Freedom of speech

God forbid we should ever have an impartial speaker who understands his job.

I didn't know Bercow was the grandson of Romanian Jews and he is the first Jewish speaker of the house

For every legal view there will be an equal and opposite one

So not true.

God forbid we should have a speaker who has a sense of humour , who has the respect of backbenchers, who speaks out against a self confessed sex sbuser, who supports modernising some of the centuries old stuffy tradition

So he said he voted to remain, that referendum was last year, will there have to be a second because we now know how the speaker voted .

Graces it's not true that for every legal view there is an equal and opposite. Lawyers agree what the law is most of the time. In this case I haven't seen any Constitutional law expert support Bercow. I would like to see something, but I think they will have their work cut out.

You would have to argue what constitutes a speaker being politically impartial Cunco, just as everyone has on here. I'm afraid I do not share your opinion of 'Betty'.

'Speakers must be politically impartial. Therefore, on election the new Speaker must resign from their political party and remain separate from political issues even in retirement. However, the Speaker will deal with their constituents' problems like a normal MP.'

I am not sure if this is law or convention but it is what it says on Parliament's website. I suspect Bercow has contravened convention.

www.parliament.uk/business/commons/the-speaker/the-role-of-the-speaker/role-of-the-speaker/

It is interesting that this thread began about Bercow denying freedom of speech to Trump and now questions whether Bercow has freedom of speech. By convention, people in his difficult but prestigious and well paid job do not.

If only we could bring back Betty. Graet lady.

Thank you for that link Jen --- Rees-Bunce made a good entry!!!

For every legal view there will be an equal and opposite one - that is how the law works and without taking this to court we cannot know if this is correct Fitzy. I also notice the 'legal' opinion strays into political opinion.

On the other side of the coin should a small (very small, but loud and supported by some of the right-wing press) cohort of the right of the Conservatives have had the right to keep trying to unseat him ever since he was made Speaker?

Jen, Jalima - link to a piece by a constitutional law expert who says Bercow should have consulted Parliament. That is is indeed his job. But the campaign to sack him is over the top.
www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/john-bercows-views-on-donald-trump-may-resonate-but-it-s-not-his-job-to-express-them-vernon-bogdanor-a3460186.html

Thanks for the link Jen. It is high time the blinkers were pulled off and the Rees-Mogg myth exposed.

www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/who_is_jacob_rees_mogg_1_4883424

Chris Bryant before Rees Mogg,mbut Rees Mogg does amuse me. He speaks so slowly though, PMQ would have to be extended to give the house Rees Mogg time

Oh I do despise far right capitalists Pogs. What does that say about me? I am sure you have your own views but to me they increase - and have done more and more over the last few decades - the poverty of the low paid worker, the destitution and homelessness hitting this country and the divisiveness that we see daily. The use their unearned wealth - I have no problem with anyone earning fairly however much it is - they use their unearned wealth to avoid the day to day living conditions others have to bear and then condemn them for being and living they way they are. Jacob Rees-Mogg is an example of those on the right of the Conservative Party who not only manages to be an anachronism but at the same time the worst example of what those with his views who have managed to carve out a protected life for themselves while being in a position of power that leaves others accused of deserving their poverty.

No POGS I have no problem with people earning their wealth if they understand that everyone cannot necessarily do so too or even have a reasonable share while those amassing obscene capital growth behave the way they do, but I do have a problem with the likes of this man.

... and what do I think about those who praise such people - I find they are merely obsequiously to those in power and disregarding of the lives of others.

Gracesgran2

'Certainly the far right capitalist conservatives will love having a man with a net worth of £150 million. You really can understand why he has the politics stance he does and do we really think he will be even-handed with his extreme (but nicely spoken) views.

Inverted snobbery can say as much about the character of the person who thinks as such than those they despise.

I think there are very good candidates for the role of Speaker as both Labours Lynsey Hoyle and Conservative Eleanor Laing have both done a brilliant job as Deputies. I have never seen the 3rd Deputy, Labour Natascha Engle take her place.

Out of the other 'possible' candidates of Rees Mogg and Chris Bryant Rees Mogg beats Bryant hands down as he is accepted as having an excellent knowledge of Parliamentary business and protocol. If Rees Mogg can get Labour MP Jess Phillips to like him, which she does, I think he will do alright.

My mistake djen he did not need to consult MPs
POGS is right, that Bercow should have consulted with the Speaker of the House of Lords and the Lord Chamberlain before issuing a statement.
He also told students how he had voted in the referendum when he is supposed to maintain strict impartiality.

I still don't think he should stand down but acknowledge that he has made errors - 'lessons should be learned'.

Annie you asked who Bercow should have consulted. One of his jobs is to speak for Parliament when required, but he is meant to ensure he has the general support of Parliament before he does so. He should have made some effort to sound out MPs and certainly should have consulted the other key holders.

It looks very unlikely that the handful of MPs who do not appreciate what Speaker Bercow has done for Parliament will get their way - they have been trying since he became Speaker; it's all very personal which doesn't show them in high esteem. He is not only known for giving question time to back-benchers but to women and for going out an talking to schools, etc., about the workings of Parliament.

I understood he is standing down next year and it will be interesting to see if the next person is seen to be impartial. Now who are they suggesting - oh yes, one of them is the wonderfully impartial Jacob Rees-Mogg. Certainly the far right capitalist conservatives will love having a man with a net worth of £150 million. You really can understand why he has the politics stance he does and do we really think he will be even-handed with his extreme (but nicely spoken) views?

Good points Absent

Who made the "sick to death" comment please absent; I can't find it.

Sick to death of people who say they believe in free speech and yet silence others because they don't agree. Young soldiers in the 1st and 2nd WW fought and died for that freedom, such a shame thay today's younger, shouting, screaming, hysterical, over emotional so called educated neo liberals don't truly understand.

Is that really what young soldiers in World War I fought and died for? Of course, the war had nothing to do with preserving the British Empire and its underpinning of British wealth. Of course, abusing and imprisoning suffragettes was the ultimate example of allowing free speech.

" If he had let the idea of trump speaking go on any longer, it would have ended up like May's invitation, and too difficult to withdraw.'

It was never in Theresa Mays hands to invite Donald Trump to speak in Westminster Hall. That is a matter for the '3 key holders' to discuss/debate. The '3 key holders are The Speakers of the Houses of Parliament, The Lords and The Great Lord Chamberlain. Lord Fowler clearly stated NO contact had been made from the government.

A cynic would say that the Early Day Motion by Labour MP Stephen Doughty was getting on the band wagon, preempting an issue that was not on the cards anyway.

His further Point of Order asking :-

"What discussions had taken place with the “keyholders” regarding the “offering of the honour of a speech to both Houses of Parliament in Westminster Hall or elsewhere in the Palace of Westminster”.

Is deemed by many and certainly looked like this was a pre-arranged scenario , deliberately arranged to provide the Speaker with an opportunity to make his speech.

durhamjen

"POGS, should trump have the freedom to say what he wants on twitter while Republicans deny freedom of speech to others?"

Sorry, not interested in Trumps twittering. However I have said before I think David Cameron was correct when he said 'Too many tweets make a twat". In fact that could be expanded to include a few other methods of communicating !

I thought the point was that he hadn't consulted anyone, just given his own opinion. He should have at least spoken to/consulted with the Lord Speaker.

Is his job to consult MPs, Jalima? I thought it wasn't.