John Bercow defects to Labour

[brad465]

So I’m keen to understand why someone in the Labour Party would be keen to have a man like Bercow on board. Especially since his career has really been about what he can do for himself, no? You’ve got to ask why he was in the Monday Club; is it because he was a Massive Walloping Racist, or was it because he thought that was where the best opportunity lay for his political aspirations? Or perhaps both?

This maybe a naïve reaction from them, but I've seen prominent left figures in the Labour party welcome Bercow's statement, including John McDonnell, while there have been some pointing out Bercow defended Corbyn amidst the anti-Semitism rows going on, saying he as a Jewish person hadn't experienced it from anyone in the Labour party.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

No, I’m surprised that people didn’t know this given he was the Speaker and a very prominent figure in the political fallout of the last few years. It’s remarkable his membership (sorry, not just membership: secretary of!) of a far right racist organisation has just been memory-holed. It’s been a matter of public record that has resurfaced several times yet nobody seems to care.

I’m not sure how you seem to have missed my point, which I’ve explained in several posts. There are two explanations as to why Bercow was in a far right group. One is that he’s a racist, and the other, more charitable and perhaps more plausible one, is that he saw this at the time as merely a vehicle for his political and personal ambitions (you can read quite a lot into Bercow’s career, who just like many other career politicians, has simply chosen his political positions based on personal ambition). Either way, why would the Labour Party want him?

Still haven’t covered his bullying allegations the results of which aren’t fully public yet. That’s more dry powder for his Labour career. Looks like a pretty unwise and rather desperate recruitment decision from Labour for me, and nobody has mounted any form of defence against what I’ve said regarding Bercow.

My initial response to you was that you were asking others to back up their statements with evidence, something you hadn't done. You have now done so. Problem solved.

However you seem to be muddling your tenses a bit: Bercow WAS in a xenophobic organisation, so that means he IS a racist and always will be.

This insistence on purity testing does far more harm to Labour than any ex-Tories joining could ever do.

 

[507021]

Welcome to the Labour Party, Mr Bercow.

 

[DarloRich]

It might be a good way to get that Lords seat Johnson denied him!

 

[AlterEgo]

My initial response to you was that you were asking others to back up their statements with evidence, something you hadn't done. You have now done so. Problem solved.

However you seem to be muddling your tenses a bit: Bercow WAS in a xenophobic organisation, so that means he IS a racist and always will be.

This insistence on purity testing does far more harm to Labour than any ex-Tories joining could ever do.

I did not ask anyone for any *evidence* of anything. I asked a poster to defend Bercow and attack the actual point, having been personally insulted for no good reason.

And no, I haven’t said he *definitely still is racist*. You continue to miss the point (please let it be by accident). Either, Bercow is a racist and a deeply unpleasant man with a history of bullying allegations, or he is a weak, principle-less man and a career opportunist…also with a history of bullying allegations. It must be one or the other, and I cannot see how Labour members in a party that’s struggling for relevance - particularly among those who voted Leave - would welcome him.

Purity testing in the Labour Party is an issue but I think there’s also a problem in politics of accountability. There is none. Bercow shouldn’t be anywhere near mainstream politics. You complain about “personal growth”, and sure, even actual criminals are entitled to have their conviction spent after some time, but Bercow has never ever suffered any consequences for any of the disgusting views he once supported and has been allowed to walk back on them at no cost. Now the Labour Party are welcoming him with open arms.

He’s little more than a career opportunist and I wish the Labour Party and he a very long and happy relationship as they both continue to lose relevance. Hopefully one day we will get a party capable of standing up to the Tories but I won’t hold my breath.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jun 2021 ==

It might be a good way to get that Lords seat Johnson denied him!

*penny drops* Glad someone’s seen the game.

 

[brad465]

It might be a good way to get that Lords seat Johnson denied him!

You're far from the first to say it, although personally I can't see how he can get a peerage for as long the current Government is in place so I'm not sure what the point is.

Under the current system I suppose he should have got one, however in an ideal world he wouldn't, not because of anything bad he may have said or done, but because nobody should be getting peerages; the House of Lords is ultimately undemocratic and overpopulated in its current form, to me it should see democratic reforms.

 

[Gloster]

It might be a good way to get that Lords seat Johnson denied him!

However, other than those who died in office or turned down a peerage, I believe that Bercow is the first speaker not to be made a peer since 1770 (and then the Speaker died almost immediately after retiring on health grounds). Even if Bercow does get given a peerage, the delay will be seen as a deliberate snub by the PM.

Although I don’t particularly like Bercow, I do think that he had done his best to assist the House in holding the government to account, rather than just allowing it to ignore MPs. This had made him unpopular with the government and resulted in what I can only regard as a churlish reaction by the PM.

 

[Busaholic]

However, other than those who died in office or turned down a peerage, I believe that Bercow is the first speaker not to be made a peer since 1770 (and then the Speaker died almost immediately after retiring on health grounds). Even if Bercow does get given a peerage, the delay will be seen as a deliberate snub by the PM.

Although I don’t particularly like Bercow, I do think that he had done his best to assist the House in holding the government to account, rather than just allowing it to ignore MPs. This had made him unpopular with the government and resulted in what I can only regard as a churlish reaction by the PM.

The fact that the appalling Michael Martin was 'awarded' a peerage once he'd been dragged from the Speaker's chair, and Bercow wasn't, certainly shows partiality. Johnson bears grudges, but Bercow does too, and neither should be presented as people to look up to. I believe Bercow is particularly sensitive about his height (lack of) and took great pleasure in making disparaging comments in public about MPs like Simon Burns, a Tory who had described him as a 'sanctimonious dwarf.' Must have been interesting when Burns put himself forward as a Deputy Speaker!

 

[JamesT]

The fact that the appalling Michael Martin was 'awarded' a peerage once he'd been dragged from the Speaker's chair, and Bercow wasn't, certainly shows partiality. Johnson bears grudges, but Bercow does too, and neither should be presented as people to look up to. I believe Bercow is particularly sensitive about his height (lack of) and took great pleasure in making disparaging comments in public about MPs like Simon Burns, a Tory who had described him as a 'sanctimonious dwarf.' Must have been interesting when Burns put himself forward as a Deputy Speaker!

Martin was elevated whilst Gordon Brown was PM. But I think giving Bercow a peerage because Martin got one would be somewhat "Two wrongs don't make a right".

There is an independent committee who advise whether potential peers might bring the House of Lords into disrepute, it could be argued they should advise against candidates more often (or the PM should pay more attention to them). I think having an open investigation against you for bullying with the parliamentary standards ombudsman as Bercow does would seem the kind of thing that should count against someone having a peerage. (Of course, should the investigation be completed and Bercow be exonerated, maybe then it could be reconsidered).

It's noticeable that the other two nominations by Corbyn that were rejected were Karie Murphy (former director of his office) who was being investigated by the EHRC over anti-semitism in the Labour Party, and Tom Watson due to his support of the allegations of Carl Beech that there was a paedophile ring in Westminster which were later revealed to be fabricated. Bercow's nomination was rejected on a technicality, that it was for the Conservative Party to nominate a former Tory MP, not Labour.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I’m not sure how you seem to have missed my point, which I’ve explained in several posts. There are two explanations as to why Bercow was in a far right group. One is that he’s a racist, and the other, more charitable and perhaps more plausible one, is that he saw this at the time as merely a vehicle for his political and personal ambitions (you can read quite a lot into Bercow’s career, who just like many other career politicians, has simply chosen his political positions based on personal ambition). Either way, why would the Labour Party want him?

Was a racist, surely, seeing as you are talking about something from 40-ish years ago. And surely that brings up two other rather obvious plausible explanations for his membership of the Monday Club:

3. He was a racist, but has since changed his mind/grown up/etc.
4. He joined the Monday Club because he strongly agreed with other things they were advocating, was possibly uncomfortable with the racist views of other members, but put up with that because of his agreement on other issues (in the same way that pretty much anyone who joins a political party does so because they agree with that party on many things, while putting up with some areas of disagreement).

It's worth pointing out that during the 1980s the Monday Club wasn't generally seen as an extremist organisation: As I recall it was primarily a group that promoted monetarist/Thatcherite/small-Government policies, had links to the Conservatives and numbered quite a few Tory MPs amongst its membership. Times were different 30-40 years ago, and many beliefs that today would be considered unacceptable were relatively mainstream in those days (and vice versa).

I think the lesson is that it's not really a good idea to excoriate someone for opinions they possibly (but we're not certain) might have had 40 years ago, unless you have good grounds for believing they still have the same opinions.

Still haven’t covered his bullying allegations the results of which aren’t fully public yet. That’s more dry powder for his Labour career. Looks like a pretty unwise and rather desperate recruitment decision from Labour for me, and nobody has mounted any form of defence against what I’ve said regarding Bercow.

Labour doesn't, generally, recruit people in the way you seem to be implying. Usually people choose independently to join Labour (as I'm sure is the case for all the political parties) and sign up via their website. I would expect that in all probability, Labour had no advance knowledge or say in Bercow's decision to join - other than that they can reject his membership application if they see some specific reason to do so.

 

[75A]

Was a racist, surely, seeing as you are talking about something from 40-ish years ago. And surely that brings up two other rather obvious plausible explanations for his membership of the Monday Club:

3. He was a racist, but has since changed his mind/grown up/etc.
4. He joined the Monday Club because he strongly agreed with other things they were advocating, was possibly uncomfortable with the racist views of other members, but put up with that because of his agreement on other issues (in the same way that pretty much anyone who joins a political party does so because they agree with that party on many things, while putting up with some areas of disagreement).

It's worth pointing out that during the 1980s the Monday Club wasn't generally seen as an extremist organisation: As I recall it was primarily a group that promoted monetarist/Thatcherite/small-Government policies, had links to the Conservatives and numbered quite a few Tory MPs amongst its membership. Times were different 30-40 years ago, and many beliefs that today would be considered unacceptable were relatively mainstream in those days (and vice versa).

I think the lesson is that it's not really a good idea to excoriate someone for opinions they possibly (but we're not certain) might have had 40 years ago, unless you have good grounds for believing they still have the same opinions.



Labour doesn't, generally, recruit people in the way you seem to be implying. Usually people choose independently to join Labour (as I'm sure is the case for all the political parties) and sign up via their website. I would expect that in all probability, Labour had no advance knowledge or say in Bercow's decision to join - other than that they can reject his membership application if they see some specific reason to do so.

Certainly no loss to the Tory party, that's for sure.