The degradation of the office of Speaker

Above: Bremner Bird & Fortune have stopped trying to satirise the Expenses Scandal. They simply portray what is actually happening and the audience falls about laughing. The Expenses Scandal is beyond satire and the feelings raised go very deep.

After a few days in Scotland I have gone down with ’flu. I am very weak, and have an incredibly sore throat and hacking cough. All I want to do is sleep.

Nevertheless I have been following the shenanigans at Westminster as the Expenses Scandal and its fall-out continues.

The House of Commons finally published all the material relevant to MP’s expenses but in such a censored and bowdlerized format it was widely seen as an insult to ordinary people.



Above: in response the Daily Telegraph brought out a glossy publication listing the outrageous greed of the “Honourable” members of the House of Commons. This magazine reminds me of the souvenir issues produced after royal events or great sporting occasions. I certainly intend to keep my copy – as an historical document it will be sought-after in fifty years’ time as a relic from the most serious constitutional crisis of the post-war era (“constitutional crisis” seems to be justified, as the people have lost all confidence in their representatives).



Above: the latest fiasco involves the “election” of a new Speaker.

Yesterday the House of Commons elected a new Speaker in an attempt to “draw a line” under the Expenses Scandal and “move on”. However John Bercow appears to be such a controversial figure that the uproar is likely to continue. Certainly he appears to have only factional support from Members of Parliament.

Little is known about John Bercow apart from the fact that he was a white supremist in his youth and is now characterized by an extreme political correctness and sympathy for New Labour. His early racist indiscretions are portrayed as youthful exuberance, but this was no reactionary backwoodsman unthinkingly supporting the status quo. As a national student leader John Bercow advocated removing black and brown people from British society, and his defence of the apartheid regime in South Africa (sustained over several years) represented an ideological commitment to the doctrine of white supremacy.

In addition he has behaved badly over Capital Gains Tax (a crime in my view, despite being “within the rules”), and has alienated the Conservative MPs in the House of Commons (not a crime obviously, but hardly the behaviour of a unifying candidate).

Is he not to be questioned about all this?

And what of the precedent that is being set - are we now supposed to overlook and forgive the racist excesses of Andrew Brons on the grounds that they were just silly things he did in his youth?

While I can accept that someone might go from being mildly racist to mildly liberal during the course of a lifetime, to go from extreme racism to extreme liberalism does not inspire confidence. Either he is mentally unstable and lacking integrity (literally his integrated world-view must have come apart). Or he is just chasing power and money and changes his political views to maximize benefits to himself.

When I saw him on Newsnight last night I thought he looked a spiv.

Is this the person we are supposed to accept as Speaker, in a “within the rules” fixed election?

Are the ordinary people to have no say in this?

One consolation of the degradation of the office of Speaker is that it should dissuade the lobby that wants to abolish the monarchy and make the Speaker head of state.