He totally broke the rules (and went against advice) to save Labour from political embarrassment. Whatever the moral rights and wrongs of the wider issues he has succeeded in pi**ing everyone off except his old mates. Now the Tories are rumoured to be putting up a candidate against him at the election in breach of convention. Just like he breached it. What a thick twa*. Worse than that he has allowed the role of Speaker to become politicised, just like in America. Pathetic.
Speaker of the House of Commons
- Thread starter blup
- Start date
- Joined
- 28 Apr 2004
- Messages
- 7,634
- Reaction score
- 713
- Country
Why is this in Electrics?
I will have to consult BS7671 and get back to you
There is no mechanism to remove the Speaker
What did he do that was so bad that he needs to resign? As far as I can see, nothing on the scale of illegally proroguing Parliament and (probably) lying to the Queen.
The issue seems to be that the Speaker chose a different order for voting on amendments than the usual one. Why was that so important in this particular situation. Why did it cause the Tories and SNP to turn Parliament into a circus?
The issue seems to be that the Speaker chose a different order for voting on amendments than the usual one. Why was that so important in this particular situation. Why did it cause the Tories and SNP to turn Parliament into a circus?
It was blatantly political, because the convention (i.e. the rules) is to take the government amendment first after the main motion is voted on. Labour faced a an embarrassing rebellion if that happened, so they were allowed to put their amendment in and have it heard first, which is when everyone else walked out. So, far from allowing a wide range of opinions which the Speaker said justified his ruling, there was no debate at all. In any event there would have been the debate even without the labour amendment, so his justification was wrong. Totally insincere for the Speaker then to apologise for a consequence of his own biased making. The illegal postponing of parliament and pushing through Brexhit without legislation were both worse, the significance is that labour are now playing these games.
Would be interesting to know what Labour have on the Speaker or what he's been promised or threatened with. Bring back Berkow indeed.
I think the government amendment would actually be taken before the vote on the main motion. But that technicality aside, it still doesn't explain why it was so important, in this situation, for the votes to be held in this way. Apart from being a breach of precedent, what practical difference would it have made. Parliamentary rules are flexible at the discretion of the Speaker and evolve with time. It all seems a bit pathetic.
The only explanation I can see is that the Tories and SNP were less interested in having a dignified debate and vote, on this important matter, and more interested in putting Labour in a hole for their own political advantage. That is not the purpose of Opposition Days. They are to hold the government to account, not settle scores between two different opposition parties.
It's all ridiculous anyway, the Israelis aren't interested in what UK political parties, or Prince William, thinks about a ceasefire. They might take some notice of the US, but that's about it.
"Any more of a circus" might be more apt.
Bunch of tnucs, more concerned with preening and getting their snouts in the trough and their egos massaging, than getting anything of any worth done.
Is Michael Massi the speaker now ?
That just about sums it up, we can puff and blow all day long , the israelis won't take a jot of notice, only if uncle sam stops funding them , maybe then.
I thought so too, but on checking it appears the normal approach is reversed. I imagine its a procedural bias in favour of the government of the day, but off nonetheless.
Its important precisely because there is no check or balance on the speaker's powers other than kicking him out at the end of his term. Or making life very difficult for him, most MP' have secrets or embarrassing personal details to hide. But just think about it, if the Speaker can effectively do what he likes, government could be paralysed. That's why conventions are as important, more so, than hard and fast legal rules. They carry the power to change them. On top of that he has acted with the most obvious party political bias and succumbed to pressure. That alone suggests he is not fit for the role. But revenge will be a dish served cold in this case, I imagine.
Creating a score to settle is precisely the consequence of the Speakers meddling.