John Bercow has joined Labour - wow

????

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

The one thing you have said that I agree with ww is your correct usage and spelling of toe the line.It rarely happens on the forum.

The Tory government constantly tries to by-pass our elected representatives. This was very apparent when the most important decision was being made for generations. In fact Johnson pushed his oven ready deal through without proper scrutiny and look where that has got him.

Johnson broke the law and was made to toe the line.

The speaker is there to defend our representation. He does not favour one party, that is Tory propaganda and nodding donkeys.

lemongrove

For the benefit of some I should have added...his comments in the HOC constantly favoured the Labour side of the House, therefore he appeared to have been a Labour MP himself before he became the Speaker.OK? ?

No Lemongrove his comments in the Commons constantly favoured PARLIAMENT as the Tories tried to circumvent its rules, laws and customs. Had the opposition done the same he would no doubt have treated them in the same way. They didn't so he couldn't.

He has to be impartial which means he will apply to same rules to both sides should he need to do so. A Speaker does not have to be neutral which would, indeed, have meant that he could not do something to one side unless he did it to the other however they had behaved. That would be silly.

It seems some people have got Government and Parliament confused as well as impartiality and neutrality. They are not the same.

Maybe his comments seemed to be pro Labour/anti Tory because he was trying to reign in the worst excesses of the abuse and attempted avoidance of Parliamentary democracy? Even the mild mannered, somewhat soft approach of the current incumbent is being tested to destruction by Johnson. To save anyone looking it up, he was a Labour MP.

Sarcastic and bullying

Um hmm

For the benefit of some I should have added...his comments in the HOC constantly favoured the Labour side of the House, therefore he appeared to have been a Labour MP himself before he became the Speaker.OK? ?

Even those who knew could hardly have told judging by his comments in the HOC.

That's good then. That's how its meant to be.

No worries Whatdayisit.

So much sarcasm and bullying remarks on this thread.A few posters didn’t know that Bercow had been a Conservative MP
Before he became Speaker....so what! Even those who knew could hardly have told judging by his comments in the HOC.
Let it go!

Whatdayisit

I did enjoy the piece Andrew Neil put together for him to the tune of Big John a few years ago!

You really think Andrew Neil put that together? Do you put flowers at a shrine for him too?

Sorry Alegrias !
Isn't it funny i personally have never given it a second thought. I am learning more and more each week on Gransnet that i know nothing about politics!

Although it is often my Modus Operandi I really didn't mean that to be sarcastic Whatdayisit.

It really is a surprise to me that people don't know the former political allegiances of the Speakers, if they say they are interested in politics.

I did enjoy the piece Andrew Neil put together for him to the tune of Big John a few years ago!

Alegrias i love the sarcasm.
I mean why would you know if they are meant to be impartial.

In the end, I suppose it depends on just how interested you are in our current politics.

How could someone who is interested in politics not know the former party allegiance of any Speaker?

My point PippaZ is just because a couple of years ago i was amazed to find out that Bercow was Tory doesn't mean i have not been interested in politics as Dinahmo was alleging.

There are adults in this country who have never voted and don't know the name of their own MP.

That is, of course, their choice and they are entitled to it but do you think those people are likely to come on the politics threads and tell others what's what?

Alegrias As I said to another poster....not everything's about you

You do seem overly concerned with my posts Alegrias, bordering obsessed. Maybe I should be flattered or……worried . Fortunately I have a busy social life at present so will withdraw and leave you to it.

Oh here we go again Dinahmo. Some people haven't taken sufficient notice of politics in recent years.

Being surprised to find out that John Bercow was a Tory MP when he left his role as Speaker is hardly significant in the grand scheme of politics over the years.
There are adults in this country who have never voted and don't know the name of their own MP.

I haven't said anything derogatory about the man so i don't see why you needed to quote my post to have a swipe.

As I said to another poster....not everything's about you. ?

Alegrias However a poster said Bercow only used big words to hide the fact he was working class. He's been called a POS, a pig and an idiot

Not by me.

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.