Was Speaker Martin right to come to Blair’s aid?
November 1st, 2006-
Why shouldn’t Cameron be allowed to raise the succession at PMQs?
In a move that could have big ramifications the Speaker, Michael Martin, came to Tony Blair’s aid at PMQs this lunch-time when the Tory leader asked about the Labour succession.
Amidst extraordinary scenes Martin ruled that the Prime Minister could not be asked about the Labour leadership. According to the BBC report Cameron responded: “Mr Speaker are you honestly saying we cannot ask the prime minister of the country…”. He was then cut off by Martin and in the rowdy scenes that followed he threatened to suspend the sitting.
Martin then ruled; “He has no right to ask at the floor of this house at Prime Minister’s Question Time who the prime minister is supporting for an office within the Labour Party.”
It will be interesting to see who win and who loses from this encounter. Certainly it will be a lot harder for Labour ministers to turn question round by talking about Tory or Lib Dem policy.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Gorbals Mick pulling a partisan one.
It will make it far more likely that his heart condition requires an early retirement.
Speakers must be seen to be being impartial.
However- it did make DC look bad at the time. After the bucket of cack he got for the screw-up yesterday, it can not be said that the Leader of HM’s Loyal opposition has had a good week.
He is allowed to bring up the succession of the office of the PM, but not leader of the Labour Party.
Cameron did not mention the Labour Party in his original question. He asked about Tony Blair’s successor and, to my mind, that means his successor at No 10. The Speaker got it wrong.
An absurd intervention by the Speaker. I’m a billion miles from being a parliamentary expert but this ruling would seem to outlaw about 50% of what is normally discussed during PMQs.
Even if it’s in the letter of the law it just feels wrong, and I think it might backfire on Labour for the reasons you suggest. It surely prevents Labourites attacking the Tories on many fronts; it also looks like the ex-Labour Speaker is defending his own. And there’s nothing like a blatant injustice to get people fired up.
But can the Speaker himself be reined in? Quis custodiet?
As has already been mentioned, Cameron did not mention the Labour party in his orignal question which leaves me baffled as to why the speaker chose to get involved.
Managed to post on previous thread [#160] while this one was under construction…
He probably got pissed off that he KEEPS going on about it every week. haha
After such a blatantly partisan ruling there must be a real question as to whether the Speaker’s position is tenable. More broadly, this panicky misjudgement by Martin is further evidence of Labour having lost the plot - the head is off the chicken and the body is charging round the farmyard in ever decreasing circles.
The episode also played pretty bad on TV for Blair. Like he had to get teacher to help him in the playground scuffle.
5. It looks like it was a prepared intervention that the speaker had decided to make when the issue came up, but he jumped the gun on delivering it.
Are the Tories annoyed enough to break the convention that a Speaker is not opposed by large parties at the general election (assuming that the Speaker isn’t retiring anyway).
Well folks we will have to see how this one plays on TV.
I have not as yet seen it.
3,5&10. Just posted this on other thread in reply to similar point made by MikeL on the other thread.
154. MikeL, I was struck by something that Nick Robinson said on the daily politic’s about the speaker having to correct Tony Blair a few weeks ago about his remit at PMQ’s. He seemed to suggest that the speaker was looking to balance his criticism of the PM by correcting David Cameron today.
I have got to say that I admired Betty Boothroyd and the fact that I never felt she was partisan in any way, shows how good she was at her job. IIRC she seemed to command respect right across the HoC. The present speaker has given Tony Blair so much leeway over the last few years it has become a bit of a joke, he does not seem to receive the same respect from his own Labour benches never mind other parties.
Just looks bad for everyone; the Commons is supposedly the greatest debating chamber in the land, and all we see is topics of interest being tenuously and unsubtly blacklisted. I’ve only seen the transcript, but it reads like playground gangs trying to assert their superiority.
Having said that, given that Tony Blair seems to duck and dodge any ‘real’ question he’s asked anyway, I can understand Cameron trying something different, and why the actualy question he asks doesn’t make that much difference to the response.
A bit disillusioned with politicians in general this week; Conservatives opportunistic and unconvincing over Iraq, bickering today, and still having affairs - Labour still making a mess of Iraq, the NHS, and prisons - LDs principled and consistent but near invisible. And was it only 12 MPs who dared to vote against the party line over such a conentious subject as Iraq? Must do better, the lot of you.
3. Exactly - this is the whole point which the whole media seems to have missed. I posted this on the previous thread:
Cameron asked Blair “Do you support Brown as your successor?”
ie Cameron did not say “as Leader of the Labour Party”
The Speaker then said Cameron could ask about his successor as PM.
So why did The Speaker intervene? He did not know if Cameron meant successor as leader of the Labour Party or successor as PM. So why did he guess that Cameron meant successor as leader of the Labour Party?
Everyone is talking about the politics but this was quite simply a complete cock up.
These sorts of questions, answers and speaker does nothing for our politics. He should not have intervened, but then the matter should not have arisen. There are so many substantive questions out there and so much to challenge the PM on. But parliament thrives on a bit of leeway here and there. It’s the job of politicians not to abuse it.
Cameron and Blair have both been guilty of not asking/answering substantive questions. In essence, Cameron’s job is to hold the government to account for current actions and policy. The matter of “who is the next PM” simply isn’t a matter of government policy. Martin got this part wrong.
Martin’s been fairly tough on Blair talking about Tory “policy” (ahem) - I guess that this was his way of balancing things out.
15. Not really. He had been primed by the Labour leadership to stymie any effort by Cameron at asking about the succession by ruling such questions out of order. But in the worst tradition of ham acting, he missed his cue. So it is both cock up and conspiracy.
15. But in reality, what’s the difference? Everyone knows that the next leader of the Labour Party will be the next PM unless Blair chooses not to stand down this side of an election (which given his public statements would also be a matter of public interest). Therefore whether Cameron was talking about Blair’s successor as PM or as leader of the Labour Party makes no difference - they will be one and the same thing.
15, 16. So Martin dropped a brick. When can we expect the Speaker to look at the TV replays, and then apologise? Do Speakers apologise? Isn’t that a bit like the Queen apologising?
3. At first sight I would agree that it seems ridiculous that DC is prevented by the speaker from asking TB about his successor. We all know that TB’s successor will be the next PM.
However TB has announced that he will be stepping down within the year and that his successor as PM must first be elected as next leader of the Labour party, a purely internal Labour party process.
So although it feels wrong I suspect technically the speaker is right. Speaking purely as an amateur political observer!
I know - but the point is that The Speaker did distinguish between the two.
In Parliamentary terms the Speaker is correct. Blair is there to answer ..
.. questions as PM not as leader of the Labour party or whom his successor as Labour leader is. Constitutionally the Queen chooses the PM, the fact that she may have a tizzy fit and might choose Clare Short over Gordon Brown adds to the gaiety of our unwritten constitution.
Cameron got the parliamentary procedure correct in the end and asked a question on the next PM and not Blairs party successor.
22. Sorry, 21 refers to 18.
Mike L I entirely agree. Also, given the huge advantages of incumbency, he ought to lean heavily in the direction of latitude in asking questions to the Executive. As for cracking down on Blair answering questions by talking about Opposition policies there’s a well worn formula which allows Blair get away with it: ‘One thing I won’t be doing is following suggestions by the Party opposite to do xyz.’ Blair failed to introduce this kind of phrase before he started a rant and was slapped down but he’s well aware of the tactic and will be more careful next time. I also didn’t agree with the Speaker on rationing time for statements: it could easily be 10 minutes Lab, Tories 6, Lib Dems 4. Why should the Opposition get less time than the Government?
22. But Blair spends half his time at PMQ’s lambasting the opposition for policy errors made by the Tories fifteen years ago, and chiding the Tories for unsavoury internal party affairs, etc etc. If we are to restrict the subjects at PMQs to current government policy and its ramifications, is all this to be forbidden as well? If not, why not?
11 - the belief is that there is a convention that the Speaker is not opposed by the other parties at elections. In practice the convention is actually that Labour speakers are not opposed by the other main parties at elections, since 1959 Conservative ones always have been.
Hylton-Foster faced Labour and Liberal candidates in the Cities of London and Westminster in 1964.
Selwyn Lloyd faced Labour and Liberal candidates in Wirral in both the 1974 elections.
Bernard Weatherill was opposed by Labour and SDP candidates in Croydon NE in 1987.
In contrast Speakers Martin, Boothroyd, Thomas and King were all unopposed by the Conservatives and Liberals, though the SNP have stood against Martin.
That the Conservatives have been happy to play along with a rather one-sided convention has always rather amused me (though of course, it’s not like they’d have won in Glasgow or West Brom anyway, so they weren’t losing much).
25 He should’nt do it all the time, but there must be leeway and informal rules. That’s how our system works. We don’t want a completely dry technical debate. Someone has to draw a line from time to time. I guess that’s what Martin is doing - albeit a bit cack-handedly.
Should he not have had a word with Cameron beforehand? Is that possible? Would Cameron have gone ahead anayway.
The present system is useless for extracting real answers to questions. I fear if we overreact we’ll end up like the European parliament. And we’ll all sleep well.
British politics sucks.
I thought Cameron’s earlier questions were pretty pedestrian and, in a way, he got a boost from Martin’s intervention. I’ve not seen any TV bulletins yet but my guess is that it will look as though Blair had to be rescued. Marin’s concession at the end allowing Cameron to ask about the next PM looked pathetic.
What the affair does do is get Cameron into the headlines again and, as I have said before, the more publicity the Tory leader gets the better his party does. So on that count an own-goal to Martin. No doubt the Tories will find a way of keeping the story running for a couple more days which might help them in the November Populus poll where the field-work is likely to start on Friday.
Well it comes to something when Tony Blair is so fed up with being humiliated by David Cameron that he chooses to be humiliated by the speaker having to intervene instead.
David Martin is Darrell Hair and I claim my £5
25 seanT. See bluemoon @ 24 for the parliamentary procedure aspect. Major and Thatcher both used the tactic to effect at PMQs .. it’s just part of the HoC game.
28 - Yes, absolutely. And Martin’s intervention also only serves to highlight the Brown-Blair issue, which is what Cameron was seeking in the first place
can anyone find me a link to watch pmq’s please
26.”In contrast Speakers Martin, Boothroyd, Thomas and King were all unopposed by the Conservatives and Liberals, though the SNP have stood against Martin”
The SNP has been his main opponent since 1987 (way behind though).
32 - If today’s Daily Politics programme is on tghe Beeb’s web site, you can see PMQs there (or at least you were once able to do so).
27. British politics sucks. I agree with you there. The debate on the Iraq inquiry was a shameful example of this.
Iraq is the paramount issue of our time, and the call for an inquiry entirely proper. Yet Labour spent most of their time desperately shrieking about opportunism, the Lib Dems couldn’t resist a couple of cheap digs at the Tories, the Scots Nats got confused about their own go at ‘impeachment’, the Tories themselves put forward a somewhat incoherent argument as to why they should support a motion they found unsatisfactory, and then the Labour Defense Minister came out and agreed with what the Tories had wanted all along.
What a busload of morons. There were some good individual contributions, but on the whole it was a depressing spectacle. A plague on all of them, all MPs, they are a rancid bunch of careerist geeks.
Iraq is just too important to be left to such pea-brains. The people who did it must be held to account and punished, from Blair and Brown at the top, to the lickspittle MPs who supported the war, to the opposition people who failed to oppose. All should pay, after a proper and searching inquiry.
Instead we had a lot of excited argy-bargy, like schoolboys squabbling over a dead rat someone found in a pond.
It is simple. Cameron didn’t mention (as post #3 points out) the Labour party at all; who succeeds as PM is government business; previous speakers have ruled such questions in order.
Gorbals Mick must apologise or resign. Even the BBC, notoriously biased towards the left, is treating this with the contempt it deserves, and noting on its website that Mr. Cameron’s question did not mention the Labour party at all.
Just to top it off, Gorbals himself had no problem with an almost identical DC question just weeks before.
Useless and embarassing. Perhaps he can apply to referee in the next World Cup?
35:’There were some good individual contributions…’
Presumably you had Nick Palmer’s effort in mind when you wrote that.
BBC website report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6106038.stm
36 Commentator. Cameron said “successor”. In parliamentary terms that means Labour leader and NOT prime Minister as constitutionally that remains the remit of the monarch.
It’s not just a shot over Cameron’s rigging but also reminding one and all the seperation of powers in parliament and Buck House.
35. Two main problems there though. Firstly, MPs are given massively greater media scrutiny than they were only a few decades ago. Many people who might otherwise put themselves forward won’t for that reason. Secondly, MPs caseload and constituency commitments have increased enormously in the same time period and this is an increasing expectation. People who aren’t interested in being high-powered social workers need not apply.
Once you rule out all those that the above two conditions exclude, you’re taking out a lot of very capable potential MPs. Unless being an MP can again be seen as a position of very serious merit there’s little prospect of the decline being reversed. Unfortunately, it’s something of a vicious cycle.
tpfkar @ 14 — not only does Blair dodge hard questions, he ducks sitters too, as when the Plymouth MP asked about lowering school exclusion rates.
39. Sorry Jack, but that’s not entirely the case. While HM appoints the PM, it is only with the consent of the House of Commons, whose confidence the PM must hold. It’s therefore perfectly fair to ask about his successor as PM, especially as an outgoing prime minister can - and should - advise a monarch as to his (or her) successor when that succession is mid term and the PM’s party retains a majority.
39: Jack, isn’t DC a distant heir to the throne? So if some massive tragedy befell the Queen and her extended family on the day of Blair’s resignation, would Dave be in the position to appoint himself PM?
O/T. On the previous thread, Henry G at 16. refers to an article from today’s Telegraph citing government ministers promoting a Brown/Milliband “dream ticket”, to counter Cameron’s relative youthfulness.
Personally, as a frequently stated admirer of Milliband, I would be attracted by this “dream ticket”. In the last few days Milliband has presented himself very well on his Environmental brief.
However he has ruled himself out of standing either as leader or deputy. Presently available at 10/1 as next deputy leader. I am tempted. Anyone else see any value here?
43 - i hope so!! I didn’t think the labour party could sink any lower, but the old scottish labour connection which appears to be ruling england these days has come back to save blair in the form of the (independant??) speaker!!
Surely they’ll be more calls for an independant English parliament following this outrage!!
43 - Interesting. Could a monarch appoint themselves Prime Minister (I presume they could -technically- without the consent of the House of Commons, but WITH the consent of the House of Commons it becomes more constitutionally acceptable).
Could a member of the royal family or someone in the line of succession become an MP? Or is that forbidden under statute?
42 David. But you said it ! “HM appoints the PM.” .. it is NOT with the consent of Parliament but vesting the office of prime minister in an individual who may command a majority, which is an entirely different matter.
43 Hermes. Cameron is so distant from the throne as to be in contention with minor German princelings of the Holy Roman Empire and the occassional Scotish noble.
This seems to have been a premeditated stitch-up gone wrong. The Sundays (Observer?) runs a piece on why DC has not repeated his question of 3 weeks ago. Hoping DC falls for it, Martin is primed to bitch-slap DC down. However, old Gorbals makes a horlicks of it, leaving DC to mop up. Net result, 1-0 to DC but “big ramifications”??
” Iraq is the paramount issue of our time, and the call for an inquiry entirely proper. Yet Labour spent most of their time desperately shrieking about opportunism, the Lib Dems couldn’t resist a couple of cheap digs at the Tories, the Scots Nats got confused about their own go at ‘impeachment’, the Tories themselves put forward a somewhat incoherent argument as to why they should support a motion they found unsatisfactory, and then the Labour Defense Minister came out and agreed with what the Tories had wanted all along.”
I agree, what the **** can we do about it? And now all this Speaker stuff. I hold my head in my hands. I used to think how foolish people were who failed to take an interest in politics. Now I am not so sure.
I don’t agree with you Sean on many things, but b*gger me if we could do a more adult job than this lot.
39 Jack W that is the most desperate piece of spin I’ve heard on here in a while!
Can you explain why this “shot” was not delivered the last various times that CD asked about who would succeed Blair? Or can you explain why prior Speakers ruled such questions in order, explicitly?
Thought not.
46 matt. Ian Liddell-Grainger the Conservative MP for Bridgwater is around 300th in line to the throne !
43. Only via an illegitimate child (of William IV [III to Jack]), so he’s not in the line of succession.
46. Prime ministers were only appointed in the first place to sit in for the king who until that time would have headed the goverment, so there’s certainly a constitutional precedent for the monarch to be PM. Even so, it would be a bit like a football club chairman appointing himself manager - a move that never works out well.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/americas/06/vote_usa/html/899.stm
US Mid Terms map is up on bbc website
I quoted the other day “we will find a way to lose” - Pelosi via The Onion. Two words: John Kerry.
But I want it noted that I predicted that the house and senate would hold firm for R before Kerry’s gaffe.
46: by convention members of the immediate royal family can’t, but people down the line of succession can. Iain Liddell-Granger, the MP for Bridgwater, is a great-great-great-grandson of Queen Victoria and something like 327th in line for the throne.
O/T - Boundary Commission final report was formally submitted to Lord Falconer yesterday.
49 - As I said on the other thread, the 2005 Parliament is proving to be a very poor one on both sides of the house. Here’s hoping that 2009/10 will give us a more skilled, connected and interesting intake. I personally doubt it, however, as long as the main parties keep selecting career politicians to fight winnable seats. Another reason why the “A List” is a poor idea in the long term.
50. Jack W is just up to his old tricks, defending Nu Labour to the last, while maintaining an entirely false veneer of impartiality.
50 Commentator. If you thought my comment was “the most desperate piece of spin I’ve heard on here in a while!” I suggest you dispense with your guide dog and read some of the late night posts!!
While I’m not saying that Speaker was correct previously or is a good Speaker .. he isn’t, he is on this occassion correct in proceedural terms.
55 - So, if, somehow the immediate royal family were wiped out, and the next in line to the throne was an MP, what exactly would happen? Because technically the monarch cannot set foot in the Commons.
I suspect that whilst that in theory would create a constitutional muddle, in practice the MP in question would relinquish their seat to ascend the throne. Or we’d have a republic.
I can’t stand Blair and think Martin brings to the Speakership what Prescott brings to increased usage of Public transport nad the usage of the English language, however, I think procedurally they are right on this issue.
On his succession, whether Labour leader or PM (via Brenda) Blair has but one vote. How he chooses to pitch that vote or give any other support is a matter for him as a Labour Party member, not as Prime Minister (which is the role in which he answers (sic) PMQs). A lot of the ‘other stuff’ referred to above, Bair is entirely entitled to raise in answers to other questions, however irrelevent you or I may think his answer is. John Hemming MP is presently trying to get the courts to rule that the Prime Minister has a legal duty to answer the questions asked (ie if asked why people are turning away from public transport he should not wax lyrical about the increase in numbers of migrating birds in Cornwall this year etc) but I’m less than happy about his chances of success.
I agree with Jack W that the Speaker probably WAS correct in a very obscure, proceedural way that probes right down into the murky depths of the constitution. But I hardly think Mick actually thought about all this before he stopped Cameron.
In my eyes, it was more of a fluke that he was constitutionally right (in a very, very strict and technical sense which has little relevance to the country or the practices of the House of Commons in 2006) than an lightning-quick intervention based on his constitutional knowledge. He got lucky.
61.”On his succession, whether Labour leader or PM (via Brenda) Blair has but one vote”
Actually more than one: one as MP, one as party member, if he’s a trade union member another one and so on
“John Hemming MP is presently trying to get the courts to rule that the Prime Minister has a legal duty to answer the questions asked (ie if asked why people are turning away from public transport he should not wax lyrical about the increase in numbers of migrating birds in Cornwall this year etc) but I’m less than happy about his chances of success.”
I think he has already failed, but maybe he’ll appeal
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6098708.stm
61. Whatever the technical arguments - and I still think Martin got it wrong - the idea that a Labour PM who has announced he will be standing down within the parliament cannot be asked who he would like to succeed him and implement the policy program the party he leads was elected on is patently absurd. If that is what the rules say then they need changing.
54 Today’s update on electoral-vote shows the Dems heading for a massive win in the House and the Senate a 50/50 tie . Even a recovery between now and polling will not save the Republicans in the House .
58 PM. Now that is “desperate spin” !!
… although I do want to point out that Cameron was obviously asking Blair about who enjoyed his _support_ as successor. So maybe it doesn’t run into constitutional trouble at all.
I could say that I support Clare Short to be Prime Minister. Doesn’t mean it’s going to happen. (One would hope not, anyway).
65. For info Electoral vote is always a day in arrears.
For polls out today go to Real Clear Politics latest polls page.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/latestpolls/
Re. 26, that’s right - West Bromwich West was marginal in the eighties, but at the one GE contested by Boothroyd as Speaker (and, therefore, not contested by the Conservatives), 1997, she would (like many other Labour MPs in previously marginal seats) have won easily anyway.
69.”that’s right - West Bromwich West was marginal in the eighties”
1983: 19.3%
1987: 13.3%
1992: 17.8%
70. ops…17.% in 1983, 13.3% in 1987 and 19.3% in 1992
(I looked at the result in wrong order!
She polled more than 50% in all those 3 elections
69 - Big question though - in the days of tactical voting, how safe IS a sitting speaker should he or she be challenged by a party of a significant stature?
I think that should the main parties run candidates against a speaker in a marginal constituency nowadays, that speaker would lose their seat. Why? Because, effectively, the people would be voting for another candidate in order to remove the feeling of being disenfranchised.
67.”I could say that I support Clare Short to be Prime Minister. Doesn’t mean it’s going to happen. ”
For a moment I thought that Blair was going to say a bizarre name (like Clare Short) as the candidate with his support!
73: and if the speaker was in fact informed of this, he was putting his own neck on the block by stopping Blair saying so?…
72. Speaker Martin lost 13.8% at the last election. He has still a 35.7% majority though.
Socialist Labour Party (aka Scargill) managed to poll more than 14% with a candidate living in Bolton
PMQ’s should have the same rules as, ‘Just a Minute’ Cameron was guilty of repetition. The Blair/Brown thing is just getting boring!
75. Exactly. So if the speaker, for the sake of argument, came from a marginal Scottish constituency in which support for the SNP was sizeable, I doubt they would be re-elected. If Plaid used the same tactics in Wales, I would predict the same situation should the speaker come from a marginal Welsh constituency.
What WOULD be an interesting battle would be a constituency that would normally be a Lib Dem/NE Other marginal, where instead of the main three parties standing candidates against the speaker, the Liberal Party DOES. We’ve all seen examples of elections where voters have assumed the Liberal Party to be the Lib Dems and thus go on to striking success. It really would be a turnup for the books if a Liberal defeated a sitting speaker.
BBC are now reporting that Cameron is considering an official challenge to the speakers ruling.
78 Observer. A bad move if followed through especially IMO with swing voters and probably some traditional Conservative voters too.
79. I thought the average voter doesn’t really care about what is in or out of order during PMQs!
Husband coming back from work to his wife: “darling, what happened today?”
Wife: “don’t you know?! Speaker Martin has ruled out of order something Cameron said”
Husband: “really shocking! I won’t watch the football match tonight to see a re-run of BBC Parliament”
79 - Why? If Martin is widely perceived as having been biased towards Blair, then why should such a challenge alienate swing or traditional Tory voters?
76 Cameron was guilty of repetition
Quite so, and Blair is guilty of deviation (never knowlingly answers any question) whilst Mingthuselah is quite good at hesitation.
re 79. I doubt it Jack but I cannot quite see what they can do apart from write a letter to Martin seeking some clarification.
What such a move does do is keep to Cameron in the news and to remind people, even if this is grossly unfair, that Blair had to be rescued by the Speaker. It will be interesting to see whether reaction to this is tested by one of the pollsters and how this is viewed.
I don’t think complaining about the speaker will backfire on Cameron at all. It probably won’t do him any good, but it shouldn’t do him any bad either. Doubt people would go off him simply because he seeks clarification on a point the Speaker held him up on.
What it does do is cement doubt in the impartiality of speaker Martin, perhaps hastening his departure from the role. It would be fantastic to see him go before the next election, but sadly I doubt this will be the case.
One for Chrisco when he/she appears.
It’s not an inability to see certain elements of state violence as wrong. It’s that i don’t see some state violence as wrong.
Update on US elections. With Virginia apparently slipping away from the GOP and Tennessee going the other way, the whole deal in the Senate could rest on Missouri. The current betting odds; 50-50! In the current environment I think the GOP’s Jim Talent will do very well to hang on. I still maintain, pace Chrisco, that the GOP has an outside chance in Maryland. Their black candidate pulled off a remarkable coup a couple of days ago getting a whole raft of senior black democrats from the most populous county to support him. Blacks in Maryland are fed up that their man Mfume didn’t win the primary. I just don’t see a good turn out of blacks supporting a dull machine white in these circumstances. A poll just out showed the Governor’s race a statistical dead heat which casts some doubt on the Washington Post poll which showed both the Senate and gubernatorial candidates 10 points or so behind.
As for the remarkable Kerry gaffe and refusal to apologize; he’s been pulled off campaigning and two Democrat candidates; Tester from Montana and Harold Ford from Tennessee; have slammed him. Too early to tell whether this will have any effect on voting intentions but it should certainly help the republican GOTV effort. Finally the House; with the overall poll gap between GOP and Democrats running in the mid teens I would be astonished if the Democrats don’t take control. In my view even with an exceptional GOTV effort, the advantages of incumbency and lots of late advertising the GOP will likely lose 20 seats or so.
The Speaker (and his apologists here) are not correct.
Under the modern form of our constitution the monarch appoints a PM on the advice of privy Counsellors who are primarily concerned as to whether the candidate can command the house.
A PM depends on his party and any other support he can get from MPs. When there is a one party majority it clearly is in the hands of the PM’s party whether he keeps his job or has to reapply via a vote of confidence from the house after reforming his support.
He would not in this case need to be reappointed by the Queen as the PM continues ‘at HM pleasure’ or in real terms until he resigns. If he cannot get a confidence vote in the House he quits (or if he refuses he gets the sack from the Queen in extremis, using her constitutionally protective powers and on the advice of Counsellors). See the experience of Ted Heath in 1974.
There is nothing in this doctrine to constrain an MP asking who the PM supports as his/her successor. A successor as Labour leader with the current majority would be automatically asked to form a government. So the distinction between leader and PM is, in this case, irrelevant.
As the Leader of the Labour party will have a direct impact on the government programme and ministerial appointments, it is also a legitimate question to ask ( Who do you favour as you successor? Is it still who you said it was?)
Even if the PM were the leader of one party of a coalition, like Churchill was, the question of whom the PM would favour as his successor for leader of the party is legitimate as it has a clear consequence for the government.
As Cameron did not specify leader or PM Martin jumped the gun anyway.
Dave thought on his feet and said he would ask ‘ Do you still support the Chancellor as your successor as PM’ which led to a rather shame-faced climb down by the Speaker - look at the recoding again: he seemed about to argue with that formulation too, but thought better of it having realised he was digging an ever deeper hole for himself.
I can only conclude that Martin either lost the plot thinking he was providing ‘balance’ or that he was partisan.
Either suggests his time is up.
Short of seeking to remove Martin as Speaker, there is nothing the Conservatives can do, as the Speaker’s rulings are final (although he can modify or retract them later). Unlike the Australian parliament, for example, where any member can immediately move “That the Speaker’s ruling be dissented from” if they object to the Speaker’s ruling.
Woohoo! Just a minute at PMQ’s.
That would be a great idea. Ca you imagine the number of politicians who just work to a pre-programmed repeitive script who would just die like Ben Elton performing at Bernard Manning’s Wheeltappers.
One caveat about electoralvote is that they use Zogby polls for their averages, where RCP averages exclude them. I’d go with RCP on this, because Zogby have been wildly all over the place. For example, their latest WA poll has Cantwell only 4 points ahead, when others say 12-15 (even the openly Republican pollster Strategic Vision has her 8 points ahead). There are plenty more examples like this.
Anyway, that’s the reason for the difference between EV and RCP in MIssouri. Without the Zogby, they’d agree on a marginal lead for McCaskill.
84. Politely asking for clarification would be enough, as Martin won’t be able to justify his position and will tie himself in knots if he tries to. He will probably have to admit some degree of error, perhaps even apologise, meaning a victory for DC.
I suppose another lesson to be drawn from today’s cock up is that it’s important for the speaker to remain neutral not only to be fair to ‘the other side’ but to prevent cack handed inteventions that make it worse for ‘your side’.
Gary I’m not sure about that. The speaker is there with the consent of MP’s - his power is delegated by members and, presumably, he requires the continued confidence of all MP’s in order to be able to do his job properly.
Cameron is taking the issue up with the Labour Whips office and presumably if he isn’t happy with their response Conservative MP’s could refuse to cooperate on a whole range of issues where cross party support is essential; such as pairing.
If it is widely felt that Martin was biased today he will -at the very least- have to ‘clarify’ his position.
The Speaker’s ruling can theoretically be challenged directly but it is rather the nuclear option.
He is , after all, the servant and protector of the House and should, if anything, lean more to the opposition to the over mighty monarch (ie the government).
The tradition of having to drag the chosen Speaker to the chair is an echo of how onerous, not to say dangerous, his position was in protecting the House and its rights. After all some of them have ended up in the Tower….. long ago, of course.
Slightly O/T, I wonder who the next speaker will be? I know that Haselhurst is well-considered, has the experience and is (importantly) Tory. I suspect they’ll want a Tory speaker next time around seeing as three Labour speakers in a row may seem a bit extreme.
Blu2 not only talks hairy spheroids but we all know damn’ well he would not trot out the same twaddle if Blairfarce2 were at no10 instead of Blairfarce1.
The Prime Minister is questioned in Parliament only on his responsibilities as Prime Minister 9officially those things which he does for the Queen). End of. Of course, anyone can ask him his opinions about the succession if they bump into him in a corridor. But that opinion is NOT HELD BY HIM RELATED TO HIS RESPONSIBILITIES/ROLE AS PM.
Andrew My point about Missouri was that the Intrade betting odds are 50-50. In recent elections state-wide races ( as opposed to Presidential races) in Missouri have been very close. Against that background you’d expect GOP candidates to have a tough time in a bad year for them which this plainly is. My conclusion is that Jim Talent will do very well to hang on. As compared with George Allen in Virginia Talent seems to have run a perfectly good campaign but that may not be enough to save him- but boy is it close.
I think Talent will make it. Just a hunch.
79. JackW, I don’t think this incident will effect tory/swing voter’s one way or the other. What I think we have here now is a discussion about the role of parliment, PMQ’s and the impartiality of the speaker.
Weekly on various political shows which have email feedback, we see people complain about Tony Blair not answering questions and he is still PM.
83. Agree with most of what you say Mike, but the news coverage I have seen so far seems to be concentrating on David Cameron rather than Blair being rescued by the speaker. It looks like Labour prepared a strategy to deal with David Cameron’s question about the succession. We had the speaker jump up to intervene and try and rule out Cameron questioning Blair about the Labour leadership succession. This was then followed by the new line from Blair about the chancellor’s record as opposed to Cameron’s connection to Black Wednesday. I am not sure that either will be very successful.
What I would like to know is, was it Brown or Blair who influenced any pressure that might have been placed on the Speaker to intervene with this line of questioning, I suspect Brown?
I think the tactic to avoid openly endorsing Brown but to put Cameron off repeatedly questioning him was pure Blair.
Which just goes to show again that Blair is much more political astute than Brown. He just does not seem to realise that the tactics that might have worked with undermining opponents in his own party just are not working against Cameron.
96 - today Blair answered a question from Lembit Opik about his personal support for the work of the Motor neurone disease foundation. This was specifically his personal support and he was invited in a personal capacity to attend a reception. According to your formula this question should surely have been ruled out of order by Gorbals Mick.
He is a hopeless Speaker who made a cack handed intervention and clearly didn’t actually listen to Cameron’s original question. He’s now given Cameron loads of air time that questions on the NHS wouldn’t have done. Blair must have been pleased with the plan but must despair at the execution of it, by a man who just isn’t up to his job.
96. Oh yes it is, because as B2W notes, Blair will be able to advise HM on an appointment as successor if Labour retains a majority at the time (which it will). That will be his final constitutional duty as PM and if it’s only a technicality, then that’s entirely in keeping with this discussion.
94. There was a case in 1976 when Michael Foot as Leader of the House put down and won a procedural motion to reverse a Speaker Thomas’ ruling that the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill was hybrid, which gave it a much easier ride through the Commons.
Just watched Martin on BBC and it’s as clear as daylight that this was a ‘put up job’ that went wrong because he shot his bolt too early.
He was itching to get in when Cameron started to speak and must have planned the response, and the ruling, in advance.
I wonder if he had all this lined up (and better rehearsed) for last week and was flummoxed when DC didn’t bring it up?
102. Martin is fatally compromised by this. His reputation was not high to begin with, but now he looks completely discredited - a pathetic party lackey.
“May it please your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here.”
Speaker Lenthall, Jan 4th 1642
Thank you Zebidee. I have now cleaned the spittle off the inside of my screen.
The PM is in the House to be held to account by our elected representatives for his actions as PM, not to answer only on ‘government business’ whatever that may be.
As retiring PM Blair will almost certainly be asked by the Queen for his recommendation and unless he does a sensible about face and recommends Cameron, he would naturally recommend his successor as leader of the Labour party, not least because in the current House the Labour party has a majority.
That perverse possibility alone makes the question of who he supports to succeed him very pertinent.
zebidee, “Of course, anyone can ask him his opinions about the succession if they bump into him in a corridor. But that opinion is NOT HELD BY HIM RELATED TO HIS RESPONSIBILITIES/ROLE AS PM.”
Asking the PM who he wants as his successor as PM is in order - according to the Speaker himself:
Cameron: “…ask the prime minister who he would like to see as the next prime minister of this country?”
Martin: “I’ll allow that. That’s in order.”
But the Republicans are at 1.3 on Betfair with the Democrats at 3.05 to be largest party.
Assuming dead heat rules apply then why isnt everyone piling in on the Democrats - I have taken a little.
What TV I saw in New york was lots of negative adverts - which I would be surprised if anyone bothered about. The Republicans have the reputation of the best vote gathering machine however.
44. I would really hang fire on Miliband at the moment. Number Ten seem to be all over the place as to who they’re backing (it was Benn the other day, last month it was Johnson). Even then I can’t see David pick up any significant trade union support. I only would consider backing him at that price if he’s launched (which I really doubt he will), declares backers and picks up support of at least one big union.
I think the article says more about limited support for Benn rather than a realistic chance for David. Ask yourself why would he enter this contest now and risk losing (badly) when if 6 years he could be a contender for the big job. There is no doubt his unflinching support of Gordon will have gone down well, but a lot of people like Nick Brown who are still very close to GB have a lot of animosity towards David and I can’t see it working somehow.
I have backed Jon Cruddas heavily at large prices on deputy and have placed two small saver bets on Hilary Benn (10s with Ladbrokes) and Hazel Blears (50s with Hills). The 10/1 on David Miliband may look big, but I think he’s almost a certain non-runner.
108. There should be at least one independent though, which will count as a Democrat loss?
As an aside, as far as Parliament is concerned, Blair has far more influence over who should be his successor as PM than who should be his successor as Labour Party leader:
As is mentioned above, he has no more power over the choice of next Labour Leader than any other Labour MP.
However, by convention, a retiring PM is asked by the monarch for his or her recommendation for his/her successor as PM. The outgoing PM does not have to make a recommendation, but by convention, if he/she does, the monarch appoints the recommended person.
So, for example, if (say) John Reid is the next Labour leader, Blair could still recommend Brown and the Queen should appoint him. Whether he’d be able to form a Government and command a majority in the House after losing as Labour leader is another matter and if Blair did do so, in practice it would probably cause a constitutional crisis.
So, as the PM has (by convention) an enormous say in the matter of his successor as PM, and (as Party Leader) a minimal say in his successor as Labour Leader, was Martin wrong to assume that the question referred to the latter rather than the former?
Tory posters really getting worked up about this - I don’t recall them being outraged when the Speaker prevented TB from saying what he wanted. The idea that he was got at by Number 10 is not one that you’d hear in Westminster - everyone knows the Speaker is allergic to attempts to nudge him one way or another. In any case, the Labour view is that TB’s reply, when he finally got to give it to the revised question, completely demolished Cameron and meant that he’ll hesitate to put the question again in any form, so it’s a nuisance that the Speaker/Cameron spat got in the way.
The basic problem about PMQ is that it’s a completely artificial occasion with obscure rules and almost no content. The media like it as it’s a spectacle, and consequently it gets televised where normal business does not, so the public thinks Parliament is a Punch and Judy show. The only real political impact of the incident that I can see is that (a) it gives Cameron a bit of coverage but (b)it reminds people that he’s gone a long way off his original declared intention to make PMQ more constructive.
I’m annoyed the Speaker got involved too. I think Blair’s answer would have made Cameron look silly for asking, on the back of what was already a clear Blair win at PMQs.
Tory posters suggesting a conspiracy theory really do need to get in the real world.
Nick Palmer Good try but no coconut.
Blair still did not endorse Brown except as an alternative to Cameron. There are lots of other possible leaders in the parliamentary party.
No one has to influence Martin for him to show bias, although personally I think he is simply not up to the job.
Having set time limits to opposition speeches I suppose the next thing is for Brown to abolish these nasty sessions where he has to stand on his own two feet and show he can hack it. I would not put it past him to try and make it ‘more sensible’ and have written questions only.
Tell me this is not something that has been mooted.
Totally Off Topic:
If you haven’t seen it a fascinating modern take on economic stats…
I wonder if there is inspiration that could shed light on political data…
http://www.gapminder.org/
blue2win - sorry to disappoint, but anyone involved in labour politics knows that No10 has now largely accepted that brown will be leader. that includes tony himself.
Bally Eric Why can Blair not bring himself to say so then. Today was a perfect opportunity but he didn’t do it. Did it stick in his throat?
obviously it sticks in his throat! so what! why are you tories so obsessed with what blair thinks? you’re like rabbits in headlights. who cares whether he backs brown? he’s not going to publicly back anyone else either, he’s made that crystal clear. clearly brown and blair don’t like each other any more and haven’t since about 1998! so what? people in top jobs often don’t like each other. blair will be gone in less than a year.
107, Just because a man who makes John Prescott seem like an intellectual giant says something ‘is in order’ does not make it so!
Blue2 hoists himself by his own petard:
“The PM is in the House to be held to account by our elected representatives for his actions as PM”
Speculating about supporting Brown, Cameron or Kermit the Frog for his successor is not an ‘action as PM’ any more than is deciding whether to brush his teeth in the morning.
Remember, too, re; ‘accountability (sic) that it was not the Parliament (did they ever vote on it?) who promoted the new format for PMQs, it was the Dear Leader himself.
Most people I meet think PMQ’s is a bit of a nonsense and are singuarly unimpressed with it, “Hot air and silly statements” is what I hear. If there is any movement in the polls I do not think PMQ will be the main determinant.
We would be better off without it.
Anyone else share that view?
Bally Eric The question that bothers me is why Blair will not endorse Brown. What is wrong with Brown that Blair goes through so many contortions and strategies to not endorse him: - it suggests there is something we should know.
Or are you telling me it is simply petty personal dislike and school yard sabotage that causes this behaviour and bitterness?
119,
Actions as PM include projected or foreseen future actions (e.g. asking the PM what he is going to do for the rest of the day, whether he’ll increase spending on xx or yy).
The last projected action of any PM is his recommendation to the Queen as to the matter of his successor.
122. Good (ish) try Andy but the advice to Her Majesty (as opposed to any public actions) from the First Lord of her Treasury is, of course, as NE KonstitchEustonLizt Fule kno, a matter about which no one other than the two beings concerned must ever discuss with anyone. Hence, it is grossly improper to consider such a matter suitable for quastion (let alone answer) in Parliament or anywhere else.
I’m really annoyed by the fact that Dave didn’t ask Tony who would endorse in this week’s selection for the next Labour candidate in Peterborough to replace Helen!
Would have Speaker Martin ruled out of order that crucial question?
Andrea That would be totally out of order for several reasons, not least good taste.
93. Does pairing still happen in the House of Commons? I thought it ended in the mid 1990s.
hang on a minute - january 2006 blair said he supports brown as next pm. now he can’t say it, yet he’s kept brown in no11 for 10 years. isn’t it obvious that it’s a personal dislike? isn’t it obvious he blames brown for forcing him to leave earlier than he would have liked? isn’t it obvious that would be enough for him not to back him publicly again? of course! so what? sure there are people in No10 who don’t want to lose their high paid jobs when Blair goes who have spread poison around. you may have noticed that has tailed off noticably in recent weeks too. blair won’t back brown in public. that’s probably his way of getting back at brown. it’s childish, but it’s politics. Osborne and Cameron will be the same one day. it’s the nature of the beast.
Lets get pedantic. The question was out of order whichever Cameron meant.
Obviously internal Labour positions are not a matter for PMQs, and the selection of Prime Minister does not come under his remit either - that’s one for Her Majesty
Debates about today aside, the Speaker gets a ridiculously bad press basically because the Tories are still annoyed that he broke the convention of the Speakership alternating between the parties. Anyone who’s watched much of Parliament since he’s been Speaker knows that he has done far more to try and help Parliament keep a check on the Government than any other recent Speakers.
114: as requested, b2w - yes, I confirm that I’ve not heard anything about the abolition of PMQ being mooted. I’ll go further - I think it’s a bonkers idea and I’d vote against it, even though I am no fan of them.
122 - The PM may advise the Queen on his successor, but any conversations between he and her majesty must remain secret. Hence asking him about what he might say is out of order.
129 - does there have to be a parliamentary vote on the occurrence of PMQs?
108. What’s puzzling me at the moment is the decoupling of the markets for the House and the Senate. There’s been a fairly major swing to the Republicans in the Senate betting, but the House market is steady as a rock. This takes a bit of explaining.
As it happens, I still think the Democrats are huge value at 1/3 to take the House. This is five years’ of interest for a week or two of risk! They’re more-or-less nailed on - to lay them is simply to bet on something nasty emerging in the final few days (this is possible, given typical Republican campaign tactics, but I wouldn’t put it anywhere near the implied c. 25%)
123, 130,
Fair enough.
Martin still ruled it in order, though, so he’s looking a bit daft either way
Enjoyed the argument though.
Nick Palmer @ 129. Would you be a bigger fan of PMQ’s if each party had to use glove puppets at the dispatch box and speak in character?
Hmm O/T but back to thread on Lib Dem preferences. What threads/surveys are there on other party preferences. I put forward Tory willingesss tp tactical vote Lib Dem in Labour v Lib Dem constituencies will be crucial to their Seat count, and if they do defy any “vote squeeze”, on the critical explanations why.
132…is the Senate money informed?
85. The use of force by the state is not wrong when it is carried out within the parameters of the law as laid down by the representatives of the people authorizing them to act in such a manner; beyond that state violence undermines its own legitimacy and is wrong.
Soldiers beating the crap out of a bunch of Iraqis - possibly innocent bystanders, possibly insurgents, we don’t know - is not legal.
Ian Dale could not be present at this debate but has sent his fridge to represent him.
137…Rioters, of that there wasn’t any dispute by anyone. I wouldn’t judge the violence as excessive either in that case based on the video i saw.
The people are not hungry for democracy. They hunger for Food, Shelter and Order.
Alternative views are incorrect and therefore to be banned.
A Labour Speaker gaurantees the will of the State.
140. If only they’d taken that view of the cutting edge of alternative comedy…..
For Blue Moon: new poll, Allen 3 points up on Webb. Poll taken before the Kerry flap.
The Dems will find a way to lose.
137. It is not for you or any of the soldiers to decide whether they were guilty of rioting - that is for a court of law. And your judgement that the ‘violence was not excessive’ is irrelevant; it is no more legal for the soldiers to beat the crap out of those Iraqis than it would be for them to beat the crap out of me and my mates in Guildford High Street on a Saturday night.
It was illegal, and therefore wrong.
142. Who’s the poll from?
O/T but here are some of the reasons I think the Republicans will be celebrating on the 8th: this is from Time magazine.
“2) Absentee ballot requests and returns, closely tracked by the party, are meeting or exceeding past levels for Republicans in key states and districts. Republican officials say White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and party operatives are scrutinizing this data with the same intensity that they followed metrics like voter registration earlier in the cycle. For at least 68 races, they have been getting reports once a week on the number of voters registered, phone calls completed and doors knocked on. Now, they’re getting a second report on the number of absentee ballots requested, absentee ballots returned and early votes cast. “We can look at that data flow and make an assumption about what’s going on and plotting it out,” a Republican official said.
3) When the national parties, national campaign committees, state “victory” committee accounts and competitive campaigns are added up, Republicans maintained a substantial financial advantage over Democrats at the last filing period. “We didn’t look on it as one pot,” said one official involved in the process. “We looked upon it as four pots, with synergy available through all four.”
4) Republicans say the district-by-district playing field favors them in several structural ways not reflected in national polls. Here is their thinking, starting with statistics from the President’s 2004 race against John F. Kerry: “There are 41 districts