Westminster Politics

Full bodied red said:
Just confirming what everyone knew about him yet the obnoxious little dwarf continued to deny it to the very end.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...is-uks-biggest-mistake-since-second-world-war
Click to expand...

Bercow’s absolutely right. He’s not without his faults but he has risen to the occasion over the last 12 months and done his best to stop an out of control executive frogmarching the country of the EU. I’d save the “obnoxious little dwarf” moniker for Johnson’s consigliere, who has yet to explain what he was up to in the lawless post-Soviet Russia of the mid-90s.
 
Full bodied red said:
Just emphasising his lack of inches....And the fact he's not very tall, either....
Click to expand...
If you can't win an argument through facts and logic, resort to puerile personal insults. You're certainly a Tory boy in your leader's mould.
 
Jippy said:
If you can't win an argument through facts and logic, resort to puerile personal insults. You're certainly a Tory boy in your leader's mould.
Click to expand...

Know me well, do you ??

Of course you don't.

And so you've no more idea than the man in the moon who I am

Nor do you know how I would vote if I ever did vote.

I might consider Tory Boy a puerile personal insult as well, but I'll just accept you've almost certainly had a humour bypass at some distant point in your sad life.
 
Full bodied red said:
Know me well, do you ??

Of course you don't.

And so you've no more idea than the man in the moon who I am

Nor do you know how I would vote if I ever did vote.

I might consider Tory Boy a puerile personal insult as well, but I'll just accept you've almost certainly had a humour bypass at some distant point in your sad life.
Click to expand...
Nah, mocking someone because of their height is on a par with mocking them because of their sex, race, ability or age, it's something they have no choice over. Live and learn. Learn, move on.
 
Full bodied red said:
Know me well, do you ??

Of course you don't.

And so you've no more idea than the man in the moon who I am

Nor do you know how I would vote if I ever did vote.

I might consider Tory Boy a puerile personal insult as well, but I'll just accept you've almost certainly had a humour bypass at some distant point in your sad life.
Click to expand...
Jokes are meant to be funny though.
 
711 said:
Nah, mocking someone because of their height is on a par with mocking them because of their sex, race, ability or age, it's something they have no choice over. Live and learn. Learn, move on.
Click to expand...


Let's not be too selective, please. Where was your advice / admonishment for @Solius ( Staff, no less ) on September 7th in the UK General Election thread

' Can all the old people hurry up and die please '

OK....I've now consider myself to have lived and learned....That humour on here is very selective.
 
Full bodied red said:
Let's not be too selective, please. Where was your advice / admonishment for @Solius ( Staff, no less ) on September 7th in the UK General Election thread

' Can all the old people hurry up and die please '

OK....I've now consider myself to have lived and learned....That humour on here is very selective.
Click to expand...
For the record I do think Solius's comment was disgraceful. I don't know if anyone reported it at the time but I wouldn't have blamed them if they did. Hopefully both of you will consider the error of you ways. And yeah, I've probably said worse at times too, we're all human in reality.
 
Sassy Colin said:
I don't get it, was the 2nd WW a mistake? I am rather glad we didn't let the Nazis overrun the country. I guess it was a massive mistake for Germany though, I guess that's what he means?
Click to expand...
I was confused by that too. I’m guessing he means appeasement that lead up to WWII was a mistake?
 
Full bodied red said:
Just confirming what everyone knew about him yet the obnoxious little dwarf continued to deny it to the very end.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...is-uks-biggest-mistake-since-second-world-war
Click to expand...
His personal opinion only matters if it caused him to act ultra vires or caused some sort of abuse of process. Do you have a concrete example of that? Correlation is not causation. He might think A, and the proper procedures might piss off people who think B and please others who think A, and it won’t be BECAUSE the speaker thinks A that he does what he does. It will be because those are the procedures in place.

Ultimately unless you can prove he abused his role you are just criticising him for having an opinion and then claiming he denies it while sharing an article of him expressing that opinion. If you think he acted beyond whatever discretion he may have then I’m genuinely interested in when that happened. If he acted within that discretion then tough shit that you don’t like it frankly, he’s acting within his authority to act. As he said himself no one complains when his decisions work in their favour.

For the record I’m not a Brit but I do work for a general assembly so maybe I care more about SoP and proper procedure/functions than some more partisan/ideological people on here.
 
Charlie Foley said:
His personal opinion only matters if it caused him to act ultra vires or caused some sort of abuse of process. Do you have a concrete example of that? Correlation is not causation. He might think A, and the proper procedures might piss off people who think B and please others who think A, and it won’t be BECAUSE the speaker thinks A that he does what he does. It will be because those are the procedures in place.

Ultimately unless you can prove he abused his role you are just criticising him for having an opinion and then claiming he denies it while sharing an article of him expressing that opinion. If you think he acted beyond whatever discretion he may have then I’m genuinely interested in when that happened. If he acted within that discretion then tough shit that you don’t like it frankly, he’s acting within his authority to act. As he said himself no one complains when his decisions work in their favour.

For the record I’m not a Brit but I do work for a general assembly so maybe I care more about SoP and proper procedure/functions than some more partisan/ideological people on here.
Click to expand...


Last one from me - Bercow really isn't worth it. He's history as far as Brexit is concerned, and no doubt will now make £ zillions on the after-dinner speaking circuit like all controversial politicos.

Two years ago, following the 2017 general election, Bercow went back on his previous intention to step down some time in 2018. He had changed his mind, he said, and intended to serve for the entire Parliament, due to end in 2022. Why extend his tenure in the Speaker’s chair then curtail it? The extra time meant that it was Bercow, rather than a new Speaker, who chaired debates on a Brexit deal. And what a role he has played. The Speaker’s impartiality has gone out of the window as Bercow has given rebels an advantage, sometimes quoting precedent and sometimes discarding it.


It was thanks to Bercow that the Commons was able to seize the business of the Commons a fortnight ago under Standing Order 24 – a process by which backbenchers can demand an emergency debate. It is in the Speaker’s discretion whether to allow such a debate – and applications are rarely successful. Bercow has chosen to announce his departure on the very day that the resulting law completes its passage through Parliament.


In January this year Bercow allowed Dominic Grieve to table an amendment to a government procedural motion – a type of motion, as Theresa May protested, which is not normally amendable. Commons clerks had advised the Speaker on that point. Bercow, however, decided that he would innovate. ‘I am not in the business of invoking precedent, nor am I under any obligation to do so,’ he said. ‘If we were guided only by precedent, nothing would ever change.’ The amendment – requiring the government to come to the Commons within three days and explain how it intended to proceed – was duly passed by the Commons.


Yet two months later, when it suited him, Bercow turned into a great stickler for precedent. Theresa May was keen to bring a third vote on her Brexit deal before the Commons, having suffered heavy defeats in her first two attempts. Bercow ruled that the Commons could not be allowed to vote on it, because it was a motion substantially unchanged since the last attempt. He justified this by quoting a convention dating back to 1604 and which, he said, had been used a dozen times since, though not since 1920.


There is only one explanation for these two opposing attitudes towards observance of precedent – by realising that in both cases Bercow was acting clearly in the interests of those who are trying to thwart Brexit. His bias has shown up several times, too, in his choice of which amendments to select for debate. In March, for example, he selected two motions which would have allowed MPs to seize control of the business of the House of Commons away from the government (in the event both of which were rejected by narrow margins). He blocked, on the other hand, a motion which would have allowed MPs to rule out a second referendum on Brexit. In January, when Theresa May was on her first attempt to pass her EU withdrawal bill, Bercow similarly rejected an amendment which would have put a time limit on the Irish backstop.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/09/john-bercow-and-the-abandoning-of-the-speakers-impartiality/

 
Full bodied red said:
Last one from me - Bercow really isn't worth it. He's history as far as Brexit is concerned, and no doubt will now make £ zillions on the after-dinner speaking circuit like all controversial politicos.

Two years ago, following the 2017 general election, Bercow went back on his previous intention to step down some time in 2018. He had changed his mind, he said, and intended to serve for the entire Parliament, due to end in 2022. Why extend his tenure in the Speaker’s chair then curtail it? The extra time meant that it was Bercow, rather than a new Speaker, who chaired debates on a Brexit deal. And what a role he has played. The Speaker’s impartiality has gone out of the window as Bercow has given rebels an advantage, sometimes quoting precedent and sometimes discarding it.


It was thanks to Bercow that the Commons was able to seize the business of the Commons a fortnight ago under Standing Order 24 – a process by which backbenchers can demand an emergency debate. It is in the Speaker’s discretion whether to allow such a debate – and applications are rarely successful. Bercow has chosen to announce his departure on the very day that the resulting law completes its passage through Parliament.


In January this year Bercow allowed Dominic Grieve to table an amendment to a government procedural motion – a type of motion, as Theresa May protested, which is not normally amendable. Commons clerks had advised the Speaker on that point. Bercow, however, decided that he would innovate. ‘I am not in the business of invoking precedent, nor am I under any obligation to do so,’ he said. ‘If we were guided only by precedent, nothing would ever change.’ The amendment – requiring the government to come to the Commons within three days and explain how it intended to proceed – was duly passed by the Commons.


Yet two months later, when it suited him, Bercow turned into a great stickler for precedent. Theresa May was keen to bring a third vote on her Brexit deal before the Commons, having suffered heavy defeats in her first two attempts. Bercow ruled that the Commons could not be allowed to vote on it, because it was a motion substantially unchanged since the last attempt. He justified this by quoting a convention dating back to 1604 and which, he said, had been used a dozen times since, though not since 1920.


There is only one explanation for these two opposing attitudes towards observance of precedent – by realising that in both cases Bercow was acting clearly in the interests of those who are trying to thwart Brexit. His bias has shown up several times, too, in his choice of which amendments to select for debate. In March, for example, he selected two motions which would have allowed MPs to seize control of the business of the House of Commons away from the government (in the event both of which were rejected by narrow margins). He blocked, on the other hand, a motion which would have allowed MPs to rule out a second referendum on Brexit. In January, when Theresa May was on her first attempt to pass her EU withdrawal bill, Bercow similarly rejected an amendment which would have put a time limit on the Irish backstop.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/09/john-bercow-and-the-abandoning-of-the-speakers-impartiality/
Click to expand...
Ok boomer.
 
Full bodied red said:
Last one from me - Bercow really isn't worth it. He's history as far as Brexit is concerned, and no doubt will now make £ zillions on the after-dinner speaking circuit like all controversial politicos.

Two years ago, following the 2017 general election, Bercow went back on his previous intention to step down some time in 2018. He had changed his mind, he said, and intended to serve for the entire Parliament, due to end in 2022. Why extend his tenure in the Speaker’s chair then curtail it? The extra time meant that it was Bercow, rather than a new Speaker, who chaired debates on a Brexit deal. And what a role he has played. The Speaker’s impartiality has gone out of the window as Bercow has given rebels an advantage, sometimes quoting precedent and sometimes discarding it.


It was thanks to Bercow that the Commons was able to seize the business of the Commons a fortnight ago under Standing Order 24 – a process by which backbenchers can demand an emergency debate. It is in the Speaker’s discretion whether to allow such a debate – and applications are rarely successful. Bercow has chosen to announce his departure on the very day that the resulting law completes its passage through Parliament.


In January this year Bercow allowed Dominic Grieve to table an amendment to a government procedural motion – a type of motion, as Theresa May protested, which is not normally amendable. Commons clerks had advised the Speaker on that point. Bercow, however, decided that he would innovate. ‘I am not in the business of invoking precedent, nor am I under any obligation to do so,’ he said. ‘If we were guided only by precedent, nothing would ever change.’ The amendment – requiring the government to come to the Commons within three days and explain how it intended to proceed – was duly passed by the Commons.


Yet two months later, when it suited him, Bercow turned into a great stickler for precedent. Theresa May was keen to bring a third vote on her Brexit deal before the Commons, having suffered heavy defeats in her first two attempts. Bercow ruled that the Commons could not be allowed to vote on it, because it was a motion substantially unchanged since the last attempt. He justified this by quoting a convention dating back to 1604 and which, he said, had been used a dozen times since, though not since 1920.


There is only one explanation for these two opposing attitudes towards observance of precedent – by realising that in both cases Bercow was acting clearly in the interests of those who are trying to thwart Brexit. His bias has shown up several times, too, in his choice of which amendments to select for debate. In March, for example, he selected two motions which would have allowed MPs to seize control of the business of the House of Commons away from the government (in the event both of which were rejected by narrow margins). He blocked, on the other hand, a motion which would have allowed MPs to rule out a second referendum on Brexit. In January, when Theresa May was on her first attempt to pass her EU withdrawal bill, Bercow similarly rejected an amendment which would have put a time limit on the Irish backstop.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/09/john-bercow-and-the-abandoning-of-the-speakers-impartiality/
Click to expand...
I’m busy at work so will reply later or tomorrow
 
Full bodied red said:
Last one from me - Bercow really isn't worth it. He's history as far as Brexit is concerned, and no doubt will now make £ zillions on the after-dinner speaking circuit like all controversial politicos.

Two years ago, following the 2017 general election, Bercow went back on his previous intention to step down some time in 2018. He had changed his mind, he said, and intended to serve for the entire Parliament, due to end in 2022. Why extend his tenure in the Speaker’s chair then curtail it? The extra time meant that it was Bercow, rather than a new Speaker, who chaired debates on a Brexit deal. And what a role he has played. The Speaker’s impartiality has gone out of the window as Bercow has given rebels an advantage, sometimes quoting precedent and sometimes discarding it.


It was thanks to Bercow that the Commons was able to seize the business of the Commons a fortnight ago under Standing Order 24 – a process by which backbenchers can demand an emergency debate. It is in the Speaker’s discretion whether to allow such a debate – and applications are rarely successful. Bercow has chosen to announce his departure on the very day that the resulting law completes its passage through Parliament.


In January this year Bercow allowed Dominic Grieve to table an amendment to a government procedural motion – a type of motion, as Theresa May protested, which is not normally amendable. Commons clerks had advised the Speaker on that point. Bercow, however, decided that he would innovate. ‘I am not in the business of invoking precedent, nor am I under any obligation to do so,’ he said. ‘If we were guided only by precedent, nothing would ever change.’ The amendment – requiring the government to come to the Commons within three days and explain how it intended to proceed – was duly passed by the Commons.


Yet two months later, when it suited him, Bercow turned into a great stickler for precedent. Theresa May was keen to bring a third vote on her Brexit deal before the Commons, having suffered heavy defeats in her first two attempts. Bercow ruled that the Commons could not be allowed to vote on it, because it was a motion substantially unchanged since the last attempt. He justified this by quoting a convention dating back to 1604 and which, he said, had been used a dozen times since, though not since 1920.


There is only one explanation for these two opposing attitudes towards observance of precedent – by realising that in both cases Bercow was acting clearly in the interests of those who are trying to thwart Brexit. His bias has shown up several times, too, in his choice of which amendments to select for debate. In March, for example, he selected two motions which would have allowed MPs to seize control of the business of the House of Commons away from the government (in the event both of which were rejected by narrow margins). He blocked, on the other hand, a motion which would have allowed MPs to rule out a second referendum on Brexit. In January, when Theresa May was on her first attempt to pass her EU withdrawal bill, Bercow similarly rejected an amendment which would have put a time limit on the Irish backstop.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/09/john-bercow-and-the-abandoning-of-the-speakers-impartiality/
Click to expand...
Biased article accuses others of bias. A lot of that article just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Certainly overlooks the remainder debates he didn't allow to be debated or the procedural guidance he also offered Brexiters.
The part on the timing of his departure is utter bs.
 
Businesses expect UK economy to slow further in 2020

Businesses expect UK economic growth to slow further next year as the US-China trade war and Brexit uncertainty continue to weigh on industry.
The Confederation of British Industry (CBI), which represents 190,000 businesses, said on Monday it expects UK GDP to grow by just 1.2% in 2020, down from the expected 1.3% growth rate this year.
The CBI blamed Brexit for the weak economic picture, along with the US-China trade war which is hurting global growth rates.
“Should these dual headwinds subside, we expect a gradual pick-up in activity,” said Rain Newton-Smith, CBI’s chief economist.
“But the bigger picture is one of fairly modest growth over the next couple of years – growth that should be far better, given the UK’s relative strengths.”
The CBI’s weak forecast is in fact based on a best case scenario for Brexit that sees the UK leave the EU on 31 January and make smooth progress negotiating an “ambitious” trade deal with the EU that allows frictionless trade. If reality falls short of these expectations, the CBI expects GDP to grow by just 1% in 2020.
“Transforming a lost decade of productivity will only be possible if supported by a good Brexit deal – one that keeps the UK aligned with EU rules where essential for frictionless trade along with protecting the UK’s world-beating services sector, which accounts for 80% of our economy,” Newton-Smith said.
The CBI said consumer spending would continue to account for the lion’s share of growth, but government spending would also provide a growing boost thanks to major spending pledges from both main parties. Business investment is forecast to essentially flatline.
Separately, Make UK, the manufacturers lobbying group, on Monday downgraded growth forecasts for growth in its sector. Make UK and accountants BDO forecast manufacturing growth of just 0.3% in 2020, down from an earlier forecast of 0.6%. However, this would represent a pick-up on the 0.1% growth expected in 2019.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.