Cookie Notice

However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Monday, 16 September 2019

Rogue Parliament - Rogue Speaker

When I was a youngster there was a dinosaur factoid about the time it would take a nerve impulse to travel from the tip of a Diplodocus' tail to its minuscule brain. I've still no idea whether it was true or not for dinosaurs, but it's a convenient metaphor for the lag between a change in public mood and the realisation of that change by our MPs. At times the message doesn't get through at all, as in the case of status and expenses. Contrary to every single snapshot of public opinion, MPs, like the models in the cosmetics adverts, believe they're worth it. They really do imagine that they're special.

Yet over the weekend another poll appeared that confirmed once more that our MPs are utterly mistaken in their high opinion of themselves. The ComRes poll for the Express hasn't at time of writing appeared on the ComRes site so I must rely on the paper's published excerpts.
- 73% of Remain voters think Parliament is in desperate need of reform
- 85% of Leave voters think Parliament is in desperate need of reform

- 73% of all voters think Parliament does not attract the brightest and the best
One MP in Parliament thinks he is even more special than anyone else - the vile and meretricious Speaker Bercow, the sanctimonious dwarf who has, more than any other MP, trashed our democratic nexus. He is defending nothing but his own tattered reputation, standing for nothing greater than his personal notoriety, committed to nothing but his own egoistic fantasies. And the British public are united in their view of his disastrous time in the chair - he has helped destroy confidence in Parliament.

My hope is that our only saving grace is the venality, cupidity and self-interest of MPs themselves. Faced with this crisis of confidence, they will agree to sacrifice the Lords to save themselves. It may be too little too late. Janet Daley writes in the Telegraph -
... even if the Leave case wins through, the damage that has been done to British political life is horrendous. We seem to have imported two of the worst features of the American tradition. First there is gridlock. In the US this occurs when one party has the presidency and the other controls Congress, thus making government inoperable. This should not be possible in the British system since the executive is comprised of the majority, or a functioning minority, in parliament. But the Speaker and Continuity Remain have found a way to abolish the principle of democratic consent which once accepted this arrangement.

Then there is the US predilection for a losing side to try to sue its way to victory with continuous vexatious litigation. This is alien not only to our customs but to our national understanding of the role of politics and the function of the law.
My own view is that the system, the configuration, is robust. It has been corrupted by a Rogue Parliament and a Rogue Speaker, a man who should never in a million years have been elevated to the chair. I just hope we can cull them, throw them from the place, eject them and reclaim OUR Parliament and OUR democracy free from these vulgar weasels.
An excellent graphic from the Daily Express


Stephen J said...

There does not seem to be anything that bloke does that doesn't in some way undermine his own sinecure?

In short, a product of north-west London that is not much different to Jihadi John in his ardour to undermine everything unique.

.... and what is the betting that the replacement is the worst possible choice from 650 deviants with room temperature iq's...?

Someone like Harriet Harperson, whose revolting son I was subjected to last night, lefty bile oozing from the contraption in the corner.

NB: I caught an interview between Brendan O'Neill and David Starkey, and apart from Starkey's foul mouth, it was thoroughly worthwhile listening to his excoriation of the current Mr. Speaker.

DeeDee99 said...

Bercow may be British (2nd generation) but he isn't English. He has no understanding let alone respect for the way our Parliament developed over the centuries.

I hope Raedwald will forgive me adding a link, but this interview between Brendan O'Neill of Spiked! and David Starkey on Brexit/Parliament/the Constitution is well worth listening to.

Bloke in North Dorset said...

David Starkey on the Brendan O'Neill show is worth a listen on this subject:

John in Cheshire said...

The Poison Dwarf and the Remainer Rats aren't afraid of we the People and that's the problem that must be addressed.

If it was my decision, I'd hang a few of them. But in the real world, Prime Minister Johnson needs to come up with a plan to ensure the ring leaders at least, are punished. Expelling some of the treacherous rats from the Conservative party is a step in the right direction but he needs to go much further. They all seem to love power and money so depriving them of both must form a part of the punishment.

decnine said...

The System is not robust. A well designed System would be so arranged that it cannot be corrupted. The useful service that Bercow has performed is to make it crystal clear that the idea of Parliamentary Sovereignty has passed its sell-by date. The processes set in motion by the Great Reform Act now demand that, in the UK, the People are Sovereign and Parliament is their servant. A first step in that direction must end Mr Speaker's sovereign powers in the Commons.

Stephen J said...

@decnine: I don't know of any democracy that is more sound than ours. Given the right amount of treachery any democracy can be traduced or hollowed out. There is no doubt that the speaker has undermined 200 years of democratic convention, and then hoisted himself up to his full 5' and said, what a good boy am I... to which we all replied... NO YOU HAVEN'T, FUCK RIGHT OFF!

The significant difference between the USA and its forerunner the UK, from the European model is that the former are based on Magna Carta, which limits the Kings power to that which he can enforce. He has to persuade parliament that what he wants, should be granted.

The European systems, usually following civil unrest, developed codified systems. Such systems make slaves of every common man.

Is it any wonder that we voted to leave that imposition, that which we were never consulted on?

The speaker has misunderstood the difference between parliamentary sovereignty and political sovereignty. The first is derived from the crown, the second from the fact that the commons depends on our votes in order to take office.

As Starkey says, his abandonment of preceding convention should (if there is any justice) lead to a motion to strike down his 10 years as inconsequential to that convention. Anything he said should be struck down and treated as having never happened.

JPM said...

If you had a poll asking if all speed limits should be removed from motorways, or whether councils should be abolished, then you'd probably get a sizeable majority too.

It's why referendums, without a proper constitutional framework, in a country like this are a silly idea.

Switzerland understand this, and have a proper system for them.

Stephen J said...


On the contrary, so many motorists have been battered into the idea that they are evil, that I suspect the reverse would be the case... e.g. the speed limits are not regressive enough. And as for councils, when we regain control of our nation (once again), I would like to see the county councils restored to their rightful place as important components of the British Constitution.

The Swiss only understood the concept of direct democracy, following years of conflict between the counties (cantons), but instead of abolishing them as traitor heath did, they enhanced their individual power by recognising that the citizens are sovereign. Power should NEVER be too remote from the people that it wishes to have power over... We know about power and its abilities.

Practice vs Theory.

Dave_G said...

How much of Parliamentary corruption is 'by design'? Bercow can only influence Politicians, he cannot make them do the things he infers they should so as bad as he is the Politicians themselves are worse for 'using' his suggestions when they could, quite clearly, ignore them.

As for a Swiss-type system I suggest that had they offered the same referendum to their people they wouldn't be arsing around delaying the application of a LEAVE vote the way the Remainers have been allowed to.

rapscallion said...

You're wrong on this one Radders. If the system or configuration is "robust" then it should be incorruptible, but it isn't. It very clearly isn't, and with lawyers getting in on the act we are on a very slippery slope if we allow the judiciary to have the final word.

Mark said...


There is nothing "silly" about a referendum in this country. The referendum was held for a specific purpose and the requisite legislation was put in place together with the solemn promise to respect the outcome.

There is no need to rehash the grotesque petulance when the peasantry didn't do what they were told.

JPM said...

A fifty-two to forty-eight result cannot change the Swiss, nor any other country's constitution of which I am aware.

European Union membership is generally constitutional for the other twenty-seven members.

The Swiss also feature age-weighted voting, for permanent changes which will affect the young the longest.

Raedwald said...

EU membership was NEVER constitutional for the UK - it was a trade and joint customs agreement. Our absence of a written constitution actually prevented the traitors from selling our nation's birthright - a fact that many citizens of EU27 countries are only now coming to realise. No UK Parliament can EVER bind its successor.

I expect we can have another referendum in 20 years or so to see if there's a majority to join the EU then, Cheesy .... oh no, I forgot - you don't want any more referendums, do you?

Sackerson said...

@JPM: I agree that it would be horribly divisive and cumbersome to have referendums on everything, But this is not a run-of-the-mill issue and I repeat what I said in response to the previous post:

"It's not silly to decide what country you belong to. It's a stretch of the Royal Prerogative to make us citizens of Europe without asking us - by the same token we might have been forcibly absorbed into Tuvalu or Uzbekistan."

I'm sure you have the intelligence to discriminate between quotidian and extraordinary decisions; i.e. you are not silly and nor are we.

John Brown said...

Raedwald you are certainly an irredeemable optimist!

I believe we have witnessed a coup where EUtists in Parliament, led by a partial Speaker, are cheating on their voters by not respecting either the referendum result or their own election manifestos and in some cases moving to parties with an opposing view with absolutely no intention of resigning to hold a by-election to check if they still have a mandate for their Parliamentary votes.

Even worse, some are colluding with a foreign power to weaken our country’s negotiating position.

Having tasted power through this coup I am not expecting this Parliament to be voting anytime soon for a GE. In fact I can even see them holding onto power until they either vote to revoke Article 50 and for the EU to have struck Article 50 off the EU Lisbon treaty, or for us to have signed a treaty where we are a permanent colony of the EU with no lawful means of exit.

Although I take your point that the MPs are slow to understand the public mood, I believe it is the public who have yet to fully comprehend that a coup has taken place and their freedom, sovereignty and voting rights are about to be taken from them.

Parliament’s intended result will not bring any certainty for business and will not be popular with the electorate as the EU’s directives, laws, rules, regulations, tax harmonisations and policies (trade, energy, environment, foreign, immigration etc ) rain down upon them whilst they have no representation or veto or lawful means of exit.

It is a recipe for social and political upheaval and the current MPs will carry the blame.

I can only hope that “no Parliament can bind future Parliaments” will still hold true.

JPM said...

Fortunately for him, Alexander Johnson can rely upon the near-total absence of memory amongst his sycophants.

However, let me assist, in that he said that he would not even begin to speak with the European Union's officials unless the backstop were removed, didn't he?

It has not been, but he is with Jean-Claude Juncker right now.

Span Ows said...

"Factoid"...hate that word and misused although these days it's probably "allowed". -oid as a suffix means "resembling" i.e. anthropoid, asteroid, android, humanoid, alkaloid etc., so does a 'factoid' mean 'resembling' a fact...not really a fact?

Agree with most of the above especially r_writes Esq. at 09:07 re Starkey's words"' Bercow's 'abandonment of preceding convention should (if there is any justice) lead to a motion to strike down his 10 years as inconsequential to that convention. Anything he said should be struck down and treated as having never happened.'

Anonymous said...

JPM said @ 11:10

'The Swiss also feature age-weighted voting, for permanent changes which will affect the young the longest.'

Funny you should mention age because overtime people do change their minds, like back in '75 when the older generation were keener on membership - the exact opposite of today because, well as I commented a few days ago it's all to do with experience. Back then it was a Common Market and folk with a few miles on the clock thought it a good idea, the young not so much. Those who were young in '75 had had the experience of 40 odd years of membership and when they had the chance like in 2016 said: "fuck this for a game of soldiers" I'm voting out this time.

The 1975 EEC referendum

Analysis of data from the BES 1974-75-79 panel study shows how different demographic groups and party supporters voted at the 1975 referendum. The results presented below are generally based on analysis of the October 1974 cross-section and the reinterview of that same sample via a postal survey conducted after the referendum. Based on demographic factors – shown in Figure 1 – 71 per cent of men voted to stay, as did 73 per cent of women. The pattern of voting across age groups showed that support for staying in the EEC was actually higher amongst older age groups: 80 per cent of those aged 65 and older voted in favour of membership, compared to 73 per cent and 72 per cent, respectively, of those aged 45-64 and 30-44; it was lowest at 62 per cent of those aged 18-29.

The referendums of 1975 and 2016 illustrate the continuity and change in British Euroscepticism


W. Fields said...

Looks like Brexit Boris went rogue at today's press conference with Mr. Bettel.

More a case of the Invisible Man rather than the Hulk?

Anonymous said...

@Mark said

"solemn promise" … I have a bridge between Scotland and Ireland that I can sell you.

The lads have just moved it from its cross-Channel site. Hardly used and we can take down the Boris plaque if you want to add your leader's name instead.

Mark said...

@Anonymous 17:14

From the Reichsbank website

"On the front of both series of euro banknotes, windows and doorways are shown. They symbolise the European spirit of openness and cooperation. The bridges on the back symbolise communication between the people of Europe and between Europe and the rest of the world"

Actually I think Boris's bridge would look good on the billion or maybe the trillion. They must be looking at designs already. They're going to need them.

Well Guy what can we see through the round window? Oh look, it's your empire!

John Brown said...

JPM @ 14:18 : “However, let me assist, in that he said that he would not even begin to speak with the European Union's officials unless the backstop were removed, didn't he?”

I expect you are right although there is still a chance that the EU have indicated a willingness to compromise but are not yet prepared to admit it in public until the very last moment.

It is also very sensible of our PM to not advance in public any solution to the backstop because, as we know from Mr. Varoufakis, the EU will immediately rubbish anything that is put to them, however good it is, meaning any solution will have to look like it has been an EU idea.

fnord said...

‪John in Cheshire‬ said...
The Poison Dwarf and the Remainer Rats aren't afraid of we the People and that's the problem that must be addressed.

When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.

--Stuff Thomas Jefferson said.

This is why there's the 2nd amendment

fnord said...

The form of government in immaterial when you select liars and traitors to run it.

fnord said...

The four boxes that guarantee liberty.
Soap box
Ballot box
Jury box
Cartridge box

Looks like Parliament is ignoring the first three.
Times are fixin' to get sporty.

JPM said...

fnord, that is mainly the fault of the large proportion of moral degenerates among the electorate, who are either so blinded by their own vices as to be incapable of judgement, or else who actively wish for their own kind to be in power, or who can't even be bothered to vote.

Mark said...


Aren't those "moral degenerates" who can't even be bothered to vote part of your grand alliance of pro european patriots? You made it perfectly clear they didn't want to leave.

You really are a tool!

JPM said...

No, I never claimed that Mark, simply that no one else could claim that they did.

You really are, etc.

Mark said...


Every time you are called out on anything its always "I didn't say that did I?"

All you can do I suppose.

If it makes you feel better to vent your loathing and frustration here, better than doing it in the real world.

You would have to actually skulk away to hoots of derision. I'm assuming here you are actually old enough to go into a pub.

Bloke in North Dorset said...

The much lamented Fat Bigot Opines wrote an excellent essay quite some time ago, years before the Brexit referendum, in which he opined that those who choose not to vote are, by default, accepting the decision of those who do vote.

As a Barrister he made a very compelling case. Unfortunately I can't find it but whenever I raise it I'm yet to see an equally compelling case against.

Sackerson said...

@Bloke: I think that opinion is correct. Qui tacet, consentire, i.e. "I'll go alnong with whatever you guys decide."