Freedom of speech

I'm not sure who exactly 'pearl clutchers' are supposed to be, but there would have been howls of outrage if the speaker had said either of the things you suggest, Rigby, from all and sundry
I will second that Ana

I haven't noticed many fitting the description of 'pearl clutcher'

'Of course, the argument that Bercow is not neutral when it comes to Brexit debates would carry more weight if someone had complained about his behaviour before the video emerged. Indeed, Whittingdale said he believed Bercow had actually voted Leave until he saw the footage – suggesting the Speaker had done a good job in hiding his true allegiance.'

From the Guardian.

I don't think names would be creditable Ana but you could try how often they post.

Really?

It would be interesting to see how many names we can come up with for each 'side' but we obviously perceive the posts differently, somehow. I think I'll do a bit of private totting-up...

He should have consulted the Speaker of the House of Lords but I think they are the ones who decide who is invited to speak in Westminster Hall.
Could it possibly have been that if he had been requested in the HoC to ask DT to speak and he had obviously decided not to it would have been more embarrassing to say no than nip it in the bud?

After all, those who voted Remain are much more vocal and post more on here than those who voted to Leave.

When was that survey done Ana and where can I find it? It is certainly counter to how I have perceived the posts.

MPs queuing up to get rid of Bercow.
The only signature on Duddidge's EDM is his own.

I don't agree with the point being made though.

Rigby- asuming I'm one of your pearl clutchers I have no hesitation in saying that I would have criticised Bercow just as much. More so maybe as I agree with every word he actually did say. As far as I am concern d the issue here is not the content of his speech but the absolute necessity for the speaker to do his job properly. We have plenty of other MPs who can argue issues like this. His job is to try to ensure all sides have their say.
Whitewave - this isn't all irrelevant unless you have no interest in the point of principle being made and in ensuring that those who govern us comply with UK constitutional law.

Oh! I misread. I have one eye on here and one eye on the television.

I wasn't suggesting any reasons other than that he's ghastly, whitewave

Yes of course they would. Who wouldn't? But not for the reasons you Are suggesting, ana merely because Trump is so ghastly.

Especially if he'd issued an invitation there and then!

A different set, and a much bigger one, I'd have thought. After all, those who voted Remain are much more vocal and post more on here than those who voted to Leave.

And surely the majority on both sides would he aghast if Bercow had said he was looking forward to Trump speaking?

No not all and sundry at all Ana but a different set of posters

It's moved on Ana and is now much more used to mean an over reaction to something - maybe with overtones of a rather 'faux' sense of shock that is over stated and quite out of proportion to the event that causes the reaction

Just googled it:

The phrase pearl clutching, which means being shocked by something once-salacious that should now be seen as commonplace, like sex, is ubiquitous on blog posts, especially in media geared towards women.

Oh.

This is all so irrelevant. Something like 12 Tories have signed the letter, including that idiot Rees Mogg. The Tories hate Bercow -common knowledge - nothing like Tory revenge and hate they are past masters at it. Bercow apparently allows too many emergency debates that hold the government to account, and they don't like it - any chance to cut out accountability will be taken. Backbencher s are called to speak more than the government likes as well.

Hard cheese I say.

I'm not sure who exactly 'pearl clutchers' are supposed to be, but there would have been howls of outrage if the speaker had said either of the things you suggest, Rigby, from all and sundry.

If the speaker had spoken out saying he was really looking forward to Trump speaking to Parliament and if he'd told the students he'd voted Brexit, I wonder quite how many pearls would be being clutched by those doing so on this thread? I will be very surprised if he is voted against - what is really going on is much point scoring by those MPs who have had a grudge against him for years - he also faced some pretty nasty anti-Semitic and remarks about his lack of the 'right' sort of education when he first became Speaker.

That sounds like a cut and dried case for anyone who doesn't think that Bercow should have remained quiet last week on the subject of Trump.

This is a factsheet from UK Parliament about the role of the Speaker:

www.parliament.uk/about/how/guides/factsheets/members-elections/m02/

It includes the following about impartiality:

'The Speaker must be above party political controversy and must be seen to be completely impartial in all public matters. All sides in the House rely on the Speaker's disinterest, and understand that he or she must stand aside from controversy.'

To me, that is self-explanatory. Of course, if John Bercow would like to change the rules and conventions of his job, he could make proposals to those that appointed him.

GGM: I would have thought 'must resign from their political party and remain separate from political issues even in retirement' meant to remain separate from political issues but then, I am not a lawyer.

of, not if.

I'd like to know what Keir Starmer thinks if Bercow's comments.
Does anyone know?
As he was the DPP until the last election, he would know a bit about the law.