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.

Does the Speaker need to be an MP?

As the election for Speaker of the House of Commons gets underway, complete with the Daily Telegraph checking each and every candidate's own expenses claims, one has to wonder if in the current environment there is any sitting MP who could command sufficient public confidence in the role to make the necessary changes. But does the new Speaker have to be an MP at all?

Now it's quite possible that there are various laws, standing orders and conventions that currently require the Speaker to be an MP. But then there are various laws, standing orders and conventions about MPs' expenses and look where those got us! And since no Parliament can bind its successor these could be changed.

So would it be worth a thought to looking outside the present House of Commons for a candidate to be Speaker? Is there be somebody who has not been part of the current mess who has a track record on fighting corruption and who commands public respect? And if so, why not change the present way of doing things to allow them to be brought in? Does anyone know of a reason why we can't?

A Speaker who can take a lead

Whoever is the next Speaker of the House of Commons has a tremendous task is restoring respect and dignity to the post. But will they ever be in a position where they potentially have to step in to save the entire political system?

Kenya has dropped out of the international news ever since the announcement of the "National Accord" power-sharing agreement, but it's not been all plain sailing. Recently a crisis loomed when the two main parties in the government clashed over which party would hold the post of Leader of Government Business (equivalent to Leader of the House of Commons) and chair the National Assembly's House Business Committee that sets the parliamentary agenda. An impasse loomed which threatened to prevent many key unity & reconciliation measures being undertaken and to break up the unity coalition government. (See Afrique en ligne: Kenya Speaker steps in to save Coalition Govt for more details.)

It thus fell to the Speaker of the National Assembly, Kenneth Marende, to rule on the matter and he did so not only in a way that resolved the impasse for now but also preserved the neutrality and dignity of the chair:

But before any asks, I don't think Kenya can currently spare Marende to come and take the role in the Commons!

A new Speaker

And so comes the news that Speaker Michael Martin is to stand down today. (STV: Michael Martin will stand down today, STV news has learned for those who haven't yet seen it.) It is necessary that this has had to happen, but sad for the man himself.

Unfortunately for Michael Martin there is still a Commons vote on him to come. By convention, in order to keep the Speaker's position neutral from the government it is always the Commons who passes a resolution directly petitioning the monarch to confer a peerage upon the retiring Speaker, instead of the Prime Minister of the day making a patronage recommendation. I hope that when the vote comes MPs will take into account Martin's whole service and record, not merely his actions in the last few weeks.

This leaves the question of who will be the new Speaker. Now the traditional convention here is frequently misquoted and is difficult to summarise succinctly. It is not that the Speakership alternates between parties. Rather traditionally the initial candidate nominated for the Speakership is a government MP. In modern times only in 1992 has the government nominee been rejected, but that was primarily about the individual in question (who had literally just stepped down from the Cabinet), not MPs deciding to establish an alternative convention of rotation.

However much of this is now academic because of the new voting system. Instead of a motion to seat a named member, with amendments to replace their name with another, the new rules require a series of secret ballots in which candidates are eliminated until one has the support of more than 50% of those voting, who is then formally nominated. This means that all the traditions about "preferred candidates" and the like no longer apply.

However it shouldn't be taken for granted that the new rules will automatically deliver a centrist candidate acceptable to all (Alan Beith seems to be the man most touted for this role). Whilst the multiple ballots will allow MPs to change their mind in successive rounds, it is still possible for a polarised House to end up with a final choice of two figures who both have their detractors but both also have sufficient support to displace another candidate who could otherwise command much broader support. No voting system is perfect.

One thing that is clear is that there is no automatic Conservative right to the Speakership and claims to the contrary have no basis whatsoever.

Words to say to Speaker Martin

There are two quotations from parliamentary history that should not be used lightly but the present circumstances demand it. First the words of another Speaker on his role and speaking from the chair:

I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here.

(William Lenthall to Charles I in 1642.)

And the great words said twice when the nation needed leadership:

You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!

(Originally said by Oliver Cromwell to the Rump Parliament when dissolving it; then said by Leo Amery during the Norway Debate of 1940.)

The end of Speaker Martin

Parliament is full of many conventions that appear strange to those outside it. Often it seems as though these conventions are held in higher regard than the need to get things done.

One of the most astounding features of the current expenses debacle has been the reaction of the Speaker, Michael Martin. He seems far more concerned about the breach in Commons security that a leak was made, despite it being in the public interest, than that public confidence in the political system is fast evaporating.

This is not a party matter, it is a parliamentary matter. And to resolve it needs strong leadership and good judgement that commands respect and confidence. The present Speaker of the House of Commons has demonstrated that he lacks the respect, confidence and judgement needed to undertake it.

For too long Speaker Martin has been protected by a convention that MPs do not publicly criticise the Speaker. But like other parliamentary conventions this one cannot be allowed to stand in the way of essential reform of the system.

Douglas Carswell MP has become the first MP to stand up in public and say the Speaker must go, tabling a Motion of no confidence in the Speaker. Already other MPs are coming out and agreeing.

And let's also nail the whinging that criticism of the Speaker is because of his working-class origins, or his being Scottish, or his being a Catholic. Frankly these complaints are pathetic attempts to evade criticism for real lapses in performance and judgement. There is too much playing of the "minority card" and pretending that every criticism of a person is based on prejudice. Such attempts shame and devalue real debate and merely reinforce prejudice.

Time for a new Speaker?

It's not looking good for Michael Martin, or should that be "King Herod"? A lot of the media are gunning for him and his spokesperson quit for misleading the media. (BBC News: Pressure grows on Commons Speaker)

But what's amazing is that no MP feels willing to speak out on this matter. The Speaker's powers to decide who can and can't speak in the House of Commons are much feared, and Michael Martin is known to be pretty vindictive. It seems the best anyone can hope for is for either Martin's re-election at the start of the next Parliament to be challenged or for his constituents to vote him out at the next general election.

So does anyone fancy running in Glasgow North East at the next general election? With both main parties and the Liberal Democrats (although not the SNP) committed to giving the Speaker a free run there should be plenty of scope for a challenger.

King Herod's Nursery

I've generally sought to avoid commenting on the issues surrounding MPs and their expenses as I believe the issue is in danger of being over sensationalised and some of the details need to be exposed. But the announcement of the Commons committee to look at reform is really quite astounding. Only one of the six has not been embroiled in one scandal or another. (Daily Mail: Commons Speaker accused of fix as 'dodgy' MPs are put in charge of sleaze reform) This is like putting King Herod in charge of a nursery!

Michael Martin has come under heavy fire lately with many blaming him as the mian obstacle to full disclosure about MPs' financial arrangements. He is also known to be vindictive hence no MP is willing to speak out against him or make moves to depose him. Surely it's time he was replaced?

And if MPs won't do it, then why not see if the voters will try? There is a sometimes recognised convention that the major parties do not contest the Speaker's seat, although Labour have rarely observed it (and the Scottish National Party don't). But if the Speaker is no longer providing the best service, perhaps it's time to abandon this convention and challenge Martin in his own seat at the next election. Or what about an independent, pro reform candidate?