It's Bercow Against Farage!

In the sort of electoral contest that it is going to be a joy to watch, I see that Nigel Farage is looking to enter Parliament by unseating the obsequious little turd who became the Speaker of the House of Commons this summer. I've got limited time time for UKIP, but I have to say Farage wins a loud round of applause from me for this particular move. Bercow should never have been made Speaker - he is part of the problem with the endemic corruption within the Commons. He certainly isn't part of the solution in any way whatsoever. And since the members of the House of Commons refused to do the decent thing and elect someone capable as their Speaker, it must fall to someone else to take action to remove Bercow from office. And, as an aside, remove him from Parliament as well.

As far as I am concerned, go, go, Farage!

Yet, as well as being a welcome kick in the teeth for Bercow, this also represents something of a departure within British politics. As the linked article above states:

Convention dictates that the other main parties do not put up candidates in the sitting Speaker’s constituency. Labour and the Liberal Democrats will now have to decide whether Mr Farage’s intervention alters that position.

Put simply, UKIP have chosen to piss all over convention. And in doing so, they may enable Labour and the Lib Dems to piss all convention as well. Of course, it will take a lot to enable UKIP to actually beat Bercow. Tens of thousands of votes, according to the last General Election. But regardless of what happens, it is nice to see those who once would never have been challenged according to "convention" now facing genuine democracy at elections.

In some ways, you could argue that this is simply an extension of the same move against political conventions that saw a TV presenter in a bad suit beat an incumbent Tory in 1997, or an independent candidate taking on and beating a Blairite candidate in Labour's heartland in 2006. It certainly shows the move away from the assumption that only the Liberal Democrats offer a true protest vote in this country. It also shows that if a politician really pisses off the people enough, someone will stand up to tell them to fuck off. And this willingness to defy convention and the status quo can only be to the advantage of the British voter. It states simply that if politicians take the piss, then there will be people to fight against them.

Go for it, Farage. I hope you win. And let this be the first of many successful challenges to the politicians representing the greedy, undemocratic and sickening status quo.

John Bercow: How NOT to be transparent.

John Bercow whilst campaigning to be Speaker of the House of Commons:

"It is high time the house was run by professionals on a transparent basis, ensuring that we are accountable to the people who put us here."

John Bercow's office now he is Speaker of the House of Commons:

"These questions are not answered because it would imply we are offering judgment on decisions taken by the full parliament"

And what is the issue that his office is refusing to comment on?

A spokeswoman for Bercow said it would breach parliamentary "protocol" to say whether he had stuck to a wage freeze agreed by his predecessor, Michael Martin.

So, we have the Speaker elected to clean up the House of Commons refusing to comment on whether he has kept to a pay freeze that his predecessor - a man who stood down, in part, owing to his ability to rinse the public purse - opted to take. We have a Speaker who campaigned on his desire to be transparent refusing to be transparent literally weeks after being elected. I don't know, but this just doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Maybe I missed a memo or something, but my understanding of transparency is very different to that of Mr Bercow. In fact, I would say that Bercow's actions are the very opposite of transparent. 

Now, I *get* that he has to be neutral. I also think that maybe he should lead by example. So if the House needs to be more transparent, maybe the Speaker should defy convention and be transparent. Except there's that nagging doubt, isn't there. That doubt that Bercow isn't actually concerned with standing in judgment on the House. No, I suspect he can't be transparent because of what that transparency would show. I suspect that he didn't stick to the pay freeze, and is embarrassed to admit it. 

I could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong. But that would be my challenge to Bercow - prove it. Prove that I am a cynical fuck by revealing that you didn't take the pay rise. Fuck convention and, on this issue, fuck neutrality. Give the House of Commons some much needed leadership and tell us the truth. Because the longer you hide behind your office and the excuse of protocol, the more clear it will be to your critics that you are just the same as what went before. 

John Bercow and the Adventure Of The Changing Wikipedia Page

Last night, when writing a post about the newly elected Speaker Bercow, I went to Wikipedia to get a link about the man's expenses. Previously, I remembered reading that he was one of the most expensive MPs. Last night, his entry had changed - now he was one of the cheapest MPs for 2008/9, with a grudging concession that he had been more expensive before. 

A comment from Obnoxio allowed me to track the changes and find out that the entry had indeed changed. The original read:

Bercow has consistently been one of the most expensive members of the House of Commons, in terms of claims on the additional costs allowance.

In the financial years 2007-8, 2006-7, 2004-5 and 2002-3 he had the distinction of occupying joint first position in a league table of most expensive members of the House of Commons, while in 2003-4 he was the joint third most expensive Member.

Last night, it had changed to:

In 2008/09 Bercow was one of the cheapest MPs in terms of total expenses, coming 631st out of 645.

In terms of the "additional costs allowance", he has been one of the most expensive over the past six years.

Now, both entries may be factually correct, but they paint a very different picture of Speaker Bercow. The first one makes it clear that Bercow has been one of the most expensive MPs, and therefore is at the heart of the endemic corruption that has caused such scandal in the Commons. However, the amended entry starts by claiming that Bercow is one of the cheapest MPs. From bad guy to good guy in one quick edit. Magic.

So what does this change prove? I've no evidence that Bercow was in anyway connected with it, and in fairness he's probably been very busy recently and therefore probably not that focussed on what was going on with his Wikipedia entry. All this edit conclusively proves is that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, and it is very easy for the facts to be slanted away from the interpretation you prefer.

Given the above, why does this change matter? Because, it is indicative of a far wider problem - namely, the reinvention of John Bercow as the great reformer rather than being the Big Spender. The House of Commons were meant to elect someone to reform the Commons; instead they have elected someone who is up to his neck in the very scandal he is meant to be ending. There'll be a lot of spin around Bercow, as the House of Commons closes ranks around the person they've chosen to be their speaker, and the sneaky edit to Wikipedia is a good example of the rewriting of history for (the completely undeserving) John Bercow.

Some will argue that it is too early to write Bercow off, and they are probably right. After all, he was only elected last night. But everything about his election stinks, from the piss poor candidates who put themselves forward through to the growing amnesia of some about Bercow now he has emerged as Speaker. To round off this post on the new Speaker I'll use the words of Tory Bear:

Bercow wasn't the best candidate, he isn't clean and he sure as hell isn't honest. Let it not be forgotten that he has paid thousands of pounds back that he avoided paying in capital gains tax, an offence that has cost the careers of fellow MPs such as Kitty Usher. Not only that but Bercow topped the list of claimers of the Second Home Allowance and is paid around £35k to serve as an advisor to a Cayman Island healthcare company. Everything that the House needed has been spat back in the face of the voters.

Speaker Bercow

So, in order to reform the House of Commons in the wake of the expenses scandal, the Commons have elected one of the worst perpetrators* as the new Speaker. 

Well, I guess must know all of the fiddles and loopholes. And the ironies of a man who has campaigned so long as so hard to be Speaker being dragged to the chair (as per tradition) would be funny if it wasn't so fucking tragic. 

But seriously, this lacklustre choice reeks of party political point scoring and just how committed those in the Commons are to reform. They don't give a fuck. 

*Interestingly, unless I am very much mistaken, the Wikipedia page for Bercow appears to have changed since I last looked at it. It now highlights that he was one of the cheapest MPs in 2008/09, before grudgingly mentioning that he was one of the most expensive for the past six years. I have no ability or desire to prove those pages have changed recently, although someone with more technical ability might be able to do so...

The Speaker's Election

I wonder whether anyone will do any sort of a liveblog of the Speaker's election. One imagines that even the hardiest of would-be political commentators have better things to do with their time than relay perhaps one of the most dull elections known to man in microscopic detail.

Still, there are some who argue that this is one of the most important elections for Speaker in history. Which I would be more inclined to agree with if the contestants weren't a horse faced woman, an angry testicle, an obsequious little twat and a whole bunch of non-entities eyeing up retirement vying for the office. When it is difficult to get excited about the candidates in an election (or even work out who they are) it is sure as hell difficult to give a short sharp fuck about who wins. Besides, some of the key voters are those members of the Labour government who allowed Gordon Brown to seize the Labour leadership unopposed. Their judgment is not so much flawed as full on retarded. 

The new Speaker is not the fundamental change the House of Commons needs to recover from what has been one of the worst years in its history. It is a distraction - all smoke and mirrors designed to hide the fact that there has been very little change in the aftermath of the expenses meltdown. I've said it before and will probably have to say it again, but it is time for the people to decide what change they want in the Commons. And that can only be done through a General Election. 

Speaker of the House: Dorries V. Bercow

Reading the comments of Nadine Dorries' opposition to the likely election of John Bercow as Speaker of the House of Commons brought the comment of Henry Kissinger about it being a shame that both sides can't lose to mind once again. Let's look at Dorries' comments first.

The reasons - other than a dislike of Bercow for being a bit of a snob - reveal more about the prejudices and concerns of the woman some refer to as "Mad Nad" than they do about Bercow's suitability to be Speaker. Up first we have Nadine's problem with Bercow's wife:

The first being that the Speaker’s wife, should he have one, plays a very important role. We have all seen how often Speaker Martin’s wife has been named in the press over the years. John Bercow’s wife is reported to be a socialist. Does this matter? I think it does, a great deal. The position has been held by socialists twice already.

I'm not quite sure whether Nadine is referring to the role of Speaker of the House of Commons or the role of spouse of Speaker of the House of Commons. Although I struggle to know why it makes a blind bit of fucking difference what Bercow's wife thinks about anything. Bercow is his own man, and whilst his political views are all over the place (as we will come on to see), there is no evidence that he is unduly influenced by his wife. And it's also worth noting that the main reason why Mrs Martin ended up in the press so much was because of her aptitude at helping her husband to maximise his generous expenses allowance.

Anyway, isn't the Speaker meant to be neutral in debates ? Yeah, Speaker Martin didn't always manage that, but that bovine sack of shit should never had been in the position in the first place. If Dorries is worried about Bercow's wife whispering extracts from the Communist Manifesto during Prime Minister's Questions then she should note that the Speaker's wife won't be with him whilst he does his duties in the House. 

Besides, I thought that Bercow's wife was attached to Nu Labour - which makes her about as socialist a moderate Tory.

But that is just window dressing - I suspect that the real reason why Dorries has it in for Bercow is about the latter's view on abortion. See, the new progressive Bercow is pro-choice (or pro-abortion in the odious vernacular of Nadine) and makes no bones about being dismissive about some of the more loopy views of those who use spurious medical knowledge and arcane religious beliefs to limit a woman's right to choose whether they have a baby or not. Something that seems to have struck Nadine in particular is Bercow's description of her views as antediluvian. Nadine explains:

John Bercow described the 190 of us, who voted in favour of reducing the upper limit, as ‘antediluvian’, which means 'before The Flood' i.e. prehistoric.

Frankly, Bercow was quite polite in his description. But Nadine Dorries does have curiously dated views about abortion that often defy common sense, evidence and reason. She had banged on about the hand of hope photo - just go read this piece at the Devil's Kitchen and follow all the links to see just how zealous and deceitful Nadine can be to follow her frankly barmy views on abortion. 

As I said before, Bercow was polite in his description of Nadine's views. He was also accurate.

And let's wrap up our deconstruction of Dorries' problems with this little summary:

Can we trust a Speaker who has such strident zealot views on such an issue to be fair, if he regards those in favour of reducing the number of abortions as prehistoric?

Can we trust the commentary of a politician who unashamedly uses myths and nonsense to back her own spurious, illiberal and zealous views on abortion? And let's be clear on this, Dorries' policy for reducing the number of abortions is by limiting a woman's individual right to choose. 

The disdain and anger of Dorries at Bercow almost makes me want to support him for the bid to be Speaker. That is, until I did a bit of research on Bercow. 

Ignoring the fact that Bercow does come across as a bit of an arrogant wanker (he's a politician, for Christ's sake, of course he's going to be arrogant) there is his radical change in his political views whilst in the Commons from mimicking the views of one Enoch Powell to being the lapdog of Gordon Brown. Now, there is nothing wrong with changing your political views - Churchill famously couldn't decide what side of the House of Commons he wanted to be on. But there is nothing ideological about Bercow's changes. He simply follows power and influence. He is a toady, a lackey and a arse-licker. And whilst there can be no doubt that those who relentlessly pursue power to the extent of everything else - including even basic ideological integrity - do get on in Politics, they don't tend to be the best people to have in positions of power and influence. Think about another example - Tony Blair. 

And then there is the motivation - the reason why Labour MPs have got behind Bercow. Partly it is because he has done everything to suck up to them, but mainly because they know that electing Bercow as Speaker would really piss off David Cameron. So there we have it. We need to have a great, reforming Speaker of the House of Commons, but the Labour party are preparing to elect Bercow because he pisses off the Leader of the Opposition. John Bercow - neither historic not reforming, but irritating to the Opposition. Jesus. 

But what is Bercow - if elected - going to have focus on above everything else? That would be the issue of MPs' expenses. And here Bercow has some experience. By God, does he have experience. Not of the good kind, of course:

Bercow has consistently been one of the most expensive members of the House of Commons, in terms of claims on the additional costs allowance.

In the financial years 2007-8, 2006-7, 2004-5 and 2002-3 he had the distinction of occupying joint first position in a league table of most expensive members of the House of Commons, while in 2003-4 he was the joint third most expensive Member.

And that for me is the best reason why Bercow shouldn't be speaker. He is not just part of problem, he pretty much personifies the problem. Bercow should be on his way out of the Commons, not about to ascend to the position of Speaker. The sole thing Bercow has going for him is he pisses off Nadine Dorries.

To say Bercow isn't suitable to be speaker is to state the bloody obvious - but then, looking at the candidates for the job of Speaker, it is difficult to know who should get the job. Those who want the job aren't capable of doing that job - but then again, who is in the discredited House of Commons is capable of being Speaker?

Ann Widdecombe for Speaker!

After Margaret Beckett, now we have Ann Widdecombe vying for the position of Speaker. What the hell is going on? What happened to the real politicians? Are they all on holiday? Or simply too busy counting their ill-gotten gains in their publicly funded offices?

No doubt Widdecombe is serious about her bid for Speaker - in the same way that I suspect she is tediously earnest about everything that she does. But just a couple of problems with her bid. First of all, she isn't really famous for anything of real value. She is known for dissing Michael Howard, and for being asked whether she has ever enjoyed any nookie by Louis Theroux. She has been made a media darling by those who seem to want to patronise her a bit. She seems to be a self-styled battle-axe with little to offer in terms of a legacy or achievements. Plus, she's standing down at the next election, so whatever reforms she plans to introduce will have to be implemented pretty much as immediately after any election. 

Still, let's not worry about those details. According to the candidate herself she is the favourite with the public. In an election where the public don't vote. Christ give me strength!

If this really is the best of the candidates for the job of Speaker, then we should just board up the House of Commons and give the fuck up. More than ever the role of Speaker is crucial to the running of democratic government in this country, and as such requires something a little better than joke candidates and/or those coasting towards retirement. 

Margaret Beckett for Speaker!

No, not really. She would be an awful choice, and not just because she has no discernible jawline/chin and instead just has folds of flesh completing her strange face. See, she probably isn't the person to clean up Parliament:

Mrs Beckett has faced some questions about her own expenses - she claimed second home allowances of £72,537 from 2004 to 2008, despite having no mortgage or rent to pay on her constituency home and living in a grace and favour flat for part of the time.

Most people with that sort of record would be fighting for their jobs and their reputation, rather than seeking a promotion to sort out the very loopholes they exploited...

Blame-showering the Speaker

I'm no fan of the Speaker of the House of Commons. Indeed, I believe that the porcine imbecile is a living, breathing evocation of the Peter Principle, and I would like to see him doing a job more suited to his talents. Like working in a supermarket warehouse or something. So this post is an odd one for me to have to write. Because I'm going to defend him. Sort of.

That the Speaker should go is of no doubt to me. In fact, he should have gone a long time ago. Partly because he is inept, and partly because he is very, very greedy. But the logic behind some of those plotting his demise is very different to those reasons given above. They talk about him being part of the status quo, of him being a roadblock to reform. Which is true. But I can think of other roadblocks to reform. Such as all the MPs who have failed to reform the system and have exploited it, and only really discovered their zest for reform when the whole system has come crashing down around them.

If the Speaker is part of the problem, then he has several hundred other co-conspirators around him, helping him. This talk of sacking the Speaker is acting as a distraction from the real story - that the Speaker is not alone in warranting the sack, and that there are many people in the Commons just as corrupt and incompetent as the Speaker. He's part of the problem, but getting rid of just the Speaker is not the solution.

Not my fault, guv'nor

There is a well known technique in the world of business - the blame-shower. Something goes wrong, and then the person in charge takes the time (often in a meeting) to pretty much blame everyone else for what has happened and in doing so abdicates all responsibility not just for the problem, but for just about everything else. In the known world. Ever.

And a great example of this is the behaviour of the Speaker of the House of Commons yesterday:

"The Speaker singled out the police for criticism as he sought to explain why they were allowed to raid Mr Green’s Commons office. Mr Martin said that he did not “personally authorise” the search although he admitted that he had been told in advance.

"He told angry MPs that the police advised Jill Pay, the Serjeant at Arms, on Wednesday that they were on the verge of arresting an MP but did not disclose his identity. She told him of the imminent arrest but not the full details. “I was not told that the police did not have a warrant. I regret that a consent form was . . . signed by the Serjeant at Arms without consulting the Clerk of the House,” he said."

It is funny what the Speaker did not know. He did not know there was no warrant. He did not know who the MP was. But let's compare this to what he did know - that the police were going to arrest an MP, and search his office. So, for me, two big questions immediately suggest themselves for the Speaker to have asked in this case. Firstly, "who are they going to arrest?" and then "do they have a warrant?" The failure to ask these questions really does reek of basic incompetence. But fair play, though; it was all the fault of the police anyway. Perhaps what the Commons should do is install some sort of person who can check what the action the police are taking against MPs. Like, say, the Speaker.

Oh.

And this is not the first time the Speaker has shown himself to be as much use as a chocolate fireguard. He has been accused of partisanship in the past, and seems to use tax money to fund a lifestyle that would be the envy of a pre-revolutionary French monarch. Like the Major government, he gives off an air of being in office but not in power. The Labour ranks can claim class bias against Gorbals Mick as much as they like - I'd imagine I'm not alone in not giving the first fuck about his social status. What bothers me - and what should bother everyone else - is his inability to do his job.

Harry Truman used to have a sign on his desk when he was President saying "the buck stops here." The Speaker's sign would read "the buck stops anywhere and everywhere other than here". Which really does make me question what the point is of having this man in a position of power in the Commons. And I think it is time ask the Commons the question "can we have a different Speaker please?"