The underhand tactics of John Bercow
Dear John Bercow,
As reported yesterday in the papers, the final recommendations of the Speaker’s Conference on Parliamentary Representation were announced. Rather than shout and yell at what I read in the papers, I thought I would do the honourable thing and read through your recommendations myself to ensure that there was no misunderstanding or misinterpretation. Unfortunately, reading it for myself just made my blood boil that little bit quicker.
“Much more must be done to encourage local political activism and to prevent discrimination against potential parliamentary candidates who do not fit the traditional mould.” As soon as I saw the phrase ‘traditional mould’, it was obvious that there was only going to be one loser: white males like me. Indeed, your conclusions read like an endless tirade against white men. While I agree that ”the extent to which political parties are the subject of both contempt and general public indifference should be a cause of concern”, the measures that you attempted to match with this comment were appalling, simply appalling. Allow me to dissect your recommendations to demonstrate the point:
1. To nurture activism at grass roots level they want the Government to consider introducing a scheme enabling local political parties to apply for funding linked to their receipts from member subscriptions – this is nothing more than state funding for political parties and should be immediately struck from your recommendations. This kind of subversive tactic to boost political party balance sheets is not welcome in our democracy, thank you very much.
2. At local level, the Conference found there are a number of barriers to the selection of candidates which include, the cost, a lack of confidence, time pressures and lack of support. The Conference also identified discrimination in the selection process against women, people from ethnic minorities and disabled people. There was also a tendency to fall back on “more of the same” when selecting or to promote only “favoured sons” – errr, with all due respect, a ‘lack of support’ is the problem that every loser in every election suffers from. This is hardly unique to politics. The discrimination that you supposedly identified in the selection process will no doubt come down to the small numbers of women, ethnic minorities and disabled people applying for seats and getting selected. This is NOT evidence of discrimination; it is, in fact, a logical outcome of these groups having much less experience in local politics and local parties than other candidates because minority groups have typically only become active in politics in recent years, whereas other candidates have been applying for seats, running their local parties and working in local councils for many years previously. Your comment about ‘favoured sons’ is similarly weak. Local parties should be allowed to vote for who they want to represent them. It’s called democracy. Look it up. If they choose a white man, so be it. Maybe, just maybe, a white man might be the best person for the job and may have been working in their local party for years and be a superb candidate and have earned their place as the chosen candidate.
3. There should be a formal code of conduct for campaigning, to make clear it is unacceptable to seek to undermine a candidate by reference to his or her family life, racial background, sexual orientation, health status or disability - mostly fair, but if a married candidate starts shagging someone 40 years their junior during the campaign, I think the public have a right to know.
4. Parties should place a ceiling upon the expenses which candidates can incur during any single selection process - this is just a means to hurt people like Zac Goldsmith and is a pathetic jibe. Besides, there will be easy ways to circumvent such ridiculous rules.
5. Bursaries should be available to individuals who would otherwise not be able to afford the costs of a candidacy - not a bad idea, actually, but how you decide who deserves what could bring the whole thing down.
6. All political parties should appoint national and/or regional community champions for women and people from black and ethnic minority (BME) and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) communities and disabled people – the moment that I see the word ‘champion’, I know that it’s a crap idea. Leave the political parties alone. If they don’t want to increase the representative of their candidates, so be it. Let the voters punish them, not you.
7. The Government should legislate to give approved prospective parliamentary candidates the opportunity for unpaid leave from work – excuse me? Why should an employer, potentially a small one, have to grant someone leave for days and weeks just because they have political ambitions? In what other walk of life should an employer tolerate their employee explicitly wanting to leave their company?
8. Opportunities such as working for a political party or MP be made more accessible to a wider range of people – very true, but you didn’t say how.
9. Political parties provide a breakdown of the diversity of their Parliamentary party members – oh great, naming and shaming. Always helps. Mind you, the Lib Dems would be the biggest losers as they have no ethnic MPs at all.
10. More is done to encourage citizenship education in schools – yup, that’ll save our democracy.
11. If the political parties fail to make significant progress on women’s representation at the 2010 general elections, Parliament should consider the introduction of prescriptive quotas, ensuring that all political parties adopt some form of equality guarantee in time for the following general election. The Conference fully supports the proposed extension of the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002 to enable the use of all women shortlists until 2030 - an absolute disgrace. How dare you distort democracy so brazenly. As I said, women should compete on a level playing field. If they don’t have enough experience or know a local party well enough to get selected, that is something they have to address themselves. The worst thing possible is to shove women into Parliament who do not deserve to be there.
12. Equivalent legislation to the above should be enacted to allow political parties, if they so chose, to use all BME shortlists – f***ing hellski.
13. Shortage of funds must not be an excuse for local parties failing to make proper arrangements for disabled people to play their part in politics – what?! Do you have any idea how broke local political parties are most of the time? How can they possibly afford to renovate buildings and improve access when they are fighting to stay afloat month by month in many cases? Be reasonable, for goodness sake.
14. Best practice on how best to use limited funds should be shared – fine, good idea, but don’t punish local parties.
15. The House needs to correct the impression that it does not welcome disabled Members. The passage into law of the Equality Bill currently before Parliament will be a good opportunity for the House authorities to announce publicly how committed they are supporting disabled Members – eh?
16. Part of the Democracy Diversity fund should be ring fenced to support disabled parliamentary candidates – another reasonable idea, but not sure how far the funds will stretch.
17. Members should not be disqualified from sitting in the House on the grounds of mental illness – you what?! Are you seriously suggesting that it is appropriate for someone with chronic depression or a crippling anxiety disorder to be voting on national legislation and representing their constituents in Parliament? Obviously some disorders will not affect the carrying out of Parliamentary duties but many of them will.
Unbelievable. I was reeling by the time I got to the bottom of this list, I really was. For your conference to open with the statement that “the Conference emphasises that political parties themselves are an important part of the future of our democracy”, only to spend their entire duration of the recommendations undermining democracy at almost every possible step, is shocking. I want to see minority candidates promoted and given more opportunities than they had in the past, who doesn’t? However, what is not acceptable is to ‘do a Harman’ and attempt to solve discrimination by using discrimination. Shame on you Mr Speaker for being so short on ideas and intellect that you couldn’t think of anything better.
Yours contemptfully,
A.Tory
Witanagemot Blogs
Another 17 reasons for the good people of Buckingham to vote for (white, male) Nigel Farage. Get rid of the Berk, get a new Speaker and get a UKIP presence in Parliament – win, win, win.
One consequence of this kind of thing would be to create legislatures which become little more than pressure groups for more spending and laws. Unfortunately, we have had enough of this. What the country now needs is a legislature and government that can actually govern and legislate from a basis of what works and proportionality and an understanding of unintended consequences.
“…the moment that I see the word ‘champion’, I know that it’s a crap idea. “
See also ‘Tsar’.
@Grumpy Optimist – “One consequence of this kind of thing would be to create legislatures which become little more than pressure groups for more spending and laws.”
Working as intended, then.
Now we know why Labour were so keen to get this guy elected as Speaker!
The fact that there exists a Speaker’s Conference on Parliamentary Representation, and the number and scope of its ‘recommendations’ is evidence, for me, of the continuing delusion of Parliament and ancillary functionaries that they are so bloody unique and important. Much more so, of course, than the rest of us.
@JuliaM – The more I think about this JuliaM, the more I am getting something. The difference between the left and right can be seen as that between the have nots and the haves (and so a legislature that demands all the time is fair and logical) or it can be seen as between the don’t knows and those that know – between the disempowered and pessimistic and the empowered and confident. This of course is dangerous talk (not PC at all) and of course those that know and are empowered can be as selfish as anyone else. But at the same time those who actually have some idea of how things actually work in practice can also have the interests of the community at heart. Compassion and care is not an exclusive preserve of John Prescott and Roy Hattersley you know.
@Grumpy Optimist – “Compassion and care” in the same sentence as the name John Prescott. It’s irony or a joke, right?
Can we have Mick back please
LFaT – The weirdest thing for me, was that I thought MPs were there FOR the people, not OF the people???
I want respectable, moral, and competent people running the country – I really don’t care about race and gender!!
This positive discrimination is starting to be really scary – it was daft, now its positively scary!
I wish I lived in Buckingham, just to vote UKIP!!
BS, that’s the last thing we need right now!!!!
@Talwin – Yes, I was trying to be ironic. I remember an article by Dominic Lawson I think some time ago who began with the words – John Prescott is right and then said – that this was an ordering of words that was rarely made. Is it just me who sees this man as hectoring and bullying and can’t forget that he shagged his assistant in his office and who is compulsive bottom pincher. A quite awful specimen.
@Grumpy Optimist – Sorry to doubt you! Please excuse an overly-hasty reaction owing to my own frailty after 13 years of New Labour.
17. Members should not be disqualified from sitting in the House on the grounds of mental illness
Obviously this clause is there to ensure that McBroon still qualifies to lead us
Being mentally ill didn’t seem to disqualify Winston Churchill from fighting off the Nazis while wrestling with his own, private ‘black dog’. So why would we need a new rule now?
Shaun, very true, but I don’t think we want to necessarily encourage a re-run of that particular period in history for all kinds of reasons.
1. To nurture activism at grass roots level they want the Government to consider introducing a scheme enabling local political parties to apply for funding linked to their receipts from member subscriptions.”
I know what that means. Gangs of 4-6 men with black leather jackets and a handful of “join us now” literature “canvassing” after dusk.
13. “Shortage of funds must not be an excuse for local parties failing to make proper arrangements for disabled people to play their part in politics.” Most clubs and associations are licensed premises. Don’t they have to have suitable arrangements for disabled customers anyway?
Does this load of garbage explain why CCHQ is so desperate to get control of candidate selection?
Heh, LFAT, maybe. But isn’t it odd how they can seek to end discrimination against the disabled on the one hand while seeking to exclude people from the House *expressly* on medical grounds?
Mental illness can, after all, be recognised as a disability.
Add my name to that, even though you wimped out on 5 and 8.
5. The bursaries will be given to PC people by other PC people, it just leads to a new class of rent-seekers.
8. “Giving more people the opportunity to work for a party or MP” means “giving them more taxpayers’ money to allow them to employ more people”, another bad idea.
@LFAT – I was joking but the last thing we need right now is more red tape and form filling.
“and attempt to solve discrimination by using discrimination.” At least you realise, LFaT.
Is Bercow trying to make his mark? I think his wife managed that.
This looks like something that Hattie Harperson wrote. It pushes her ‘equality agenda’, seeks to bar rich entrepeneurs from using their wealth to fund campaigns, and creates political funding via the back door because the Labour party are bankrupt.
Sorry Bercow, poor effort. Go back & do it again, and this time you write it yourself instead of your paymasters.
@Grumpy Optimist – “Is it just me who sees this man as hectoring and bullying and can’t forget that he shagged his assistant in his office and who is compulsive bottom pincher. A quite awful specimen. “
No, it’s not just you…
I probably should have reminded everyone that Harriet Harman, as leader of the House, is part of the Speakers Committee that wrote this document.
It has her grubby paws all over it.
Harriet Harman is vital to us, you know. Every time she opens her mouth, thousands more people decide to vote Conservative.
Shouldn’t it be LGBTHA (H for heterosexual, A for asexual) community?
Or ‘Community’ as we knew it…
“Bursaries should be available to individuals who would otherwise not be able to afford the costs of a candidacy”
I do fancy this idea, its time we had an English Pensioner’s Party (with me as leader and proper right wing policies).
I would, after all, be totally politically correct as Harriet Harperson has recently been saying that older people should be allowed to continue at work, and this type of job would suit me now that I’m no longer as physically active as I was.
And there is no longer a representative of my minority interests group since John Major left parliament, so I’d be the ideal person. Perhaps I’ll write to John Bercow asking how to apply.
PS What minority interest? – sorry, you’ll need to look at my blog, third interest listed, to find out!
There is an aim behind all of this ( apart from the visceral hatred of white men ) and that is to destroy democracy by turning everyone into clients of the almighty state.
Lets be clear this won’t stop with political parties. Once the politicians owe their jobs to not having to compete against other people because they have special privileged status they will start to pass laws imposing the same system on the professions and on industry.
Privileged mediocrity will reign – which will make socialist oppression much easier to build.
If Bercow’s not gone, then there’s no justice in the land.
@LFAT – @LFAT – @LFAT: your critique of the document is undermined by an error: Harman was not a member of the Speaker’s Conference. Membership is here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/spconf/239/23901.htm
@Gus Friar – Tish, tosh, what a load of bosh. Firstly, the Speakers Conference is not representative of the composition of the House. Two tories in the conference? A clear case of gerrymandering. Secondly, the malign influence of Horrible Hattie on the Speaker was clearly demonstrated in the way she overruled the supine Speaker in the Great Expenses Debate, effectively making the Office of Speaker a Part of the Executic-ve, rather than a defence against it. Charles II will be kicking himself.
Parliament is in dire need of a strong and independent Speaker, one who will ,for instance, remind the PM that at PMQ’s, he is supposed to answer questions, not ask them. I was prepared to give Speaker Bercow the benefit of the doubt. By issuing this Proclamation of the Dissolution of Democracy in the UK. he has proved beyond doubt that he is a waterflea in the Westminster lake. If I were part of the electorate of Buckingham, I would vote for any party that would put Bercow out of our misery.
Dammit, sorry, I meant she submitted evidence to the Committee, not joined it. Good spot.
What’s going on? Nine out of the seventeen members of the Speaker’s Conference are women.
It would be interesting to know if members were appointed or did they volunteer? Are they paid extra for this work? Perhaps the composition is eschewed to balance up year end statistics. Perhaps Mr Bercow has this female magnetism (apart from his parliamentary powers). Still quite a few out there might quite rightly point out that the balance of membership of the Speaker’s Conference is unrepresentative. Oh, I do wish they’d practise what they preach.
I am thinking of going to help Mr. Farrage , Bercow is the mother of all chumps and as for his wife …
Erm… Doesn’t the Speaker’s Conference have more than one person on it?
Amusing as it is to blame Bercow personally for what is a collegial effort, it does rather ignore the fact that the Conference had several Tories on it who presumably consent to, an may even have proposed, these recommendations.
It’s a bit like when the papers blame the Speaker for the actions of the House of Commons Commission / Members Estimates Committee even though rival Speakership candidate Sir George Young (who allegedly would have done things differently/better than the incumbent) is also a member of the committee.
Bipartisan committees reflect the views of more than just one man. If the Tory members did not produce a minority report, we can only presume their support was unanimous.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that the Speaker’s Conference represents the views of the Speaker. The Speaker, in chairing the conference, just as when he chair’s debates, remains impartial.
Will you correct your error, or at least clarify what you mean when you direct the blame at the Speaker?