ONE OF the tell-tale signs that Labour, in the 1980s, was unfit for government was its obsession with issues that had no resonance with the public: unilateral disarmament and internal party “democracy” being two obvious examples.

In Labour’s defence, at least it could be argued (unsuccessfully at the time) that both issues impacted on UK citizens’ quality of life, directly and indirectly.

So how does the Tory Party justify its peculiar obsession with John Bercow and his future as Speaker of the House of Commons? The latest contribution to The Debate No-one Outside Westminster Cares About comes from Lord Tebbit, who says Tories in Mr Bercow’s Buckingham constituency should be free to campaign for candidates other than the Speaker (I wonder who he could possibly mean?).

There are always plenty of MPs who are unhappy with any particular Speaker; even Betty Boothroyd had her detratctors among Labour’s ranks during her tenure. And there seem to be an awful lot of Tories who are not just unhappy about Mr Bercow’s election to the chair of the Commons – they’re absolutely beside themselves with fury.

Why? John Bercow was elected by a good majority in a secret ballot of all MPs. Isn’t that democratic enough for the Tories?

But we all know the reason why some Tories, particularly from Norman Tebbit’s wing of the party, dislike and distrust the current incumbent, don’t we? John Bercow started off his political career on the far right of the Tory Party – and then he committed the ultimate act of Tory apostacy: he changed his mind.

He was open to arguments which countered his previous world view. He was willing to consider the arguments and willing to change his mind. This, naturally enough, annoyed some of his fellow travellers who felt Bercow was not only challenging his own beliefs, but challenging theirs also.

So he was cast out. He became a hate figure. No longer “one of us”.

Strange, then, is it not, that Dave has not suffered the same fate? After all, he claims to have gone through precisely the same Damascus experience as Bercow; he claims to recognise what the Tories did wrong before, he says Conservatism under previous regimes was too exclusive, too uncaring, not green enough.

So why the different Tory attitudes to two apostates? Is it simply that Dave is the leader and Bercow is not? Hardly – imagine the revolt if Bercow had become leader!

No, the answer lies in the party’s perception of the sincerity of the conversions. Bercow is unpopular because his views have genuinely changed. Dave? Well… Let’s just say the party is more tolerant of his “conversion” for some reason.