLAC decided not to recommend Bercow, at least until the allegations are settled, then wouldn't it be a breach of convention for Boris to nominate him?

Johnson has now created a new rule - outgoing speakers only get elevated to a peerage if they have pleased the government of the day. That is a constitutional outrage.

I don't think he has created that rule. I don't think anyone has, but if they have, it's the HLAC.

The Commission's mandate is to ensure that political nominations meet the "highest standards of propriety". Nobody can say that Bercow does until the bullying allegations are resolved.

That is all very fine but is there any actual investigation going on and, if so, who is doing it? Because it is awfully slow, if so, and it really should not be. This is unfair both to Bercow and those making the allegations.

I wondered the same thing.
While I don't have a great deal of sympathy for Bercow, that is beside the point. Everyone opposing his appointment seems quite content for his exclusion to happen in a manner utterly obscure. You can't introduce principles into public life in a partial and unprincipled way.

Alphabet_Soup said:

Can we please forget about Mr Bercow and have more photos of Mrs Bercow instead?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1353272/Sally-Bercow-posing-sheet-reveals-Speaker-husband-Johns-bedroom-secrets.html

Oh, please don't. The Mail salivates more in that piece than my late Irish Setter did ...

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

CarlottaVance said:

HYUFD said:

It may be tradition that he should get a peerage but I doubt it will hurt Boris politically, most Tories loathe Bercow despite the fact he was a former Tory MP. Indeed the current incumbent, Lindsay Hoyle, is far more popular with Tories despite being Labour

Because he's a better Speaker? With Hoyle in the chair it's all about the House. With Bercow in the chair it was all about Bercow.

The Grauniad version:

John Bercow will not be awarded a peerage despite being nominated by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, it has been reported.

The nomination of the former Speaker of the House of Commons will not be passed on to the Queen for approval because he is the subject of an investigation into alleged wrongdoing and will not pass a “propriety test” unless he is cleared before the nominations are sent.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/30/john-bercow-will-not-get-peerage-despite-corbyn-nomination

So Johnson should have nominated an alleged bully?

People can allege anything. And often do. I would have no problem with it all waiting until he has been found "guilty" or cleared.

Perhaps that is what will happen in any case. Been dragging on a while, though, already.

Glad to see you agreeing with me.

No. You agreed with me.