Standing against the Speaker: never mind the politics, what about the voters?

There’s been plenty of interesting Lib Dem internet chatter asking whether – now Ukip’s soon-to-be-ex-leader Nigel Farage is breaching normal convention and standing against the incumbent Speaker, Tory MP John Bercow, in Buckingham – the Lib Dems should follow suit.

Opinion is divided. Some say we absolutely shouldn’t – here, for instance, is Stephen Glenn:

… while the ‘convention’ for not standing against a sitting speaker is not as set in stone as some people may have you believe, it is none the less a precedent symbolising the apolitical nature of the role. Indeed it seems to be one, that even if contested, the constituents seem to back up as not one speaker seeking election since 1969 has polled less than 50% of the vote.

And here’s the Wit and Wisdom blog:

Liberal Democrats wanting to be taken seriously should give the Speaker a clear run at the next election as is the convention.

Meanwhile Mark Littlewood at Liberal Vision is more open to the idea that the Lib Dems should stand a candidate to oppose Speaker Bercow and Mr Farage:

Although this is true blue territory, the LibDems and Labour both polled about 20% of the vote last time. In a three cornered fight, a credible, mainstream, liberal candidate might even win.

And Darrell Goodliffe is in no doubt what the party should do:

No credible justification exists for us not taking the plunge and standing against Bercow.

James Graham, rather unusually for him, advises a more cautious, wait-and-see approach:

while I think fielding a candidate is certainly not something I would automatically rule out, I’m not currently persuaded that it would be a good idea. We could never afford to target it to the extent that UKIP will be able to (we’ll have considerably more target seats) and a half-hearted campaign will only serve to make Farage more credible. Things might change – if Bercow really looked like a dead duck we might have to reconsider – and I certainly agree that any party which supports democratic reform shouldn’t be too deferential to existing Parliamentary conventions (the existing convention couldn’t operate under a PR system in any case), but at the moment there seem to be far more cons than pros.

I’m with James on the tactics of the situation. There is no immediate reason for the Lib Dems to seem to be desperately following in the wake of Ukip in a seat which is not a top target for the party. And yet even as I type that sentence, I am acutely aware of its cynically calculated tone, and I ask myself the question: how would I feel if I were one of the voters in Buckingham?

I imagine I would feel disenfranchised: my choice would appear to be between a Tory MP, who has veered from ultra-right Monday Club hardliner to the vaguely progressive Blairite centre, and is now constitutionally bound to remain a political mute; or a Ukip MEP whose swivel-eyed Europhobia blinkers him to all other issues; or (no doubt) a motley collection of comedy fringe candidates. Well, hurrah for democracy!

Okay, so Buckingham is just one constituency out of 650; does it really matter if 70,000 voters are deprived a real political choice so long as the impartial above-party-politics role of the Speakership is preserved? Yes, in my view.

The problem would, of course, be easily solved with proprtional representation: multi-member constituencies elected under STV would mean voters did not have to elect, or be represented by, only one MP. But until we reach the promised land of PR we need to find a better way.

There was a good discussion of the issue in LDV’s members-only discussion forum a couple of months ago. It was noted a proposal was made to create a ‘phantom’ constituency called St Stephens specifically for the Speaker, who would step down from their original constituency upon election to the Speakership. There are downsides to such a system, of course – a costly by-election, the fact that the Speaker would no longer be an MP – but the biggest gain would also be the most important: that voters have the chance to elect an MP who can represent their interests, and vote for or against the government accordingly, unfettered by convention or the need to remain impartial.

So, yes, let us as Lib Dems consider carefully whether we should stand a candidate against the Speaker. But let’s not consider it solely from narrow party advantage; let’s think about how we can ensure Buckingham’s voters are able to exercise a basic democratic choice: voting for the party or person they think will best represent them in Parliament.

Read more by or more about , , , , , or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.


  • We really shouldnt need to think about this, for us democracy should be an automatic reflex. The convention of not standing is all of a peice with top hats & men in tights, part of the public school/gentlemans club heritage; pre-democratic & pseudo-feudal.
    On the narrower politics; the Buckingham contest as it stands will suit the Tory media perfectly, a fight within conservatism & excluding any other views.

  • Mark Wright makes some very good points about the possible effects of a political party standing against the speaker, but the damage has been done. Whats worse UKIP have made plain that their slogan will be ” vote for the real Tory”. An LD candidate would at least inject some non-tory politics & perhaps inspire more voters to actually vote.

  • Daniel Bowen 7th Sep '09 - 9:44am

    So, Dane, you believe that an authoritarian, xenophobic, fraud-ridden rump is the vehicle of choice for Liberals?

    My goodness, you’ve gone on a long and strange journey since the days you were a Liberal.

  • Peter Laubach 7th Sep '09 - 1:43pm

    We should be doing anything that damages the Conservatives. Farage standing as the sole serious challenger will bring much focus on UKIP and that may lead to increased support for them nationwide, which in turn may harm the Conservatives in many constituencies they would hope to win – some of them from us.
    Then, if he actually won, he and his party could be a delicious thorn in ‘Dave’s’ side – both inside and outside Westminster – for years to come!

  • David Evershed 14th Sep '09 - 2:49pm

    An emergency motion has been submitted to the Federal Conference by the Buckingham Constituency Liberal Democrats to commit the Party to the establishment of an honorary constituency for the Speaker. This will allow all the main parties to put forward candidates in the Buckingham constituency at the next general election or at least for the Liberal Democrats ro do so. The motion is as follows:

    SEPTEMBER 2009

    Submitted by Buckingham Local Party


    Conference notes that the election of John Bercow as Speaker of the House of Commons means that he must stand as a non-partisan candidate for his constituency in every general election which occurs during his tenure as Speaker.

    Conference further notes that:

    A. if the main parties follow the Parliamentary convention of not standing against the Speaker, thousands of voters who would have voted for one of these parties will be denied their democratic right to vote for the party of their choice in the next and subsequent general elections;
    B. at the forthcoming general election, the convention is unlikely to be respected by all the UK parties, especially those with no current representation in the House of Commons.

    Conference notes with dismay that, nearly half a century after Jeremy Thorpe joined in proposing a bill to give the Speaker an honorary constituency, electors are still being effectively disenfranchised by an outdated convention.

    Conference therefore urges:
    1. the Government to add to the constitutional renewal bill a provision which would automatically appoint the Speaker as MP for an honorary constituency, freeing his former constituents to exercise their democratic right to vote for the party of their choice; and
    2. Liberal Democrat decision-makers at all levels to ensure that, if this reform is not in place by the time of the general election, a Liberal Democrat candidate will stand in the Speaker’s constituency to enable voters to make a true and unfettered democratic choice at the ballot box.


Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • User AvatarJoeB 17th Mar - 2:14am
    Peter Martin, with all due respect, I would imagine that those Russians that experienced the financial crisis of 1998 losing all their domestic savings would...
  • User AvatarLorenzo Cherin 17th Mar - 12:08am
    David, yes, but she might have favoured an alliance, Corbyn does not !
  • User AvatarPaul Pettinger 16th Mar - 11:37pm
    @Andy, there are lots of people in other parties with a broadly similar outlook to ours. Some are in the Conservatives but, overall, there is...
  • User AvatarJennie 16th Mar - 10:11pm
    The memorial service for Joe Otten's selfie stick will be held in Sheffield soon
  • User AvatarDavid Raw 16th Mar - 10:02pm
    @ Lorenzo Cherin Liz Kendall ? An ally for Liberals ? For goodness sake, Lorenzo. Liz Kendall has always been massively in favour of the...
  • User AvatarPeter Martin 16th Mar - 9:14pm
    @ MichaelBG, "This makes 2.43 million." Right. But we can't assume they all voted leave.