Speaker: candidates take the Heineken test

I attended a sweaty first hustings of the election for Speaker earlier, organised by the Hansard Society. There was no clear winner this time. Of the front-runners, John Bercow was surprisingly wooden, Sir George Young somehow too pat, and Margaret Beckett’s impressive coolness was marred by a hint of resistance to reform. Key point: James Gray (C) asked the candidates if they would publish the names of their supporters. This is a Tory wheeze to flush out fact that Mr Bercow has negligible Conservative backing. Yet for the record he was the only one to issue an unnequivocal ‘yes’, the others hedged. Here’s a summary:

Sir Alan Beith (LD): The only Lib Dem after Sir Menzies Campbell ruled himself out. Wants the House to sit outside Westminser, and will only serve for one term. Modest, self-deprecating.

Parmjit Dhanda (Lab): Spoke out for using plain English, touring the country, and exposing ministers to the “heat of public anger” with sessions in town halls. Guff about the importance of a creche and quotas for minority and women MPs dented an otherwise assured performance. He may have played down his chances of winning the job, but he will have done his parliamentary reputation a heap of good. There was something decidedly refreshing about having somebody who wasn’t, well, an ageing white bloke, talking about his ideas for the job. The candidates, he suggested, have to pass the Heineken test by reaching the parts politics doesn’t reach. Some of the candidates on the panel didn’t seem to know what he was talking about (Heineken is a popular lager beer, m’lud…).

Richard Shepherd (Con): Typically emotional performance, a revivalist preaching the public campaigns that inspired the 1832 Reform Act. Wants to review “the rules by which the game is played”, namely the standing Orders that allow the executive to dictate business.

Sir George Young (Con): Slick performance, making obvious point that impartiality, humour and an acquaintance with the rules were all necessary qualities. “The slow response to the Telegraph (on MPs’ expenses) is symptomatic of a House which depends on others to sort out its problems.” Promised to support whoever is elected.

Ann Widdecombe (Con): Predictably feisty. She’s the interim candidate: she will serve only until the general election. Warned against too much reform, said Commons should concentrate on restoring the reputation of Parliament with the public. Prided herself that she could find the common voice the public wants to hear. Said Speaker should remind public that 80 day recess “is not a holiday”.

John Bercow (Con): To my surprise his trademark fluency let him down this time. Too mannered somehow. A conceit about dates ending in 9 ended slightly jarringly with him boasting he would be youngest Speaker since 1839 (even though Mr Dhanda wins the youth vote). Stressed accessability and breaking the mystique of the Speaker. In a dig at his rivals, pointed out he had not stood before, had not served in Government, and had no plans to stand down. Will have reinforced the suspicions of his side by pitching for the Labour women vote with a tirade against the lack of a creche and the “old fashioned, boorish, sexist remarks” heard in the Commons.

Sir Alan Haselhurst (Con): For a guy whose candidacy is judged doomed by his lavish gardening claims, Sir Alan didn’t show it. “We are all ashamed by what’s gone on,” he told us before declaring he is proud of the Commons and wants to proclaim it.

Sir Patrick Cormack (Con): Good opening joke about not just standing because he’s the more rounded candidate. Wants the Speaker to be both servant and protector of the House. Passionate about challenging the tyranny of the executive. Wants to end ‘flaccid’ traditions, and introduce more humour. Passionate about the central place of the Commons in our democracy.

Sir Michael Lord (Con): The other deputy Speaker, the back to basics candidate. Believes in the mystique of the office and doesn’t buy the idea of putting the Speaker on show.

Margaret Beckett (Lab): Challenged idea that historical precedent means it’s the Tories’ turn, and said her long record of service demonstrated her impartiality, even though convention suggests it shouldn’t go to a recent Cabinet minister. On reform, cautioned ‘the devil is in the detail’, which some might interpret as a reluctance to be radical.