Further developments in Buckingham, John Bercow MP’s constituency, where convention dictates that other parties don’t put up a candidate against the incumbent Speaker:
UKIP is looking forward to a large donation, whilst claiming that fundraising on Bercow’s behalf breaches Parliamentary rules. Meanwhile, Buckingham Liberal Democrats announce their plan for the General Election.
The Times reports that a UKIP member from Buckingham has complained to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards after receiving a letter from fundraising team “The Friends of Speaker Bercow”:
[John Russell] has written to the commissioner expressing concern that The Friends of Speaker Bercow may be breaching parliamentary rules by appearing to operate in conjunction with the apolitical Office of the Speaker.
Strict rules govern how MPs electioneer and politicians are not allowed to use the machine of the taxpayer-funded civil service to help them with their campaigning, or exploit the services of Commons officials who are also paid by the state.
The so-called Friends of Speaker Bercow are a group of fundraisers who are trying to drum up £40,000 of donations to bankroll the MP’s constituency campaign at the election.
The letter from Bercow’s Friends reportedly says,
As Speaker of the House of Commons, in accordance with convention, John has had to resign his membership of the Conservative Party in order to fulfil the duties of his office. He will be standing at the forthcoming election without the financial support of a major political party. This means that John will have to fully fund his own campaign and this is why we need your help.
Nigel Farage, the former UKIP leader, is standing for the seat where political mega-donor Stuart Wheeler plans to give the party £100,000 to help it unseat Bercow.
Buckingham Liberal Democrats, meanwhile, have chosen a spokesperson rather than a candidate for the General Election. The local party’s website explains the appointment of Marie-Louise Rossi:
Marie-Louise has been chosen by the local party members but will not stand as the Parliamentary Candidate for the Liberal Democrats in Buckingham, in accordance with the convention that the major parties do not oppose the incumbent Speaker. She will make the case locally for the Party’s Manifesto, speaking on both national and local issues.
There’s already been debate here on the Voice, about John Bercow’s prospects in the General Election:
Stephen asked whether candidates should stand against Bercow in the Buckingham constituency and Philip Young asked, “Why shouldn’t Buckingham Liberal Democrats join in?”
Will the arrival of UKIP cash, or indeed a Liberal Democrat spokesperson, make a difference to the result in the seat with the highest Conservative majority of 2005?
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lib Dem campaign staff gather to counter the threat of Edmania
Latest general election voting intention opinion polls
Being bold: Lib Dems election strategy
A big West End Christmas Fortnight Saturday! #dundeewestend
Whither the Welsh Liberal Democrats
Hello Yellow Brick Road
Peter Martin
cim
Nonconformistradical
Michael Kilpatrick
Roger Lake
21 Comments
If Labour and the Lib Dems really want Bercow out, they should withdraw their candidates and support Farage. There is no point splitting the anti-Bercow vote four or five ways.
Surely the whole £100,000 couldn’t possibly be spent just to unset Mr Berkow after all that would mean that Farge’s Agent was spending significantly more than he would be able to declare.
LFAT, incredibly, many people don’t approach electoral politics as a question of “get incumbent X out and damn the consequences”. You may find that this would lead to a cycle of cynicism if it were the dominant paradigm.
I’m intrigued by the idea that UKIP should be allowed to field a candidate against Bercow, but Bercow shouldn’t be allowed to fund a campaign.
More to the point, what’s all this business about John Stevens standing, who appears to have forgotten that he was a member of the Lib Dems for the best part of the last decade (an interesting tack for someone running against Bercow on the issue of trust and transparency)? Is his mate and another former Lib Dem Mark Littlewood involved in the campaign? Certainly a lot of the rhetoric appears to be similar.
If I lived in Buckingham, I would find myself unable to cast my vote for either Bercow or Farage. The former, as Speaker, would be unable to represent me, and as for Mr Farage, his behaviour in the European Parliament the other day proves him unfit for public office. What justification is there for disenfranchising those electors in Buckingham who want to vote Liberal Democrat? Other than deference to a flawed constitutional convention?
LFAT: I want both Bercow AND Farage out. How do I go about it?
I see absolutely no reason why the lib dems shouldn’t stand a candidate. It seems absurd, why can’t the residents of Buckingham vote for a representative?
Agree with Sesenco and Harry D.
If it’s a choice between offending the Speaker’s sensibilities and disenfranchising the voters I know which one seems more important.
Nic and HarryD: major parties standing against the speaker would make it impossible to carry on with the current model of speaker. The speaker would have to campaign on party issues, and would be compromised in debates. If that’s what you’re arguing for, fine, but it’s nonsense to think we could just carry on as now and add proper contests into the bag.
Mark, agree that that is a problem, but there is a very simple solution: have a new election for speaker at the begining of every parliament. Small change, and the people of Buckingham will be enfranchised.
(Yes right now, in the new parliament, the house may be packed with right-wing tories who will chose one of their own – but if that is a problem, then the idea of an impartial speaker needs to go, which I don’t think is necessary)
Plenty of parliaments have speakers who are also fully political figures. The House of Commons is regularly chaired by one of several deputy speakers, who are also party members who fight fully contested elections. The idea that the Speaker needs to be some figure of Olympian detachment from the mucky-muck of proper politics is just flannel.
If the election in Buckingham is reduced to predominantly a question about who is going to split’s who’s vote, there is a good case for, at least, Alternative Vote.
I do think that “Instant Run-Off” is, arguably, a better name for it than “Alternvative Vote”.
There needs to be a Liberal Independent candidate, and the local party should work for the campaign – in the short term, and we are weeks away, its the only solution.
The expenses limit – legally – is about £25,000 – but Bercow’s friends are trying to raise £40,000, well, another example of the standards set by the person who claimed he was interested in cleaning up politics. If he can bust the rules, you can’t blame UKIP for wanting to throw £100k at it.
Other speakers have been elected after facing a proper contest – Liberals put up official candidates against such notable Speakers as Selwyn Lloyd. The “convention” is just that, and a fairly modern one at that. Given the spending exes of Bercow in recent months with his lavish lifestyle not much different from the attitude of the disgraced Martin, we ought to be putting up someone with a bit more backbone than a “spokesman”. What use is a “spokesman” – its an election, not a sterile debate.
The expenses limit is £25,000 for the duration of the campaign itself. There is no limit before the campaign proper. What’s more, any opposing candidate can direct their national spending limit to that one constituency – especially a small party such as UKIP which has precious few other target seats. It is a notorious loophole.
Stuart Wheeler is offering £100,000 to unseat Bercow – how do you think that money is going to be spent?
I imagine Buckingham members will generally be going to Oxford East or Newbury to help us win those seats.
Antony – or indeed to Northampton North, which is very winnable and also close to that constituency!
John Stevens has both a winnable chance, and is the logical choice for disaffected Lib Dems wanting to vote. Farage is wholly capable of wrecking his own campaign if he doesn’t watch himself.
@Sesenco – absolutely agree that choosing between Bercow and Farage is no solution at all.
Those two would never get my vote ‘under normal circumstances’ and the independent candidate doesn’t sound much cop (for a start, his website states that ‘we have been left without a full-time Conservative MP to represent our interests in Parliament’ – well yes, but that does give me the impression that he’s not the man for me seeing as he hasn’t even bothered to acknowledge that there might just be some non-Tory voters in Buckingham…)
So what am I supposed to do as a disenfranchised Buckingham voter?
Or are the other main parties just going admit that my vote is just not that important?
“So what am I supposed to do as a disenfranchised Buckingham voter?”
Spare me. Buckingham was a safe Tory seat before Bercow became Speaker. You are already disenfranchised, along with most of the rest of the population of the UK. In that respect there is nothing special or unique about Buckingham. The fact that political parties target resources is nothing new and a result of the electoral system.
James – fair point. I guess what I am most disappointed by is the fact that none of the main parties seem particularly bothered …
If it’s not purely academic to ask, if John Stevens wins is he planning to take the Conservative whip, the Lib Dem whip, or neither?
2 Trackbacks
[…] (Q4, 2009) by Stephen Tall on Lib Dem Voice. Who and where the party’s money comes from. 3. How much of a battle does Bercow face in Buckingham? by Helen Duffett on Lib Dem Voice. The choice before the voters: Bercow or Farage. So grateful I […]
[…] Liberal Democrats have chosen a spokesperson rather than a […]