Was Bercow out of order and should he be replaced?

Was Bercow out of order and should he be replaced?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 309 79.4%
  • No.

    Votes: 50 12.9%
  • Not fussed either way.

    Votes: 30 7.7%

  • Total voters
    389
The funniest part of this thread has been the last few pages watching all the Tory fan boys pulling what’s left of their hair out over Bercow!
 
Not from what you said here!

Unless of course your partisan political comments are meant to reflect some change to the political constitution that none of us have been told about.
From everything you have said. Please point out my "partisan political comments".

I simply pointed out that Bercow had failed to be impartial. You keep trying to defend it, which implies you think he should be partisan.
 
The speaker represents the interests of Parliament as a whole taking into account the fact that Parliament is the supreme decision making body in UK politics.

The speaker isn’t there to do the bidding of the executive or to call it by it’s more common name, the government, regardless of their political origins.

You have no excuse now for not understanding the Speakers role!

The problem with Bercow was that he was perceived by MPs to be biased on a pretty regular basis. His disdain towards Cameron was clear (it shouldn’t have been), and his handling of Brexit, even if some of the coverage from the Mail, Express, et al showed an astounding lack of understanding about parliamentary procedure and the Speaker’s role, came to be seen as biased by a significant chunk of the House.

When the Speaker has become regarded as being biased, then they’ve stopped doing their job properly - perception of overt bias is an egregious failure. It has happened on occasion in the past, when George Thomas was accused (less openly) of letting his admiration for Mrs T turn into bias in some of his decisions. The fact that he could be seen to have behaved largely the same towards the executive whether it was Labour (76-79) or Tory (79-83, when he retired) mitigated this, though.

Although it’s whatiffery, I’m fairly sure that had Speaker Boothroyd, Speaker Weatherill or even Speaker Hoyle been in the chair a lot of the Brexit-related decisions made by the Speaker would’ve been either identical or very similar, but handled much more adroitly with clear references to Standing Orders, precedents, Erskine May, etc, etc to show why the decision had been made, acknowledging the room for controversy the decision might cause. Bercow, because he wanted to be the centre of attention (even if that’s unfair, he created that perception) failed spectacularly at this.

The automatic peerage issue should have been tackled when Martin resigned - he had clearly failed at his job, but his willingness to play the ‘victim of class prejudice’ card (he was actually victim of prejudice against being patently rubbish at the job) meant that the question about whether the ‘peerage comes with the rations’ was appropriate wasn’t asked and he was granted one more as a consolation prize and out of relief that he’d gone.
 
From everything you have said. Please point out my "partisan political comments".

I simply pointed out that Bercow had failed to be impartial. You keep trying to defend it, which implies you think he should be partisan.

Indeed. Even senior Labour MPs admitted he had not acted properly, but he (and his improper actions) worked to their advantage in the HoC so they would not do him down.
 
Surely, if he has joined the LP, he should be offering to stand as an MP bringing his unparalleled experience etc etc.

He really is shameless.
 
From everything you have said. Please point out my "partisan political comments".

I simply pointed out that Bercow had failed to be impartial. You keep trying to defend it, which implies you think he should be partisan.

It was his job as speaker to place the interests of the House of Commons at the forefront of everything he does or says.

Of course he’s partisan. He’s meant to be!

You on the other hand are just an unpaid fanboy.
 
So what's the next step, Bercow suddenly has a love for racist alcoholics, deep fried food, and forgetting anything important, and joins the SNP hoping to try it on with the cult
 
Of course he’s partisan. He’s meant to be!
No, he isn't. Go back to school.

"Non-partisanship
By convention the speaker severs all ties with their political party while in office, as it is considered essential they be seen as an impartial presiding officer.[13] Many have served in ministerial or other political positions beforehand. For example, Selwyn Lloyd and George Thomas had both served as high-ranking Cabinet members and Bernard Weatherill and Betty Boothroyd had been a party whip.

In the House, the speaker does not vote on any motion, except to resolve ties (see section below). By modern convention the deputies (actively presiding roles) adhere to this and number one from the speaker's former party, and two from the other side of the House. Thus no net voting, nor Commons speeches, power is lost for government or the opposition.[15]

After leaving office, the speaker normally takes no part in party politics; if elevated to the House of Lords, they would normally sit as a crossbencher. If a former speaker desires to be (re-)elected back to the House, they may rejoin their pre-speakership party."
 
No, he isn't. Go back to school.

"Non-partisanship
By convention the speaker severs all ties with their political party while in office, as it is considered essential they be seen as an impartial presiding officer.[13] Many have served in ministerial or other political positions beforehand. For example, Selwyn Lloyd and George Thomas had both served as high-ranking Cabinet members and Bernard Weatherill and Betty Boothroyd had been a party whip.

In the House, the speaker does not vote on any motion, except to resolve ties (see section below). By modern convention the deputies (actively presiding roles) adhere to this and number one from the speaker's former party, and two from the other side of the House. Thus no net voting, nor Commons speeches, power is lost for government or the opposition.[15]

After leaving office, the speaker normally takes no part in party politics; if elevated to the House of Lords, they would normally sit as a crossbencher. If a former speaker desires to be (re-)elected back to the House, they may rejoin their pre-speakership party."

I’m not talking about political partisanship. I’m talking about running the House of Commons.

Comprehension seems to be a problem for all you Tory fan boys!
 

Grownup_Rafbrat

LE
Book Reviewer
It was his job as speaker to place the interests of the House of Commons at the forefront of everything he does or says.

Of course he’s partisan. He’s meant to be!

You on the other hand are just an unpaid fanboy.
So his 'Bollox to Brexit' car sticker, his bullying of staff, which cost the taxpayer a fortune to enquire fully into, his manipulating of process to get the result of a democratic vote overturned, were all part of the Speaker's role?

It had sod all to do with the primacy of the House and lots to do with his being totally unsuitable for the job. Speaker Martin was the worst in the last 200 years- he just had to go one better.

Speakers Thomas and Boothroyd are laughing at you. Pointing and laughing. Laughing laughing, laughing.
 
So his 'Bollox to Brexit' car sticker, his bulking of staff, which cost the taxpayer a fortune to enquire fully into, his manipulating of process to get the result of a democratic vote overturned, were all part of the Speaker's role?

It had sod all to do with the primacy of the House and lots to do with his being totally unsuitable for the job. Speaker Martin was the worst in the last 200 years- he just had to go one better.

Speakers Thomas and Boothroyd are laughing at you. Pointing and laughing. Laughing laughing, laughing.
Well they can laugh all they like. At my age, I’ve got broad shoulders. Check out my avatar.

Bercow’s personal views don’t magically disappear because he’s the speaker. Outside of the House of Commons, he’s still entitled to an opinion.

It’s how he does his job as speaker while he’s on the clock that counts.

In that respect, he may have been an unwelcome unco-operative thorn in the governments side but that’s tough luck for the government.

The House of Commons generally thought he was ok otherwise the vitriolic garbage spoken on here about him would have been much more loudly proclaimed in the House of Commons.

It was the government in the main that threw their dummy out of the executive pram because he wouldn’t give them an easy ride on what were crucial matters for the country.

And of course the fan boys on here!
 
Top