Twitter | Search | |
Stephen Bush Oct 16
Fair play to Margaret Beckett for having the honesty to set out the calculation. Better that than the astonishing hypocrisy and playacting from Labour MPs today:
Reply Retweet Like
Stephen Bush Oct 16
Replying to @stephenkb
The problem is, she's wrong about the trade-off: a Parliament with a majority to assert itself with the right Speaker is also a Parliament with a majority to elect the right Speaker:
Reply Retweet Like
Stephen Bush
Frankly cringeworthy to hear members of a party whose literal name is about workplace rights say the things Labour MPs have said in the House today:
At least the Derby South MP has the courage to own the grim calculation her colleagues are making.
New Statesman New Statesman @NewStatesman
Reply Retweet Like More
Richard Fletcher Oct 16
Replying to @stephenkb
Great piece ...
Reply Retweet Like
Stephen Bush Oct 16
Replying to @fletcherr
Thanks!
Reply Retweet Like
Chris ward Oct 16
Replying to @stephenkb
Dammit. I didnt see your follow up tweets before my earlier reply. My apologies.
Reply Retweet Like
Stephen Bush Oct 16
Replying to @rampitchfork
No worries.
Reply Retweet Like
Marina Hyde Oct 16
Replying to @stephenkb
Thank you. Found today so grim.
Reply Retweet Like
Rhammel O’Dwyer-Afflick Oct 16
Replying to @stephenkb
I have not been able to follow this story... will watch the debate in the Commons and then read this.
Reply Retweet Like
Edwin Hayward Oct 16
Replying to @stephenkb
I believe their concern is that they may need the Speaker - whichever Speaker - to make the motion in neutral terms that comes after 21 January 2019 amendable. Is it not possible to both keep JB in post until then and still investigate historic allegations against him after that?
Reply Retweet Like
Edwin Hayward Oct 16
Replying to @stephenkb
Not that the above is even close to ideal, but it would mean that should a finding of wrongdoing ultimately be made, he won't "get away with it" for very long. Or is there an obvious wider element I'm missing? (apologies if so)
Reply Retweet Like
Will Cooling Oct 16
Replying to @stephenkb
Great piece. Also think Bercow and his supporters playing the Brexit card to delay his exit risks turning the Speaker into more explicitly partisan role moving forward
Reply Retweet Like
Hackbencher Oct 16
Replying to @stephenkb
Glad you state what Labour seem to be missing about pinning hopes on Bercow being a waste of time as well as unpalatable. Even from cynical perspective you'd think now is the best time to ensure next Speaker is someone sympathetic to amendment processes and tolerable for Lab...
Reply Retweet Like
Miriam Peck Oct 16
Replying to @stephenkb
Thank you for this.
Reply Retweet Like
Neil Oct 16
Replying to @stephenkb
The so called moderates have been propping up Corbyn for 2 years promising ‘enough is enough’ but doing nothing. Why would you imagine they’d be upset by a little bullying if doing something about it meant they might lose political face.
Reply Retweet Like
Sarah Amis Oct 16
Replying to @stephenkb
In fairness Jess Philips was strong on this I thought. good piece as always
Reply Retweet Like
Tom 'Cold Fury' Buckley Oct 16
Replying to @stephenkb
I love Stephen Bush and the points here are valid. However, it is also prudent to say that removing John Bercow now may have minimal effect on how parliament works and therefore may have little effect on professionalising the culture and lessening the likelihood of reoccurence
Reply Retweet Like
Tom 'Cold Fury' Buckley Oct 16
Replying to @stephenkb
The place is built wrong. Patronage is too powerful. It needs root and branch reform that allows it operate like a professional workplace. Too much power is held by parties who are asked to mark their own homework.
Reply Retweet Like
PaulPopper Oct 16
Replying to @stephenkb
Labour, party of anti-Semitic cults, terrorist apologists, grooming rape gang covering up, and looking the other way about women bullied and sexually harassed.
Reply Retweet Like
Wendy Sturdy Oct 16
Replying to @stephenkb
Reply Retweet Like