Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

It genuinely astounds me that there are still people who think the Speaker making sure that Parliamentary procedure is followed properly (the exact process that allowed the motion for Brexit in the first place, under Bercow's tenure no less) is 'denying the will of the people'.

 

Edited by Mike E
Removed hidden content from post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ewood Ace said:

Depends who's shooting at us from the opposite trench. If it was an army of West Indians then I'd go for Bercow.

You have to turn up to contribute. Still no answer to the question I asked you, what percentage of votes do you think Botham will participate in? Also How may speaking contributions do you think he will make a year? How many written questions do you think he will submit a year?

You don't get it, I'm afraid. It's about the substance of the individual. A person of high calibre can turn up once and make a greater contribution than a no-mark who turns up a thousand times. He'll make a greater contribution to our country than almost anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

Who would you want in the trenches beside you ? Bercow or Botham ?

On a cricket field I'd choose Botham; in the House of Commons I'd have Bercow.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Just now, Mashed Potatoes said:

You don't get it, I'm afraid. It's about the substance of the individual. A person of high calibre can turn up once and make a greater contribution than a no-mark who turns up a thousand times. He'll make a greater contribution to our country than almost anyone else.

Unless there are some Australian cricketers in the Lords, I'm not sure how.

That last line is legitimately hilarious.

Edited by Mike E

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jim mk2 said:

Labour lost because of Brexit.

Nothing to with Bercow.

Like most Tories, you don't want Bercow in the Lord's because he was perceived to be anti-government and pro-Remain

Now justify the disgraceful honours list

Labour lost because the British people rightly judged that they were not fit for government. I don't think Bercow can be considered for the House of Lords until the very serious allegations regarding him are cleared up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mike E said:

Unless there are some Australian cricketers in the Lords, I'm not sure how.

Ask the man or woman in the street - they will tell you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jim mk2 said:

On a cricket field I'd choose Botham; in the House of Commons I'd have Bercow.

 

Yes - but you didn't have to work for Bercow, did you. As a Labour man I would have expected you to be concerned about the bullying allegations and want them cleared up first. What about the workers ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

Yes - but you didn't have to work for Bercow, did you. As a Labour man I would have expected you to be concerned about the bullying allegations and want them cleared up first. 

 How can you justify Jo Johnson and Philip May in the Lords?  The son of a KGB officer - is that a reward for Putin and all the Russian donors to the Tory party?

The Upper House has some exemplary members whose dedication and expertise are extraordinary. Take a look at the work of the Select Committees, for example, and you will hear thoughtful competent people who have done their homework and know what they are talking about.

But rewarding donors,  Brexit cheerleaders, sympathetic press personalities and close relatives is cronyism at its worst. 

Johnson and his government make decent folk ashamed to be British

Edited by jim mk2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mashed Potatoes said:

You don't get it, I'm afraid. It's about the substance of the individual. A person of high calibre can turn up once and make a greater contribution than a no-mark who turns up a thousand times. He'll make a greater contribution to our country than almost anyone else.

The only great contribution that will be made by Botham being a peer will be the contribution to his wallet when he gets the title Lord Botham. We aren't exactly talking about Douglas Jardine here are we who was, a highly intelligent man with experience in the legal and financial profession, an Oxford graduate & a leader of men, who served his country in the war.

Just now, Mashed Potatoes said:

Labour lost because the British people rightly judged that they were not fit for government. I don't think Bercow can be considered for the House of Lords until the very serious allegations regarding him are cleared up.

Bercow would fit right in they could seat him next to Jeffrey Archer to help him settle in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

Ask the man or woman in the street - they will tell you.

Do you think I live in some sort of ivory tower? I'm a delivery driver, talk to customers everyday, and even the cricket fans broadly know that while Botham is a brilliant cricket player and pundit, they wonder why he's in the Lords but not someone who's actually contributed to British lives over the years.

Perhaps I should keep reminding you that Bercow is the one who allowed the Brexit question (from a minority voice, no less) to be tabled in the first place?

Maybe you'll prefer the current Speaker? Sounds a bit like Linseed Oil, after all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mike E said:

Maybe you'll prefer the current Speaker? Sounds a bit like Linseed Oil, after all?

I think The current Speaker of the House Hoyle is much better than Bercow ever was. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

why Labour have just recorded their worst general election result in living memory.

Its clear to me why Labour lost by worst general election since 1935. 

3 things

1. Corbyn as Leader and his shadow cabinet were out of touch with the country

2 His Brexit policy was clueless 

3. Labour manifesto wasn't what the country wants going forward. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, chaddyrovers said:

I think The current Speaker of the House Hoyle is much better than Bercow ever was. 

I actually like Hoyle too, but that particular statement given he's been in the job only a few months is just a weird one. It's not a competition between them.

What did Bercow actually DO that was bad? Was it making sure the Government wasn't allowed to avoid questions? Was it making sure Brexit followed proper procedure rather than be rushed off a cliff?

To clarify: I do think Hoyle, after a couple of years, will prove a better Speaker than Bercow. But making that statement NOW is inevitably a childish bit of petulant 'that man disagreed with me' nonsense.

The job of the Speaker is to remain impartial and make sure the full and wide voice of Parliament is heard. Bercow was actually relatively instrumental in ensuring that, with every PM serving during his tenure admitting as much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Mike E said:

I actually like Hoyle too, but that particular statement given he's been in the job only a few months is just a weird one. It's not a competition between them.

What did Bercow actually DO that was bad? Was it making sure the Government wasn't allowed to avoid questions? Was it making sure Brexit followed proper procedure rather than be rushed off a cliff?

To clarify: I do think Hoyle, after a couple of years, will prove a better Speaker than Bercow. But making that statement NOW is inevitably a childish bit of petulant 'that man disagreed with me' nonsense.

The job of the Speaker is to remain impartial and make sure the full and wide voice of Parliament is heard. Bercow was actually relatively instrumental in ensuring that, with every PM serving during his tenure admitting as much.

Thankyou for the question 

Look at how the house is run by Hoyle and isn't centre of attention like Bercow made himself with the way he ran the house. Debates run to time. Bercow thought he was highest authority ever time. H

Has Hoyle allowed the government to avoid questions at any point? Even before the recess you told Matt Hancock about the timing of the written statement being available only 2 or 3 minutes before he entered the house. He makes his points in strict way but moves on very quickly. Less centre of attention

It will be interesting to see how he runs the house when all MP's are in the house of commons.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Labour’s biggest union backer will review its political donations in light of Keir Starmer’s decision to pay damages to ex-staffers who claimed the party had not dealt with antisemitism, its general secretary has warned.

In an interview with the Observer, Unite leader Len McCluskey said there was “no doubt” the union’s ruling executive would be demanding a review of the millions it donates to the Labour party in the wake of the six-figure settlements.

“It’s an abuse of members’ money,” he said. “A lot of it is Unite’s money and I’m already being asked all kinds of questions by my executive. It’s as though a huge sign has been put up outside the Labour party with ‘queue here with your writ and get your payment over there’.

Len McCluskey put Starmer on notice that he would fight any shift to the right. He said it would “constitute a problem” if Starmer edged away from his 10 leadership campaign pledges, which included Corbyn-era policies such as higher taxes on the wealthy, abolishing tuition fees and “common ownership” of rail, mail, energy and water. “He has to recognise that the ship he is sailing, if it lists too much to the right, will go under,” he said.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/unite-warns-labour-on-antisemitism-payouts/ar-BB17s7yS?ocid=msedgntp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Labour has to appeal to the centre to stand a chance of getting in. Maybe put the pressure on him if he gets in? What use is it chaining him to Corbyns policies which delivered the worst election result in ages. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tory MP arrested on suspicion of rape of parliamentary staffer

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/aug/01/former-minister-arrested-sexual-assault-charge

Following on from the Charlie Elphicke conviction

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jul/30/ex-mp-charlie-elphicke-convicted-of-sexual-assault

Tory sleaze from the 1990s is back

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

Yes or no - do you think Bercow should be in the House of Lords ? I say no.

I say yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, 47er said:

I say yes.

Despite all the bullying issues and numerous complaints?  I don't know if they are true but certainly he does seem to attract this type of scrutiny.  Personally I think he's an odious little twerp who tried his best to overturn the Brexit vote.  

I suppose they all speakers end up in the Lords, but I would snigger if he didn't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sparks Rover said:

Despite all the bullying issues and numerous complaints?  I don't know if they are true but certainly he does seem to attract this type of scrutiny.  Personally I think he's an odious little twerp who tried his best to overturn the Brexit vote.  

I suppose they all speakers end up in the Lords, but I would snigger if he didn't. 

your observation is basically flawed. Only parliament could have stopped brexit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, den said:

Only parliament could have stopped brexit. 

Only the voters could have stopped Brexit. 

MP's job is in act what we voted for when we have elections or referendums..they serve the people of the country 

What a Democracy and capitalism country does.

Edited by chaddyrovers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, den said:

your observation is basically flawed. Only parliament could have stopped brexit. 

Not arguing with that.  He has been trying to gerrymander things irrespective of the eventual outcome.  For that reason alone he should just exit stage right.

Edited by Sparks Rover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sparks Rover said:

Despite all the bullying issues and numerous complaints?

Allegations you mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

Labour’s biggest union backer will review its political donations in light of Keir Starmer’s decision to pay damages to ex-staffers who claimed the party had not dealt with antisemitism, its general secretary has warned.

In an interview with the Observer, Unite leader Len McCluskey said there was “no doubt” the union’s ruling executive would be demanding a review of the millions it donates to the Labour party in the wake of the six-figure settlements.

“It’s an abuse of members’ money,” he said. “A lot of it is Unite’s money and I’m already being asked all kinds of questions by my executive. It’s as though a huge sign has been put up outside the Labour party with ‘queue here with your writ and get your payment over there’.

Len McCluskey put Starmer on notice that he would fight any shift to the right. He said it would “constitute a problem” if Starmer edged away from his 10 leadership campaign pledges, which included Corbyn-era policies such as higher taxes on the wealthy, abolishing tuition fees and “common ownership” of rail, mail, energy and water. “He has to recognise that the ship he is sailing, if it lists too much to the right, will go under,” he said.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/unite-warns-labour-on-antisemitism-payouts/ar-BB17s7yS?ocid=msedgntp

Given that you are right-wing, anti-Trade Union, I'm assuming you want  Keir Starmer to win this Battle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It listed pretty much listed to left and got severely damaged in a storm to continue that  boat analogy. Lennie another dinosaur who wants to return to the militant 70s when British industry produced the Austin Allegro whenever they were not on strike. I'm all for unions, but fighting everyone for the sake of it and not trying to reach consensus is damaging.

Maybe Starmer could do what the Tories do and bend over to part their buttocks for any shady Russian business leader, tax dodger and human rights abuses. It worked for the current Conservative government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.