That Betty Boothroyd was famously very popular in places like Japan was, in a minor way, a tribute to this country's democracy. That her successor as Speaker inspires no such following is also telling.
Watching the current Speaker oversee parliamentary debates can be an uncomfortable, baffling experience. Why, when he sees fit to quieten hecklers and other misbehaviour, must he do so in a pathetic, pleading way or - more often - must he do so openly giggling along? If it's not that serious, why intervene? This is a Speaker apparently uncomfortable about asserting the slightest authority and so constantly descending, David Brent-like, into efforts to show "I'm one of you, really - I don't take this stuff seriously".
When he does choose to throw his weight around, it tends to be where parliament truly is serving its purpose and real, heated debate is going on between the two party leaders. When this happens he will often rise and declare that the subject is in some way irrelevant to the business of government, leaving the questioner unable to proceed with the entire line of inquiry and ending the discussion. If there is a rhyme or reason to these rulings, I don't know it. The frequency with which leaders of both parties seem to fall foul of the Speaker's rulings also suggests just how arbitrary they are.
For obvious reasons few MPs seem to want to talk about this issue, and of course it is far from a major priority for voters. But it does matter, and it does impede the purpose of parliament, if the Speaker of the House of Commons is both so unauthoritative at moderating debate and so arbitrary in ending it.
