Out of Order?
There are three reasons why I am reluctant to criticise the Speaker for his ruling today. First, the Speaker is our referee, and I take a dim view of managers who criticise the ref, so I would do so only very reluctantly. Secondly, for every “bad call” the ref makes against your team, he normally makes an equally “bad” call against the other side - and indeed, the Speaker has shut Blair up several times when he has gone on about Tory policy. Finally, naked self-interest plays a part. The Speaker controls who speaks, so if you irritate him you don’t get to speak.
Having said all that…As you may be aware, the Speaker ruled that David Cameron could not ask Tony Blair about who should succeed himm, as the leadership of the Labour party was an internal Labour party matter. This may be technically true, but it is, in my view, wrong in spirit. Unless there is a general election, whoever becomes leader of the Labour party next year becomes PM. And waiting for the succession means that the Government is completely paralysed. All Blair has to say is “Yes, I want Brown to succeed me”, in order for Government to begin to funtion again. So, in my very humble view, David Cameron is right to ask the PM to tell us who he wants to be the next leader of the Labour party…
Ellee said on November 1st, 2006 at 6:47 pm:
Can the Speaker ever be overruled if his/her decision is deemed unfair? Has it ever happened?
Simon said on November 2nd, 2006 at 12:19 pm:
Well, after watching Wednesday’s debacle in the Commons, why not submit a ‘no confidence’ vote in the Speaker? What a ruling by Mr Martin. Since he is not remotely bothered about Bliar giving ’straight answers to straight questions’, his impatiality has to be questioned. Speaker Boothroyd, for all her faults, was very good at the job, as was Speaker Weatherall. Mr Martin demeans the position as Speaker as Bliar demeans the office of Prime Minister.
UK Daily Pundit said on November 2nd, 2006 at 1:25 pm:
Not a popular point of view amongst my fellow centre-right bloggers but it has to be said anyway. When David Cameron has only six questions, once a week, what was he playing at wasting one of those questions with all this nonsense? It made him look as ridiculous and ineffective as The Speaker.
Tom said on November 3rd, 2006 at 6:16 pm:
1. The Speaker’s ruling is final and I would never suggest anyone challenge it.
2. I support the principle that PMQs and other Commons business should focus on the business of Government. Party politics does of course come into this, and I don’t think it’s wrong for the PM to make occasional reference to other partys’ policies (but the Speaker is right to bring him back to order when he does so to the exclusion of explaining what the Government is doing).
3. We elect our local MP, and thereby the governing party, not the Prime Minister. Who happens to be Labour leader, and hence, for now, PM, is therefore entirely a matter for the Labour party. But the identity of the PM is clearly of national interest, so I don’t see why Cameron shouldn’t ask Blair about it if he wants to (though it’s a wasted question).
4. Cameron didn’t mention the Labour party, simply Blair’s “successor”.
Adam said on November 10th, 2006 at 3:33 pm:
What a load of nonsense by the speaker. David Cameron should be perfectly entitled to asking what he did. Mr Martin needs to do a bit more research - yes, it was a question about who the PM supports for “an office within the labour party” but the very same will be Prime Minister, until an election is called, so it is within the wider public interest to know who he is supporting. Betty Boothroyd is sorely missed.
Andi Tariq said on November 26th, 2006 at 12:37 am:
You have an excellent site easy on the eye and very easy to navigate, keep up the good work. Best Wishes.
Lainey said on November 28th, 2006 at 1:26 am:
This is really helpful information. Thank you for sharing it.