Speaker's constituency don't get a choice of MP!

[RubarbPie]

Recently the constituency boundaries changed I now find myself in Buckingham and not Aylesbury, consequently the Speaker John Bercow is our MP. However, I was disgusted to find out that there is a 'gentleman's agreement/rule' in parliament that the major parties never contest the seat where the Speaker is standing. So we have NO Labour NO Liberal contestant only the Conservatives. NO CHOICE MEANS NO DEMOCRACY!
The exception is a few minority parties who ignore this rule i.e. BNP, an indepenent and UKIP.al right wing.
I'm a swing voter and have voted for all the main parties at one time or another but am furious I won't get a choice now regardless of whether I would vote for them or not.

[scaryteacher]

I thought Nigel Farage of UKIP was standing against him?

[ClaireDeLoon]

That's appalling

They are effectively saying to however many thousand people in the same constituency as you that you aren't allowed a choice. What if he was a RUBBISH consituency MP?

I would complain and speak to friends and neighbours and get them to complain to, try the local newspaper as a start perhaps?

[ClaireDeLoon]

scaryteacher OP does say UKIP, an independent and BNP are standing against him.

[RubarbPie]

Yep UKIP(Nigel Farage),an independent and BNP have all decided to ignore this rule and stand but the issue is I'm not being given choice as they are all right wing. In this election I wanted to vote Liberal but can't!

[TottWriter]

That's more than a little .

I can see why they would want the stability of the speaker not being chucked every time there's an election given that the post doesn't change hands on a regular basis, but it doesn't change the fact that it is exceedingly undemocratic.

Sounds like it's well past the time when the position of Speaker needs some serious scrutiny. No other MP is exempt from having to fight an election in their constituency - if it's so important that the speaker remain in situ, why doesn't s/he become separate to the MPs when elected to the post, and relinquish some of their other duties to better do the job?

[ommmward]

four reasons to be of good cheer:

1. Buckingham??? That would be the Buckingham where the conservative majority was slashed to about 30,000 in 1997? No labour or lib dem is ever going to get in there. So your vote was never going to go towards a labour/lib dem victory
   
   
2. there is a left wing candidate... BNP (yes they are extreme and revolting but if you read their policies, they are socialists. If UKIP are where disgruntled tory voters go, BNP are where disgruntled labour voters go)
   
   
3. John Bercow is the one that labour made speaker because it would really piss off the tories, isn't he? Isn't he the one whose wife is a labour candidate or something? So you'd almost be voting labour if you voted for him
   
   
4. this is a splendid opportunity for you to write "none of the above, I want a proper democratic choice and I think it is a shambles that the Speaker stands uncontested by the major parties" on your ballot paper, thereby being able to get your message across (all spoiled ballot papers have to be read by the returning officer) as well as performing your civic duty by voting.

[ShadeofViolet]

LOL @ BNP being socialists!

[darcymum]

Why dont you start a campaign in the local paper asking for a

none of the above

option.

[lincstash]

Its customary that the Speaker stands unopposed. After all, if he got defeated i nan election, he wouldn't be an MP so he couldn't be speaker, then we'd have to go through the whole dreary farce of electing a new Speaker, so its saves a lot of bolloxing about.

On the other hand, we could have got rid of the corr put crooked partisan Gorbals Mick by that process, the only man that was a bigger disgrace to public office than the slimy rotten corrupt toad Mandelson.

[lincstash]

"By ShadeofViolet Wed 14-Apr-10 16:26:37
LOL @ BNP being socialists! "

Why?

politics is circular. The nazi party were properly named the National Socialist Party. If you go far enough left or far enough right, they become the same thing, indistinguishable. Whats the difference between nazism and troskyism in practice?

[longfingernails]

The BNP is unquestionably left-wing when it comes to economic policy. They are statist, protectionist, interventionist etc. They are also extremely authoritarian (obviously).

UKIP are extremely right-wing on economic policy. They are also probably the most libertarian of the "major" minor parties (for example, they want to legalise drugs and reverse the smoking ban) - though to pander to Islamophobia, they have taken on some positions incongruous with that libertarianism, such as banning the burkha.

Where the lines get blurred is that the BNP are racist - a stance in the past more associated with Tory politicians than Labour - though amongst voters rather than politicians, many traditional Labour voters have always been racist.

Almost all of the BNP's voters are disillusioned with Labour. Disillusioned Tories, by and large, go to UKIP.