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.

Des Browne was telling the truth

Unlike some bloggers, I don't attempt to dress up personal speculation as fact, and neither am I going to pretend I've spent half the day on the phone to "senior Labour sources" getting the inside story on last night's Iraq vote. So the following predictions are entirely the product of my own imagination, though admittedly based on some knowledge of the players involved and some experience of how politics works.

Anyway, here goes.

1. If and when he becomes Prime Minister, Gordon Brown will announce an inquiry into "the way in which the responsibilities of Government were discharged in relation to Iraq and all matters relevant thereto, in the period leading up to military action in that country in March 2003 and in its aftermath."

2. Furthermore, he will announce this in the course of his first 100 days in office, in an attempt to stamp his authority on the Government and draw some kind of line under what is, by common consensus, the most disastrous aspect of the Blair Years.

3. When the results of that inquiry are eventually published, Gordon will say that while he still believes the decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein was the right one, terrible mistakes were made both in the use of intelligence and the planning for the post-war reconstruction. He will make clear that nothing like it will be allowed to happen again.

4. Labour MPs with Brownite sympathies who might have been considering rebelling last night will have been fully appraised of this scenario and encouraged to keep their powder dry until their man is safely in No 10.

From all this, it follows that, whether or not he actually intended to let the cat out of the bag, Defence Secretary Des Browne was essentially telling the truth when he said last night that "when the time is right of course there will be such an inquiry."

For "when the time is right," read: "When we've finally managed to get rid of that bastard Blair."

A last chance of justice

In a few hours time, the House of Commons will vote on the following motion, tabled by the SNP and Plaid Cymru and backed by the Liberal Democrats.

That this House believes that there should be a select committee of seven honourable Members, being members of Her Majesty's Privy Council, to review the way in which the responsibilities of Government were discharged in relation to Iraq and all matters relevant thereto, in the period leading up to military action in that country in March 2003 and in its aftermath.

I hope they get it. Because contrary to what the Government maintains, the Hutton Inquiry and the Butler Inquiry were not enough. They failed to nail the real responsibility for the lies and deceptions that resulted in us going to war on a false prospectus, or to establish the extent of the Blair Government's culpability in failing to plan for the post-war aftermath.

If anyone still believes that Tony Blair did not know that intelligence was being fixed to fit a predetermined policy of regime change, or that he was unaware of the total lack of a reconstruction plan, they should read THIS.

Bloggers 4 Benn?

With Hilary Benn now officially in the race for Labour's deputy leadership, it is already clear that a head of steam is building up behind the International Development Secretary - in the blogosphere as well as among MPs.

A totally unscientific survey of leading Labour bloggers appears to show support pretty evenly dividing between Mr Benn and Jon Cruddas, with little support as yet for Harriet Harman, Peter Hain or any of the other possibles.

Among the Bloggers 4 Benn are Mike Ion who says: "I admire Benn enormously and feel that he is a man of real moral stature and courage and I am confident that he will have broad appeal both across the party and the country."

Paul Burgin, author of the Mars Hill blog agrees saying: "Like his father - although father and son are from different wings of the Party - he is charming, polite, sociable and thoughtful....He is also down-to-earth and the only sitting cabinet minister I have met who I have dared to address by his first name."

Against that, Reclaim Labour's Harry Perkins reminds readers of a speech earlier this year in which Mr Benn criticised the Make Poverty History campaign this evening for ignoring the role jobs and economic growth play in lifting the poor out of poverty.

Influential Labour blog Kerron Cross appears to be firmly behind Cruddas, as is The Daily, whose Westminster-based authors claim to have been the first to reveal plans for a Benn challenge.

And me? Well, I am really none too sure at the moment who I will back, although, as I will be supporting Gordon Brown for the leadership come what may, I will be looking towards the candidate who I think will provide the most balanced ticket.

In this context, there is a good case to be made for a gender balanced ticket, but Ms Harman was in my view one of the least distinguished of Blair's female Cabinet ministers and the only other female alternative, Hazel Blears, comes from the wrong wing of the party in my view.

No, what is needed to balance a Brown leadership is someone from the sensible left, and, although Hilary Benn may pick up substantial support from this section of the party, I don't think he really fits the bill in terms of bringing an alternative perspective to bear on future policy direction.

For me, then, the choice currently lies between Cruddas and Peter Hain. I like a lot of what Cruddas has been saying about reconnecting the Government and the party, but am not at all convinced that disconnnecting the roles of Deputy Leader and Deputy Prime Minister is the best way to achieve this.

As for Hain, I have great admiration for him and what he has achieved in his career as a campaigner and as a politician but I think there has to be some question mark over whether, alongside Gordon, he would provide a sufficiently fresh face.

So, for now at least, I'm keeping my options open.

Democracy in Iraq? We should have tried it at home first

What's the relationship between the War in Iraq and House of Lords reform? Well, perhaps little, except that they were both in the news last week and therefore provided some of the subject matter for my latest Column and accompanying Podcast.

But is there not a delicious irony in the fact that a Government which has preached so much about the need to export democratic values to other countries cannot, even after nine years in power, bring itself to support a democratically-elected Second Chamber?

"[Jack] Straw's plan for a 50-50 split between elected and appointed peers scarcely seems like a great step forward, especially when a 2003 plan for the Upper House to be 80pc elected came within three votes of gaining Commons approval. But the really amazing thing is that there should be any debate about this at all.

"As one newspaper's leader column put it this week: “The starting point for any debate about any legislature should be that is democratically elected. It therefore ought to be for the opponents of democracy to have to justify themselves.”"

Incidentally, the Lincolnshire Echo version of the column is now no more, having been summarily axed in an email sent out on Friday. Coming soon after the loss of my North West Enquirer column as a result of that newspaper going into receivership last month, it is a not inconsiderable blow.

They say these things normally come in threes, don't they?

Better late than never

Having just come back from possibly the wettest walking weekend I have ever experienced in the Lake District - the highlight of which was having to wade across a swollen river normally crossed by a small footbridge - I am fairly sympathetic towards the Government's belated attempts to push climate change to the top of the political agenda.

Of course, Labour are playing catch-up here. The Liberal Democrats have a well-deserved reputation as the most environmentalist party in British politics, having long favoured greater "green taxation." Latterly, David Cameron has also jumped on the bandwagon and, to be fair, seems to be far more serious about green issues than any of his predecessors.

Nevertheless, today's publication of the Stern Report together with Gordon Brown's appointment of Al Gore as an environmental adviser have to be seen as steps forward. I cannot understand my fellow blogger Iain Dale's oft-stated objection to Gore and can only put it down to pure Conservative tribalism.

When I went to bed at 2am on 8th November 2000 after watching the early results come in, Gore was US president-elect. When I got up at 7am and turned the telly back on, Bush was. There are very few people among my own circle of friends who do not think the world would now be a much better place had that reversal of fortune not occurred.