And another thing…

QUITE a lot of condemnation in the comments to the last post (I’m still surprised at how much bile is injected into these comments by people who would clearly never use such language in polite company, but hey — that’s the internet for you) about the prospects of Jack Dromey becoming an MP.

“Outrageous nepotism”, seems to be the conclusion for most hate-mongers of the Right. Yet when they cite examples of such nepotism in the Labour Party, they tend to fall rather short. The case of the recent selection of a candidate in Erith and Thamesmead, where the daughter of Lord (Philip) Gould failed to win, seems an odd example, for obvious reasons. Another favourite example of Labour nepotism oft quoted by the hard-of-thinking is Glasgow North East, where there were rumours that Michael Martin’s son, Paul, wished to succeed his father at Westminster. Such rumours were more than enough to start the mouths foaming, even though Paul had no intention of standing and an altogether different candidate was subsequently selected.

Another equally-laughable example of Labour nepotism is in Hull, where retiring MP John Prescott was almost succeeded by his son. Almost. Mr Prescott Jr. lost out in the selection, but that didn’t stop the Right claiming it was only Prescott Jr’s relationship to the former Deputy Prime Minister that got him… er, beaten. Or something.

But let’s turn our atention to the Conservative Party, shall we? To Douglas Hogg, perhaps, the son of a former Tory Lord Chancellor? Or to Henry Bellingham MP, the 17th of his line to enter the Commons? Francis Maude’s father was an MP, as was Bill Wiggin’s. And there are plenty of other examples on both sides of the House. Who honestly thinks Hilary Benn should be excluded from office just because his father (and grandfather) was also an MP?

The point, surely, is that there is absolutely nothing wrong in politicians’ sons and daughters following them into parliament. Those of the rabid tendency seem to believe that it is undemocratic to allow such offspring to compete for party nominations. Or to be more accurate, they believe that it is undemocratic to allow such offspring to compete for Labour Party nominations. If you’re a Tory politician whose parent served in the House, you obviously achieved office by hard graft and through being eminently qualified for the job. If you’re a Labour politician, however, and your mother or father was an MP, well, that’s nepotism, that is…

I would suggest that it’s pretty unavoidable that the sons and daughters of politicians enter politics themselves. In fact it should be welcomed: political sons and daughters are probably better prepared for the media scrutiny and demands of constituents previously visited upon their parents.

Given that Jack Dromey has lived his entire life in the Labour movement, and given that his wife is a long-serving, prominent MP, wouldn’t it be stranger if he didn’t consider seeking election as an MP? As to being “parachuted” into a safe seat, if Jack is selected, he will have had to plead his case against other candidates in front of a selection conference which includes every paid-up member of whichever local Labour Party is looking for a new candidate. And please don’t bother whittering on about Totnes and open primaries; that won’t happen in many — if any — more Tory selections this side of a general election, and pretending that open primaries are now the “norm” in the Conservative Party isn’t going to wash.

I AM STAGGERED by today’s Guardian front page splash which claims that the independent appointments commission has warned Gordon Brown about the dangers of elevating Michael Martin to the Lords.

They have been supported by some obscure rent-a-gob LibDem peer called Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay who helpfully told the Guardian: “Michael Martin should not be handed a P45 in an ermine envelope.”

Really, m’lord? And what did you achieve to warrant your ermine that Michael Martin failed to? He was Speaker of the elected chamber and was elected by his constituents on six occasions. He retains the respect and affection of a majority of MPs. And he would never make such a gutless, nasty, self-serving remark as the one that has been made by Oakeshott.

What about Oakeshott’s own political career. Well, it seems that his right to disparage a former Speaker is based on a long career as a councillor (and a Labour one at that) in Oxford for almost two years. Phew! That’s impressive.

Michael Martin was Speaker for more than eight years. His removal was controversial, but his own devotion to public life and to parliament itself puts Oakeshott’s pathetic little contribution in the shade. If only one of them deserved the honour of a peerage, it would certainly not be Oakeshott.

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.

JUST got back from the BBC Scotland studios where I took part in The Westminster Hour. The panel were me, Elfyn Llwyd of Plaid Cymru and Tory MEP Charles Tannock, with whose closing comments in the short debate I wanted to take issue.

We had been discussing the Speaker (inevitably) and Tannock volunteered that what was needed was a new Speaker “elected in a private ballot without whips’ interference”. Come again? “Without whips’ intereference”? What was he on about, I wondered? There’s never been an election for Speaker, even under the old system where votes were recorded, which was whipped. Never. Not once.

Then I realised that this is a line that Tories are using quite a lot. And not just MEPs and people who don’t know what they’re talking about — I’ve heard Tory MPs say this as well.

So what’s that all about, then? It’s obviously a line from Central Office aimed at giving the public the impression that Labour whips interfered in the vote which resulted in Michael Martin’s election in 2000. But you’d have to be woefully ignorant of parliament specifically and even politics in general to believe that nonsense. Yes, the voting for Michael was remarkably partisan with virtually all his support coming from the Labour benches. But then, the voting against him was equally partisan; the Tories voted en masse against him. Yet no-one suggests the Tory whips played any part.

And what’s with this calling for a secret ballot? The rules were changed after 2000 to ensure there has to be a secret ballot. 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. 

If I didn’t know any better, I would say that constant Tory appeals for a “secret ballot, free from the whips’ interference” are nothing more than a smear against the Labour Party.

YOU very rarely see the Commons so packed during Prayers. A hush descended as the Serjeant-at-Arms officer arrived and bellowed “Speaker!”, at which point we all stood.

It was then that we heard, as the Speaker’s procession progressed through Members’ Lobby outside, some loud and enthusiastic applause. Whether it was from those MPs who were still outside (there couldn’t have been many) or staff or even members of the public standing further away in Central Lobby, I don’t know.

He arrived with his entourage, paused at the Bar, and bowed, all of us doing the same. Then he walked between the benches to take his seat next to the Clerk (the Speaker doesn’t assume his official position until after Prayers are over). One or two of my colleagues standing beside me uttered some encouraging comments in low voices, but loud enough for Mr Speaker to hear. He made no response, but maintained his familiar, impassive smile.

Then, after Prayers, another short delay as members who had waited outside the chamber until the religious bit was over rushed to grab whatever seat they could, mainly on the steps between the benches. There were some threatening growls from the Labour benches as the Fourth Estate then filed into their seats in the gallery directly above the Speaker’s chair.

Hesitantly at first, Mr Speaker rose to his feet. There was no ceremony, no drama – that’s not Michael Martin’s style. This is what he said, from memory:

Since I came to this House 30 years ago I have always felt the House is at its best when it is united. In order that unity can be maintained, I have decided that I will relinquish the office of Speaker on Sunday, 21st of June. This will allow the House of proceed to elect a new Speaker on Monday, 22nd of June. That is all I have top say on this matter.

We were all a bit surprised and, I confess, a bit deflated. We expected there to be an opportunity for various members to stand, on contrived points of order, to pay their tribute to this man who is still regarded with huge affection by almost all the House. But there was no attempt at such comments. Mr Speaker made clear this was not the time, though that will surely come between now and 21 June.

Questions to the Foreign Secretary began, therefore, with the largest attendance in its history, and there was a genuine indecision among us about whether it was polite to leave now, or whether we should stay to listen to David Miliband.

We left.

I FEEL more relieved than anything else by the news that Michael Martin is to step down as Speaker, relieved that he won’t be ignominiously shoved out by a parliamentary vote of no confidence.

It’s clearly the right decision for him to take. I don’t know whether or not he intends to announce from the Speaker’s chair in the Commons or if he’ll do a press conference. The former, I suspect.

I gave an interview to Mike Semple Piggot, a local lawyer in Glasgow who blogs and podcasts under the name CharonQC. The Speaker and other subjects were discussed. You can listen to it here.

No doubt there will be plenty of comments here from the Smug Right, none of which will be published if they’re needlessly offensive. Or smug.

In the meantime, MPs’ attention will now turn to his replacement. I have a view, of course, but I’m sure you’ll forgive me if I keep my own counsel on that for the moment. Any suggestions?

NO-ONE has yet explained to me exactly what procedure might allow the Commons to vote on a motion of no confidence in the Speaker this week.

Ben Brogan reports that William Hague hasn’t helped the Speaker’s position by “revealing that the Tories would offer their MPs a free vote on a confidence motion, which is a roundabout way of saying the Tories have also pulled the plug on Mr Martin.” In fact, if there is a vote, there is no question of any party whipping it: the election (and, although it hasn’t happened in modern history, the dismissal) of a Speaker has always been and always will be a matter for the House. Ministers, similarly, would not even be bound by an informal “payroll vote” whip.

I admit I’m no scholar of Erskine May, but I just don’t understand how a back bencher like Douglas Carswell can possibly secure time for a debate on this issue. 

Incidentally, while understanding (though not necessarily agreeing with) the grievances currently being voiced against Michael Martin, I think Douglas is a poor choice to lead this particular crusade. Yes, he feels he has good reason to put down a motion this week, but if it wasn’t expenses, it would be Damian Green, and if it wasn’t Damian Green it would be something else. Of course Douglas wants Michael Martin to step down — it is after all, a day with a “y” in it.

Surely the case against the Speaker would have a touch more credibility if it were being promoted by someone who has previously not criticised him, rather than by someone who has built a reputation on doing so?

IAIN Dale has highlighted a Twitter by LibDem MP Sandra Gidley who, during PMQs, wrote: “23 mins past and only on Q2. Get a grip Mr Speaker!”

Which is odd, because you would have thought that someone who’s been a member of the House for more than nine years might by now have worked out what the order paper means.

Labour’s Howard Stoate was number one, so was guaranteed to be called first. The next on the paper was the LibDem Roger Williams, but before we got to him, the Speaker had to call David Cameron (who had six questions). Then, because questions come from alternate sides of the chamber, it was the turn of another Labour back bencher who was not on the order paper (I was hopeful, but was disappointed). And then it was Nick Clegg’s turn. He asked his requisite two questions. Then, again, the Speaker had to call someone else from the Labour side (who, I couldn’t help noticing, was not me) before finally getting to question number 2 from Roger Williams.

All of this took some time — ten questions and ten answers between questions number one and two. And neither Cameron nor Brown were particularly quick in saying what they wanted to say and sitting down again. But it was not the Speaker’s fault, as I suspect Sandra knows. Not that I’m accusing her of jumping on a bandwagon of criticising the Speaker, of course.

AS A SUPPORTER of the Speaker, I don’t usually indulge in speculation about who might one day replace him.

But Red Box is reporting rumours that Michael Martin may stand down as Speaker and as an MP this June. 

Once again, silly, paranoid theories about Labour scheming to install another Speaker from our own party seems to be the cornerstone of their logic.

I have spoken to many parliamentary colleagues and I have not detected any move to opt for a third  Labour candidate for Speaker. Of the Labour MPs I’ve spoken to, the most popular candidates seem to be Sir Alan Haselhurst and John Bercow. But so far I’ve not heard the name of any serious Labour candidate being mentioned.

PLEASE NOTE: I know the temptation to attack Michael Martin personally is too great for many readers of this blog, but please be aware that no such comment will see the light of day on this site.

THIS is what Nadine Dorries MP said about Speaker Martin less than a week ago:

I am awash with disappointment as the reality dawned on me, that the coveted chair and the man to whom as Speaker I have always been loyal, is without honour.

One could be forgiven for assuming, therefore, that, having jumped on her party’s anti-Speaker bandwagon, she might support her party against the government at the first vote today.

Alas, it was not to be. My Commons snout tells me that she arrived in the chamber a bit too late and had the lobby door slammed ignominiously in her face as she attempted to vote. Tut, tut…

I am awash with disappointment as the reality dawned on me, that the well-known blogger and the woman to whom I have always been slightly critical, is without a watch.