Bercow expresses "sorrow" at not getting peerage

[Nick]

John Bercow defended Parliament against misuse of power by the prime minister.  It was his job to do that.



The fact that Brexit was the main issue on this  turned the whole thing toxic. The prime minister used a marginal majority in an advisory referendum held 3 years previously as a pretext for attempting to by-pass Parliament.



But the same thing could have happened if, say, a left-wing Labour prime minister had tried to prevent Parliament discussing controversial legislation forcing "positive discrimination" onto employers. Imagine too the speaker being a moderate former Labour MP and trying to force the PM to debate the proposals in Parliament. That's a similar scenario.



I don't find John Bercow particularly endearing even if he was a remainer like myself. But he was only doing his job as speaker and I think he did that well. He deserves the peerage that is granted to all ex- speakers.



Expecting a peerage might be seen a touch narcissistic but in the case of Bercow he could have made a real and constructive contribution in the unelected upper house. I don't approve of the unelected upper house but it's better than nothing.

His job was to be impartial and he wasn't. First thing Lindsay Hoyle said was that he would not be operating the same as Bercow. He stopped short of full on criticism, but he wasn't impressed.

[Thomas]

No argument here.



The original idea of course was that you voted for the man (and it was a man) not the party, but the electorate at the time was a little bit "select" (over 25, and a forty shilling freeholder) and there is a copy of the "Monmouthshire Merlin" (the precursor to our local rag) from the last election before the 1832 reform act in a glass case in our town museum open at the letter from the successful MP thanking the gentry and clergy who elected him (as no-one else had a vote). But in those days a Prime Minister was appointed by the sovereign and charged "to go to the palace of westminster and there form a government from whoever had been elected".



Political parties have destroyed the accountability of the politician. You vote for the rosette.



and the joke that is the D'Hondt system doesn't to a great deal more than FPTP. All it really does is spread the butter a little more thinly among four or five parties, giving the ones that get the most votes for the least seats a chance to have an extra arse in the chamber.



It's an old argument, as you know, but if we had true PR with a list system, a lot of mainstream parties would listen far more closely to what the voter wanted, and departing from them would be unthinkable, because the price of behaving as gordon brown had, or as tony blair had immediately before him, would be a lot of very, VERY dislikeable people in westminster.



Hell, one of them might even have been me, and you don't get much more dislikeable than that.



Seriously, you only have to look at how the Labour Immigration Minister Phil Woolas changed his tune after Brown's "Bigoted woman" remark.

 :thup:

[HallowedBrexit]

Bercow conspired with the EU to block Brexit. The gallows are too good for him.

[johnofgwent]

Well john , i think this discussion about bercow is part of the wider problem of the disgusting and anti democratic uk political system  , enabled by the dodgy FPTP " system" and corrupt cronyism that hands out peerages to the boys.



The whole safe seat and comfortable majorities ( the way glasgow used to be for labour) is to my mind a large part of the reason why uk politics is in the dire straits it currently finds itself in , and general lack of talent among the commons crew.



again though an old discussion on the various forums i have been on for ten years or more . Westminster doesnt do change willingly.

No argument here.



The original idea of course was that you voted for the man (and it was a man) not the party, but the electorate at the time was a little bit "select" (over 25, and a forty shilling freeholder) and there is a copy of the "Monmouthshire Merlin" (the precursor to our local rag) from the last election before the 1832 reform act in a glass case in our town museum open at the letter from the successful MP thanking the gentry and clergy who elected him (as no-one else had a vote). But in those days a Prime Minister was appointed by the sovereign and charged "to go to the palace of westminster and there form a government from whoever had been elected".



Political parties have destroyed the accountability of the politician. You vote for the rosette.



and the joke that is the D'Hondt system doesn't to a great deal more than FPTP. All it really does is spread the butter a little more thinly among four or five parties, giving the ones that get the most votes for the least seats a chance to have an extra arse in the chamber.



It's an old argument, as you know, but if we had true PR with a list system, a lot of mainstream parties would listen far more closely to what the voter wanted, and departing from them would be unthinkable, because the price of behaving as gordon brown had, or as tony blair had immediately before him, would be a lot of very, VERY dislikeable people in westminster.



Hell, one of them might even have been me, and you don't get much more dislikeable than that.



Seriously, you only have to look at how the Labour Immigration Minister Phil Woolas changed his tune after Brown's "Bigoted woman" remark.

[Hyperduck Quack Quack]

John Bercow defended Parliament against misuse of power by the prime minister.  It was his job to do that.



The fact that Brexit was the main issue on this  turned the whole thing toxic. The prime minister used a marginal majority in an advisory referendum held 3 years previously as a pretext for attempting to by-pass Parliament.



But the same thing could have happened if, say, a left-wing Labour prime minister had tried to prevent Parliament discussing controversial legislation forcing "positive discrimination" onto employers. Imagine too the speaker being a moderate former Labour MP and trying to force the PM to debate the proposals in Parliament. That's a similar scenario.



I don't find John Bercow particularly endearing even if he was a remainer like myself. But he was only doing his job as speaker and I think he did that well. He deserves the peerage that is granted to all ex- speakers.



Expecting a peerage might be seen a touch narcissistic but in the case of Bercow he could have made a real and constructive contribution in the unelected upper house. I don't approve of the unelected upper house but it's better than nothing.

[Baff]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52948716">https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52948716



I can't help thinking he should be grateful he didn't get a rope round the neck for conspiracy to thwart the will of the people.



Someone should show him what happenned to the Ceaucescaus..... he's clearly forgotten.

It wouldn't require a tall tree.

[Thomas]

The reduction to 600 MP's would have been quite useful for me. We have a problem with a massive majority labour MP who is free to ignore constituents because she survived (with a much reduced majority) both gordon brown's and jezza corbyn's shambles of an election.



The boundary change would have dumped a large wad of the diehard reds in the dyed in the wool blue constituency to the east, and forced labour to fight a much reduced majority in a single seat, guaranteeing us the loss of at least one labour wastrel, and the new constituency would have included all the tory voters that turned newport west blue for a brief period just after the falklands. So they would be forced t appeal to the voter. which i feel is always a good thing....

Well john , i think this discussion about bercow is part of the wider problem of the disgusting and anti democratic uk political system  , enabled by the dodgy FPTP " system" and corrupt cronyism that hands out peerages to the boys.



The whole safe seat and comfortable majorities ( the way glasgow used to be for labour) is to my mind a large part of the reason why uk politics is in the dire straits it currently finds itself in , and general lack of talent among the commons crew.



again though an old discussion on the various forums i have been on for ten years or more . Westminster doesnt do change willingly.

[johnofgwent]

well yesterday quack quack was bleating on ho the uk will folow iran into a second corona virus  wave.



Its interesting the comparison with that bastion of  the international  community that is Iran , in that Iran , like the uk , are the only two states in the world that i know of that allow religous clerics to sit in their legislatures.



I think we could drop the commons down to 400 mps and the lords to 200 . Hopefully i can help when we withdraw any scots from both places. :thup:



talk about too many chiefs and no enough indians.

The reduction to 600 MP's would have been quite useful for me. We have a problem with a massive majority labour MP who is free to ignore constituents because she survived (with a much reduced majority) both gordon brown's and jezza corbyn's shambles of an election.



The boundary change would have dumped a large wad of the diehard reds in the dyed in the wool blue constituency to the east, and forced labour to fight a much reduced majority in a single seat, guaranteeing us the loss of at least one labour wastrel, and the new constituency would have included all the tory voters that turned newport west blue for a brief period just after the falklands. So they would be forced t appeal to the voter. which i feel is always a good thing....

[Thomas]

Long overdue overhaul of the whole circus,when Igot old I just got to complain on here these tossers still get to rule.

sorry , we have been hearing the long overdue craic for the last century cromwell.



It wont happen in our lifetime .

[cromwell]

What a feckin joke that whole peerage system is.



Appointing one of the troops for services rendered , however minimal and the bleating of others when they are denied.



I dont think bercow should get a peerage , and for me its nothing to do with his behaviour in the commons , and neither should many others.



They should be trying to scale back the bulging amount of free loaders inhabiting that place , second largest legislature in the entire world is a fecking joke for a tiny wee island off the coast of europe.



I suppose denying bercow is as good a place to start as any other , but for all the wrong reasons. :shrg:

Long overdue overhaul of the whole circus,when Igot old I just got to complain on here these tossers still get to rule.

[Thomas]

Well, yes, I can remember the good old days of peerages for services to gannex mac manufacture.



Seriously though, there are only six hundred and fifty MP's and there were plans (now shelved) to drop this to 600, but there are over 800 peerages and the only way to lose one is to be in need of a coffin.

well yesterday quack quack was bleating on ho the uk will folow iran into a second corona virus  wave.



Its interesting the comparison with that bastion of  the international  community that is Iran , in that Iran , like the uk , are the only two states in the world that i know of that allow religous clerics to sit in their legislatures.



I think we could drop the commons down to 400 mps and the lords to 200 . Hopefully i can help when we withdraw any scots from both places. :thup:



talk about too many chiefs and no enough indians.

[papasmurf]

Tom Watson is not getting a peerage either, for which  lot of people are grateful.

[johnofgwent]

What a feckin joke that whole peerage system is.



Appointing one of the troops for services rendered , however minimal and the bleating of others when they are denied.



I dont think bercow should get a peerage , and for me its nothing to do with his behaviour in the commons , and neither should many others.



They should be trying to scale back the bulging amount of free loaders inhabiting that place , second largest legislature in the entire world is a fecking joke for a tiny wee island off the coast of europe.



I suppose denying bercow is as good a place to start as any other , but for all the wrong reasons. :shrg:

Well, yes, I can remember the good old days of peerages for services to gannex mac manufacture.



Seriously though, there are only six hundred and fifty MP's and there were plans (now shelved) to drop this to 600, but there are over 800 peerages and the only way to lose one is to be in need of a coffin.

[Thomas]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52948716">https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52948716



I can't help thinking he should be grateful he didn't get a rope round the neck for conspiracy to thwart the will of the people.



Someone should show him what happenned to the Ceaucescaus..... he's clearly forgotten.

What a feckin joke that whole peerage system is.



Appointing one of the troops for services rendered , however minimal and the bleating of others when they are denied.



I dont think bercow should get a peerage , and for me its nothing to do with his behaviour in the commons , and neither should many others.



They should be trying to scale back the bulging amount of free loaders inhabiting that place , second largest legislature in the entire world is a fecking joke for a tiny wee island off the coast of europe.



I suppose denying bercow is as good a place to start as any other , but for all the wrong reasons. :shrg:

[johnofgwent]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52948716">https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52948716



I can't help thinking he should be grateful he didn't get a rope round the neck for conspiracy to thwart the will of the people.



Someone should show him what happenned to the Ceaucescaus..... he's clearly forgotten.