[KevS]

Dennis Skinner. That'd be a lark.

[mattomac]

Likely to be Hoyle isn't it, he seems to have a similar approach to Bercow , who on standing down wouldn't surprise me if he went Independent.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Dennis Skinner. That'd be a lark.

It would indeed. Skinner's never been up for any actual work at any time in his 'career'.

[Arrowhead]

Likely to be Hoyle isn't it, he seems to have a similar approach to Bercow , who on standing down wouldn't surprise me if he went Independent.

I believe what usually happens is that a retiring Speaker is immediately elevated to the House of Lords. Which, in turn, would result in an interesting by-election in Buckingham, where of course in 2010 Farage was beaten into third place by a pro-EU independent candidate.

Incidentally, the last time Labour held this constituency was in 1964, where the successful candidate was a certain Robert Maxwell.

[youngian]

A spirited defence of Bercow's career as speaker from Peter Hitchens

Beware of attempts to smear and undermine the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow. They are dangerous and wrong. I dislike much about Mr Bercow, from his drippy politically correct opinions to his scorn for tradition. On the other hand, I know him to be intelligent, original and thoughtful.

Full disclosure: he once gave me a lift to a public meeting in his Buckingham constituency, during which we had a fascinating conversation. He did not call anyone ‘stupid’, or attempt any form of harassment or bullying.

But that’s not really the point. The point is that the Government is far too powerful, and the House of Commons is far too weak. And Mr Bercow has made the Commons a tougher place than it was. By using his fairly limited powers, he has repeatedly forced Ministers to come to the House to face urgent questions on topical matters.

This is doubly good. First, it brings Parliament back to the centre of national life, instead of being a snoozy, mostly empty room in which the Government plods through its business and hardly any topical matter ever gets in. Few who have not worked there realise just how little happens in the chamber, most of the time, and how totally the Government gets its way.

Second, it forces Ministers, who quickly become arrogant in office, to come and explain what is going on, immediately, while the issue is still hot and the public are still angry about it. They really don’t like it, and they also don’t like the way Mr Bercow lets question sessions carry on until the awkward squad have had a chance to bowl difficult balls at Ministers.

In the pre-Bercow age, it was easy for front-benchers to blather on, use up the minutes and so prevent these troublesome questions from ever being asked.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... z5Gonjh9mH

[Bones McCoy]

A spirited defence of Bercow's career as speaker from Peter Hitchens

Beware of attempts to smear and undermine the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow. They are dangerous and wrong. I dislike much about Mr Bercow, from his drippy politically correct opinions to his scorn for tradition. On the other hand, I know him to be intelligent, original and thoughtful.

Full disclosure: he once gave me a lift to a public meeting in his Buckingham constituency, during which we had a fascinating conversation. He did not call anyone ‘stupid’, or attempt any form of harassment or bullying.

But that’s not really the point. The point is that the Government is far too powerful, and the House of Commons is far too weak. And Mr Bercow has made the Commons a tougher place than it was. By using his fairly limited powers, he has repeatedly forced Ministers to come to the House to face urgent questions on topical matters.

This is doubly good. First, it brings Parliament back to the centre of national life, instead of being a snoozy, mostly empty room in which the Government plods through its business and hardly any topical matter ever gets in. Few who have not worked there realise just how little happens in the chamber, most of the time, and how totally the Government gets its way.

Second, it forces Ministers, who quickly become arrogant in office, to come and explain what is going on, immediately, while the issue is still hot and the public are still angry about it. They really don’t like it, and they also don’t like the way Mr Bercow lets question sessions carry on until the awkward squad have had a chance to bowl difficult balls at Ministers.

In the pre-Bercow age, it was easy for front-benchers to blather on, use up the minutes and so prevent these troublesome questions from ever being asked.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... z5Gonjh9mH

I'll climb back onto my chair and calmly state that I think Hitchens has nailed it here.

The mainstream media have a chunk of the cabinet in their pockets, and are denouncing anything: Lords, Judges, MPs, devolved administrations, caahncils, academics, actors, PC BBC..
Anything that seeks to make Government accountable.

And there lies the absolute poison of "Take back control".
The question is not "From whom", but to whom will it be given once it's been taken.
And the answer's not at all palatable.

[Arrowhead]

It seems Speaker Bercow has been caught displaying a "Don't Blame Me, I Voted Remain" sticker on his car. He might as well have painted an enormous target sign on his forehead - he probably won't last the summer now.

[Catkins]

I'll climb back onto my chair and calmly state that I think Hitchens has nailed it here.

I agree that Bercow has been an excellent Speaker. But if the accounts coming out are true, then he's been a vile employer, who has driven some of his staff to a breakdown through his bullying. If it were one complaint, you could put it down to score settling, but repeated complaints from people which are consistent in their allegations? I want a strong Speaker, but don't want to adopt the sort of attitude you sometimes see in business - you can be a big a bastard as you like so long as you are profitable. If you are in a public service role, there are certain standards of behaviour you should adhere to. Being so abusive that your staff need psychiatric care is beyond the pale.

If he is driven out, it will be a self-inflicted defeat.

[The Weeping Angel]

I'll climb back onto my chair and calmly state that I think Hitchens has nailed it here.

I agree that Bercow has been an excellent Speaker. But if the accounts coming out are true, then he's been a vile employer, who has driven some of his staff to a breakdown through his bullying. If it were one complaint, you could put it down to score settling, but repeated complaints from people which are consistent in their allegations? I want a strong Speaker, but don't want to adopt the sort of attitude you sometimes see in business - you can be a big a bastard as you like so long as you are profitable. If you are in a public service role, there are certain standards of behaviour you should adhere to. Being so abusive that your staff need psychiatric care is beyond the pale.

If he is driven out, it will be a self-inflicted defeat.

Indeed we can't turn a blind eye to bad behaviour just because he happens to be on 'our' side.

[Abernathy]

I've noticed that Bercow particularly often objects to members "chuntering on" "from a sedentary position".

Is it better if they stand up?

Also : "OARRRDUUURRRRRRRRR !"

[Bones McCoy]

I've noticed that Bercow particularly often objects to members "chuntering on" "from a sedentary position".

Is it better if they stand up?

Also : "OARRRDUUURRRRRRRRR !"

Not a squaker though.
He has a fairly deep voice for a chap of moderate stature.