91Èȱ¬

Ann Widdecombe is a single candidate. My proposal's in the post.

Despite claims to the contrary, and Sir George's performance this has all the hallmarks of a shoe-in for Beckett.

A messy game of party political one upmanship will do nothing to restore battered public confidence. MPs are up to their old tricks, trying to juggle their favourite into the top job, treating the public and parliament with contempt.

Unless there's a massive change of heart and conscience, the result will only inflame the public mood as voters treat it with the contempt and cynicism the whole squalid mess deserves.

I just hope MPs see sense.

How depressing that MPs cannot seize this opportunity to show the public they understand the need for change. How depressing that MPs still do not realise that the Commons does not exist to serve their own greedy self-serving interest?

I hope for Beith or Shepherd, I fear it may be Widdicombe. Bercow, to me, is too young and could make a career out of it.
Young, seems as popular as any. Thereby making him unpopular due to the aggressive nature of our democracy

to TheOrangeParty,
I think it more likely that silly season will come and go, the Ashes will come and go, the football season will come again, and politics will be reduced to the middle-pages again while people go back to not-giving-a-care for whatever reason.
The anger that we as politically-interested people feel will not be shared at any length by the wider population because not many are that interested, for whatever reason.
Part of the reason we are in the current mess is the apathy of so many to politics and political reform

Of course speeches matter: the reason is in the job title!

Looking at the 91Èȱ¬ HYS board, the peoples vote is firmly with Widdecombe. No way she's getting in then!

I sincerely hope that MPs don't vote for Beckett. She has only recently left the government and will immediately open up the possibility of accusations of bias if she sides with the government.

At this time it should be either one of the Conservative or Lib Dem candidates.

Given that she has nothing to gain from this as she's standing down at the next election I'd say Widdecombe would be an interesting choice.

This could be interesting - if it's the case that the Labour whips have been touting Beckett and the 'secret ballot' gives labour MPs the confidnece to defy the whips and vote for another, that will be another nail in the authority of this damaged government.

On the other hand, silly question, but will the whips be looking over their MPs shoulders when they vote or will MPs be able to go into a booth and vote 'properly' in secret?

What a shame that somebody who has failed to vote for transparency, but likes to talk it up, might win. He's a member of the Old Guard, same old politics. Nothing will change with him.

What an utter shame that the two who made reasonable expense claims & voted for transparency, Richard Shepherd & Ann Widdecombe, don't seem like they'll win. Do these politicians never learn? People don't want the same old game.

i'm just not convinced the average brit cares one jot about who the speaker is, and as a result i'm not sure the election of a new MP in that role will have any impact at all on public confidence in westminster as politicians clearly hope.

Is this "secret" ballot really secret? What is the procedure?

Nick has again touched on the MP's 'expenses scandal' in this specific blog which leads me to ... David Cameron, whom I suggest explains pretty quickly as to why he felt it necessary to get the public to pay the interest on his three hundred and fifty thousand pound mortgage.

Especially when he is apparently extremely wealthy and therefore have no obvious need to make this claim on the public purse.

No doubt Mr. Cameron is hoping that questions such as this, which essentially probe his personal ethics and notions of public service, will simply go away.

They probably will but it still leaves a big question mark.

Falmouth Boy - whips looking over the shoulder was my concern as well. Who actually runs this poll?

This is the first test of MPs to show they understand, will they PASS!

Having just seen the speeches i really feel that the only candidate worthy of the title of "The Highest Commoner in the Land" was Parmjit Dhanda. A man who has come from the working classes and one who would really help parliament connect with the people. He suggested internet polls so that the British people could vote. That is the kind of revolutionary idea a speaker needs to be coming up with. He understands how the British public feels and is ready to make them more involved in politics.

What is clear from this election for the Speaker is that he or she must fulfill 2 roles; firstly, to demand the confidence of the MPs in the Commons; and secondly, command the confidence of the British people. The Speaker must show that the House of Commons takes its role seriously and that they are there to serve the electorate, and not themselves.

"the two who made reasonable expense claims & voted for transparency, Richard Shepherd & Ann Widdecombe"

I believe that Ms Widdecombe in fact "Voted moderately against a transparent Parliament", according to theyworkforyou.com. And according to Wikipedia, she voted against publication of MP's expenses.

In fact, I thought it was her you were attacking first up 'drillfork'

Agree with # 9.

Evidently MPs are STILL not listening to the public they (supposedly) serve.

We need a speaker with a bit of authority. Michael Martin's attempts at order were nothing short of pathetic - "order? Order? Order please?" - and what we need is someone who will take absolutely no nonsense. I can't see Margaret Beckett fulfilling that role, given her performance on Question Time, which was pretty lacklustre. I think most people could imagine Anne Widdecombe giving unruly MPs a stern telling off, and for this reason alone, she is the perfect candidate.

Of course, the very fact that Martin's tenure seemed like 9 years of a supply teacher trying to control a class consisting of all of a school's troublemakers merely highlights one of the main fundamental problems with Westminster politics. The House of Commons is designed for adversity and arguments, but modern politics has to be about consensus. Replace the Commons with a hemisphere and get rid of the "me vs you" nature, and then things might start getting done properly.

12. At 4:29pm on 22 Jun 2009, JohnConstable wrote:
Nick has again touched on the MP's 'expenses scandal' in this specific blog which leads me to ... David Cameron, whom I suggest explains pretty quickly as to why he felt it necessary to get the public to pay the interest on his three hundred and fifty thousand pound mortgage.

=============================================================

What is it with you labour apologists - having to spend your entire time attacking the opposition, and then completely ignoring the faults within your own favorite party? Actually that is all Gordon does these days isn't it, and exactly how labour campaign now too.

I think you'll find the Camerons expenses are far more 'above board' than most of the hypocritical labour MPs who stand for 'social justice' while flipping their houses and paying off non-existent mortgages.

Becket's speech was patronising and full of self congratulation. How can anyone take this woman seriously.

Bercow was boring and his character is duplicitous. The very fact that Tom Watson one of Brown's nasty bully boys has just endorsed him on 91Èȱ¬ says it all.

That seems to leave Sir George Young and Ann Widdicombe.

Sir George is a long respected figure in parliament but has he the stamina to sort out the mess that parliament is in? He will come up against a barrage of opposition from those who are content to leave things as they are.

Ann Widdicombe however will serve less than 11 months which is the time left to sort things out before the next election.

If she succeeds I am sure there are ways in which she can be persuaded to stay on. We have to wait and see. Very interesting!

If it'd Beckett then it's a fix and The House of Commons will be back to square one with a biased Speaker.

12

Desperate.

Just desperate.

I noiw know why Beckett resigned

Beckett is a grim prospect for any serious reform. Mired in everything that's gone before and unrepresentative of anyone... is there any hope for British politics?

This is just another round of blatant opportunism and meddling. Shame sinks further on the house.

#20 sweetAnybody

I'm far from being a Labour apologist, New Labour are a disgrace and have been for many years, however, given that the Conservatives are likely to be the next government, surely we should be asking serious questions of them too - particularly Cameron.

To be honest with you, I'm sick of the whole undemocratic system presided over by a two party dictatorship. It's only now with the economy in trouble and borrowing rising by the second that there's any difference between them.

They're the same sides of a dirty penny, vote for one and you get the other thrown in for free.

What's more exiting ? Speaker09 or BB10 ??

sweetAnybody @ 20

I think that is the first time that I have been called a Labour apologist but is does illustrate the binary (Labour v Tory) mindset which is often seen on these blogs.

I do not generally comment on any of this Labour Governments many deficiencies now because I have mentally written them off completely as any sort of meaningful political force in English politics, going forward into the near or even distant future.

As David Cameron might possibly be the last 'British' Prime Minister and therefore the first English PM since pre-Union days, I feel, as an Englishman, that I have the right to probe his political drivers, and indeed he himself says that he 'welcomes' tough questions.

Perhaps Cameron could have a quiet word with some of his people who monitor blogs such as this and then complain to the mods as soon as anything that could be construed as 'negative' to Cameron appears (to be fair, the Labour types also seem to engage in this activity).

Bercow tops first ballot! Beckett third. There is hope yet.

We seem to be on to the Cameron mortgage thing again so may I ask again why no-one is highlighting Gordon Brown's 'flipping' of second home. Does it make a difference that his London flat in his wife's name now?

John Bercow wins the first ballot - and immediately one begins to think about ulterior motives.

Few MPs appear to like this man. And his presentation today was hardly inspirational. So from where did the 179 votes come?

Are Labour MPS, aware that they will lose the next election, attempting to saddle the Tories with a Tory speaker whom Tories don't like, partly because of his vanity, and partly because he isn't viewed by other Tories as a real Tory?.

Games, games, games...

bright-eyedwendym @ 30

Anybody who had read Tom Bowers unauthorised biog of Gordon Brown would not be at all surprised at his 'flipping' arrangements as Bowers reveals some very dubious behaviour on the part of Brown in the aftermath of the Maxwell saga, whereby Brown somehow manages to purchase a flat from the Maxwell ruins at, ahem, a very 'competitive' price.

But as I mentioned above in this blog thread, why bother trawling over Brown or indeed any Labour figures, because in the modern idiom, they are 'so history'.

The MP's don't yet seem to have realised that the person who is elected is going to be crucial for the standing of Parliament with the electorate.

Voting for Becket or Bercow will be a big back-pass open goal. They have to vote from someone who will gain the respect of the population.

How out of touch will they be?

jcon @ 12

No doubt Mr. Cameron is hoping that questions such as this ... his mortgage ... which essentially probe his personal ethics and notions of public service, will simply go away

yes John, no doubt - but it won't go away, will it?

I'm sure none of the candidates have given any thought to the salary( in excess of 140,000 pounds a year) the great pension, or living quarters, or should I be more cynical?!

Messrs Constable & Sagamix

Time to leave go of Mr Cameron and his mortgage I think. Why should his apparent wealth mean that he should not have access to the same assistance as any other MP in respect of his allowances. I suppose some sort of means testing might be appropriate in the future, but I do have concerns that such a system might put able people off from standing for election.

Back on track, I really do not care who is elected speaker. It seems to me that this is an out of date and largely symbolic post, which would better done by an "independent" civil servant, tasked to fairly chair the parliamentary debates.

Does anyone else think that the electorate in the speaker's constituency are denied their democratic rights by the main parties not putting up a rival candidate in his/her seat.

sagamix @ 34

Actually it (the question of Camerons mortgage interest) will probably go away, as I suggested, because in itself it is simply not a big enough story for the generally 'feral' media to feast themselves upon.

There is something vaguely mysterious as to which political stories gain traction and which do not, even in respect of these MP's expenses, it seems almost random as to who gets thrust into the spotlight and who somehow avoids it.

But is it?

Obviously, it helps if you, as the somewhat privileged leader of your party, thrust some of your more 'expendable' members blinking into the expenses sunlight, but hey, who said life was fair?

Again, to be balanced, Brown has also played the same game, shoving some of the more expendable Labour MP's into the media's shark-like feeding frenzy.

PS. I have been in the land-of-the-free for a while and it is truly pitiful to come home to England and see 'redacted' expenses all over the papers. One effortless step from the gutter to the sewer - well done MP's.

SPEAKER SCHMEEKER ...

New speaker? Who cares?

The idea that the election of a new Speaker by a totally discredited Parliament could ever be an important first step to reform is to my mind absurd.

Most of the sitting MPs are guilty of appalling financial behaviour. Over 100 have so disgraced themselves that they have announced they will not seek re-election, and others are likely to be de-selected. The police have already started investigations into a number against whom there are clear prima facie cases.

Whether or not there are criminal prosecutions and convictions is beside the point. The long and the short of it is that these people are not fit to be trusted with their own reform. The idea is ridiculous, and the appointment of a new Speaker from within their own corrupt ranks is wrong.

Already, the leaders of the three main parties are talking as if they themselves had not been part of this ghastly shambles. As if the dust is settling and we can all go back to business as normal!

They hope that over the next year - before the election takes place - we'll forget the worst of it and just go on playing the same old game.

The resumption of normal play has now started in the banking sector. Remember how huge bonuses were to be ended. Forget it! RBS (which WE own) is proposing to pay it's new chief exec nine million quid a year!
Pardon?

Nothing constructive can happen till this Parliament has been dismissed and the current Commons replaced with a completely new membership. Perhaps then we can address the REAL and NECCESSARY reforms.

What are they? Well, for a start, how about these:

1. Introduction of a proper democracy in which ALL opinions are represented, and employment of proportional representation.

2. Election only to the Lords.

3. A check on the power of the executive, and full restoration of proper Cabinet government.

4. An end to excessive Prime Ministerial QANGO job patronage. Election in future for such positions.

4. US-style primaries for MP selection, and elimination of the two-party, safe seat duopoly.

5. A dramatic reduction in the expensive panoply of Monarchy - in line with modern times. Norwegian-style would be good.

There's lots more. But the above would be a good start.

jc @ 37

it is mysterious, yes - soon as I realised what he'd done, I thought there'd be big trouble ... him being the probable next PM and all ... but, no, didn't catch - meanwhile angry andies all round about tons of others whose "offences" were (IMO) less objectionable - can only conclude, I guess, that the media are quite pro clown now - probably because they are perceived as being sure to gain power very soon - hey, and no need to mention Brown for "balance" ... I know (even if the likes of sweet and haye don't) that you're no lover of the things Labour

Loved the commentary as Bercow did the walk to the Lords. "he is going to bring a modern face to Parliament"

And there he is preceeded by a quaintly dressed woman wearing a sword and is then addressed in the Lords by the reading of a letter, allegedly from the Queen, written in 18th century English.

Oh he has an uphill struggle.

sagamix 39

We meet again!

I can see what you are trying to do here - create a little anti-Cameron undercurrent. Your "what he'd done", without actually saying what he did, is nothing but calculated inuendo. If you think he actually has done anything other than what is to be found quite openly and all across the printed press (i.e. committing the "crime" of being well-off but nonetheless drawing a salary and expenses), then now is the time to say it. Otherwise, I have just two words for you, and they are: Shaun Woodward.

Having listened to Messrs Brown, Cameron and Clegg giving their welcoming speeches I was interested to hear what the Plaid Cumyria/SNP had to say, only to have the speech chocked off with the comment by Nick Robinson saying "right; well leave that right now .....". The indifference and arrogance of the 91Èȱ¬ never ceases to astound me particularly regarding their attitude to minority political parties which in the case of the SNP just happened to acheive a record 29% of the popular vote in Scotland in the recent Euro elections, well ahead the 'big three' parties .... but why should the great almighty 91Èȱ¬ spent 5 minutes representing their fee-payers north of the Border!

42 Minotime

Fed up with the undue influence the Scots have over English matters but on the matter you raise you have a good point.

Well if you dont get the service dont pay for it, just the threat might see some improvement.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

jrp @ 41

innuendo? ... well, I (@ 44) wrote back to you, explaining exactly what he'd "done" but it's not allowed, so what can one do? - you tell me - establishment and media cover up on this one - scared of the soon to be conquering clowns, I guess

"Candidates' speeches really matter" Why? Does it really matter who gets to bang the gavel and yell; "Awda! Awda! We'd all like to hear what the Prime Minister has to say." What does the Speaker of the House contribute to the quality of the political dialogue of Britain? Seeing how the last one was unceremoniously dumped, I'd say not much. He seemded the perfect scapegoat for the crooks who actually stole the taxpayer's money. Will the next one really be any different? Any better? At least Betty Boothroyd looked like she could have come out of that box, found a terminally rude MP and bopped him one over the head with that gavel she wielded. That would have shut him up and given him (or her) something to think about for awhile. Now that would have been something worth taking note of.

saga 45

If the story isn't in the papers (and let's face it, they aren't very discriminating these days), and you can't get it past modding either, then, your sour-puss remarks notwithstanding, I think most people would come to the conclusion that there is nothing in it, bar inuendo and bias. And they would be right.

Why is the system for electing Speaker different from electing a MP?

If outright majority is not good enough to elect the speaker, then it is not good enough for electing a MP.

28. At 5:29pm on 22 Jun 2009, JohnConstable wrote:
sweetAnybody @ 20

I think that is the first time that I have been called a Labour apologist but is does illustrate the binary (Labour v Tory) mindset which is often seen on these blogs.

-------------------

No it isn't, you have been called it by every single poster. Including that open labour apologist, but likeable poster nonetheless, sagamix.

It is painfully obvious what you are, don't try to deny it.

49. At 09:45am on 23 Jun 2009, greatHayemaker wrote:
28. At 5:29pm on 22 Jun 2009, JohnConstable wrote:
I think that is the first time that I have been called a Labour apologist but is does illustrate the binary (Labour v Tory) mindset which is often seen on these blogs.

-------------------

No it isn't, you have been called it by every single poster. Including that open labour apologist, but likeable poster nonetheless, sagamix.

It is painfully obvious what you are, don't try to deny it.

I'm sure that sagamix and others are more than capable of defending themselves, but I must say that reading his posts and, indeed, those of most others who make an obvious attempt to take a balanced view it does appear that he is merely trying to mantain a haven of equilibrium in what is often otherwise an ocean of Tory bias.