
The Government had put down a motion to achieve that end and Labour MPs wanting to object to it shouted “object” at the wrong time – a few seconds early.
If Bercow hadn’t encouraged then moments later to shout “object” again, the motion would have passed and the debate been limited.
Interestingly, last night the ‘three hour limit’ motion was on the order paper again but, when given the opportunity, the Government whip declined to move it.
Today we find another motion is down to be moved at about 7pm. But this time the motion limits the tuition fees debate to five hours.
That suggests that after the Mcloughlin/Bercow incident negotiations may have taken place and the Government been forced to concede a further two hours on the debate – two extra hours of excruciating discussion for Nick Clegg and his Lib Dem MPs.
Chatting earlier, a Labour MP argued that instead of sticking to rigid rules Bercow used his ‘common sense’ to interpret them – he knew Labour wanted to object, everyone else knew Labour wanted to object, they had signalled their objection and therefore Bercow took the objection.
But then again you might argue that as a direct result of Bercow’s intervention the Government has been put at disadvantage. As one colleague put it: “The Labour objection was outside the rules. If you are not going to obey the rules, why bother having them?”
When will the debate start?
ReplyDeleteIs this another one of these stupid old customes... everyone has to shout object at exactly the right time, whilst wearing a top hat and sucking their thumbs?
ReplyDeleteIf so Bercow was right to take the objection. What is the point of having these kind of rules? None. Get rid of them. Move that idiotic parliament into the 19th century.
Wow that was odd. I just wrote an very long comment but after I
ReplyDeleteclicked submit my comment didn’t appear. Grrrr… well I’m not writing all that over again.
Regardless, just wanted to say fantastic blog! 먹튀검증
The article skillfully outlines Speaker Bercow's role in causing Nick Clegg's prolonged ordeal, likely in a parliamentary debate or session. A concise review could highlight its clarity in unpacking the incident, use of engaging language, and balanced perspective, while suggesting deeper exploration of Clegg’s reaction for added depth.
ReplyDeletedivorce in new york abandonment