Westminster Politics

Full bodied red

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2014
Messages
2,370
Location
The Var, France
Charlie Foley said:
His personal opinion only matters if it caused him to act ultra vires or caused some sort of abuse of process. Do you have a concrete example of that? Correlation is not causation. He might think A, and the proper procedures might piss off people who think B and please others who think A, and it won’t be BECAUSE the speaker thinks A that he does what he does. It will be because those are the procedures in place.

Ultimately unless you can prove he abused his role you are just criticising him for having an opinion and then claiming he denies it while sharing an article of him expressing that opinion. If you think he acted beyond whatever discretion he may have then I’m genuinely interested in when that happened. If he acted within that discretion then tough shit that you don’t like it frankly, he’s acting within his authority to act. As he said himself no one complains when his decisions work in their favour.

For the record I’m not a Brit but I do work for a general assembly so maybe I care more about SoP and proper procedure/functions than some more partisan/ideological people on here.
Click to expand...

Last one from me - Bercow really isn't worth it. He's history as far as Brexit is concerned, and no doubt will now make £ zillions on the after-dinner speaking circuit like all controversial politicos.

Two years ago, following the 2017 general election, Bercow went back on his previous intention to step down some time in 2018. He had changed his mind, he said, and intended to serve for the entire Parliament, due to end in 2022. Why extend his tenure in the Speaker’s chair then curtail it? The extra time meant that it was Bercow, rather than a new Speaker, who chaired debates on a Brexit deal. And what a role he has played. The Speaker’s impartiality has gone out of the window as Bercow has given rebels an advantage, sometimes quoting precedent and sometimes discarding it.


It was thanks to Bercow that the Commons was able to seize the business of the Commons a fortnight ago under Standing Order 24 – a process by which backbenchers can demand an emergency debate. It is in the Speaker’s discretion whether to allow such a debate – and applications are rarely successful. Bercow has chosen to announce his departure on the very day that the resulting law completes its passage through Parliament.


In January this year Bercow allowed Dominic Grieve to table an amendment to a government procedural motion – a type of motion, as Theresa May protested, which is not normally amendable. Commons clerks had advised the Speaker on that point. Bercow, however, decided that he would innovate. ‘I am not in the business of invoking precedent, nor am I under any obligation to do so,’ he said. ‘If we were guided only by precedent, nothing would ever change.’ The amendment – requiring the government to come to the Commons within three days and explain how it intended to proceed – was duly passed by the Commons.


Yet two months later, when it suited him, Bercow turned into a great stickler for precedent. Theresa May was keen to bring a third vote on her Brexit deal before the Commons, having suffered heavy defeats in her first two attempts. Bercow ruled that the Commons could not be allowed to vote on it, because it was a motion substantially unchanged since the last attempt. He justified this by quoting a convention dating back to 1604 and which, he said, had been used a dozen times since, though not since 1920.


There is only one explanation for these two opposing attitudes towards observance of precedent – by realising that in both cases Bercow was acting clearly in the interests of those who are trying to thwart Brexit. His bias has shown up several times, too, in his choice of which amendments to select for debate. In March, for example, he selected two motions which would have allowed MPs to seize control of the business of the House of Commons away from the government (in the event both of which were rejected by narrow margins). He blocked, on the other hand, a motion which would have allowed MPs to rule out a second referendum on Brexit. In January, when Theresa May was on her first attempt to pass her EU withdrawal bill, Bercow similarly rejected an amendment which would have put a time limit on the Irish backstop.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/09/john-bercow-and-the-abandoning-of-the-speakers-impartiality/

 

The Firestarter

Full Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
28,213
Full bodied red said:
Last one from me - Bercow really isn't worth it. He's history as far as Brexit is concerned, and no doubt will now make £ zillions on the after-dinner speaking circuit like all controversial politicos.

Two years ago, following the 2017 general election, Bercow went back on his previous intention to step down some time in 2018. He had changed his mind, he said, and intended to serve for the entire Parliament, due to end in 2022. Why extend his tenure in the Speaker’s chair then curtail it? The extra time meant that it was Bercow, rather than a new Speaker, who chaired debates on a Brexit deal. And what a role he has played. The Speaker’s impartiality has gone out of the window as Bercow has given rebels an advantage, sometimes quoting precedent and sometimes discarding it.


It was thanks to Bercow that the Commons was able to seize the business of the Commons a fortnight ago under Standing Order 24 – a process by which backbenchers can demand an emergency debate. It is in the Speaker’s discretion whether to allow such a debate – and applications are rarely successful. Bercow has chosen to announce his departure on the very day that the resulting law completes its passage through Parliament.


In January this year Bercow allowed Dominic Grieve to table an amendment to a government procedural motion – a type of motion, as Theresa May protested, which is not normally amendable. Commons clerks had advised the Speaker on that point. Bercow, however, decided that he would innovate. ‘I am not in the business of invoking precedent, nor am I under any obligation to do so,’ he said. ‘If we were guided only by precedent, nothing would ever change.’ The amendment – requiring the government to come to the Commons within three days and explain how it intended to proceed – was duly passed by the Commons.


Yet two months later, when it suited him, Bercow turned into a great stickler for precedent. Theresa May was keen to bring a third vote on her Brexit deal before the Commons, having suffered heavy defeats in her first two attempts. Bercow ruled that the Commons could not be allowed to vote on it, because it was a motion substantially unchanged since the last attempt. He justified this by quoting a convention dating back to 1604 and which, he said, had been used a dozen times since, though not since 1920.


There is only one explanation for these two opposing attitudes towards observance of precedent – by realising that in both cases Bercow was acting clearly in the interests of those who are trying to thwart Brexit. His bias has shown up several times, too, in his choice of which amendments to select for debate. In March, for example, he selected two motions which would have allowed MPs to seize control of the business of the House of Commons away from the government (in the event both of which were rejected by narrow margins). He blocked, on the other hand, a motion which would have allowed MPs to rule out a second referendum on Brexit. In January, when Theresa May was on her first attempt to pass her EU withdrawal bill, Bercow similarly rejected an amendment which would have put a time limit on the Irish backstop.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/09/john-bercow-and-the-abandoning-of-the-speakers-impartiality/
Click to expand...
Ok boomer.
 

Charlie Foley

Full Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
18,371
Full bodied red said:
Last one from me - Bercow really isn't worth it. He's history as far as Brexit is concerned, and no doubt will now make £ zillions on the after-dinner speaking circuit like all controversial politicos.

Two years ago, following the 2017 general election, Bercow went back on his previous intention to step down some time in 2018. He had changed his mind, he said, and intended to serve for the entire Parliament, due to end in 2022. Why extend his tenure in the Speaker’s chair then curtail it? The extra time meant that it was Bercow, rather than a new Speaker, who chaired debates on a Brexit deal. And what a role he has played. The Speaker’s impartiality has gone out of the window as Bercow has given rebels an advantage, sometimes quoting precedent and sometimes discarding it.


It was thanks to Bercow that the Commons was able to seize the business of the Commons a fortnight ago under Standing Order 24 – a process by which backbenchers can demand an emergency debate. It is in the Speaker’s discretion whether to allow such a debate – and applications are rarely successful. Bercow has chosen to announce his departure on the very day that the resulting law completes its passage through Parliament.


In January this year Bercow allowed Dominic Grieve to table an amendment to a government procedural motion – a type of motion, as Theresa May protested, which is not normally amendable. Commons clerks had advised the Speaker on that point. Bercow, however, decided that he would innovate. ‘I am not in the business of invoking precedent, nor am I under any obligation to do so,’ he said. ‘If we were guided only by precedent, nothing would ever change.’ The amendment – requiring the government to come to the Commons within three days and explain how it intended to proceed – was duly passed by the Commons.


Yet two months later, when it suited him, Bercow turned into a great stickler for precedent. Theresa May was keen to bring a third vote on her Brexit deal before the Commons, having suffered heavy defeats in her first two attempts. Bercow ruled that the Commons could not be allowed to vote on it, because it was a motion substantially unchanged since the last attempt. He justified this by quoting a convention dating back to 1604 and which, he said, had been used a dozen times since, though not since 1920.


There is only one explanation for these two opposing attitudes towards observance of precedent – by realising that in both cases Bercow was acting clearly in the interests of those who are trying to thwart Brexit. His bias has shown up several times, too, in his choice of which amendments to select for debate. In March, for example, he selected two motions which would have allowed MPs to seize control of the business of the House of Commons away from the government (in the event both of which were rejected by narrow margins). He blocked, on the other hand, a motion which would have allowed MPs to rule out a second referendum on Brexit. In January, when Theresa May was on her first attempt to pass her EU withdrawal bill, Bercow similarly rejected an amendment which would have put a time limit on the Irish backstop.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/09/john-bercow-and-the-abandoning-of-the-speakers-impartiality/
Click to expand...
I’m busy at work so will reply later or tomorrow
 

Jippy

Sleeps with tramps, bangs jacuzzis, dirty shoes
Staff
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
57,408
Location
Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams
Full bodied red said:
Last one from me - Bercow really isn't worth it. He's history as far as Brexit is concerned, and no doubt will now make £ zillions on the after-dinner speaking circuit like all controversial politicos.

Two years ago, following the 2017 general election, Bercow went back on his previous intention to step down some time in 2018. He had changed his mind, he said, and intended to serve for the entire Parliament, due to end in 2022. Why extend his tenure in the Speaker’s chair then curtail it? The extra time meant that it was Bercow, rather than a new Speaker, who chaired debates on a Brexit deal. And what a role he has played. The Speaker’s impartiality has gone out of the window as Bercow has given rebels an advantage, sometimes quoting precedent and sometimes discarding it.


It was thanks to Bercow that the Commons was able to seize the business of the Commons a fortnight ago under Standing Order 24 – a process by which backbenchers can demand an emergency debate. It is in the Speaker’s discretion whether to allow such a debate – and applications are rarely successful. Bercow has chosen to announce his departure on the very day that the resulting law completes its passage through Parliament.


In January this year Bercow allowed Dominic Grieve to table an amendment to a government procedural motion – a type of motion, as Theresa May protested, which is not normally amendable. Commons clerks had advised the Speaker on that point. Bercow, however, decided that he would innovate. ‘I am not in the business of invoking precedent, nor am I under any obligation to do so,’ he said. ‘If we were guided only by precedent, nothing would ever change.’ The amendment – requiring the government to come to the Commons within three days and explain how it intended to proceed – was duly passed by the Commons.


Yet two months later, when it suited him, Bercow turned into a great stickler for precedent. Theresa May was keen to bring a third vote on her Brexit deal before the Commons, having suffered heavy defeats in her first two attempts. Bercow ruled that the Commons could not be allowed to vote on it, because it was a motion substantially unchanged since the last attempt. He justified this by quoting a convention dating back to 1604 and which, he said, had been used a dozen times since, though not since 1920.


There is only one explanation for these two opposing attitudes towards observance of precedent – by realising that in both cases Bercow was acting clearly in the interests of those who are trying to thwart Brexit. His bias has shown up several times, too, in his choice of which amendments to select for debate. In March, for example, he selected two motions which would have allowed MPs to seize control of the business of the House of Commons away from the government (in the event both of which were rejected by narrow margins). He blocked, on the other hand, a motion which would have allowed MPs to rule out a second referendum on Brexit. In January, when Theresa May was on her first attempt to pass her EU withdrawal bill, Bercow similarly rejected an amendment which would have put a time limit on the Irish backstop.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/09/john-bercow-and-the-abandoning-of-the-speakers-impartiality/
Click to expand...
Biased article accuses others of bias. A lot of that article just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Certainly overlooks the remainder debates he didn't allow to be debated or the procedural guidance he also offered Brexiters.
The part on the timing of his departure is utter bs.
 

Drifter

American
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
68,349
Businesses expect UK economy to slow further in 2020

Businesses expect UK economic growth to slow further next year as the US-China trade war and Brexit uncertainty continue to weigh on industry.
The Confederation of British Industry (CBI), which represents 190,000 businesses, said on Monday it expects UK GDP to grow by just 1.2% in 2020, down from the expected 1.3% growth rate this year.
The CBI blamed Brexit for the weak economic picture, along with the US-China trade war which is hurting global growth rates.
“Should these dual headwinds subside, we expect a gradual pick-up in activity,” said Rain Newton-Smith, CBI’s chief economist.
“But the bigger picture is one of fairly modest growth over the next couple of years – growth that should be far better, given the UK’s relative strengths.”
The CBI’s weak forecast is in fact based on a best case scenario for Brexit that sees the UK leave the EU on 31 January and make smooth progress negotiating an “ambitious” trade deal with the EU that allows frictionless trade. If reality falls short of these expectations, the CBI expects GDP to grow by just 1% in 2020.
“Transforming a lost decade of productivity will only be possible if supported by a good Brexit deal – one that keeps the UK aligned with EU rules where essential for frictionless trade along with protecting the UK’s world-beating services sector, which accounts for 80% of our economy,” Newton-Smith said.
The CBI said consumer spending would continue to account for the lion’s share of growth, but government spending would also provide a growing boost thanks to major spending pledges from both main parties. Business investment is forecast to essentially flatline.
Separately, Make UK, the manufacturers lobbying group, on Monday downgraded growth forecasts for growth in its sector. Make UK and accountants BDO forecast manufacturing growth of just 0.3% in 2020, down from an earlier forecast of 0.6%. However, this would represent a pick-up on the 0.1% growth expected in 2019.
Click to expand...
 

Smores

Full Member
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
25,526
She wasn't even good at her job. When's the last time a non-MP held a cabinet role?

That's evidently a favours appointment because of her campaigning
 

Jippy

Sleeps with tramps, bangs jacuzzis, dirty shoes
Staff
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
57,408
Location
Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams
So Johnson is said to set to outlaw extending the December trade deal deadline. It panders to the Brexit masses, but clearly the Tories have learnt nothing about the problems caused by setting deadlines in law.

Also rumours that guarantees on workers' rights and environmental protections may be swept away.
Here it comes...
 

Smores

Full Member
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
25,526
Jippy said:
So Johnson is said to set to outlaw extending the December trade deal deadline. It panders to the Brexit masses, but clearly the Tories have learnt nothing about the problems caused by setting deadlines in law.

Also rumours that guarantees on workers' rights and environmental protections may be swept away.
Here it comes...
Click to expand...
"He'll become a moderate with a large majority they said....."

At best it's a meaningless motion and at worst it's a trojan horse to make other changes.

Gove on Sky just now talking about reviews of the civil service, constitution and BBC so that they 'work effectively'. Effectively for who i wonder.
 
Last edited:

Damien

Self-Aware RedCafe Database (and Admin)
Staff
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
97,202
Location
Also won Best Gif/Photoshop 2021
CassiusClaymore said:
I guess Nick Berry was right, Every Loser Wins. How many of these cnuts are they allowed to drop in there?
Click to expand...
Apparently Boris is planning on an overhaul for the Lords down the line.


Types of peerages

There are special circumstances when members are appointed:

Some MPs from all parties may be appointed life peers when they leave the House of Commons at the end of a parliament
When a prime minister resigns, he or she may recommend ‘resignation honours’
Members can be appointed, on a party basis, on political lists to ‘top up’ each of the three main party groups’ strengths, on the expectation that they will attend regularly and perhaps take on frontbench work as spokespersons or business managers (whips)
One-off announcements can cover peerages for particular individuals such as someone appointed as a minister who is not a member of the House
26 Church of England archbishops and bishops sit in the House. When they retire as bishops their membership of the House ceases and is passed on to the next most senior bishop. The Archbishop of Canterbury is usually appointed a life peer on retirement
Former speakers of the House of Commons have traditionally been appointed life peers at the request of the Commons
Click to expand...
https://www.parliament.uk/business/...rs-and-their-roles/how-members-are-appointed/

Doesn't seem to be a limit. Guess it depends how many ministers Boris wants who haven't been elected.
 

Drifter

American
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
68,349
Boris Johnson Will Have to Break His Tax Promise



This sounds so similar to the Republicans and how they are perceived when it comes to being the party of fiscal responsibility .
 

Smores

Full Member
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
25,526

I look forward the BBC news headlines and newsnight programme on this.
 

Mogget

Full Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2013
Messages
6,536
Supports
Arsenal
Smores said:

I look forward the BBC news headlines and newsnight programme on this.
Click to expand...
It's fine though, Labour lost so we don't need to talk about racism in politics anymore. At least not until the ECHR report is released.
 

Mogget

Full Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2013
Messages
6,536
Supports
Arsenal
esmufc07 said:
There was literally a protest on Friday in Westminister over the new PMs racism.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt activists are still going to be protesting the Conservative party's racism. I can guarantee its gonna be a hell of a lot less important in the media though, and all the people prior to the election telling us they can't vote labour because of the anti-Semitism are going to be conspicuously quiet.
 

EwanI Ted

Full Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Messages
1,755
Politics is going to seem really weird after the last 10 years. From 2010 to 2015 all the major votes had the sub-plot of whether the Lib Dems would back it (spoiler: they did). From 2015 to 2017 the Tories had a tiny majority, and from 2017 it was even more precarious. Its been ages since we had a Government with a straightforward majority to work with. Its going to be weird that every time there's a major vote it'll simply sail through the House of Commons without much fuss. Even backbench rebellions will be relatively rare with a majority that large. I've gotten used to watching news websites to see if key votes would pass late in the evening. That won't be a thing any more, if there's no sign of a rebellion then any Tory bill will get passed.
 

Pexbo

Winner of the 'I'm not reading that' medal.
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
68,678
Location
Brizzle
Supports
Big Days
EwanI Ted said:
Politics is going to seem really weird after the last 10 years. From 2010 to 2015 all the major votes had the sub-plot of whether the Lib Dems would back it (spoiler: they did). From 2015 to 2017 the Tories had a tiny majority, and from 2017 it was even more precarious. Its been ages since we had a Government with a straightforward majority to work with. Its going to be weird that every time there's a major vote it'll simply sail through the House of Commons without much fuss. Even backbench rebellions will be relatively rare with a majority that large. I've gotten used to watching news websites to see if key votes would pass late in the evening. That won't be a thing any more, if there's no sign of a rebellion then any Tory bill will get passed.
Click to expand...
Isn't it the case where the whip is likely to be a little bit looser and a meaningless handful of back benchers will be allowed to vote as they please on certain issues? I expect them to do just this and use it tactically so Tories in constituencies flipped from Labour will be able to align their voting record with the interests of their constituents while still having absolutely zero impact on the outcome.

That way in 5 years time they will be able to point to all the times they voted against the whip on the issues that effect their constituents the most as proof they are a great local MP and their constituents will ignorantly nod along, smile and vote them back in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.