Talk:Speaker Denison's rule

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

General comment on this article[edit]

I have not been able to find any reference to the idea that Speaker Denison's rule bears any relation to supporting the Government. On page 415 of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice (23rd edn, 2004) it is described as voting against a bill or motion when no further debate was possible.194.60.38.198 13:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The principle is to vote in favour of further debate. Until the final reading of a bill, the Speaker voting No will end the progress of the proposed legislation and possibly trigger an election. By voting No, the Speaker allows further debate on subsequent readings. On the final reading of a bill, the Speaker would vote No, so as not to introduce new legislation by their authority (the Speaker is often seen as the monarch's spy in parliament). 92.3.193.162 (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The only time the (Deputy) Speaker would be compelled to vote for the Government would be on a tied motion of No Confidence. I think the misunderstanding comes from the sheer number of occasions that the Speaker's vote saved the Callaghan government from being defeated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.2.220.243 (talk) 02:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have found references (with some difficulty, as very few of them seem to use the phrase "Speaker Denison's rule", and I will change the page accordingly. – Smyth\^talk 14:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking behind the rule[edit]

"The thinking behind the rule is that change should only occur if an actual majority vote is in favour of change."

Surely that is not the only thinking behind the rule, otherwise the Speaker would take no position on early readings of bills? Instead, here we have "the Speaker will vote: ... In favour of early readings of bills". Harfarhs (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]