The Speaker of the British House of Commons election, 2010: Part I.
The prelude
While the formation of government obviously took precedence, the question of the Speakership was easily the second most important topic of discussion within the world of Westminster. Various schools of thought emerged on the matter but broadly they were divided into essentially two camps. One for Bercow’s return and one against.
The thinking of the former was that, given the Speaker’s absence was the result of unique and unforeseeable circumstances, every effort should be made to accommodate his return. Ideally, the election of the Speaker would be suspended until Bercow’s return, the Deputy Speakers filling his role until he could be reconfirmed. Failing this, if a new Speaker had to be elected, it should be one that would step aside for Bercow at the first possible opportunity. As it so often had before, the British constitution should bend to circumstance with the creation of an interim measure. This school of thought dominated within Labour, where Bercow had had support both for his election and tenure as Speaker, but had some supporters in all three of the major parties.
The latter school of thought dominated within the Conservative party, who had perceived Bercow’s tenure as biased against them. Their argument was based on strictly legalistic grounds. When Parliament convened, the Speaker’s Chair would be vacant. Regardless of the circumstances, procedure must be followed and a new Speaker elected.
After David Cameron’s appointment as Prime Minister, on 11th May, the British media turned its eye onto the question of the Speakership, hoping to draw out the speculative post-election coverage. The two camps finally came into the focus of the wider public and the matter swiftly became the tea-break topic of conversation, at least for those of a political bent.
By and large the public took more sympathy with the pro-Bercow point of view, this being particularly prominent among the chattering classes. When queried on the matter, many prominent pundits speculated that the Coalition (still finding its feet) would bend to popular pressure and seek to accommodate Bercow’s return to the Speaker’s seat.
In turn, the new Prime Minister’s reportedly antagonistic relationship with Bercow was raised in discussion by other professional speculators. It was suggested that Cameron and the Conservatives would take this unique opportunity to usurp the Speaker’s chair, either with one of their own or by supporting a Lib Dem candidate as a sop to their coalition partners. As the first meeting of parliament approached, rumours began to emerge in the newspapers that the question of the Speakership had been raised during the negotiations and a deal made.
These were, some retorted, unsupported conspiracy theories. David Cameron had shown his pragmatic streak since the election. Having embarked upon the first formal coalition government since the war, it would seem a foolish move to antagonise sections of both Parliament and the public by blocking Bercow.
Nonetheless, despite public positions, none of them knew exactly what would happen when Parliament met and, as the week passed, Westminster became increasingly tight-lipped.
The session
In more usual circumstances, the first meeting of the new parliament on the afternoon of 18th May should have been a brief affair. The Father of the House, Sir Peter Tapsell, would preside and, if not for an unfortunate set of circumstances, the session would have merely gone through the formality of asking Bercow if he was still willing to serve, followed by the ceremonial dragging of the member for Buckingham to the Speaker’s seat. The remainder of Parliamentary time before the Queen’s Speech would be spent electing other officers of the House and swearing in the Members.
But Bercow was not the member for Buckingham. No one was yet. Thus, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 1B, the House would now proceed to the election of a new Speaker by secret ballot.
I beg your pardon, that’s not entirely accurate. Before the house could proceed as such, a point of order was raised by a Labour back-bencher chosen for the thankless task of proposing a bending of the rules to accommodate circumstance.
Given Bercow’s near inevitable return to the House, as the honourable member put it, and his apparent willingness to return as Speaker, it would be improper to elect another due to technicalities arising from unforeseeable circumstances. Instead an interim solution was proposed:
The election of the Speaker should be held temporarily in abeyance. Instead, under Standing Order 2, the election of the Deputy Speakers would take place with the Father of the House continuing to hold the place of the Speaker for this purpose in accordance with Standing Order 1 (3).
Once the Deputy Speakers has been elected, Sir Peter would step down. The Chairman of Ways and Means, as the most senior deputy, would continue to carry out the functions of the Speaker of the House as per Standing Order 3 (2). When Mr. Bercow returned to the House, the election for the Speakership could proceed as it should have done.
The proposal resulted in much noise and consternation from the Government benches and a similar amount of Hear Hear’s from the Opposition. For the first time in a long while, it fell to the Father of the House to restore order and to make an important decision on procedure.
Sir Peter stated his view of the proposal in the clear and unambiguous manner his parliamentary career had been noted for. It is quoted in Hansard as follows:
Sir Peter Tapsell (in the Chair): The hon. Gentleman has made his point and I am confident that it has been heard, but it is not one that I would consider a proper course of action under the Standing Orders of the House, which he has taken such care in quoting. As I am sure he knows, Standing Order 1 (1) makes clear that the House must choose a new Speaker if the previous holder of the office ceases, for any reason, to be a member of the House. This being the case, I see no grounds for delaying this election and ask that we proceed to it forthwith.
The House fell into chaos again, this time the Opposition benches were the voice of anger and distress. The Father of the House was once again required to restore order so that business could properly proceed.
Compared against the ballot for the Speakership 10 months ago, the list of candidates was limited. Many of the previous candidates had either retired or lost their seats in the interim and the unusual circumstances of the election (as well as pressure from the party leaderships) meant few new names had come forward. Indeed, all the candidates were veterans of at least one Speakership election. Sir George Young, Bercow’s main opponent in 2009, was notable by his absence. He had made it publicly known he wished to focus on his government role as the newly appointed Leader of the House of Commons.
Before the vote, the candidates would have the opportunity to address the House and layout their reasons and credentials for seeking the Speakership. The order of speaking had been determined earlier that day by Sir Peter, via the drawing of lots:
Sir Alan Haselhurst, had served as Chairman of Ways and Means before the election and had sought t, had the privilege of speaking first. Having begun by paying proper tribute to Sir Peter and his long career, he took the opportunity to emphasise his experience of managing the house and made the case that, in these unusual circumstances, it would be best to have a Speaker more familiar with the duties of the role. He took the opportunity to repeat a phrase from his speech in the previous Speaker’s election: ‘I know the job and I believe that I could do it well.’ He also assured the house that, in this new and dynamic parliament, he would seek to foster and encourage reform of House procedure.
Sir Alan Beith, former Deputy Leader of both the Liberal Party and the Liberal Democrats; as well as veteran of two Speakership elections spoke next. He revisited familiar themes of procedural reform, greater transparency of the Speaker’s administrative structure and a greater degree of openness and support by the Speaker for the members.
Margaret Beckett, the former Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, made the most memorable statement. Echoing Anne Widdecombe’s 2009 speech, she made clear her intention to only serve as an interim Speaker of the House of Commons. She frankly stated that she would only serve until Mr. Bercow was returned to the House, upon which she would resign in the hopes that the House would re-elect the man who had done such honour to the office of Speaker over the last year. It was not in the spirit of democracy or good government, she intoned, for such a man to be denied his office ‘on a technical irregularity’. Her speech was repeatedly heckled by the government backbenches, creating more work for the Father of the House.
Richard Shepherd, a Conservative back-bencher who had had the whip withdrawn after voting against the Maastricht treaty in 1992, spoke last. He took up his theme from the previous election, the need to re-evaluate the Standing Orders, which had now been thrown into such sharp relief. He also expressed the view that MPs from Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland should be afforded greater equality within the House, which he still felt to be lacking. He also repeated his statement from 2009 that, at next general election (whenever that might be) he would resign and contest his seat in the normal manner. This, given circumstances, may well have lost him support but Mr. Shepherd made clear that he wished, if elected, to be sure he held the confidence of his constituents as well as that of the House. It seemed to be a point of honour for the gentleman.
The speeches having been made, Sir Peter thanked the candidates and took the opportunity to explain, in brief, the manner in which the ballot would be conducted. Having done so, he declared the voting open.
This was at 3:20 pm, voting would be open for 30 minutes with Sir Peter hoping to have a result
There were many different hopes among the members as the filed into the Lobbies to cast their votes. The one almost universally held was that the business would not drag on too late.
