Who will be Speaker?

November 15th, 2008 at 11:27 am by David Farrar

The Herald reports four contenders for . They are:

They each have their own claims for the job. Lockwood is National’s longest serving MP. John Carter has been a Whip for many years, knowing Standing Orders well. Eric Roy was a very popular and Richard Worth would being a first class legal talent to the role.

This may dismay some, but I think would also be a damn good Speaker. But I think his latest game playing over Treasury accounts has killed off any chance that he could be seen to make the transition from partisan player to referee.

As for the four candidates, it will presumably go to a National Caucus decision and then the preferred candidate checked with coalition partners.

But wouldn’t it be nice if it was left to the House as a whole to decide? If all parties would agree not to apply the whip and allow a free vote, then they could have a preferential ballot as allowed for in Standing Order 19. It would be fascinating to see all MPs vote from their seats.

I presume two of the unsucessful candidates will probably become Assistant Speakers and that Labour’s will be .

UPDATE: Mallard is against Lockwood being Speaker. That probably helps Lockwood immensely.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

18 Responses to “Who will be Speaker?”

  1. reid (16,632 comments) says:

    The last thing our democracy needs is another biased Speaker along the lines of Wilson and Hunt. Cullen would be more of the same, there is absolutely no doubt about that.

    The biased-Speaker precedent set by Liarbore needs to be broken – literally and also in the seen-to-be sense too.

    It’s too much to hope that those two would be publically excoriated but through their actions whoever becomes Speaker must, for the sake of our democracy, palpably distance themselves from the execrable actions of their two predecessors.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    Yes Cullen truly shat on his own doorstep there, didn’t he? But then he started in that role earlier this year anyway didn’t he? I must confess that whenever I see Cillen I always picture him in a seventeenth-century powdered wig issuing his patronising judgements to the grateful unwashed – so I pray it wasn’t a premonition.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. first time caller (384 comments) says:

    Just heard on the radio that Lockwood should visit a previous career and give all members buzzers…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. s.russell (1,646 comments) says:

    It would certainly be great if we got a Speaker chosen because they are the best person for the job, rather than because it gets them out of the way.

    It would also be great if – to help re-establish it as a non-partisan role – other parties’ preferences were taken into account.

    And finally, wouldn’t it be nice if we had a Speaker who actually, really, wanted the job?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. baxter (893 comments) says:

    “Richard Worth would being a first class legal talent to the role.”…………………..Well he is the first one we should put the line through. We have just had a pedantic biassed useless professor of law and we now need someone with commonsense who calls it as it is. Lockwood has recently shown that he has that ability….and the re-action of MALLARD confirms my point.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    i agree that cullen would make a great speaker..

    ..the level of wit/intelligence in parliament would undergo a quantum improvement..

    ..were cullen the master of ceremonies..

    ..’talk to people!’..dpf..!

    ..they must ‘owe you’..

    ..for your efforts in/on the peters-plan/conspiracy..

    ..eh..?

    ..phil(whoar.co.nz)

    ..and i must admit..

    ..the thought of lockwood smith as speaker..

    ..bores me positively rigid..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Seriola (1 comment) says:

    Totally agree with Baxter (617). Mallard attempts to pepetuate the myth that Lockwood was the author of the adverse comments re the unsuitability of some Pacific Islanders in respect to seasonal work in Marlborough. Wheras, all Lockwood did in a local radio interview, was to repeat the local winegrowers concerns which had been made known to him. (Pity John Key didn’t come out in Lockwood’s defence at the time in stead of leaving him to the media’s mercy)

    I believe Lockwood would make an excellent Speaker – his determined and painstaking handling of the Philip Field saga is ample testimony to his attention to detail and clear thinking. In spite of Mallard’s comments, I believe he would have fairly wide support across the political spectrum.

    Mallard is fankly one of the most deserving of a firm Speaker’s hand as he has pushed the limits time and time again with
    Margaret Wilson compliance.

    But isnt all of this lovely! What a delight to think that at last we have a chance of some impartiallity from the Speaker’s chair. Margaret Wilson was, in my opinion, a disgrace to the office of Speaker.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Hagues (703 comments) says:

    Ironic (aka bullshit) Statement of the century (ok maybe not quite as much bullshit as Charles Shoovel’s ‘the govt has heaps of money’ line)…

    “The job of a Speaker is to get the business of the Government through and you do that by being slightly fairer to the other parties than you are to the Government in terms of your ruling.

    “You bend over backwards to make sure you run a smooth House and I like to think that I did when I was Speaker.”

    Jonathan Hunt thinks he was fairer on the opposition than on the govt when he was speaker. Rates himself pretty highly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. reid (16,632 comments) says:

    “You bend over backwards to make sure you run a smooth House and I like to think that I did when I was Speaker.”

    Newsflash Jonathan. No-one agrees with you except your own party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. dad4justice (8,309 comments) says:

    Who cares who is the speaker? I mean to say, as long as we don’t have another MADam speaker that screams like a demented fruit bat on acid at big Gerry all the time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Nicholas O'Kane (168 comments) says:

    Given that Laockwood smith will be likely to retire in 2011, giving him the speaker now, then leeting someone else have it in Nationals 2nd term isn’t a bad idea. It will also keep Lockwood out of cabinet, and compensate him for missing out.

    Also heres a radical idea. Roger Douglas for speaker? May see outrage from the left, but keep him from snipping at Nationals centrist programme from the backbenches.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. s.russell (1,646 comments) says:

    I know it is historical tradition that the Speaker should not want the job and has to be dragged to the chair (this goes back to medieval times) but I think the dragging would be quite real in Roger’s case. Why on Earth would he want the job? Besides, choosing a Speaker who is such a hate figure (rightly or wrongly) of so many MPs would NOT be a recipe for getting things done in the House.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. reid (16,632 comments) says:

    Yeah absolutely s russell. Douglas did not come out of retirement to do that, he’s doing the country a favour and I suspect one of the reasons he did it is because he can see what is coming which will be beyond anyone’s experience. Frankly Key ruling him out was a mistake, and one can only hope that his wisdom which is without peer, will be utilised to full, regardless of whether or not he’s in Cabinet. If he’s not given this opportunity, then we are all well and truly screwed, believe it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Vinick (217 comments) says:

    At least the speculation that Dunne would be Speaker has died down. Whoever made that suggestion (I suspect some Gallery hack) is an idiot. From memory party leaders cannot be Speaker.

    I’m picking Worth. Apparently he was offered it by the National Party leadership as his reward for not being given any resources to win back Epsom.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Lindsay Addie (1,589 comments) says:

    Surely Parliament will be easier to run without The Poodles endless relitigating of Points of Order………?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Portia (175 comments) says:

    “Whereas, all Lockwood did in a local radio interview, was to repeat the local winegrowers concerns which had been made known to him. (Pity John Key didn’t come out in Lockwood’s defence at the time in stead of leaving him to the media’s mercy)”

    Even if Lockwood was quoting someone else, it doesn’t explain his complete and utter lack of political savvy. Surely a 21st century politician, with 24 years experience, would have listened to what was being said and tried not to cringe. That he did not immediately recognise dubious, stereotypical generalisations when he saw them AND then went on to repeat them directly to camera is, well, gobsmackingly stupid.

    If JK is generous enough to offer Lockwood the Speaker’s position, then he should be grateful. However, I hope that doesn’t happen, as this episode does call into question LS’s overall judgement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. mara (794 comments) says:

    I just want a Speaker who WANTS and likes the job. The last one looked dragooned into the job and feared that her piles would bleed whenever there was strong debate. Is that too much to ask?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    I disagree that “we” want a non partisan speaker. This is where the right get beaten. Why play by the Queensberry rules (half educated cultural communists will need to look that up) when your opponents are gutter scum who fight to win at any cost and show nothing but disdain for rules and fairness? Fuck em. They set the precedent. Hoist the bastards on their own petard. Teach them a lesson about consequences. Pick a partisan speaker and screw the leftist scum right down.

    THEY’RE CROOKS- LOOK AT WHAT THEY DID WHEN IN POWER. LOOK AT HOW THEY ABUSED ALMOST EVERY PRIVILEGE AND TRADITION. LOOK AT HOW THEY WALLOWED IN POWER. WHY TREAT THEM NOW AS IF THEY’RE HONOURABLE MEMBERS..???

    Pfffft, they’re down where they should be, use all means possible to keep the totalitarian thieving lying power obsessed scum there. Want them robbing you and lying to you and controlling your life again soon do you??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote