Talk:Speaker (politics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Politics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Speaker of the Sanate of Canada[edit]

If I may, perhaps it would be worth noting that the Speaker of the Canadian Senate is not a Speaker in the sense of the word used in this article; the Speaker in the Senate more closely resembles the Lord Chancellor, in that he or she is not elected but is rather appointed, and that he or she has the right to participate in partisan debate and vote according to his or her own convictions as opposed to established conventions; his or her decisions are not absolute and, rather, must be accepted by the Senate of Canada in order to be considered binding. Any thoughts? FiveParadox 06:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the differences are fine and dandy, but none of those things are what defines a Speaker. The Speaker is the presiding officer, and the Speaker of the Canadian Senate is most definitely that. Keep in mind that it is only recently that the Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons was elected by secret ballot, and that their decisions became final. I think this article makes some assumptions that just aren't accurate. -unsigned comment
Adding to the earlier points raised by anon above, many other countries have speakers who participate in partisan debates and vote accordingly. E.g. NZ, Australia and US. In fact, I wonder if the UK is the odd one out in having a speaker who is supposed to be completely neutral. Of course, when it comes to the roles of speaker in most if not all cases the speaker AFAIK is expected/supposed to be neutral but in practice, there is frequent debate whether this actually occurs. The only thing I can think of that may be fairly unique with the Canada situation is that I expect in most cases (including NZ & Aus), decisions that are made by speakers are binding. (Of course, I'm only talking about 'speaker' decisions, clearly votes on laws etc are just votes) Nil Einne 20:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


"Speakers of the House" is redundant to this page, and is not a disambiguation in that someone wanting a more specific page (EG. The Federal House's speaker) would look for them at "Speakers of the House". 04:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Quite. I'd be in favour of merging. Lincolnite 23:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree, but don't delete the info, just merge into one page. January 8, 2007


I have started a list of all Speakers of Parliaments across the globe. --PaxEquilibrium 23:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


If the title is Anglo-Saxon, why doesn't it appear until 1377? The only reason I can think of, off the top of my head, is the English (not French) etymology of the word. Nyttend 01:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A very fair point, because the title was NOT Anglo-Saxon. The recognisable FUNCTIONS and especially continuity of such a spokesperson are seen to begin in the 14C (from 1376 actually, Peter de la Mare, rather than 1377). Latin, French and English were all used in parliaments at that time, with several appropriate words for a 'spokesman' being used interchangeably, according to the practice of the partioular source. So, the line should be amended to meet Nyttend's objection. medieval duck —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medievalduck (talkcontribs) 07:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Provincial etc legislatures[edit]

I think the Speakers of places like Canadian provinces should not be listed in the same place as speakers of sovereign states.... I expect there are all sorts of other legislatures around the world with local authority that would, on that basis be seems inapt. to single out Canadian provinces or autonomous UK regions for special treatment. Does Hunan Province in China have a legislature of some sort? I don't know is the answer but expect there are many other legislatures that would qualify here if Cnadian provinces are being included....A separate sub-national list would seem apt. NelsonSudan (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, there's no reason to single out Canada, as it would look pretty silly when adding all the presiding officers in all federal state legislatures in the U.S., Germany, Australia, Austria, Switzerland, Russia, Brazil, India et al. And if autonomous regions in Britain are ok, why not those in Spain and Italy too?
I support deletion of all non-sovereign legislatures. RicJac (talk) 03:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Speaker's Conference[edit]

I suggest a section (or maybe an article) on Speaker's Conferences. A list of all the Speaker's Conferences can be found in House of Commons Library Standard Note SN04426

Some important Speaker's Conferences :

--Bancki (talk) 10:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Should Isle of Man be listed separately from "United Kingdom"?[edit]

The Isle of Man appears in the "List of current Speakers" under the heading "United Kingdom". However, the Wikipedia page for Isle of Man states that:

"The lordship revested into the British Crown in 1765, but the island never became part of the Kingdom of Great Britain or its successor the United Kingdom, retaining its status as an internally self-governing Crown dependency".

Should the Isle of Man therefore be listed separately from the United Kingdom?

Alternatively, might the heading "United Kingdom" be changed to "United Kingdom and territories for which it is responsible" in line with the page on Crown dependencies? That seems unwieldy. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Isle of Man is not in the United Kingdom, whereas this list misleadingly indicates that it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Decodicil (talkcontribs) 18:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)