Freedom of speech

I Daniel Blake is fiction, why ask if Devereux has seen it, I am fed up of this damn film, there may have been a lot of research by the writer but it is still fiction.

durhamjen

Is he right or not?

Of course in his mind and yours he will be right.

I read your link and I think Paul Flynn by asking questions to Sir Robert Devereux questions such as 'Have you seen the film I Daniel Blake?', 'According to The Independent newspaper' was rather strange.

If those are terms of reference for Gransnet ,fine, if they are terms of reference for assessing factual content for parliamentarians in Committee Rooms then quite frankly if I was being asked questions I would hope for something more substantial.

There were indeed some interesting points made but I thought Devereux would have felt let off lightly with some of the questions and points raised, which he answered with little of a sweat to be honest.

Our opinions will differ but using a film and a newspaper as sources of fact to question or make a point is a tad ill conceived surely.

Do you Jen? sorry didn't read your link so couldn''t comment on it's contents

Have you still got that list, POGS? How weird.

So what do you think of Paul Flynn, Annie?
I guess you don't rate him. What do you think about what he said in the select committee on social security? Is he right or not?
I await your words of wisdom.

Well to be fair he did not back Jeremy Corbyn for Labour Leader.

He was Shadow Welsh Secretary and Shadow Commons Leader but Corbyn got rid of him pretty quickly. Why was that?

After all he was 'Neutral but not hostile' on Corbyn's 'Hostile List'

Paul Flynn, the thinking mans Dennis Skinner , that is so funny

It will be in Hansard as well.

This is an excellent blog by Paul Flynn, MP, who is bringing in the debate on the trump visit in Westminster Hall. He is called the thinking man's Dennis Skinner.

paulflynnmp.typepad.com/my_weblog/2017/02/has-top-mandarin-see-i-danial-blake.html

Putting somebody in his place.

Perhaps he will stay a while longer in Israel and give it a miss.

Can't see Bercow agreeing to that, though!

In the circumstances that POGS has outlined, I would have thought it would make sense for a Deputy Speaker to take the Chair.

Cunco

This has caused an obvious division between posters.

I beg to ask if Bercow can be seen to be impartial after his speech on Donald Trump to Chair the 2 Donald Trump e.petitions in Parliament on Feb 20th ?

'Prevent Donald Trump from making a State Visit to the United Kingdom'

'Donald Trump should make a State Visit to the United Kingdom'

I think he should leave that day to his deputies to stop further controversy!

As regards Deputy Speakers in the Commons (but not the Lords), 'like the Speaker they lose party affiliation on taking up the role and must be politically impartial'.

I simply don't know if this impartiality extends beyond party politics for Deputy Speakers to, for example, the Referendum. The quotes I found earlier for the Speaker were more restrictive but this may have been the form of words rather than the substance.

My interest is less about the specific case of John Bercow and more about whether a precedent has been set for the future. Personally, I would rather have the Speaker impartial and seen by all to be impartial.

By the way, I do not understand what rules, if any, apply to ex-Speakers who go to the Lords. They can hardly be impartial and still contribute to a political discussion. Betty Boothroyd certainly made her preference for Remain loud and clear before the Referendum.

I agree that Hansard is useful and I have no reason to believe it inaccurate. It can, though, be tedious and boring.

As if < wanders off very bored now>

Perish the thought...

Are you saying that Ankers is just winding us all up, Rigby?

Jalima how could I possibly peddle Ankers false information when she knew the answer already?

That seems to be the conclusion most sensible people have come to, Jalima. So why all the screaming about Bercow mentioning it, 7 months after the referendum and in private?

I'm not sure about the referendum result as it wasn't strictly politically divided was it, so it was not a choice between supporting one party or another.

It was a personal decision aside from politics.

With relation to Bercow revealing that he voted remain, this was posted today on the latest Mumsnet Westministenders thread:

Wrt Bercow, my Tory MP is one of the deputy speakers. She put a message up on her facebook page on the day of the referendum to tell her constituents that although she usually remains impartial she wanted to let them know that she had voted Leave. I know deputy speaker os a lesser role than speaker, but surely the same rules apply.
Posted by GraceGrape at 9.44 today if you want to find it

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/eu_referendum_2016_/a2852204-Westministenders-Boris-and-The-By-Elections

Nobody appears to be calling for this MP's dismissal despite their disclosure being on Facebook. Which is rather more public than a private meeting with students

NB These Westministenders threads are very good for Remainers; they are full of excellent information and very well informed posters.

I think that aswell when I watch it, Jalima. Even the Brexit votes had very few people listening to the debates. I thought it was a waste of time as every one had made up their minds already.

I wonder how many were present at the time.
I don't watch Parliament very often but if I see anything I'm often struck by how few MPs are actually in there debating.

I know they have other duties of course, but even when we think it is of prime importance it is not full except on extremely rare occasions.

Points of order are often very illuminating. This from 9th, the last day they sat.

"On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I cannot quite believe that I am having to raise Concentrix in the House again, but after the scandal that broke around that company HMRC announced that it would never again use a private provider to deal with tax credits, especially in relation to error and fraud. But today the Government have issued a written ministerial statement saying that they will transfer tax credit error and fraud to the Department for Work and Pensions and will seek an external provider to do so. That is a disgraceful U-turn on Government policy as stated to the House. Can you do anything to ensure that a Minister comes to the House and explains why that U-turn has happened, so that they can be held properly to account?"

There is so much going on in parliament that, if it wasn't for Hansard, we would not know about u-turns like this.
It's one of the usual, doing it at a break and hoping nobody notices.

Actually, I haven't looked to see what mine is up to lately, must take a peek.

Here you are, ankers, hansard.parliament.uk/ a link to Hansard, a totally reliable source to exactly what everyone said each day in Parliament.

However it may take you so long to read it all that you have no time left for eating, sleeping or posting on Gransnet.