The Public & PMQs

"The Public don't like it, and I don't like it."

Well, that's the usual refrain of Commons Speaker John Bercow as things get a little loud at Prime Minister's Question Time. I have spoken before (here) about the fact that I like it when PMQs gets lively and think that the pressure, or otherwise, put on MPs in a good thing.

I cannot remember a week when Speaker Bercow hasn't stopped the flow of an arguement, and even on some occassions silence our Prime Minister, to repeat his charge that the public doesn't like the noise and bustle of the questioning. I know that Speaker Bercow was elected on a reforming platform and much that he has done I personally approve of, such as increased use of Urgent Questions, but his attitude and behaviour at PMQs does worry me. And what worries me more is that he uses "the public" as a method backing up his own views.

At the end of my previous post, I asked the question "who are these public that tell Speaker Bercow they want a santised PMQs" and it has played on my mind ever since. So I ended up putting in a Freedom of Information (FOI) request asking the Speaker exactly how many memebrs of the public have complained about the behaviour of MPs at PMQs.

After all, to change the whole tone of PMQs must suggest massive public fury; members of the public firing off angry letters and emails to vent their fury that MPs should ask reasonable questions in reasonable ways and recieve them in utter silence. They demand, these public, that the Speaker acts as a teacher would, insisting on decorum and threatening any MP, including the Prime Minister and both frontbenches with detention unless they play ball. He should even pick out a few and make jibes at them in order to control the commons.

So my FOI request asked how many pieces of communication (letter, phone call or email) the Speaker had recieved complaining about behaviour at PMQs. Go on, take a guess.

Well the answer may surprise you. The Speakers office only hold communications for sixth months, but in the half year until 22 July there were ...

... ready for it ...

... 36 ...

... yes, thirty six.

36 members of the public have complained about the standard of behaviour at PMQs in six months.

I am amazed that our bossy, overbearing Speaker has the cheek to call forth public opinion on this matter when less than half of one percent of one average constituency in the UK has registered a complaint.

That's fewer people than complain about your average Eastenders storyline and even fewer than most e-petitions, no matter how obscure the topic, gather.

And how many people have written to complain about the Speaker's constant interruption? Well apparently they are working on that figure for me as I blog. I am sure it'll be less than 36 but it shows how few people really, actually care enough about an issue to take up pen, keyboard or telephone and do something about it.

So let's hear slightly less about how the public dislike the format of PMQs, Mr Speaker, because at best the public haven't spoken yet on the issue.

Should Speaker Bercow have no tongue to speak?

In my weaker moments I still enjoy watching both the debates and question times from parliament. Those who do so regularly will know that the most regular feature of any session in the Commons is the sight of the Speaker of the House, John Bercow, having a go at MPs for questions (and answers) that are "too long". At the beginning this seemed like a great idea for getting through more questions. However, Speaker Bercow seems to mistake a good session with one where the maximum number of MPs speak. "We've heard enough," he snapped at one LibDem MP recently.

Speaker Bercow is on very thin ice. The job of the Speaker is not the "lead" the Commons, let alone dictate to it. He would do well to remember what Speaker Lenthall once said: "I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here."

It seems that Speaker Bercow is running the place as he sees fit rather than representing the views of the House - both sides of the chamber. The sight of him determining how long an MP's question should be is wrong, so long as it's one question and doesn't constitute a speech!

In fact, Speaker Bercow does do rather a lot of Speaking really including pontificating on what the public would or would not like to see. What qualifies him for this role?

He is there to run the place smoothly and ensure the rules are kept to - not to control the debate and questions in his tight-fisted way. Maybe he'll loosen up as time goes on, but if I were an MP being cut off from asking a question it would make me wonder what agenda the Speaker really has and if really is the man to preside over the Commons.

Mr & Mrs

So the Mail on Sunday have published a frontpage story claiming that Samantha Cameron once voted Labour; I suppose we all do silly things sometimes, but on this occassion she didn't - according to CCHQ, Mrs Cameron not only voted Conservative in 1997 but took 5 weeks off work to campaign for her husband in Stafford.

However, even if she did, should we expect political spouses to vote the same way as their partners? After all, I assume that Mr and Mrs Bercow vote different ways (him being the former right wing MP turned Speaker, her being the Labour local government candidate).

Order, Order!

So John Bercow is the new Speaker of the House of Commons - good luck to him. It is a big job for anyone to do and I wish him well.

One thing does spring to mind though; with the secreat ballot we shall never really know what the party splits were for Bercow and for Sir George Young.

Personally I had supported Hampshire MP Young since the beginning and was very pleased at his strong showing; but now the Commons must unite behind Bercow and make the change which is needed happen.

Gove heaps more pressure on the Speaker

On the BBC News moments ago, Shadow Childrens Secretary Michael Gove said that had spoken to his constituents and they wished the Speaker to go, and that he would represent their views to both David Cameron and in the House.

This thinly veiled attack on the Speaker is the first from a member of the Shadow Cabinet and move must make Martin's position weaker yet?

Can Speaker Martin really survive the next few days?