More on Martin

Following on from last Thursday's post, a fuller analysis of Michael Martin's record as Speaker, and the reasons why he has never managed to become a national treasure like Betty, can be heard in my Week in Politics Podcast, available HERE.

Brown coronation: what's changed, exactly?

The BBC doesn't normally do speculative leadership stories, being content to leave that sort of thing to the written press, so Political Editor Nick Robinson's report of yesterday to the effect that Gordon Brown now looks unlikely to face a Cabinet challenger for the Labour leadership was bound to make people sit up and take notice.

Helpfully, Nick has reproduced the essence of his report on his blog today, in a piece entitled The Future's Brown.

I can't fault his analysis. But where I would slightly differ from Nick is in his assumption that there has really been any great change in the position relating to the leadership since the end of the Labour Conference five weeks ago.

There hasn't, in my view. What has changed is the media's perception of it.

Here's what I wrote at the time. "Mr Brown has largely repaired the damage done as a result of the abortive "coup" against Mr Blair three weeks ago, though he remains on probation for good behaviour....if he continues to behave himself over the next eight months, he might, just might yet get that endorsement from Mr Blair which would kill off all potential serious challenges."

Contrast this, for instance, with the view of the Daily Mail's Ben Brogan who wrote: "The truce is tosh. Tony Blair and his closest supporters are running a stealth campaign to get doubts about the Chancellor's personality and character up in lights. John Reid is emerging as the "Stop Gordon" candidate with the blessing of Number 10."

Both are perfectly respectable points of view, but where I think some commentators went wrong was, firstly, in failing to read the signal in Mr Blair's speech when he said he wanted to "heal," and secondly, by misinterpreting Dr Reid's speech on the closing day as a leadership bid.

As I said on this blog at the time, that was only one of several interpretations, and that Reid's phrase "I intend to play my full part" could be translated merely as a statement of his intention to remain in a senior role under Brown.

My conclusion, then, is that the song remains the same. Gordon has the conditional backing of everyone that really matters. But they still reserve the right to challenge him if it all goes wrong.

The polls, as ever, are the key. If they start to show that Gordon can't beat Cameron but that Reid, Alan Johnson or even David Miliband could, then much of what has been said or written thus far could count for little.

Mr Speaker Martin

I have had always had rather mixed feelings about Michael Martin, both as a man and as Speaker of the House of Commons. On the one hand, I have an instinctive sympathy towards him as a victim of the media snobocracy that invariably sets out to destroy anyone from a working-class background who has the temerity to achieve high office.

One particular public school educated parliamentary sketchwriter, for instance, has been running a vendetta against Martin for years that is based on pure class warfare.

I also have to say that my wife and I were very struck by his hospitality in inviting not only all the Lobby journalists but also their partners to a reception at Speaker's House shortly after his election, and for his courteousness and friendliness to all on that and subsequent similar occasions.

But against that, it has to be said that behind the smiling face and hearty handshakes lies a man whose pettiness apparently knows no bounds.

It was Martin who, as chairman of the House of Commons Administration Committee during the mid-90s, was behind the infamous ban on journalists using the Terrace. On another occasion, when chairing a Commons Committee, he insisted on a public apology from a journalist who had inadvertently strayed the wrong side of the line separating MPs from the press bench.

More importantly, in his conduct of the office of Speaker itself, there have simply been too many questions about his partiality towards the Labour Party for comfort.

Then again, such partality is scarcely surprising given the original circumstances of his election courtesy of a "Peasants Revolt" by backbench Labour MPs hacked off by Mr Tony's attempts to tee-up the Speakership for Sir Menzies Campbell as part of his ongoing flirtation with the Liberal Democrats.

I have been accused on Guido's blog of making this up - by an anonymong, natch - but analysis of the voting figures in the Speakership Election show that, by and large, Martin's support came from Labour backbenchers and assorted ministerial Brownites who jumped on the bandwagon in a bid to give Blair a bloody nose.

What is certainly the case is that Martin has never managed to become a non-partisan figure in the way Betty Boothroyd and George Thomas did. Today's blogospheric postings on the subject divide on broadly party lines, with Labour bloggers Mike Ion and Paul Burgin backing his handling of yesterday's PMQs row, and the Tories' Iain Dale arguing it's time for him to go.

As left-of-centre blogger, I am not about to buck that trend. Contrary to what Nick Robinson says, I think Martin was right to stop David Cameron asking questions about the Labour succession, not necessarily because it doesn't relate to the conduct of Government business, but because it's simply a waste of his time and ours.

If and when Blair is ready to give that crucial endorsement - and I suspect that won't be until the contest is actually up and running - he'll announce it in his own time and in his own way, and he won't be giving Mr Cameron the exclusive.

Until then , the best thing the Tory leader can do is accept the Speaker's ruling, stop banging on about it, and go and find himself some policies instead.