And another thing…

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.

THE LATEST in the series of BBC rip-offs podcasts asking MPs to name their five favourite (and one least favourite) movies is now online.

And my guest this time round is none other than Mr Speaker himself, the Rt. Hon. John Bercow MP. I’m genuinely grateful for the time he gave me to carry out this interview (only interrupted once for his meeting with Harriet Harman – see if you can spot the edit). He talks enthusiastically about his admiration for Churchill, is revealed as a hopeless romantic and isn’t afraid to cry at the cinema. And he isn’t too impressed with a certain rom-com about his favourite sport either.

It comes in at precisely 24 minutes and 29 seconds. Enjoy.

 

 Standard Podcast: Play Now | Play in Popup

I WAS tempted to write this post under the headline “Tory Hubriswatch”.

Tory MPs are planning to replace John Bercow as Speaker and install Edward Leigh instead. This speculation is based on the incontrovertible fact that the Tories are guaranteed to win a comfortable majority at the general election. According to The Guardian:

Leigh’s allies believe the Cornerstone group represents between 30 and 40 MPs, and if the Tories won with a majority of that order they would demand an election for the role of Speaker in return for their voting bloc.

Okay, first off: no-one has to “demand an election” for the Speaker, because there is one at the start of each parliament anyway. It’s the first order of business for the new Commons after any general election.

Second, “in return for their voting bloc”? Have I just woken up in Crazyland? It is inconceivable that in the event of a Conservative victory, any “bloc” of Tory MPs would withold their votes, risking the demise of their government and their own expulsion from the party, just for the sake of securing an election for the Speaker – an election, remember, that’s going to happen anyway.

As to the more substantive issue – John Bercow’s tenure in the chair – there are certainly enough bonkers Tory MPs who would gladly bring opprobrium on their party for the sake of their sectarian grievances and obsessions; it has always been thus. But John has been freely and democratically elected as Speaker in a secret ballot. No, I did not vote for him, but I am able to accept the will of the majority, and the… (how shall I describe them?) eccentrics in the Tory Party should do the same.

I HATE the idea of change for its own sake, especially in the Commons. 

A few years ago there was a vote to remove the term "strangers" as a reference to ordinary members of the public. So Strangers’ Gallery would become the public gallery, the Strangers’ bar and restaurant would be similarly renamed and the police office in Central Lobby would no longer shout "Hats off, Strangers!" at the approach of the Speaker’s procession.

I think the idea was that once we stopped referring to visiting voters as Strangers, then parliament and MPs would be miraculously reconnected with the electorate and we would be held in great esteem. Well, that worked out well for us, didn’t it?

(In fact, despite the modernisers winning the vote, the word "Strangers" is still used, so I’m not at all sure why the vote took place).

The latest suggestion, following the election of Speaker Bercow, is that we should stop referring to each other as "Honourable" and "Right Honourable". This is a tradition I’ve always quite liked, because apart from anything else, it encourages you to learn and remember the names of colleagues’ constituencies and reminds us that we’re in the Commons to represent our constituents, not ourselves.

Having said that, I find myself unexpectedly ambivalent at the prospect of change. Would it matter if we started referring to each other as Mr Harris, Mrs Munn or Miss Swinson? Probably not, and I accept that for those who like to watch BBC Parliament (you know who you both are) it might make exhanges in the chamber slightly more comprehensible.

I read somewhere that even if the Speaker wants to change this rule, it would still have to be put to a vote. If so, I’m genuinely undecided about what to do.

I would welcome advice from readers, with one caveat: while hilarious, satirical and ascerbic, the suggestion that, post-expenses scandal, MPs don’t deserve to be called "honourable", will not form part of my ruminations. A strong argument for retaining the existing form of address in the Commons is that, however short MPs have fallen from the standards the public expect of us, it’s still important to remind ourselves and our electorates of that expectation. 

I ATTENDED prayers this afternoon, just to be there when the new Speaker arrived at the head of his procession for the first time.

Most people place a lot of significance (probably too much significance) on the regalia each Speaker chooses to wear. The last Speaker to wear a wig, for example, was Bernard Weatherill. We knew Bercow wouldn’t wear the wig, but what about the rest of the 19th century wardrobe?

Shirt and tie, regular suit, plus a black robe of the type made familiar by old fashioned headmasters. And that was it. The contrast with all his predecessors was pretty stark.

One other observation, this time from a colleague. When the Speaker and Serjeant-at-Arms arrive in the chamber, they pause at the bar and bow, then take a couple of steps in, stop and bow again, and then one more time before prayers are read.

“He took little steps,” giggled my colleague. “Normally it’s only five steps – he had to take six,” she added.

Now I’ll have none of that size-ist nonsense on this blog, thank you very much.

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.

ACCORDING to received wisdom in the Tory Party, Speaker John Bercow would have no more legitimacy or support in the House of Commons than his predecessor because, like Michael Martin, he is unable to draw support from across both main parties.

It is true that the vote which put Michael Martin in the Speaker’s chair was horribly partisan. I couldn’t find a single Tory MP who voted for him in the final division. That wasn’t a great start, I admit (and incidentally, I wasn’t elected to parliament for another eight months, so I didn’t have a vote).

But this idea that Michael was finally forced out because of that initial vote in 2000 is patently absurd. For the vast majority of the nine years he occupied the position of Speaker, Michael Martin was unassailable. He was re-elected twice, after the 2001 and the 2005 elections, without opposition or even a murmur of dissent.

And although I don’t believe that his most vociferous detractors in the House, like Douglas Carswell, were acting out of snobbery, Michael was on the receiving end of ignorant snobbery throughout his tenure (the nickname "Gorbals Mick" was coined by a journalist who (a) didn’t know and didn’t care that Michael never lived in Gorbals, (b) assumed that an association with Gorbals was in itself offensive, and (c) believed the the use of an offensive and derogatory term for Roman Catholic was somehow acceptable).

What drove Michael out was not the fact that he had no or little support from the Tory opposition when he was first elected as Speaker, but the perception among some that his political judgment on issues such as expenses and Damian Green was poor. Had he handled either or both of these issues differently, there would have been no move to oust him, irrespective of the vote in October 2000.

So if Bercow wins on Monday, he will be judged not on the breakdown of his support (there won’t be one this time anyway, because it’s a secret ballot), but on how he performs in the job.

And I have no doubt that he is well up to doing such a crucial job with immaculate skill. As Jonathan Isaby has said, Bercow is a parliamentarian to his fingertips. He knows procedure, has a remarkable capacity for retaining facts, would be a master of procedure, and is friendly and capable. He is also an honest and principled man who will be unafraid of leading reform where it’s needed.

So irrespective of how certain Tories will want to speculate about how much support he actually wins, Speaker Bercow would be difficult to undermine, provided he does the job he’s elected to do.

Whether he does actually win or not… ah, there’s the rub. Monday will be very, very interesting, and I’m looking forward to it.

WELL, not actually. But I have let John Bercow know that, while I’ll still support him, I’m going to nominate Parmjit Dhanda, mainly because Parmjit’s a mate and I think he should get the chance to address the House on Monday.

I’ve told him I’ll be supporting Bercow in the actual ballot, but he’s done himself a lot of good by standing this time round. You never know, if Monday’s winner retires in a couple of parliaments’ time, Parmjit could be in pole position.

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’M NOT a betting man, but I still reckon John Bercow should be the bookies’ favourite to take over as Speaker.

Yet he will have far more support from the Labour and LibDem benches than from his own. Why is this?

Well, from what I’ve read on the blogscape so far, he’s disliked by Tories because he’s no longer on the party’s right wing. He’s changed his mind and has moved towards the centre. He is therefore persona non grata. 

David Cameron, on the other hand, is loved by his party, despite having occupied the right wing, changed his mind and given the appearance of moving towards the voter-friendly middle ground.

So, either both men have undergone genuine changes of mind about their views and have acted accordingly (in which case, why have they provoked diametrically opposite reactions?) or Cameron’s conversion to the middle ground is a con, his party know it and are willing to tolerate the subterfuge as long as it gets them back into power.

Conspiracy theories about Labour MPs voting for Bercow simply because he’s apparently disliked on the Tory benches are, of course, nonsense. There will be no Labour whip, official or unofficial. And whoever wins must then have the full support of every member of the House, irrespective of whatever silly little party grudges anyone may have against him or her.