And another thing…

At this time of night I don’t have volumes of Hansard to hand to check (and their old refusal to include MPs’ parties doesn’t help) but it’s my recollection that the 1895 and 1951 contests were on party lines. Are you sure no Speaker election ever was a total free vote?

And David Davis has stated that in 2000 he was due to second Gwyneth Dunwoody but at the last moment had to propose her because of whipping pressure on Mo Mowlam. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1183508/DAVID-DAVIS-Only-Speaker-restore-faith-Parliament.html

A smear maybe but nothing different to your glorious leader trying to say that parliament was a glorified Gentlemans’s Club etc etc.
Each party does this sort of thing and it is called Politics.
Anyway 99% of the sheep you call Labour party MP’s wouldn’t know how to vote unless they had been told by the Whips.

It would be an improvement if all votes were conducted without interference from the whips.

I would hope that people capable of being elected to parliament would have more dignity and self-respect than to let other people order them about, but apparently not.

It’s part of Douglas Carswell’s ‘Plan’ for rebuilding Britain and all, this Secret Ballot.

It really is vital that broken Britain is fixed by a secretly election Speaker. And it will be victory that Carswell will I’m sure take credit for, despite arriving in Parliament years after a Secret Ballot was installed at Standing Order 1.

Poor Labour:(

So hard done by.

Secret ballots, so just like The Masons then.

But you have to admit the the current Conservative Party is very, very good at precisely that sort of spin.

everything the Tory’s do “are nothing more than a smear against the Labour Party.”

Methinks you do protest too much, Tom. Nevertheless, whipping is a major part of the problem in the collapse of Parliament as a functioning democratic institution.

As is the use of statutory instruments. This example is particularly appalling.

Well, who would have imagined it?

Odd, isn’t it, the way the government waves the “we have to do it, the EU says so” flag when it wants to, and then ignores it when it suits it.

“Calling for one in the current contest is about as brave and innovative as demanding that there should be a general election before next June”

I hate to be picky but given that would mean holding one in the next 6 days, that would be pretty innovative!

Where has this idea come from that Labour MPs always unquestionably do what the whips tell them to do? From Guido’s blog in December 2008:
‘Gordon Brown’s first complete parliamentary session as Prime Minister saw Labour MPs defy their whips on 103 occasions. That compares to 96 occasions in Tony Blair’s whole first Parliament.’
That isn’t a particularly good thing for party unity and discipline, although it does show that Labour MPs aren’t afraid to stick to their particular principles in defiance of the whips.

This idea of Labour MPs as sheep seems to be one of those ‘memes’ that circulates and gets unquestionably accepted as gospel truth. Similarly, what Tom referred to – the Tory demands for a “secret ballot, free from the whips’ interference” – implying that this isn’t already the situation – is another example of a distortion of reality, which relies on people’s gullibility to be accepted as truth.

This just in: “Labour MP complains about Labour being smeared”

Giggle giggle giggle.

It’s not a smear though. Not even close.

OK Tom, so why did the vote split down party lines? Why did the labour benches elect a man, though decent and honorable; completely unqualified to be speaker?

Ben, I wasn’t an MP at the time, but from what I can gather, there was a huge affection on the Labour benches for Michael. There still is. My point is that any Whips’ operation is above Radar – and had there been a whipping operation during the election for Speaker it would have sparked a massive constitutional crisis. It simply didn’t happen. Those who say it did are wrong and paranoid.

Ben,

Even worse – they just waved Brown in, and look where we are now.

Tom,

What’s this with his “National plan”? End of 2007, he was asking for time so that he could articulate (hmmm) his “vision” for the country.

What happened to that?

I’m sure Tom’s right about this.

But choosing a Speaker on grounds of affection is not essentially more desirable or effective than a whipped choice, I’d have thought.

nothing more than a smear against the Labour Party.
**************************************

Smear?

Hardly.

What McBride and Dolly were planning to do to members of the Shadow cabinet… that was ’smear’.

Stop trying to cheapen the word by ill-use.

In my book, a “smear” is a deliberate attempt to convince people to believe a lie about an opponent or other third party.

As you know, I was appalled by McBride’s behaviour, but don’t imagine that his actions mean that any subsequent misdemeanours by Tory politicians can be excused or dismissed just because they’re not as personal or as poisonous as McBride’s.

I’m with Liberanos. I’m certainly in no position to question Toms word in this. However, surely in the world of professional politics simply having affection for someone doesn’t qualify them for a job, surely the reason for voting for a speaker should be their ability to do the job? Shouldn’t this be put ahead of how likable someone is?

Whatever the past, I hope this mistake won’t be repeated by MPs!

surely the reason for voting for a speaker should be their ability to do the job? Shouldn’t this be put ahead of how likable someone is?
***************************************

Of course. The proper word for this course of conduct is, ‘cronyism’.