Will UKIP put up a candidate against Bercow? ....

Posted: Fri 26 Jun 2009 9 02 am

.... And if they do, will they win?

That would be interesting.

Joined: 13 Aug 2005 Posts: 2902

It would be bad form to do so. If they did I don't see them having much chance of winning.

Joined: 03 Jan 2006 Posts: 593

Not sure why it would be bad form. It is, after all, an election, and Bercow will only be defeated if the people decide not to support him. If there is no contest, then the people will be denied their say. Even the Speaker should be answerable at the ballot box.

As things stand, I'm not sure who would win that seat. He was, after all, found to have fiddled his expenses like many others. Much depends on how his constituents feel about that.

Posted: Fri 26 Jun 2009 1 29 pm

Sandman wrote:

Not sure why it would be bad form.

By convention parties do not run candidates against the speaker.

Although I believe some of the smaller parties have done.

I'm sure TJ knows better than I.

Posted: Fri 26 Jun 2009 3 35 pm

If by " smaller parties" you mean Labour, Lib-Dem and SNP, then yes. They have done so in the past, and would do so again at the drop of a hat,if it suited them, Dog.

Only the Conservatives can be relied upon to behave like gentlemen - and even then, not always .....

Joined: 05 Nov 2005 Posts: 2977 Location: North of Watford

Bestbear wrote:

If by " smaller parties" you mean Labour, Lib-Dem and SNP, then yes. They have done so in the past, and would do so again at the drop of a hat,if it suited them, Dog.

Only the Conservatives can be relied upon to behave like gentlemen - and even then, not always .....

So are a "convention" and a "gentleman's agreement" the same thing?

Spartacus

Posted: Sat 27 Jun 2009 10 04 pm

Spartacus wrote:

Bestbear wrote:

If by " smaller parties" you mean Labour, Lib-Dem and SNP, then yes. They have done so in the past, and would do so again at the drop of a hat,if it suited them, Dog.

Only the Conservatives can be relied upon to behave like gentlemen - and even then, not always .....

So are a "convention" and a "gentleman's agreement" the same thing?

Spartacus

Pretty much, I would say .... Yes.

Joined: 05 Nov 2005 Posts: 2977 Location: North of Watford

And would you say that the honouring of the convention/gentleman's agreement by the Conservatives might just have had something to do with the fact that for the vast majority of the twentieth century, the Speaker was a Conservative?

Spartacus

Posted: Sun 28 Jun 2009 6 22 am

The last three speakers have all come from the Labour Party, and Bercow might just as well be. He even speaks with a new Labour accent!

As you know, the convention is that the Speaker abandons his former political allegiances and acts impartially. Lord Tonypandy was entirely even-handed, and so was Betty Boothroyd - both exemplars of impartiality. Speaker Martin, on the other hand, was a Labour man to his fingertips in Speaker's robes, and anything but impartial. He often appeared to be the government's stooge, to the annoyance of the other parties.

And forget the Socratic dialogue, Sparty. You're no Socrates. No takers here!

Joined: 05 Nov 2005 Posts: 2977 Location: North of Watford

Bestbear wrote:

And forget the Socratic dialogue, Sparty. You're no Socrates. No takers here!

Well, that's ME told, Aerost .... sorry, Bestbear! Wink

So are you adding "No Socratic Dialogue" to the list of your rules on your ... sorry, Bulldog's site?

Of course that would have to be "No Socratic Dialogue except that initiated by Bestbear".

And If you really knew your classics, you'd realise that I'd actually asked two separate questions. Not Socratic at all. As my American friends would say, you show, as ever, that you're "Part Smart".

The simple point I was making was that the Conservatives had a monopoly of the Speaker's Chair for most of the twentieth century - hence it was easier for them to adhere to the "gentleman's agreement". QED.

As to your snobby point about Bercow's accent, Speaker Thomas, of course (who I once had the privelege of hearing) had a very pronounced Welsh accent. But you find that one "acceptable," I presume ...

Spartacus

Posted: Sun 28 Jun 2009 5 03 pm

I find the new labour accent perfectly acceptable, Sparty. I merely noted that there is one, and that Bercow shares it. Nothing snobbish about the observation! The Millibands have it, and so does Mr Balls. And so does Mr Squeaker, which is interesting to those of us who observe such things - not to you, of course.

Mandelson, however, does not speak New Labour, and never falls into the mockney favoured by NewLabSpeak. He is a Krispy-Kleen RP speaker.

You will hear all kinds of accents in the mess these days, I am told. There was once only one "non-received" accent considered fully acceptable: that of the Scottish gentlemen. Now, though, anything goes. Is that an improvement, do you think?

Joined: 05 Nov 2005 Posts: 2977 Location: North of Watford

Bestbear wrote:

And so does Mr Squeaker

Surely that should be "Speaker"?

Oh sorry, Bestbear, I'd forgotten that the requirement to be "courteous" without making "personal attacks" only applied to us lesser mortals, not to
you ... Wink

Spartacus

Posted: Sun 28 Jun 2009 9 52 pm

Mr Squeaker is not a member of this forum, as far as I know?

Gator, on the other hand, is .....

Joined: 05 Nov 2005 Posts: 2977 Location: North of Watford

Bestbear wrote:

Mr Squeaker is not a member of this forum, as far as I know?

Gator, on the other hand, is .....

And, of course, the late Mr. Jackson wasn't a member either.

So Soldier Boy can say what he likes with your blessing.

Now I'm understanding how you run your board, Bestbear ...

Have a word with Steph ... sorry, Bulldog ... and let him know what what you've decided, won't you? Wink

Spartacus

Posted: Mon 29 Jun 2009 6 33 am

Spartacus wrote:

Now I'm understanding how you run your board, Bestbear ...

Have a word with Steph ... sorry, Bulldog ... and let him know what what you've decided, won't you? Wink

Spartacus

Your continued presence refutes that Sparty.

Joined: 13 Aug 2005 Posts: 2902

Spartacus wrote:

And would you say that the honouring of the convention/gentleman's agreement by the Conservatives might just have had something to do with the fact that for the vast majority of the twentieth century, the Speaker was a Conservative?

Was the Speaker a Conservative for the vast majority of the 20th century? That's certainly news to me.

Joined: 05 Nov 2005 Posts: 2977 Location: North of Watford

tjwmason wrote:

Spartacus wrote:

And would you say that the honouring of the convention/gentleman's agreement by the Conservatives might just have had something to do with the fact that for the vast majority of the twentieth century, the Speaker was a Conservative?

Was the Speaker a Conservative for the vast majority of the 20th century? That's certainly news to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Speakers_of_the_British_House_of_Commons#Speakers_of_the_House_of_Commons_of_the_United_Kingdom_from_1801

Pretty solid for the first two-thirds of the century.

Spartacus

Joined: 13 Aug 2005 Posts: 2902

Spartacus wrote:

tjwmason wrote:

Spartacus wrote:

And would you say that the honouring of the convention/gentleman's agreement by the Conservatives might just have had something to do with the fact that for the vast majority of the twentieth century, the Speaker was a Conservative?

Was the Speaker a Conservative for the vast majority of the 20th century? That's certainly news to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Speakers_of_the_British_House_of_Commons#Speakers_of_the_House_of_Commons_of_the_United_Kingdom_from_1801

Pretty solid for the first two-thirds of the century.

That list doesn't say that the Speakers were Conservatives, rather that before they assumed the office they were Conservatives.

Joined: 05 Nov 2005 Posts: 2977 Location: North of Watford

tjwmason wrote:

That list doesn't say that the Speakers were Conservatives, rather that before they assumed the office they were Conservatives.

That's a little Socratic, tjw! Shhh ... Be careful that Bestbear doesn't hear ... Wink

Start again. The point I was making is that the reason that the Conservatives were so good at observing the convention of not opposing the Speaker in a general election was that, for most of the twentieth century, the speaker was drawn from their own ranks.

Point made?

Spartacus

Joined: 13 Aug 2005 Posts: 2902

Spartacus wrote:

That's a little Socratic, tjw! Shhh ... Be careful that Bestbear doesn't hear ... Wink

Socratic - I thought we'd established elsewhere that personal insults weren't allow, bloody Socrates. Laughing

Spartacus wrote:

Start again. The point I was making is that the reason that the Conservatives were so good at observing the convention of not opposing the Speaker in a general election was that, for most of the twentieth century, the speaker was drawn from their own ranks.

Point made?

I can see your point, though naturally had to be a pedantic bastard like what I am...however, I don't see the connexion between the Speaker having been drawn from the ranks of the Conservatives and their willingness not to contest the Speaker's seat.

Joined: 05 Nov 2005 Posts: 2977 Location: North of Watford

tjwmason wrote:

Spartacus wrote:

That's a little Socratic, tjw! Shhh ... Be careful that Bestbear doesn't hear ... Wink

Socratic - I thought we'd established elsewhere that personal insults weren't allow, bloody Socrates. Laughing

Spartacus wrote:

Start again. The point I was making is that the reason that the Conservatives were so good at observing the convention of not opposing the Speaker in a general election was that, for most of the twentieth century, the speaker was drawn from their own ranks.

Point made?

I can see your point, though naturally had to be a pedantic bastard like what I am...however, I don't see the connexion between the Speaker having been drawn from the ranks of the Conservatives and their willingness not to contest the Speaker's seat.

Shh ... do I hear someone mixing hemlock? Wink

Yes, you are, of course, correct that the Speaker becomes non-party when s/he is elected. But it would take greater naivete than you or I have to pretend that either his/her ex-colleagues or constituents would not continue to regard him/her - at least subliminally - as "one of their own".

Spartacus

Posted: Mon 29 Jun 2009 1 40 pm

Spartacus wrote:

Yes, you are, of course, correct that the Speaker becomes non-party when s/he is elected. But it would take greater naivete than you or I have to pretend that either his/her ex-colleagues or constituents would not continue to regard him/her - at least subliminally - as "one of their own".

I don't think the current one is regarded as "one of their own" by most Tories.

Joined: 05 Nov 2005 Posts: 2977 Location: North of Watford

Bulldog wrote:

Spartacus wrote:

Yes, you are, of course, correct that the Speaker becomes non-party when s/he is elected. But it would take greater naivete than you or I have to pretend that either his/her ex-colleagues or constituents would not continue to regard him/her - at least subliminally - as "one of their own".

I don't think the current one is regarded as "one of their own" by most Tories.

He is, though.

Spartacus

Joined: 03 Aug 2006 Posts: 809

Rumour had it that Bercow was about the "Cross the floor" to Labour.

Apparently, only 3 Tories voted for him to be Speaker.

Not quite "one of their own". More of a double agent.

Joined: 05 Nov 2005 Posts: 2977 Location: North of Watford

Highlander wrote:

Rumour had it that Bercow was about the "Cross the floor" to Labour.

Apparently, only 3 Tories voted for him to be Speaker.

Not quite "one of their own". More of a double agent.

Hmmm ... maybe.

I don't remember anything about that in the press or even in the blogs but maybe you can enlighten me.

It's a rum business right enough ... but politicians are a rum lot. One of the things I realised during the period of my life when I was moving around quite a lot was that many politicians aren't as tribal as they seem. I've met Labour and Liberal politicians in the North who, were they living in the South, would have been quite happy to be Tories if it meant getting into local government ... and vice-versa.

Spartacus

Joined: 03 Aug 2006 Posts: 809

I tok my information from the Today show on BBC radio 4 - which I think can be counted as press (media at least).
Political interviews from both sides seemed to confirm this.
Not sure if there is a link to it on the web, but google might offer something.

Joined: 05 Nov 2005 Posts: 2977 Location: North of Watford

Highlander wrote:

I tok my information from the Today show on BBC radio 4 - which I think can be counted as press (media at least).
Political interviews from both sides seemed to confirm this.
Not sure if there is a link to it on the web, but google might offer something.

I'd certainly accept that as a reasonable source, Highlander. Thanks.

Can you remember who was interviewed? Can't believe how out of the loop I am these days. Must start listening to the radio more!

Spartacus