In a move at once cynical and astute, UKIP’s Nigel Farage last week announced his intention to stand against John Bercow MP in Buckingham constituency at the next General Election. This action marks a pointed departure from tradition, whereby other political parties do not field candidates to challenge the sitting Speaker of the House of Commons. The centuries-old ‘convention’ effectively leaves the would-be voters of a Speaker’s constituency disenfranchised, unable to participate fully or at all in a General Election and without a voting representative within the House for the duration of that Parliament. To this extent, Mr Farage’s decision to challenge the outdated and undemocratic status quo is to be welcomed.
Yet UKIP’s announcement leaves a deep sense of frustration that a publicity-seeking fringe party has been allowed to steal a march in the name of ‘reform’. Yesterday Mr Farage self-righteously proclaimed that he intends to stand because Mr Bercow represents “all that is wrong with British politics today” (no mention, of course, that:
(i) Mr Bercow is widely detested within the Conservative Party, whose Buckingham members may welcome a more right-wing alternative
(ii) Buckingham is one of the bluest constituencies in the country
(iii) UKIP enjoyed an impressive showing in that area at the recent European elections).
But what about Labour and the other mainstream parties? Why has it taken Mr Farage’s exploitation of an obvious point for reform to provoke any debate on this issue?
In the months since the expenses scandal broke, the situation seems to have slumped into stalemate. When it comes to democratic reform Brown, Cameron and Clegg continue blandly to adopt an unspecific, supportive tone. No doubt mainstream politicians would argue that they are merely awaiting the Kelly Commission’s recommendations and then a new dawn of democracy will be forthcoming. Yet rather than leading pro-active (and simple) changes to make reform a reality, they seem out-paced at every step. Meanwhile Mr Farage is left to dress up his most cynical of moves in the language of principled politics.
The outmoded convention of the Speaker being unchallenged clearly needs to change. Like so many other aspects of our current system, the effective removal of an open vote from constituencies has no place in a modern democratic system. Rather, when the Speaker is elected from within the House of Commons s/he should vacate the seat in which s/he is an MP. That way, the ‘First Commoner of the Land’ would still be of the House, even if s/he no longer continues to represent a constituency in the House. By the looks of things Mr Bercow must agree in principle, as he reaffirmed his “determination to restore faith in Parliament.”
On the back-foot once again, Labour and the Lib Dems now need to formulate a response to UKIP’s announcement. If Labour fields a candidate, s/he would be very unlikely to win, yet that step would mark a symbolic break from the current undemocratic position. Further, the participation of all major parties in the Buckingham election would detract attention from Farage’s publicity-stunt, removing the self-satisfied ‘reformist’ sting from his tail. On the other hand, if the constituents of Buckingham do give Mr Bercow the boot at the next General Election, the newly elected Government will be in a strong position to determine his successor. I wonder how Mr Brown views that prospect.
More interesting will be David Cameron’s response in the months to come. I suspect he will stick his head in the sand in the expectation that Bercow should still deliver a Conservative seat. In the process, however, Cameron may be forced to dent the ‘Great Reformer’ image he has worked so hard to cultivate since the expenses scandal first broke.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
The Greens from the Left aren't interested. Perhaps someone from the very far left, like Nick Griffin could do the job?
The convention probably is used by political parties who are afraid of the mass popularity of the Speaker who would be heard day in day out on the radio or TV.
In 1987 the Labour Candidate got 11,669 votes to the Tories (Speakers Party) of 24,188.
Let the people decide and field a candidate!
Shouldn't they suffer too?
I'm not sure I'm following the logic here. Under your rules, a newly-elected Speaker resigns as an MP. Surely, a by-election follows; otherwise it's unfair to the constituents of the new Speaker to be unrepresented. But who decides how long is the tenure of the new Speaker? Is it until the next GE? Is it until the new Speaker has had enough? How does the House get rid of a Speaker?
To my mind, a Speaker (any Speaker) should command the House, be expert in the House's procedures, stand up to Government, support backbenchers, be a bulwark against encroaching Government over the diminished legislature, and have the capacity to act as CEO of the House's functions. The first principle is that s/he should command the House, and I don't see how that is possible unless the Speaker is "of" the House.
In my mind, the Speaker must therefore be an MP, and take the same risk as any other Member does of being voted out of office. I'd like to see the convention of not standing against the Speaker destroyed, and I therefore support Farage's stand.
For example, Kathryn tells us that Cameron will do nothing because Bercow will deliver a Conservative seat. And yet in the first part of the article she has (albeit erroneously) said that the people of Buckingham have been disenfranchised as they are without a voting representative within the House. Presumably - as he is non-voting - this does Cameron no good at all!
Other lamentable assertions....
a. Centuries-old convention? That'll be the convention begun in the '80s. The 1980s. Read Vernon Bognador's letter in the Times yesterday.
b. Without a voting representative? That'll be the same voting representative (Betty Boothroyd) that voted with the Government over Maastricht after a tied vote.
c. Self-righteous? Have you seen John Bercow in action?
d. Slumped into stalemate? Have you read David Cameron's speech today?
e. Vacate their seat? Right, so they get elected as Speaker but THEN give up the one qualification that allows them to be Speaker - their being an MP? Genius. Oh and make them the only MP that doesn't have any constituents putting them in a minority of, er, one. Genius. Again.
f. Bercow was never a very good or loyal member of the Conservative Party. He's even less likely to be now he's given up all party allegiance. Just to be clear on this point, both Betty Boothroyd and Michael Martin now sit on the crossbenches in the Lords. When you become Speaker you no longer have party allegeiances. Ever again.
g. Dent the 'Great Reformer'? I thought you said he hadn't done anything? That he was stuck in stalemate? And how does sticking to the 'centuries-old' tradition, like Labour, make him the Great Satan in this? I thought you were attacking Nigel Farage. Maybe not.
As my younger sister would say. FAIL. EPIC FAIL.
You also don't really explain why Cameron's image as a reformer would be blotted. What is it that you actually want him to do?
Finally, it's interesting to note from the comments that Labour fielding a candidate would in fact be no break from tradition at all; the fact that, for once, they didn't intended to this time is more telling.
Why can't the parties agree that the Speaker, on election, applies for the Chiltern Hundreds (usually used by MPs who want to resign their seat). That would allow another to contest the seat and represent the constituent, while allowing the Speaker to call the Commons to order?
That would make the situation worse. The speaker would then not be an MP.
I'm not sure any of the options are good here.
At this time, when we face a Tory government, I think preserving all "usual" constitutional niceties is essential.
As for Buckingham, there is
a) No evidence John Bercow is personally unpopular.
b) Labour would gain no advantage
c) I rather suspect that, in terms of the basically social work "items" occupy so much of MP's time (about which I am in two minds), I rather suspect the Speaker's minions do OK by his constituents.
Wouldn't it be easier to change the rules so that a new speaker resigns as an MP to take up the position and calls a by-election?
UKIP is a party of protest. People are sick fed up of MP's back pocket, nose in the trough, party 'yes men' attitudes and culture. Folk are looking to send a signal to Westminster that they are fed up with the lack of real choice, for example, between Labour's targeted investment in public services and Tory cuts in public spending which are, in fact, one and the same - once you ignore the hyperbole.
Farage could just end up being that message from 'Middle England' just as the growing support for the SNP is in Scotland.
Farage is not the problem - Westminster is.
Labour could make things easier for themselves by giving us avote on the EU Consitution - that may go some way to placating the electorate over the anti democratic EU.
There can be no progress without democracy.
I am part of the electorate, and I am not silly enough to "vote against the EU" as some idle xenophobic gesture. Some people in this country have realised that we no longer possess an empire; have a decadent, idle and severely over-expectant population; produce little of value that is sought by other nations; and have a bloated public sector and a large section of the population either unemployed or employed in public sector non-jobs simply to massage figures to be acceptable.
The future for me, and my family, lies abroad. It lies in the industry and commonwealth of modern, forward-looking Europe; not in the backward, conservative, prudish Britain that you and Farage seem to hold in such high regard.
But nor do I want to belong to the EU just because of the failings we have in the UK - we should be addressing them ourselves.
What I do want is a democratic process and democratic institutions so we can actually have a little influence what laws are imposed on us. When were we asked to vote on a manifesto produced by the EU government? When were we asked to vote for and EU government? We are about to get a new constitution giving our political masters even more power - but when did we have a say in that?
Government and its institutions are supposed to be accountable and transparent (ref: UN High Commisioner for Human Rights) but by any stretch of imagination no one could say that applies to the EU setup. We even had one EU official saying this week that the constitution was deliberately made complex to make it difficult for ordinary mortals to understand! This is the way "democracy" works in the EU at presnt and it has to change.
Very sadly, the only way of registering any protest is to vote BNP or UKIP. UKIP is the least of the two evils.
Good point. I didn't know that, but have just checked and your right.
I guess Tories are just more honourable then.
run open primaries as a means to assess/control who can stand for parliament.
unless someone else has a better idea about how we can start the process of giving the voter a better control - on their politcal destiny.
However, anything that could get bercow chucked out has to be supported. And having UKIP in the HoC from where our membership of the EU is actually controlled (WTF are they doing in the EUParliament? how does that get us out?) would be a step forward.
The EU is our future. Stop whining about past glories and get with the programme.
Anyhow. As it happens, as a Tory, if I lived in Buckingham I would vote Farage, most Tories I have spoken to would as well.
I think Farage can win.
As for a candidate standing against the Speaker, I quite like the tradition of not standing against him/her, as they are supposed to be neutral when in the Speaker's seat and therefore should be afforded some rights/protection.
However I don't feel we've had a neutral speaker for some time, honesty, integrity and impartiality seemed to have disappeared. I'd be interested to hear counter arguements based on a Speaker that had the above traits and whether people still feel that they should have to fight an election/defend their seat.
He doesn't deserve to win an egg-and-spoon race, let alone a seat in our parliament. And that's saying something given the quality of the incumbent MPs.
"More interesting will be David Cameron’s response in the months to come. I suspect he will stick his head in the sand in the expectation that Bercow should still deliver a Conservative seat. In the process, however, Cameron may be forced to dent the ‘Great Reformer’ image he has worked so hard to cultivate since the expenses scandal first broke."
Errr
As Bercow - like all Speakers - renounces his Party Affiliation when he/she becomes Speaker.. this is rubbish.