John Bercow snubbed in New Years Honours Watch

Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#21
Report 4 weeks ago
#21
(Original post by adam271)
Because the vast amount of peers are former MPs or people like lyod Webber. (Think he may have quit it now)

It's mainly a tool for Westminster to look after their own.
I wonder if there are statistics that show what percentage of peers are former MPs compared to say doctors or other professions.

Its just par for the course, if your in parliament long enough you get a peerage.
Yeah, but you need to put people there with the experience and loyalty as Peers. It makes no sense to drop in Joe Bloggs with limited exposure to Government or statecraft.
0
reply
squeakysquirrel
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#22
Report 4 weeks ago
#22
(Original post by Sharpshooter)
Ex speaker John Bercow is snubbed for his peerage, apparantly first time it has happened in 230 years! :eek:
Good - he is a weasel
1
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#23
Report 4 weeks ago
#23
(Original post by Wired_1800)
Bercow did not really do his job though. He pretended to be neutral but constantly impeded the Government. Whenever the Government made progress, he would bring up a 300 or 400 year old rule that allowed him to frustrate the process. He was also accused of harassment, bullying and belittling of female MPs.

It was clear that he was biased when he retired and subsequently came out against the Government and Brexit.
Really?

So when the Government brought forward the withdrawal agreement to be voted on three times and lost - that was Bercows fault?

So when the Government brought forward motions under the fixed term Parliament Act to be voted on three times and lost three times - that was Bercows fault?

So when the Government brought forward the motion to recess Parliament for the Party Conference to be voted on and lost three times - that was Bercows fault?

So when the Government brought forward the Withdrawl Agreement Programme motion to be voted on and lost - that was Bercows fault?

The Government make progress when it had a free run under it's own terms, it wasnt just opposition day debates and amendments. As I say, HMG didnt have a majority and hence couldn't govern.
Last edited by Quady; 4 weeks ago
1
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#24
Report 4 weeks ago
#24
(Original post by Wired_1800)
Bercow did not really do his job though. He pretended to be neutral but constantly impeded the Government. Whenever the Government made progress, he would bring up a 300 or 400 year old rule that allowed him to frustrate the process. He was also accused of harassment, bullying and belittling of female MPs.

It was clear that he was biased when he retired and subsequently came out against the Government and Brexit.
The Government has a right to govern because it commands a Parliamentary majority, not because it happens to be in office and prior to the election the Government lacked such a majority. Bercow was under no obligation to facilitate actions by a government that couldn't win a vote.

Where he is accused of ripping up the rulebook, that rulebook was predicated on rules to stop a minority of members (particularly a minority of late 19th century Irish MPs) from obstructing the will of a majority government. It wasn't written for the situation of a minority government trying to frustrate the will of a majority of MPs. Bercow's actions will almost certainly come to be reflected in the Standing Orders of the House going forward.

Bercow's bullying wasn't sexist. He behaved terribly to male employees and frankly was abominably rude to male MPs. Picking out individual incidents when he was rude to a female MP distorts the picture that he was a classic bully by position.

One of the most serious complaints about him is rarely picked up non-Parliamentarians, although Burton Bridge has referred to it; that he had a small coterie of favourites (in the case of Brexit on both sides of the issue) whom he would call to speak repeatedly and few others would get more than a minute or two late in the debate, once all the important points had been made.
0
reply
adam271
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#25
Report 4 weeks ago
#25
(Original post by Wired_1800)
Yeah, but you need to put people there with the experience and loyalty as Peers. It makes no sense to drop in Joe Bloggs with limited exposure to Government or statecraft.
Most newly elected MPs have no former experience and are just thrown in.
Also look at Donald Trump.

Regardless the house of lords needs reforming. Being a party donor or a former MP seems like the main requirement to be in the house of lords at the moment which is stupid.

In regards to John bercow. The main argument seems to be he has to have a peerage because it's traditional.... What a moronic justification.
Last edited by adam271; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#26
Report 4 weeks ago
#26
(Original post by adam271)
Most newly elected MPs have no former experience and are just thrown in.
Also look at Donald Trump.

Regardless the house of lords needs reforming. Being a party donor or a former MP seems like the main requirement to be in the house of lords at the moment which is stupid.

In regards to John bercow. The main argument seems to be he has to have a peerage because it's traditional.... What a moronic justification.
I agree. I think the Lords needs reform but not as deep or wide as being suggested. We need people with leading expertise, experience and good standing.
0
reply
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#27
Report 4 weeks ago
#27
(Original post by squeakysquirrel)
Good - he is a weasel
Have some consideration for weasels.
0
reply
adam271
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#28
Report 4 weeks ago
#28
(Original post by Wired_1800)
I agree. I think the Lords needs reform but not as deep or wide as being suggested. We need people with leading expertise, experience and good standing.
The problem is most people would say that criteria would rule out most MPs.
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#29
Report 4 weeks ago
#29
(Original post by nulli tertius)
The Government has a right to govern because it commands a Parliamentary majority, not because it happens to be in office and prior to the election the Government lacked such a majority. Bercow was under no obligation to facilitate actions by a government that couldn't win a vote.

Where he is accused of ripping up the rulebook, that rulebook was predicated on rules to stop a minority of members (particularly a minority of late 19th century Irish MPs) from obstructing the will of a majority government. It wasn't written for the situation of a minority government trying to frustrate the will of a majority of MPs. Bercow's actions will almost certainly come to be reflected in the Standing Orders of the House going forward.

Bercow's bullying wasn't sexist. He behaved terribly to male employees and frankly was abominably rude to male MPs. Picking out individual incidents when he was rude to a female MP distorts the picture that he was a classic bully by position.

One of the most serious complaints about him is rarely picked up non-Parliamentarians, although Burton Bridge has referred to it; that he had a small coterie of favourites (in the case of Brexit on both sides of the issue) whom he would call to speak repeatedly and few others would get more than a minute or two late in the debate, once all the important points had been made.
Yes, he did have many issues that should exclude him from the Lords.

Bercow pretended to support Parliament when in reality he was bent on obstructing the Brexit process. He allowed MPs to include amendments that he knew would dilute the deal. Look at how he recklessly introduced the Letwin amendment and smirked when the Government was defeated.

I also agree that he preferred a crop of MPs and dismissed others.
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#30
Report 4 weeks ago
#30
(Original post by Quady)
Really?

So when the Government brought forward the withdrawal agreement to be voted on three times and lost - that was Bercows fault?

So when the Government brought forward motions under the fixed term Parliament Act to be voted on three times and lost three times - that was Bercows fault?

So when the Government brought forward the motion to recess Parliament for the Party Conference to be voted on and lost three times - that was Bercows fault?

So when the Government brought forward the Withdrawl Agreement Programme motion to be voted on and lost - that was Bercows fault?

The Government make progress when it had a free run under it's own terms, it wasnt just opposition day debates and amendments. As I say, HMG didnt have a majority and hence couldn't govern.
Bercow could have done more but was responsible for the toxicity in Parliament. He refused to be a neutral referee and clearly went against that position.
Last edited by Wired_1800; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#31
Report 4 weeks ago
#31
at least his address wasn't published on the internet ....

:teehee:
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#32
Report 4 weeks ago
#32
(Original post by adam271)
The problem is most people would say that criteria would rule out most MPs.
Yes it would. The Lords should be a strong House with deep experience and ability.
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#33
Report 4 weeks ago
#33
(Original post by ColinDent)
Do you agree with the license fee?
And do you feel that it should be a criminal offence to not pay for a service which you are forced to do so whether you use it or not?
The BBC should just show some adverts like everyone else.
The lack of adverts is the best bit about the BBC and it produces some phenomenal television.

However in the last few months its level of pro tory bias, especially its conduct during the election was shameful.
1
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#34
Report 4 weeks ago
#34
(Original post by DSilva)
The lack of adverts is the best bit about the BBC and it produces some phenomenal television.

However in the last few months its level of pro tory bias, especially its conduct during the election was shameful.
The BBC has been biast for a long time. Its remain biast also was sickening, it most certainly got a Tory remainer calling the shots.
0
reply
ColinDent
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#35
Report 4 weeks ago
#35
(Original post by DSilva)
The lack of adverts is the best bit about the BBC and it produces some phenomenal television.

However in the last few months its level of pro tory bias, especially its conduct during the election was shameful.
Whilst it does produce some good programs it also produces a lot of **** ones and again why should any person be forced to pay for something that is not of a quality that they personally find acceptable?
Let alone face criminal charges if they don't, it's tantamount to extortion.
Last edited by ColinDent; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#36
Report 4 weeks ago
#36
(Original post by ColinDent)
Whilst it does produce some good programs it also produces a lot of **** ones and again why should any person be forced to pay for something that is not of a quality that they personally find acceptable?
Let alone face criminal charges if they don't, it's tantamount to extortion.
It produces more good than bad, and really has produced some phenomenal television over the years. We need a national broadcaster of some sorts, and don't want to end up with a situation like in the US.

Something like 95% of the population uses some form of BBC service each week.

It's also not particularly expensive. £150 per year per household, that can be split between housemates and paid in instalments. I think those who genuinely can't afford it shouldn't have to pay though.

I also think there needs to be a serious talk about how it allowed itself to be so pro govenemnt over the last election.
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#37
Report 4 weeks ago
#37
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
The BBC has been biast for a long time. Its remain biast also was sickening, it most certainly got a Tory remainer calling the shots.
Tory remainer does seem to be the poltical position of the BBC, and has been for some time.

It's basically Cameronite.
0
reply
ColinDent
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#38
Report 4 weeks ago
#38
(Original post by DSilva)
It produces more good than bad, and really has produced some phenomenal television over the years. We need a national broadcaster of some sorts, and don't want to end up with a situation like in the US.

Something like 95% of the population uses some form of BBC service each week.

It's also not particularly expensive. £150 per year per household, that can be split between housemates and paid in instalments. I think those who genuinely can't afford it shouldn't have to pay though.

I also think there needs to be a serious talk about how it allowed itself to be so pro govenemnt over the last election.
I disagree about the amount of good programs it makes, in my opinion there's only about 7-8 during the course of a year.
Why not make it a subscription service?
Truth be told it's the whole crimilisation part of things I have an issue with, why should we be forced to pay for something that we don't need?
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#39
Report 4 weeks ago
#39
(Original post by ColinDent)
I disagree about the amount of good programs it makes, in my opinion there's only about 7-8 during the course of a year.
Why not make it a subscription service?
Truth be told it's the whole crimilisation part of things I have an issue with, why should we be forced to pay for something that we don't need?
I would argue we do need a national broadcaster. And the amount people use it suggests it's more important than we realised. It's essentially a tax.
0
reply
ColinDent
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#40
Report 4 weeks ago
#40
(Original post by DSilva)
I would argue we do need a national broadcaster. And the amount people use it suggests it's more important than we realised. It's essentially a tax.
So you're happy with the idea of people getting a criminal record for not paying for something they neither use or want?
I don't dispute that an impartial national broadcasting company is a good thing for many people, but in the modern society that can easily be funded by advertising.
The whole corporation could also be scaled down too.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What's stopping you doing a masters?

It's too expensive (17)
24.29%
My career doesn't need one (7)
10%
I'm sick of studying (14)
20%
I can't find a course I want to do (2)
2.86%
I don't know enough about them (8)
11.43%
Nothing, I'm going to do it! (22)
31.43%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed