This I am sure will be the reaction of many voters in Buckingham . I would have been happier though if Bercow’s constituency association had rejected him as candidate and if they felt they could not officially oppose him some member surely could have been persuaded to stand as an Independent Conservative. It is after all a profoundly conservative seat at heart and it would be - will be? - shameful to be represented by a man with such a regrettable reputation. Out of the frying pan - - - -
Christina
================================
YORKSHIRE POST 9.12.09
Bernard Ingham: A Speaker with nothing worthwhile to say
AT last, the United Kingdom Independence Party has a purpose in life other than to embarrass the Conservatives and delay the election of a Eurosceptic government.
I refer to the tradition-busting challenge by Nigel Farage, the party's former leader, to Mr Speaker Bercow in his Buckingham seat.
John Bercow represents a major blockage in the way of his very own mission to repair Parliament's reputation. His removal is an essential first step on the road to a Commons we can look up to.
There is no doubt that Bercow toadied his way to the Commons' chair. His election is arguably the gravest condemnation of the petty emptiness of the Parliamentary Labour Party under Gordon Brown. Many, it seems, had no better motive for electing Bercow to a crucial office of state than that it would appal a lot of his fellow Tories.
That shows you the relative maturity of the Conservative benches. It is, of course, no pointer to the judgment of next year's new Parliament because it will be packed with newcomers, given the rate at which sitting MPs are opting out and the electoral cull to come of Labour Members.
But one thing is clear: the new House will have a suspect Speaker if Bercow remains in post. He seems to have learned little from the distrust of his predecessor, Speaker Martin, who was thought less than impartial.
This is not the sum total of Bercow's liabilities, though it is a grievous one.
The past week has brought evidence that we cannot rely on the reticence of either himself or his wife who has an entirely legitimate ambition to serve the Labour cause on Westminster Council. Normally, I would not bring spouses into this. But she seems to enjoy publicity of the wrong sort.
First, she indulged in a political attack on David Cameron. Then she revealed her binge drinking and one-night stands in her 20s, followed closely by an admission that she smoked cannabis at public school.
This may endear her to the trendies, but it is not calculated to do her husband any good in more restrained circles or to raise the respect in which Mr Speaker is held. Nor does it augur well for future publicity, especially when it has brought revelations that Bercow, aged 23, himself penned a sex guide which he has since denied. The liberal Bercows – and his manifest disregard for tradition in his rejection of normal working garb – may reflect the spirit of the age but I am not sure it is quite what the nation has in mind as its Speaker.
But what worries me more than his suspect impartiality, his wife's political leanings and his rather juvenile attitudes is his lust for publicity. In this, he has been perfectly straightforward.
His election address openly stated that the "Speaker's traditional vow of silence outside the chamber is no longer appropriate". Naturally, he said, the incumbent must remain above the party fray but, "on a basis that enjoys the consent of the House, the Speaker should be a robust public advocate for democratic politics and the work of Parliament".
Quite simply, this is utter self-serving twaddle and it is to the standing disgrace of the 2005-10 Parliament that it fell for it.
The finest advocacy of democratic politics and the work of Parliament is a Commons which commands the respect of the nation. It no longer does so – and not just because too many but by no means all MPs have been caught exploiting their expenses system. I forbear to say "fiddling" because I am convinced they were officially encouraged over the years to milk it.
Certainly, the expenses and allowances system has to be put on a sounder, moral footing, though whether Speaker Bercow is the man to do it is another matter. But that will not in itself repair the "reputational carnage" of which Bercow speaks. There are more causes of the loss of public trust.
One of them is the current Governmental practice – adopted by every political party – to leak every important announcement in advance instead of making it to Parliament. Here Bercow, promising to stop it, fell at the first hurdle when he briefed in advance of a Speaker's statement.
What does Parliament count for if it is not to hear – and challenge – major announcements and commitments of public money first? Why should people take it seriously when it is not discharging its first duty to hold the Government to account?
What is the point of it if we feel we cannot trust it?
Go to it, Farage.
Posts
