Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Layla Moran now becomes favourite to become next LD leader

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited January 9 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Layla Moran now becomes favourite to become next LD leader

Poll after poll has shown that the will of the people is now in favour of a People's Vote with the option to stay in the EU. So whose side is the Prime Minister on – Putin's or the people's? #PMQs pic.twitter.com/u3Q8SwF9by

Read the full story here


«13456789

Comments

  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 7,172
    Pretty clear that the 660 odd MPs are now in full revolt, and have no intention of imposing any sort of Brexit.
  • Her shaming of Andrew Bridgen was very impressive and confirmed that Bridgen is a bell end.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 16,989

    Her shaming of Andrew Bridgen was very impressive and confirmed that Bridgen is a bell end.

    This thread is going to be the least contentious and divisive of all times if we are going to be discussing Andrew Bridgen's bellendosity.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 15,142
    Fourth. Yes, punters are on the money. It looks likely that Swinson doesn't want the job anyway.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 33,191
    TOPPING said:

    Her shaming of Andrew Bridgen was very impressive and confirmed that Bridgen is a bell end.

    This thread is going to be the least contentious and divisive of all times if we are going to be discussing Andrew Bridgen's bellendosity.
    The only thing that is debatable is who is the bigger bellend out of Bridgen and Bercow.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 7,172
    James Forsyth
    ‏Verified account @JGForsyth

    Bercow’s response to Rees-Mogg was, essentially, an admission that he hasn’t thought through the future implications of his actions
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 22,867
    I quite like her, although I have little idea how good a leader she'd be.

    But her question to May at today's PMQ's was nasty and unnecessary IMO.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 10,621
    TOPPING said:

    Her shaming of Andrew Bridgen was very impressive and confirmed that Bridgen is a bell end.

    This thread is going to be the least contentious and divisive of all times if we are going to be discussing Andrew Bridgen's bellendosity.
    I beg to differ.
    We don't want to rule out describing him as an intellectual eunuch.
  • ConcanvasserConcanvasser Posts: 155
    I'm rather impressed with her but wonder why this attractive young woman dresses like a much older (and less attractive) woman.
  • On topic, I'd love for it to be Norman Lamb.

    Very thoughtful and capable chap.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 7,172
    What is clear is that bercow has played a fast one, overridden parlimentary norms, but he's just going to do it, and get away with it.

    But again, it's evidence of what will happen and the damage this is doing to our politics.. The neutrality politically of the Office of the Speaker is now damaged.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 24,612
    So let me see if I have this right.

    The government has a business motion which will result in the MV.
    At the time the provision for the MV was made it was expressly said that a Minister could tender an amendment but no one else.
    Grieve has proposed an amendment which essentially takes away the timetabling control of the motion from the government, allows MPs to speak twice and gives MPs the chance to determine what we do next.
    Precedent says that a back bencher cannot make an amendment to a business motion.
    Bercow received advice to that effect from the clerks.
    Notwithstanding that Bercow has decided to call the motion on the basis, presumably, that the will of Parliament is being subverted.
    He has confirmed, however, that even if the motion were to pass that would not repeal the legislation repealing the European Communities Act.

    Is that where we are?

    The context of Bercow's decision is presumably the withdrawal of the original MV motion by the PM before Christmas when it became evident that she was facing a heavy defeat. I remember there being a lot of unhappiness about the way that was done at the time.

    Is he wrong? Almost certainly on the technicalities but arguably not on the substantive point. Control of the time tabling agenda is May's last weapon and she is abusing it.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 33,191
    edited January 9

    On topic, I'd love for it to be Norman Lamb.

    Very thoughtful and capable chap.

    I have some personal knowledge / experience with Norman Lamb. I was particular impressed by a decision he took when in government that he knew could make his department look bad (and open a can of worms), but it was the right thing to do. Most politicians would have done the opposite and covered things up as much as possible.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 22,512

    What is clear is that bercow has played a fast one, overridden parlimentary norms, but he's just going to do it, and get away with it.

    But again, it's evidence of what will happen and the damage this is doing to our politics.. The neutrality politically of the Office of the Speaker is now damaged.

    Fatally
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 1,314

    On topic, I'd love for it to be Norman Lamb.

    Very thoughtful and capable chap.

    He is, but the Lib Dems aren't going to replace a grey, Coalition-tainted, health-scare, anti-Brexit MP with a grey, Coalition-tainted, health-scare, not-anti-Brexit MP.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 23,622
    DavidL said:

    So let me see if I have this right.

    The government has a business motion which will result in the MV.
    At the time the provision for the MV was made it was expressly said that a Minister could tender an amendment but no one else.
    Grieve has proposed an amendment which essentially takes away the timetabling control of the motion from the government, allows MPs to speak twice and gives MPs the chance to determine what we do next.
    Precedent says that a back bencher cannot make an amendment to a business motion.
    Bercow received advice to that effect from the clerks.
    Notwithstanding that Bercow has decided to call the motion on the basis, presumably, that the will of Parliament is being subverted.
    He has confirmed, however, that even if the motion were to pass that would not repeal the legislation repealing the European Communities Act.

    Is that where we are?

    The context of Bercow's decision is presumably the withdrawal of the original MV motion by the PM before Christmas when it became evident that she was facing a heavy defeat. I remember there being a lot of unhappiness about the way that was done at the time.

    Is he wrong? Almost certainly on the technicalities but arguably not on the substantive point. Control of the time tabling agenda is May's last weapon and she is abusing it.

    This is almost certainly the revenge being served cold for the government's highly discourteous behaviour to Parliament before Christmas. As you say, the government is abusing its power and John Bercow is seeking to stop that.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 15,381
    A woman? Leading the Liberals? It'll be the fall of the Reform Club!

    Seriously, yes, she's a fair possibility though a 42% shot (or 11/8 if you prefer), seems pretty short to me when there's no vacancy yet and we don't know who'll stand or under what circumstances.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 33,191
    Totally O/T....looking for a cold brew coffee setup. Any suggestions that don't cost the national deficit of Venezuela? Thinking about an Asobu Coldbrew Portable.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 10,942

    What is clear is that bercow has played a fast one, overridden parlimentary norms, but he's just going to do it, and get away with it.

    But again, it's evidence of what will happen and the damage this is doing to our politics.. The neutrality politically of the Office of the Speaker is now damaged.

    May started down this path by delaying the vote.
  • glwglw Posts: 4,820

    On topic, I'd love for it to be Norman Lamb.

    Very thoughtful and capable chap.

    He's way too sensible to be the leader of the Liberal Democrats.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 7,195

    I'm rather impressed with her but wonder why this attractive young woman dresses like a much older (and less attractive) woman.

    I think she dresses well, albeit in a rather geeky style.

    Mores to the point her refreshing political style is quite a contrast to the typical party hack. I think she would be nearly as good as Norman Lamb as next leader.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 6,891
    edited January 9
    Bringing up that Putin supports Brexit is idiotic in this context. The only acceptable thing to do for any Brit who has any influence over Brexit is to totally ignore what foreign actors want, including Putin, and decide their conscience on what should or should not be done.

    If you want to argue against foreign influence in a matter, you don't use foreign preferences in the debate. You can bet that she would not have mentioned Putin at all if Putin's views coincided with hers.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 7,172
    It's not the job of the speaker to be a cheerleader for the government, but it's also not the job of the speaker to be a cheerleader against the government.

    That is where Bercow now is.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 33,191
    edited January 9
    Ghettoization of "plebs". What a total twat. The whole point of uni is living and learning with people from all sorts of backgrounds that you otherwise would never have met.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 23,834
    Layla Moran, the LibDem's Leanne Wood.....
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 15,142

    On topic, I'd love for it to be Norman Lamb.

    Very thoughtful and capable chap.

    Dull and worthy doesn't make for a good leader, particularly for a small party struggling to be noticed. cf. Vince Cable.
  • IanB2 said:

    On topic, I'd love for it to be Norman Lamb.

    Very thoughtful and capable chap.

    Dull and worthy doesn't make for a good leader, particularly for a small party struggling to be noticed. cf. Vince Cable.
    What about Vera Hobhouse?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 21,646
    Lord Adonis is rapidly becoming a national treasure in the great tradition of English eccentrics, as barking as Jacob Rees-Mogg.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 23,834

    A woman? Leading the Liberals? It'll be the fall of the Reform Club!

    Seriously, yes, she's a fair possibility though a 42% shot (or 11/8 if you prefer), seems pretty short to me when there's no vacancy yet and we don't know who'll stand or under what circumstances.

    ...or even whether there'll be another general election before Vince gets a chance to waddle off into the sunset......
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 50,136
    WHat happens if the Gov't doesn't return 3 days after it loses the vote - or simply returns and says it'll try again; or says it'll return err "tommorow" ?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 33,191
    edited January 9

    twitter.com/jamesrbuk/status/1082989746094329858
    I agree with all of the above, with the caveat, kids from Ampleforth....maybe just my personal experience...look up alumni, James O'Brien...no...he proves my point.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 10,451
    Foxy said:

    I'm rather impressed with her but wonder why this attractive young woman dresses like a much older (and less attractive) woman.

    I think she dresses well, albeit in a rather geeky style.

    Mores to the point her refreshing political style is quite a contrast to the typical party hack. I think she would be nearly as good as Norman Lamb as next leader.
    Yup, she looks interesting and different, they'll all want her on the telly. The ability to get on the telly is far and away the biggest problem for the LibDems right now.
  • The other two notable international voices to support Brexit, Mike, were LePen and Trump.

    That doesn't tell you everything, of course, but in respect of the referendum I think it told you quite a lot.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 10,621
    DavidL said:

    So let me see if I have this right.

    The government has a business motion which will result in the MV.
    At the time the provision for the MV was made it was expressly said that a Minister could tender an amendment but no one else.
    Grieve has proposed an amendment which essentially takes away the timetabling control of the motion from the government, allows MPs to speak twice and gives MPs the chance to determine what we do next.
    Precedent says that a back bencher cannot make an amendment to a business motion.
    Bercow received advice to that effect from the clerks.
    Notwithstanding that Bercow has decided to call the motion on the basis, presumably, that the will of Parliament is being subverted.
    He has confirmed, however, that even if the motion were to pass that would not repeal the legislation repealing the European Communities Act.

    Is that where we are?

    The context of Bercow's decision is presumably the withdrawal of the original MV motion by the PM before Christmas when it became evident that she was facing a heavy defeat. I remember there being a lot of unhappiness about the way that was done at the time.

    Is he wrong? Almost certainly on the technicalities but arguably not on the substantive point. Control of the time tabling agenda is May's last weapon and she is abusing it.

    Agreed.

    I don't like Bercow in the least, but I think it disingenuous to call him partisan as a means of discrediting the ruling. What he is trying to do is insist on Parliament being able to have a say in the fact of government's procedural efforts to frustrate it.

    Given May's extended filibuster on the issue, it is arrant hypocrisy to decry the Speaker for bending the rules. As ever, the remedy is in Parliament's hands - if it doesn't like the way the Speaker is conducting matters, it can sack him.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 7,195

    On topic, I'd love for it to be Norman Lamb.

    Very thoughtful and capable chap.

    He is, but the Lib Dems aren't going to replace a grey, Coalition-tainted, health-scare, anti-Brexit MP with a grey, Coalition-tainted, health-scare, not-anti-Brexit MP.
    Norman Lamb does support a #peoplesvote, but his approach to Brexit is a bit more nuanced than the full on anti-brexiteers.

  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 15,381
    IanB2 said:

    On topic, I'd love for it to be Norman Lamb.

    Very thoughtful and capable chap.

    Dull and worthy doesn't make for a good leader, particularly for a small party struggling to be noticed. cf. Vince Cable.
    That's true. Then again, there have been days when the Liberals / Lib Dems have been crying out for their leader / leadership candidates to be a little less, erm, abnormal.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 18,574

    The other two notable international voices to support Brexit, Mike, were LePen and Trump.

    That doesn't tell you everything, of course, but in respect of the referendum I think it told you quite a lot.

    Pretty sure a former Aussie Prime Minister and others did too.

    But sure, lets just stick with the nutters and ignore everyone else *rolleyes*
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 15,142

    IanB2 said:

    On topic, I'd love for it to be Norman Lamb.

    Very thoughtful and capable chap.

    Dull and worthy doesn't make for a good leader, particularly for a small party struggling to be noticed. cf. Vince Cable.
    What about Vera Hobhouse?
    Wera. She isn't as prominent as Swinson or Moran, and she is a German who is here because she married a Brit, which might be seen as a handicap (remembering mutterings about Portillo and he was born here)
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    edited January 9
    Hark, the impotent howls of rage from the Brexit Buccaneers, the most delightful sound of all.

    Behold, the glee, nay joy, on the lips of Bercow. He's been planning this for weeks, maybe months. And he's lapping up every last luscious second of it.

    Here is the man who will let Parliament Take Back Control. A towering godhead in a room of tiny little men.

    John Bercow, you are a national hero and your name shall resound throughout the annals.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 15,142

    Layla Moran, the LibDem's Leanne Wood.....

    Leanne is lovely
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 6,687
    MTimT said:

    Bringing up that Putin supports Brexit is idiotic in this context. The only acceptable thing to do for any Brit who has any influence over Brexit is to totally ignore what foreign actors want, including Putin, and decide their conscience on what should or should not be done.

    If you want to argue against foreign influence in a matter, you don't use foreign preferences in the debate. You can bet that she would not have mentioned Putin at all if Putin's views coincided with hers.

    Putin wants to sow disharmony in the West. He's supported Brexit and Trump and it will be interesting to see what Robert Mueller adds to our knowledge in these matters.
    Of course it's valid to point out when our leaders are taking actions which are against the county's interests (and those of the now electorate) but are in the interests of our enemies.
  • Lord Adonis is rapidly becoming a national treasure in the great tradition of English eccentrics, as barking as Jacob Rees-Mogg.

    I do have to wonder what George Osborne was smoking when he made Lord Adonis head of the national infrastructure commission?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 22,512
    Crispin Blunt kicking Bercow big time
  • BromBrom Posts: 1,339

    The other two notable international voices to support Brexit, Mike, were LePen and Trump.

    That doesn't tell you everything, of course, but in respect of the referendum I think it told you quite a lot.

    Japan and then Australia and quite a number of commonwealth countries have been supportive before and after the vote.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 8,428
    TOPPING said:

    Her shaming of Andrew Bridgen was very impressive and confirmed that Bridgen is a bell end.

    This thread is going to be the least contentious and divisive of all times if we are going to be discussing Andrew Bridgen's bellendosity.
    True, though there was a more general murmuring of discontent at her elision of commemorating Paddy with his/her views on Brexit.

    FWIW I don't think Paddy's views on the matter were in much doubt.
  • eekeek Posts: 3,176
    On topic - I think the problems the Lib Dems have is that none of their current crop of MPs want the job - they all (for various valid reasons) have different priorities at the moment...
  • BromBrom Posts: 1,339

    Hark, the impotent howls of rage from the Brexit Buccaneers, the most delightful sound of all.

    Behold, the glee, nay joy, on the lips of Bercow. He's been planning this for weeks, maybe months. And he's lapping up every last luscious second of it.

    Here is the man who will let Parliament Take Back Control. A towering godhead in a room of tiny little men.

    John Bercow, you are a national hero and your name shall resound throughout the annals.

    Love your satire! But Bercow has been properly done like a kipper today. When even the Independent is gunning for Bercow you know he's in a right mess!
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234

    Lord Adonis is rapidly becoming a national treasure in the great tradition of English eccentrics, as barking as Jacob Rees-Mogg.

    Brexit Derangement Syndrome, if left untreated, eventually consumes the host.
    Pulpstar said:

    WHat happens if the Gov't doesn't return 3 days after it loses the vote - or simply returns and says it'll try again; or says it'll return err "tommorow" ?

    Contempt proceedings I should think.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 8,229
    DavidL said:

    So let me see if I have this right.

    The government has a business motion which will result in the MV.
    At the time the provision for the MV was made it was expressly said that a Minister could tender an amendment but no one else.
    Grieve has proposed an amendment which essentially takes away the timetabling control of the motion from the government, allows MPs to speak twice and gives MPs the chance to determine what we do next.
    Precedent says that a back bencher cannot make an amendment to a business motion.
    Bercow received advice to that effect from the clerks.
    Notwithstanding that Bercow has decided to call the motion on the basis, presumably, that the will of Parliament is being subverted.
    He has confirmed, however, that even if the motion were to pass that would not repeal the legislation repealing the European Communities Act.

    Is that where we are?

    The context of Bercow's decision is presumably the withdrawal of the original MV motion by the PM before Christmas when it became evident that she was facing a heavy defeat. I remember there being a lot of unhappiness about the way that was done at the time.

    Is he wrong? Almost certainly on the technicalities but arguably not on the substantive point. Control of the time tabling agenda is May's last weapon and she is abusing it.

    Consistency and therefore procedure matters. Nevertheless Dominic Grieve's amendment is an important one with apparently wide support in parliament. AFAIUI, he has no other way of tabling it. So if you are opposed to the amendment on procedural grounds you are also opposed to parliament being allowed to debate a matter of substance.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 18,574
    Brom said:

    The other two notable international voices to support Brexit, Mike, were LePen and Trump.

    That doesn't tell you everything, of course, but in respect of the referendum I think it told you quite a lot.

    Japan and then Australia and quite a number of commonwealth countries have been supportive before and after the vote.
    Indeed a number of Australian Prime Ministers (and they have had a number lately to be fair) have come out in favour of Brexit.

    Of course Britain joining the EEC in the first place was quite rightly viewed as a betrayal of Australia/New Zealand and the Commonwealth down under.

    But lets just stick with the lunatics and not pay attention to our kin and allies.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 24,612
    Pulpstar said:

    WHat happens if the Gov't doesn't return 3 days after it loses the vote - or simply returns and says it'll try again; or says it'll return err "tommorow" ?

    My understanding, FWIW, is that the government has 21 days in which to get the MV passed, failing which it has to make a statement about what it intends to do next. S13(4) of the EU Withdrawal Act states:
    A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the House of Commons decides not to pass the resolution, make a statement setting out how Her Majesty’s Government proposes to proceed in relation to negotiations for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union.

    I am not sure that there is a limit on how many goes it can have in that 21 days. The approval of the package (not just the WA), however, is a condition precedent of further progress in the ratification of the agreement.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 22,867

    MTimT said:

    Bringing up that Putin supports Brexit is idiotic in this context. The only acceptable thing to do for any Brit who has any influence over Brexit is to totally ignore what foreign actors want, including Putin, and decide their conscience on what should or should not be done.

    If you want to argue against foreign influence in a matter, you don't use foreign preferences in the debate. You can bet that she would not have mentioned Putin at all if Putin's views coincided with hers.

    Putin wants to sow disharmony in the West. He's supported Brexit and Trump and it will be interesting to see what Robert Mueller adds to our knowledge in these matters.
    Of course it's valid to point out when our leaders are taking actions which are against the county's interests (and those of the now electorate) but are in the interests of our enemies.
    And as I said on the previous thread, people calling for the result of the referendum to be ignored and for us to remain in - especially without another referendum - want a result Putin would be very happy with, and one that is not in the country's interests. For it would not end the chaos.

    We really are in a sh*t position. Thanks, Brexiteers, you bunch of stinking winnets.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 1,903
    I am surprised that more hasn't been made of the Putin connection. I wonder how Leavers feel being called quislings or useful idiots in a Putin inspired plot to destabilise the West. No, not nice is it you traitors?
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    edited January 9
    Brom said:

    Hark, the impotent howls of rage from the Brexit Buccaneers, the most delightful sound of all.

    Behold, the glee, nay joy, on the lips of Bercow. He's been planning this for weeks, maybe months. And he's lapping up every last luscious second of it.

    Here is the man who will let Parliament Take Back Control. A towering godhead in a room of tiny little men.

    John Bercow, you are a national hero and your name shall resound throughout the annals.

    Love your satire! But Bercow has been properly done like a kipper today. When even the Independent is gunning for Bercow you know he's in a right mess!
    The amendment is going to a vote, and the government will lose it. There's a reason they're so furious.

    Parliament has precisely one way to stop Bercow. A motion of confidence. If the government is really that desperate to stop Parliament from Taking Back Control, then why doesn't it move a motion of no confidence in the speaker?

    Because he'd win. And he knows it. And they know it.

    This is why Bercow has the smirk on his face.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 18,574
    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    WHat happens if the Gov't doesn't return 3 days after it loses the vote - or simply returns and says it'll try again; or says it'll return err "tommorow" ?

    My understanding, FWIW, is that the government has 21 days in which to get the MV passed, failing which it has to make a statement about what it intends to do next. S13(4) of the EU Withdrawal Act states:
    A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the House of Commons decides not to pass the resolution, make a statement setting out how Her Majesty’s Government proposes to proceed in relation to negotiations for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union.

    I am not sure that there is a limit on how many goes it can have in that 21 days. The approval of the package (not just the WA), however, is a condition precedent of further progress in the ratification of the agreement.
    I thought the contentious Grieve amendment selected today changes the 21 day window to a mere 3 day window which gives no time at all to make any meaningful consideration or changes.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 10,451
    edited January 9
    Brom said:

    The other two notable international voices to support Brexit, Mike, were LePen and Trump.

    That doesn't tell you everything, of course, but in respect of the referendum I think it told you quite a lot.

    Japan and then Australia and quite a number of commonwealth countries have been supportive before and after the vote.
    In Japan they want good relations and some spirited person somehow managed to bring in an angle about sending military kit to keep China in its box but politicians and media generally treat it as vaguely worrying overseas populist stupid, a kind of low-scale version of Trump.
  • Brom said:

    The other two notable international voices to support Brexit, Mike, were LePen and Trump.

    That doesn't tell you everything, of course, but in respect of the referendum I think it told you quite a lot.

    Japan and then Australia and quite a number of commonwealth countries have been supportive before and after the vote.
    And so too, I expect, was The Pearly King of the Isle of Dogs, but I was thinking more of prominent leaders closer to home.

  • BromBrom Posts: 1,339

    Brom said:

    Hark, the impotent howls of rage from the Brexit Buccaneers, the most delightful sound of all.

    Behold, the glee, nay joy, on the lips of Bercow. He's been planning this for weeks, maybe months. And he's lapping up every last luscious second of it.

    Here is the man who will let Parliament Take Back Control. A towering godhead in a room of tiny little men.

    John Bercow, you are a national hero and your name shall resound throughout the annals.

    Love your satire! But Bercow has been properly done like a kipper today. When even the Independent is gunning for Bercow you know he's in a right mess!
    The amendment is going to a vote, and the government will lose it. There's a reason they're so furious.

    Parliament has precisely one way to stop Bercow. A motion of confidence. If the government is really that desperate to stop Parliament from Taking Back Control, then why doesn't it move a motion of no confidence in the speaker?

    Because he'd win. And he knows it. And they know it.

    This is why Bercow has the smirk on his face.
    He certainly didnt have a smirk on his face after Leadsom and Rees Mogg destroyed him!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 40,860
    Having only been able to glance at this Bercow matter it seems pretty obvious that whatever the rights or wrongs of his decision it's not helped because everyone knows his motivationfor the decision is guided by much more than the high principles he pretends, but that the government's motivations are likewise wider in motivation against him personally.

    And since it's narrow politics dressed up as principle, the whole affair will go nowhere other than yet more bitterness, entrenching the sides, with the speaker an outright opponent of the government.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 6,549

    Lord Adonis is rapidly becoming a national treasure in the great tradition of English eccentrics, as barking as Jacob Rees-Mogg.

    I do have to wonder what George Osborne was smoking when he made Lord Adonis head of the national infrastructure commission?
    George Osborne was, first and foremost, a Conservative partisan, so the opportunity to discomfort the then Labour frontbench by appointing a former Blair adviser to such a post was too good to miss.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 22,512
    Bercows car sticker raised
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    Yorker said:

    It's not the job of the speaker to be a cheerleader for the government, but it's also not the job of the speaker to be a cheerleader against the government.

    That is where Bercow now is.

    Remainers have really shown they will do anything to thwart Brexit.
    Brexiteers really, REALLY don't want Parliament to take back control, do they?

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 16,989
    Not sure about Layla Moran, but I would happily see Rachel Riley as leader of the Labour Party.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 16,989
    Adam Holloway - showbiz bonkers.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 8,229
    MTimT said:

    Bringing up that Putin supports Brexit is idiotic in this context. The only acceptable thing to do for any Brit who has any influence over Brexit is to totally ignore what foreign actors want, including Putin, and decide their conscience on what should or should not be done.

    If you want to argue against foreign influence in a matter, you don't use foreign preferences in the debate. You can bet that she would not have mentioned Putin at all if Putin's views coincided with hers.

    In terms of dealing with unwelcome influence you are absolutely correct. Putin supports Brexit because he reckons it causes disarray and will make the West generally weaker. It should give pause to thought for those in favour of Brexit, why they are on the same side as the rogue statesman of Russia, who wishes us no good.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 24,612
    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    So let me see if I have this right.

    The government has a business motion which will result in the MV.
    At the time the provision for the MV was made it was expressly said that a Minister could tender an amendment but no one else.
    Grieve has proposed an amendment which essentially takes away the timetabling control of the motion from the government, allows MPs to speak twice and gives MPs the chance to determine what we do next.
    Precedent says that a back bencher cannot make an amendment to a business motion.
    Bercow received advice to that effect from the clerks.
    Notwithstanding that Bercow has decided to call the motion on the basis, presumably, that the will of Parliament is being subverted.
    He has confirmed, however, that even if the motion were to pass that would not repeal the legislation repealing the European Communities Act.

    Is that where we are?

    The context of Bercow's decision is presumably the withdrawal of the original MV motion by the PM before Christmas when it became evident that she was facing a heavy defeat. I remember there being a lot of unhappiness about the way that was done at the time.

    Is he wrong? Almost certainly on the technicalities but arguably not on the substantive point. Control of the time tabling agenda is May's last weapon and she is abusing it.

    Consistency and therefore procedure matters. Nevertheless Dominic Grieve's amendment is an important one with apparently wide support in parliament. AFAIUI, he has no other way of tabling it. So if you are opposed to the amendment on procedural grounds you are also opposed to parliament being allowed to debate a matter of substance.
    I work in the Court of Session. We have detailed rules of Court but Judges don't let them get in the way of achieving substantial justice even if it sometimes appears that way. They regard them, in large part, as guidance which should assist them in reaching the right decision rather than a bar to it. I really cannot see why the HoC should be different.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 1,903
    The comprehensive doesn't require a capital C. Oh, and I went to one too, bully for us. Comps are generally crap and are not a badge of honour.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 23,622

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    WHat happens if the Gov't doesn't return 3 days after it loses the vote - or simply returns and says it'll try again; or says it'll return err "tommorow" ?

    My understanding, FWIW, is that the government has 21 days in which to get the MV passed, failing which it has to make a statement about what it intends to do next. S13(4) of the EU Withdrawal Act states:
    A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the House of Commons decides not to pass the resolution, make a statement setting out how Her Majesty’s Government proposes to proceed in relation to negotiations for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union.

    I am not sure that there is a limit on how many goes it can have in that 21 days. The approval of the package (not just the WA), however, is a condition precedent of further progress in the ratification of the agreement.
    I thought the contentious Grieve amendment selected today changes the 21 day window to a mere 3 day window which gives no time at all to make any meaningful consideration or changes.
    You think the government hasn't thought through its possible responses already? If not, what has it been doing with the last month? It's not as though it's been doing anything else.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 18,574

    Brom said:

    The other two notable international voices to support Brexit, Mike, were LePen and Trump.

    That doesn't tell you everything, of course, but in respect of the referendum I think it told you quite a lot.

    Japan and then Australia and quite a number of commonwealth countries have been supportive before and after the vote.
    And so too, I expect, was The Pearly King of the Isle of Dogs, but I was thinking more of prominent leaders closer to home.

    That says a lot about you quite sadly. I consider Australians closer to home than Russians.

    Culturally, historically, politically, linguistically and much more Australia is far closer to home than Russia is. Only geography separates us.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 10,204
    You know someone is in the wrong when their supporters justify the action by citing "revenge."
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    edited January 9
    kle4 said:

    Having only been able to glance at this Bercow matter it seems pretty obvious that whatever the rights or wrongs of his decision it's not helped because everyone knows his motivationfor the decision is guided by much more than the high principles he pretends, but that the government's motivations are likewise wider in motivation against him personally.

    And since it's narrow politics dressed up as principle, the whole affair will go nowhere other than yet more bitterness, entrenching the sides, with the speaker an outright opponent of the government.

    Quite. Impotent fulmination from the ERG bench will change nothing. If you want the Speaker to change, then you have to change the Speaker. Mrs Leadsom?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 16,989
    And showbiz response.
  • Layla Moran, the LibDem's Leanne Wood.....

    I agree. From the press she gets in the Oxford Mail, she seems obsessed with identity politics and little else and comes over as very lightweight. The comments sections predictably call her "Layla Moron" and routinely rip apart her statements.
  • ConcanvasserConcanvasser Posts: 155

    Lord Adonis is rapidly becoming a national treasure in the great tradition of English eccentrics, as barking as Jacob Rees-Mogg.

    I do have to wonder what George Osborne was smoking when he made Lord Adonis head of the national infrastructure commission?
    Hahaha. We used to hear so much about what a triumph it was for us to have lured this 'moderate' across from Labour. He can't have believed his luck, being feted by the Blairites and then us. Interesting to see you say that as I thought you would have been be a fan.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 3,684
    edited January 9
    Brom said:

    Brom said:

    Hark, the impotent howls of rage from the Brexit Buccaneers, the most delightful sound of all.

    Behold, the glee, nay joy, on the lips of Bercow. He's been planning this for weeks, maybe months. And he's lapping up every last luscious second of it.

    Here is the man who will let Parliament Take Back Control. A towering godhead in a room of tiny little men.

    John Bercow, you are a national hero and your name shall resound throughout the annals.

    Love your satire! But Bercow has been properly done like a kipper today. When even the Independent is gunning for Bercow you know he's in a right mess!
    The amendment is going to a vote, and the government will lose it. There's a reason they're so furious.

    Parliament has precisely one way to stop Bercow. A motion of confidence. If the government is really that desperate to stop Parliament from Taking Back Control, then why doesn't it move a motion of no confidence in the speaker?

    Because he'd win. And he knows it. And they know it.

    This is why Bercow has the smirk on his face.
    He certainly didnt have a smirk on his face after Leadsom and Rees Mogg destroyed him!
    Berrcow destroyed the MP accusing him of a sticker in his car.
    Explained it was his wife's car and he does not control her views.

    Spot on.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 10,621
    DavidL said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    So let me see if I have this right.

    The government has a business motion which will result in the MV.
    At the time the provision for the MV was made it was expressly said that a Minister could tender an amendment but no one else.
    Grieve has proposed an amendment which essentially takes away the timetabling control of the motion from the government, allows MPs to speak twice and gives MPs the chance to determine what we do next.
    Precedent says that a back bencher cannot make an amendment to a business motion.
    Bercow received advice to that effect from the clerks.
    Notwithstanding that Bercow has decided to call the motion on the basis, presumably, that the will of Parliament is being subverted.
    He has confirmed, however, that even if the motion were to pass that would not repeal the legislation repealing the European Communities Act.

    Is that where we are?

    The context of Bercow's decision is presumably the withdrawal of the original MV motion by the PM before Christmas when it became evident that she was facing a heavy defeat. I remember there being a lot of unhappiness about the way that was done at the time.

    Is he wrong? Almost certainly on the technicalities but arguably not on the substantive point. Control of the time tabling agenda is May's last weapon and she is abusing it.

    Consistency and therefore procedure matters. Nevertheless Dominic Grieve's amendment is an important one with apparently wide support in parliament. AFAIUI, he has no other way of tabling it. So if you are opposed to the amendment on procedural grounds you are also opposed to parliament being allowed to debate a matter of substance.
    I work in the Court of Session. We have detailed rules of Court but Judges don't let them get in the way of achieving substantial justice even if it sometimes appears that way. They regard them, in large part, as guidance which should assist them in reaching the right decision rather than a bar to it. I really cannot see why the HoC should be different.
    “If we only went by precedent, manifestly nothing would ever change."
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,037
    Our system of government is broken beyond repair. Conventions are worthless when the principals have no principles.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 33,191
    Yorkcity said:

    Brom said:

    Brom said:

    Hark, the impotent howls of rage from the Brexit Buccaneers, the most delightful sound of all.

    Behold, the glee, nay joy, on the lips of Bercow. He's been planning this for weeks, maybe months. And he's lapping up every last luscious second of it.

    Here is the man who will let Parliament Take Back Control. A towering godhead in a room of tiny little men.

    John Bercow, you are a national hero and your name shall resound throughout the annals.

    Love your satire! But Bercow has been properly done like a kipper today. When even the Independent is gunning for Bercow you know he's in a right mess!
    The amendment is going to a vote, and the government will lose it. There's a reason they're so furious.

    Parliament has precisely one way to stop Bercow. A motion of confidence. If the government is really that desperate to stop Parliament from Taking Back Control, then why doesn't it move a motion of no confidence in the speaker?

    Because he'd win. And he knows it. And they know it.

    This is why Bercow has the smirk on his face.
    He certainly didnt have a smirk on his face after Leadsom and Rees Mogg destroyed him!
    Berrcow destroyed the MP accusing him of a sticker in his car.
    Explained it was his wife's car and he does not control her views.

    Spot on.
    Why is she parking her car in his work place car park spot?
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 7,172
    Yorkcity said:

    Brom said:

    Brom said:

    Hark, the impotent howls of rage from the Brexit Buccaneers, the most delightful sound of all.

    Behold, the glee, nay joy, on the lips of Bercow. He's been planning this for weeks, maybe months. And he's lapping up every last luscious second of it.

    Here is the man who will let Parliament Take Back Control. A towering godhead in a room of tiny little men.

    John Bercow, you are a national hero and your name shall resound throughout the annals.

    Love your satire! But Bercow has been properly done like a kipper today. When even the Independent is gunning for Bercow you know he's in a right mess!
    The amendment is going to a vote, and the government will lose it. There's a reason they're so furious.

    Parliament has precisely one way to stop Bercow. A motion of confidence. If the government is really that desperate to stop Parliament from Taking Back Control, then why doesn't it move a motion of no confidence in the speaker?

    Because he'd win. And he knows it. And they know it.

    This is why Bercow has the smirk on his face.
    He certainly didnt have a smirk on his face after Leadsom and Rees Mogg destroyed him!
    Berrcow destroyed the MP accusing him of a sticker in his car.
    Explained it was his wife's car and he does not control her views.

    Spot on.
    Was that when his wife was banging someone else?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 21,254
    January 9th, and my one Brexit prediction has come true already - that at some point in the process John Bercow would make a total and utter arse of himself.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 22,867

    Lord Adonis is rapidly becoming a national treasure in the great tradition of English eccentrics, as barking as Jacob Rees-Mogg.

    I do have to wonder what George Osborne was smoking when he made Lord Adonis head of the national infrastructure commission?
    George Osborne was, first and foremost, a Conservative partisan, so the opportunity to discomfort the then Labour frontbench by appointing a former Blair adviser to such a post was too good to miss.
    To be fair, Adonis was not a poor transport secretary, albeit he was only in position at the top for a year. He was certainly more passionate about transport than the current incumbent. Unfortunately, with hindsight, many of the problems facing rail date back to his period in office.

    I don't think he was quite this mad back then. Like many people, Brexit has made him mad. And I don't mean angry.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 40,860

    kle4 said:

    Having only been able to glance at this Bercow matter it seems pretty obvious that whatever the rights or wrongs of his decision it's not helped because everyone knows his motivationfor the decision is guided by much more than the high principles he pretends, but that the government's motivations are likewise wider in motivation against him personally.

    And since it's narrow politics dressed up as principle, the whole affair will go nowhere other than yet more bitterness, entrenching the sides, with the speaker an outright opponent of the government.

    Quite. Impotent fulmination from the ERG bench will change nothing. If you want the Speaker to change, then you have to change the Speaker. Mrs Leadsom?
    I don't even like Bercow, or his reasoning sometimes, but it is what it is and yelling about it won't add anything to things now.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 4,679

    Layla Moran, the LibDem's Leanne Wood.....

    I agree. From the press she gets in the Oxford Mail, she seems obsessed with identity politics and little else and comes over as very lightweight. The comments sections predictably call her "Layla Moron" and routinely rip apart her statements.
    She doesn't seem anything other than lightweight. No substance to her at all.

    Never have seen the appeal.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 18,574

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    WHat happens if the Gov't doesn't return 3 days after it loses the vote - or simply returns and says it'll try again; or says it'll return err "tommorow" ?

    My understanding, FWIW, is that the government has 21 days in which to get the MV passed, failing which it has to make a statement about what it intends to do next. S13(4) of the EU Withdrawal Act states:
    A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the House of Commons decides not to pass the resolution, make a statement setting out how Her Majesty’s Government proposes to proceed in relation to negotiations for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union.

    I am not sure that there is a limit on how many goes it can have in that 21 days. The approval of the package (not just the WA), however, is a condition precedent of further progress in the ratification of the agreement.
    I thought the contentious Grieve amendment selected today changes the 21 day window to a mere 3 day window which gives no time at all to make any meaningful consideration or changes.
    You think the government hasn't thought through its possible responses already? If not, what has it been doing with the last month? It's not as though it's been doing anything else.
    I'm sure it has but if there is to be any meaningful change or negotiation in Europe then 3 weeks is more appropriate than 3 days and it has to happen after not before the vote.

    Its standard modus operandi in Europe once a deal is agreed to say it is final and can't be changed, but if it gets rejected domestically to tweak it in order to satisfy domestic concerns. Happened with Maastricht, Nice and Lisbon from memory.

    Now you may argue it can't happen here and this will go against history but without trying we'll never know.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    Brom said:

    Brom said:

    Hark, the impotent howls of rage from the Brexit Buccaneers, the most delightful sound of all.

    Behold, the glee, nay joy, on the lips of Bercow. He's been planning this for weeks, maybe months. And he's lapping up every last luscious second of it.

    Here is the man who will let Parliament Take Back Control. A towering godhead in a room of tiny little men.

    John Bercow, you are a national hero and your name shall resound throughout the annals.

    Love your satire! But Bercow has been properly done like a kipper today. When even the Independent is gunning for Bercow you know he's in a right mess!
    The amendment is going to a vote, and the government will lose it. There's a reason they're so furious.

    Parliament has precisely one way to stop Bercow. A motion of confidence. If the government is really that desperate to stop Parliament from Taking Back Control, then why doesn't it move a motion of no confidence in the speaker?

    Because he'd win. And he knows it. And they know it.

    This is why Bercow has the smirk on his face.
    He certainly didnt have a smirk on his face after Leadsom and Rees Mogg destroyed him!
    I would have called Bercow's expression to JRM as "smirk". Because it's like, you may have your copy of Erskine May, but I'm the ACTUAL SPEAKER, BITCH.

    The amendment will carry, and Bercow's hero status will go up another star.
  • FensterFenster Posts: 1,789

    Bercows car sticker raised

    That just showed how stupid some Tories are. What was the point of bringing that up? It was obviously his wife's car.

    They should've left the point of order with Leadsom.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 1,903

    Yorker said:

    It's not the job of the speaker to be a cheerleader for the government, but it's also not the job of the speaker to be a cheerleader against the government.

    That is where Bercow now is.

    Remainers have really shown they will do anything to thwart Brexit.
    Brexiteers really, REALLY don't want Parliament to take back control, do they?

    As nasty little fascists they only want it to take back control if it agrees with their interpretation of the "will-o-the-people". What they would like is a strong man (yes certainly a man) in charge, someone like, say, Putin to remove parliament. Yes he is a good role model, and he agrees with Brexit
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 11,162
    RoyalBlue said:

    Our system of government is broken beyond repair. Conventions are worthless when the principals have no principles.

    TM its on its off presumably!!
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 21,646

    You think the government hasn't thought through its possible responses already? If not, what has it been doing with the last month? It's not as though it's been doing anything else.

    I suspect that their plan is to go back to the EU after the vote (the EU have already hinted that any concessions won't come until then). So it is possible that having only three days is a serious issue.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 16,989

    Bercows car sticker raised

    And it's his wife's. That just about puts you on the same level as Holloway, Big G, and that's not a great place to be.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 4,679
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    So let me see if I have this right.

    The government has a business motion which will result in the MV.
    At the time the provision for the MV was made it was expressly said that a Minister could tender an amendment but no one else.
    Grieve has proposed an amendment which essentially takes away the timetabling control of the motion from the government, allows MPs to speak twice and gives MPs the chance to determine what we do next.
    Precedent says that a back bencher cannot make an amendment to a business motion.
    Bercow received advice to that effect from the clerks.
    Notwithstanding that Bercow has decided to call the motion on the basis, presumably, that the will of Parliament is being subverted.
    He has confirmed, however, that even if the motion were to pass that would not repeal the legislation repealing the European Communities Act.

    Is that where we are?

    The context of Bercow's decision is presumably the withdrawal of the original MV motion by the PM before Christmas when it became evident that she was facing a heavy defeat. I remember there being a lot of unhappiness about the way that was done at the time.

    Is he wrong? Almost certainly on the technicalities but arguably not on the substantive point. Control of the time tabling agenda is May's last weapon and she is abusing it.

    Consistency and therefore procedure matters. Nevertheless Dominic Grieve's amendment is an important one with apparently wide support in parliament. AFAIUI, he has no other way of tabling it. So if you are opposed to the amendment on procedural grounds you are also opposed to parliament being allowed to debate a matter of substance.
    I work in the Court of Session. We have detailed rules of Court but Judges don't let them get in the way of achieving substantial justice even if it sometimes appears that way. They regard them, in large part, as guidance which should assist them in reaching the right decision rather than a bar to it. I really cannot see why the HoC should be different.
    “If we only went by precedent, manifestly nothing would ever change."
    But deviation from precedent should be based on sound reasoning and after detailed consideration. Not the caprice of an activist Speaker
  • Yorkcity said:

    Brom said:

    Brom said:

    Hark, the impotent howls of rage from the Brexit Buccaneers, the most delightful sound of all.

    Behold, the glee, nay joy, on the lips of Bercow. He's been planning this for weeks, maybe months. And he's lapping up every last luscious second of it.

    Here is the man who will let Parliament Take Back Control. A towering godhead in a room of tiny little men.

    John Bercow, you are a national hero and your name shall resound throughout the annals.

    Love your satire! But Bercow has been properly done like a kipper today. When even the Independent is gunning for Bercow you know he's in a right mess!
    The amendment is going to a vote, and the government will lose it. There's a reason they're so furious.

    Parliament has precisely one way to stop Bercow. A motion of confidence. If the government is really that desperate to stop Parliament from Taking Back Control, then why doesn't it move a motion of no confidence in the speaker?

    Because he'd win. And he knows it. And they know it.

    This is why Bercow has the smirk on his face.
    He certainly didnt have a smirk on his face after Leadsom and Rees Mogg destroyed him!
    Berrcow destroyed the MP accusing him of a sticker in his car.
    Explained it was his wife's car and he does not control her views.

    Spot on.
    Why is she parking her car in his work place car park spot?
    They live in the Palace of Westminster, it is her home.
This discussion has been closed.