Sat 20th Sep 2014 | Last updated: Sat 20th Sep 2014 at 09:00am

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

Oh dear – John Bercow is embarrassing. He is my MP, and I fear we have got him for life

The MP for Buckingham jumps on every liberal bandwagon that presents itself

By on Thursday, 22 March 2012

Queen Elizabeth II walks alongside Commons Speaker John Bercow (PA photo)

Queen Elizabeth II walks alongside Commons Speaker John Bercow (PA photo)

I wonder if other people winced when they read or heard Speaker John Bercow’s address to the Queen in Westminster Hall last Monday? I feel almost a personal sense of embarrassment when I listen to him as he happens to be the MP for Buckingham, my own constituency. As Buckingham is a safe Tory seat and as he is Speaker, I fear we have got him for life. Knowing how quickly he has jumped on any ultra-liberal bandwagon that presents itself – wanting to extend our abortion laws to Northern Ireland, for instance, and voting to lower the age of homosexual consent – this is not a happy prospect.

So I was glad to read Ann Farmer’s letter today in the Telegraph, articulating my own thoughts. Having letters published in the press requires skill; whenever she is published, Mrs Farmer always manages to sound clear, concise, temperate and informed. You could call it a kind of epistolary apostolate. For those who haven’t seen it, this is what she writes:

John Bercow, the House of Commons Speaker, in his florid Diamond Jubilee address to the “kaleidoscope Queen”, appeared to promote his interests as patron of the Kaleidoscope Trust, a homosexual equality organisation. The Government’s determination to legalise same-sex marriage against widespread opposition makes it even more inappropriate for the Speaker, traditionally a politically neutral office, to highlight controversial issues.

On what should have been a celebration of 60 years of a monarch who has steadfastly avoided controversy for the sake of the higher good, Mr Bercow had the opportunity to raise his political stature. Sadly, it seems he chose to maximise his role and minimise the Queen’s.

Interestingly, the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has issued a judgment saying that the European Convention on Human Rights “does not require member states’ governments to grant same-sex couples access to marriage”. The Court has ruled that this is not a question of discrimination or human rights. This goes again the British government’s plan to legislate for same-sex marriage on the grounds that existing law denies natural rights and discriminates against the same-sex minority.

However, the European ruling does imply that where a country legislates for same-sex marriage, then it will have to ensure to right to those couples to marry in churches if heterosexual couples have that right. To refuse this facility would be discrimination. Neil Addison, a specialist in discrimination law, comments: “If same-sex marriage is legalised in the UK it will be illegal for the Government to prevent such marriages happening in religious premises.” The British consultation document, issued last Thursday, has tried to make a distinction between civil marriages and religious marriages and said there would be no question of forcing churches to become involved.

Perhaps Mr Bercow would like to make a “florid” address to the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, pointing out its deficiencies in its judgement?

  • teigitur

    Bring back Betty Boothroyd I say!

  • teigitur

    Bring back Betty Boothroyd I say!

  • Jabezpound

    Hi Malaka, I sent you an email earlier, but not sure whether you received it. You are quite correct, I was rather harsh and judgemental and I apologise.In my defence however, I did apologise in advance in my previous email stating that if I had  “jumped the gun…”. It may well be that this incessant Jubilee hype in the media, in shop windows, by Councils and etc. is getting to me! Very best, Jabez.

  • Honeybadger

    You know, it’s a good job we don’t have the likes of President Blair, President Brown or – even more yikes! – President Cameron!

    It is better for any Head of State to be above politics.

    Judging by history, the republican grass ain’t necessarily greener!

  • Honeybadger

    It’s the Diamond Jubilee, for heaven’s sake! Give her a break!

    So, if anyone is saying summat positive about the Queen it is ‘fawning’?

    I’m not saying that we should brown-nose royalty to the extreme for fear of getting our heads chopped off. Let’s have a bit of balance here.

    State coffers being whittled and wasted away by successive governments is enough to pay for two royal families and a solid gold bog brush for each loo!

  • Honeybadger

    Politicians are ALL bandwagon-jumpers, if you ask me… especially around election time!

  • Malaka

    You’ve rather missed the point there. Since so many people use the argument that they don’t want president Blair or president Brown, its safe to assume we wouldn’t get either.That’s what democracy is about. If you don’t like them, don’t vote for them, and you won’t get them. And you end up not liking the person who does get the job, you can vote them out next time round. Im not particularly looking forward to King Charles, but as things stand there won’t be anything I can do about it!

  • Jabezpound

    Honeybadger – Oh my oh my, the common belief that we have to have  an MP as Head-of-State. Not so, there are many ‘talented’ people out there who could do the job admirably, equally and better than the present incumbent.It is such an impertinence to insult successful republics. In fact many people would not object if old thing y Prince Charlie was Head-of-State as long as he was elected to this position of enormous power, but  for a set term. Your statement that our present HOS is above politics is laughable. All the royals are heavily involved in politics, just look around you, especially within the over-hype of this Jubilee year. You really need to eradicate your prejudices as far as royals are concerned, and take a long hard look at their clear involvement in local, home and foreign policy making – surely you do not need to be led by the hand on this issue.

  • aearon43

    Not love, no, but sex harms them. Yes, sex is a very powerful force. When you have sex with someone who ‘happens to be the same gender’ (‘happens to be’, as if gender was something like liking the same flavour of ice cream), you do great damage to your soul. 

  • aearon43

    When I did my Catholic marriage preparation, I was required to state whether I was infertile. An infertile different-sex couple are at least respecting the basic form of creation. It might be that God will cure such couple’s of infertility, as He did with Abraham and Sarah, but God will not ever grant children to same-sex couples who offend His law. You know that.