There seems to be a groundswell of opinion that Frank Field would make the ideal choice to replace Michael Martin.
Mr Field is a man of monumental principle and integrity. He has a vocation of public service almost second to none in the House. Having served for 30 years he understands the institution perfectly.
I don't disagree with that and I accept that Field would probably make a very good Speaker, but it is because of another reason that I am completely opposed to his taking the post.
His impartiality can be judged by the fights he has had throughout the decades with his own party.
That's why I don't want him as Speaker. He would be effectively muzzled and Labour can wave goodbye to one of the few dissenting voices in its ranks - something that would make Gordon Brown very happy. Frank Field is one of the few people who will openly discuss issues such as multiculturalism and immigration and whose opinion reflects that of a majority of Britons.
Indeed, as all three main parties know damn well that they are unable to do anything about immigration as long as we remain in the EU it would suit them all very well to have the one man who frequently reminds them of this fact effectively silenced.
That's why, although I agree Field would make an ideal Speaker in many ways, I believe his appointment would be a huge blow for the voice of the average person being heard in Parliament.
3 comments:
Totally agree, Stan. His opinions and contributions to the immigration, EU, and of course the Welfare, debates are too important. He would, as you say, be effectively muzzled as Speaker.
I often wonder why he is with Labour. He seems much more of a Social Conservative than anything else. He would make a good Welfare Minister in Cameron's soon-to-be government.
Frank has blogged about it here:
http://www.frankfield.com/blog
FF is a top man, but his views on welfare are authoritarian to the n-th degree. The last thing he should be in charge of is welfare.
Post a Comment