John Bercow has joined Labour - wow

Probably the reason Cons are so angry about this

Are they really Kali ? I'd have thought there was more amusement than anger at this announcement

This Conservative voter thinks it’s hilarious that others are getting so worked up about Mr.Bercow ?

Frankly, anyone who can stir up emotions so much on here, can ruffle the complacent Tory feathers, knows chapter and verse of constitutional law and is brave enough to point out Johnson's faults, law breaking and blatant corruption is great with me. I wish it had been Starmer who tore into Johnson, but at last someone will. He will be better out of the PLP for the moment, he can say more as a member of the public, writing articles, appearing on political discussion programmes, how refreshing it will be.

Rosina

Self important individual who is out to promote himself - today's paper tells us he wanted Corbyn to recommend him for a peerage. I truly think he was the worst Speaker in history - so biased. I think we all got a taste of the Bercow style when his wife posed wrapped in a sheet in the House of Commons, and opinion has it that he was throughly disliked all round.

Lets face it anyone who did wholeheartedly agree with Brexit and anything Johnson said is deemed to be biased against the Conservatives even if they are Conservatives.

Such delicate people who can't stand even a hint of opposition.

I wasn't aware that the Speaker had 'opposition' in his remit, if this is your meaning. 'Impartiality' is the correct stance for such a role. Recently it seems 70% of people interviewed felt that the BBC did not represent their views - I agree wholeheartedly, but the much bigger question is why is the BBC promoting views? The Speaker of the House and the nation's broadcaster are supposed to be impartial.

CraftyGranny

Oh, I thought Berkow was Labour anyway !

Haven't you read this thread, all 10 pages of it? How many times have people explained that he was a member of the (extremely) right wing Monday Club? Perhaps you haven't heard of it.

Whatdayisit

I think some of the confusion that some of us seem to have had about him stems from his wife standing to be a Labour MP and campaigning for the LP.

Some of you obviously haven't taken sufficient notice of politics over the last several years. In which case, why are some of you bothering to comment if all you can do (not aimed at you Whatdayisit) is to make vicious comments about Bercow's appearance and background

icanhandthemback

A lot of people vote Conservative because they don't see a credible alternative. I used to vote for the SDLP because I liked what they stood for but I don't see the same with the LibDems. Give me a credible alternative and I'll camp overnight to put my x on the paper!

Why vote at all? Why not spoil their ballot papers if they don't see a credible alternative to the Tories?

I suspect it's because if all the disaffected Tories spoiled their ballot papers, the opposition would get in and we can't have that, can we.

GrannyGravy13

This Conservative voter thinks it’s hilarious that others are getting so worked up about Mr.Bercow ?

Does that include all those who have been so vicious about him?

I do wonder how many of those who have commented on Bercow's performance as Speaker actually spent much time watching debates in the HoC, rather than forming their opinion of Bercow from reading right-wing pro-brexit propaganda.

According to today’s Times, he had asked Corbyn to recommend him for a peerage, and had written his own 556 word reference.
The correspondence has been leaked.

Article goes on to say ‘It is understood that he will not receive a peerage under Sir Keir Starmer despite his decision to join Labour.
Bercow did not respond to a request for comment last night.’

Rosina

I wasn't aware that the Speaker had 'opposition' in his remit, if this is your meaning. 'Impartiality' is the correct stance for such a role. Recently it seems 70% of people interviewed felt that the BBC did not represent their views - I agree wholeheartedly, but the much bigger question is why is the BBC promoting views? The Speaker of the House and the nation's broadcaster are supposed to be impartial.

He was being impartial when he took the govt to task because they were disobeying the parliamentary rules.

Varian Zero per cent.

Some of you obviously haven't taken sufficient notice of politics over the last several years., agreed, and some of the comments about him as a person have been truly vile. The BBC bias comments always seem to be from right wing and/or Brexit supporters who, it would seem, just cannot countenance anything which does not agree with their dogma. Funnily enough, I rarely watch the BBC news because to me it is the Boris Broadcasting Corporation, churning out the Tory party line, so on this basis, we have to agree that the BBC must be getting it right!

Rosina

I wasn't aware that the Speaker had 'opposition' in his remit, if this is your meaning. 'Impartiality' is the correct stance for such a role. Recently it seems 70% of people interviewed felt that the BBC did not represent their views - I agree wholeheartedly, but the much bigger question is why is the BBC promoting views? The Speaker of the House and the nation's broadcaster are supposed to be impartial.

He had to oppose certain things because they broke the rules. I realise some Conservatives don't think that is on but unfortunately it was his job to oppose rule breaking and I wish the new Speaker would do it a bit more.

Poor Laura Kuenssburg gets accused of bias from both sides. I suppose that means she gets it right.

I don't think Kuenssburg is biased. I just don't think she's very good.

I don’t rate L K either.

Dinahmo I was speaking for myself, not others.

So do some people think the Supreme Court were biased against the government too?

MayBee70

So do some people think the Supreme Court were biased against the government too?

Goodness, yes!

'Enemies of The People'...

Aren’t they planning to review the Supreme Court as well?

MayBee70

Aren’t they planning to review the Supreme Court as well?

I think so. Political control.

MayBee70

So do some people think the Supreme Court were biased against the government too?

Some people don't "think" - they just believe the right wing propaganda which comes their way.

Rosina

I wasn't aware that the Speaker had 'opposition' in his remit, if this is your meaning. 'Impartiality' is the correct stance for such a role. Recently it seems 70% of people interviewed felt that the BBC did not represent their views - I agree wholeheartedly, but the much bigger question is why is the BBC promoting views? The Speaker of the House and the nation's broadcaster are supposed to be impartial.

You say "The Speaker of the House and the nation's broadcaster are supposed to be impartial."

The Speaker is supposed to uphold the rules impartially - and he did. If one side constantly tries to sideline parliament it is his job to stop them from doing it. Neither the Speaker nor the BBC has to be neutral. You seem to have the meaning of impartiality mixed up with neutrality.

Where did you get the figure of 70% from? Please include a reference or link if you want to be taken seriously.

The most recent survey I can find, when reported in The Daily Mail, says that "The survey, by polling organisation YouGov, found that 48 per cent said the BBC does not adequately represent their views, with the figure rising to 51 per cent in the North of England." A bit of a distance from 70%. So one possibly unfactual "fact" - or was it just what you wanted it to be?

What if half of them think it's too far to the right and the other half too far to the left. That would probably mean they are pretty well balanced. The other statistic I would want to know to make sense of this is how it compares with what people think of other media and how it represents them.

Your immediate assumption that all those who say it doesn't represent them (51%) agree with your views. You have been brainwashed into thinking you are always part of the majority. That is not true for any of us.