I don’t think whether something is likely or not is what matters any more.What matters is whether or not such an attempt can be stopped.
??? For most parliamentarians in Australia, ‘representing their constituency’, which (for backbenchers) is the main part of their work, has almost nothing to do with voting in the house, and nothing at all to do with introducing legislation.
I understand that in the American system, representatives are effectively paid delegates of their funding organisations, and voting is individually determined on that basis, but in the UK? How often does an ordinary member (not a minister) introduce legislation? How often does a constituency issue swing a vote?
Technically, there is nothing in the Constitution that forbids it. However, in reality- no. The Speaker will always be a Representative.
MPs in the UK - and I think in Australia - spend a good deal of time representing their constituency — not by voting or introducing legislation, where as you point out they just do as they’re told by the whips, but by making representations on behalf of constituents to Ministers, seeking to influence the working of the executive branch of government in ways that will benefit the constituency and/or (some of) its constituents, or by advising/assisting constituents in their dealings with agencies of the executive branch. For a backbench MP it’s the major part of the job, in fact.
While it’s probably legal, it seems to be a stretch to believe that even if the Republicans were to win the House and the Senate, that they’d manage to get a 2/3 majority in the Senate to convict either Biden or Harris, since the last time either party held that commanding of a majority in the Senate was something like 1963.
So yeah, they could well impeach both of them, but they would be extremely unlikely to convict either one.
Sure, and in the American system, constituent services are a major part of a the job for a member of Congress, as well. And the party system in the UK Parliament is stronger than in the U.S. Congress. And introducing legislation in a parliamentary system is rarely if ever done by ordinary MPs, so forgoing that is not nearly as big a deal for an MP as it would be for a member of the U.S. Congress. Nevertheless, the entire point of a representative democracy is that the elected legislative representatives represent their constituents in the legislature, which legislates. Effectively, the voters in the Speaker’s district no longer have a vote in the national Parliament as long as their representative is the Speaker, which is kind of an odd position to be in, in a representative democracy.
Also, please note, all that I said is that the UK Speaker position is kind of odd, and their ability to represent their constituents was limited. I never said it was a bad system, or that the U.S. system was superior, or that the Speaker couldn’t offer any representation for their constituents.
That’s complete nonsense. Well, not complete nonsense. Campaign funding is definitely a very problematic element of the current U.S. political system. But the idea that members of Congress simply act as delegates of campaign contributors is a a pretty hyperbolic exaggeration. How individual members of Congress vote on individual pieces of legislation really can and does have a significant impact on their electoral viability. Members of the U.S. Congress are delegates of their constituents, and voting is individually determined on that basis. And despite the fact that the party system in the UK Parliament is significantly stronger than the party system in the U.S. Congress, both Members of Congress and Members of Parliament are elected as representatives of specific constituencies, not as part of a party list.
This is a controversial statement. The opposing view is that, while a member of parliament may be elected from or by a particular constituency, they represent - and owe their duty to - the whole country. It is not the duty of the MP for Dunning-in-the-Wold to advance the interests of the residents of Dunning-in-the-Wold over those of other citizens. Realistically, of course, if he hopes to be re-elected he may have to be sensitive to their concerns in a way that he doesn’t have to be to the concerns of people who live elsewhere, but that’s not actually his job. So if the MP for Dunning-in-the-Wold becomes Speaker and doesn’t normally vote, the residents of Dunning-in-the-Wold are still represented in Parliament by 649 other MPs.
SFAIK, the speaker in Westminster can and does do constituency MP-type things, including advising constituents and making representations on their behalf to Ministers, though I imagine not on matters of political controversy.
The Commons Speaker is expected to deal with matters brought to them by their constituents in the usual way. MPs often say that much of this isn’t party political anyway. But they can also make public comments on issues directly relating to their constituency. The current Speaker did so last year in a controversy about a local hospital. I dare say that there will be times when representations from the MP who happens to be Speaker will have more clout than ones from a backbencher. Having the Speaker as your MP isn’t necessarily a disadvantage.
That the Commons Speaker must be an MP almost became an issue in the 2010 General Election. Nigel Farage stood against the then Speaker, John Bercow, in his Buckingham constituency. During the campaign Farage was almost killed in an ill-advised publicity stunt involving a light aircraft. Had he died, the election in that constituency would have been postponed, which would have meant that Bercow would not yet have been re-elected as an MP when the new Parliament assembled.
In contrast, until 2006, when they were the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Keeper, the Speaker of the UK House of Lords didn’t have to be a peer. Indeed, technically they weren’t even physically in the Lords when presiding, as the Woolsack was deemed to be outside the chamber.
I agree that this scenario is extremely unlikely, if only because Trump would view the Speakership as a step down. But if Republicans were to take a 30-40 seat majority (not at all out of the realm of possibility given redistricting and the “midterm curse”) and Trump were to demand he make them Speaker, how many would say no?
Simply putting trump into the line of succession constitutes a danger in and of itself. Get rid of Biden/Harris by fair means or foul…
If I’m a resident of Dunning-in-the-Wold, I didn’t vote for any of the 649 other MPs. In some sense, they would represent me as a citizen of the UK, but I had no say in their selection. From my position as a resident of Dunning-in-the-Wold, they might as well be Politburo officials.
As an example, take Brexit. It was probably the most consequential issue before Parliament since accession in 1972. It was also one of the most contentious issues before Parliament in the modern history of the UK. The party system in Parliament nearly collapsed. An inability to wrangle their own party brought down two Prime Ministers. Multiple Brexit plans were formally and informally proposed, with ad hoc cross-party coalitions supporting and opposing various plans. During all of that, as a resident of Dunning-in-the-Wold, I would have had no voice and no vote in Parliament. To be sure, my MP who happened to be the Speaker would have been involved in back-room negotiations. But those clearly failed, multiple times. In debates and votes in Parliament on this existential issue, no one that I had a hand in selecting was speaking or voting.
Again, though, I am not saying this is a bad system, or that U.S. Speakership is better, or that the constituents of Dunning-in-the-Wold don’t have any representation while their MP serves as Speaker. Just that it’s kind of an odd position.
Absolutely, which I acknowledged in the very post you’re quoting from.
For the nth time, I never said, and do not contend, that the constituents of the MP who is serving as Speaker have no representation in Parliament. And, of course, if they don’t like the fact that their MP is serving as Speaker, they can just vote against him. It’s my understanding that that rarely happens, and the fact that an MP is serving as Speaker pretty much never comes up as a campaign issue, so I think as a practical matter, most UK voters are satisfied with this system.
I still think it’s kind of an odd position.
Trump did not care about long time traditions such as releasing taxes.
For the nth time, what you wrote was:
That’s the part of your statement I disagreed with.
As a supporting argument “Look the other way!” doesn’t seem to be working here.
It was just a passing observation, but you’re right, I overstated the situation. I should have said,
their ability to represent their constituency has some limitations, as by convention they only vote to break ties, don’t engage in debates on the floor, and don’t introduce legislation (although it’s admittedly pretty rare for an individual MP to introduce legislation to begin with).
Huh? I honestly don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. How and where am I arguing to “Look the other way!”? (I’ve also got to say, this seems like a weirdly aggressive tone to take in a rather esoteric disagreement about whether the Speaker of the UK House of Commons is kind of an odd position).
It’s obviously the case that the ability of the Speaker to represent his constituents is impaired to some extent by the conventional constraints on what he can do, as compared with other MPs. The detriment that his constituents suffer from this has to be seen in the context of the UK’s bizarre electoral system; there are a great many MPs who need pay little attention to their constituents’ wishes and, whatever about matters of local interest, on matters of national politics MPs take direction much more from their party than from their constituents.
Another way in which the Speakers’ constituents are disadvantaged is that, by convention, at a general election none of the major parties will oppose the Speaker. The Speaker stands as a non-party candidate, and only minor party or fringe candidates will run against him. This means that his constituents cannot use their vote to express a preference as between the alternative parties of government (which is the basis on which a great many UK voters case their vote).
So, yeah, it is anomalous and undemocratic, at least in principle. But it survives possibly because democratic representation has never been a particular priority of the UK parliamentary system; the overall system is designed to minimise the choice offered to voters and the power of voters, and to maximise the power of the established political parties and, given those priorities, the anomalies surrounding the Speaker’s position don’t seem all that bothersome.
Modnote: Please drop this line of conversation that is not about the Speaker of the House. If you wish to continue, we can spin it off to its own thread.
This is just a guidance, not a warning. Nothing on your permanent record.