Mr Squeaker Becomes Mr Speaker

The House of Commons simply doesn't get it. After forcing Michael Martin to resign as Speaker, Labour scrabbles around to find the only person who could be worse than him.

John Bercow, Conservative (in name only) MP for Buckingham. Where do we begin?

Firstly, he completely lacks gravitas.

Secondly, he is not a "reform" candidate. One of his key supporters- who "dragged" him to the Speaker's throne when he was elected- is Sandra Gidley, Liberal Democrat MP for Romsey.

Writing in the local paper, Gidley says:

I knew I'd made the right choice when John announced that he was rejecting the traditional garb for everyday business. It may not sound all that important, but it clearly showed that he was prepared to break with tradition...

There is a good reason why it may not sound all that important- because it isn't important.

What has lowered the reputation of Parliament? Is it:

1. the Speaker wearing "traditional garb", or
2. MPs misusing the expenses system?

Opinion poll after opinion poll showed that the people of Britain would be happy for the house-flipping, porn bought at our expense, moat-cleaning, duck houses etc. to continue, as long as the Speaker wears modern clothes when presiding over the Commons.

Er hang on a second. Opinion polls didn't show that- when the expenses scandal was discussed in the media, no-one ever suggested that the people would accept the system if the new Speaker wore different clothes.

[May I tongue-in-cheek suggest that if MPs felt that a Speaker not wearing traditional clothes was the solution, then why not go the whole hog and elect Chris Bryant, Labour MP for Rhondda, as Speaker? Wouldn't a Speaker wearing nothing more than his underpants when presiding be a sign that Parliament has changed?]

The idea that the system has changed now there is a Speaker who doesn't dress up for the job shows that Labour and the Liberal Democrats believe the people will be satisfied with cosmetic changes. Gimmicks, in other words.

What is Bercow's attitude on this? When the Daily Telegraph did its investigation, his expenses were on the large side. Moreover, he wants to see MPs' salaries rocket.

Rather than being a reform candidate, Bercow is the choice of the "come on, get yer snouts in the trough! The taxpayers are paying!" lobby.

Traditionally, when the Speaker is standing at the general election, he or she stands as "Mr/Madam Speaker seeking re-election" and the main parties do not run candidates against him or her. After the next election, there still has to be a Speakership election, although by tradition there is only one candidate (the sitting Speaker) elected unopposed by the House of Commons in those circumstances.

Now, the Conservatives could contest Buckingham at the next election, and could put forward an alternative candidate for Speaker after the election. Both would be a break with tradition- but then again, Bercow's "reform" is simply that he breaks with tradition. Let him be hoisted with his own petard!

There was a genuine reform candidate- George Young, the Conservative MP for Hampshire North West, who was the runner-up (again). Young knows that reform means genuine changes in how MPs behave, not through cheap gimmicks.

One final thought on this- in his speech, Bercow decided to win over Labour MPs by mocking a Conservative MP, assumed to be Peter Tapsell, MP for Louth & Horncastle. Elections to the Speakership are presided over by the Father of the House of Commons. If Tapsell is re-elected at the next general election (and he has a very safe seat), then he will be the Father. Wouldn't be too difficult for him to "accidentally" lose Bercow's nomination papers....