Speaker John Bercow Survives Cowardly Tory Plot to Unseat Him

  The Tories' cowardly attempt to bring down Speaker John Bercow has failed. The last-minute vote in the House of Commons today saw the government defeated by 2228 votes to 202 on a motion to make the process of voting in the Speaker of the House a secret ballot. This, despite being an apparent blow for democracy, is actually a very good thing.

Speaker John Bercow

  The election of the Speaker takes place at the beginning of each Parliament. Usually, if the sitting Speaker does not choose to step down and holds their Commons seat (which they always do, as they traditionally run unopposed by any major party) then they are re-elected as a matter of form. It is theoretically possible, however, that they could be voted out of office.

  Bercow, a former Conservative MP, has been one of the most progressive voices in terms of the conduct of Parliament, eschewing the traditional robes of his office in favour of a simple gown and frequently taking MPs to task for poor behaviour in the House. He has introduced a creche to Parliament to take the pressure off of those MPs who are parents - particularly mothers; he helped drive the creation of the Backbench Business Committee in 2010; and he has called for reform to the undignified, often appalling spectacle of PMQs - only to be blocked by the Tory backbenches. He is also a determined promoter of political participation to young people, appearing at numerous events. 

  The Conservative Party, however, don't like him - they look upon him as a traitor, who has abandoned his early right-wing views for a more socially liberal stance. They claim he is biased against the government, and would like to see him brought down. However, many are unwilling to vote against him in the division chambers, for fear of reprisals if they fail.

  I am instinctively torn on this issue. My instinct is that Parliament should move towards using secret ballots - not only would this allow the system to be made electronic, and thus save huge amounts of parliamentary time, it would also break the power of the whips and stop party leaderships from bullying their MPs into voting through legislation against their consciences. But to introduce it specifically for Speaker elections, and for no other votes, is both ludicrous and clearly politically motivated.

Charles Walker MP

  Moreover, the way this entire affair has been conducted is shambolic. Charles Walker MP, who chairs the Parliament's Procedure Committee, gave a speech declaring that he had been 'played like a fool' - the law had been based on a report he had given in the last Parliament, but had been ignored until today. He and many other senior parliamentarians had only been informed of the vote's imminence at the last minute. Michael Gove, the government Chief Whip, faced calls from the press gallery to resign after the debacle, having ordered a whipped party meeting before the vote.

  Speaker John Bercow has been fantastic for Parliament, and the cowardly attempt to unseat him reflects poorly on William Hague - who brought the bill - Gove and the entire Tory Party. Another disgrace to add to the list.

The Debates Debate

  The leaders' debates were an innovative feature of the 2010 General Election, giving the people of the UK the chance to see the principal contenders for their electoral affection go toe-to-toe over the major issues of the day. So far in 2015, however, they have proved an innovative way for the Conservative Party to waste everyone's time.

The History of TV Debates

  The original three debates, featuring Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg, took place over a three-week period in the run-up to the election on the 6th of May. The televised verbal duel between the main contenders have been a feature of US Presidential elections for years, but - despite the efforts of previous party leaders to get them introduced since 1964 - they have not been historically used in Britain.

  The main objection to this head-to-head style of pre-election politicking is that it was suited only to a Presidential style of political leadership, which is not the way we do things in Britain. At a General Election, after all, we vote for individual MPs, not for a political party and certainly not for a party leader. In theory.
  
  The reality, of course, is that UK politics has become ever more Presidential over time, with the election and ten-year premiership of Tony Blair - the most President-like leader Britain has ever had in peacetime - sealing its fate. We vote, at election time, in most cases for the party we most identify with rather than the individual candidate that we best like. 

  So, the debates were introduced - at the insistence, mainly, of opposition leaders David Cameron and Nick Clegg. Now, however, Cameron is trying to get out of them. Recognising that the old argument wasn't going to wash in light of his own support of the debates just five years ago, he has turned instead to a plethora of others.

Proposals

  The original proposal for the 2015 pre-election debates - all the way back in October - was for a debate between Cameron and Labour leader Ed Miliband, a second debate also including Nick Clegg, and a third also including UKIP boss Nigel Farage. However, several smaller parties contested this decision - in particular the Green Party, who argued that they were performing on a level more or less equal to the Lib Dems in the polls.

  This began a long saga of political tussling over how exactly the debates should be held. The broadcasters initially rejected the Greens' demand for inclusion, prompting legal action. Cameron then declared he would not take part without the Greens. Miliband, Farage and Clegg wrote letters to the PM demanding he meet their challenge, but Cameron refused to budge.

  In January, the broadcasters announced revised plans: One head-to-head between Cameron and Miliband and two seven-way debates also including Nick Clegg, Nigel Farage, Green Party leader Natalie Bennett, SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon and Plaid Cymru leader Leanne Wood. These plans were then confirmed on the 23rd of February, with the first seven-way to take place on the 2nd of April, the second on the 16th, and the head-to-head on the 30th of April - just a week before the election.

Political Quibbling and David Cameron's Cowardice

  These plans weren't perfect. The DUP and SInn Fein - the two principal Northern Irish parties - both complained that if the SNP and Plaid were involved, they should be too. George Galloway, the single MP for the Respect Party, made a similar argument - if the Greens were to take part, with just one MP, then his party ought to have a chance to speak too. These points are both valid criticisms.

  To my mind, the correct solution would be to have a debate between the leaders of all the parties standing nationally (Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, UKIP and the Greens) and then separate debates featuring the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish leaders of those parties along with the nationalists. The head-to-head between Cameron and Miliband, as the only two realistic candidates for Prime Minister, also should go ahead. But this is really a side issue.

  Whatever the form of the debates, the main thing is that they should happen. In a system where the policies of political parties, and increasingly the calibre of their leaders, is important to how people cast their votes, we need to be able to see the people clamouring for our support make clear unambiguous statements of their views and then defend them. As David Cameron said back in 2010, they are essential for our democracy. And yet, he has proven the greatest block on them occurring of all.

  His latest objection is that the debates ought not to take place too close to the election, and therefore there isn't time any longer to stage the three debates which have been planned. The fact that the main reason that there is no time left is his own refusal to agree to the broadcasters' plans is clearly not something which bothers him. Instead, he is now calling for a single debate to take place before the end of March, including the seven leaders who the broadcasters have identified. The other seven-way and the head-to-head are to be scrapped.

  Both Cameron and the broadcasters have dug in their heels, the latter threatening to empty-chair the PM if he doesn't turn up. The problem with that, though, is that they might run afoul of pre-election impartiality rules if they allow Miliband to speak for 90 minutes in the 'head-to-head' without Cameron present. So, it becomes a war of attrition - each side trying to batter the other with enough political smears to make them cave in.

  Frankly, the reason for all this is that David Cameron is running scared. His delaying tactics have all been a ruse to fill out the larger debates with as many leaders as possible, in essence to reduce the airtime of Nigel Farage, who he knows will cut percentage points into Tory support with every minute he gets to speak. 

  His objections to the head-to-head debate are less obvious, but he fears Miliband may prove more competent in debate than people will expect him to. Most people's opinion of the Labour leader is the media-fuelled caricature of him as a bumbling buffoon, and whilst he certainly isn't the most charismatic leader Labour have ever had, he is a far more skilled public speaker than is perhaps apparent.

Conclusions

  At this point, it looks increasingly unlikely that the debates will happen. If they do, they will most likely be reduced to Cameron's ultimatum of the single seven-way debate before the short campaign starts on March 30th. Since this will mean having them before the parties have even published their manifestos, this makes the entire process rather less meaningful.

  Through his constant prevarications and craven cowardice, David Cameron has all but scuppered what he himself claimed were debates 'essential to our democracy'. The Prime Minister's commitment to the ideals of 'democracy' have surely to be questioned, therefore. Once again, a leading politician has put politicking before principles and sacrificed the people's right to make an informed choice about their leaders on the altar of grabbing a possible head start in the political race for No. 10.

  It is a sickening display, and he should be fully ashamed of himself. But I doubt he cares.

The Curious Case of Douglas Carswell

  Douglas Carswell was first returned to Parliament in 2005 for the Essex constituency of Harwich. A Conservative Party member since 1990, he defected to UKIP in August 2014 and stood down as MP for Clacton, triggering a by-election which he won by a landslide.

  Since then, Carswell has been one of the principal figures in the UKIP surge and an outspoken member of the party leadership. He also, however, has been reported as clashing with UKIP leader Nigel Farage on a number of occasions - something he has, of course, denied.

  But it is clear that Carswell is something apart from the mass of Ukippers. Whilst he is in line with general 'UKIP-py' policies such as opposing equal marriage for same-sex couples and scepticism about anthropogenic climate change - as well as, of course, the core UKIP mission of getting the UK out of the EU - he is something of a radical when it comes to other areas.

  Particularly of interest is his dedication to electoral reform. The Daily Telegraph named him their Briton of the Year in 2009 for his commitment to shaking up what he calls 'that cosy little clique called Westminster'. In a speech at the UKIP conference on Saturday, he outlined his proposals for changes to the electoral system.

  First on his list is recall elections. The coalition has introduced a form of this in the Recall of MPs Bill, but this is a weak form of recall which only allows voters to replace their MPs if they are sentenced to more than a year in prison or the Commons Standards Committee bans them from the House for 21 days. Carswell believes that real reform means having a threshold at which a simple petition can trigger an election - in his proposal, 20%.

  Another policy of his is to mandate that ministerial appointments are confirmed by the relevant House of Commons Committee. This procedure already occurs in the USA, and would prevent the Prime Minister from appointing favourites who do not command the confidence of the House as a whole.

  Of course, the jewel in the crown of these reforms is replacement of the archaic Single Member Plurality (or first-past-the-post) system with which we choose our MPs. Moving towards a more proportional system would, of course, benefit UKIP hugely - but it would also make Parliament far more democratic. My own article outlining the reasons for reform can be found here.

  All of this is rather sensible, and somewhat removed from the immigrant-bashing, Thatcherite-plus rhetoric of the majority of UKIP's leadership. Douglas Carswell and Nigel Farage have seemed strange bedfellows since the beginning, but now with the election campaign beginning in earnest, the differences between the two may become more important.

  It is far too early to say whether the fault lines of some future split have emerged, but one thing is clear: Douglas Carswell is a UKIPper apart.