Speaker Bercow to resign from office and as an MP

[-:Undertaker:-]

House of Commons Speaker John Bercow is to resign from office and as an MP

Tenure as Speaker which began in 2009 has been marred with allegations of bullying and breaking constitutional conventions


https://static.standard.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2019/01/15/15/bercowbrexitcrop150119a.jpg?w968
1171071874308214792

11710729428616929301171093416710758402

1171072922150199296

What an arse.

The damage he has done to such an important and respectable role as Speaker of the House of Commons is grave, and as Dan Hodges has said whether it ever regains its reputation for impartiality is the question. Bercow threw away rules because it suited his political agenda, instead of following convention. Then cried foul when the government prorogued. A massive hypocrite.

A Speaker we shouldn't care about or know about really, because that is what the role really is. But if you look at his announcement, half the House of Commons remained sitting while the other half were standing up clapping - it should be *everyone* clapping at the end of a Speaker's tenure, because if not then something is seriously wrong with impartiality.

I'm supporting current Deputy Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle who has announced his intention to stand. He seems fair, I have no idea of his opinions other than he was in the Labour Party before being Deputy Speaker and he seems a decent guy for the role.

The tradition is that the Speaker is usually granted a peerage... government sources are saying this Speaker ain't getting one.

Thoughts?

[scottish]

I don't care about politics but felt like commenting.

It's a bit redundant saying his tenure has been marred with accusations of bullying, then essentially bullying him.

Alex's tweet that no-one will thank him, well 48% of the nation will? All politicians are nauseating ******s lets be honest.

Julia's tweet that no-one likes him, that's not exactly a secret no-one likes any politician...

However I'm sure if the tables had turned and he was advocating brexit against the rest then you'd be full of praise for him no matter his actions :P

[-:Undertaker:-]

@scottish (https://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=53890);

You haven't understood my point. My point isn't that Speaker Bercow supports Remain therefore I do not like him, because so would have/did former Speakers Baroness Boothroyd and Lord Martin. For all I know the current Deputy Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle supports Remain.

My point is that regardless of Leave or Remain, this Speaker has purposely bent rules and procedures to favour his own preferences, causing enormous damage to the constitution and the office of Speaker. No other Speaker has ever done this. The very fact half the Commons chamber is sat down in silence while the others are applauding should alert to you that this is not normal and not a good place for the Speakership to be in. Even the respected Baroness Boothroyd has called on Speaker Bercow to vacate the Speaker's chair.

And lastly, there have been numerous allegations from former staff in the Speaker's office about his behaviour towards other people. Anyone who follows politics knows that he is not a popular man among his peers at all, and he would have been long gone had he not served as a Remain puppet. Viscount Tonypandy and Baroness Boothroyd were/are held in high regard, Lord Martin lesser so - Bercow on the other hand, history will not be kind to as to how he has conducted himself both inside and outside of the chamber.

If one has strong opinions and isn't prepared to put them aside for the role, then don't become Speaker. Ditto the monarch.


However I'm sure if the tables had turned and he was advocating brexit against the rest then you'd be full of praise for him no matter his actions

I'd actually be appalled.

[dbgtz]

bercow did nothing wrong and had plenty of support

[FlyingJesus]

Having opinions is fine, we all have opinions. Even if he'd penned a bunch of articles about his feelings on each and every matter I wouldn't be bothered by that (other that to use it as a discussion point perhaps) but while in the chair it's his job to remain impartial; something he didn't do. It's daft to say he did nothing wrong when he literally failed to deliver on one of the most important parts of his well paid job

[dbgtz]

how exactly did he not remain impartial?

[-:Undertaker:-]

how exactly did he not remain impartial?

Breaking parliamentary conventions to hand the opposition power through the misuse of emergency debates and abuse of the parliamentary timetable, not to mention rushing through legislation without scrutiny by curtailing parliamentary time. He himself said back earlier this year that conventions can change - but it appears they only do so when it benefits his own preference. The very fact everyone is debating his legacy today shows that he wasn't impartial.

Here's our impartial Speaker today (watch to the end). Extraordinary.

1171095142649999360

[dbgtz]

please do give an example

[-:Undertaker:-]

Last night Speaker Bercow made a disgraceful partisan speech from the Speaker's chair upon prorogation.


So rude was he and the Commons to Black Rod (new to the job), the Lord Speaker felt the need to tweet this...


1171425579289104384


1171221028758069249


1171226864242823170


That a Speaker behaves like this is absolutely disgraceful.


please do give an example

That an opposition takes control of the order papers and introduces legislation.

If an opposition wishes to rule, it must topple the government. Parliament is there to hold the government to account, not to *be* the government.

[dbgtz]

that doesnt prove any kind of bias one way or another

[-:Undertaker:-]

that doesnt prove any kind of bias one way or another

Given he just brushed aside the convention (twice) to allow them to do that, I would suggest it does.

Speaker Bercow appears to think and act like he is the constitution. The recent clips say all there is to say really.

[dbgtz]

just to be clear, what is it you are suggesting he is biased towards

[-:Undertaker:-]

just to be clear, what is it you are suggesting he is biased towards

Remain.

https://britishjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/img_2298.jpg

[dbgtz]

none of what you posted supports that claim though
most of what you have posted is to do with the poor reasoning for prorouging parliament which has basically been proven to be for brexit (misleading the queen) and has actually been shot down in a court in scotland


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FNey_iUrl8

- - - Updated - - -

none of what you posted supports that claim though
most of what you have posted is to do with the poor reasoning for prorouging parliament which has basically been proven to be for brexit (misleading the queen) and has actually been shot down in a court in scotland


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FNey_iUrl8

[-:Undertaker:-]

none of what you posted supports that claim though

Maybe you would like to tell us all then why Speaker Bercow has broken multiple conventions to back Remain tactics in the Commons?


most of what you have posted is to do with the poor reasoning for prorouging parliament which has basically been proven to be for brexit (misleading the queen) and has actually been shot down in a court in scotland

And was within in a court in England. Now it'll go to the Supreme Court.

There is nothing in law that states prorogation cannot be political, as the English court pointed out last week.

[dbgtz]

Maybe you would like to tell us all then why Speaker Bercow has broken multiple conventions to back Remain tactics in the Commons?

such as?


And was within in a court in England. Now it'll go to the Supreme Court.

There is nothing in law that states prorogation cannot be political, as the English court pointed out last week.

english law and scottish law is different so its irrelevant what the english court pointed out

[-:Undertaker:-]

such as?

You keep asking and I keep saying.

He handed the parliamentary timetable over to the opposition and then the opposition was able to pass legislation.

Speaker Bercow himself said that conventions change. But seemingly only when HE decides they should.


english law and scottish law is different so its irrelevant what the english court pointed out

The British constitution though remember is a continuation of the Kingdom of England's constitution.

1172096124288733185

[-:Undertaker:-]

Here's the disgraceful Speaker now openly threatening the government.

It now appears that John Bercow *is* the British constitution in the same way Mao Zedong's thoughts were how China was governed.

1172453373657985025

[dbgtz]

You keep asking and I keep saying.

He handed the parliamentary timetable over to the opposition and then the opposition was able to pass legislation.

Speaker Bercow himself said that conventions change. But seemingly only when HE decides they should.


how does that show bias to remain when its in labours manifesto to leave
perhaps if the conservatives didnt dump 30 or so of them because they acted against the whip (something many in government did themselves) theyd still be in a position to pass legislation


The British constitution though remember is a continuation of the Kingdom of England's constitution.

1172096124288733185

but that doesnt mean laws specific to england/wales take precedence over scottish laws in scotland (as far as im aware)
if its illegal in one it would be illegal in both (again, as far as im aware)

i dont know why youre linking that second thing given thats nothing to do with this


Here's the disgraceful Speaker now openly threatening the government.

It now appears that John Bercow *is* the British constitution in the same way Mao Zedong's thoughts were how China was governed.

1172453373657985025

hes literally arguing for parliamentary sovereignty

[-:Undertaker:-]

how does that show bias to remain when its in labours manifesto to leave
perhaps if the conservatives didnt dump 30 or so of them because they acted against the whip (something many in government did themselves) theyd still be in a position to pass legislation

Labour's manifesto says to Leave, yet its MPs do the opposite.

And the Tories lost their majority when Philip Lee MP defected just before the 21 were expelled.

Here's the problem below in a simple graph -

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EEXXT8bWkAA9sY0?format=jpg&name=small



but that doesnt mean laws specific to england/wales take precedence over scottish laws in scotland (as far as im aware)
if its illegal in one it would be illegal in both (again, as far as im aware)

i dont know why youre linking that second thing given thats nothing to do with this

British law takes precedence over Scottish, English, Welsh and Northern Irish law. But my point is that given the constitution is based on Common law and not Scots law, it is likely that the Supreme Court will take the same view as the English courts did. We don't govern via the courts.


hes literally arguing for parliamentary sovereignty

That's the problem - it isn't his job to 'argue' for anything other than act as a neutral Speaker for all sides of the House of Commons.

[dbgtz]

Labour's manifesto says to Leave, yet its MPs do the opposite.

And the Tories lost their majority when Philip Lee MP defected just before the 21 were expelled.

Here's the problem below in a simple graph -

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EEXXT8bWkAA9sY0?format=jpg&name=small


plenty of those mps voted for brexit though
just wasnt a brexit you liked which is kind of the whole issue

you should listen to the lbc interview where philip lee explains why he quit and realise he would have been part of those sacked anyway


British law takes precedence over Scottish, English, Welsh and Northern Irish law. But my point is that given the constitution is based on Common law and not Scots law, it is likely that the Supreme Court will take the same view as the English courts did. We don't govern via the courts.

ianal so we shall have to see


That's the problem - it isn't his job to 'argue' for anything other than act as a neutral Speaker for all sides of the House of Commons.

you just said the problem was that he was remain biased
i dont understand your issue, for years youve said brussels has all the power and it needs to be back on parliament or whatever which this guy is arguing for because the government is trying to bypass parliament to avoid scrutiny
this isnt an ideological issue where hes trying to force remain to happen

[-:Undertaker:-]

plenty of those mps voted for brexit though
just wasnt a brexit you liked which is kind of the whole issue

In what world does regulatory alignment (following EU laws) over Northern Ireland qualify as leaving the European Union?


you should listen to the lbc interview where philip lee explains why he quit and realise he would have been part of those sacked anyway


I'm delighted they have been deselected. Many of those who were deselected were parachuted in during the Cameron years against the wishes of their local constituency parties to make the Conservative and Unionist Party more liberal, but there was a big problem evident to everyone other than Cameron and Osborne: the party is called the Conservative Party, so its voters want Conservatives to vote for, not confused Liberal Democrats.

Philip Lee MP stood on a manifesto to deliver Brexit. He lied and now he faces the consequence of losing his career.


you just said the problem was that he was remain biased

Yes this particular Speaker is making and breaking whatever rules he sees fit to achieve his own political goal concern Remain. If the situation were hypothetically reversed, this would be just as disgraceful. But that's a hypothetical - we have a Speaker acting as the font of constitutional coventions to aid a political cause that has majority support in the House of Commons, but not in the country.


i dont understand your issue, for years youve said brussels has all the power and it needs to be back on parliament or whatever which this guy is arguing for because the government is trying to bypass parliament to avoid scrutiny
this isnt an ideological issue where hes trying to force remain to happen

I argue for power to be returned to Westminster correct. I did not argue for the constitution to be ripped up in the process whereby Parliament ignores public votes that it itself asked and the Speaker then rips up constitutional conventions to aid one side of a political issue. The constitution is being turned on its head as a House of Commons completely out of touch with public opinion tries to defy laws and public opinion to hold on.

As Professor Vernon Bogdanor (voted Remain) explains...

1172752709767847936

[dbgtz]

In what world does regulatory alignment (following EU laws) over Northern Ireland qualify as leaving the European Union?

the issue with that argument is that it was only a temporary arrangement to set up new procedures in NI which shouldnt have been an issue since it was apparently easily solvable
also it was always argued that following a norway model is a kind of brexit, which wouldnt be too dissimilar to that set up


I'm delighted they have been deselected. Many of those who were deselected were parachuted in during the Cameron years against the wishes of their local constituency parties to make the Conservative and Unionist Party more liberal, but there was a big problem evident to everyone other than Cameron and Osborne: the party is called the Conservative Party, so its voters want Conservatives to vote for, not confused Liberal Democrats.

Philip Lee MP stood on a manifesto to deliver Brexit. He lied and now he faces the consequence of losing his career.

ken clarke, that famous conservative cameron parachuted in

Guto Bebb - 2010
Richard Benyon - 2005
Steve Brine - 2010
Alistair Burt - 2001
Greg Clark - 2005
Kenneth Clarke - 1970
David Gauke - 2005
Justine Greening - 2005
Dominic Grieve - 1997
Sam Gyimah - 2010
Philip Hammond - 1997
Stephen Hammond - 2005
Richard Harrington - 2010
Margot James - 2010
Oliver Letwin - 1997
Anne Milton - 2005
Caroline Nokes - 2010
Antoinette Sandbach - 2015
Nicholas Soames - 1997
Rory Stewart - 2010
Edward Vaizey - 2005

the "many" you are talking about amounts to... 8



Yes this particular Speaker is making and breaking whatever rules he sees fit to achieve his own political goal concern Remain. If the situation were hypothetically reversed, this would be just as disgraceful. But that's a hypothetical - we have a Speaker acting as the font of constitutional coventions to aid a political cause that has majority support in the House of Commons, but not in the country.

his argument is not a remain/leave one, but that it should be on parliament to be the ones to decide and they should be allowed to scrutinise


I argue for power to be returned to Westminster correct. I did not argue for the constitution to be ripped up in the process whereby Parliament ignores public votes that it itself asked and the Speaker then rips up constitutional conventions to aid one side of a political issue. The constitution is being turned on its head as a House of Commons completely out of touch with public opinion tries to defy laws and public opinion to hold on.

As Professor Vernon Bogdanor (voted Remain) explains...

1172752709767847936

for not wanting an election right in the middle of such a critical time?
for not wanting an election when johnson thinks hes going to sweep up? because thats all it is fundamentally because theres a strong chance of a) him asking for an extension or b) it going tits up enough that he loses a significant enough chunk of support. this call for an election is just so he can capitalise on what he believes is his current support

on that video, i will comment further if you send me a full link because at no point does he seem to advocate brexit yet its obviously been edited to some degree by a pro-brexit account. i looked myself but no luck