BBC chases Commons Speaker John Bercow in street for honouring precedent to block Theresa May’s contempt of parliamentary democracy
As the SKWAWKBOX predicted yesterday, John Bercow’s decision to honour parliamentary process by preventing Theresa May returning endlessly to Parliament with the same deal to wear down MPs and run down the clock toward Brexit has put the Commons Speaker in the Establishment’s crosshairs.
All too predictably, the right-wing press has screamed headlines of betrayal and crisis, while Conservative talking heads have spouted endlessly about the lack of trust in Bercow and demanded to know how he ‘dares’ to thwart May’s excuse for a plan.
And the BBC has been little better. This morning, as Bercow tried to get to Parliament to begin his working day, he was hounded by a BBC reporter, repeating a puerile demand to know whether Bercow thought he had made the right decision – clearly he does, or he would have decided differently:
The reporter also questioned Bercow’s decision – on the grounds it has ‘annoyed’ some people – because in January he was attacked for not following precedent when he allowed a vote on Dominic Grieve’s amendment to a motion the government tried to claim was unamendable.
But the common thread in both cases was obvious: democracy.
In January, the government was trying to abuse precedent to keep running down the clock by taking three weeks at a time between votes, to corner MPs into backing a deal they rejected massively – and Grieve’s amendment was to shorten the time taken to a maximum of three days.
And now, May is trying to ride roughshod over democracy by ignoring precedent, to corner and wear down MPs – again by running down the clock while bringing the same awful, dismal deal back over and over again for new votes on exactly the same thing.
The BBC has shamed itself – again. Journalist Ian Fraser called it:
SKWAWKBOX comment:
Bercow honours democracy and has refused to let the Tory government abuse and pour contempt on it. For that, the Establishment intends to make him pay. That includes the BBC – even more dominated by Tories than usual since 2010 – hounding him.
The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here for a monthly donation via GoCardless. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.
If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
It’s amazing how the BBC have staff for this and to door step Corbyn and others most days of the week yet they don’t have the staff to research real stories and have to rely on paper coverage of all events.
The bb effin c have now nailed their colours clearly to the mast. They have made it quite apparent that they are not merely a reporting organisation but working to someone else’s agenda. How long are they going to be allowed to use public money to do this?
Hahaha, Bercow, who’s in his wife’s Blairite pocket, has played a blinder, ruling out May’s faux leaving in place of leave or be kicked. Into the long grass forever…and you can’t even see it.
Come now Swkawkbox since when has the BBC behaving appallingly to anyone who gives the Tories are hard time been news? The hounding of John Bercow was totally predictable and this is probably only the start of it.
The BBC also seem to very concerned about the way Theresa May’s image – how she is presented . The BBC has showed her on quite a few Sundays walking to church, shaking hands with the vicar etc – it reminded me of the queen going to Christmas church service at Sandringham – very regal. Compare this with the way they present Jeremy Corbyn e.g. they digitally altered his cap to make it look like a Russian Cap and thereby reinforce the false narrative that he is Pro- Russian / a Stalinist /Marxist/ Communist /Trot/spy / national security risk etc etc.
The BBC is a national disgrace.
And the current series on radio 4 ‘the brexit prime minister’ – all slavishly positive and ingratiating of course
He dared stop the tories harranguing mps for the third vote on the same thing. He applied Erskine’s rule, and followed procedure, and that is his job.
I like Bercow’s jumper though. A very good choice for blending in outside Parliament…
She’d have lost the third MV anyway.
If he is still Speaker when we have a Labour govt do you suppose he would favour the Corbynista governmental minority or the Blairite backbencher majority? The best interests of socialists is served by a Speaker whose impartiality is unquestionable and is never questioned. Cut the hero worship Skwarkie and think longer term.
Brecow’s ruling was undoubtedly sound. Which is what one requires of a speaker/chair.
I reckon that managing this shit-show is quite a task, given the ludicrous situation in which parliament has placed the country.
I listened to PMQ’s today (not an affliction to which I’m often prone). Corbyn did well, despite the usual narrative to which he is subjected – and May just went on like ….well … a repetitive Maybot.
BUT – standing back, it is obvious that the whole ‘debate’ is hampered by Labour placing itself in the impossible position of opposing without contradicting the central non-fact that the referendum (non) result demonstrated the ‘democratic’ ‘will of the people’.
… which it patently didn’t. That’s simply a fantasy, loading an indecisive minority decision with a significance that any intelligent life-form would recognize as just that – indecisive.
The shit-show that is parliament is – in actuality – reflecting its closeness to the reality of the public view – not it’s distance. The country as a whole has become a diminished shit-fest and laughing stock as a result of the earlier playground games over the referendum and Article 50.
The symbolically impartial man from Mars (the intelligent life-form) would recognize that the only sane objective would be to negotiate a way out of a stupid commitment to an incoherent policy objective supported by just over a third of the electorate – and, bye-the-bye, a third that contained a large proportion who didn’t understand the question (beyond what they were told in the right-wind propaganda sheets) – let alone the answer.
Trouble is – both major parties have elevated this non-decision to the level of Peeple Swill – and find it hard to back down and tell the truth.
And it shows every day as the eating of humble pie is refused in favour of more hemlock. Practically, the third referendum solution isn’t a great option – but it may be the only sustainable one, although pseudo-democrats will wet their pants at the idea of actually re-testing the validity of their propaganda.