The BBC reported yesterday on John Bercow's latest fulminations against those of us who have called into question his wife's very personal attacks on David Cameron:
Commons Speaker John Bercow has attacked critics of his wife's decision to run for office as "old-fashioned, cowardly and downmarket".
Sally Bercow is standing as a Labour candidate for a seat on Westminster Council in May's local elections.
He told journalists that criticism of his wife's decision to run for office had come from the right-wing press.
"It is old-fashioned, cowardly and downmarket," he said.
Mr Bercow said attacks on his wife for criticising Mr Cameron had been "a lot of nonsense, absolutely unadulterated drivel".
Let's be clear: there is certainly an argument to be made that the Speaker's duty of impartiality should not prevent the Speaker's wife attacking the Leader of the Opposition and standing as a Labour candidate. There is also a case to be made that it does in fact present a problem - with at least an unwritten rule against it.
But surely the point is that this is the sort of political controversy is something the Speaker should not be giving his views on? This seems such an obvious point I find myself surprised I have to type it - until I realise it's a point that this Speaker has either missed or ignored. Likewise, his comments against the "right-wing press". What exactly does he think is wrong with some of our newspapers taking a right-wing line? And how can it possibly be appropriate for the Speaker of the House of Commons to be sneering about the ideological leanings or courage of political journalists?
Conservative opposition to Bercow's candidacy as Speaker was almost unanimous, but did any of us expect all our greatest worries about his role as Speaker to be vindicated so quickly?
As soon as he came to office, he dubiously thought it appropriate to discard the traditional dress of the office. Rather than chasisting Members in a proportionate way, he has at times been unduly sarcastic and nasty towards particular MPs: "You'll make yourself ill!" and so on.
To an audience of adolescents, he attacked the BNP as evil. Again, whatever the merits of the view, it's simply not the Speaker's job to voice it, and that he chose to do so sets a worrying precedent. After all, Sinn Fein/IRA representatives - who in various ways have the blood of hundreds of innocents on their hands - are also evil according to any civilised system of ethics. Would Bercow say so? Should he? I'd rather he just shut up.
Constantly, Bercow interrupts rowdy parliamentary debate with his own very fashionable views about how the public wants consensual and temperate parliamentary discussion - not shouting. At times, he has gone as far as saying that the public will be disgusted by the loud cheering in the Chamber. The notion that the man or woman in the street longs for an end to yah-boo parliamentary debate is of course prized in the Westminster village, but I'd love to see some polling on this question to back up Bercow's claims. But even if the polls did side with him, it is not the Speaker's job to side with the majority on these questions! He is not the public's representative to MPs - MPs are the public's representatives, and he has chosen a job that requires him to do no more than moderate their discussion impartially. Unfortunately, whatever his positive qualities, Bercow is blatantly a man who cannot cope with the role of a background referee, an impartial arbiter of debates between other people.
Perhaps he still has time to learn - but what an awful start he's made.