Speaking with confidence
Just back from Norway where they have been rejoicing in their National Day and their Eurovision victory in roughly equal measure.
Filming for documentary going out at end of June. (That's plug number two.)
In the bygoing, I have of course been keeping up to date with events at the Palace of Westminster.
The Speaker, Michael Martin, is convening talks with party leaders while a motion of no confidence hangs over his somewhat bowed head.
From his performance in the chamber yesterday, when he repeatedly had to consult his clerks before ruling, it would seem that he has relatively little confidence in himself.
Self-evidently, he has not acquitted himself well over the piece.
He resisted publication of expenses details. He derided Commons critics who were honestly reflecting public opinion. He has failed to give a lead.
However, I cannot help but feel that there is misplaced sentiment behind some of the campaign to oust him.
Some MPs appear to feel that by kicking out the Speaker they solve the issue. With one bound, they shall be free.
Some are winding themselves up into one of the Commons periodic bouts of self-engendered constitutional crisis.
No, Sir Patrick Cormack, this is not like Neville Chamberlain. The issue here is snouts in the trough, not Europe on the verge.
Let us be clear.
Michael Martin was not a counter-signatory when one MP claimed for a mortgage that no longer exists.
He was not egging on those who claimed for upgrades to their country estates, complete with moat.
They did this all on their sweet lonesome - or sometimes, it would appear, in tandem with spouses or chums.
It may be, rightly, argued that the Speaker contributed, by neglect, to the pervasive culture in the Commons which has allowed such abuses to persist.
It may be, even more rightly, argued that he should have acted swiftly to persuade his Parliamentary colleagues to reform.
But think.
The Speaker is a servant of the House, not directly of the people. He is expected to represent the views of the House to external bodies, notably the Crown.
That is what the term "Speaker" means. He speaks. For the Commons.
When he spoke out against early publication of expenses details, he was arguably reflecting the majority mood of the House at the time, as later evidenced in a Commons vote against reform.
He thought he was reflecting the opinion of his fellow MPs. I believe he called it wrong.
I believe, firmly, that he should have cajoled the Commons down a different path. It would appear that he is belatedly trying to do so.
However, it is a little hypocritical of the Commons now to turn against their officer who was only, he believed, reflecting their collective will.
If he called it wrong, so did they.
I'm 
Comments
or to comment.