And another thing…

LESS than a day in the job and already the media are writing John Bercow’s political obituary. The knives are out because some Tories aren’t happy that the rest of the House didn’t agree with them on who the Speaker should be.

But more of that in a minute; first, a confession.

After announcing on this blog and elsewhere in the media that I was supporting John, yesterday I changed my mind. Based on nothing more than the strength of the candidates’ speeches, I voted for Parmjit Dhanda in the first round and then for George Young in the subsequent two rounds. Fickle, I know, but I thought it better to change my mind and support who I thought would be best for the job rather than simply stick to my guns. Consistency, as I have said before, is a much overrated quality in politics.

But John Bercow is the new Speaker. He won by a healthy margin and Tories who are now throwing their toys out of the pram should start behaving themselves.

Contrast the comments today of two prominent Tory back benchers. Nadine Dorries’s behaviour last night in the chamber and this morning on the Today programme was ungracious to say the least. According to Nadine, the Tories, who make up well short of a third of the House of Commons, should have been allowed a veto on the choice of Speaker, though she fails to explain this absurd position. Her ostentatious shaking of her head as John was ceremoniously "dragged" to the Speaker’s chair, and her audible "Not in my name" at the same time, were more about her well-known talent for attention-grabbing than about any statement of principle. They were also an embarrassment to her party and her constituency.

And then there’s Douglas Carswell, prime mover behind the removal of Michael Martin from the Speaker’s chair and co-author, along with Tory MEP Daniel Hannan, of  "The Plan: Twelve Bonkers Solutions to Non-Existent Problems". Now, I disagree with Douglas on pretty much everything, but I like him. He’s honest and straightforward. And yesterday he voted for Richard Shepherd in the first round and for Bercow in the final ballot. He told Sky News:

John Bercow was not my first choice, but I voted for him in the final round and I think we must accept that he is the legitimate speaker and he is a reformist Speaker, which is good.

The electorate don’t like sore losers, and if the Tories have any sense, it is Carswell’s approach they will emulate, rather than the screeching partisanship of Dorries.

I didn’t vote for Bercow, but I have no doubt he will be a good Speaker. In a democracy, those who lose the vote must accept the result. If the Tories refuse to do that, they will be exposed as having no respect, either for the House, or for democracy itself.

I SEE The Telegraph is running with the “Labour whipping the Speaker’s vote” nonsense again this morning.

The problem with this sort of story is that a lot of people who aren’t as familiar with the Commons as some will believe this because they want to believe it. It was the same about a year ago when Nadine Dorries was going round saying that Labour was whipping an abortion vote at Harriet Harman’s behest. Laughable.

The Telegraph’s sub-heading reads: “Anger as whips put pressure on Labour MPs to toe party line”. From that you could be forgiven for assuming that there actually is a party line to toe. There isn’t.

While driving to London yesterday I took a call from a friend who’s a minister. He hadn’t made up his mind who he was going to support yet, but we both agreed it shouldn’t be Margaret Beckett, on the basis that she’s spent most of the last 12 years in the Cabinet. During the entire conversation (I realised after it ended) there was no reference to a “whipping operation”, chiefly, I guess, because even if there was one, neither of us would take any notice of it.

HAVING used my latest podcast to declare publicly my support for John Bercow as the next Speaker, I’m delighted that, for the first time, some non-sectarian sense seems to have descended on at least one corner of the Tory blogosphere.

Jonathan Isaby, an all-round good chap (for a Tory) has written a piece for ConservativeHome in support of Bercow’s candidacy. This is in stark contrast to the party line taken so far by most online Tories. 

Contrast Jonathan’s thoughtful and sensible words with this nonsense, also from ConservativeHome, where brave unnamed Tory MPs actually threaten to remove Bercow at the start of the next parliament if he’s elected next week.

This speaks volumes about David Cameron’s Conservatives, but three things spring to mind:

1. After years of whining about Michael Martin’s alleged sympathy towards his former party, it seems their main grievance was that they didn’t have a Speaker biased towards them;

2. So much for the "new politics" of the Cameron era within the Conservative Party; they’re as cynical and partisan as they ever were; and

3. Today’s Conservative Party believe the government party should decide who becomes Speaker.

There’s been a lot of utter nonsense spoken and written about how Bercow’s popularity among Labour MPs is all to do with a government whipping operation aimed at saddling a future Tory government with a Speaker they don’t want. "He’ll be the third Labour Speaker in a row," according to one of the Great Anonymous Spinless, says ConservativeHome.

I genuinely don’t know of a single Labour MP worth his or her salt who would pay the slightest attention to the views of a government whip on this matter. I decided at the outset that I would support a Conservative MP. I then decided, independently, that if Bercow stood, I would support him. This is nothing to do with his level of support or popularity on his own benches. Choose to disbelieve me if you wish, but that will nevertheless remain a fact.

Votes for the Speaker will be anonymous, so never again will a Speaker be able to be undermined in the way Michael Martin was, by grumbling and complaining that he was elected by the votes of the Labour Party. Bercow may indeed win thanks to Labour support, but we will never know for certain.

I offer two challenges to Bercow’s detractors: if you believe there’s a strong case for removing him for party political reasons after the next general election, then publicly explain what that case is without hiding behind anonymous briefings.

Secondly, whoever is elected Speaker will have my support, whether or not I voted for him or her. That’s how democracy works — you express your view and then accept the result, even if you disagree with it. Will every Tory MP say likewise? Or will these spineless men of little principle continue to hide behind their anonymous briefings and plot to politicise the Speaker’s office, thereby undermining the institution of the Commons itself?

I KNOW there are lots of political anoraks and obsessives among my readership, and it is for them that I’m providing the guidance note sent out last week to MPs detailing the procedures for the election of the new Speaker on Monday 22 June.

Enjoy (if that’s the word).

NOTE FOR MEMBERS ON ELECTION OF SPEAKER