Reply to: Bercow quits

[Old Greg]

If you dont understand the basics, probably best to stop arguing.

So do you think the Speaker's role has changed over the centuries?

[malvolio]

The role of the the Speaker has developed over the centuries. You seem to think it's 'never' changed. There has been a particular set of circumstances which had led to a government that cannot carry important business through the House and would not let parliament have it's say. Bercow has reacted to that, in the spirit of the Speaker as champion of the MPs over the government.

If you dont understand the basics, probably best to stop arguing.

[Old Greg]

The Government proposes a planned action of some kind. It is presented to Parliament - which includes most but not all of the Government of course - so their plan can be debated, criticised, corrected or amended and finally voted on and agreed (or not). If agreed, it then goes to the Lords for a further considered opinion and may come back for further debate if they in turn think it necessary.

The speaker is primarily there to ensure that debates are even-handed, that all points of view are allowed to speak and that the rules of the House (as encoded in Erskine May) are followed. They are not and never have been an arbiter, merely a referee, they choose who is to speak but absolutely must not show bias to any given party (in the wider sense of the word) or point of view.

Bercow has dismally failed to meet that role, most notably by allowing Parliament to run the business of the House. That is not their job.

HTH.

The role of the the Speaker has developed over the centuries. You seem to think it's 'never' changed. There has been a particular set of circumstances which had led to a government that cannot carry important business through the House and would not let parliament have it's say. Bercow has reacted to that, in the spirit of the Speaker as champion of the MPs over the government.

[scooterscot]

Live scenes as Bercow is seen leaving parliament

[AtW]

They're politicians, their lips are moving, they're lying. You only need to look at the recent Honours list presented by the outgoing Prime Minister, May where she rewards her cronies then have a look at what she said about such Honours being given out previously. Politics, regardless of which country has been getting worse and worse although it seems that those countries which were deemed to have stable governments have actually fallen the most....

To be fair loyalty should be rewarded - but only as a fraction of the reward whoever they were loyal to deserves...

[darmstadt]

The mere fact that Harriet Harperson has stated she will be "scrupulously neutral" seems to be an indication that she doesn't think the outgoing Speaker has been...

They're politicians, their lips are moving, they're lying. You only need to look at the recent Honours list presented by the outgoing Prime Minister, May where she rewards her cronies then have a look at what she said about such Honours being given out previously. Politics, regardless of which country has been getting worse and worse although it seems that those countries which were deemed to have stable governments have actually fallen the most....

[Mordac]

Between whom within parliament is he meant to be neutral? I'm interested to see where your train of 'thought' leads you.

Between the two (or possibly more) sides in any debate. The Speaker is not supposed to reveal their personal allegiance or preference for either side, and he (or indeed she) is certainly not supposed to act upon their preference.
The mere fact that Harriet Harperson has stated she will be "scrupulously neutral" seems to be an indication that she doesn't think the outgoing Speaker has been...

Harriet Harman vows to be 'scrupulously neutral' if elected as Speaker | Politics | The Guardian

[AtW]

The Government proposes a planned action of some kind. It is presented to Parliament - which includes most but not all of the Government of course - so their plan can be debated, criticised, corrected or amended and finally voted on and agreed (or not). If agreed, it then goes to the Lords for a further considered opinion and may come back for further debate if they in turn think it necessary.

The speaker is primarily there to ensure that debates are even-handed, that all points of view are allowed to speak and that the rules of the House (as encoded in Erskine May) are followed. They are not and never have been an arbiter, merely a referee, they choose who is to speak but absolutely must not show bias to any given party (in the wider sense of the word) or point of view.

Bercow has dismally failed to meet that role, most notably by allowing Parliament to run the business of the House. That is not their job.

HTH.

Parliament is Supreme.

Speaker can only put stuff to vote - if the House votes then so it is its will that must be obeyed.

[d000hg]

Although when it suits his particular purpose, he will go back to 1607 to find a precedent that allows his desired course of action.

The Speaker is supposed to be neutral. That's where Bercow has failed, no matter what his motivation. The recent Brexit debates have been calling around five times as many Remainers to speak as Brexiteers. You have to wonder why...

How many MPs want to leave?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

[DonaldJTrump]

Drain the swamp!

[malvolio]

Between whom within parliament is he meant to be neutral? I'm interested to see where your train of 'thought' leads you.

The Government proposes a planned action of some kind. It is presented to Parliament - which includes most but not all of the Government of course - so their plan can be debated, criticised, corrected or amended and finally voted on and agreed (or not). If agreed, it then goes to the Lords for a further considered opinion and may come back for further debate if they in turn think it necessary.

The speaker is primarily there to ensure that debates are even-handed, that all points of view are allowed to speak and that the rules of the House (as encoded in Erskine May) are followed. They are not and never have been an arbiter, merely a referee, they choose who is to speak but absolutely must not show bias to any given party (in the wider sense of the word) or point of view.

Bercow has dismally failed to meet that role, most notably by allowing Parliament to run the business of the House. That is not their job.

HTH.

[Old Greg]

No, but he is supposed to be neutral within Parliament.

Between whom within parliament is he meant to be neutral? I'm interested to see where your train of 'thought' leads you.

[Mordac]

Is the speaker supposed to be neutral between parliament and the government?

No, but he is supposed to be neutral within Parliament.

[Mordac]

These pro No Deal MPs are bad in that respect, but you need to understand the principles of British Parliamentary representative democracy.

Oh I understand fully. Say whatever-it-takes to get into Parliament, and then suffer from collective amnesia when the smell of the green leather benches hits them.
Take the Iraq War votes as another example. This isn't a new phenomenon...

[Old Greg]

Although when it suits his particular purpose, he will go back to 1607 to find a precedent that allows his desired course of action.

The Speaker is supposed to be neutral. That's where Bercow has failed, no matter what his motivation. The recent Brexit debates have been calling around five times as many Remainers to speak as Brexiteers. You have to wonder why...

Is the speaker supposed to be neutral between parliament and the government?