On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 10:53:28 -0500, Bill Day
Post by Bill DayOn Sat, 19 Jan 2019 12:48:06 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 00:20:19 +0000, Paul Wolff
Post by Bill DayPost by Bill DayPost by J. J. Lodder[quite off-topic] It made John Bercow a star, also outside Britain,
and we know now that he has a no doubt very disciplined cat
named 'Order',
I have seen him several times on U.S. news shows as the Brexit debate
gets hotter. He does provide some interesting entertainment as he
attempts to establish 'orduuer'....
I am curious though... is there any clear historical reason why
'order' is so difficult to maintain in Commons? Or is it just a
cultural norm?
It would be astounding to see the US House shout and interrupt and
jump up & down in their seats...
Standing up is the official way for an MP to indicate that he/she wishes
to speak. This happens after someone has finished speaking. The Speaker
(chairman of the chamber) will choose one of them to speak next.
I did figure that out from watching PMs questions (which has become
quite the spectacle this last year or so).... but I often see a large
portion of the members pop out of their seats during a heated time. I
would assume this gives the Speaker... the aforementiond Mr. Bercow..
tremendous power to grant or withhold favor.... and he IS a member of
one party. Something similar exists in the US House, but not in
restricting the opportunity to speak.
He *was* a member of a party.
https://www.parliament.uk/business/commons/the-speaker/the-role-of-the-speaker/role-of-the-speaker/
Politically impartial
Speakers must be politically impartial. Therefore, on election the
new Speaker must resign from their political party and remain
separate from political issues even in retirement. However, the
Speaker will deal with their constituents' problems like a normal
MP.
Speakers and general elections
Speakers still stand in general elections. They are generally
unopposed by the major political parties, who will not field a
candidate in the Speaker's constituency - this includes the original
party they were a member of. During a general election, Speakers do
not campaign on any political issues but simply stand as 'the
Speaker seeking re-election'.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_House_of_Commons_(United_Kingdom)>
The Speaker does not take part in debate or vote (except to break
ties; and even then, the convention is that the speaker casts the
tie-breaking vote according to Speaker Denison's rule
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_Denison%27s_rule
Speaker Denison's rule is a constitutional convention established by
from 1857 to 1872, regarding how the Speaker decides on his casting
vote in the event of a tie.
The principle is to always vote in favour of further debate, or,
where it has been previously decided to have no further debate or in
some specific instances, to vote in favour of the status quo.
For example, the Speaker will vote:
<snipped>
The thinking behind the rule is that change should only occur if an
actual majority vote is in favour of the change.
Speaker Denison's rule is now a guiding principle in many other
bodies that have neutral chairpersons.
Post by Bill DayPost by Peter Duncanson [BrE]Sometimes MPs will stand up while someone else is speaking. An MP can
only interrupt the person speaking if that person "gives way".
https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/give-way/
To 'give way' or 'giving way' are the terms used by MPs who want to
interrupt an MP who is speaking in the House of Commons. An MP
cannot intervene when another MP is speaking to the House unless
that MP allows it by giving way.
The interrupter can make a point that can then be replied to by the
interrupted person when (s)he starts speaking again.
Post by Bill Dayand when some relatively small
Post by Bill Daydisturbance does occur, the speaker's gavel usually stops it fairly
quickly. Members simply do NOT **ordinarily** hiss & boo and yell
when other members are speaking
You are seeing a rare demonstration of Anglo-Saxon sang-froid.
The House of Lords doesn't do such things; they are composed and
respectful in everything. The House of Commons is, as its name might
suggest, down to earth. And it's intensely jealous of its traditions,
which include shouting abuse at the other side, so long as it's couched
in Parliamentary (meaning gentlemanly) language.
Well, that 'intense jealousy' is rather what I suspected in my OP. I
realize it would require being part of the culture for a long time to
viscerally understand just how that situation developed and how it is
understood **in context** by those participating.
I do see in imported UK situation comedy TV programs, a much more
pronounced use of insult and put-downs... (whether serious or not)..
than over here in Leftpondia. I read several online forums
(fora?)..including this one.. where similar postings often startle me
with sharp, seemingly angry, debates.
I do enjoy the learned detail.. from all sides... but I am never
quite sure how much grudging respect is hidden behind acrimonious
remarks. I'll stop now and just read... :>)
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]<smile>
Also the behavior seen in TV news coverage of the House of Commons is
not typical of the majority of debates.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)