Should the Speaker, Bercow go as he is biased

Should Bercow be sacked due to his obvious bias

  • No, he is unbiased and doing a good job

    Votes: 6 4.0%
  • Yes, he has overstepped his authority

    Votes: 142 94.7%
  • No thoughts either way

    Votes: 2 1.3%

  • Total voters
    150
  • Poll closed .

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
I can stand the despicable dwarf but it is the Office of Speaker that will ultimately be damaged by this. The delay in appointing him to a peerage is enough to rub in the disdain in which he is held.
 
I can stand the despicable dwarf but it is the Office of Speaker that will ultimately be damaged by this. The delay in appointing him to a peerage is enough to rub in the disdain in which he is held.
Appointing Bercow to a Life Peerage will call the system into even more disrepute that it is already held. Of course, that could be useful for a reform-minded government...
 
I can stand the despicable dwarf but it is the Office of Speaker that will ultimately be damaged by this. The delay in appointing him to a peerage is enough to rub in the disdain in which he is held.
How?

If anything it increases the standing of those already a peer of the realm.
 
I can stand the despicable dwarf but it is the Office of Speaker that will ultimately be damaged by this. The delay in appointing him to a peerage is enough to rub in the disdain in which he is held.
Such dilemmas could be avoided by simply abolishing the HoL.
 

Union Jack

Clanker
He still makes history though.

First speaker in 230 years not to be 'elevated'.

Could have been so different had the 'remainists' got their act together and overturned the will of the people.
On a point of order..... At least one declined I believe, and several died in office without being elevated, although in at least two cases their widows were created peeresses.

In any case, I suspect that we probably have to wait and see whether there is Dissolution Honours List from the last Parliament, which could affect the issue, rather than a New Year Honours List which will have been largely based on recommendations made during Mrs May's final months in office.

Jack
 
Gone but at some cost to us:
Nice to see that Bercow made careful use of public money throughout his tenure and particularly at the end...

Have a BBC link too... Ex-Speaker Bercow expensed £1,000 taxi fare

He is up there in the highest echelons of despicable pieces of ordure
 
I favour a revised Upper House on a 50:50 appointed/elected ratio.
I’d go a little further and suggest that about 75% of the appointed element of the house be Crossbenchers. This would ensure that the elevation of politicians as a reward for failure or to move them out of a safe seat for a party apparatchik became a rather more difficult task, but would allow for what was arguably a sensible move by Boris of elevating an ex-MP (who’d almost certainly get a peerage anyway) to provide continuity until a larger reshuffle.

I’d divide the Lords into three groups:

Lords Legislative, Lords Ceremonial and Lords Spiritual.

The Lords Ceremonial (LC) would be the hereditaries and those granted peerages as a recognition of service/brown nosing (the latter for failed ex-MPs, obviously, plus party donors, etc, etc). They would be allowed to stand for election to the reformed House of Lords and, if selected in the normal way, for parliamentary seats. They would not, in the latter instance, be permitted to stand for the Commons if they’d been an MP in the past 10 years.

They would have no votes in the Lords and no access to expenses, apart from travel and subsistence for attending ceremonial occasions. These would be very rare events. If expert - for example, an ex-CDS, or former head of the NHS, or a scientist of some distinction, they might be invited to contribute to debates to inform and advise; invitations to be issued by either the Lord Speaker if the LC in question asked to contribute and one of the representatives of the governing or opposition parties agreed (they would have no right of veto so as to prevent embarrassment being caused to one of the parties).

The Lords Spiritual (LS) would be the religious peerages currently in place, possibly bolstered by recognition of other faiths. They would not be allowed to vote in the reformed House of Lords, but would be allowed to speak in debate. Lords Spiritual there by virtue of holding a post (e.g. Archbishop) would be able to translate to Lords Ceremonial. They would not - by virtue of holding two separate non-elected Lords positions be eligible for election to either the Lords or Commons.

The Lords Legislative (LL). These would be the members of the revising chamber. Their numbers would be capped so that if parliament contains 650 MPs (including the Speaker and non-attenders such as SF), then the Lords as a legislative chamber would also contain 650.

Of these, 325 would be appointed and 325 elected. Of those 325, 75% would be crossbenchers and appointed on the grounds of distinction in their field (defence, education, health, science, etc). They would not have held any political office (including as an MP or a city mayor elected on a party basis) in the last 10 years.

Elected peers would be done on a regional basis, with the UK divided into a number of regions which the LL would represent in a manner akin to MEPs now, and the vote to be conducted on a PR-basis rather than FTP. As the Chamber is a revising chamber and the balance of power would be the Crossbenchers, as independent as possible from the machinations of the party machinery, the risk of a ‘hung’ Lords would not come into play. London would not have as many LL as other regions as it is arguably over-represented in the Commons, and the interests of the rest of the UK could be better represented in the revision of legislation as a result.

LLs standing for election would have to be over a certain age - 40 seems reasonable- and to have a record of distinction in their field. This would explicitly exclude being a SPAD, a party or union official, working in a party research department, etc, etc.

The House of Lords would be the over-arching body containing the LL, LS and LC, but only the LL would serve as legislators.

(Any political parties wishing to appropriate this idea should contact me via PM, offers of Crossbench peerages in same... Lord Archimedes of Arrse has a certain ring to it)
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
I’d go a little further and suggest that about 75% of the appointed element of the house be Crossbenchers. This would ensure that the elevation of politicians as a reward for failure or to move them out of a safe seat for a party apparatchik became a rather more difficult task, but would allow for what was arguably a sensible move by Boris of elevating an ex-MP (who’d almost certainly get a peerage anyway) to provide continuity until a larger reshuffle.

I’d divide the Lords into three groups:

Lords Legislative, Lords Ceremonial and Lords Spiritual.

The Lords Ceremonial (LC) would be the hereditaries and those granted peerages as a recognition of service/brown nosing (the latter for failed ex-MPs, obviously, plus party donors, etc, etc). They would be allowed to stand for election to the reformed House of Lords and, if selected in the normal way, for parliamentary seats. They would not, in the latter instance, be permitted to stand for the Commons if they’d been an MP in the past 10 years.

They would have no votes in the Lords and no access to expenses, apart from travel and subsistence for attending ceremonial occasions. These would be very rare events. If expert - for example, an ex-CDS, or former head of the NHS, or a scientist of some distinction, they might be invited to contribute to debates to inform and advise; invitations to be issued by either the Lord Speaker if the LC in question asked to contribute and one of the representatives of the governing or opposition parties agreed (they would have no right of veto so as to prevent embarrassment being caused to one of the parties).

The Lords Spiritual (LS) would be the religious peerages currently in place, possibly bolstered by recognition of other faiths. They would not be allowed to vote in the reformed House of Lords, but would be allowed to speak in debate. Lords Spiritual there by virtue of holding a post (e.g. Archbishop) would be able to translate to Lords Ceremonial. They would not - by virtue of holding two separate non-elected Lords positions be eligible for election to either the Lords or Commons.

The Lords Legislative (LL). These would be the members of the revising chamber. Their numbers would be capped so that if parliament contains 650 MPs (including the Speaker and non-attenders such as SF), then the Lords as a legislative chamber would also contain 650.

Of these, 325 would be appointed and 325 elected. Of those 325, 75% would be crossbenchers and appointed on the grounds of distinction in their field (defence, education, health, science, etc). They would not have held any political office (including as an MP or a city mayor elected on a party basis) in the last 10 years.

Elected peers would be done on a regional basis, with the UK divided into a number of regions which the LL would represent in a manner akin to MEPs now, and the vote to be conducted on a PR-basis rather than FTP. As the Chamber is a revising chamber and the balance of power would be the Crossbenchers, as independent as possible from the machinations of the party machinery, the risk of a ‘hung’ Lords would not come into play. London would not have as many LL as other regions as it is arguably over-represented in the Commons, and the interests of the rest of the UK could be better represented in the revision of legislation as a result.

LLs standing for election would have to be over a certain age - 40 seems reasonable- and to have a record of distinction in their field. This would explicitly exclude being a SPAD, a party or union official, working in a party research department, etc, etc.

The House of Lords would be the over-arching body containing the LL, LS and LC, but only the LL would serve as legislators.

(Any political parties wishing to appropriate this idea should contact me via PM, offers of Crossbench peerages in same... Lord Archimedes of Arrse has a certain ring to it)
Too complicated Archie for a relatively simple task. The HofL could quite easily be dissolved and a second chamber of 200 Legislators elected to the job. The powers would,be similar to the current HofL ones, i.e. can't overturn the will of the Commons. IMO there is no need for 650 Lords, 200 could do the job, concentrating on scrutinising legislation and returning to the Commons for agreement and action. It would be nice to have a huge number of Crossbenchers whose only aim was to honestly scrutinise legislation, but in reality that won't happen. Parties would soon be inserting their nominees as independent Crossbenchers. There is very little honour in politics!
 
The Lords Spiritual (LS) would be the religious peerages currently in place, possibly bolstered by recognition of other faiths. They would not be allowed to vote in the reformed House of Lords, but would be allowed to speak in debate. Lords Spiritual there by virtue of holding a post (e.g. Archbishop) would be able to translate to Lords Ceremonial. They would not - by virtue of holding two separate non-elected Lords positions be eligible for election to either the Lords or Commons.
Why Lords Spiritual? Religion is gradually losing it's grip on those with faith, time to grasp the nettle and ditch all the superstitious mumbo jumbo.
 

Helm

MIA
Moderator
Book Reviewer
Why Lords Spiritual? Religion is gradually losing it's grip on those with faith, time to grasp the nettle and ditch all the superstitious mumbo jumbo.
On the other hand, they make the blunt pencil go potty in his trousers, so keep them.
 
Too complicated Archie for a relatively simple task. The HofL could quite easily be dissolved and a second chamber of 200 Legislators elected to the job. The powers would,be similar to the current HofL ones, i.e. can't overturn the will of the Commons. IMO there is no need for 650 Lords, 200 could do the job, concentrating on scrutinising legislation and returning to the Commons for agreement and action. It would be nice to have a huge number of Crossbenchers whose only aim was to honestly scrutinise legislation, but in reality that won't happen. Parties would soon be inserting their nominees as independent Crossbenchers. There is very little honour in politics!
Why Lords Spiritual? Religion is gradually losing it's grip on those with faith, time to grasp the nettle and ditch all the superstitious mumbo jumbo.

The complexity is simply a device to outflank the two largest obstacles to reform - namely protests from the Church of England that they are being marginalised (a cry which has, historically, got the Telegraph and the Mail on board), and from traditionalists who adopt the 'destroying the ancient heritage of England [it's never the UK, always England...]' line by removing the peerage as a recognition of distinction [The Times joins in with that particular cry].

If you reduce the risk of blockage caused by interest groups - although I strongly suspect that removing the right of the current Lords Spiritual to vote would still cause spluttering and angst - then the process can at least start.

If you have a revising chamber which is notably smaller than the commons, then the incentive for the political parties to block reform because they can't have placemen and placewomen in the Chamber, either through appointment or election becomes an issue, and if too small, its credibility is reduced, just as it is if too large - as at present.

The difficulty is that radical change, sweeping away layers of history and interest groups is exceptionally difficult - the flawed reforms which did away with the hereditaries but little else was the culmination of a process dating back to at least the point where the unlikely alliance of Enoch Powell and Michael Foot intervened to unpick and alter (and block) Lords reform at the time when Life Peerages were introduced. If the Honours system were reformed - people get appointed as Peers for distinguished non-political service and can call themselves Lord John Smith, with the post-noms of LP [Life Peer] and without having to become Lord Smith of Lower-Arrsepimple - then that might be another means of fighting through the layers of interest groups who get in the way for different reasons but who have historically blocked reform.

Once reform began, then a process of gradual but relatively swift refinement could occur - but the process has to move first.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
Interesting. Speakers who have been elevated on leaving office have gone to the Lord's as Crossbenchers, with no Party affiliation. If Labour put Bercow up then he will be in the HofL as a Labour Peer.

Will he be the first (notional) Tory that Labour have recommended for a Peerage?
 
Interesting. Speakers who have been elevated on leaving office have gone to the Lord's as Crossbenchers, with no Party affiliation. If Labour put Bercow up then he will be in the HofL as a Labour Peer.

Will he be the first (notional) Tory that Labour have recommended for a Peerage?
The Times thinks he'll cross bench. I don't know re. the latter point.
This is typical Corbyn - seizing upon someome/something to use, just to spite the Tories. Not creating anything - just being against everything.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
The Times thinks he'll cross bench. I don't know re. the latter point.
This is typical Corbyn - seizing upon someome/something to use, just to spite the Tories. Not creating anything - just being against everything.
Creating a precedence though!
 
It was bound to happen at some point. The self-important little prick will be sucking at the tit of public expense into his dotage.
 

Latest Threads

Top