Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It’s time for the Tories to pick a candidate for Buckingham

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited January 12 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It’s time for the Tories to pick a candidate for Buckingham

Goodwill is the oil which lubricates the British constitution. The rules of parliament have been inherited from a time when governing was a gentlemen’s business and was expected to be carried out by gentlemen acting as gentlemen. Self-restraint and the awareness of when it becomes inappropriate to keep pushing a case are an essential aspect to enabling the system to work. Parliament is frequently criticised for being overly adversarial – and so it is – but that conflict is also bounded by an unwritten (and unwriteable) code of conduct.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • shiney2shiney2 Posts: 668
    CCA(2004).

    His position depends on Law. Amend one (or two) for 30d. Shazam .He's gone. There is no other lawful way.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 44,644
    edited January 12
    However, the issue is not whether it would be beneficial to make that change but whether reform should come about by discussion among MPs and a vote on procedure, or whether it can be introduced unilaterally by the Speaker.

    In amending the rules when and how he has, then Bercow gives the impression of changing procedure not in order to give MPs more control in general but in order to influence the outcome of a specific issue – an impression that may be accurate


    I hope people notice this bit, because given plenty of the opprobrium he gets is, of course, down to the hatred of him held by the executive, there is a tendency to downplay any criticism of him sometimes. It is possible to have some concern whether one thought the outcome was a good one or not. Doing the right thing for wrong reasons or the wrong way can open up to doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons and wrong way as well.

    I do think the ideas of revenge against Bercow mooted yesterday would be pointless and self defeating, but I don't see the issue with he or any Speaker being challenged by a major party - as precedents go it is not that strong a one as David notes, even if it is far more common than not. I believe the LDs initially said they'd stand a candidate in 2017 but decided against it, which I felt was a shame.

    I'd need to think about it a bit more, but it feels like there has to be a better way of handling the role than just having major parties not stand against whoever gets picked for as long as they then choose to be reappointed if they do not piss off enough of the House.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,512
    Good piece.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 2,863
    edited January 12
    kle4 said:

    However, the issue is not whether it would be beneficial to make that change but whether reform should come about by discussion among MPs and a vote on procedure, or whether it can be introduced unilaterally by the Speaker.

    In amending the rules when and how he has, then Bercow gives the impression of changing procedure not in order to give MPs more control in general but in order to influence the outcome of a specific issue – an impression that may be accurate


    I hope people notice this bit, because given plenty of the opprobrium he gets is, of course, down to the hatred of him held by the executive, there is a tendency to downplay any criticism of him sometimes. It is possible to have some concern whether one thought the outcome was a good one or not. Doing the right thing for wrong reasons or the wrong way can open up to doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons and wrong way as well.

    I do think the ideas of revenge against Bercow mooted yesterday would be pointless and self defeating, but I don't see the issue with he or any Speaker being challenged by a major party - as precedents go it is not that strong a one as David notes, even if it is far more common than not. I believe the LDs initially said they'd stand a candidate in 2017 but decided against it, which I felt was a shame.

    I'd need to think about it a bit more, but it feels like there has to be a better way of handling the role than just having major parties not stand against whoever gets picked for as long as they then choose to be reappointed if they do not piss off enough of the House.

    I see no particular reason why the Speaker should need to keep going on and on. Why not just elect a different one at the start of each Parliament? Then they could resume a career standing for their own party at the end of their tenure if they so wished.

    Being Speaker is currently career death for any MP. Once their time is up they're expected to shuffle off to the Lords. You'd probably get a wider pool of suitable candidates if the role did not impose this onerous expectation.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,512

    kle4 said:

    However, the issue is not whether it would be beneficial to make that change but whether reform should come about by discussion among MPs and a vote on procedure, or whether it can be introduced unilaterally by the Speaker.

    In amending the rules when and how he has, then Bercow gives the impression of changing procedure not in order to give MPs more control in general but in order to influence the outcome of a specific issue – an impression that may be accurate


    I hope people notice this bit, because given plenty of the opprobrium he gets is, of course, down to the hatred of him held by the executive, there is a tendency to downplay any criticism of him sometimes. It is possible to have some concern whether one thought the outcome was a good one or not. Doing the right thing for wrong reasons or the wrong way can open up to doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons and wrong way as well.

    I do think the ideas of revenge against Bercow mooted yesterday would be pointless and self defeating, but I don't see the issue with he or any Speaker being challenged by a major party - as precedents go it is not that strong a one as David notes, even if it is far more common than not. I believe the LDs initially said they'd stand a candidate in 2017 but decided against it, which I felt was a shame.

    I'd need to think about it a bit more, but it feels like there has to be a better way of handling the role than just having major parties not stand against whoever gets picked for as long as they then choose to be reappointed if they do not piss off enough of the House.

    I see no particular reason why the Speaker should need to keep going on and on. Why not just elect a different one at the start of each Parliament? Then they could resume a career standing for their own party at the end of their tenure if they so wished.

    Being Speaker is currently career death for any MP. Once their time is up they're expected to shuffle off to the Lords. You'd probably get a wider pool of suitable candidates if the role did not impose this onerous expectation.
    I think the risk with that, is that it ends up further politicising the role, and the government would effectively choose the speaker.

    But, hey, that might still be better than the current situation.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 15,618

    kle4 said:

    However, the issue is not whether it would be beneficial to make that change but whether reform should come about by discussion among MPs and a vote on procedure, or whether it can be introduced unilaterally by the Speaker.

    In amending the rules when and how he has, then Bercow gives the impression of changing procedure not in order to give MPs more control in general but in order to influence the outcome of a specific issue – an impression that may be accurate


    I hope people notice this bit, because given plenty of the opprobrium he gets is, of course, down to the hatred of him held by the executive, there is a tendency to downplay any criticism of him sometimes. It is possible to have some concern whether one thought the outcome was a good one or not. Doing the right thing for wrong reasons or the wrong way can open up to doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons and wrong way as well.

    I do think the ideas of revenge against Bercow mooted yesterday would be pointless and self defeating, but I don't see the issue with he or any Speaker being challenged by a major party - as precedents go it is not that strong a one as David notes, even if it is far more common than not. I believe the LDs initially said they'd stand a candidate in 2017 but decided against it, which I felt was a shame.

    I'd need to think about it a bit more, but it feels like there has to be a better way of handling the role than just having major parties not stand against whoever gets picked for as long as they then choose to be reappointed if they do not piss off enough of the House.

    I see no particular reason why the Speaker should need to keep going on and on. There's nothing to stop a different one being elected for the lifetime of a Parliament; then they could resume a career standing for their own party at the end of their tenure if they so wished.

    Being Speaker is currently career death for any MP. Once their time is up they're expected to shuffle off to the Lords. You'd probably get a wider pool of suitable candidates if the role did not impose this onerous expectation.
    The reason for their expected retirement (and compensatory peerage), is so that there's no suspicion of seeking future preferment or other favours, and that all notions of party have been put aside to chair the House impartially. While it's true that the same arguments could be made regarding the Deputy Speakers, I do think it's a good practice.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 4,329
    "...Those conventions play a valuable role in keeping a system running smoothly which has generally worked well over the centuries. Breaking them should not go without consequences."

    Mrs May broke a convention in pulling a business motion in December. Bercow redressed it in terms of timing. Good for him. It's Mrs May who will suffer the consequences of flouting conventions.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 9,074
    This smacks ofTory displacement activity. If they had any confidence in winning a vote then timing would be a non issue.

    May fiddles while Brexit burns, but maybe that is what she intends.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 28,798
    Not sure how much can be read into this, but it's interesting that the Conservative vote holds up very well in the hypothetical scenario where they call a referendum. No mass movement to UKIP.
    image
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 30,432
    Foxy said:

    This smacks ofTory displacement activity. If they had any confidence in winning a vote then timing would be a non issue.

    May fiddles while Brexit burns, but maybe that is what she intends.

    Brexit-tears?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 26,870
    "Sweden Nears End to Gridlock After Deal Keeps Nationalists Out

    With a snap election threatening, the Social Democrats reached an accord with the opposition Center Party and Liberals and its ally, the Greens"

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-11/sweden-social-democrats-reach-government-deal-aftonbladet-says
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 56,070
    edited January 12

    Not sure how much can be read into this, but it's interesting that the Conservative vote holds up very well in the hypothetical scenario where they call a referendum. No mass movement to UKIP.
    image

    Yet the Tories take a narrow lead or are tied with Labour if they call for a second referendum or support one. Of course calling a referendum is rather different to revoking Brexit without a referendum and of course Leave could still win that referendum.


    If Labour oppose a second EU referendum though the Tories take a 9% lead, in that sense the figures chime with those from YouGov if Labour fails to back another EU referendum with a Remain option.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 11,207
    edited January 12
    "The perception of a Speaker who is willing to use his powers in order to tilt the playing field in favour of an outcome he privately champions"
    The word "perception" is doing a lot of work in this. We need to stop pandering to the perceptions of paranoid reactionaries.

    It would be fun to watch the Tories run against the speaker, especially if the speaker won, as he probably would.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 34,434
    Yum yum...

    More calories than a McCheeseburger and laced with controversial palm oil - the unpalatable truth about that VERY right-on vegan sausage roll

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6583469/The-unpalatable-truth-right-vegan-sausage-roll.html

    I think I would rather drink boxed wine than eat that.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 28,798
    HYUFD said:

    Not sure how much can be read into this, but it's interesting that the Conservative vote holds up very well in the hypothetical scenario where they call a referendum. No mass movement to UKIP.
    image

    Yet the Tories take a narrow lead or are tied with Labour if they call for a second referendum or support one. Of course calling a referendum is rather different to revoking Brexit without a referendum and of course Leave could still win that referendum.


    If Labour oppose a second EU referendum though the Tories take a 9% lead, in that sense the figures chime with those from YouGov if Labour fails to back another EU referendum with a Remain option.
    Therefore the Tory powerplay would be to back a referendum before the meaningful vote and put Corbyn in a lose-lose position.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 56,070
    edited January 12
    Survation also finds May's Deal gets 41% to 32% for No Deal.

    Remain gets 46% to 41% for No Deal.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/britainelects/status/1083871451013435392
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,512

    Yum yum...

    More calories than a McCheeseburger and laced with controversial palm oil - the unpalatable truth about that VERY right-on vegan sausage roll

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6583469/The-unpalatable-truth-right-vegan-sausage-roll.html

    I think I would rather drink boxed wine than eat that.

    What's controversial about palm oil? (Except, I guess, for the possible environmental impact of producing it.)
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 1,876
    Barnesian said:

    "...Those conventions play a valuable role in keeping a system running smoothly which has generally worked well over the centuries. Breaking them should not go without consequences."

    Mrs May broke a convention in pulling a business motion in December. Bercow redressed it in terms of timing. Good for him. It's Mrs May who will suffer the consequences of flouting conventions.

    And what about the convention of holding fair elections without cheating? That particular convention has been flouted frequently in recent years by Mr Herdson`s friends.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,527
    PClipp said:

    Barnesian said:

    "...Those conventions play a valuable role in keeping a system running smoothly which has generally worked well over the centuries. Breaking them should not go without consequences."

    Mrs May broke a convention in pulling a business motion in December. Bercow redressed it in terms of timing. Good for him. It's Mrs May who will suffer the consequences of flouting conventions.

    And what about the convention of holding fair elections without cheating? That particular convention has been flouted frequently in recent years by Mr Herdson`s friends.
    Yeah, the LDs never did return that dodgy donation, did they? :smiley:
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 11,207
    Survation data as a Youtube clip of someone leafing through the detail:


    I mean thanks for the numbers, keep up the good work guys but WTF
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 11,207
    OT If Tulsi Gabbard is running, doesn't that suggest that Bernie isn't?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,512

    OT If Tulsi Gabbard is running, doesn't that suggest that Bernie isn't?

    It's going to be a very crowded Democratic field.

    Selling Bernie remains free money.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 28,798

    OT If Tulsi Gabbard is running, doesn't that suggest that Bernie isn't?

    Another pro-Putin candidate...

  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 3,526

    OT If Tulsi Gabbard is running, doesn't that suggest that Bernie isn't?

    Another pro-Putin candidate...

    That's an electoral positive. See also Trump and Putin's golden child: Brexit.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 29,650
    Precedents and conventions change in unprecedented times. People seem to be fine with the changes they support - as this thread makes clear ...

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 29,650

    Not sure how much can be read into this, but it's interesting that the Conservative vote holds up very well in the hypothetical scenario where they call a referendum. No mass movement to UKIP.
    image

    The big takeaway from the Survation poll is that No Deal is already the least favoured option. It’s hard to see it gaining more support should it actually happen. One for the Tories to dwell on.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 22,042
    Barnesian said:

    "...Those conventions play a valuable role in keeping a system running smoothly which has generally worked well over the centuries. Breaking them should not go without consequences."

    Mrs May broke a convention in pulling a business motion in December. Bercow redressed it in terms of timing. Good for him. It's Mrs May who will suffer the consequences of flouting conventions.

    +1
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 22,042
    RobD said:

    PClipp said:

    Barnesian said:

    "...Those conventions play a valuable role in keeping a system running smoothly which has generally worked well over the centuries. Breaking them should not go without consequences."

    Mrs May broke a convention in pulling a business motion in December. Bercow redressed it in terms of timing. Good for him. It's Mrs May who will suffer the consequences of flouting conventions.

    And what about the convention of holding fair elections without cheating? That particular convention has been flouted frequently in recent years by Mr Herdson`s friends.
    Yeah, the LDs never did return that dodgy donation, did they? :smiley:
    Two cheeks of the same arse Rob.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,221
    Tory Attempt To Undermine The Speaker Number 2,478 ....

    The Conservative administration clearly hasn't learnt the lesson. Former Conservative MP Bercow isn't the governments man. All their previous attempts, in conjunction with the Tory tabloid press, to replace Bercow have ended in humiliation. Not least the shabby William Hague fiasco in 2015.

    One might also add that governments past and present are quite happy to play nicely with conventions when it suits, but then will blithely cast them aside when it doesn't.

    Of course the Conservatives might simply be in the first years of a new convention for them - The Speaker as an arm of Conservative policy and legislative administration.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 18,631
    edited January 12
    JackW said:

    Of course the Conservatives might simply be in the first years of a new convention for them - The Speaker as an arm of Conservative policy and legislative administration.

    In fairness, Blair started that by forcing Martin on the House. Even Andrew Rawnsley described him as undistinguished and partisan.

    That is not to say that further attempts to undermine Bercow by the government are a Good Thing. Nor that he's wrong to be making life difficult for the government.

    However, I also don't think this pushback would be happening but for his ummm, other difficulties and narcissistic desire to take centre stage.
  • Hilarious piece by David Herdson. The Conservative Party can torch the British constitution like a pyrokinetic on crack in pursuit of it's ' precious ' and that's fine. But if the Speaker, just once, rules to tilt the dynamic fractionally back toward the legislature then he must be destroyed.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 29,650

    Hilarious piece by David Herdson. The Conservative Party can torch the British constitution like a pyrokinetic on crack in pursuit of it's ' precious ' and that's fine. But if the Speaker, just once, rules to tilt the dynamic fractionally back toward the legislature then he must be destroyed.

    As this thread clearly demonstrates ...

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 26,870
    edited January 12
    Good morning everyone. About 11 weeks to go.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,221
    ydoethur said:

    JackW said:

    Of course the Conservatives might simply be in the first years of a new convention for them - The Speaker as an arm of Conservative policy and legislative administration.

    In fairness, Blair started that by forcing Martin on the House. Even Andrew Rawnsley described him as undistinguished and partisan.

    That is not to say that further attempts to undermine Bercow by the government are a Good Thing. Nor that he's wrong to be making life difficult for the government.

    However, I also don't think this pushback would be happening but for his ummm, other difficulties and narcissistic desire to take centre stage.
    The "pushback" from the government is desperately unseemly and smacks of Tory toys being flung from their pram. This grubby displacement activity is most reprehensible and to be roundly condemned.

    Clearly Speaker Bercow is something of a force of nature in parliamentary terms but then so were many of his predecessors. The difference being the televising of parliament, the pervading nature of social media and the modern Speaker being more confident in their position, robust in their independence and more likely to flash a parliamentary two fingered salute at an overbearing government .... and then there was Speaker Martin !!
  • RogerRoger Posts: 11,346
    edited January 12
    An interesting enough read but writing about removing the speaker for breaking a convention screams of fiddling while Rome burns. I'd be more interested in building a scaffold for David Cameron if they can prise him from his sun-lounger in Puerta Rico.

  • Roger said:

    An interesting enough read but writing about removing the speaker for breaking a convention screams of fiddling while Rome burns. I'd be more interested in building a scaffold for David Cameron if they can prise him from his sun-lounger in Puerta Rica.

    On the scaffold with his trotters up.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 11,896
    Tories, rattles and prams.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 18,631

    Roger said:

    An interesting enough read but writing about removing the speaker for breaking a convention screams of fiddling while Rome burns. I'd be more interested in building a scaffold for David Cameron if they can prise him from his sun-lounger in Puerta Rica.

    On the scaffold with his trotters up.
    I dunno, it's a pig decision to hang a former PM.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 11,346

    Roger said:

    An interesting enough read but writing about removing the speaker for breaking a convention screams of fiddling while Rome burns. I'd be more interested in building a scaffold for David Cameron if they can prise him from his sun-lounger in Puerta Rica.

    On the scaffold with his trotters up.
    Did he take his pig with him?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 18,631
    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    An interesting enough read but writing about removing the speaker for breaking a convention screams of fiddling while Rome burns. I'd be more interested in building a scaffold for David Cameron if they can prise him from his sun-lounger in Puerta Rica.

    On the scaffold with his trotters up.
    Did he take his pig with him?
    As ye sow, so shall ye reap. Although everybody is now boared of his mistake.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 49,750
    Good morning, everyone.

    Help!

    Grayling has agreed with me:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46847169

    Is there some sort of counselling hotline available?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 26,870
    "Blocking Brexit could cause far-right surge - Grayling"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46847169
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 25,177
    edited January 12
    So, May loses on Tuesday. Badly. But perhaps not as badly as currently expected.

    She comes back to the Commons on Friday as now required and says "I have heard the opinion of the House. I will resume meetings in Brussels in order to deliver a deal which can prove acceptable to the House." That's it. No specifics. No timetable. Clock runs down.

    What ground have the forces of the Grieve-Bercow Axis gained?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 9,074

    Yum yum...

    More calories than a McCheeseburger and laced with controversial palm oil - the unpalatable truth about that VERY right-on vegan sausage roll

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6583469/The-unpalatable-truth-right-vegan-sausage-roll.html

    I think I would rather drink boxed wine than eat that.

    Who is surprised that products in Greggs are full of empty calories, fat, sugar and salt, while low in both vitamins and fibre?

    Just look at their customers for evidence of the effects on a body. It is suicide by food.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 25,177
    edited January 12
    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    An interesting enough read but writing about removing the speaker for breaking a convention screams of fiddling while Rome burns. I'd be more interested in building a scaffold for David Cameron if they can prise him from his sun-lounger in Puerta Rica.

    On the scaffold with his trotters up.
    Did he take his pig with him?
    As ye sow, so shall ye reap. Although everybody is now boared of his mistake.
    He'll never be bacon power..... Calling the Referendum was one of his rasher moves.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 11,118
    rcs1000 said:

    OT If Tulsi Gabbard is running, doesn't that suggest that Bernie isn't?

    It's going to be a very crowded Democratic field.

    Selling Bernie remains free money.
    Selling Gabbard is free money. A Putin lover won't do well in 2020.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 25,196
    You’d hope the Conservatives had more pressing priorities right now.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 2,342

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    An interesting enough read but writing about removing the speaker for breaking a convention screams of fiddling while Rome burns. I'd be more interested in building a scaffold for David Cameron if they can prise him from his sun-lounger in Puerta Rica.

    On the scaffold with his trotters up.
    Did he take his pig with him?
    As ye sow, so shall ye reap. Although everybody is now boared of his mistake.
    He'll never be bacon power..... Calling the Referendum was one of his rasher moves.
    He's done enough ham already.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 18,648
    edited January 12
    Barnesian said:

    "...Those conventions play a valuable role in keeping a system running smoothly which has generally worked well over the centuries. Breaking them should not go without consequences."

    Mrs May broke a convention in pulling a business motion in December. Bercow redressed it in terms of timing. Good for him. It's Mrs May who will suffer the consequences of flouting conventions.

    +2 This is all about the government railing against its lack of majority and unity, and very little to do with how the Commons is chaired. In terms of the latter, Bercow has been the best of my recollection.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 25,177
    AndyJS said:

    "Blocking Brexit could cause far-right surge - Grayling"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46847169

    (....and a far-left government....)
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 2,782
    I have never seen why the Speaker should be unopposed.

    Just have an election where all constituencies are contested, and the new House picks a Speaker.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 18,648

    Not sure how much can be read into this, but it's interesting that the Conservative vote holds up very well in the hypothetical scenario where they call a referendum. No mass movement to UKIP.
    image

    All very minor differences; hardly worth doing the survey - except for the dip in Labour support if they don't back a second referendum called for by others. Which we already knew from previous (actually more dramatic) poll results.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 22,042
    JackW said:

    Tory Attempt To Undermine The Speaker Number 2,478 ....

    The Conservative administration clearly hasn't learnt the lesson. Former Conservative MP Bercow isn't the governments man. All their previous attempts, in conjunction with the Tory tabloid press, to replace Bercow have ended in humiliation. Not least the shabby William Hague fiasco in 2015.

    One might also add that governments past and present are quite happy to play nicely with conventions when it suits, but then will blithely cast them aside when it doesn't.

    Of course the Conservatives might simply be in the first years of a new convention for them - The Speaker as an arm of Conservative policy and legislative administration.

    Nice to see you posting again Jack
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 18,631

    So, May loses on Tuesday. Badly. But perhaps not as badly as currently expected.

    She comes back to the Commons on Friday as now required and says "I have heard the opinion of the House. I will resume meetings in Brussels in order to deliver a deal which can prove acceptable to the House." That's it. No specifics. No timetable. Clock runs down.

    What ground have the forces of the Grieve-Bercow Axis gained?

    She can't go back and renegotiate. She will get the reply in Arkell v Pressdram.

    If we vote down the deal, we either revoke, or leave without one. There is no time for further public consultation, and revocation would be politically impossible without it.

    Therefore, the Remainers are driving us to no deal. Never before have so many rude remarks about the stupidity of politicians seemed so apt.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 18,631

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    An interesting enough read but writing about removing the speaker for breaking a convention screams of fiddling while Rome burns. I'd be more interested in building a scaffold for David Cameron if they can prise him from his sun-lounger in Puerta Rica.

    On the scaffold with his trotters up.
    Did he take his pig with him?
    As ye sow, so shall ye reap. Although everybody is now boared of his mistake.
    He'll never be bacon power..... Calling the Referendum was one of his rasher moves.
    Fat lot of good those puns were.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,221

    Good morning, everyone.

    Help!

    Grayling has agreed with me:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46847169

    Is there some sort of counselling hotline available?

    Public dancing in bucolic regalia to the amusement of the masses might to some seem a cure all. I couldn't possibly comment ....
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 18,648
    AndyJS said:

    "Blocking Brexit could cause far-right surge - Grayling"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46847169

    With such awareness and foresight, surely his ministerial career will go far.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 11,896

    So, May loses on Tuesday. Badly. But perhaps not as badly as currently expected.

    She comes back to the Commons on Friday as now required and says "I have heard the opinion of the House. I will resume meetings in Brussels in order to deliver a deal which can prove acceptable to the House." That's it. No specifics. No timetable. Clock runs down.

    What ground have the forces of the Grieve-Bercow Axis gained?

    The next move is to remove the leaving date from the Brexit legislation.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 18,631

    AndyJS said:

    "Blocking Brexit could cause far-right surge - Grayling"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46847169

    (....and a far-left government....)
    So it wouldn't be Corbyn in power as Grayling expects? :wink:
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 25,177
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    An interesting enough read but writing about removing the speaker for breaking a convention screams of fiddling while Rome burns. I'd be more interested in building a scaffold for David Cameron if they can prise him from his sun-lounger in Puerta Rica.

    On the scaffold with his trotters up.
    Did he take his pig with him?
    As ye sow, so shall ye reap. Although everybody is now boared of his mistake.
    He'll never be bacon power..... Calling the Referendum was one of his rasher moves.
    Fat lot of good those puns were.
    Well they gave me a lardon!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 18,631
    Jonathan said:

    So, May loses on Tuesday. Badly. But perhaps not as badly as currently expected.

    She comes back to the Commons on Friday as now required and says "I have heard the opinion of the House. I will resume meetings in Brussels in order to deliver a deal which can prove acceptable to the House." That's it. No specifics. No timetable. Clock runs down.

    What ground have the forces of the Grieve-Bercow Axis gained?

    The next move is to remove the leaving date from the Brexit legislation.
    Riiight...

    Didn't know we were planning to rewrite the Lisbon Treaty.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 18,631

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    An interesting enough read but writing about removing the speaker for breaking a convention screams of fiddling while Rome burns. I'd be more interested in building a scaffold for David Cameron if they can prise him from his sun-lounger in Puerta Rica.

    On the scaffold with his trotters up.
    Did he take his pig with him?
    As ye sow, so shall ye reap. Although everybody is now boared of his mistake.
    He'll never be bacon power..... Calling the Referendum was one of his rasher moves.
    Fat lot of good those puns were.
    Well they gave me a lardon!
    That pun has actually fried my brain. :hushed:
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 25,196
    The Speaker should have stepped down last year over the bullying allegations which he signally failed to deal with. It is also a serious problem that the Speaker has lost the confidence of a sizeable chunk of the Commons in his neutrality. But we are where we are. The government signalling now that they wanted the Speaker out would be a needless dousing of the fire with petrol.
  • Chris_AChris_A Posts: 1,145
    Bercow's ruling this week is of absolutely no consequence whatsoever. If the government had had a majority it would easily have brushed Grieve's amendment aside, and any majority government would do so in future. You - as do most Tories - seem to forget that you allowed May to throw it all away in 2017.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 49,750
    Mr. W, it's true that the noble art of morris dancing can soothe the most troubled of hearts.

    Mr. Meeks, indeed.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,221
    malcolmg said:

    JackW said:

    Tory Attempt To Undermine The Speaker Number 2,478 ....

    The Conservative administration clearly hasn't learnt the lesson. Former Conservative MP Bercow isn't the governments man. All their previous attempts, in conjunction with the Tory tabloid press, to replace Bercow have ended in humiliation. Not least the shabby William Hague fiasco in 2015.

    One might also add that governments past and present are quite happy to play nicely with conventions when it suits, but then will blithely cast them aside when it doesn't.

    Of course the Conservatives might simply be in the first years of a new convention for them - The Speaker as an arm of Conservative policy and legislative administration.

    Nice to see you posting again Jack
    I thank the honourable gentleman for Ayrshire Coastal & The Wetlands and hope his sinecure as Senior Scottish Government Advisor on the Medical Benefits of Root Vegetables has been of substantial financial benefit?
  • eekeek Posts: 3,904
    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    So, May loses on Tuesday. Badly. But perhaps not as badly as currently expected.

    She comes back to the Commons on Friday as now required and says "I have heard the opinion of the House. I will resume meetings in Brussels in order to deliver a deal which can prove acceptable to the House." That's it. No specifics. No timetable. Clock runs down.

    What ground have the forces of the Grieve-Bercow Axis gained?

    The next move is to remove the leaving date from the Brexit legislation.
    Riiight...

    Didn't know we were planning to rewrite the Lisbon Treaty.
    Yep - the date is known by both parties as 23:00 on March 29th. Changing it on our side doesn’t change it on their side.

    All changing it will do is allow us to potentially negotiate a later date..
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 9,074
    IanB2 said:

    Not sure how much can be read into this, but it's interesting that the Conservative vote holds up very well in the hypothetical scenario where they call a referendum. No mass movement to UKIP.
    image

    All very minor differences; hardly worth doing the survey - except for the dip in Labour support if they don't back a second referendum called for by others. Which we already knew from previous (actually more dramatic) poll results.
    Indeed, even if Brexit results in a zombie apocalypse crossed with Mad Max, the polling will still be 40% Con, 40% Labour...
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 11,896
    When will people learn you cannot placate the far right, You only delay the inevitable confrontation and make them stronger.

    Grayling is a fool.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 2,863

    Good morning, everyone.

    Help!

    Grayling has agreed with me:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46847169

    Is there some sort of counselling hotline available?

    And I've just found myself agreeing with Lord Adonis



    Perhaps we can form a support group?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 49,750
    Mr. Rook, sounds promising. Crowdfunded counselling and group therapy may be the way to go.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 22,042
    Jonathan said:

    When will people learn you cannot placate the far right, You only delay the inevitable confrontation and make them stronger.

    Grayling is a fool.

    You flatter him considerably
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 25,177
    I've seen it referenced couple of times that "sources" say May will not seek to extend the March 29th deadline. Anything more official?

    Does seem to be that her current approach is "Back my deal - or sack me. Oh - but you can't sack me, can you? Mwahahahahahaha......." The Brady bunch of letter writers might have accidentally played a blinder.....
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 18,631
    Jonathan said:

    When will people learn you cannot placate the far right, You only delay the inevitable confrontation and make them stronger.

    Grayling is a fool.

    Was that Blair's mistake in not expelling Macdonnell, Corbyn and Livingstone?

    Well, in fairness he did expel Livingstone before bringing him back again.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 49,750
    Mr. Jonathan, appeasing political extremes is not clever.

    However, teaching the electorate that mainstream parties can and will ignore them when the little people have the temerity to disagree with the political class, who assumes the guise of masters and not servants of the public, will help fuel said extremes.

    Of course, the far left needs no help, as it already occupies the Labour front bench, but the far right, almost certainly through a new party rather than occupation of the Conservatives, could benefit significantly.

    [If we were to end up remaining, there would be ructions, but these would be diminished by holding a second referendum. Not doing so would be a worse course of action, in term's of public disenchantment with mainstream politics].
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 6,595
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    An interesting enough read but writing about removing the speaker for breaking a convention screams of fiddling while Rome burns. I'd be more interested in building a scaffold for David Cameron if they can prise him from his sun-lounger in Puerta Rica.

    On the scaffold with his trotters up.
    Did he take his pig with him?
    As ye sow, so shall ye reap. Although everybody is now boared of his mistake.
    He'll never be bacon power..... Calling the Referendum was one of his rasher moves.
    Fat lot of good those puns were.
    Buttie might come back and be PM again.. its not impossible
  • RogerRoger Posts: 11,346
    Jonathan said:

    When will people learn you cannot placate the far right, You only delay the inevitable confrontation and make them stronger.

    Grayling is a fool.

    AKA The man with the missing brain.....
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 49,750
    Mr. Roger, even fools are right sometimes. Even the wise can err.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 25,177

    [If we were to end up remaining, there would be ructions, but these would be diminished by holding a second referendum. Not doing so would be a worse course of action, in term's of public disenchantment with mainstream politics].

    But then the buggers might vote to leave again. Then where would be, eh? We might have to do the unthinkable and *gulp* actually Leave....
  • ChrisChris Posts: 2,935

    I've seen it referenced couple of times that "sources" say May will not seek to extend the March 29th deadline. Anything more official?

    It was attributed to a named spokeswoman in news reports yesterday.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 25,177

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    An interesting enough read but writing about removing the speaker for breaking a convention screams of fiddling while Rome burns. I'd be more interested in building a scaffold for David Cameron if they can prise him from his sun-lounger in Puerta Rica.

    On the scaffold with his trotters up.
    Did he take his pig with him?
    As ye sow, so shall ye reap. Although everybody is now boared of his mistake.
    He'll never be bacon power..... Calling the Referendum was one of his rasher moves.
    Fat lot of good those puns were.
    Buttie might come back and be PM again.. its not impossible
    I see your addiction to puns hasn't been cured.....
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 9,074

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    An interesting enough read but writing about removing the speaker for breaking a convention screams of fiddling while Rome burns. I'd be more interested in building a scaffold for David Cameron if they can prise him from his sun-lounger in Puerta Rica.

    On the scaffold with his trotters up.
    Did he take his pig with him?
    As ye sow, so shall ye reap. Although everybody is now boared of his mistake.
    He'll never be bacon power..... Calling the Referendum was one of his rasher moves.
    Fat lot of good those puns were.
    Buttie might come back and be PM again.. its not impossible
    Sow, how do you see that happening?
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 6,595
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    An interesting enough read but writing about removing the speaker for breaking a convention screams of fiddling while Rome burns. I'd be more interested in building a scaffold for David Cameron if they can prise him from his sun-lounger in Puerta Rica.

    On the scaffold with his trotters up.
    Did he take his pig with him?
    As ye sow, so shall ye reap. Although everybody is now boared of his mistake.
    He'll never be bacon power..... Calling the Referendum was one of his rasher moves.
    Fat lot of good those puns were.
    Buttie might come back and be PM again.. its not impossible
    Sow, how do you see that happening?
    I don't, I was telling porkies.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 49,750
    Mr. Mark, possibly. But revocation is unilateral. If that occurs and the second referendum has a higher threshold for Leave (say, 55%) or the political class considers it advisory and the margin of a theoretical Leave victory too small, we might simply end up revoking Article 50 (well, having Westminster types do it) and stay in.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 25,177
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    An interesting enough read but writing about removing the speaker for breaking a convention screams of fiddling while Rome burns. I'd be more interested in building a scaffold for David Cameron if they can prise him from his sun-lounger in Puerta Rica.

    On the scaffold with his trotters up.
    Did he take his pig with him?
    As ye sow, so shall ye reap. Although everybody is now boared of his mistake.
    He'll never be bacon power..... Calling the Referendum was one of his rasher moves.
    Fat lot of good those puns were.
    Buttie might come back and be PM again.. its not impossible
    Sow, how do you see that happening?
    Get them eating out the Parma his hand?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 49,750
    Dr. Foxy, it's not impossible. Lots of people think Tusk is going to return to domestic politics.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 49,750
    edited January 12


    Edited extra bit: update, sounds like a gas leak.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 2,935

    Hilarious piece by David Herdson. The Conservative Party can torch the British constitution like a pyrokinetic on crack in pursuit of it's ' precious ' and that's fine. But if the Speaker, just once, rules to tilt the dynamic fractionally back toward the legislature then he must be destroyed.

    Perhaps it is worth bearing in mind that it's the government, not the Speaker, whose view of the balance between the executive and the legislature was actually ruled to be unlawful by the Supreme Court.

    Though we must also remember that the judges were later convicted of being Enemies of the People in the Court of Tabloid Opinion.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 2,863
    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Not sure how much can be read into this, but it's interesting that the Conservative vote holds up very well in the hypothetical scenario where they call a referendum. No mass movement to UKIP.
    image

    All very minor differences; hardly worth doing the survey - except for the dip in Labour support if they don't back a second referendum called for by others. Which we already knew from previous (actually more dramatic) poll results.
    Indeed, even if Brexit results in a zombie apocalypse crossed with Mad Max, the polling will still be 40% Con, 40% Labour...
    There is a good argument for this. The deciding factor is the balance between Toryphobia and Corbynphobia, which seems to split the electorate into roughly equal blocs.

    One can harbour real concerns about Brexit if it moves in either of the likely directions (Will Hard Brexit cause serious economic dislocation, or not? Will cancelling Brexit result in significant alienation of parts of the electorate, or not?) But ultimately, once Parliament finally decides what to do, or has an outcome forced upon it by circumstances because it cannot, then the fundamental divide - in England and Wales, anyway - seems likely to be Left/Right again. Between the part of the population that wants to be rid of the Conservatives, and the part of the population that considers Corbyn and Co to be beyond the pale (or, at the very least, a dire threat to their prosperity.)

    Labour can theoretically resolve its problems more easily, by recruiting a leader with less baggage, but the Conservatives can offload their leader more easily, which gives them the chance to attempt to reform. Beyond that, my understanding is that the number of safe seats on the electoral map is larger than ever, and (as OGH has pointed out repeatedly) Labour is still struggling badly in Scotland.

    If circumstances mean that a GE takes place this year, with wounds from the Brexit battle still raw, then maybe we might see a surprise? But if Parliament lasts the distance then it seems more likely, at this stage, that the outcome will see the Conservatives at the very least as the largest party, and possibly regaining a small majority.

    This could, however, change very quickly if JC falls under a bus.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 5,507
    Bercow doesn't like conventions, but Parliament seems to be following suit. Pledging to obey a referendum result and then reneging is surely against convention.

    An obvious result would be Ukip MPs again. They could join the SNP in being contrary for the sake of it, and give Mr Eagles nightmares.

    Farage got 8000 votes in Buckingham in the 2010 GE, I suspect he'd get many more after a revocation. In the referendum, they mirrored the final results.

    If Bercow succeeds in his cunning plan, he's toast anyway.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 3,967
    Chris said:

    Hilarious piece by David Herdson. The Conservative Party can torch the British constitution like a pyrokinetic on crack in pursuit of it's ' precious ' and that's fine. But if the Speaker, just once, rules to tilt the dynamic fractionally back toward the legislature then he must be destroyed.

    Perhaps it is worth bearing in mind that it's the government, not the Speaker, whose view of the balance between the executive and the legislature was actually ruled to be unlawful by the Supreme Court.

    Though we must also remember that the judges were later convicted of being Enemies of the People in the Court of Tabloid Opinion.
    Two wrongs don't make a right.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 10,911

    I've seen it referenced couple of times that "sources" say May will not seek to extend the March 29th deadline. Anything more official?

    Does seem to be that her current approach is "Back my deal - or sack me. Oh - but you can't sack me, can you? Mwahahahahahaha......." The Brady bunch of letter writers might have accidentally played a blinder.....

    Tin foil hat, I know, but it had previously occurred to me that May and JRM might be in on it together.
  • Morning all and excellent article as usual David. For me Bercow has behaved in an inappropriate manner for several years. He should certainly have gone over the bullying allegations. This week his response to the Brexit issue was appalling. It showed that neither he nor his wife have respect not only for the need for the Speaker to be impartial but for him to be seen to be impartial. It may have been his wife's car but if he has ever driven that car in public with the anti-Brexit sticker on the window, he has shown partiality.

    The time for his excellent Labour deputy to succeed him has come. It should have happened some time ago.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 14,827

    Good morning, everyone.

    Help!

    Grayling has agreed with me:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46847169

    Is there some sort of counselling hotline available?

    We need his views on Hannibal to really mess with your head.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 3,967

    Hilarious piece by David Herdson. The Conservative Party can torch the British constitution like a pyrokinetic on crack in pursuit of it's ' precious ' and that's fine. But if the Speaker, just once, rules to tilt the dynamic fractionally back toward the legislature then he must be destroyed.

    As this thread clearly demonstrates ...

    I read that and was frankly disappointed. No defence of why Bercow was right to over rule the officials, just a list of misdemeanours by the government. Anyway it's an issue that requires impartiality - you won't find that on an FT thread.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 11,346

    Mr. Roger, even fools are right sometimes. Even the wise can err.

    Of course and after his performance on the railways I can't think of anyone better to show us how to avoid the nutters on the far right
This discussion has been closed.