Bercow survives

So John Bercow has survived an attempt by Nadine Dorries to depose him. (BBC News: MPs return to back John Bercow as Speaker) Frankly it was a rather silly challenge in the first place. Dorries seems to have a different reason for disliking Bercow - first it was because he's pro choice (hardliners on both sides of the abortion debate seem unable to realise that most other people do not structure everything around their own side blocking the other), then it was because his wife is a Labour Party activist, then it was his decision to eschew the traditional Speaker's robes in favour of a simple academic gown (*) now it's accusations of bias and next week it will probably be something like him not bowing down and licking her shoes clean. Enough already!

(* Is Bercow actually entitled to the gown he wears? Is it the correct gown for a Bachelor of the University of Essex? If not, no doubt Dorries will make it a reason for one of her future attempts.)

There may be legitimate criticisms of Bercow (although it's often forgotten that nearly every newish Speaker of modern times has faced the accusation of being biased against their own side) but when the attacks are led by Nadine Dorries and Nigel Farage it completely undermines the criticisms.

I know I am not alone amongst Conservatives in wishing Dorries would just pipe down. She is fast taking on some of the worst aspects of Lembit Öpik.

The battle for the Speaker's constituency

A brief respite from the grind to illuminate on one of the more unusual electoral contests...

The situation is familiar. There was an election for the post of Speaker of the House of Commons at a time when partisan feeling was strong. Many in the main opposition party believed they were soon going to enter government. Some wanted the new Speaker to be one of their own. But many government backbench MPs had different ideas. And they prevailed, with their preferred candidate winning narrowly. The result was a big controversy, with partisan feeling spilling over from the Commons and the Speaker facing an unusual challenge in their constituency. And then...

Sound familiar? Well contrary to what you may be thinking, that isn't a description of John Bercow's situation to date but rather of that of William Gully, who was elected Speaker in 1895. (And you can even read a report of the full Commons debate at The election of Speaker courtesy of Hansard 1803-2005.)

The level of partisan feeling surrounding that election frankly dwarfs anything from recent times - and no, a handful of individual MPs still whining on about Bercow are not going to reverse that anytime soon.

What is notable though is that Speaker Gully faced a contest in his own constituency (Carlisle) at the 1895 election when it was the norm for the Speaker to be returned unopposed. (From 1935 onward this has changed. Forget the myth of the main parties not opposing the Speaker, Labour have opposed non-Labour Speakers at nearly every relevant election to date.) So if history repeats itself as it so often does, does this mean that Nigel Farage's (and Bercow's critics') hopes of an upset have anything to support them?

No. In an election when the country swung heavily the other way, Gully held his seat. The result was as follows:

Electorate 6,798
Turnout 85.8%

W.C. Gully (Lib) 3,167 52.6% -0.6%
S.P. Foster (Con) 2,853 47.4% +0.6%

Majority 314

Of course it may be the case that things turn out differently this time. Who knows?

And it's Bercow

So John Bercow has become the 157th Speaker of the House of Commons. I didn't think the Commons would elect a radical as Speaker but it's happened.

It was clear from the scenes of Bercow being led to the chair that there is still hostility to him in certain quarters in the Commons. I was expecting the formal motion to seat him to be challenged but instead it went through on the nod. Now I hope that MPs will accept the result and not act like sore losers. The Commons desperately needs to reform itself. Undermining a Speaker for petty personal reasons will not help that.

The Speaker election

Tomorrow sees the voting in the election for the Speaker of the House of Commons. Frankly so far I've found the whole thing about as riveting as a Liberal Democrat deputy leadership election.

Initially people hoped for a Speaker who could take a radical approach to shaking up the Commons' traditions. But how likely is that looking at the candidates?

* Margaret Beckett
* Sir Alan Beith
* John Bercow
* Sir Patrick Cormack
* Parmjit Dhanda
* Sir Alan Haselhurst
* Sir Michael Lord
* Richard Shepherd
* Ann Widdecombe
* Sir George Young

By my reckoning that's two Deputy Speakers (Haselhurst & Lord), a former Leader of the House (Beckett), a former Shadow Leader (Young), two grandees of their party (Beith & Cormack) and another ex nodding head minister (Dhanda). The parliamentary establishment is well represented in this election but I doubt any of these will be radical enough for what is needed. That leaves just three mavericks who are likely to really shake things up. And that includes one who is standing down from the Commons at the election (Widdecombe).

Only Bercow and Shepherd offer real bold change for the long term, but Bercow is facing a hate campaign rarely seen in politics. Just look at the vile in Nadine Dorries: Bercow as Speaker - a Forgone Conclusion?, even going so far as to attack Bercow's wife.

As disgusting as the attacks are, and as stupid as Dorries's reasoning is, it is hard to escape the conclusion that a Bercow Speakership would prove too divisive for reform to happen. Instead there would be too many attempts by the bitter to depose him.

This leaves only one candidate who offers a realistic prospect of overhaul and that is Richard Shepherd.

So I doubt he will win the election.

Equality of opportunity or equality of outcome?

Sometimes I wonder if John Bercow is a mole sent to undermine causes from within. Then I wonder if he even knows what cause he's pushing for.

Bercow has written the astonishing piece Where is the Tory Harriet Harman? for The Guardian. There's not much to send Conservatives into a greater spasm of anger than "an article in The Guardian" but "Harriet Harman" is the nuclear option. Exactly why we need an upper-class anti-equality hopeless partisan is beyond me.

But for those who can get past that, Bercow is reiterating the call once again for the party to adopt all-women and all-black or minority ethnic shortlists. With many seats having all ready selected (and some having picked candidates for two term strategies) it's an odd time to be raising this.

And I have to wonder if something isn't getting lost in this debate. Is the aim to simply get more women and black & minority ethic people into Parliament or is it to create a level playing field in which neither is an impediment to being selected? And I am not naive to believe that there is no bias in the current selection process, though I believe things have been getting better in recent years and that if the Conservatives had done a lot better in the last election the proportions in the parliamentary party would be different.

There is something absolutely nobody argues for. It is called the "compulsory all-men shortlist". It can still happen but rarely (recently one Conservative selection wound up with only women on the final shortlist out of their own merit, not because it was imposed; I can't remember the last all-male shortlist). But nobody wants to bring it in because they rightly accept that it would reinforce the existing bias.

And yet there is a real danger that all-women shortlists will have this effect. If for instance one of a pair of associations in an area were to have an all-women shortlist imposed upon it, what would be the effect on a women's chance of being selected in the other seat? I believe it would decrease the chances. For people would feel that men would have a more limited chance and so would boost them. "Open" seats would rapidly become regarded as "male" seats because some women would instead be on the shortlist for the AWS seat, whilst those who did go for the open seat would be up against demands for "balance" locally. When the language of statistical exactitude is used to justify positive discrimination it is very hard to argue against it being used to justify discrimination in the other direction.

And this is before we even get into the thornier area of all-BME shortlists, a description that crudely assumes the BME population of this country is homogeneous and that representation could be easily apportioned out. And then would all-BME shortlists be used across the country or would they only apply to certain parts? Would Adam Afriyie have been selected for Windsor if all-BME shortlists were in existence or would he instead have been expected to go for a far less winnable seat with a shortlist?

Surely the real goal must be to break down barriers in open selection, not try to match discrimination with discrimination? Equality of opportunity will, I admit, take longer to achieve but it is by far the better goal for the long term. Equality of outcome breeds resentment but also risks ghettoisation.

The dangers of ConservativeHome

ConservativeHome has just proved how dangerous the site can be when unsubstantiated articles run on it attack individuals and imply actions they have no plans to do.

At the weekend they ran the piece Bercow defection is expected at time of maximum embarrassment based on nothing more than an anonymous briefing and with no attempt to get a statement from Bercow himself. Cue a massive round of attacks on Bercow, almost trying to drive him out of the party.

Then today a grovelling retraction was issued: John Bercow. Editor Tim Montgomerie states:

I now regret that post...

Although ConservativeHome has published more than 3,500 posts over the last two years the post on Saturday is the first to cause me real regret.

But too often ConservativeHome can't decide if it is a newsource for party members or a viewsource. The result is that all too often too many in the party feel a need to pander to it.

I look forward to the launch of Platform 10 which should generate some competition and encourage better standards.