Should Bercow get a peerage? Watch

generallee
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#1
John Bercow was the most controversial Speaker of the last hundred years. Supposedly politically impartial, he made up the rules as he went along, observing precedent when it suited him, ignoring it when he didn't, in an egregious and flagrant attempt to prevent Brexit.

More he is accused by his own staff of bullying and discrimination whilst in office.

Yet despite that, the failed Marxist buffoon, Corbyn has nominated him for a peerage.

I am not trying to get an answer on Leave/Remain lines, with Remainers supporting a peerage and Leavers not.

But wondering if the fact he arouses such strong partisan feeling in the performance of an office that is supposed to studiously impartial, in itself disqualifies him. And whether the pursuance of these accusations of highly inappropriate behaviour should preclude his elevation until they are resolved with him being declared innocent. If he was.

More, does the fact that a man such as him is considered eligible by Corbyn not in itself demonstrate how utterly ridiculous the House of Lords itself now is, and how in need of either serious reform or abolition?
1
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 weeks ago
#2
(Original post by generallee)
John Bercow was the most controversial Speaker of the last hundred years. Supposedly politically impartial, he made up the rules as he went along, observing precedent when it suited him, ignoring it when he didn't, in an egregious and flagrant attempt to prevent Brexit.
Which rules did he make up?
0
reply
emanresUU
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 weeks ago
#3
the house of lords should be abolished
1
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 weeks ago
#4
(Original post by generallee)
John Bercow was the most controversial Speaker of the last hundred years. Supposedly politically impartial, he made up the rules as he went along, observing precedent when it suited him, ignoring it when he didn't, in an egregious and flagrant attempt to prevent Brexit.

More he is accused by his own staff of bullying and discrimination whilst in office.

Yet despite that, the failed Marxist buffoon, Corbyn has nominated him for a peerage.

I am not trying to get an answer on Leave/Remain lines, with Remainers supporting a peerage and Leavers not.

But wondering if the fact he arouses such strong partisan feeling in the performance of an office that is supposed to studiously impartial, in itself disqualifies him. And whether the pursuance of these accusations of highly inappropriate behaviour should preclude his elevation until they are resolved with him being declared innocent. If he was.

More, does the fact that a man such as him is considered eligible by Corbyn not in itself demonstrate how utterly ridiculous the House of Lords itself now is, and how in need of either serious reform or abolition?
I think Bercow should be given a Peerage not because of John Bercow, the person, but the position of ex-Speaker. Tradition is important and once one starts chipping away, it loses meaning.

We should also be careful with abolishing the House of Lords as a reactionary move. Yes, there are many issues with it but the format does have many benefits as well. For example, having a House that has many experienced people can help to scrutinise Government activity in an informed manner. In addition, a House that is also not dependent on regular elections poses the flexibility that its members are not constantly worried about their seats.

Look at the US Senate that is a joke. Almost every move is based on partisan nonsense or Senators worried about re-election. The Congress is always fighting this perpetual battle between the Democrats and Republicans rather than working to support the people that elected them.

I recognise the issues the House of Lords has and I think reform is needed, but we should be careful not to abolish it and create more problems. In politics, we tend to like making foolish mistakes then covering up the mess in the end.
2
reply
emanresUU
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 weeks ago
#5
(Original post by Wired_1800)
I think Bercow should be given a Peerage not because of John Bercow, the person, but the position of ex-Speaker. Tradition is important and once one starts chipping away, it loses meaning.

We should also be careful with abolishing the House of Lords as a reactionary move. Yes, there are many issues with it but the format does have many benefits as well. For example, having a House that has many experienced people can help to scrutinise Government activity in an informed manner. In addition, a House that is also not dependent on regular elections poses the flexibility that its members are not constantly worried about their seats.

Look at the US Senate that is a joke. Almost every move is based on partisan nonsense or Senators worried about re-election. The Congress is always fighting this perpetual battle between the Democrats and Republicans rather than working to support the people that elected them.

I recognise the issues the House of Lords has and I think reform is needed, but we should be careful not to abolish it and create more problems. In politics, we tend to like making foolish mistakes then covering up the mess in the end.
All the house of lords does is block things proposed by the elected government. They are vestige of the undemocratic past - you wouldn't want the Queen to blocking things would you?

There may be knowledgeable people in the Lords but they shouldn't have more power, they should be simply advisors to the government

In addition most of the Lords are failed Labour/Lib dem MPs so they will block things done by Conservatives out of spite
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 weeks ago
#6
(Original post by emanresUU)
All the house of lords does is block things proposed by the elected government. They are vestige of the undemocratic past - you wouldn't want the Queen to blocking things would you?

There may be knowledgeable people in the Lords but they shouldn't have more power, they should be simply advisors to the government

In addition most of the Lords are failed Labour/Lib dem MPs so they will block things done by Conservatives out of spite
An elected chamber would still be the same way. Having an advisory chamber makes it meaningless because it is then up to the lower House to ignore laws and bill corrections.

Yes, Labour or Lib Dem Lords may block bills out of spite. However, that will happen in an elected chamber. I point you to the US where the Democrats vote against any policy because it is Trump or Republican.
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#7
(Original post by DiddyDecAlt)
Which rules did he make up?
If you genuinely don't know I suggest you do some research into the subject. It is actually a very interesting topic, constitutionally. And of course has now established new precedent.

Any thoughts on the questions raised by the OP?
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 weeks ago
#8
(Original post by generallee)
If you genuinely don't know I suggest you do some research into the subject. It is actually a very interesting topic, constitutionally. And of course has now established new precedent.

Any thoughts on the questions raised by the OP?
You made the claim and now you can't back them up.

:congrats:
1
reply
generallee
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#9
(Original post by DiddyDecAlt)
You made the claim and now you can't back them up.

:congrats:
Tedious. But I'll play your game, sigh.

Where is the parliamentary precedent for allowing backbenchers to assume control of the Order Paper from the Executive?
1
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by generallee)
Tedious. But I'll play your game, sigh.

Where is the parliamentary precedent for allowing backbenchers to assume control of the Order Paper from the Executive?
If it is against the rules then why are there no rules in place to stop rule breaking?
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#11
(Original post by DiddyDecAlt)
If it is against the rules then why are there no rules in place to stop rule breaking?
Do you understand how our constitution actually works? Genuine question?

Because it doesn't sound as if you do.
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by generallee)
Do you understand how our constitution actually works? Genuine question?

Because it doesn't sound as if you do.
Not particularly, no. It doesn't seem to work particularly well when the speaker can do whatever he pleases without recourse.
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by DiddyDecAlt)
Not particularly, no. It doesn't seem to work particularly well when the speaker can do whatever he pleases without recourse.
OK, fair enough.

The answer to your question is there are no rules, we don't have a written constitution, It is all done on precedent. As you say, this gives the Speaker enormous power, but it isn't without recourse. He can be deposed though a Commons vote.

The charge against Bercow is not that he broke any rules, but that he failed to observe precedent in making his rulings. Rulings he is quite entitled to make, constitutionally.

And there is good reason for that custom and precedent over many centuries. To allow backbenchers to seize control of the Order Paper is a recipe for total chaos. As we all saw only too well.

But it was a very very unusual time, and I would argue the situation has righted itself constitutionally, albeit with a new, unfortunate and unwise precedent.
0
reply
nutz99
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 weeks ago
#14
Traditionally the speaker has been offered the peerage because they are expected to be impartial and do the job they were elected to do. Similar to a referee. Bercow did not carry out that job impartially and therefore has no right to expect the peerage.
1
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 weeks ago
#15
(Original post by generallee)
OK, fair enough.

The answer to your question is there are no rules, we don't have a written constitution, It is all done on precedent. As you say, this gives the Speaker enormous power, but it isn't without recourse. He can be deposed though a Commons vote.

The charge against Bercow is not that he broke any rules, but that he failed to observe precedent in making his rulings. Rulings he is quite entitled to make, constitutionally.

And there is good reason for that custom and precedent over many centuries. To allow backbenchers to seize control of the Order Paper is a recipe for total chaos. As we all saw only too well.

But it was a very very unusual time, and I would argue the situation has righted itself constitutionally, albeit with a new, unfortunate and unwise precedent.
Sounds to me then that we need to reform both of the Houses, but nobody will touch either with a bargepole because they are more worried about their votes than the country.

It is all well and good when we have traditions and precedent, but without accountability it is too open to abuse.
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by Wired_1800)
I think Bercow should be given a Peerage not because of John Bercow, the person, but the position of ex-Speaker. Tradition is important and once one starts chipping away, it loses meaning.
The question is though whether Bercow the person was worthy of his office, and performed it in the national interest?

I would argue that he utterly disgraced it, and is therefore not entitled to it, as a person.

The peerage is not guaranteed, it is discretionary.

And it would be a delicious irony if a man who so ignored tradition himself, found that came back to bite him. You play with fire, you get burnt.

(The man is utterly vile and bumptious by the way. I suppose that makes him therefore a shoo in as a Lord, sigh...)
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#17
(Original post by DiddyDecAlt)
Sounds to me then that we need to reform both of the Houses, but nobody will touch either with a bargepole because they are more worried about their votes than the country.

It is all well and good when we have traditions and precedent, but without accountability it is too open to abuse.
The alternative is a written constitution. That would give the power to decide these matters to unelected judges, answerable only to themselves. A whole different set of contentions and problems.

The American system works even less well than ours, I would argue.
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 weeks ago
#18
(Original post by generallee)
The question is though whether Bercow the person was worthy of his office, and performed it in the national interest?

I would argue that he utterly disgraced it, and is therefore not entitled to it, as a person.

The peerage is not guaranteed, it is discretionary.

And it would be a delicious irony if a man who so ignored tradition himself, found that came back to bite him. You play with fire, you get burnt.

(The man is utterly vile and bumptious by the way. I suppose that makes him therefore a shoo in as a Lord, sigh...)
I agree with you and I did not like Bercow the person. He played many games with the rules of the House that favoured a particular side, then denied he was doing such. When he retired, he publicly stated his opposition to Brexit that completed contradicted his earlier claims of being an impartial referee.

Despite the above, I think the Speaker position is one of those elements that one should avoid personalising. Having Bercow there wont destroy the House of Lords.
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 weeks ago
#19
(Original post by generallee)
The alternative is a written constitution. That would give the power to decide these matters to unelected judges, answerable only to themselves. A whole different set of contentions and problems.

The American system works even less well than ours, I would argue.
I would prefer the power to be in the hands of judges than politicians, judges aren't trying to keep anyone happy simply ensuring the law is carried out as written. Politicians don't really answer to anyone once they get their seat, it is what allows ****wits like Grayling to hold power for so long.

The American system is deeply flawed in part by allowing judges to be elected by the President, they are no longer impartial.
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#20
Well the latest I have heard is that Bercow is accusing Boris of rushing through the most recent set of peerages so as to ensure he remains in limbo.

The current charges against him won't be completed in time, by the Lords, it seems.

Not too worried by that, if true. And pleased that Bercow is annoyed by it all. What goes around comes around, dwarfy.
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

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (531)
66.79%
No (264)
33.21%

Watched Threads

View All