Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Speaker cornered. Time for John Bercow to stand down as Speake

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited June 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Speaker cornered. Time for John Bercow to stand down as Speaker

I have a soft spot for John Bercow, located somewhere around my wallet.  Over the years he has been a steady source of income for me as he has survived in office as Speaker, despite the noises off that regularly come from Conservative backwoodsmen harrumphing about his supposed rudeness and perceived unConservativeness.  Despite abundant evidence that only a small minority were willing to put their heads above the parapet, enough Bercowphobes were regularly willing to put money on the proposition that he would be ejected from the Speaker’s chair by given dates to enable me to make a decent income.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • Good morning
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Is there a potential replacement who has not expressed a view, one way or the other, on Brexit? You'd not want Jacob Rees-Mogg, for instance, if that was your concern, although it has been said in the past that the Speaker's chair was his ambition.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,083
    Like Alastair, I am a fan of Bercow, who has been willing to be bold and firm with Parliament and government in a way that stands out from many of his predecessors. It's a shame that his calling out of individual MPs who behave like kiddies in the chamber hasn't picked up more traction in the wider world.

    It will always be difficult finding someone "neutral" on any big issue, given that the candidate has to be drawn from a group of people all of whom got there through fighting a party political contest. The best they can do is pick someone who has generally stayed above the fray, whicn might once upon a time have stretched to JRM, but not today. It would however be a great way to get him out of the way.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    An excellent article.

    Thanks Alistair. Time for Speaker Vince Cable to arise...

    (Joke)
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    Surely Lindsay Hoyle is the natural successor
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited June 2018
    A well written and thought provoking piece, thanks Alastair.

    I agree that it’s probably time for him to step down, he’s been a reasonably good referee but has increasingly become the story - not a good thing for someone who is supposed to be impartial, and more importantly be seen to be impartial.

    I can see him wanting to stay on until we leave the EU and all the associated legislation passes. I think he wants to see himself at the centre of it. There is also the issue that it will be difficult to find any MP without a strong view on the subject (Jeremy Corbyn excepted!) so it might be better to appoint a new Speaker once Brexit is no longer a live political issue.

    The Commons also needs to think carefully about how they police themselves. That an investigation into the Speaker for personal abuse can be blocked by a committee he chairs and consisting of people appointed by him is out of order.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    edited June 2018
    @DecrepitJohnL - Agreed, I can't find anything from Hoyle about Brexit. He seems the obvious choice.

    Alas, I cannot see the incumbent stepping down.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited June 2018

    Surely Lindsay Hoyle is the natural successor

    Good call if the vacancy happens soon. A well respected current deputy.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540

    Surely Lindsay Hoyle is the natural successor

    Agree - he’s much less fond of the sound of his own voice than Bercow - the contrast when he chaired PMQs because Bercow was at Speaker Martin’s funeral was striking.

    Good thread - but fear Bercow is too fond of the limelight to step aside. How could he resist one, final, heroic role in Brexit? What did Powell say about political careers?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Yep time for Bercow to go.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,059
    Interesting read... Who would I get as my prospective MP though to replace him in the peoples republic of Buckingham Bercow... The evening standard editor looks capable... And young with some time on his hands.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good morning, everyone.

    Good article, Mr. Meeks. There's also the matter of Bercow saying he would've stepped down by now.

    F1: will see if I can find any bets. And must check the weather forecast.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    On his job, he has performed it adequately but is certainly no Betty Boothroyd :)
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited June 2018
    rcs1000 said:

    An excellent article.

    Thanks Alistair. Time for Speaker Vince Cable to arise...

    (Joke)

    FPT for some reason wiki doesn’t highlight this, but the Eurodollar market got its first massive boost when Kennedy introduced a 15% withholding tax.

    Being traded outside the US they were withholding tax free
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    F1: still only 13 markets on the race on Ladbrokes. Unglaublich!

    There should be around 22-25 of main markets, with another 10 matches and perhaps a couple of specials.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,005
    Anyone thinking of trying to see off Bercow ought to consider who might replace him. I cannot think of anyone obvious.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574
    edited June 2018
    rcs1000 said:

    An excellent article.

    Thanks Alistair.....

    It is indeed.
    There is also the small matter of the 40-odd NDAs (which for obvious reasons is yet to be fully explored). To have any chance of salvaging his reputation, Bercow should take the opportunity to go now, but I expect his arrogance to get the better of him. He might yet cling on into next year.

    Had he stepped down last week, as originally promised, he’d likely be remembered as an excellent Speaker.

    FPT, this is a very comprehensive and informative article on the history of the Euro Dollar market, though the prose is a little stilted:
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278303751_The_History_of_the_Euro-Dollar_Market_-_a_Chronological_Account_of_the_1960s
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Booth, Hoyle, surely?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. P, saw a clip of Alex Deane[sp] doing the Sky paper review, and referring to Airbus' identical threat if we didn't join the single currency.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771

    Mr. P, saw a clip of Alex Deane[sp] doing the Sky paper review, and referring to Airbus' identical threat if we didn't join the single currency.

    Airbus didn't exist as a company before 2000, before that it was a loose consortium of national aerospace companies.

    That being said, I doubt Airbus could move wing production rapidly, so I'd be surprised if they actually did anything.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574

    Mr. P, saw a clip of Alex Deane[sp] doing the Sky paper review, and referring to Airbus' identical threat if we didn't join the single currency.

    Which is no real reason to believe it might not be true this time.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    Interesting.

    MPs decide, don’t they? If they want Bercow to stay, I guess he will. Given the decision he has to make on the meaningful vote that in and of itself would be very significant.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    One thing to note is that there hasn't been a Tory Speaker for a long time. Bercow is a Tory in name only, and can be discounted as having been Tory.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574

    One thing to note is that there hasn't been a Tory Speaker for a long time. Bercow is a Tory in name only, and can be discounted as having been Tory.

    Bercow has travelled across much of the political spectrum during his time. I wouldn’t be astonished were he to become Jezzah’s leader in the Lords in order to complete his journey...
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. 1000, cheers for that info (may have been referring to a forerunner company, but still).

    Mr. B, true, though lots of the warnings are coming from those who, in the past, supported eurozone membership. I suspect (people not being prone to persuasion when they have a firm opinion) it just sounds like General Melchitt's pronouncement: "Doing precisely what we've done 17 times before is precisely the last thing they'll expect us to do this time."
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    Nigelb said:

    One thing to note is that there hasn't been a Tory Speaker for a long time. Bercow is a Tory in name only, and can be discounted as having been Tory.

    Bercow has travelled across much of the political spectrum during his time. I wouldn’t be astonished were he to become Jezzah’s leader in the Lords in order to complete his journey...
    Once Bercow has gone as Speaker, one would hope he disappeared into obscurity,
    permanently. He may have been a great Speaker in terms of his giving power back to backbenchers, but I can no longer bear to listen to his over verbose pontifications.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574

    Interesting.

    MPs decide, don’t they? If they want Bercow to stay, I guess he will. Given the decision he has to make on the meaningful vote that in and of itself would be very significant.

    And any replacement would be equally contentious for that very reason, even mild mannered Lindsay Hoyle. Not expressing some sort of opinion on the matter would probably be untenable if there were to be a contest.
    It’s quite possible that Bercow will stay for some time.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574

    Nigelb said:

    One thing to note is that there hasn't been a Tory Speaker for a long time. Bercow is a Tory in name only, and can be discounted as having been Tory.

    Bercow has travelled across much of the political spectrum during his time. I wouldn’t be astonished were he to become Jezzah’s leader in the Lords in order to complete his journey...
    Once Bercow has gone as Speaker, one would hope he disappeared into obscurity,
    permanently. He may have been a great Speaker in terms of his giving power back to backbenchers, but I can no longer bear to listen to his over verbose pontifications.
    Which would surely make him the ideal candidate for the post ?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958
    Scott_P said:
    If cartoonist Morten Morland knew his planes, he would have drawn a Beluga that carries the wings.....
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    One thing to note is that there hasn't been a Tory Speaker for a long time. Bercow is a Tory in name only, and can be discounted as having been Tory.

    Bercow has travelled across much of the political spectrum during his time. I wouldn’t be astonished were he to become Jezzah’s leader in the Lords in order to complete his journey...
    Once Bercow has gone as Speaker, one would hope he disappeared into obscurity,
    permanently. He may have been a great Speaker in terms of his giving power back to backbenchers, but I can no longer bear to listen to his over verbose pontifications.
    Which would surely make him the ideal candidate for the post ?
    I think you need to look at the talk about Bercow and how he handles things behind the scenes before you start using words like "ideal candidate" Bercow's course has overrun. Its now a case of "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest"
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Nigelb said:

    Interesting.

    MPs decide, don’t they? If they want Bercow to stay, I guess he will. Given the decision he has to make on the meaningful vote that in and of itself would be very significant.

    And any replacement would be equally contentious for that very reason, even mild mannered Lindsay Hoyle. Not expressing some sort of opinion on the matter would probably be untenable if there were to be a contest.
    It’s quite possible that Bercow will stay for some time.
    There's a difference between having expressed an opinion once and having the decorum to realise putting a 'bollocks to Brexit' bumper sticker on your car while you're meant to appear impartial is a bad idea. An 'Up you to the EU' sticker would be just as bad.

    I suspect Hoyle would never have done that.
  • prh47bridgeprh47bridge Posts: 441
    Sandpit said:

    A well written and thought provoking piece, thanks Alastair.

    I agree that it’s probably time for him to step down, he’s been a reasonably good referee but has increasingly become the story - not a good thing for someone who is supposed to be impartial, and more importantly be seen to be impartial.

    I can see him wanting to stay on until we leave the EU and all the associated legislation passes. I think he wants to see himself at the centre of it. There is also the issue that it will be difficult to find any MP without a strong view on the subject (Jeremy Corbyn excepted!) so it might be better to appoint a new Speaker once Brexit is no longer a live political issue.

    The Commons also needs to think carefully about how they police themselves. That an investigation into the Speaker for personal abuse can be blocked by a committee he chairs and consisting of people appointed by him is out of order.

    The Speaker does not chair the Committee on Standards nor does it consist of people appointed by him. It is appointed by the House and is currently chaired by Sir Kevin Barron. As chair, Barron only votes if a casting vote is required so did not vote on Bercow. SNP MP Douglas Chapman also abstained.

    The focus has been on Chope but John Stevenson and Kate Green also voted against investigating Bercow. This vote did not split along party lines.

    One wonders if the outcome would have been different had the lay members of the Committee been able to vote. Personally I think the allegations should have been investigated and that all three MPs who voted against investigation were badly wrong. It may turn out that there is no truth in the allegations but simply brushing them under the carpet without investigation is wrong.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574
    edited June 2018
    rcs1000 said:

    Mr. P, saw a clip of Alex Deane[sp] doing the Sky paper review, and referring to Airbus' identical threat if we didn't join the single currency.

    Airbus didn't exist as a company before 2000, before that it was a loose consortium of national aerospace companies.

    That being said, I doubt Airbus could move wing production rapidly, so I'd be surprised if they actually did anything.
    Well they must be making some sort of contingency plans to cope with the unlikely no-deal-at-all scenario.
    They’ve said in plain terms that the transition timescale of two years is far too short to make substantial changes to the existing supply chain, so they are hardly using scaremongering threats. What is at stake is plans for future production.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Mr. P, saw a clip of Alex Deane[sp] doing the Sky paper review, and referring to Airbus' identical threat if we didn't join the single currency.

    Airbus didn't exist as a company before 2000, before that it was a loose consortium of national aerospace companies.

    That being said, I doubt Airbus could move wing production rapidly, so I'd be surprised if they actually did anything.
    Well they must be making some sort of contingency plans to cope with the unlikely no-deal-at-all scenario.
    They’ve said in plain terms that the transition timescale of two years is far too short to make substantial changes to the existing supply chain, so they are hardly using scaremongering threats. What is at stake is plans for future production.
    Exactly so. But while Airbus is big and headline worthy it is under the same pressures as other businesses. Shutting up shop and moving abroad overnight isn't going to be a realistic option for ongoing projects. But starting new ones is a totally different story. If what I am seeing is anything to go by even if we stopped Brexit tomorrow we've already lost a load of opportunities.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574

    Nigelb said:

    Interesting.

    MPs decide, don’t they? If they want Bercow to stay, I guess he will. Given the decision he has to make on the meaningful vote that in and of itself would be very significant.

    And any replacement would be equally contentious for that very reason, even mild mannered Lindsay Hoyle. Not expressing some sort of opinion on the matter would probably be untenable if there were to be a contest.
    It’s quite possible that Bercow will stay for some time.
    There's a difference between having expressed an opinion once and having the decorum to realise putting a 'bollocks to Brexit' bumper sticker on your car while you're meant to appear impartial is a bad idea. An 'Up you to the EU' sticker would be just as bad.

    I suspect Hoyle would never have done that.
    I’m sure that’s true, but Bercow is in place.
    The consideration is rather whether MPs want the contest and all its complications should he go. Will either side want an ‘impartial’ Speaker on this particular issue, whatever impartial might mean in this context ?


  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Sandpit said:

    A well written and thought provoking piece, thanks Alastair.

    I agree that it’s probably time for him to step down, he’s been a reasonably good referee but has increasingly become the story - not a good thing for someone who is supposed to be impartial, and more importantly be seen to be impartial.

    I can see him wanting to stay on until we leave the EU and all the associated legislation passes. I think he wants to see himself at the centre of it. There is also the issue that it will be difficult to find any MP without a strong view on the subject (Jeremy Corbyn excepted!) so it might be better to appoint a new Speaker once Brexit is no longer a live political issue.

    The Commons also needs to think carefully about how they police themselves. That an investigation into the Speaker for personal abuse can be blocked by a committee he chairs and consisting of people appointed by him is out of order.

    The Speaker does not chair the Committee on Standards nor does it consist of people appointed by him. It is appointed by the House and is currently chaired by Sir Kevin Barron. As chair, Barron only votes if a casting vote is required so did not vote on Bercow. SNP MP Douglas Chapman also abstained.

    The focus has been on Chope but John Stevenson and Kate Green also voted against investigating Bercow. This vote did not split along party lines.

    One wonders if the outcome would have been different had the lay members of the Committee been able to vote. Personally I think the allegations should have been investigated and that all three MPs who voted against investigation were badly wrong. It may turn out that there is no truth in the allegations but simply brushing them under the carpet without investigation is wrong.
    There’s still a conflict.

    The Speaker can make an MP’s life in the Chamber much harder. You can’t have a situation like that if you want an independent judgement
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880
    rcs1000 said:
    2020 might be a little early for JMcA but he is the natural successor to Trump in 2024.

    #mcafee2024
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Scott_P said:
    If cartoonist Morten Morland knew his planes, he would have drawn a Beluga that carries the wings.....
    And he wouldn’t have drawn a Boeing 737-800 either, judging by the wingtips.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    Important as Airbus and BMW stories are, I think the big thing was the "Where's Jeremy Corbyn" chants on the march yesterday. It only needs one of the main parties to come round to rejoining and to win an election on that policy and we are back in. There were obviously plenty of activists on the streets yesterday who will have worked that out.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880

    Important as Airbus and BMW stories are, I think the big thing was the "Where's Jeremy Corbyn" chants on the march yesterday. It only needs one of the main parties to come round to rejoining and to win an election on that policy and we are back in. There were obviously plenty of activists on the streets yesterday who will have worked that out.

    It would need that plus some economic heavy weather for which Brexit could be conveniently blamed. Not impossible.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Important as Airbus and BMW stories are, I think the big thing was the "Where's Jeremy Corbyn" chants on the march yesterday. It only needs one of the main parties to come round to rejoining and to win an election on that policy and we are back in. There were obviously plenty of activists on the streets yesterday who will have worked that out.

    That's not going to happen in the Conservative Party for the foreseeable future and it will never happen under lifelong Eurosceptic Corbyn either. If Corbyn goes then maybe.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    Important as Airbus and BMW stories are, I think the big thing was the "Where's Jeremy Corbyn" chants on the march yesterday. It only needs one of the main parties to come round to rejoining and to win an election on that policy and we are back in. There were obviously plenty of activists on the streets yesterday who will have worked that out.

    That's not going to happen in the Conservative Party for the foreseeable future and it will never happen under lifelong Eurosceptic Corbyn either. If Corbyn goes then maybe.
    You are quite right. But if we've learnt anything over the last couple of years it is that the foreseeable future isn't all that far into the future.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880



    That's not going to happen in the Conservative Party for the foreseeable future and it will never happen under lifelong Eurosceptic Corbyn either. If Corbyn goes then maybe.

    The stupid old fucker is 70. 2022 (assuming May's Ship of Fools stays off the rocks that long) will be his last GE, win or lose.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Recidivist, given precedent, a referendum would have to be held first (unless a party won over 50% of the vote in an election, which seems unlikely).

    Mr. Ace, maybe. That's fairly old, but he doesn't seem in ill health or doddery.

    F1: still no more markets. It's rather odd.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    A well written and thought provoking piece, thanks Alastair.

    I agree that it’s probably time for him to step down, he’s been a reasonably good referee but has increasingly become the story - not a good thing for someone who is supposed to be impartial, and more importantly be seen to be impartial.

    I can see him wanting to stay on until we leave the EU and all the associated legislation passes. I think he wants to see himself at the centre of it. There is also the issue that it will be difficult to find any MP without a strong view on the subject (Jeremy Corbyn excepted!) so it might be better to appoint a new Speaker once Brexit is no longer a live political issue.

    The Commons also needs to think carefully about how they police themselves. That an investigation into the Speaker for personal abuse can be blocked by a committee he chairs and consisting of people appointed by him is out of order.

    The Speaker does not chair the Committee on Standards nor does it consist of people appointed by him. It is appointed by the House and is currently chaired by Sir Kevin Barron. As chair, Barron only votes if a casting vote is required so did not vote on Bercow. SNP MP Douglas Chapman also abstained.

    The focus has been on Chope but John Stevenson and Kate Green also voted against investigating Bercow. This vote did not split along party lines.

    One wonders if the outcome would have been different had the lay members of the Committee been able to vote. Personally I think the allegations should have been investigated and that all three MPs who voted against investigation were badly wrong. It may turn out that there is no truth in the allegations but simply brushing them under the carpet without investigation is wrong.
    There’s still a conflict.

    The Speaker can make an MP’s life in the Chamber much harder. You can’t have a situation like that if you want an independent judgement
    How would you design such a system, given the difficulties and positions involved - someone like a high court judge writing a report with findings for a public standards committee? Something is seriously wrong when there are NDAs in the House of Commons being signed at almost the same rate as in a Hollywood producer’s office!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,038
    A 'Williamson'. Is this the new word for a massive overreach?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Am interesting analysis. I can see that Bercow has been an effective Speaker in many ways. That he is a bit pompous and loves the sound of his own voice is neither here nor there when it comes to that.

    Two specific example I can immediately think of undermine his effectiveness. One was the business about not inviting Trump. Not because it was not something the Commons would approve of - they would - but because apparently it was a decision that us not his alone and he should have discussed it with the others first, it was very arrogant not to. The second was his decision to try to appoint a clerk who was not qualified for half the role, his defence being he wanted to split the role but had been blocked. The splitting probably made sense but it's not right to make a bad decision in protest. It shows his stubborness.

    So should he go? The bullying accusations have to be a concern, there is no need to treat people in the alleged manner, but given he'll not admit it or be found guilty of it even if he should go due to needing to be above reproach how does it happen?

    9 years is plenty of time to be Speaker, but I think it's right he won't be going this year.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574
    Dura_Ace said:



    That's not going to happen in the Conservative Party for the foreseeable future and it will never happen under lifelong Eurosceptic Corbyn either. If Corbyn goes then maybe.

    The stupid old fucker is 70. 2022 (assuming May's Ship of Fools stays off the rocks that long) will be his last GE, win or lose.
    And how old is the stupid old fucker in the US ?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Dura_Ace said:



    That's not going to happen in the Conservative Party for the foreseeable future and it will never happen under lifelong Eurosceptic Corbyn either. If Corbyn goes then maybe.

    The stupid old fucker is 70. 2022 (assuming May's Ship of Fools stays off the rocks that long) will be his last GE, win or lose.
    And if he doesn’t want to retire?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    Important as Airbus and BMW stories are, I think the big thing was the "Where's Jeremy Corbyn" chants on the march yesterday. It only needs one of the main parties to come round to rejoining and to win an election on that policy and we are back in. There were obviously plenty of activists on the streets yesterday who will have worked that out.

    Labour might get there eventually, they've rolled back their position somewhat already. But it feels a ways off.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    Mr. Recidivist, given precedent, a referendum would have to be held first (unless a party won over 50% of the vote in an election, which seems unlikely).

    Mr. Ace, maybe. That's fairly old, but he doesn't seem in ill health or doddery.

    F1: still no more markets. It's rather odd.

    No referendum is necessary. We joined without a referendum first time. And there has already been an election, 1983, where a party included leaving the EU as part of its programme without any mention of a referendum. Also I can't be the only person who has come to the conclusion that holding any referendum on anything is a bad idea. I think you might find referendums are off the agenda for a generation.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143

    Interesting read... Who would I get as my prospective MP though to replace him in the peoples republic of Buckingham Bercow... The evening standard editor looks capable... And young with some time on his hands.

    That has the potential to be entertaining.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    A well written and thought provoking piece, thanks Alastair.

    I agree that it’s probably time for him to step down, he’s been a reasonably good referee but has increasingly become the story - not a good thing for someone who is supposed to be impartial, and more importantly be seen to be impartial.

    I can see him wanting to stay on until we leave the EU and all the associated legislation passes. I think he wants to see himself at the centre of it. There is also the issue that it will be difficult to find any MP without a strong view on the subject (Jeremy Corbyn excepted!) so it might be better to appoint a new Speaker once Brexit is no longer a live political issue.

    The Commons also needs to think carefully about how they police themselves. That an investigation into the Speaker for personal abuse can be blocked by a committee he chairs and consisting of people appointed by him is out of order.

    The Speaker does not chair the Committee on Standards nor does it consist of people appointed by him. It is appointed by the House and is currently chaired by Sir Kevin Barron. As chair, Barron only votes if a casting vote is required so did not vote on Bercow. SNP MP Douglas Chapman also abstained.

    The focus has been on Chope but John Stevenson and Kate Green also voted against investigating Bercow. This vote did not split along party lines.

    One wonders if the outcome would have been different had the lay members of the Committee been able to vote. Personally I think the allegations should have been investigated and that all three MPs who voted against investigation were badly wrong. It may turn out that there is no truth in the allegations but simply brushing them under the carpet without investigation is wrong.
    There’s still a conflict.

    The Speaker can make an MP’s life in the Chamber much harder. You can’t have a situation like that if you want an independent judgement
    How would you design such a system, given the difficulties and positions involved - someone like a high court judge writing a report with findings for a public standards committee? Something is seriously wrong when there are NDAs in the House of Commons being signed at almost the same rate as in a Hollywood producer’s office!
    There should be an automatic investigation with a report made to the whole house. I’d create a new role at HCJ level to do it permanently. Need to find a way to avoid frivolous complaints - perhaps some kind of penalty?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Recidivist, there was a referendum post-joining, and a referendum pre-leaving. There are also examples on Scottish independence and changing the voting system.

    After a majority voted to leave, a government that didn't have majority backing taking us out would be politically courageous.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    Mr. Recidivist, given precedent, a referendum would have to be held first (unless a party won over 50% of the vote in an election, which seems unlikely).

    Mr. Ace, maybe. That's fairly old, but he doesn't seem in ill health or doddery.

    F1: still no more markets. It's rather odd.

    No referendum is necessary. We joined without a referendum first time. And there has already been an election, 1983, where a party included leaving the EU as part of its programme without any mention of a referendum. Also I can't be the only person who has come to the conclusion that holding any referendum on anything is a bad idea. I think you might find referendums are off the agenda for a generation.
    They might well be and legally are not required but politically it might be difficult to rejoin without one. As we all know not everyone who votes for a party agrees with all its proposals, even big ones, and even other rejoining parties might barely get over 50%.

    It could be done, but it'd be very bold. I feel like the manifesto woukd need to be clear rejoining would be done without a referendum.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Mr. Recidivist, given precedent, a referendum would have to be held first (unless a party won over 50% of the vote in an election, which seems unlikely).

    Mr. Ace, maybe. That's fairly old, but he doesn't seem in ill health or doddery.

    F1: still no more markets. It's rather odd.

    No referendum is necessary. We joined without a referendum first time. And there has already been an election, 1983, where a party included leaving the EU as part of its programme without any mention of a referendum. Also I can't be the only person who has come to the conclusion that holding any referendum on anything is a bad idea. I think you might find referendums are off the agenda for a generation.
    Don't forget that rejoining requires the unanimous consent of all 27 member states. They're not going to want a hokey-cokey Britain going in out again and again. If we seek to rejoin then not only would our precedent expect a referendum I think the rest of Europe would too.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    IanB2 said:

    Like Alastair, I am a fan of Bercow, who has been willing to be bold and firm with Parliament and government in a way that stands out from many of his predecessors. It's a shame that his calling out of individual MPs who behave like kiddies in the chamber hasn't picked up more traction in the wider world.

    That's actually part of his shtick I don't like so much. We always act like the public don't like how mps behave in the chamber but i don't think they care, and they like seeing the chaos and Bercow does too I suspect. He's a grandstander and with his clearly prepared put downs gives the impression of liking that he gets the opportunity to slap people down in theatrical fashion.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274

    Anyone thinking of trying to see off Bercow ought to consider who might replace him. I cannot think of anyone obvious.

    Errrrrrr the deputy speaker is regularly praised for the way he does his job.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    rcs1000 said:

    twitter.com/officialmcafee/status/1010172001741352960

    One of the owners of a shit coin he promised to pump?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880

    Mr. Recidivist, given precedent, a referendum would have to be held first (unless a party won over 50% of the vote in an election, which seems unlikely).

    It certainly wouldn't "have" to be held. Any government with a working majority could whip through a bill to apply to rejoin the EU if that's what they wanted to do.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Borough, anyone know what's going on with Charlie Elphicke[sp]?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    rcs1000 said:

    An excellent article.

    Thanks Alistair. Time for Speaker Vince Cable to arise...

    (Joke)

    Ken Clarke - immensely experiened in both government and opposition and clearly no party automaton.

    A plan with no drawbacks. (Half joke)
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019

    Mr. Recidivist, given precedent, a referendum would have to be held first (unless a party won over 50% of the vote in an election, which seems unlikely).

    Mr. Ace, maybe. That's fairly old, but he doesn't seem in ill health or doddery.

    F1: still no more markets. It's rather odd.

    No referendum is necessary. We joined without a referendum first time. And there has already been an election, 1983, where a party included leaving the EU as part of its programme without any mention of a referendum. Also I can't be the only person who has come to the conclusion that holding any referendum on anything is a bad idea. I think you might find referendums are off the agenda for a generation.
    There is no chance that rejoining with a referendum will fly politically.

    You simply don't want one because you fear you'd lose it.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    One thing to note is that there hasn't been a Tory Speaker for a long time. Bercow is a Tory in name only, and can be discounted as having been Tory.

    I don't think Labour would see that as fair if it is their turn, as it were.

    How about they appoint a Labour MP who I'd LINO as a compromise?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Mr. Recidivist, given precedent, a referendum would have to be held first (unless a party won over 50% of the vote in an election, which seems unlikely).

    Mr. Ace, maybe. That's fairly old, but he doesn't seem in ill health or doddery.

    F1: still no more markets. It's rather odd.

    No referendum is necessary. We joined without a referendum first time. And there has already been an election, 1983, where a party included leaving the EU as part of its programme without any mention of a referendum. Also I can't be the only person who has come to the conclusion that holding any referendum on anything is a bad idea. I think you might find referendums are off the agenda for a generation.
    There is no chance that rejoining with a referendum will fly politically.

    You simply don't want one because you fear you'd lose it.
    It wouldn't fly either here or on the continent. In order to get 27 nations to unanimously take us back after all the disruption of Brexit we'd need to demonstrate we were serious about joining and that would require a referendum.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574
    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Like Alastair, I am a fan of Bercow, who has been willing to be bold and firm with Parliament and government in a way that stands out from many of his predecessors. It's a shame that his calling out of individual MPs who behave like kiddies in the chamber hasn't picked up more traction in the wider world.

    That's actually part of his shtick I don't like so much. We always act like the public don't like how mps behave in the chamber but i don't think they care, and they like seeing the chaos and Bercow does too I suspect. He's a grandstander and with his clearly prepared put downs gives the impression of liking that he gets the opportunity to slap people down in theatrical fashion.
    I wouldn’t mind that so much if it weren’t done on what seems to be an inconsistent basis - and if it weren’t behaviour he indulges in himself for time to time.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Dura_Ace said:



    That's not going to happen in the Conservative Party for the foreseeable future and it will never happen under lifelong Eurosceptic Corbyn either. If Corbyn goes then maybe.

    The stupid old fucker is 70. 2022 (assuming May's Ship of Fools stays off the rocks that long) will be his last GE, win or lose.
    Why? We have several MPs over 80. Certainly most retire before then but its no guarantee.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019

    Important as Airbus and BMW stories are, I think the big thing was the "Where's Jeremy Corbyn" chants on the march yesterday. It only needs one of the main parties to come round to rejoining and to win an election on that policy and we are back in. There were obviously plenty of activists on the streets yesterday who will have worked that out.

    It also explains why ultra-Remainers have such difficulty winning over mainstream Conservatives.

    Whenever they hear "where's Jeremy Corbyn?" chanted on such a march it smears the pro-EU cause with socialism, and other leftist causes, leading them to steer well clear.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Now is a bad time to change Speaker. The last thing we need is a contest between a "Remain Speaker" and a "Leave Speaker", at least Bercow predates that nonsense.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Jonathan, he's got a sticker in his car saying "Bollocks to Brexit" has he not?

    The idea Bercow is above such EU bias (one way or the other) is not credible.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880
    kle4 said:

    Dura_Ace said:



    That's not going to happen in the Conservative Party for the foreseeable future and it will never happen under lifelong Eurosceptic Corbyn either. If Corbyn goes then maybe.

    The stupid old fucker is 70. 2022 (assuming May's Ship of Fools stays off the rocks that long) will be his last GE, win or lose.
    Why? We have several MPs over 80. Certainly most retire before then but its no guarantee.
    None of them are trying to PM for five years though.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Jonathan said:

    Now is a bad time to change Speaker. The last thing we need is a contest between a "Remain Speaker" and a "Leave Speaker", at least Bercow predates that nonsense.

    Almost everyone on this thread agrees that Hoyle is a ready-made unity replacement that is neither perceived as especially Remain or Leave.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574
    Jonathan said:

    Now is a bad time to change Speaker. The last thing we need is a contest between a "Remain Speaker" and a "Leave Speaker", at least Bercow predates that nonsense.

    You succinctly made the point I’ve been struggling to.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    Mr. Recidivist, given precedent, a referendum would have to be held first (unless a party won over 50% of the vote in an election, which seems unlikely).

    Mr. Ace, maybe. That's fairly old, but he doesn't seem in ill health or doddery.

    F1: still no more markets. It's rather odd.

    No referendum is necessary. We joined without a referendum first time. And there has already been an election, 1983, where a party included leaving the EU as part of its programme without any mention of a referendum. Also I can't be the only person who has come to the conclusion that holding any referendum on anything is a bad idea. I think you might find referendums are off the agenda for a generation.
    There is no chance that rejoining with a referendum will fly politically.

    You simply don't want one because you fear you'd lose it.
    It wouldn't fly either here or on the continent. In order to get 27 nations to unanimously take us back after all the disruption of Brexit we'd need to demonstrate we were serious about joining and that would require a referendum.
    More than being serious they'd need assurance we wouldn't change our minds again! Another reason why next time if we're on we will in on the Euro and everything else.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019
    On topic, an excellent article. There is, I'm afraid, rather a lot of bullying in politics.

    It's usually by people who've never developed the full suite of people skills that'd be essential to any normal career in the private sector, but, instead, have had their adolescent tendencies buttressed by the immense egoism and sense of entitlement that success in the political sphere can often bring.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. kle4, new members, I believe, are required to sign up to the euro (not immediately, but to prepare for such).
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019
    kle4 said:

    Mr. Recidivist, given precedent, a referendum would have to be held first (unless a party won over 50% of the vote in an election, which seems unlikely).

    Mr. Ace, maybe. That's fairly old, but he doesn't seem in ill health or doddery.

    F1: still no more markets. It's rather odd.

    No referendum is necessary. We joined without a referendum first time. And there has already been an election, 1983, where a party included leaving the EU as part of its programme without any mention of a referendum. Also I can't be the only person who has come to the conclusion that holding any referendum on anything is a bad idea. I think you might find referendums are off the agenda for a generation.
    There is no chance that rejoining with a referendum will fly politically.

    You simply don't want one because you fear you'd lose it.
    It wouldn't fly either here or on the continent. In order to get 27 nations to unanimously take us back after all the disruption of Brexit we'd need to demonstrate we were serious about joining and that would require a referendum.
    More than being serious they'd need assurance we wouldn't change our minds again! Another reason why next time if we're on we will in on the Euro and everything else.
    If I were this Government, though, I'd pass a law to make such a referendum a legal requirement (particularly since the 2011 European Union Act is now being repealed).

    I can see a coalition of the left/soft-left trying to force that down our throats in Parliament, some time in the late 2020s by relying on some loaded opinion polls.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574

    Good morning, everyone.

    Good article, Mr. Meeks. There's also the matter of Bercow saying he would've stepped down by now.

    F1: will see if I can find any bets. And must check the weather forecast.

    Going to be dry, I think.

    For the race, much depends on the start. If Hamilton keeps his nose in front, I think he’ll just drive off into the distance. If either Bottas or Vettel get the drop on him, it could be much more interesting.

    Leclerc and Grosjean’s odds worth a look for top 6 ?

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879

    On topic, an excellent article. There is, I'm afraid, rather a lot of bullying in politics.

    It's usually by people who've never developed the full suite of people skills that'd be essential to any normal career in the private sector, but, instead, have had their adolescent tendencies buttressed by the immense egoism and sense of entitlement that success in the political sphere can often bring.

    There’s a shedload of bullying in the private sector.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    kle4 said:

    One thing to note is that there hasn't been a Tory Speaker for a long time. Bercow is a Tory in name only, and can be discounted as having been Tory.

    I don't think Labour would see that as fair if it is their turn, as it were.

    How about they appoint a Labour MP who I'd LINO as a compromise?
    John Woodcock? ;)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    If his accusations about processes not being followed are correct then he is right to be mad, and even if he is not that he is so publicly saying the process us being abused because he is a Corbyn critic surely means there's a high chance he goes.

    Granted rumours have done the rounds before, but it's another of those 'this cannot go on' scenarios.

    Question is would he stick around as an indy or just resign?
  • LordOfReasonLordOfReason Posts: 457
    It’s obvious and beyond dispute now the government and NHS are operating a “carousel” policy (ref Logan’s Run). Anyone, any age, who are clearly continued burden on the tax payer and contributing to the social services crisis that is dragging NHS down below the water line, are being quickly removed from the equation.

    Okay NHS clearly doing it, but how can we also blame the government?
    How can it be going on for so long without the ministry, and the longest servicing health secretary, aware?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Dura_Ace said:

    kle4 said:

    Dura_Ace said:



    That's not going to happen in the Conservative Party for the foreseeable future and it will never happen under lifelong Eurosceptic Corbyn either. If Corbyn goes then maybe.

    The stupid old fucker is 70. 2022 (assuming May's Ship of Fools stays off the rocks that long) will be his last GE, win or lose.
    Why? We have several MPs over 80. Certainly most retire before then but its no guarantee.
    None of them are trying to PM for five years though.
    True, but though unusual now people used to survive even if they lost.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. B, a forecast, from a little while ago, admittedly, suggested 60% chance of rain for each hour of the race.

    Leclerc's had brake problems at recent races and the top 6 are in a league of their own (although DNFs are possible). Grosjean starts only 10th, or lower if he gets a penalty.

    Leclerc is a talented chap, though, and Grosjean was performing very well until his crash.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    Dura_Ace said:

    kle4 said:

    Dura_Ace said:



    That's not going to happen in the Conservative Party for the foreseeable future and it will never happen under lifelong Eurosceptic Corbyn either. If Corbyn goes then maybe.

    The stupid old fucker is 70. 2022 (assuming May's Ship of Fools stays off the rocks that long) will be his last GE, win or lose.
    Why? We have several MPs over 80. Certainly most retire before then but its no guarantee.
    None of them are trying to PM for five years though.
    As an 80 year old, most of the time I feel I could still do most of what I did at 70, but then again, some of the time I don’t! And I know there are some things I, sadly, can’t do. Also I could some of what I did at 60, but not by any means as much.
    I’m also not as sure I’m going to be here for another ten years as I did when i was 70!
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880
    We have my 19 year old niece and her friend staying with us at Dura Ace Towers at the moment. This is what I have discovered about the politics of youth from this focus group of two young women (Both undergrads, one maths, one computer science.)

    1. They get 100% of their news from social media. They never watch television or read newspapers.

    2. They don't really understand the ins and outs of Brexit but think it's "stupid". My impression is they associate it with old people who live in places like Hull and think it of it as uncool as smoking cigarettes or having a caravan.

    3. Corbyn was so 2016. He is "boring".

    4. Neither of them intend to vote, ever, unless it's "something to do with animals". Animal rights or something, I dunno, they both fucking hate fox hunting and are convinced it's still legal.

    5. They like Macron but not his wife.

    6. They despise Trump and his wife.

    7. I think the country might be utterly fucked.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Mr. Recidivist, given precedent, a referendum would have to be held first (unless a party won over 50% of the vote in an election, which seems unlikely).

    Mr. Ace, maybe. That's fairly old, but he doesn't seem in ill health or doddery.

    F1: still no more markets. It's rather odd.

    No referendum is necessary. We joined without a referendum first time. And there has already been an election, 1983, where a party included leaving the EU as part of its programme without any mention of a referendum. Also I can't be the only person who has come to the conclusion that holding any referendum on anything is a bad idea. I think you might find referendums are off the agenda for a generation.
    There is no chance that rejoining with a referendum will fly politically.

    You simply don't want one because you fear you'd lose it.
    It wouldn't fly either here or on the continent. In order to get 27 nations to unanimously take us back after all the disruption of Brexit we'd need to demonstrate we were serious about joining and that would require a referendum.
    Rejoining would also entail a significant additional monetary contribution (tax rises, or steal from the NHS?) and the ripping up of post-Brexit trade deals (annoying the rest of the world outside the EU), as well as a commitment to join the Euro, Shengen and no rebate. Outside will also be the status quo. That’s a very big ask for a referendum. Which of course, is why those in favour of the EU are trying to stop us leaving in the first place.
  • saddosaddo Posts: 534

    Important as Airbus and BMW stories are, I think the big thing was the "Where's Jeremy Corbyn" chants on the march yesterday. It only needs one of the main parties to come round to rejoining and to win an election on that policy and we are back in. There were obviously plenty of activists on the streets yesterday who will have worked that out.

    It also explains why ultra-Remainers have such difficulty winning over mainstream Conservatives.

    Whenever they hear "where's Jeremy Corbyn?" chanted on such a march it smears the pro-EU cause with socialism, and other leftist causes, leading them to steer well clear.
    In addition the EU bandits will say no opt outs, no rebates & the Euro to get back in, so it ain't gonna happen.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    On topic, an excellent article. There is, I'm afraid, rather a lot of bullying in politics.

    It's usually by people who've never developed the full suite of people skills that'd be essential to any normal career in the private sector, but, instead, have had their adolescent tendencies buttressed by the immense egoism and sense of entitlement that success in the political sphere can often bring.

    There’s a shedload of bullying in the private sector.

    The idea that there are not "immense egos" or a "sense of entitlement" in the private sector is genuinely funny. It must be satire.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    Dura_Ace said:

    We have my 19 year old niece and her friend staying with us at Dura Ace Towers at the moment. This is what I have discovered about the politics of youth from this focus group of two young women (Both undergrads, one maths, one computer science.)

    1. They get 100% of their news from social media. They never watch television or read newspapers.

    2. They don't really understand the ins and outs of Brexit but think it's "stupid". My impression is they associate it with old people who live in places like Hull and think it of it as uncool as smoking cigarettes or having a caravan.

    3. Corbyn was so 2016. He is "boring".

    4. Neither of them intend to vote, ever, unless it's "something to do with animals". Animal rights or something, I dunno, they both fucking hate fox hunting and are convinced it's still legal.

    5. They like Macron but not his wife.

    6. They despise Trump and his wife.

    7. I think the country might be utterly fucked.

    If they’re anything like my graduate granddaughter and grandddaughter-in-law (to be), who thought, IIRC rather like them at 19, in 10 years time they’ll be keen to vote. At the last election it was Labour, because of the way they perceived the Tories were dealing with their occupation.... teaching.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143

    Mr. Recidivist, given precedent, a referendum would have to be held first (unless a party won over 50% of the vote in an election, which seems unlikely).

    Mr. Ace, maybe. That's fairly old, but he doesn't seem in ill health or doddery.

    F1: still no more markets. It's rather odd.

    No referendum is necessary. We joined without a referendum first time. And there has already been an election, 1983, where a party included leaving the EU as part of its programme without any mention of a referendum. Also I can't be the only person who has come to the conclusion that holding any referendum on anything is a bad idea. I think you might find referendums are off the agenda for a generation.
    There is no chance that rejoining with a referendum will fly politically.

    You simply don't want one because you fear you'd lose it.
    It wouldn't fly either here or on the continent. In order to get 27 nations to unanimously take us back after all the disruption of Brexit we'd need to demonstrate we were serious about joining and that would require a referendum.
    If I were them I'd want a large majority in favour of rejoining too. Something not too far off the two-thirds in favour in 1975.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,787

    Important as Airbus and BMW stories are, I think the big thing was the "Where's Jeremy Corbyn" chants on the march yesterday. It only needs one of the main parties to come round to rejoining and to win an election on that policy and we are back in. There were obviously plenty of activists on the streets yesterday who will have worked that out.

    It also explains why ultra-Remainers have such difficulty winning over mainstream Conservatives.

    Whenever they hear "where's Jeremy Corbyn?" chanted on such a march it smears the pro-EU cause with socialism, and other leftist causes, leading them to steer well clear.
    The socialist logic of Brexit breaks out rather too often among Tories.

    https://twitter.com/dcbmep/status/1010122002378747905?s=21
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    On topic, an excellent article. There is, I'm afraid, rather a lot of bullying in politics.

    It's usually by people who've never developed the full suite of people skills that'd be essential to any normal career in the private sector, but, instead, have had their adolescent tendencies buttressed by the immense egoism and sense of entitlement that success in the political sphere can often bring.

    There’s a shedload of bullying in the private sector.

    And it's up to the board and shareholders to deal with that. This is up to the government to deal with. The reason it's not us that the person charged with investigation of bullying is a bully himself. He needs to go.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    Important as Airbus and BMW stories are, I think the big thing was the "Where's Jeremy Corbyn" chants on the march yesterday. It only needs one of the main parties to come round to rejoining and to win an election on that policy and we are back in. There were obviously plenty of activists on the streets yesterday who will have worked that out.

    It also explains why ultra-Remainers have such difficulty winning over mainstream Conservatives.

    Whenever they hear "where's Jeremy Corbyn?" chanted on such a march it smears the pro-EU cause with socialism, and other leftist causes, leading them to steer well clear.
    Eh? Corbyn is from the left wing tradition that has opposed the EU rather longer and more consistently than parvenus to the Brexit cause such as Mrs May. My point was that the pro-EU activists will realise that they can join Labour and have an influence on the party's policy towards Europe. That doesn't have to mean actually getting rid of Corbyn himself - just getting the party conference on board is sufficient. The Conservative's constitution isn't quite as rewarding to the active and committed, but party members still have enough influence that an influx of pro-Europeans couldn't be entirely ignored.

    As to your dig about me not wanting a referendum because I fear it wouldn't have the outcome I desire, well yes you are right. I have no idea what the outcome of a new referendum would be. Neither do you. The last one defied the predictions of the most experienced politicians, the most assiduous pundits and the most diligent pollsters. Nigel Farage even conceded defeat on the evening of the count. We are still arguing over what the result means. The answer to a binary question seems a crazy way to make an important and complex policy decision. I'd much rather choose between two programmes proposed by a team of people committed to implementing them if they win the most support.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Does anyone know if there’s the equivalent of corporate manslaughter charges in the USA?

    https://tech.slashdot.org/story/18/06/22/1914225/uber-driver-was-streaming-hulu-just-before-fatal-self-driving-car-crash-says-police

    The most astonishing story, they employed a “safety driver” who was a felon on minimum wage and with minimal training, to watch over a self driving car that had a bunch of critical safety systems disabled that the driver didn’t know about, and the driver was watching TV on her phone rather than watching the road.
This discussion has been closed.