Comment Central - Times Online - WBLG

Where should politicians holiday?

Brawl in the South Korean Parliament

Part of me feels I ought to make some joke here about South Korean politicians needing a recess too, but actually, the footage is too astonishingly appalling...

Summer homework - for MPs

School’s out for summer. And, with it, empties Westminster. Dogged by recession and hounded by expenses scandal, MPs have had a rough few months.

So I’d be the last to suggest, as Nick Clegg did a while back, that we bolt the doors on Parliament and let them fight it out between them until a new, brighter political future can be hammered out.

On the other hand, twelve weeks (or, more precisely, eighty-two days) is a pretty long time. This summer, I (and, I expect, you) will be squeezing my relaxation into a - harrowingly narrow - two week window.

Would it be unreasonable then, to ask them, like our school children, to do a little homework over the break?

We're taking suggestions. What exercise (or exercises) would you set MPs for the summer recess?

(By the way, take a look a look at 38 Degrees' MP Holiday Watch project - an ongoing investigation into how MPs really use their recess)

Getting a rise with a 0% rise

Fraser Nelson has produced a fantastic analysis of the budgetary acrobatics behind this latest statement over on Coffee House, beginning with this helpful graph:

Bercow's bolshie interview

Bercow's reversals of fortune

Betfair has this simple graph, plotting Bercow's path to the Speaker's chair.

He's the blue line, while Margaret Beckett is in red and Sir George Young a fetching green.

The graph shows Bercow gaining momentum after Beckett enters the race (A), and Labour members begin to calculate his chances as the Tory of choice (B).

His chances drop dramatically (C) amid rumours of a 'Stop Bercow' campaign, only for his fortune and Beckett's to reverse and cross paths after the latter's speech is badly received and she finishes a distant third.

5 reasons why the Conservatives are wrong about Bercow

The Conservatives are wrong to react as they have to John Bercow.

I realise that many Labour MPs voted for Bercow just to annoy the Tories and this is very irritating.

I also realise that the new Speaker allowed his relations with the Tory leadership to deteriorate, when there were no good reasons for them to do so. This does raise questions about his reliability. He has led them to believe that he dislikes them personally, and they have therefore reciprocated.

Yet while this may have justified them in not voting for him, it does not justify allowing the hostility to continue and to destabilise the new Speaker.

Here are the five reasons:

First, John Bercow is the Speaker. What did Conservative MPs think would happen if they helped oust Michael Martin while Labour still had a sizeable majority?

It was worth doing, but it meant Labour MPs would be the biggest voice in chosing the next Speaker. The institution of Speaker demands the support of MPs for the chosen candidate unless there are spectacularly serious reasons to remove him.

Second, Bercow is an articulate moderniser, devoted to the House of Commons. He has spent hours speaking in the Chamber, promoting the House as an institution. There were very good, solid reasons for him to be Speaker quite apart from the partisan games of Labour people. It is silly to pretend that he is unqualified.

Third, in most of the big battles John Bercow has fought over the last 10 years against the Tory party, he was right and the Tory Party wasn't.

He saw earlier than most the need for the Party to be socially liberal and for it to change its demeanour. He argued early and bravely for modernisation. Far from deserving to be excoriated for the stands he took, he should be congratulated.

Fourth, Conservatives believe that John Bercow was a candidate to defect. The point is that he didin't defect. Instead he put his increasingly loose party affiliation to a better use - he ran for Speaker.

In a way, it is Bercow's loyalty - sticking to a Party that really disliked him, when Labour made strong overtures - that is surprising and striking.

If Conservative MPs are truly saying that Bercow's fairly low level dissent is utterly beyond the pale, that is pretty unattractive. It suggests a narrow, cliquey insistance upon uniformity.

Fifth, there are the questions about his change of stance. I have known John Bercow for 25 years - as a political contemporary and an acquaintance with whom I have cordial relations. I first met him after he became Chairman of the FCS successor body, charged with cleaning up that body's act.

Even then - though I was in the SDP - I regarded him as a broadminded Tory. I listened to quite a few Bercow speeches in those days (mid 1980s) and I already thought of him - despite obvious differences - as a possible ally.

In other words his position has evolved over a very long time indeed. It is not a sudden move to court Labour voters in a Speaker election.

Bercow - the blogs react

Guido Fawkes says it’s ‘Too Early for ‘Bercow Must Go’'

Iain Dale reminds us ‘Bercow is a Servant of the House, Not Its Master’

Nick Robinson contemplates the ‘Changing tradition of Speaker’

Tim Montgomerie finds that ‘We must now hope that John Bercow will succeed’

While Alex Smith is unimpressed by 'Bercow: an average speaker for an average House'

The bookies' choice

 

Blue - Sir George Young

Green - John Bercow

Red - Margaret Beckett

Hat tip: Political Betting

Speaker: Who the papers want to win...

The Times endorses Ann Widdecombe

The Telegraph endorses nobody

The Independent endorses nobody

The Guardian endorses John Bercow