The new Anglo-American 'Special Relationship' ends the "Blair Doctrine"

You are mistaken, that tradition does not exist. For example at 2010 General Election, Nigel Farage and a John Stevens both stood against Bercow as did a BNP candidate. And at the 2015 General Election, UKIP and the Green Party fielded candidates against Bercow.

You appear to be commenting on Tuesday's proceedings; Bercow's outburst took place on Monday.

That doesn't stop him being a hypocrite though nor does it excuse the embarrassment he caused to Lord Fowler the Lords' Speaker.

In a subsequent post I wrote:

This is incorrect. Bercow's immediate predecessor was Michael Martin and it was he, not Bercow, who succeeded Betty Boothroyd.

Well this will set the cat among the pigeons. Yesterday The Royal Institute of International Affairs ('Chatham House') published the results of a survey of more than 10,000 respondents in ten European countries and found that an average of 55% agreed with the proposition that migration from predominantly Muslim countries should cease. The fieldwork for this survey was carried-out before Trump announced his travel ban.

​

​

There is an understanding between the main parties that they will not put up a candidate against the Speaker. Fringe parties like the BNP and UKIP don't consider themselves bound by this.

There may be an informal understanding but there's no convention or requirement. From Wikipedia:

"When Speaker Edward FitzRoy, previously a Conservative MP, was opposed by a Labour Party candidate at the 1935 general election, there was strong disapproval from other parties and a sub-committee of the Cabinet considered whether a special constituency should be created for the Speaker to remove the obligation to take part in electoral contests. The sub-committee came to the conclusion that Parliamentary opinion would not favour this suggestion; however, in December 1938, with a general election expected within a year or so, a motion from the Prime Minister was put down to nominate a Select Committee to examine the suggestion.[7] The committee, chaired by former Prime Minister David Lloyd George, reported in April 1939 that no change should be made; it found that preventing opposition to a sitting Speaker would be "a serious infringement of democratic principles" and that "to alter the status of the Speaker so that he ceased to be returned to the House of Commons by the same electoral methods as other members or as a representative of a Parliamentary constituency would be equally repugnant to the custom and tradition of the House".[8][9]

[...]

In the past, the Speaker could sometimes be returned unopposed; this has not happened in the last few decades, but they have sometimes faced opposition only from fringe candidates.

However, the convention that major parties do not stand against the Speaker is not as firmly established as is sometimes suggested. Generally, former Labour Speakers have faced only fringe candidates, but former Conservative Speakers have faced major party candidates. The Labour and Liberal parties stood against Selwyn Lloyd in both elections in 1974, and Labour and the SDP stood against Bernard Weatherill in 1987. Speakers who represented Scottish or Welsh constituencies have also faced nationalist opponents: Plaid Cymru stood against George Thomas in 1979, and the Scottish National Party stood against Michael Martin in 2001 and 2005. At the 2010 general election, Speaker John Bercow faced Nigel Farage, former and new leader of UKIP, who obtained 17.4% of the vote (up from 3.5%), and John Stevens, from the Buckinghamshire Campaign for Democracy party, who obtained 21.4% of the vote. Bercow won with only 47% of the vote."

I can recall that objections were raised against the fielding of candidates against Selwyn Lloyd in the 1974 elections, on the grounds that "the custom is that the Speaker is returned un-opposed." But I cannot recall why both Labour and the Liberal parties (I was then a Labour party member) put in candidates against him.

The tradition DOES exist.

Betty Boothroyd stood as "Speaker" in the West Brom West election of 1997 against an "Independent Labour" and a "National Democrats" candidates. None of the mainstream parties opposed her.

None of the Mainstream parties opposed Michael Martin in 2001 either (just the SNP who were hardly mainstream back then).

And it doesn't alter the fact that Bercow IS NOT a Tory MP as you claimed.

Bernard Weatherill did get some opposition for his seat from Labour in '87, and George Thomas stood against a weak Plaid Cymru and a NF candidate in '79.

I was commenting on Tuesday's proceedings, and in three points of order raised following the Housing debate, the only complaint was for the habit of applauding during speeches.

I could link in some Youtube videos of adult-Trump making fun of a disabled reporter here, but I doubt it would be welcome.

Bercow is well in order, it is he who decides what happens in Parliament - not Theresa May, nor the Queen.

Hey, why not do it if it makes you feel good!

Not on his own, there are two other keyholders whose approval must be sought and that forms part of the basis for Lord Fowler's sharp words.

Either way, it is in Bercow's remit as Speaker of the House. Further, people wrongly say that he has to be "impartial". That may be true when he is presiding over debates involving a number of political parties, but it is not true when he is prompted for any opinion on the matters of the House.

OK



Yep, that's definitely an exhibition of behaviour that is way above Bercow's "childish" behaviour.

He was not prompted for an opinion, his outburst occurred whilst ruling on a point of order. Today an MP laid down a question the Prime Minister in which he sought an assurance that the government would not veto a vote of no confidence in the Speaker but Bercow refused to call him during PMQs. Bercow's most unwise rant could cause irreparable damage to Britain's relationship with the United States with the result that any post-Brexit trade deal is cancelled. He has to go and be replaced by Lindsay Hoyle who, as a Deputy Speaker, is respected by all sides of the House for his impartiality and fair-mindedness: attributes missing in the incumbent.

Blame a nation for one man?! You may not like him, Mrs May may share your views - as indeed may many in the country - but she and the government hide any disdain they may feel in Britain's interest. You may not care about any negative effect the parliamentary pipsqueak's purple prose has on Anglo-American relations but many - most - do.

Maybe what really irks you is that Trump is actually keeping his electoral pledges, his promises to the American people.

However the people whose opinion actually matters disagree with you:

​

Yes it is definitely a price worth paying without a shadow of a doubt, there is more to life than the economy, the economy will look after itself inside or outside the EU, with or without Trump.

Worry not

Isn't that what you are suggesting Trump may do because of Bercow?

If the majority of people in the US agree with the travel ban on Muslims then the ban should be reinstated rightly or wrongly.

You know as well as I that there is a big perceptual difference. Trump's voice is perceived to be singular whereas Bercow is the elected spokesman of elected representatives of the British people - he speaks for the people.

I have to agree. It is interesting to note that those who speak-out against Trump's temporary travel ban continue to silently condone the permanent travel ban imposed on Israelis - and anyone else with an Israeli stamp in their Passport. Such hypocrisy does them no credit.