Bercow

Blast predictive...
Brecon Bercow

Q. When do we know a post is ill- informed and lacking in logic and substance ?

A. When it refers to the height of the person under discussion

Brecon Beacons would be my choice for a new speaker
Gabriella ??

Sainthood for you, eh, Maryeliza with your rather sanctimonious post?

Ronnie Corbett is small, so is Bercow. Fact. His size IS irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, but when he boosts his own standing, vies, position etc, by throwing his weight and privilege around, it screams 'small man' posturing. To many people, if not you.

views

Bercow is a tad hypocrital in his role as Speaker and deemed by many to be manipulating Parliament.

On the question of the ' 3rd VOTE' he quite rightly used the accepted CONVENTION of Parliament. He was content to refer back to 1604.

On the question of Bercow recently setting a ' NEW PRECIDENT .' in Parliament by allowing ' AMMENDMENTS ' after a Motion is passed as ' FORTH WITH ' which CONVENTION has always been recognised to mean the Motion has been ACCEPTED by Parliament and is NOT therefore subject to latter AMMENDMENTS.

Bercow said this in 2018 which does confirm he was acting in good faith (possibly) on the question of a 3rd VOTE but being totally disengenuous over the '. AMMENDMENT PRECIDENT ' he set recently.

I would like to remind him of his own words in 2018 :-

"As will be evident to colleagues, many of these matters are proceeded with ordinarily on the basis not of statute, or even necessarily of a requirement of Standing Orders, but of CONVENTION and PRECIDENT.

Those CONVENTIONS and PRECIDENTS are important to the COLLEGIATE OPERATION of this House. They should ' NOT' be tampered with or disregarded lightly.".

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/11-times-john-bercow-did-care-about-parliamentary-precedent/

Really Speaker Bercow?

One minute you state the CONVENTIONS AND PRECIDENT should be adhered to the next you set a new PRECIDENT, perversely on one hand by believing in the historic running of Parliament and the other hand by believing in' Modernising ' Parliament.

In my book there are no
ammendments or precidents.
Gordon Bennett...

maryeliza

maryeliza54 Wed 20-Mar-19 12:16:49

" He has not dredged up an ancient rule from 1604 - your two posts in this vein show no understanding at all of the role of precedent or the role of Erskine May."
-----

Why are you challenging posters in your usual ' style' over the fact Bercow has been raising a point outlined by Erskine May which dates back to 1604.?

Was this not the case? Are we wrong?

Happy to be corrected, it is important to get facts right.

The ruling may date back to 1604 but it has been invoked by Speakers many times since. The Speaker is the senior member of the House of Commons. He or she is elected by all the MPs and his or her duty is to ensure that the rules of parliament are observed.

As we have as minority government, Tories propped up by the DUP, it is particularly important that the Speaker stands up for the rights of MPs of all parties not to be bullied or bulldozed by the government into acting against what they judge to be the best interests of the British people.

Tone and context POGS/lemon tone and context

(Irrelevant flying visit from spelling police duly noted!)

Scrabbling around trying to find MP's with any vestige of principle, ie who have been consistent, who are not looking for bribes, who are not manipulating an appalling situation in order to boost their business interests.

Bercow. Anna Soubry and other independents. Keir Starmer. SNP members. Some (Welsh) MP's.

Who would you trust to get us through this?

Bercow is standing up for parliament in putting into place its own necessary controls which haven't been necessary for a very longtime because politicians mostly behaved with integrity, but this lot have behaved with complete idiocy and turned britain into a laughing stock internationally over Brexit which is the most pointless exercise ever, when we are all going to fry in a few years anyway because everyone is thinking Brexit is an important idea and is ignoring what really matters - changing the way we deal with our finance, industry equality and climate control - Bercow is just doing his job with a little flamboyancy - when was that ever a problem in politics though - he is an entertaining and intelligent speaker who doesn't just toe the line - wonderful man

maryeliza

Lemongroves ' tone and context' was perfectly in order in my opinion.

I couldn't understand why she was challenged when my understanding chimed with hers. I couldn't follow why you posted this:-

'He has not dredged up an ancient rule from 1604 - your two posts in this vein show no understanding at all of the role of precedent or the role of Erskine May."

So by challenging another poster by saying they. ' show no understanding at all of the role of precedent or the role of Erskine May ' it naturally followed any other poster with the same view as Lemongrove in your opinion also had no understanding of Erskine May and Precedent and I asked you if we were wrong and asked why.

As your reply has not given any information I assume both Lemongrove and I are correct and your initial challenge had no substance or I am sure you would have set us straight.

Well I truly am amazed that so many actually like the man and think he does his job well. I can't even watch him for more than a few minutes. We have had so many respectful and effective Speakers and I find it sad that he is the example our young people see and assume his behaviour is acceptable.

You don't have to like the man to respect the fact that he does his job well.

Of course, Bercow knows absolutely nothing about Parliamentary procedure.


and of course, we both know he must do because, as lemongrove has posted, he has dredged up a ruling from 1604.

Perhaps you can cite the last time it was used varian, please (apart from by Bercow).
Don't worry - I just found it - it was 1912.

Is it time the procedures were updated or is this still a good ruling to be brought out every so often?

I must say that he looked mightily pleased with himself, like a schoolboy let off detention because he argued against the school rules and they were found wanting.

Nothing wrong with my ‘tone and context’ at all.Bercow did dredge up the ruling from 1604, and did look mightily pleased with himself. Hope he can live with whatever his ruling produces.

Bercow didn't dredge it up, an mp (not sure who, maybe one of the Eagles) mentioned it during a debate and he thanked her for reminding him of it. It was also tabled for an amendment last week by someone but then withdrawn apparently.

Yes, halfgran Angela Eagle mentioned it last week.

As for 1912 - it was explained (gawd knows by whom as I've lost the plot) that it hasn't been invoked for the past 100 years as previous Parliamentarians knew that by convention you can't bring the same proposal back for a third vote.

Varian, I do not like the way his private life and indiscretions are flaunted, almost celebrated, he doesn't seem to have any embarrassment about any of it, goodness knows how the children have been. I do not think he does his job well, he divides instead of unites the House, and with that impish grin, seems to court disruption. Discretion is not a value he deems important in both his public and private
life. I do realise that people have different standards of what behaviour and approach to a job in the public eye means. I have never been a fan of Theressa May, however, I admire her integrity in trying to deliver a promise to the public, whether or not she agrees, that the Referendum decided. Thank goodness she has the strong support of her husband and community she lives in, I wouldn't think any job worth what she goes through each day and that takes tremendous commitment on her part. I do wonder how all this will effect her health and it wouldn't be a risk I would take with her health problems, that she never, ever mentions or play on.

he is a great man I say and Treason Mayhem's deal is a remain deal. I voted out, leave no deal WTO. one week to go tomorrow.



love the friendly posts on here

I'm confused (easily done) - those supporting Bercow for denying the vote because it is asking the same question - are also supporting a second referendum which will be asking the same question as before

true I agree. beckett, and good morning too

Firstly a second referendum would NOT be asking the same question so no wonder you are confused.

Secondly Bercow was doing his job.

Thirdly I support his actions but not necessarily a second referendum so that blows your theory out of the water.

Surely the second referendum would be asking the same question - stay or leave