Why Labour should field a candidate to fight Farage and Bercow
Twitter
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Stumble
RedditIn 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 To this extent, Mr Farage’s decision to challenge the outdated and undemocratic status quo is to be welcomed.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.
Related posts:
Comments are closed