Mr. Speaker: A Politically Corrupt Little Shyster

The kind of constitutent Mr. Speaker
would prefer: a dumb ape who will
vote for anyone who will
give it a banana

Nothing so points up the rank corruption of our present ruling political class than the news in today's Mail on Sunday that Mr. Speaker Bercow so fears the judgement of his fellow citizens that he wishes to remove himself from the risk that such judgement might be unfavourable.

In what would, beyond a peradventure, the most brazen act of gerrymandering in modern times and mark the return to the age of the Rotten Borough, Mr. Speaker bercow has proposed the creation of a new Parliamentary seat just for the Speaker:

Speaker John Bercow wants to switch to a new seat with only MPs as his ‘constituents’ so he can avoid a humiliating defeat by former UKIP leader Nigel Farage at the nextGeneral Election.

It would mean abandoning his Buckingham seat for the newly created one called St Stephen’s – the name of the old House of Commons chapel – where, effectively, it would be impossible to challenge him.

He put forward the idea amid speculation that he may struggle to defeat Mr Farage, who stepped down as UKIP leader to take on Mr Bercow in defiance of the custom where the Commons Speaker is not challenged by the main parties.

If the tradition ended, said Mr Bercow, it could be hard for any Speaker to survive for more than one parliamentary term.

Mr Bercow suggested giving the Speaker ‘a separate constituency, known as St Stephen’s, representing a small area around Westminster’.

The Speaker’s original constituency would hold a normal election and choose a new MP, he explained.

‘The Commons can always decide to do that if it wants,’ he told Total Politics magazine. If MPs supported such an idea, he would not oppose it. Ordinary members of the public would not be allowed to be ‘constituents’ of the Speaker’s St Stephen’s seat.

Any Election challenge would have to be made on an individual – not a party – basis, making it harder to unseat the Speaker.

Mr Bercow said: ‘It is both possible and necessary for the Speaker to continue to be a highly active constituency MP.

I suspect I won’t face major party competition – but I will face opponents.’

As to the last point: you bet he will face opposition.

Clearly the vibes from Buckingham are not very good as the good burghers of that fair town contemplate the prospect of re-electing this grubby little creep to be their MP. Bercow's conduct in relation to expenses has shown him, some may think, to be a serial trougher. He managed to be elected to the Office of Speaker only by courting the votes of Labour and Lib 'Dem' MPs, Tory MPs voting almost exclusively for anyone but Bercow. As soon as he got into the Speaker's Chair he started spending public money like confetti. And his 'reforms' have been decidedly 'New Labour', trashing every tradition he can, reducing the great office of Speaker to that of a drab little functionary.

This is before one contemplates his wife who wishes to compromise in an obvious way the necessary convention that Mr. Speaker is and is seen to be totally non-partisan by standing as a candidate for the Labour party in local and Parliamentary elections. That is quite apart from her admissions to having spent a fair chunk of her twenties as a drunken slut.

We should remember that in certain circumstances Mr. Speaker can have a decisive vote in House of Commons business: as recently as 1990 the Deputy Speaker had occasion to vote decisively in a division of The House. That means he must be made subject to the accountability of his fellow citizens, not to a tiny little electorate of the 'Chumocracy'.

This is an utterly undemocratic proposal designed to save the rotten career of a second-rate politician from the verdict of his fellow citizens. It should - must - be opposed with every breath in our bodies.

COMMENT THREAD