Should 'democratic principles' be employed to remove the Speaker?

24

Comments

  • northantsgirlnorthantsgirl Posts: 4,663
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Bercow does not stand under a "Tory" label in Buckingham...he stands as all his predecessors did as "speaker seeking re-election" so the Tory party (or anyone else) is quite welcome to stand an official candidate against him if they want to.

    .

    That is it- if the Tories hate him so much then they should stand against him. If they did they would probably win because Buckingham is as solid Tory as they come. The thing is they don't hate him enough to drive a coach and horses through convention.
  • glasshalffullglasshalffull Posts: 22,291
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Cryolemon wrote: »
    Last time a local independent did pretty well against him, so it's probably not impossible to get the right person (and everyone to agree on a candidate, as sometimes happens in NI) who could beat him.

    if you mean John Stevens (who finished second) I'm not sure how "independent" he really was...for ten year he was a Tory MEP who quit them because of their increasing Europhobia and describing IDS (leader at the time) of being xenophobic.

    He subsequently joined the Lib Dems and remained a member of the party until just before the 2010 election...resigning so by the time of the election he use the label of "independent" and so the Lib Dems could not be accused of breaching the convention in the speaker's constituency.:D
  • angarrackangarrack Posts: 5,493
    Forum Member
    jmclaugh wrote: »
    Voters aren't and have never been involved in electing the speaker so why should they now.

    Thats true, but this isn't about the election of a Speaker. Its about his removal. With all the parties observing a convention that the sitting Speaker is returned unopposed in a general election the electorate are denied the possibility of removing him.

    Unless of course a serious campaign is launched headed by an independent candidate, but thats asking rather a lot of the electorate. Why should they be obliged to go to those lengths to have a say in the removal of an unpopular Speaker?

    The other factor, as someone has pointed out, is the denial of choice of parliamentary representation in the existing Speaker's constituency.
  • glasshalffullglasshalffull Posts: 22,291
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    angarrack wrote: »
    Thats true, but this isn't about the election of a Speaker. Its about his removal. With all the parties observing a convention that the sitting Speaker is returned unopposed in a general election the electorate are denied the possibility of removing him.

    Unless of course a serious campaign is launched headed by an independent candidate, but thats asking rather a lot of the electorate. Why should they be obliged to go to those lengths to have a say in the removal of an unpopular Speaker?

    The other factor, as someone has pointed out, is the denial of choice of parliamentary representation in the existing Speaker's constituency.

    What evidence is there that the speaker is unpopular with the electorate?

    He's unpopular with the Tory party but I see little evidence of "the electorate" either in Buckingham or the rest of the UK taking to the streets to demand a means of getting rid of him.

    Indeed I suspect that any speaker who is unpopular with the government of the day or politicians in general is likely to be MORE popular with the electorate.
  • angarrackangarrack Posts: 5,493
    Forum Member
    What evidence is there that the speaker is unpopular with the electorate?

    He's unpopular with the Tory party but I see little evidence of "the electorate" either in Buckingham or the rest of the UK taking to the streets to demand a means of getting rid of him.

    Indeed I suspect that any speaker who is unpopular with the government of the day or politicians in general is likely to be MORE popular with the electorate.

    It doesn't matter whether the Speaker is popular or unpopular. Either way the electorate have no say in whether an existing Speaker is re-elected. His unfortunate constituents have no choice of representative under the current convention.

    Ask yourself whether that situation would be acceptable to you if he was your constituency MP. For myself I wouldn't be happy, whether it was this Speaker or any other. It would be fair enough if he was appointed following a competitive election campaign, but being returned unopposed, no thankyou.
  • glasshalffullglasshalffull Posts: 22,291
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    angarrack wrote: »
    It doesn't matter whether the Speaker is popular or unpopular. Either way the electorate have no say in whether an existing Speaker is re-elected. His unfortunate constituents have no choice of representative under the current convention.

    Ask yourself whether that situation would be acceptable to you if he was your constituency MP. For myself I wouldn't be happy, whether it was this Speaker or any other. It would be fair enough if he was appointed following a competitive election campaign, but being returned unopposed, no thankyou.

    Nonsense...eleven people including Bercow and Farage stood in Buckingham in the last General Election...they had plenty of choice of candidates....more than I did in my own which is less than 20 miles away from there!

    The fact that the main political parties do not always stand a candidate against a speaker...so what...if the people of Buckingham don't like Bercow they'll vote for one of the other candidates in 2015....there will be others to choose from.
  • angarrackangarrack Posts: 5,493
    Forum Member
    Nonsense...eleven people including Bercow and Farage stood in Buckingham in the last General Election...they had plenty of choice of candidates....more than I did in my own which is less than 20 miles away from there!

    The fact that the main political parties do not always stand a candidate against a speaker...so what...if the people of Buckingham don't like Bercow they'll vote for one of the other candidates in 2015....there will be others to choose from.

    OK, not unopposed, but do you regard those eleven candidates as a realistic and acceptable choice? Farage almost, but even that was a bit of a stunt. Which comic character would you have chosen if you didn't want to vote Bercow or Farage? That isn't a list many electors would be content with.
  • Phil 2804Phil 2804 Posts: 21,846
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    angarrack wrote: »
    This Speaker seems to be one of the most controversial in recent memory.

    Shouldn't the electorate be allowed the opportunity to vote him out of parliament at the next general election?

    I know that Nigel Farage opposed him last time, but that was a bit of a stunt. I am suggesting a serious attempt is made to remove him with a proper campaign which gives the electors in his constituency a chance to do the nation a favour.

    I think you misunderstand the way our electoral system works. Its upto the voters in his constituency to decide if he should continue to represent them in parliament, nobody else. You could just as easily argue that any MP reasonably unpopular with the masses should be subject to the same treatment, such as George Galloway but at the end of the day that's just not how the system of electing MPs to Westminster works.

    More to the point, what if after all your campaigning he still wins, what would be the point then?
  • Phil 2804Phil 2804 Posts: 21,846
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jmclaugh wrote: »
    Voters aren't and have never been involved in electing the speaker so why should they now.

    The incumbent Speaker generally stands unopposed by any of the major parties at a General Election unless they are standing down from the role.

    Nothing to stop them or anyone else standing as we've seen with Farage etc.
  • blueisthecolourblueisthecolour Posts: 20,123
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    angarrack wrote: »
    It doesn't matter whether the Speaker is popular or unpopular. Either way the electorate have no say in whether an existing Speaker is re-elected. His unfortunate constituents have no choice of representative under the current convention.

    Ask yourself whether that situation would be acceptable to you if he was your constituency MP. For myself I wouldn't be happy, whether it was this Speaker or any other. It would be fair enough if he was appointed following a competitive election campaign, but being returned unopposed, no thankyou.

    I challenge your premise that the public even cares about who the speaker is or what he does. He doesn't make laws or run government departments, he just manages the order of business in Westminster and chairs debates. I doubt that the average person on the street catches any more than a couple of minutes of parliamentary debate in any week - i'd be amazed if more than 1 in 4 people even knew who the speaker was.

    Of course, if the Daily Mail and The Sun started up a campaign against him i'm sure you'd find that suddenly millions of people had an opinion about him all along. But then they could pick out pretty much any politician or public servant in Britain and achieve the same result with a few months worth of negative coverage.

    I agree with you about the constituency issue though. I don't see why the people of Buckingham should be denied the right to vote for an active member of parliament that takes part in debates, votes and represents their interests. There is a clear democratic deficit here. But then neither do I think they alone should have the power to kick out a speaker.
  • LostFoolLostFool Posts: 90,623
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    angarrack wrote: »
    This Speaker seems to be one of the most controversial in recent memory.

    And that's saying something when you consider how bad the previous one was.

    Bernard Weatherill and Betty Boothroyd were both excellent.
  • CryolemonCryolemon Posts: 8,670
    Forum Member
    if you mean John Stevens (who finished second) I'm not sure how "independent" he really was...for ten year he was a Tory MEP who quit them because of their increasing Europhobia and describing IDS (leader at the time) of being xenophobic.

    He subsequently joined the Lib Dems and remained a member of the party until just before the 2010 election...resigning so by the time of the election he use the label of "independent" and so the Lib Dems could not be accused of breaching the convention in the speaker's constituency.:D

    Eh, close enough :D
  • northantsgirlnorthantsgirl Posts: 4,663
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The Speaker may be controversial but much of this is his wish to modernise parliament. Ok he may be a bit pompous at times but he wants to put parliament back where it belongs and not sidelined by the Executive. All those who want a modern chamber should be supporting Bercow in his endeavours.
  • David TeeDavid Tee Posts: 22,833
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The Speaker may be controversial but much of this is his wish to modernise parliament. Ok he may be a bit pompous at times but he wants to put parliament back where it belongs and not sidelined by the Executive. All those who want a modern chamber should be supporting Bercow in his endeavours.

    :D:D:D:D:D
  • northantsgirlnorthantsgirl Posts: 4,663
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    David Tee wrote: »
    :D:D:D:D:D

    Now I've heard it all.

    Why do you think there is a battle over the proposed new clerk from Australia and the antis are trying to bring the Queen into it. They don't want change and are scared of modernisation that puts parliament above both the Executive and the indulging of members.
  • David TeeDavid Tee Posts: 22,833
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Why do you think there is a battle over the proposed new clerk from Australia and the antis are trying to bring the Queen into it. They don't want change and are scared of modernisation that puts parliament above both the Executive and the indulging of members.

    Come on. They don't like it because a) there's been zero consultation b) the candidate isn't just inexperienced, she's well dodgy c) there are good reasons why parliamentary tradition has survived so long and d) who the hell is Bercow to declare UDI and "modernise" Parliament?

    The living epitome of Lord Farquaad, that's who.
  • northantsgirlnorthantsgirl Posts: 4,663
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    David Tee wrote: »
    Come on. They don't like it because a) there's been zero consultation b) the candidate isn't just inexperienced, she's well dodgy c) there are good reasons why parliamentary tradition has survived so long and d) who the hell is Bercow to declare UDI and "modernise" Parliament?

    The living epitome of Lord Farquaad, that's who.

    The job was advertised for the first time ever and the appointment was made by an all party panel.
    I'd have thought you'd welcome an outsider coming in to sort out a public sector body.
  • David TeeDavid Tee Posts: 22,833
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The job was advertised for the first time ever and the appointment was made by an all party panel.
    I'd have thought you'd welcome an outsider coming in to sort out a public sector body.

    I would, but someone with the experience to do it, please.

    I have absolutely no idea why the panel (headed by Bercow) made the decision that they did, but between them they've made British Parliamentary procedure a laughing stock.

    From today's Times leader
    The opening line of the official description of the clerk’s job is this: “The clerk of the House is the principal constitutional adviser to the House, and adviser on all its procedure and business, including parliamentary privilege.”

    The principal constitutional adviser. What evidence is there that Ms Mills is able to fill such a role? What is it about her experience that qualifies her to do it? Is Mr Bercow arguing that such experience does not matter?

    The former Speaker, the widely admired Baroness Boothroyd, a person of judgment and discretion, has been extraordinarily outspoken in suggesting that the proposed clerk would be “totally out of her depth” in the “hugely important constitutional role”. It would be foolish of Mr Bercow to shrug off remarks like this.

    The email of dissent dispatched by the clerk of the Australian Senate to her British counterpart is equally striking. It raises some of the points touched on by Lady Boothroyd and the language is just as forceful, talking of “disbelief and dismay” and of being “utterly taken aback”.

    ...more from the Clerk of the Senate in Australia
    We were utterly taken aback here when we saw a brief press report in early July that Carol Mills had emerged as “frontrunner” to take over from you, and have followed events with increasing disbelief and dismay. It seemed to us impossible that someone without parliamentary knowledge and experience could be under consideration for such a role. I do not usually resort to the second person, but there is not a single individual who has mentioned this to me in the past few weeks, from my most junior procedural officers or senior staff here and senators, to my State colleagues, who has not seen this candidacy as an affront to our profession and the professionalism of us all. “Bizarre” is the word most frequently used to describe the situation. I can only imagine what your staff must be thinking.
  • glasshalffullglasshalffull Posts: 22,291
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    David Tee wrote: »
    I would, but someone with the experience to do it, please.



    For info panel consisted of :

    Andrew Lansley (as Leader of House at the time)
    Margaret Hodge
    John Thurso
    Angela Eagle (as Shadow Leader of the House)
    Dame Julie Mellor (Parliamentary Ombudsman)
  • angarrackangarrack Posts: 5,493
    Forum Member
    David Tee wrote: »
    I would, but someone with the experience to do it, please.



    For info panel consisted of :

    Andrew Lansley (as Leader of House at the time)
    Margaret Hodge
    John Thurso
    Angela Eagle (as Shadow Leader of the House)
    Dame Julie Mellor (Parliamentary Ombudsman)



    Not surprising they made a pigs ear of it then.
  • David TeeDavid Tee Posts: 22,833
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    For info panel consisted of :

    Andrew Lansley (as Leader of House at the time)
    Margaret Hodge
    John Thurso
    Angela Eagle (as Shadow Leader of the House)
    Dame Julie Mellor (Parliamentary Ombudsman)

    Yup, saw that. I'd love to have been a fly on the wall in that meeting... I'll bet Bercow wasn't challenged once.


    ETA: I see Bercow's now proposing to split the role into two. The fine print? This would introduced after Mills (the appointee at the center of this row) retires.
  • jmclaughjmclaugh Posts: 63,988
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    What surprises me is the position has a salary of £200,000.
  • angarrackangarrack Posts: 5,493
    Forum Member
    jmclaugh wrote: »
    What surprises me is the position has a salary of £200,000.


    If Bercow splits the job into two I wonder if the salary will be split, or whether he intends to create two jobs at £200,000 each? I think I can predict which.
  • David TeeDavid Tee Posts: 22,833
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Tweets just in from Laura Kuenssberg
    Interesting - departing Commons' Clerk tells me he's put 'interim' arrangements in place that could last until the next election...
    If his supporters get their way and Bercow's panel appointment of Ozzie Carol Mills is delayed, he says 'I'm quite sure we'd be fine'...
    Dame Janet Gaymer will chair the Commons' board, and Clerk Assistant will act up as Clerk until appointment cleared up...
  • LostFoolLostFool Posts: 90,623
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Beckett and Straw join in the attacks on Bercow:
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/21/carole-mills-john-bercow-house-of-commons-row
    John Bercow, the Commons Speaker, suffered a significant setback on Thursday night when Jack Straw and Dame Margaret Beckett became the most senior figures at Westminster to raise questions about plans to appoint an Australian parliamentary official to the most senior unelected post at Westminster.
Sign In or Register to comment.