John Bercow - right or wrong?

[Sweep]

I think this is very true.

The devolution around the UK is very imbalanced. I think a better approach would be to have a number of English regional assemblies and for all the devolved assemblies to have identical powers, as far as the NI peace process will allow.

Either that or just ditch the Scottish, Welsh and NI parliaments altogether, which would also get my vote....

I like your latter idea.
I don't see why England has to change to suit the SNP.

 

[Sweep]

This thread is fine.......the A50 is out of control and would probably be best closed.

The difference between this thread and the A50 thread is that Delc hasn't realised what a good wind up opportunity this thread is.

 

[FairwayDodger]

I like your latter idea.
I don't see why England has to change to suit the SNP.

Pretty jaundiced view on it, nothing to do with the SNP, notionally it would be for the benefit of England. If (and it's a big if) devolution is a good idea it should apply equally to England as it does to Scotland, Wales and NI.

Personally, I am more than fed up with all the constitutional navel-gazing but I can't help thinking that the main problem is that the original settlement was so half-arsed. Do it properly, or not at all.... IMO.

 

[Sweep]

Pretty jaundiced view on it, nothing to do with the SNP, notionally it would be for the benefit of England. If (and it's a big if) devolution is a good idea it should apply equally to England as it does to Scotland, Wales and NI.

Personally, I am more than fed up with all the constitutional navel-gazing but I can't help thinking that the main problem is that the original settlement was so half-arsed. Do it properly, or not at all.... IMO.

But from what Doon is saying England is getting all its own way already.
I think England would benefit from only English MPs voting on exclusively English matters, but other than that more tiers of government are not needed and the only reason we would have to consider it would be because of devolution mainly in Scotland. So it would be because of the SNP.
The vast majority of English people are happy with the way things are, even though up north we know London gets all the good stuff.
From where I sit (in England) devolution seems to be working but if the Scottish people aren't happy with it then as you say, it should be scrapped. I can't see Nicola and Alex letting that happen though but TBH I don't think they will ever be happy.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

But from what Doon is saying England is getting all its own way already.
I think England would benefit from only English MPs voting on exclusively English matters, but other than that more tiers of government are not needed and the only reason we would have to consider it would be because of devolution mainly in Scotland. So it would be because of the SNP.
The vast majority of English people are happy with the way things are, even though up north we know London gets all the good stuff.
From where I sit (in England) devolution seems to be working but if the Scottish people aren't happy with it then as you say, it should be scrapped. I can't see Nicola and Alex letting that happen though but TBH I don't think they will ever be happy.

From what I see and read and listen to England seem to be pretty fed up with the way their country is going.
Is that not the reason why so many voted for the Tory/UKIP/ Brexit package.
Of course England would benefit from English only votes at Westminster to the detriment of the other three UK ' equal partners'.

 

[SocketRocket]

From what I see and read and listen to England seem to be pretty fed up with the way their country is going.
Is that not the reason why so many voted for the Tory/UKIP/ Brexit package.
Of course England would benefit from English only votes at Westminster to the detriment of the other three UK ' equal partners'.

Most of us voted Tory/UKIP/Brexit as we don't want the alternative in Government.

It's England who has the detrimental deal compared to the other UK countries. I still cant understand why the SNP et al should be voting on English only matters.

 

[Sweep]

From what I see and read and listen to England seem to be pretty fed up with the way their country is going.
Is that not the reason why so many voted for the Tory/UKIP/ Brexit package.
Of course England would benefit from English only votes at Westminster to the detriment of the other three UK ' equal partners'.

If only English MPs vote on issues that affect England only, why would that be to the detriment of Scotland, Wales or NI?
There are lots of reasons why we voted to leave the EU, but in the main they were due to problems with the EU, not because we are run from Westminster.

 

[MegaSteve]

From what I see and read and listen to England seem to be pretty fed up with the way their country is going.
Is that not the reason why so many voted for the Tory/UKIP/ Brexit package.
Of course England would benefit from English only votes at Westminster to the detriment of the other three UK ' equal partners'.

UKIP aside it wasn't a vote based on the normal party divides...

 

[FairwayDodger]

It's England who has the detrimental deal compared to the other UK countries. I still cant understand why the SNP et al should be voting on English only matters.

I agree and that's one of the issues with the way power was devolved. England doesn't have a parliament, though, so if the uk parliament is dealing with English matters all uk MPs get to vote.

Trying to turn Westminster into an English parliament by restricting the rights of non-English MPs would only exacerbate the poor situation at present and provide a rallying call for the nats.

You need your own parliament or preferably, given the nature of the country, a set of regional assemblies.

 

[Foxholer]

I know in your little world everything revolves around you. However, you are fond of reminding me how your English skills are superior to mine, so I suggest you put them to good use. Read the title of the thread. It isn't " Foxholer's Posts. Are they misinterpreted?"
So save yourself and the rest of us from boredom and grow up.

:rofl: :rofl:

And the bold bit is simply wrong - again!!

But feel to have a 'last word' - as it seems you must! Mine's 'Zzzzzzzz' in anticipation!

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I watched the film, A Man for all Seasons last night (not watched for many years and a superb film) - and something Sir Thomas More said to Cardinal Wolsey really struck home in the context of Speaker Bercow's stance, and the stance of MPs in the Art50 vote

Well . . . I believe, when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties . . . they lead their country by a short route to chaos.

In this pronouncement from Act One, scene two, More tears apart Wolsey’s common-sense approach to politics. Wolsey believes a person should take the most convenient and advantageous option in political matters, but More believes a statesman’s duty is to weigh his “own private conscience” because doing so will ultimately lead to the common good.

Rather sums up my feelings on both the Speaker and MPs voting on Art50.

And Paul Scofield's performance as Sir Thomas More is stunning

 

[drdel]

The 'core' of the thread asked if he was "right or wrong". Since his position is defined as being neutral the answer is now easy.

The HoC is split along party lines as to whether he should have commented in the way he did. Thus by deduction the 'political' split obviously shows he wasn't neutral so therefore went beyond his remit.

The rightness or otherwise of his views are not the issue; his expressing them from his 'seat' is.

 

[Foxholer]

I watched the film, A Man for all Seasons last night (not watched for many years and a superb film) - and something Sir Thomas More said to Cardinal Wolsey really struck home in the context of Speaker Bercow's stance, and the stance of MPs in the Art50 vote

Well . . . I believe, when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties . . . they lead their country by a short route to chaos.

In this pronouncement from Act One, scene two, More tears apart Wolsey’s common-sense approach to politics. Wolsey believes a person should take the most convenient and advantageous option in political matters, but More believes a statesman’s duty is to weigh his “own private conscience” because doing so will ultimately lead to the common good.

Rather sums up my feelings on both the Speaker and MPs voting on Art50.

And Paul Scofield's performance as Sir Thomas More is stunning

That takes me back decades!! We, unknown to us at the time, had a very liberal English faculty!

I'd be interested to know how you compare the view of the italicised quote (that i've bold-ened) with the way your MP (and others) voted in the Brexit Article 50 vote! Or was that deliberate/the whole point?!

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

The 'core' of the thread asked if he was "right or wrong". Since his position is defined as being neutral the answer is now easy.

The HoC is split along party lines as to whether he should have commented in the way he did. Thus by deduction the 'political' split obviously shows he wasn't neutral so therefore went beyond his remit.

The rightness or otherwise of his views are not the issue; his expressing them from his 'seat' is.

Unless it is the Speaker's duty to act in the best interest of the HoC as a whole; to protect it's integrity, from being misrepresented; and from it falling into disrepute and attracting opprobrium. In which case, given the furore in the country and abroad in respect of President Trump-Bannon - he is doing his duty to the House.

 

[drdel]

Unless it is the Speaker's duty to act in the best interest of the HoC as a whole; to protect it's integrity, from being misrepresented; and from it falling into disrepute and attracting opprobrium. In which case, given the furore in the country and abroad in respect of President Trump-Bannon - he is doing his duty to the House.

He did not feel that need or worry when other dubious characters addressed the House which in my mind is hypocritical.

Your views seem at odds with those of Lord Fowler; a rather experienced Parliamentarian.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

That takes me back decades!! We, unknown to us at the time, had a very liberal English faculty!

I'd be interested to know how you compare the view of the italicised quote (that i've bold-ened) with the way your MP (and others) voted in the Brexit Article 50 vote! Or was that deliberate/the whole point?!

Yes indeed - why I mentioned the Art50 vote in my post. And I will contact my MP and remind him of these words. Because I think they spell out a warning very relevant to today.

I think the Speaker could not conscience Trump addressing the HoC given his clearly honestly felt responsibility to the HoC. If he is forced in any way to retract I think he will resign.

As an individual I cannot live a lie. If I am unable to be honest with and to myself; then I cannot expect others to be honest and that undermines my ability to trust in them. If I sit with dishonesty; if I act against my conscience; if I act against what I know to be the right thing - even although in doing sol may be more problematic for me than what I might want to do - this will not sit well with me and it will undermine me.

However if I look in honesty at a situation and do what my conscience tells me is the right thing to do - and if I act in accordance with that - even if I don't want to as it may cause me problems - then I know and have faith that the eventual outcome overall will be better - not just or even necessarily for myself - but for others. The greater good.

And so I can absolutely understand why Speaker Bercow has acted as he has. And why I believe that it will be difficult for MPs who vote against their conscience and what they think to be right in the long term for the UK.

But that's just me. And I appreciate that most will think it absurd that I always try and do the right thing when that may hurt me in the short term - but I can and do because I have faith in the eventual outcome being for the better (all not very well explained - but there you go - it's not easy to explain).

 

[Foxholer]

The HoC is split along party lines as to whether he should have commented in the way he did. Thus by deduction the 'political' split obviously shows he wasn't neutral so therefore went beyond his remit.

Is it?

He has definitely been challenged/criticised by some Conservative MPs, but as he was elected as a Conservative MP and it's not all conservative MPs that are opposed to his comments, then, I believe, your 'deduction' is not valid! I don't believe it was a valid 'deduction in the first place!


Re

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

He did not feel that need or worry when other dubious characters addressed the House which in my mind is hypocritical.

Your views seem at odds with those of Lord Fowler; a rather experienced Parliamentarian.

We can all be hypocritical - but that does not stop us trying to do the right thing today, even if we know that we may not have lived our values in the past. 'Whatabootery' is no argument for not doing the right thing today and it is a lazy argument to self-justify doing the wrong thing.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

So little in Bercow's career to date to suggest that he is a man of the highest integrity.

Far more to suggest that he continues to hold a grudge for the way his rise to the top in the Tory party was brought to a halt by the emergence of the Cameron/Osborne/May generation.

If I really thought his actions had been motivated by his moral outrage I would have some sympathy with him but I am afraid his actions and utterances over the years leave me sceptical.

 

[drdel]

We can all be hypocritical - but that does not stop us trying to do the right thing today, even if we know that we may not have lived our values in the past. 'Whatabootery' is no argument for not doing the right thing today and it is a lazy argument to self-justify doing the wrong thing.

Not in my book - yes you can learn by mistakes and move forward but this is not that sort of situation.

Surely you can admit it is pretty clear that Bercow's comments were opportunistic grandstanding and nothing more.

Had he truly had a change of mindset and considered his values he would have followed normal protocol and liaised with Lord Fowler as is the established mechanism before speaking from the chair.