John Gummer’s decision to stand down at the next general election did not come as a great surprise to me. Our next parliament must modernise and I 
believe there will be many changes in the way it works in an attempt to start winning back public trust following the expenses’ scandal.
It is time for new blood, and John Gummer leaves after serving Suffolk Coastal for 30 distinguished years.
The story is broken by Graham Dines, excellent political editor of the East Anglian Daily Times. Now a backbencher, the MP – a passionate environmentalist – cites the “disastrous†Copenhagen climate change outcome as his reason.
John Gummer is a former Environment Secretary and chairman of the environment consultancy Sancroft International. He said:
“Telephone conversations with colleagues throughout Europe convinced me that international action is needed now if the calamity of climate change is to be avoided.
“I feel passionately about the subject. This is the danger that most faces us and unless something is done, the world will be in real trouble.
“But if I am to concentrate fully on the environment, I cannot devote the time I would wish to my constituency. I fully intended to serve one more term as MP for Suffolk Coastal, but Copenhagen changed all that.â€
I very much hope he succeeds with his ambitious and hugely challenging new plans. We need more people like John Gummer with strong passions to drive forward the climate change agenda. I fear it is already too late – particularly for those in African countries – who face increased threat of food shortages and drought.
*I found it very interesting reading John Gummer’s early political career on Wikipedia and learning that it was very chequered. He lost at his first two attempts as a parliamentary candidate, and was elected at his third attempt in Lewisham West. He then lost it, and later failed to win it back. This covered the period between 1969-1974.
It was only in 1979 when he was offered the safe seat of Eye (now Suffolk Coastal) following the retirement of veteran Tory Harwood Harrison that he managed to win and keep his seat in East Anglia.
I hope this gives encouragement to parliamentary candidates who invest so much of their personal life and finances to follow their dream. It can happen, as John Gummer shows, if you keep trying and believing in yourself.
I do have one other thought on this, and it concerns giving more women safe seats to stand in as candidates to increase the numbers of female parliamentarians. It was an opportunity John Gummer had, and more women should have it too so that parliament is more representative of its electorate.
I have been reading evidence given to the Speaker’s Conference, an enquiry into boosting representation of women and ethnic minorities in the House of Commons. One of the ideas mooted was to give MPs a fixed term of office so that new blood – new female blood – could be given a better chance to step into those safe constituencies.
What are your views on this?
Hi Ellee,
Cant go with either the positive discrimination lark nor only allowing MPs set time limits to stay in the House .
Women are no different from male counterparts and we must be simply judged on merit , knowledge and ability .
It would be a backward step to give women a step up simply cos they use the gender card.( as at the Euro elections ! )
As for making MPs only eligable to stay for a set time , two major downsides come immediately to mind .
Firstly , it will put lots of good people off , after all if you are giving up your present career and all its expectations its a huge step to go into the Commons .
You would in the scenario you put forward then end up having lost time and momentum have an almost certainly impossible job of trying to get back into your past career when all the younger models have taken your place.
Secondly, you loose all the experience that these same people have picked up over their years in public office and instead have a whole group of totally inexperienced ones in their place .
A recipe for disaster .
Leave the system as it is , after all it not only got us the likes of Churchill but also the wonderful Margaret Thatcher .
By the way have you read the stuff in todays papers about her given the 30 year rule comes to an end .
What a Leader she was in every way .
Hi disaffected, many thanks for your comment. Women candidates should – and are, hopefully – chosen on merit, but they haven’t always had the same opportunities to demonstrate this; that’s why they need more opportunities to stand as candidates in safe seats, and that is now happening.
Yes, Thatcher has yet to be emulated, and I am looking forward to reading about her papers just published after the 30 year rule; I’ve only dipped into them so far.
Happy New Year to you.
Politicians should stay in the house for as long as they are elected. I don’t agree with fixed terms. Democracy is voting people into the house, not using positive discrimination.
And a very happy and hopefully ( inspite of all the financial forecasts , a curse on Brown and all his cronies , especially Mandelson ) a prosperous one to you also Ellee .
We should meet up again sometime !
Disaffected, yes, it would be good to meet you again. We should arrange it.
Hello Ellie, I totally agree with what ‘Dissafected’ has to say on
selection,
One should be selected on merit
and merit alone, disregarding gender,
ethnicity etc.
Just take a look at the hapless gaggle
of failed ‘wimmin’ MPs in the Blair/Brown Governments…
For example,
Jaqui Smith, Hazel Blears, Caroline Flint, Ruth Kelly, et al.
These ex Government Ministers, were promoted way beyond their capabilities, purely because they were women, not in spite of being women.
I agree that the great Margaret Thatcher is a hard act to follow, but she rose to the top simply because she was capable, not because she was a woman.
Every good wish for 2010 Ellie…and roll on the General Election…I can’t wait to see this corrupt and duplicitous Goverment wiped off the face of the earth and jettisoned into obscurity, forever.
Di.
Are women really as keen on women MPs that current thinking suggests? I have never met a woman who actually wants a female MP in preference to a male. Yes, I suspect that all things being equal they would prefer a female, but the majority do not have any preference in the matter. This is my view as a male, I’ve nothing against women MPs, but nothing for them either. I just want the best, whatever sex.
Perhaps some research should be carried out other than by women’s libbers!
I think you know my views, Ellee – that the only criteria should be merit.
[…] Copenhagen disaster forces John Gummer to quit […]