No Silence in the Court of political thought

John Bercow and Piers Morgan

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. You may not have thought it if the world was ruled by a few Conservative MPs and Piers Morgan. I have been reading into their recent whinging which has attracted headlines under needless dramatic circumstances. Of course, they're also entitled to their opinion, however, I question their wish to shut other people down as this prevents them to practice what they preach.

I'll analyse the small group of Tory MPs first. There is a little campaign at the moment to oust the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow. Bercow has been a Speaker since 2009 and is today seen as a well-recognised and popular, modern political figure. On most Wednesdays at midday, many on the Twittersphere are glued to Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs) and watch closely how he referees the weekly clash between the government and opposing parties. His collectiveness is infectious.

However, Bercow has attracted controversy in recent weeks and it's come to the point that some are after his head. He, like many others, voiced an opinion on US President Donald Trump's state visit to the UK - whenever that is. Bercow used his platform to say that he is against the US leader's possible appearance in Westminster.

To describe Bercow's action as surprising is an understatement. Never do we ever hear a Speaker voice anything perceived to be a political intervention. According to sources, it is a Speaker's job not to have an opinion - they're hired to simply regulate, or 'referee' debates that take place under his nose. So you can therefore understand the frustration raised by some Conservative MPs who want him to resign.

Are those who want Bercow to go entitled to campaign for his departure, of course. Are they right to be angry, traditionally, possibly. Should Bercow resign - unless he chooses to, absolutely not. Those Tory MPs are misguided in thinking he, as a Speaker, shouldn't have an opinion or allegiances. Bercow is a Conservative - he was at least until 2009 when he was appointed Speaker.

Bercow with leader of Kuwait (Image: Daily Mail)

If you look at Bercow's Parliament history, he was Shadow Secretary of State for International Development under Michael Howard, Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury under Iain Duncan Smith, and an MP since 1997. Regardless of his current situation, Bercow would never have been an Independent upon his first day as a Speaker. This is nothing to be ashamed of, but we cannot accuse him for having an opinion.

He may have breached his job description somewhat, but Bercow should be supported and backed - not be hanged by the edge of a cliff by the government simply because he made some impromptu sentences about a silly President. Besides, despite him being against Trump's possible Westminster visit, if Prime Minister Theresa May said to him, "He's coming, you're presenting," there's a big chance he'll do it. His word isn't final by any means. He may have also been against the leaders of Kuwait and China coming to his office the way they did, but the Prime Minister always has the last word, and as a Speaker, it is his duty to read what scriptwriters have written for him and be as friendly as possible.

The Bercow drama may be a big fuss over absolutely nothing - I hope so anyway. The same can also be said about Piers Morgan's latest rants. The broadcaster, is famous today for his out of left-field presenting on ITV's Good Morning Britain. However, he has courted controversy for his Twitter spats with the likes of author JK Rowling and actor Ewan McGregor.

Morgan's key argument aimed at them is simple - because they're not politicians, and voted in a way which didn't eventually turn out, they should shut up and perform what they do best. He, again, is entitled to his views and yes, they are highly entertaining - if not excruciating at times. However, I have an issue with his black-and-white view of those in the creative industry.

JK Rowling (Image: Daily Mail)

Piers Morgan, before I go further, is a fantastic journalist. I was actually in the audience for his recent Life Stories interviews with singer Boy George and the former leader of that Purple Party I still cannot bring myself to name - and honestly, Morgan was majestic, balanced and did journalism justice. So it confused me when someone whose job is to encourage his interviewees to speak up, wants to silence certain 'wrong' individuals.

Morgan speaks factually when he states that, for example, Trump won the US election and therefore publicly reminds whoever he feels disputes that. But then he takes things very personally which then loses his argument instantly. For example, he could have tweeted JK Rowling once last weekend and that'd be the end of it - nobody would have batted an eye-lid. Instead, I end up losing count to the number of tweets he aimed towards the Harry Potter writer.

Again, Morgan is entitled to be frustrated with these so-called 'celebrities'. But he can't argue that actors shouldn't talk about politics when Ronald Reagan, an actor, became a US President. It's like saying he can't feature in films because he isn't an actor when clearly, he's cameoed in the likes of Entourage in 2015 and The Campaign in 2012. Denying someone a voice, however 'out of touch' they appear, is dangerous and the notion should be discouraged.

We're living in a world where a large chunk of the population isn't afraid to voice their opinion. If Bercow was to go, it would be nearly impossible to find a completely Independent Speaker who has never made an opinion that could be publicly scrutinised. Meanwhile, actors, singers, authors and the like will continue to be inspired and voice what they believe in. Would Piers Morgan have tweeted negatively about Marvin Gaye upon the release of 'What's Going On' - a famous anti-Vietnam War song, if Twitter was around then - simply because as a singer, he shouldn't utilise his opinions against a democratically elected government notion? I wouldn't have thought so.