NEW POLL: who do you think should be the next Speaker?

Well, it’s come to pass – Michael Martin is set this afternoon to resign as Speaker of the House of Commons after his botched handling of the row over MPs’ expenses. The question on everyone’s lips now is: who will replace him? We’ve set up a new poll asking just that question – here are the most-frequently touted candidates from whom to choose:

  • Diane Abbott
  • Sir Alan Haselhurst
  • Frank Field
  • Sir George Young
  • Richard Taylor
  • Vince Cable
  • Sir Menzies Campbell
  • Ken Clarke
  • Sir Alan Beith
  • David Davis
  • Norman Baker
  • Sir Patrick Cormack
  • Tony Wright
  • Other (please state in comments)
  • More important than who should do the job is this question: what do we actually expect the new Speaker of the House of Commons to do to help restore trust in Parliamentary democracy?

    There are all sorts of reforms we as Lib Dems might wish to propose – from Nick Clegg’s list of reforms through to proportional representation to limit the numbers of safe seats – but what will be a new Speaker’s role in all this?

    Suggestions below, please …

    Read more by .
    This entry was posted in Voice polls.


    • The runners and riders lists on other web sites include John Bercow – which I think would be an interesting choice.

    • Not Sir Ming surely…

    • As a party, we cannot afford to lose one of our MPs to the Speaker’s Chair.

      Sir George Young has some fo the right attributes, but sadly his Committee has contributed to the mess. I don’t know much about Sir Alan Haselhurst, but as Deputy Speaker he has at least been road tested.

      On balance, probably Richard Taylor, because his neutrality is not in doubt.

    • It’s going to be a Conservative, just a matter of which one.

      Menzies is out after last week Question Time appearance….but then this is a LibDem weighted website.

    • I really don’t want us to lose voting power or speaking power by putting Ming, Alan or Norman in the Speaker’s Chair.

      Although there is no actual convention or rule, I think a third Labour Speaker in a row would be too much. However, we would presumably like to have someone who could be critical of a future Conservative government too.

      I’m voting for David Davis. I think he has the right combination of authority and independence and he is firmly on the side of reform and civil liberties.

      In the longer term, I think we need to totally change the way the Speakership works – it needs to stop being a long term gig, stop being a cosseted semi-retirement and become a modern presiding officer who manages the business of the House.

      Speakers should be elected for a maximum term of two years, during which time they return to their party and resume political activities, just like a mayor in a local council

    • *after, not during – obviously

    • Rarely would the vote of one solitary Lib Dem change the outcome of any division, so we wouldn’t be diluting our voting power. That’s a non-issue. We should go with whoever is best placed to deliver the change and reform that is so badly needed. If it’s one of ours so be it.

    • Kate Hoey.

    • David Morton 19th May '09 - 2:55pm

      I’m surprised how frequently the argument about “losing” an MP comes up. What on earth are political parties for if it isn’t to get philosophically like minded people elected to office. The Speakership might be a non party political role but it is one wit signifigant power.

      The party should fully back a Lib Dem candidate for the job if one wants it.

      My personal choices would be Vince Cable given his age a real opertunity to deploy is talents in anatinal office or Sir Alab Beith. I cant think of a more decent public servant.

      Numerious other excellent candidates from other parties.

    • David Heigham 19th May '09 - 3:04pm

      As to what the Speaker should do for reform; he has no voice but as the House shall tell him. He therefore must pick Committee Chairman, manage agendas and make life uncomfortable for those who do not accept reforms; so the House tells him what the country wants to hear.

      As for empowering MPs over such matters as letting them scrutinise expenditure properly, he must act as the backbenchers representative against the collective of the Party Whips. We need a Speaker who the Whips are unhappy with.

      As to people, I should enjoy seeing Diane Abbott take on the job. She would be very good at the reform role I have in mind. However, I fear that she would prove incapable of keeping MPs’ support: she would be likely to offend too many of them.

      George Young seemed to me the perfect Tory response to New Labour’s insistence on voting in Michael Martin as Speaker. I had hoped and expected to see George Young as Speaker in the next Parliament. He has all the desirable qualities Michael Martin lacks. However in these times reform requires more of one quality that Michael Martin has in super-abundance than George Young seems to possess. George Young is very unlikely to bully and offend enough of the recalcitrant MPs.

      Ming Campbell has the best balance of the qualities required in a Speaker who will have the present corruption and powerlessness of the Commons to correct. In addition, he is one of the few candidates capable of dressing down Clegg and the other party leaders when that is needed – as it is likely to be before the mess is sorted.

    • Alan Beith will stand, according to Sky News.

    • Members are elected by their constituents primarily because they are nominated by a political party. For a Member to become Speaker is therefore a betrayal of his/her constituents. Some years ago someone proposed creating a phantom constituency of “St Stephens” to get round this difficulty but was slapped down pretty fast. Now, what is this rubbish about not standing against the Speaker? It is OK to disenfranchise an entire electorate because of this absurd, outmoded system?

    • Andrew Duffield 19th May '09 - 4:29pm

      Sir Alan – you’re hired!

    • Let’s wait at least a week or two before answering that question [Who should be the next Speaker?]. Let’s concentrate on the job and the qualities it calls for in the next few days.

      A. The Speaker of the House of Commons is its chief officer and highest authority.

      B. To play that role in the 21st century it is necessary for the Speaker to be a
      credible and effective leader of a team that is capable of assisting and enabling the Commons to become a first rate legislature, debating chamber and scrutineer of the Executive.

      C. The Speaker must be impartial and fair (they are not the same thing). Keeping clear of party political controversy does not require the Speaker to remain neutral when pressure is applied to deny an unpopular point of view a proper hearing.

      D. The Speaker represents the whole House of Commons and must not only be willing but able to explain and defend its constitutional role as the primary forum for public debate and to advance its ability to carry out its principal task, which is holding the Executive to account.

      E. To fulfil the role of Speaker a Member of Parliament – to be freely chosen for the first time by a majority of Members of the House of Commons in a secret and exhaustive series of ballots – must have the authority and respect upon which the capacity to keep order in and respect outside the Commons depends.

      F. Now that the Chair of the House of Commons is no longer in the gift of Government Whips Members of Parliament, many of whom cannot expect to remain
      in the Commons after the next General Election, have an opportunity to put
      democratic ideals and the health of our parliamentary institutions before
      party interests. Given the damage that many of them have done to our democracy and to our parliamentary system they should take their time and view the election of a new speaker as an extraordinary and, in many cases, a final and undeserved opportunity to redeem themselves and the Commons.

      As a job description that may leave a great deal unsaid/to be desired…does anyone else want to add or subtract anything from it?

    • John Reid – a proven trouble shooter and plain speaker.

      Alan Milburn – out and out moderniser, good ideas man.

    • Alan Beith.

    • sir alan or david heath,

    • Mark Littlewood 19th May '09 - 6:22pm

      Vince would have been perfect in my opinion. Yes, we’d have lost a fantastic frontbench spokesman, but to a higher calling, in my view. No MP is held in such high regard across the political divide and – as importantly – by the public. But, he has now ruled himself out.

      My other choices would be radical reformers – Field, Hoey, Norman Baker etc.

      I fear Ming is a longshot following a rather harsh and unlucky battering over his expenses.

      In terms of what he/she should do – here’s a couple of off-the-top of my head, whacky ideas:

      1. Demystify the trappings of office of Speaker. E.g. no more prancing around in tights and gowns. Just wear a bloody suit.

      2. Extend the Speaker’s tole – at least temporarily – beyond the business of the House of Commons. The new Speaker should be appearing regularly on the media as he/she grapples with clearing up the expenses scandal.

      3. Take some concrete steps – say a constitutional convention of some sort – to widen the debate beyond the details of MPs expense claims and get to some of the root causes behind the problems.

    • Rabi Martins 19th May '09 - 9:11pm

      Vince Cable would do a great job .. but the country needs him too much in the real world

      Alan Beith would be the best man for the job because he has the strength of character to gain the respect from the whole house

      I think the argument that Liberal Democrats cannot afford to lose oneof their small number to this role is a red herring.

    • Stanley Theed 19th May '09 - 9:42pm

      It’s great that we can consider so many from our own ranks for the position of Speaker without looking silly! It will probably go to an MP who is a thorn in the sides of the front bench of one of the two major parties, but Sir Alan has tremendous respect throughout the house and would be an ideal appointment

    • I have thought for a long time that the Speaker should be empowered to insist that ministers actually answer the questions put to them.

      For example, if a minister ducks a question by talking in vague terms or about something else entirely, the Speaker should be able to demand a straight answer and, if none is forthcoming, suspend him or her from the House. This would be particularly effective at PMQs.

      Either that or the Speaker should be allowed to slap the minister with a large wet fish until he or she answers the question.

    • “David Heath”

      Now that is an intriguing, and not completely off the wall, suggestion.

    Post a Comment

    Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

    To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

    Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

    Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


    Recent Comments

    • nigel hunter
      Companies are all ready making money from Cannabis products. They are extracting CBD from the plant to make money from it. Chocolate and other products to enri...
    • David Allen
      Party politics, as so often, fails us here. The monarchy is the embodiment of privilege, gross social inequality, and resistance to change. It is a weapon wie...
    • Laurence Cox
      @John Waller Kazakhstan is part of NATO's Partnership for Peace (PfP), as were both Russia and Belarus until their membership was suspended for obvious reasons...
    • David Raw
      @ David "the monarchy is also an office, held at the will and pleasure of the people, and not a sacred obligation vested by Heaven in one man". I think, whe...
    • David
      Ultimately the question is one about the source of power. Does it lie with the sovereign rights of the monarch, ultimately attributed to the backing of divine p...