I am conscious that what I am about to write will not make me popular with fellow Tories. Nevertheless, I think it is time to restore some balance. There is far too much Bercow-bashing on this site, and elsewhere in the party. I know a side of John Bercow that is seldom if ever acknowledged on this site, and so it is time for me to speak up now.
In my work in human rights and international development, and especially in relation to Burma, I have not found a stronger, more committed, more willing, more compassionate, more passionate and more helpful ally in Parliament than John. I have travelled with him twice - once to the Thai-Burmese border and once to the India-Burma border. Since the first trip we made, in 2004, to the Thai-Burmese border John has been the most consistently passionate and doggedly determined voice on Burma in the House of Commons. He didn't need to be. When I took him on that trip, he was Shadow Secretary of State for International Development. The trip was, if you like, part of his brief. But at the end of the trip, he told me that it had "changed his life". He promised me that whatever he did in politics, he would always work on Burma. He has been as good as his word - and more. When he left the frontbench, he could easily have decided that issues such as Burma were no longer his brief. But on the contrary, he set about these issues - Burma, Darfur, global poverty - will even more zest than when he was on the frontbench.
On numerous occasions, John has not only gone the extra mile for me, and for Burma, but the extra marathon. He was instrumental - indeed, one could say the sole driving force - in getting the House of Commons International Development Committee to carry out an inquiry into DfID's policy on Burma. The result? The Committee recommended all the things I have been campaigning for for years - increased aid to Burma, cross-border aid to the internally displaced, and funding for human rights and democracy projects. There then followed a battle to get DfID to accept the recommendations - and ultimately, after a lot of hard work by John, my friends in Burma Campaign UK, and myself, DfID announced it would double aid to Burma by 2010, fund cross-border aid, and consider funding human rights projects.
That was political. But there are two more personal examples, which I hope won't embarrass John if I share them. Each year, there is a Global Day of Prayer for Burma www.prayforburma.org. I am involved in organising an event in London to mark this occasion. It is held on a Saturday. It is an explicitly Christian occasion. I asked John if he would speak at last year's Day of Prayer for Burma, conscious that he would not describe himself as a Christian and that on a Saturday he would likely be in his constituency, or spending valuable time with his family. To my surprise, he agreed to do it. He came back from Buckingham specially. And in an explicitly Christian event, his was the most authentically passionate, moving and compassionate speech of the day. His eyes filled with tears as he recounted the stories of brutal torture, rape and forced labour that he had heard on his visit to the Thai-Burmese border three years previously. And they were not tears of fake emotion. He was not, despite what the cynics may say, 'playing to the gallery'. He had no need to. This was not a political occasion. His emotion came from the heart - and that is a rare thing to see in an MP these days.
Secondly, I asked him at the beginning of last year if he was interested in coming with me to see a different part of Burma, to visit the forgotten Chin people on the India-Burma border. His response: "Massively". We went, and he became the first MP to visit the India-Burma border. He was, just like on our first trip, tremendously good company: unstuffy, unpompous, down-to-earth, willing to 'muck-in', undemanding, and a delight to travel with. I remember at one point we met a refugee family in dire and desperate poverty, living in a tiny shack. We asked about schooling for their son, and were told that he was short-sighted but could not afford glasses and therefore couldn't go to school. John asked how much a pair of glasses cost. It was the equivalent of £10. Quietly, unceremoniously, and definitely not 'for the cameras', John got out the cash and gave it to our Chin guide to arrange to buy glasses for this boy so he could get schooling. £10 is not a lot of money. It's something all of us could have done. But it was the way John did it, and the fact that he thought of it, that impressed me.
There are many other examples I could give. I disagree with John on some areas of policy. I happen to believe that a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was promised, and should therefore be held. I think the treaty is more than just a 'tidying up' exercise. I would disagree him on some other policies too. But something my fellow Tories, and fellow bloggers on this site, seem to forget too often is that it is perfectly possible to disagree with someone - in some instances quite fundamentally - over some policies, and yet find common ground in other areas, and respect, value and appreciate a person who deserves respect and appreciation. John is his own man. Perhaps he upsets the whips too much by speaking his mind. But I think we need people like John, even if we disagree with them. And on issues of human rights and international development, there is no one better than John in Parliament. Our party should value him for that, and be tolerant of his 'misdemeanours'. Far too many bloggers on this site write about him in a tone that is not only repellant and unbecoming for our party, and gives ammunition to our opponents, but is frankly inhuman. They reek of totally unnecessary hatred, bitterness, anger, hostility - in contrast to the humanity, compassion, principle and commitment that I have seen John demonstrate over issues like Burma and Darfur time and time again. We could all learn something from him.
