|
Post by stb12 on Jun 20, 2021 22:42:29 GMT
As someone on the side of no parties I think Bercow did some good things such as making the executive more accountable to parliament, Tory ERG backbench rebel types were grateful to him for that over the years as well whether they'd admit it now or not.
On the other hand his clear personal dislike of some on the government/Conservative side really didn't do the office he held any favours and in that last parliament in particular he didn't seem to try to hide his contempt, even seemed to be spoiling for a fight. For example was the jibe about Greg Hands being a poor whip in any way necessary? And when he was chastising members for being too noisy or disruptive his ire always ended up on the Conservative side even though all sides had people behaving poorly.
It's all fine and well if you think the members he targeted deserved it and that may depend on your politics but it's really not how an impartial chair and ambassador for the House should act regardless, they should rise above these things even if they feel personally targeted.
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Jun 20, 2021 22:47:27 GMT
Having watched interviews with him, he really does come across, and I don't say this lightly, as probably the most personally nasty, narcissistic and self-entitled politician I can remember. In most politicians and people in general (even ones that I fundamentally disagree with on literally everything) I'm able to see at least a couple of redeeming characteristics but in Bercow, I've honestly never been able to see a single one. Yet he was still voted in as Speaker of the house of Commons. He must have / had something else, positive, about him you're not picking up in those interviews, for his colleagues to allow him to get the post. Well when he was elected speaker it was a majority Labour government and the final two in that contest were him and fellow Tory Sir George Young a former government minister and widely respected across the party; it's fairly obvious where Bercow got the votes from then and why since he was already at that point seen as an outsider and a contender for defection.
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Jun 20, 2021 23:03:14 GMT
Yet he was still voted in as Speaker of the house of Commons. He must have / had something else, positive, about him you're not picking up in those interviews, for his colleagues to allow him to get the post. He was voted in as Speaker by Labour MPs with the support of a handful of left-wing Tories as a way of sticking two fingers up at the rest of the Conservative Party. Julian Lewis and Charles Walker voted for him and they aren't left wingers, but that did seem to be based on personal friendships he has with them going back years.
|
|
|
Post by beacon on Jun 21, 2021 6:40:13 GMT
A speaker is in my opinion not a good speaker when they become the centre of attention too many times.
On his defection, Bercow stated that he wanted to support a party that focussed on reducing social inequality. This is total hypocrisy coming from the person whose company, Fedhead Limited, has made furlough claims per HMRC for the months of December 2020 to March 2021. Details of recipients were not published pre December 2020. Bercow latest accounts for Fedhead Limited show cash at bank of £410k and retained earnings of circa £325k as per companies house. There are only two employees, and a set of accounts should include a director as an employee. The two directors are John and Sally Bercow.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jun 21, 2021 7:29:24 GMT
A speaker is in my opinion not a good speaker when they become the centre of attention too many times. On his defection, Bercow stated that he wanted to support a party that focussed on reducing social inequality. This is total hypocrisy coming from the person whose company, Fedhead Limited, has made furlough claims per HMRC for the months of December 2020 to March 2021. Details of recipients were not published pre December 2020. Bercow latest accounts for Fedhead Limited show cash at bank of £410k and retained earnings of circa £325k as per companies house. There are only two employees, and a set of accounts should include a director as an employee. The two directors are John and Sally Bercow. Couldn't care less. I'm only interested in the way they do their job, in the Commons in this case. I thought he was excellent in giving voice to the backbencher as opposed to the government - the only real point of Parliament is to hold government to account. I really don't care in the least about personal morality, as long as they do their job properly. Which is why I found all the blather about expenses pathetic. The system was set up in order to keep salaries lower and everyone knew it, then you had the "journalists" pretending they had uncovered something important. Of course, the public are totally hypocritical, as expenses fiddling is widespread. Interesting too how Labour’s attempt to play the personal rectitude card with Johnson have failed. Good.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jun 21, 2021 7:32:06 GMT
He did have some good points as Speaker, and coming after a very weak Speaker some of his moves to strengthen backbenchers were certainly positive. Unfortunately his lack of impartiality was completely unacceptable and undermined the good things that he had done. Most significantly he was actively involved in supporting the Remain cause in late 2019 colluding with the opposition and tory rebels to defeat the government on the most pressing matter of the day. He was the first speaker who utterly exploited the powers that the position gives the holder for decades at least. The biggest weakness of our parliamentary system is that so much of the procedure is convention, it's not governed by hard and fast rules. This is mostly exploited by the government to ram things through but others can do it too, as Bercow showed. As a response this government is actually legislating, including of course expanding their unfettered abilities to use powers inherited from absolute monarchy days without any ability for scrutiny. Interestingly, I've heard from sources that Hoyle is only interested in the House of Commons being accountable to itself, not moving out of convention at all and effectively being resistant to anything that modernises the way it works (other than superficially) so that it remains an effective private member's club with no concept of external transparency. Hoyle is a government patsy. Not in a party political sense, he would be exactly the same with any Government. George Thomas 2. Loves the kudos of it all, wants to change nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jun 21, 2021 7:33:17 GMT
He was voted in as Speaker by Labour MPs with the support of a handful of left-wing Tories as a way of sticking two fingers up at the rest of the Conservative Party. Julian Lewis and Charles Walker voted for him and they aren't left wingers, but that did seem to be based on personal friendships he has with them going back years. Both Lewis and Walker are independent minded, not easily biddable.
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Jun 21, 2021 7:46:16 GMT
I'm wondering if Bercow would have taken this step if Corbyn were still Labour leader? However much his politics have changed I can't believe he's lost all Conservative views from decades in the party and it's possible Starmer is a comfortble enough leader for some people to move over when Corbyn would not have been?
|
|
|
Post by pragmaticidealist on Jun 21, 2021 7:55:48 GMT
Walker and Lewis may have also been the only two Tory MPs to have voted for him. It was reported that he may have had only three votes on within his own party - not sure whether or not that included his own vote.
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Jun 21, 2021 8:05:08 GMT
Walker and Lewis may have also been the only two Tory MPs to have voted for him. It was reported that he may have had only three votes on within his own party - not sure whether or not that included his own vote. Possible a couple of his neighbouring MPs in Buckinghamshire voted for him also?
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jun 21, 2021 8:41:08 GMT
Walker and Lewis may have also been the only two Tory MPs to have voted for him. It was reported that he may have had only three votes on within his own party - not sure whether or not that included his own vote. I would be surprised at this. The hatred of Bercow came much later, and not every Conservative backbencher would have wanted a very establishment figure like George Young. The independence of the Speaker is much prized by backbench MPs.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 21, 2021 8:58:11 GMT
The job of a speaker is to stand up to the executive. In fact they used to get their heads chopped off for doing so! Now I appreciate that some here might think that was an appropriate fate for Bercow. But you must remember that the Executive are under the illusion that they are the masters of Parliament. They are NOT - they are their servants. I think this is a serious constitutional misunderstanding, although to be fair it is apparently shared by a lot of people who should know better. (I'm looking at you, Dominic Grieve.)
The Government is neither the master nor the servant of Parliament. Each is supreme in its own sphere.
So long as the Government enjoys the confidence of the House of Commons it should basically be allowed to get on with the job of governing, subject of course to the normal checks and controls that we expect in a free society such as its obligation to act within the law, to account for its actions to Parliament and to the country more widely, and to obtain legislative authority from Parliament for its plans for spending and taxation.
And Parliament likewise is supreme in its function. It holds Government to account as ministers report regularly to Parliament and answer questions, it may scrutinize and if thought fit criticize any aspect of Government policy, it has total authority over legislation, it enjoys special immunities to allow these functions to be discharged, and in the last resort it may withdraw its confidence from Government. In that event either the PM will resign and a new Government be formed, or (once the FTPA is repealed) a GE will be called.
This is a critical balance between two fundamental institutions of the state. It was badly disturbed during the later stages of the 2017 Parliament when the majority of the HoC effectively repudiated Government policy on the greatest issue of the moment but could not coalesce behind any alternative PM. The House therefore refrained from explicitly withdrawing its confidence but (abetted by the capricious setting aside of long-standing procedural rules by Speaker Bercow) used its power to legislate to mark the Government's cards, so to speak, and seek to instruct it in detail how to conduct critical international negotiations.
This was not Parliamentary government; it was an entirely different concept, government by Parliament (or an attempt thereat). We need urgently to get rid of the FTPA so that this can never happen again, by restoring the right of a Government that has lost the confidence of the House to refer the matter to the electorate for a final decision.
(I'm not saying everything Bercow did was bad. His greater use of the UQ procedure was a welcome move to promote accountability and I hope it will be maintained. But overall he was a deeply unsatisfactory Speaker who did damage to the constitution that it will take time to restore.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2021 9:20:06 GMT
He’s not my cup of tea by any stretch, but he’s a hero to some Uber-remainers John Bercow had to remain neutral throughout the campaign, though, being the Speaker of the House of Commons at the time. He was never an "uber-remainer" either. I'd argue how successful he was in remaining neutral. I never said that he was an uber-remainer. Please read before commenting.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,579
|
Post by The Bishop on Jun 21, 2021 11:37:21 GMT
Walker and Lewis may have also been the only two Tory MPs to have voted for him. It was reported that he may have had only three votes on within his own party - not sure whether or not that included his own vote. I would be surprised at this. The hatred of Bercow came much later, and not every Conservative backbencher would have wanted a very establishment figure like George Young. The independence of the Speaker is much prized by backbench MPs. Yes - the consensus at the time was that whilst only a fairly small minority of Tory MPs backed him, it wasn't a statistically insignificant one.
|
|
|
Post by michael2019 on Jun 21, 2021 15:26:03 GMT
The job of a speaker is to stand up to the executive. In fact they used to get their heads chopped off for doing so! Now I appreciate that some here might think that was an appropriate fate for Bercow. But you must remember that the Executive are under the illusion that they are the masters of Parliament. They are NOT - they are their servants. I think this is a serious constitutional misunderstanding, although to be fair it is apparently shared by a lot of people who should know better. (I'm looking at you, Dominic Grieve.) The Government is neither the master nor the servant of Parliament. Each is supreme in its own sphere.
So long as the Government enjoys the confidence of the House of Commons it should basically be allowed to get on with the job of governing, Now I have likened the situation to that of Jeeves and Wooster. It is probably Jeeves that has the whip hand in that relationship - even though he is the servant and equally Government has many levers to pull - to say to the Commons "Do you really want to pass that Bill, Honourable and Right Honourable Members?" where Jeeves might say "Do you really want to wear that tie, sir?" Often the Government (and Jeeves) get their way. But nevertheless you have to ask one question - who appoints the Executive and ( now) keeps the Executive? And the answer is Parliament. Parliament is therefore the master, and the executive is the servant. Just because it is Jeeves that irons the shirts - it does not make him the master - indeed the opposite. It is Parliament that decides how every penny will be spent. It is Parliament that passes every law. So sorry Government isn't allowed to get on with the "job of governing". Now this does get conflated because of political parties and of course by and large the Executive is made up of either a single or multiple parties that have a majority in Parliament. Now there are two aspects where Parliament used not to be sovereign but this has changed. The first is the sovereign themselves. In that they can do certain things like go to war and sign treaties. And in deference to the "divine right of Kings" and more practically because they had the army, Parliament up until the 19th century deferred to the Monarch but decreasingly so. Today of course that power is only nominally exercised by the Monarch and she will do what the Executive advises her to do. But in practice now most if not all of these royal prerogative powers - including going to war will not be enacted unless approved by Parliament. Secondly under the Fixed Term Parliament Act, Parliament as a whole (not just the ruling party) can keep whoever it likes as the executive - instructing them to do their bidding and change them without an election being called. It can now install a different executive if it so choses whereas this was not possible before without a general election. It can vote no confidence in a PM, someone else pops along to her maj and says I think I can form a Government and within 14 days the Commons votes that they have confidence in the Government. Now something like this might well have happened in 2019 and there was talk of perhaps the likes of Ken Clarke becoming PM as something of a caretaker while Brexit was being sorted out. By and large Bercow was right to facilitate Parliament trying to come to a view on what it wanted on Brexit. Any ruling on any controversial subject by the referee will be um... controversial and it was why the life expectancy of early speakers was not high. And no doubt Bercow's rulings will be debated for eternity, he did outline how they were in line with the rules, Erskine May and precedents etc. - even if some believed he was stretching things. And beyond being the referee the Speaker has the duty to stand up against any bullying of Parliament by the Monarch/Government/Executive as they would prefer to do without the annoying pesky institution.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 21, 2021 15:38:46 GMT
I think this is a serious constitutional misunderstanding, although to be fair it is apparently shared by a lot of people who should know better. (I'm looking at you, Dominic Grieve.) The Government is neither the master nor the servant of Parliament. Each is supreme in its own sphere.
So long as the Government enjoys the confidence of the House of Commons it should basically be allowed to get on with the job of governing, Now I have likened the situation to that of Jeeves and Wooster. It is probably Jeeves that has the whip hand in that relationship - even though he is the servant and equally Government has many levers to pull - to say to the Commons "Do you really want to pass that Bill, Honourable and Right Honourable Members?" where Jeeves might say "Do you really want to wear that tie, sir?" Often the Government (and Jeeves) get their way. But nevertheless you have to ask one question - who appoints the Executive and ( now) keeps the Executive? And the answer is Parliament. Parliament is therefore the master, and the executive is the servant. Just because it is Jeeves that irons the shirts - it does not make him the master - indeed the opposite. It is Parliament that decides how every penny will be spent. It is Parliament that passes every law. So sorry Government isn't allowed to get on with the "job of governing". Now this does get conflated because of political parties and of course by and large the Executive is made up of either a single or multiple parties that have a majority in Parliament. Now there are two aspects where Parliament used not to be sovereign but this has changed. The first is the sovereign themselves. In that they can do certain things like go to war and sign treaties. And in deference to the "divine right of Kings" and more practically because they had the army, Parliament up until the 19th century deferred to the Monarch but decreasingly so. Today of course that power is only nominally exercised by the Monarch and she will do what the Executive advises her to do. But in practice now most if not all of these royal prerogative powers - including going to war will not be enacted unless approved by Parliament. Secondly under the Fixed Term Parliament Act, Parliament as a whole (not just the ruling party) can keep whoever it likes as the executive - instructing them to do their bidding and change them without an election being called. It can now install a different executive if it so choses whereas this was not possible before without a general election. It can vote no confidence in a PM, someone else pops along to her maj and says I think I can form a Government and within 14 days the Commons votes that they have confidence in the Government. Now something like this might well have happened in 2019 and there was talk of perhaps the likes of Ken Clarke becoming PM as something of a caretaker while Brexit was being sorted out. By and large Bercow was right to facilitate Parliament trying to come to a view on what it wanted on Brexit. Any ruling on any controversial subject by the referee will be um... controversial and it was why the life expectancy of early speakers was not high. And no doubt Bercow's rulings will be debated for eternity, he did outline how they were in line with the rules, Erskine May and precedents etc. - even if some believed he was stretching things. And beyond being the referee the Speaker has the duty to stand up against any bullying of Parliament by the Monarch/Government/Executive as they would prefer to do without the annoying pesky institution. Actually I agree with quite a lot of this although I think royal prerogative power has more life left in it than you imply.
But your key point about the FTPA is completely on the money. The Act allows a situation to arise in which the HoC maintains a Government in office but, by means of legislation, instructs that Government in detail about what to do. This could never have happened before the FPTA because any Government worthy of the name would never have tolerated it; instead the Government would have declared some key vote to be one of confidence and, if it lost, would have gone to the country.
That's why I for one will heave a huge sigh of relief when the FPTA bites the dust.
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Jun 22, 2021 9:33:07 GMT
He’s not my cup of tea by any stretch, but he’s a hero to some Uber-remainers John Bercow had to remain neutral throughout the campaign, though, being the Speaker of the House of Commons at the time. He was never an "uber-remainer" either. Obviously, you aren't an idiot because you read for a masters at a pre-1992 university. But I do wonder if you have any political awareness.
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Jun 22, 2021 9:59:04 GMT
John Bercow had to remain neutral throughout the campaign, though, being the Speaker of the House of Commons at the time. He was never an "uber-remainer" either. Obviously, you aren't an idiot because you read for a masters at a pre-1992 university. But I do wonder if you have any political awareness. I don't wonder at all.
|
|
|
Post by Daft H'a'porth A'peth A'pith on Jun 22, 2021 11:23:00 GMT
John Bercow had to remain neutral throughout the campaign, though, being the Speaker of the House of Commons at the time. He was never an "uber-remainer" either. Obviously, you aren't an idiot because you read for a masters at a pre-1992 university. But I do wonder if you have any political awareness. Called out for elitism and implicit ageism. 😜
|
|
DrW
Conservative
Posts: 545
|
Post by DrW on Jun 22, 2021 11:47:56 GMT
I would be surprised at this. The hatred of Bercow came much later, and not every Conservative backbencher would have wanted a very establishment figure like George Young. The independence of the Speaker is much prized by backbench MPs. Yes - the consensus at the time was that whilst only a fairly small minority of Tory MPs backed him, it wasn't a statistically insignificant one. IIRC there was some chatter that Douglas Carswell (and similar Tory MPs who tended to be both libertarian and members of the awkward squad) supported him. And in his earlier years he did have some support from hardline Eurosceptic backbenchers because he allowed them to cause trouble for the government.
|
|