A little later today, MPs will move from discussing ‘Ukraine, Middle East, North Africa and Security’, a debate title that shows how dreadful the international scene is at the moment, to discussing the governance of the House of Commons. This, for those who had been distracted from the issue by other less important matters, is the latest stage in the row about the Speaker’s plan to appoint Carol Mills as the Clerk.
Two camps have emerged in the past week. There are those who are after the Speaker himself, who see him as ‘damaged goods’ and don’t think he can command the respect of the House. And then there are the the types who were enraged that the Commons itself would be in some way damaged both by the appointment of a Clerk who did not appear to have the necessary experience to carry out the job, and by the disregard initially shown for the opinion of the Commons. The second camp are not necessarily impressed by the first camp. Some have told me that they’ve either delayed their own interventions into the debate or done them secretly because they don’t want to be seen to be part of a campaign to get rid of Bercow.
The plan for the core campaigners on the Clerk appointment is to use the debate to push for further concessions, including a select committee examining the business case for splitting the role, and assurances that this sort of fight won’t happen again.
Comments