John Bercow - Speaker of the House - quits

[Zak33]

He said he will leave on 31st October.

Sorry it's this paper but https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-a9097981.html
that links shows his emotional speech.

I should think Big Boris J is feeling a little sore ......

So...what does THIS mean for the Conservative Party now?

[peterb]

Well, it will be good to have an impartial speaker again.

History will probably write him down as a reforming speaker, he has empowered the back benchers, for better or for worse.

Does raise the question of why....

[philehidiot]

He was been pretty good up until recently. And funny. He clearly couldn't keep his own politics separate from business and that's kind of the most important part of the speaker's role.

Whichever side you're on, the person adjuicating MUST be impartial or either one side gets an advantage or one side loses legitimacy. I think he has only added to the impression that parliament is suberting the will of the people and that's just bad for everyone.

I'm glad he has seen sense as I suspect he didn't really see he was doing it initially, however obvious it was from the outside. In that kind of job you're always going to have people shouting at you and saying you're being unfair and screening those out (essential) means you're also going to screen out legitimate and well meaning critique.

Whilst I haven't agreed with some of what he has done, I think he has been well meaning.

[Top_gun]

Well, it will be good to have an impartial speaker again.

John Bercow, showed how impartial he was by defying Boris Johnson.

[Saracen999]

The impartiality point is a good one, and by his own words, he wasn't. So, good riddance.

But .... where are we going to find a new speaker that's truly impartial on the B-subject.

Also, I wave to wonder if this has any relation to the other B-word subject ..... Bullying. He is on the receiving end of multiple allegations of some pretty offensive actions, not only towards some junior MPs but more importantly, towards Commons staff. If true, and the complainants certainly seemed credible to me, it's pretty reprehensible.

I'm surprised people aren't tripping up in the Commons constantly, judging by how much stuff seems to get swept under the carpet.

[Saracen999]

John Bercow, showed how impartial he was by defying Boris Johnson.

Exactly the opposite. He is self-declaredly determined to stop no-deal with "every fibre of his being". That is, putting his own policy preferences above that of the government, Whether right ir wring is arguable, but impartial it isn't,

[Top_gun]

Exactly the opposite. He is self-declaredly determined to stop no-deal with "every fibre of his being". That is, putting his own policy preferences above that of the government, Whether right ir wring is arguable, but impartial it isn't,

That is your own bias opinion. The reality is that he has acted in the interest of parliament and ensuring parliamentary sovereignty in its say over the Brexit deal.

[Top_gun]

He was been pretty good up until recently. And funny. He clearly couldn't keep his own politics separate from business and that's kind of the most important part of the speaker's role.

Whichever side you're on, the person adjuicating MUST be impartial or either one side gets an advantage or one side loses legitimacy. I think he has only added to the impression that parliament is suberting the will of the people and that's just bad for everyone.

I'm glad he has seen sense as I suspect he didn't really see he was doing it initially, however obvious it was from the outside. In that kind of job you're always going to have people shouting at you and saying you're being unfair and screening those out (essential) means you're also going to screen out legitimate and well meaning critique.

Whilst I haven't agreed with some of what he has done, I think he has been well meaning.

Must have eaten too much Brexit biscuits lately.

[Saracen999]

That is your own bias opinion. The reality is that he has acted in the interest of parliament and ensuring parliamentary sovereignty in its say over the Brexit deal.

What rubbish. It's not my opinion at all. The whole point of impartiality is to not be partial to any position and in his own words, he is utterly partial. It is not impartiality when he declares he'll do everything he can to stop one policy. Whether he acted for those reasons or not is entirely irrelevant to partiality. He simply isn't supposed to favour any position.

[Zak33]

That is your own bias opinion. The reality is that he has acted in the interest of parliament and ensuring parliamentary sovereignty in its say over the Brexit deal.

Dont think it's bias -think its fact tbh. He has tried to derail verious parts of Parliaments job of leaving with a quote as placed by Saracen in that post.

[Top_gun]

Dont think it's bias -think its fact tbh. He has tried to derail verious parts of Parliaments job of leaving with a quote as placed by Saracen in that post.

John Bercow was simply doing his job in the interest of Parliament which he is, of course, paid to do.

Looks like there's a load of sour grapes from the Brexit part of the Tories. See how nasty these people are when throwing a tantrum.

[Saracen999]

John Bercow was simply doing his job in the interest of Parliament which he is, of course, paid to do.

Looks like there's a load of sour grapes from the Brexit part of the Tories. See how nasty these people are when throwing a tantrum.

That's the point - he wasn't.

The job of Speaker is unique in parliament, and both critical and central to that is impartiality. He's the debate referee, the umpire. It's why he, or she, gives yup party allegiances and why, by long-standing tradition, neither party stands candidates against him/her in elections.

He/she is supposed, in an ideal workd, not to have opinions on policy matters, but if they do, to never either show them and certainly not act on them.

That is utterly essential to retain the confidence of both main parties to be fair, and ... impartial. It is a quasj-judicial role, perhaps the ultimate quasi-judicial role. I exactly the same way, actual judges are duty-bound to uphold laws, regardless of any personal opinions they may hold about guilt or innocence, at least until acjury verdict is rendered.

It is the Speaker's job to neutrally manage debates, not to bend or change traditions to suit his own views which, by his own admission, is exactly what he has and intends to do.

Ascsoon as he does that, as soon as he ceases to be impartial, he/she loses that neutrality necessary to be trusted by hith sides - and sets a very dangerous precedent.

It is certainly notvhis job to act partially, even if he thinks ir's in the best interests of the country, because he isn't supposed to have a view on what that best interest is. Every other MP can do that, but the Speaker should not.

If we lose the best tradition of Speaker impartiality, what if the next Speaker happened to hold far right views, and acyt in a partial manner to force a hard right agenda on parliament, because he/she thinks that is in the best interests of the country.

We have a constitution largely formed of history, tradition and respect for both, and the danger is the Speakers job is a central defender of that tradition. Once he sets the precedent of activism based on his own opinions, he sets in motion the route for any future Speaker to skso break traditions because it suits his own viewpoint, and agenda.

The Speaker must be impartial or it poses a serious risk to the whole edifice.

[Top_gun]

That's the point - he wasn't.

The job of Speaker is unique in parliament, and both critical and central to that is impartiality. He's the debate referee, the umpire. It's why he, or she, gives yup party allegiances and why, by long-standing tradition, neither party stands candidates against him/her in elections.

He/she is supposed, in an ideal workd, not to have opinions on policy matters, but if they do, to never either show them and certainly not act on them.

That is utterly essential to retain the confidence of both main parties to be fair, and ... impartial. It is a quasj-judicial role, perhaps the ultimate quasi-judicial role. I exactly the same way, actual judges are duty-bound to uphold laws, regardless of any personal opinions they may hold about guilt or innocence, at least until acjury verdict is rendered.

It is the Speaker's job to neutrally manage debates, not to bend or change traditions to suit his own views which, by his own admission, is exactly what he has and intends to do.

Ascsoon as he does that, as soon as he ceases to be impartial, he/she loses that neutrality necessary to be trusted by hith sides - and sets a very dangerous precedent.

It is certainly notvhis job to act partially, even if he thinks ir's in the best interests of the country, because he isn't supposed to have a view on what that best interest is. Every other MP can do that, but the Speaker should not.

If we lose the best tradition of Speaker impartiality, what if the next Speaker happened to hold far right views, and acyt in a partial manner to force a hard right agenda on parliament, because he/she thinks that is in the best interests of the country.

We have a constitution largely formed of history, tradition and respect for both, and the danger is the Speakers job is a central defender of that tradition. Once he sets the precedent of activism based on his own opinions, he sets in motion the route for any future Speaker to skso break traditions because it suits his own viewpoint, and agenda.

The Speaker must be impartial or it poses a serious risk to the whole edifice.

I'm sure John Bercow knows how to do his job properly after doing it for at least 10 years.

[Top_gun]

Just one more thing, John Bercow has more political integrity in his little finger then the whole of the thuggery Tory government.

[peterb]

If the stories about how he treats his staff are true, the term “thug” is a good description of Bercow - along with mysogonist.

[Top_gun]

If the stories about how he treats his staff are true, the term “thug” is a good description of Betcow - along with mysogonist.

Pales in comparison with the Tory party. For example, John Bercow has not allowed his staff to be escorted off premises by armed police.