Who's for Speaker?

Newly elected Keys Members will still be struggling to find their seat in the chamber as they're asked to make their first, and one of the most consequential, decisions,  who chairs the House for the next five years as Speaker. Under Standing Orders, candidates are proposed and seconded from the Members, there’s an election if there's more than one runner. It sounds procedural. It isn't. Get this wrong and every Keys sitting for the next 5 years is going to be harder than it needs to be.

The Speaker controls procedure, sets the order of business, and gives the authoritative interpretation of Standing Orders — including the unwritten conventions that never made it onto paper. It’s for this reason that it’s absolutely imperative that the Speaker is someone with experience of being in Tynwald. In Westminster, the Standing Orders are supplemented by Erskine May, a collection of precedents and customs.  The Isle of Man doesn’t have a similar reference and often Manx Presiding Officers will refer to Erskine May given the similarity in our parliamentary procedures.  But there's no substitute for experience.

The Speaker doesn't speak in debates in the Keys, but they decides who does, for how long, and on what. A weak or partisan Speaker doesn't just annoy the 'losing side'; they make the whole House look amateurish and can undermine the standard of debate, inhibit proper scrutiny and fester lasting divisions between Members. 

New Members should treat this appointment with the seriousness of a policy vote, not a formality to get through before the "real" business starts.

There are a few things worth thinking through before you back someone for the Speaker’s chair

• Impartiality. Has this Member shown they can treat all Members the same way even when it's inconvenient to do so? A good campaigner is not automatically a good referee — sometimes the opposite.  Good campaigners tend to have quite definite positions and may well struggle to act impartially.
• Command of procedure. The Speaker's rulings are final in the chamber; there's no easy appeal. Someone who already knows Standing Orders will save the House from confusion and from being quietly out-manoeuvred by Members who know the rules better than the Speaker does.  It’ll also prevent proceedings descending into chaos.
• Respect for protocol. The Speaker should be someone who has demonstrated respect for the Standing Orders and for the Code of Conduct.  Beware any candidate who has fallen foul of the Tynwald Standards and Privileges Committee.  If they can’t follow the rules as a member, how can you be sure they will enforce them as Speaker?
• Temperament under pressure. Firmness without heavy-handedness. Can they shut down a Member who's overrunning without turning it into a grudge match?  Can they protect Members right to speak and be heard, against those who would seek to disrupt them?
• Willingness to give up the floor. The Speaker can't join debates in the House of Keys. That's a real sacrifice for anyone who came in wanting to argue policy from the backbenches — and a useful test of whether a candidate actually wants the job for the right reasons.
• Leading the House. Since the Speaker also becomes Deputy President of Tynwald, the choice has consequences beyond the Keys alone.

It's tempting, especially for Members new to the chamber, to vote for whoever seems most senior, most familiar, or best liked personally. None of those are wrong instincts, but none of them are the job either. Popularity and impartiality aren't the same thing, and a well-liked Member who struggles to say no to friends may find the role harder than expected.  I expect the new Members have been in a bit of huddle over the last couple of days trying to work out their options.  I hope that they take a considered view rather than trying to indulge in some demonstration of force by nominating someone wholly unsuitable into the role.  We've heard much during the campaign about Members ability to work as a team for the good of the Island, and this is one of the first opportunities we will have to judge them on that.

The healthiest sign for the term ahead isn't a unanimous vote — it's a considered one. Members who can explain why they backed a candidate, beyond "they seemed like a good sort," are the ones who'll have grounds to hold the Speaker to that standard later if their rulings start to drift.