Talk:Speaker of the House of Commons (United Kingdom)

Impartiality convention

Now the dust has settled since last year's arguments about Bercow's admission he voted Remain in the EU referendum and the comments he made about President Trump and immigration I think it might be worth re-visiting this issue. The Speaker's impartiality, like most of the British constitution, is simply done by conventions and conventions change. Those interested can read more about the arguments here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38947257

Some do claim Bercow hasn't broken the convention because, despite making political statements, he behaved fairly in who was called to speak in debates. This strikes me as a new nuance to the traditional convention - Speakers normally don't comment about politics at all - and perhaps needs addressing but I am finding it very hard to find neutral good sources on this. By nature most of those commenting were politicians with an axe to grind; those who supported him claimed he had done no wrong, those against him claimed he had totally broken the convention. I am unable to find much serious discussion by historians or scholars of the constitution on this issue which seems quite strange - maybe someone else will have more luck. Clearly something has changed and, as he has been able to keep his position, a new convention of some sort has come into existence in that gradual way it works in the British constitution. The next Speaker, for example, will be able to voice political opinions and keep his position, one assumes. If anyone says he has done wrong he will point to the precedent set by Bercow - that's how it works in Britain's constitution (in areas not specifically legislated for). So Wikipedia needs to record this change but I am struggling to source it.

Quick Question

I heard somewhere (I believe it was one of those "did you know?" websites) that the Speaker of the House of Commons can't speak. Is that what's meant by his not being able to partake in debate? Impaciente 05:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

He (or she) most definately is allowed to speak, indeed he probably speaks more than any other member, however what he is allowed to say is limited to calling upon members to speak, calling for order, disciplining members etc etc. He can not voice his own opinions and participate in debate, so in that sense he "can not speak" but it is not a very accurate summation of his role, probably just used to make the fact more interesting MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 13:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you much. The whole thing seemed bizarre at first glance, and I was right. Impaciente 01:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

It is worth recalling that s/he is called 'speaker' because the office was first conceived in order to allow one MP to speak to the House of Lords or the king and his ministers as the accredited voice of the Commons' opinion as a whole, and not just voicing his/her own opinion. Reciprocally, the 'speaker' was granted by the Crown protection against recrimination for what s/he said, because it was to be understood that they were, by obligation of their office, representing without any personal bias the views of the whole house. (Hence, too, the traditional display of reluctance by the person newly elected to the office.) It followed that the person who was to speak for the house at the end of its deliberations should not argue his/her individual opinion in the course of debate. However, there should not be an assumption that 'parliament' is only what happens within the chamber. The scope and work of parliament and of individual members encompass a whole range of activities within the physical and conceptual 'houses of parliament', and the speaker is able, and expected, to play an active part in the work where appropriate, albeit with careful discretion that nothing should compromise his ultimate role to represent the decision of the whole House of Commons. December 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medievalduck (talk • contribs) 17:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Division

One considers dividing the page, creating one for the Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons, and another for the British House of Commons. Is there concurrence? Lord Emsworth 13:49, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)

Done. Morwen 14:14, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

But there is a slight problem now. The article for the House of Commons of the United Kingdom is entitled "British House of Commons." Would it not be more consistent to title this page "Speaker of the British House of Commons"? If there is no objection, I shall move the page. Lord Emsworth 14:35, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)

It is the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, for what that's worth. Mark Richards 19:53, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Opposition

Redcently added to the article:

Until recently there existed an unwritten convention that the two largest parties would take turns to have one of their members elected Speaker, irrespective of which party might enjoy a majority in the House at the time of the occurence of a vacany. It was under this rule that Betty Boothroyd, a member of the Labour Party, was elected Speaker in 1992, despite the fact that there was then a Conservative Party majority. However Labour MPs decided to disregard this convention, in 2000, when appointing Boothroyd's successor. Labour MPs used their majority to elect Michael Martin: another Labour Party member.'

I could be completely wrong but I had heard somewhere that Boothroyd was the first speaker from an opposition party for more than a century. If thats true than that would contradict the previous statement. Anybody know? Saul Taylor 11:13, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There is an article on the BBC that says about Martin's election: "His election breaks convention as its saw Labour retain the speakership for a second time" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/986496.stm ). It doesnt say just what that convention is tho.

Also another article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/27/newsid_2502000/2502597.stm ) says about Boothroyd's election "It is the first time since World War II that a member of the opposition party has held the job". So a century is a bit long. Does anyone know anything _definitive_ about this? Iota (Mar 25)

That is distinctly wrong, in any event. She is the first speaker to be appointed by the opposition party. Many speakers have served during times when their party was in opposition. john 01:33, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In any event I'm not sure about this bit:

Until recently there existed an unwritten convention that the two largest parties would take turns to have one of their members elected Speaker, irrespective of which party might enjoy a majority in the House at the time of the occurence of a vacany. It was under this rule that Betty Boothroyd, a member of the Labour Party, was elected Speaker in 1992, despite the fact that there was then a Conservative Party majority. However Labour MPs decided to disregard this convention, in 2000, when appointing Boothroyd's successor. Labour MPs used their majority to elect Michael Martin: another Labour Party member.

At the time I recall some people asserting this but others, including Paddy Ashdown, pointing out that the Speakership hasn't rotated like that in the past. And in 1992 the Conservative Bernard Weartherill was expected to be succeeded by another Conservative, Peter Brooke, indicating that this "convention" hasn't actually been around very long. Timrollpickering 15:40, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

If you look at the years you'll see that since 1965, it has, in fact, rotated. But this seems to be because alternating parties were in power when it came time to elect a new speaker. The Conservatives then made the idea of alternating quasi-legitimate by appointing Boothroyd. I agree the paragraph should probably be removed. john 16:31, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Hmm - According to Boothroyd's memoirs, the Conservative frontbench actually wanted to elect another Conservative, but due to a strong campaign and even because some new MPs did not know how the House works (this was the first vote after the election), Boothroyd came through - but it certainly wasn't a plan at all. Timrollpickering 17:10, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

I have edited the sentence that now ends "breaking a pattern of alternation between Labour and Conservative members which some claim had been established as a constitutional convention." It previously said that this practice dated back to the second world war. This is untru. The first Labour Speaker was elected in 1965 according to the "List of Speakers of the British House of Commons" page. Akashpaun1 November 2006

Speakers who were former Conservatives were opposed by Labour when they sought re-election to the Commons (Selwyn Lloyd twice in 1974 and Weatherill in 1987). Agingjb (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Reginald Bray

This article lists Reginald Bray as Speaker of the House of Commons in 1496, yet List of Parliaments of England shows no parliament nor speaker in that year. Which is correct? —Stormie 08:06, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

Bray does not appear to have been Speaker. So I have removed him. Mintguy (T)

Quite right. There was a Great Council called for 24 October 1496, and the king named Bray as Speaker or President of it (Wedgwood). The confusion has arisen from there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medievalduck (talk • contribs) 07:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Voting/Representation (clarification)

I've had a naive question about the UK speaker for a long time: given that the speaker does not 'speak' for himself, or vote (unless a tie demands it), is it not the case that his constituents are under-represented in the Commons? If my MP became speaker tomorrow I'd have no-one to speak for my constiuency. Are these problems irresolvible? Adambisset 21:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Well it could be mentioned in the article, the speaker can still read consituancy letters etc but they cannot raise matters in the house due to impartiality (that they could have raised if they were just an MP) Usually the nearest MP of their 'former' party to the speakers consituancy does that for them Alci12 18:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Very few constituency letters or constituents' individual letters are raised in the chamber itself by any MP save to bolster a debating point or if the matter attracts some public controversy. They are dealt with directly through the appropriate ministry or referred to the right conduit, such as local government or local councillor. The Speaker can prosecute individual cases from his constituency in this way, although, as said above, often a neighbouring MP will take over the case to preserve the speaker's impartiality. December 2008

Short speech: not less than eight minutes?

"Furthermore, before debate begins, the Speaker may invoke the "Short Speech" rule, under which he or she may set a time limit of not less than eight minutes per speech."

Surely this should be "not more than eight minutes", or "less than eight minutes"? Or am I just muddled?

--Telsa 12:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

As I read it, it means that the limit must be at least eight minutes. The Speaker could, theoretically, set a limit of 30 minutes per speech.

-FunnyMan 05:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Non-commercial use image

Anyone else noticed that we have a "non-commercial use" image on the front page? If you follow the link from the big warning message on its image page, it basically says that Wikipedia does not like that license. Seems a bit two-faced to say that and post the image on the front page anyway.

-FunnyMan 05:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Add also?

• Many people think of "the House" meaning the building; they do not know that a group of legislators are also called a "House".
• As I remember reading it, the original purpose of the House of Commons was only to provide ways and means to obtain sufficient money from "the common people", with the monarch then still having absolute power. The House of Commons was then more or less in opposition to the monarch and his/her helpers; these were, at that time, the government and it was actually(?) dangerous at one time to be the Speaker of the House of Commons. Compare with the history of the Magna Carta, although apparently the dispute was with the barons, not with the House of Commons(?).

-QUITTNER142.150.49.166 19:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it is a bit out of date to see 'opposition' between Commons and Crown as the principal medieval base. Both in theory and practice the Commons were seen more as petitioners within the king's court or even plaintiffs, and thus not really there to 'decide' anything, but with some assumed right to give their opinions and pleadings to 'help' the king decide, entirely off his own bat, policies and issues as 'the judge'. Having had their day in court, they were duly bound by the court's decision, and that decision was held to have greater moral force for having listened fairly to those affected. If the king felt like it, they, as a whole or as individuals, could present complaints and report problems: the agenda of any parliament was very much in his hands unless he was in exceptional trouble. The attractive connection with direct taxation (in lieu of personal service)in defence of the realm indeed led to the Commons being summoned pretty well every time a 'parliament' was called from the 1330s, i.e. with the onset of the Hundred Years War, but even then it was long more a case of 'well, there is going to be a tax ('defence of the realm', so obligatory), so you lot can work out the best and least painful way for the folks back home to pay it.' The Commons struggled painfully with this for two centuries, and tried eking out the timescale rather than actually trying to refuse outright. There is even debate amongst historians whether they could actually refuse. They certainly tried to attach conditions. It is wrong to say the medieval monarch was 'absolute': apart from theoretical counter-arguments (sometimes not very consoling or compelling,admittedly), sheer logistics made absolutism very difficult, and although restraint was clumsy and even dangerous, both in theory and reality there was. However, Richard II does seem to have developed a very sound and strong case for absolutism, which his critics found it hard to oppose at law - so he was deposed. In short, he had not got the resources or the 'influential opinion' to sustain his theory. The Tudors revived a great deal of what Richard had proposed and got away with it pretty easily. December 2008

Animated image

Honestly, do we really need an image of Michael Martin with flashing yellow and red "order, order!" at the top of this article? Roger Danger Field seems to be in a minority of one at the moment. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it’s a definite plus for any House of Commons related article, as for reasons stated before. It gets across the job of the speaker very well. Roger Danger Field 15:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - you will have to give me a better clue: stated before where? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No list of former holders of the office...why?

How come there's no list of former holders of the office? -- Jalabi99 03:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Non-Contested Elections for the Speaker

The Irish Solution to this issue may be of interest. In Dâil Eireann, a speaker Ceann Comhairle is elected by members (TDs) in much the same way as in Westminster. Ireland has Multi-Seat (3, 4 or 5) constituencies and the Ceann Comhairle has the right of automatic return to Dail Eireann upon nomination. The constituency is then contested with one less seat (see the Cavan-Monaghan constituency for the 2007 election). This is included in the Irish Constitution which was developed in the main by Eamon DeValera, Irish political leader and senior officer in the 1916 Easter Rising. Britain is different of course as it has no coherent written constitution and constituencies are single seat. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.100.180.27 (talk) 23:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

British constituencies haven't always been single seat - the last two & three member constituencies were scrapped as recently as 1950. Indeed the idea that a Speaker's constituency should be given an extra member has been mooted in the various discussions on how to handle the situation. But one major principle that seems to be a sticking point is the concept that the Speaker starts the Parliament as an ordinary member and no Parliament can bind its successors' hands, so MPs should retain the right to elect the speaker at the outset of each Parliament. A system that locks a Speaker in place until they feel like going is at odds with this. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The article states that "In the past few decades, the Conservatives have not stood against Speakers seeking re-election, regardless of their previous political affiliation. Labour and the Liberal Democrats have stood against ex-Conservative Speakers, but not against ex-Labour ones." Is there a source for this? Doesn't sound right to me. 158.180.192.10 (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Both Labour and the then Social Democrats contested Croydon North East against Weatherill in 1987, and Labour and Liberals stood against Selwyn Lloyd in The Wirral in both of the 74 elections. Not sure why they changed. Conservatives won't contest it regardless of their party. Agree it could do with an independent source though. - Chrism would like to hear from you 16:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Back in the run-up to the 1935 election the Daventry Constituency Labour Party announced that their party rules (I think it was the national set a CLP has to abide by) bound them to nominate a candidate at all elections - this was the first contest since the bitter 1895 episode. They repeated this announcement in the run-up to the expected 1939/40 election. Since then nearly every election with an ex-Conservative Speaker has been contested by Labour, presumably because of that rule, though the Liberals have been more intermittent.

(There was a commission on the issue in about 1939, with the committee made up of many of the big name senior MPs of the day, but it came to the conclusion that the current arrangement was the least worst option available.) Timrollpickering (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Former featured article but no references?

Am I missing something really obvious? This is a former featured article but even back then had no references. Now it is marked as lacking sources. Have wiki's policies on featured articles changed? Of course, general knowledge does not need to be referenced, but this hardly applied to much of this article.

David WC2 (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

casting vote

Has a speaker ever made a casting vote contrary to Speaker Denison's Rules? BillMasen (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent updates

I suppose it's time for a rewrite. I suppose you could put a (resigned), (transition) or (awaiting new appointment) or something next to the status of the current speaker. Gamerunknown (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Portcullis and Mace as Speaker's crest

This article currently displays the green portcullis of the House of Commons, implying that this is also used by the Speaker.

However, the Speaker's crest consists of the portcullis with the Mace of the Commons underneath it. Hence, perhaps the image on this page should be changed?

References:

• "The Portcullis" (House of Commons Factsheet G9), Jan 2009, p4
• http://www.mplevene.co.uk/staticpage.aspx?spageid=101480
• http://www.whiskywhiskywhisky.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&p=11228

Gadget1700 (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Further simplification of uniform

Viewing today's Commons business here, it seems that John Bercow has decided to end most of the formal aspects of the uniform. --Hapsala (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was move page. Consensus at this time supports a page move to Speaker of the House of Commons (United Kingdom). PeterSymonds (talk) 10:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Speaker of the British House of Commons → Speaker of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom — So as to be consistant with House of Commons of the United Kingdom, which was moved from "British House of Commons" last year, and was kept in a failed move request to the older name later the same year. --84.92.117.93 (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• I support this move. It would ensure not only consistency between the two articles but greater accuracy. British may often mean "of the United Kingdom", but retains the connotation "of Great Britain", and unlike United Kingdom is not included in the formal title of the House. As far as length is concerned, there is ample precedence, and I do not consider the proposed title cumbersome. The problems only start if we also rename the "Speaker of the British House of Commons election" articles, again for consistency; in this case, "Speaker of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom election, 2009" might be considered too long. I wonder whether we might not simply replace British with United Kingdom in the same place (resulting in "Speaker of the United Kingdom House of Commons), along the lines of the United States national and state legislatures. My objection to this version is that it looks more official than it is, but it does give me the idea that we might use this form (or simply the perfectly unofficial UK) for the Speaker election articles. To sum up my proposal: House of Commons of the United Kingdom, Speaker of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, Speaker of the UK House of Commons election, [year]. Waltham, The Duke of 20:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I would rather the page be at Speaker of the House of Commons (United Kingdom) but support the move. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 22:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd support that as well. (We don't have to make this discussion too restrictive, do we? I like to know that there are alternatives, although the initial proposal naturally retains precedence.) Waltham, The Duke of 23:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• As nominator, I would be happy to support Speaker of the House of Commons (United Kingdom) as another alternative. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bercow's vote

I looked into this and Bercow's vote of 47% is the lowest for a Speaker for some time, it may well be the lowest ever. Is this worth mentioning? PatGallacher (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Is that percentage accurate? Unless I missed something the new rules under which Bercow was elected state that 50% is needed to win (if that is wrong do we need to change the article?). Other than that I don't think it is overly relevant; the low vote could just be a symptom of the new electoral system. Do any reliable sources draw any significant conclusions from the size of the vote? Road Wizard (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to his vote at the recent general election, not the election for Speaker. PatGallacher (talk) 18:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Is that really relevant at a general article about the office of Speaker (as opposed to John Bercow)? -Rrius (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Main lines or the article

Why not including the 4th 5th and 6th paragraphs under a global title : "Functions of the speaker" ? I will wait for possible different points of view before acting as suggested. Crocy (talk) 11:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I boldly moved the 5th and 6th paragraphs together into a "Role" section. The non-partisanship section probably works better on its own as its a quality of the office and its holder so to speak, rather than an actual function. - Chrism would like to hear from you 13:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Speaker of the House of Commons (United Kingdom). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090327021123/http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/g06.pdf to http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/g06.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050830053825/http://www.parliament.uk:80/documents/upload/g06.pdf to http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/g06.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

First Holder?

Why does the box on the right hand side of this page list Thomas Hungerford as first holder of the office of Speaker, while the text in the section History states " The earliest year for which a presiding officer has been identified is 1258, when Peter de Montfort presided over the Parliament held in Oxford." Thomas Hungerford doesn't seem to have been in post till 1377. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.109.140 (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• The Speaker Explains - Keeping Order in the House of Commons.webm

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Catholic vs Roman Catholic?

Is there any Wikipedia policy on this (apart from the need for consistency in any given article)? The article says this:

"Michael Martin, elected in 2000, was the first Catholic speaker since the Reformation"

but also this:

"... he also ranks below the Church of Ireland and Roman Catholic archbishops of Ireland, and the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church."

Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

p.s. both of these claims seem to be unsourced, so I have added the appropriate tags. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

When he stops being speaker

People jumped the gun a bit with declaring the office "vacant", as confirmed by the Clerks, so I did a bit of research on when he stops officially being Speaker. Standing Order 1 implies that he stops being Speaker when he stops being MP or a new Speaker is selected. I expect at some point on Monday the Treasury will announce that he has been appointed to by either the Steward of the Manor of Northstead or Three Hundreds - at that point he will cease to be MP and Speaker. (He could also it seems according to standing order 1(2) precede over the election of the next speaker, and will stop being speaker when the new speaker is confirmed - but he hasn't given any indication that he will do that and speakership elections have always been preceded by the Father of the House in modern times.) Jedi Master Bra'tac (talk) 09:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

..."presided", rather than "preceded". Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Election section

"However, this procedure broke down at the election of a new Speaker in 1971 (see below)"

When you click see below, you read about the 1971 Speaker election, however it has zero mention of the debate and why the silent clerk failed and had to be replaced with a member.

Slywriter (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

"Including MP salary"

The MP salary is outdated and in need of update to £84,144 IsaacTW3001 (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)