Debunking some conventions about the Speaker
There's a lot of rubbish talked about traditions and conventions when it comes to electing of a new .
First, it's said it's conventional to elect a Speaker mid-term, so that he or she is elected entirely by people who know him rather than brand new MPs, and that it would therefore be a breach of that rule.
Second, it's said it's conventional for the Speakership to alternate between the two main parties, and that election in 2000, as a second successive Labour Speaker, following , was a breach of this rule.
But a quick look at the post-war Speakers shows these rules don't really exist:
1943-1951 Douglas Clifton Brown (Con)
1951-1959 William Morrison (Con)
1959-1965 Sir Harry Hylton-Foster (Con)
1965-1971 Horace King (Lab)
1971-1976 Selwyn Lloyd (Con)
1976-1983 George Thomas (Lab)
1983-1992 Bernard Weatherill (Con)
1992-2000 Betty Boothroyd (Lab)
2000- Michael Martin
Five of the above nine Speakers - Clifton-Brown, King, Lloyd, Thomas and Martin - were indeed elected mid-term, though in King's case this was because the previous Speaker died in office.
But four others - Morrison, Hylton-Foster, Weatherill and Boothroyd - were elected at the start of a Parliament. So that's hardly a hard and fast rule.
And eight of the nine post-war Speakers were elected when their party was the biggest in the House.
The only exception was Betty Boothroyd when the Conservatives had a small majority.
I'm Michael Crick, and I'm Newsnight's political editor. My guiding rule is that in any story there's usually something the politicians would prefer the world not to know. My job is to find that out. Follow me on
Comment number 1.
At 18th May 2009, JunkkMale wrote:I'm in the mood for a bit of debunking.
However, I stumble somewhat over what I have just read in a newspaper report: 'one thing MPs should remember in making their choice is that the next Speaker will have more power than any of his predecessors.'
Until very recently, I thought it was some old geezer who dresses funny and says 'Order, order' a lot. Hey, whatever floats their yachts.
However, it has now been made quite clear that there is great power here but, unlike Spiderman, pretty much zippy by way of accountability. Especially to folk like me. You know; the public. Voters. Guys who foot the bill and shoulder the consequences.
So.... with the great job that has served the country so well so far in recent mind, the intention is to hand the choice of the next one... again... to our current 600+ 'government of all the talents' (including in all from all parties under that glorious misnomer).
'Because that is the way it has always been done'.
I. do. not. blooming. well. think. so.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 18th May 2009, newsjock wrote:Whatever any convention might or might not suggest, NOW is the time to elect a new Speaker for the House.
The present post-holder lost his own public integrity some time back over his own and his wife's expenses.
He has also been consistently "agin" any benefit reforms during his tenure of office, and also very "anti" concerning the publication of MP's expenses.
Either of these factors would be enough to class him as unsuitable to oversee any change in the expenses system.
I hope, that unlike many now discredited financiers, he is NOT promoted to the House of Lords, when he retires as a wealthy MP.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 18th May 2009, EuroJurist wrote:The Tories and Liberals are attempting to deflect their own wrongdoings onto the Speaker.
They claim they are not to blame by blaming the "system". Yet they are the system. They are the ones who were prepared to milk the system.
The Speaker did not force them under duress to summit such claims. They and they alone submitted such claims. They argue the Speaker must go because their constituents are angry. Yes we are very angry but that anger is directed to the MPs themselves and not the Speaker as one man alone.
If David Cameron is so "clean", he should publish his expenses for the last nine years and not limit disclosure to the last four. The public may be surprised.
The MPs should remember the words of André Gide: The true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his own deception, who begins to lie with sincerity.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 18th May 2009, stanilic wrote:Conventions are there to assure orderly process and are to be appreciated and treasured.
However, when conditions apply that are quite disagreeable then conventions do not help in making the necessary changes.
I don't think we are in a conventional situation right now.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 18th May 2009, luckytomvincent wrote:In 2000, Michael Martin was led to the Speakers chair by Ann Keen MP and Peter Snape MP. Ann Keen and her MP husband are the Mr & Mrs Expenses of MP couples and have claimed expenses for a London flat when living only 10 miles away etc.,.
To explain his conduct after being found Guilty of expressing a clear willingness to breech the Peers Code of Conduct by the Lords Interest Sub-Committee, Lord Snape used the defence that there is no modern definition of the word Honour.
Understanding the importance of self-restraint and the meaning of the word Honour are essentials of the Speakers job. Was there any long-term hope for Speaker Martin, given the company he keeps?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 18th May 2009, Andy in Newcastle wrote:I'm not really bothered who replaces Speaker Martin as long as they are fair and competent. I'm sure he's a decent bloke, but his performance this afternoon was enough to confirm to me that he simply isn't up to the job - especially at this time. It's got nothing to do with his background, as some of his supporters would have us believe. But to chair something like the House of Commons, you have to have some skills which he clearly lacks.
I've seen a number of references to Oliver Cromwell today. Maybe we could to with someone like that again (if only for a short time).
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 19th May 2009, threnodio wrote:#6 - SupremeChancellor
"I've seen a number of references to Oliver Cromwell today. Maybe we could to with someone like that again (if only for a short time)".
Maybe the spin doctors think they can blame it all on the monarchy. As an exercise in buck passing, that would take a bit of beating.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)