Why should Parliament come before Today?

I've started blogging at the new Public Finance blog in addition to my posts here. In my first posting, I challenge the notion that Parliament really should have priority over Today for those ministerial announcements.

The modernising new Speaker John Bercow has a lot going for him. He has successfully overseen his first Prime Ministers’ Questions, earning plaudits for his timely interventions and brisk business-like manner. But in his short post-PMQs statement he repeated one pronouncement that suggests a parliament not yet in the modern world and not yet in tune with the wider public.

Bercow plans to enforce the convention that ministers should make their announcements strictly to Parliament and not on the Today programme. This means that ordinary people with a job won’t hear it – and may not even hear about it, as its news prominence could be lost. It also leaves ministers and their morning interviewers in an unsatisfactory tussle that can only damage politics further.

Surely, it is more important for the good of politics that the six million listeners to the Today programme and the several million viewers of breakfast TV hear about matters that affect them ahead of 650 MPs and the few hundred thousand viewers of the Daily Politics?

Dave's dodgy Euro-allies

I'm pleased that John Bercow was elected Speaker, though the mutterings from the Tory backwoodsmen about deposing him suggest that Cameron's efforts to modernise his party have not permeated very far into the party's psyche.

And that wasn't the only indicator. For yesterday was also the day that the Tories unveiled their 'odds and sods' European party. Instead of joining mainstream conservative opinion in the EPP - where Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy sit their parties - David Cameron has proceeded with his mad collection of Latvian Nazi enthusiasts, Polish gaybashers and Czech doubters of climate change.

I agree with Alastair Campbell that this event has the more long-term significance. The BBC extraordinarily sought to portray this motley crew as being on the centre right on politics. They ignored the eccentricity and extremism of his new allies, surely something that would have merited attention in other circumstances and pretended that this madcap group will actually have any influence in the European parliament.

Given that Libertas, the party that sought to make Euro-scepticism a European force suffered a spectacular failure in the European elections and has collapsed into farce, and that Ireland is now set to accept Lisbon by a 2-1 majority, the spectacular stupidity of the Tories' stance will become the more pronounced.

Europe is going to become more integrated whatever David Cameron says. The issue is how it does so and in what areas. Throwing a hissy fit against the EPP in order to join forces with the Latvian Waffen SS commemoration committee is hardly the best way to exercise that leverage should Cameron occupy No 10 in the future.

Why John Bercow should be the Commons speaker

The vitriol being heaped on Conservative MP John Bercow in his bid to become Commons Speaker would be enough to win my vote (if I had one). But there is another good reason to vote for him: with the possible exception of Parmjit Dhanda, the amiable Gloucester MP who doesn't seem to be among the frontrunners, he is the only candidate for the Speakership who is proposing serious modernisation of the institution and its attitudes.

Obviously, like his many Labour supporters, I hold no brief for Mr Bercow's past in the Monday Club or the Federation of Conservative Students. But he has changed, just as Margaret Beckett has abadoned her early eighties Bennism. And the issue should be: what will he do as Speaker in 2009 and beyond? As today's New Statesman puts it

The backbencher, who in 2002 told his own party it was “racist, sexist, homophobic and anti-youth”, has proved himself the most independent-minded of all the ten candidates.

Margaret Beckett has been a loyal cabinet minister, though it is hard to recall anything innovative that happened on her watch. Most recently, she sidelined radical reform of housing policy. She was always seen as a safe pair of hands on the Today programme, and that is why she is gaining support in the Commons, including from many Conservatives who see Bercow as too liberal. She should have been made Minister for the Today Programme again. But this should not be her consolation prize for not getting the appointment.

But if MPs can't see after the last six weeks that they need a fresh face and a fresh approach, then they have only themselves to blame if they sink further in the court of public opinion. Indeed, the distasteful Tory campaign against Bercow shows politics at its absolute worst - and is a timely warning of what the Tories may be like in power again. As Steve Richards put it:

Instead of scheming pointlessly MPs should ask a single question. Which of the candidates will speak up most effectively and personify change for the Commons at a point when Britain's anti-politics culture is rabid?

A few weeks ago, I argued that we needed either Frank Field or John Bercow as speaker. Since Frank Field has chosen not to stand, John Bercow it must be.

Field or Bercow: Make a maverick moderniser Speaker

Michael Martin's resignation had become inevitable after his failure to set his own departure date yesterday. And despite his lack of verbal dexterity, it is worth recognising the tremendous personal feat he achieved in becoming Speaker from such humble beginnings - and that he was the first Catholic Speaker since the Reformation.

Now the Commons must find the right replacement. Talk of a stopgap Speaker to take the Commons only to the next election is ridiculous. They need someone who can carry the House through the next parliament who can command support across the House. More importantly, they need someone who can oversee the overhaul of an institution that has not only lost touch on expenses, but which too often places procedure and historical precedent above the needs and expectations of a modern democracy.

That suggests that we need a Speaker who is willing to be a reformer, rather than somebody who has become too comfortable with Commons traditions. We need someone who is not afraid to shake up the establishment but has the respect of significant numbers of MPs in all parties. And we need someone who can restore public faith in parliament at the same time.

Of course, some say it should be the Tories' turn. But are Sir Alan Haslehurst or Sir George Young really the right people for the change needed? If we want a person who commands such respect, Labour MP Frank Field and Tory MP John Bercow must be strong candidates. These two maverick MPs would each show that the Commons really does mean it when it says that it wants to restore faith in democracy.

Field would not be top of Gordon Brown's list, of course, given that he was effectively sacked for his radicalism on welfare at Brown's behest, and he has often upset his fellow Labour MPs by appearing too close to the Tories on some issues. Bercow has moved considerably leftwards since his student days and has been used by Labour to work on some education issues. But it is precisely their cross-party respect and their willingness to tilt against their own party establisments - so much so that each has been the subject of speculation about the possibility that they might cross the floor - that makes them so potentially appealing.

This post has been picked up by Iain Dale and the Guardian website.