An Odious Little Speck

Much erudite comment has been written over the last couple of days regarding the elevation of J S Bercow Esquire to the dignity of First Commoner in the land. I shall resist the obvious cheap shot.

Not that I am a fan of Mr Bercow. While I have never met him, nothing I have learned of him is endearing, although I am sure he loves his wife and small fluffy animals.

But every time I see or hear him, he reminds me of the odious speck at school who would frequently be seen emerging from the Head’s study, face a picture of smug self-satisfaction, having sneaked on one of his fellows. Perhaps his favourite small fluffy animal is a weasel.

Some might describe him as self-satisfied; an unattractive trait. His performance on Monday, during his speech and subsequently, did nothing to allay this perception. Conceit appeared to ooze from his pores. But perhaps that is just his manner and such judgement harsh.

There is no doubt that Mr Bercow is a trimmer. His weaving political voyage puts one in mind of a drunken sailor returning to his ship. But I do not believe his to be a random journey, since Mr Bercow is shrewd and calculating.

Like many small men his lack of stature is counterbalanced by the size of his ego. Knowing that his trimming would be unlikely to earn him advancement in his own party, and that crossing the floor would, at best, gain a shadow brief, perhaps he saw the Speaker’s chair as the only route to the advancement he believed he deserved.

Mr Bercow is of modest origins. He has that in common with some of the finest Speakers of recent years. But unlike them, he clearly has little regard for the dignity and history of his new position. He appears to typify the “me, now” generation and fails to understand that he is now the incumbent of a post that is steeped in tradition which he has a responsibility to uphold.

It is not his place to tear asunder that tradition on a personal whim. If he had a whiff of modesty or judgement about him he would at least have taken counsel from his Sovereign. But his performance on ITV last night showed not one whit of modesty, but an arrogant, abrupt school bully.

However, PMQs today brought some little cause for optimism. If he has the courage to translate into discipline his warning about trailing legislation in the media, entertaining times await. Mr Hain seems to think otherwise, and since flaunting the primacy of Parliament is so engrained in Labour’s psyche, it is likely we will enjoy the delight of a Minister before the Bar.

Labour’s contempt of Parliament in backing Bercow brought the politics of the schoolyard to our legislature. Infantile and puerile, their only aim was to score a cheap point. It is illuminating that only one of his 15 proposers came from his own party.

Mr Bercow is on probation. He has 11 months to prove that Parliament’s interests, not his own, dominate his agenda. He may confound his doubters, but I suspect that this leopard will remain very spotty.

The Conservative party should be very careful if they wish to remove Bercow once they gain power. They have lost much of their reputation as the nasty party, and talk of removing another Speaker might lose them ground.

They should play a long game; Mr Bercow will make it easy for them.

Goodbye Mr (you've had your) Chips

There are not many who will be sorry to see Michael Martin leave the Speaker's chair. But in their hearts, will some MPs see beyond his hapless tenure as Speaker to the man himself, and what shaped him, and feel a pang of conscience? I doubt it. He, and a few like him on the Government benches, are dinosaurs; relics of a monocular socialism that saw little beyond the class struggle, unable to adapt to the expectations of a changing society, and often representing and reflecting constituencies where political opinion is shaped by bitterness, tradition and intransigence.

Martin's departure brings to mind three issues:

The British trait of hypocritical sanctimony has, once again, been hard at play in recent weeks. Yes, many MPs have behaved disgracefully, have betrayed the taxpayers who fund them, and were the catalysts for Martin's fall. But perhaps in a nation with a staggering record of "sick" days, benefit fraud and workplace minor theft, there are some who should consider pots and kettles before becoming too hysterically self-righteous.

Be careful what you wish for. Martin may have been seen as inept, but the indicators are that he will be followed by an even less attractive incumbent, installed again by Labour, not in the interests of the dignity of Parliament and the need for reform, but in the spirit of petty spite that typifies that party. Is it any wonder that the qualities that once exemplified Britain have vapourised with their faux leadership?

Martin was not entirely disingenous today when he reminded Brown that he and his party had rejected parliamentary reform over a year ago. Indeed, Brown did not even feel moved to vote on the matter. Where were Labour MPs when they could have supported Martin, rather than their own interests, and how shamefully two-faced was their outrage when he was forced to stand down? I am reminded of an old joke about Harold Wilson. "I can't stand two things about Wilson". "Really - what?" "His face". Labour doesn't change.

I am no supporter of Speaker Martin, but I wish him health and peace of mind.

His greatest tragedy is that the Labour Party could not look beyond party prejudice to the requirements of the appointment when they elected him. His undoing is their shame.