The accepted wisdom is that it is “protocol” not to oppose the Speaker. Yet there are plenty of examples that this is simply not true – Selwyn Lloyd, for one, was opposed, and there are other examples (and we are not talking pre-war or the mists of time).
What is going on in Buckingham is extraordinary. The Speaker is unpopular with his local party – not just a large block of Conservative MPs in Parliament – and his wife has shot through the Labour Party hoops and jumped other hurdles to go on the list of approved Parliamentary Candidates. Nobody can remember an MP for one party with a wife totally opposed to what he stands for, so badly she is not just quietly hoping another party wins, she is prepared to stand in another constituency and openly fight for a totally opposite cause.
Bercow was elected as Speaker on a “reformist agenda” to spearhead the drive to clean up the expenses issue. This is floundering, and he hardly set a good example by ordering expensive new curtains and going on a general spending spree to spruce up his grace-and-favour living accommodation, including lashing out no less than £6,000 on a new sofa when there was nothing wrong with the one chosen by the sacked Speaker Martin except it was “not as comfortable as the new one.”
Nigel Farage is out to win with a determined effort, he sees all this as UKIP’s best hope of a Parliamentary breakthrough.
Meanwhile, the local Liberal Democrats are supposed to sit back and do nothing? Fight local elections, keep a party together locally for the sole purposes of fighting elections, yes, but now stand down just because of “protocol”? Is this not just based on the two major parties who have seen the Speakership as a buggins turn rota, where if one party has the job, the other party gets a go next time round (only recently changed by MPs opening voting, and using proportional representation as well), but why shouldn’t Liberal Democrats be seen to be going along with the Establishment’s cosy protocols?
Wouldn’t Buckingham’s Liberal Democrats be better off instead of having a “standard bearer” who is totally toothless, instead have a PPC with sleeves rolled up, and seeing the Tory vote being split down the middle with local differences, joining in what could be a most interesting scrap? Given there is not going to be a Liberal Democrat Speaker, what ever the selection method, why not let Buckingham get stuck in? If they found more members, concentrated on key wards for the next local elections, this surely would be better than doing nothing?
And … would this not be more radical than just sitting on their hands?
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
John Stoa Original Art exhibition #dundeewestend
The Muesli Assassins
Nick Cook: England's forgotten spinner of the Eighties
David Allen
Richard
Tristan Ward
Cllr Gordon Lishman
26 Comments
What? There is no structure to this post, other than an odd quixotic desire to portray the Lib Dems as opposed to “the Establishment”, whatever that is.
I would also challenge your assertion Bercow is unpopular with his local party (not that he has one now, of course). Apparently he is very popular because he is a good constituency MP.
Yes… but I’d rather not risk splitting the vote and letting UKIP in.
Bercow may be speaker, but why shouldn’t the residents of Buckingham have their choice of MP? In any event, the ‘convention’ of not standing against the speaker doesn’t seem to go back a very long way . . .
The point is that by not standing, we ars denying the voters the right to a real political choice. As things stand they have a “choice” between 2 tories, each pretending to be something else.
Yes… but I’d rather not risk splitting the vote and letting UKIP in.
That’s defeatist talk. Farage will be lucky to get 20% of the vote in Buckingham despite what the right-wing bloggers say. Also, think how many Labour votes we’d be able to hoover up.
Anyway I’d like to see Bercow opposed; I haven’t forgotten his days in the FCS, when he made the likes of Farage look like moderate centrists by comparison.
Every citizen of this country has a right to parliamentary representation.
Agree?
Every citizen of this country has a right to choose that representation?
Agree?
So why should one small group of citizens [in Buckingham, or Glasgow, or wherever] find that choice is taken from them and given to 646 MPs of the previous parliament?
Gwyn’s solution?
Let the retiring Speaker stand on a Speaker/ Conservative or Speaker/Labour ticket and – if re-elected – let them face a confirmatory vote in the new parliament.
The new Speaker (whether the retiring speaker or a new choice) then becomes a supernumerary member of the house and the electors choose a new representative by byelection a few months later.
Simple.
Next!
Nobody can remember an MP for one party with a wife totally opposed to what he stands for, so badly she is not just quietly hoping another party wins, she is prepared to stand in another constituency and openly fight for a totally opposite cause.
That may be because until recently most MPs wives were expected to be genteel housewives, uncomplainingly making sacrifices for their husband’s public lives. And I can remember a Prime Minister whose wife and children totally opposed what he stood for: Ehud Olmert. (His wife is a leftist peace campaigner along with a couple of his children, and one of his sons is a refusenik if I remember correctly.) I’m sure you’ll find more couples who don’t vote the same way in politics if you look, though admittedly not so many where both spouses are elected representatives.
It’s a shame you tarnish a decent argument that the people of Buckingham should not lose their choice of representative because of convention by bringing Speaker Bercow’s wife into it. Why should we hold his wife’s opinions against him?
I would also disagree that Speaker Bercow’s reform agenda is “floundering”. Expenses are being removed from his remit (though I agree that making big claims for himself is not very sensible), and he has certainly improved the quality of PMQs no end. Given some time he might even make the House of Commons have a half-decent debate on an important issue!
@crewegwyn: Excellent idea!
Is any MP enjoying popularity with his local voters if the newspapers have, for day after day, been highlighting what they regard as reckless spending by the thousands on flipperies and luxuries?
Wrong to assume the local Conservative party wont be doing anything at all. They will be helping Bercow get re-elected, he will be using their “machine” surely, who else will be stuffing the envelopes, doing the telphone canvassing, putting up posters…surely not just Bercow on his own (without his wife’s help).
Suggesting alternative reforms might be all very well but what if there is an election in March – what should the local Liberal Democrats be doing?
“Nobody can remember an MP for one party with a wife totally opposed to what he stands for, so badly she is not just quietly hoping another party wins, she is prepared to stand in another constituency and openly fight for a totally opposite cause.”
What a disgraceful implication. “Of course you can have the vote dear, just as long as you don’t do anything I might not disagree with. Now then where’s my supper….”
Do nothing? No. Find yourself a nearby target seat to help in.
1. It is reasonable to question whether or not we should stand against the Speaker. There are good arguments both ways, but,
2. The fact that Mrs Bercow has views of her own is a good thing and something Lib Dems should be happy with.
3. There will be more Lib Dem activity in each ward in nearby Oxford East than there would be in the entire Buckingham constituency, even if we were to stand, so there is plenty for every active member in the constituency to do.
All of which ignores the fact that even a one leaflet, thin campaign, could net 20 per cent for the Liberal Democrats. What chance of gaining new members, building up a ward activitity, that will go to waste by doing nothing, apart from the fact the potential Liberal Democrat vote has nowhere much to go.
And while St. Albans (every single council seat won in the last elections), and Oxford East, are certainly not far, how much of going to help a campaign elsewhere would actually happen in reality?
The Conservative constituency party will be helping Bercow get elected in all but name. He cant do it single-handed, naive to think otherwise.
Is this your local party? Constitutionally the objects of a local party include returning Liberal Democrat members of Parliament which tends to imply standing candidates.
If so then select a PPC 🙂
What a rubbish article. I’m not going to cover the wife thing, because that’s been done. However, you think that the Speaker is elected “using proportional representation”? Honestly.
To grub around in the political gutter and try to sneak-win a seat, just because the big boys are following convention and staying out of it, is cheap politics. Worthy of UKIP. Are we really thinking about joining them in their gutter? If we do, we shall merely cheapen ourselves too. (By which I mean, in case it isn’t obvious, that we shall lose votes elsewhere, because people don’t like voting for cheap politics.)
And as to the argument that what legitimises such a shabby tactic is that the wife has views of her own, and that’s terrible…. Well, words fail me.
crewegwyn,
The convention does not deny the people of Buckingham their political rights. They will not have an opportunity to elect a Conservative, Lib Dem or Labour member, but that is not their right. Nobody has a right to see a particular party on the ballot paper.
The problem is that we do not have a very good tradition of independent politics in this country. Bercow will be opposed by Farage, a Looney and a guy with a dustbin on his head (who, intriguingly, is not the Looney) as well as a couple of random locals and somebody with an axe to grind. Yet there is a real opportunity here for a genuine independent to stand for something. That would give the people of Buckingham far more choice, and far more of an intriguing election, than one between the Tories, Labour and (dare I say) the Lib Dems.
“Nobody has a right to see a particular party on the ballot paper.”
Even ignoring the speaker’s seat the party hasn’t contested every seat in the mainland UK at any General Election since it was formed as it has taken a tactical decision that it was more advantageous not to.
Political parties are parties because their members agree that the discipline of membership brings more advantage than being an independent – whatever our private views may be on a particular issue such as this one. The Executive of Buckingham Liberal Democrats has accepted the advice of Cowley Street that it is in the party’s interests not to oppose the Speaker in Buckingham in the next General Election. This was raised as an issue at our Autumn Federal Conference.
We want the system changed so that in future the Speaker will be deemed on election by fellow MPs to represent ” St Stephens” and a by-election would be held in his/her original constituency; restoring full democratic rights to the electors of that constituency.
This has nothing to do with John Bercow personally, or his wife, or Buckingham specifically. We just happen to be the unfortunates this time round. It’s changing the protocol that needs to be done for every election after this next one; given that we don’t expect the House to change things in time for this General Election.
The interesting point will be whether/how Buckingham Liberal Democrats vote individually……….hopefully not for UKIP or a right wing “independent”!
Ian Metherell
Chairman
Buckingham Liberal Democrats
“has accepted the advice of Cowley Street that it is in the party’s interests not to oppose the Speaker in Buckingham”
Presumably the Federal Exec took that decision?
It’s not a matter for the Federal Executive. It’s a Local Party decision, with advice from Party HQ.
Trying to find a conspiracy here will take you round in circles.
I’m not trying to find a conspiracy – as I said we’ve chosen not to contest particular seats, speaker excluded, at every election since 1992.
What I’m not clear on is what that decision making process is, in part because I couldn’t find anything clear in the constitution on the decision whether to stand a parliamentary candidate (in contrast to local election candidates).
There is clearly a point at which this ceases to be a local party matter. If 100+ seats decided not to field candidates it would have a serious impact on our national credibility and you would expect the Federal Party to intervene at that point.
Thanks for adding that information Ian.
It is nothing short of disgraceful that some 60,000 voters in this constituency are disenfranchised and can play no useful part in the election of their government. Personally I think that there must be some european human rights law that forbids the three main parties from rigging the election of an MP, if there is not there should be.
There is no excuse for this behaviour. What about the new young voters? what message does it send to first time voters.
Shame on all parties, especially the Lib Dems
I sympathise with Robin Simpson. If we are serious about constitutional reform (and we are) we could usefully start with the convention that political parties do not put up candidates against the Speaker.
What kind of a “choice” is John Bercow versus Nigel Fagage?
New Facebook group to change the Speaker’s constituency
Read all about it and join the group on the following links:
http://buckinghamlibdems.org.uk/news/000163/new_facebook_group_to_change_the_speakers_constituency.html
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=118598158159917