The Speaker election system explained

As the House of Shame prepares to elect a new Speaker many citizens are bemused and confused by the typically ancient and deliberately arcane methods used by Members of Parliament, which is not helpful when so much of the electorate are already put off from politics in the UK following recent scenes of mass greed and corruption allied to a rudderless government which appears to have no plans and a distinct track record of ignoring public opinion and concerns. Therefore your trust Woolamaloo Gazette's political department has created a clear-cut explanation as to how exactly this centuries-old process of electing a new Parliamentary Speaker takes place.

The entire unwieldy event lurches into being when candidates throw their hats into a ring to announce their intention to run for the office following the dismemberment of the previous Speaker (who is ceremonially stuffed, embalmed and mounted in the House of Lords). Today this is a figure of speech but back in the 1600s it was taken literally, where refined, corrupt gentlemen would actually throw their hats physically into a small ring, with the hats which landed closest to the centre of the ring dictating the running order of the election. Accidentally knocking out an opponent's hat from the ring (thus making their candidacy void before it really began) was seen as quite dishonourable and frowned upon. Doing so deliberately was perfectly acceptable, however. Today's politicians no longer throw actual hats, they simply have to walk around banging a large drum and yelling 'pay attention to me, pay attention to me, me me!'. The other Members of the House are, by tradition, supposed to ignore them during this part of the process for as long as possible until they simply can't take it anymore and agree to let that person stand for the post. This can last for several weeks and over the centuries of Parliamentery Democracy has caused the deaths by terminal boredom or asphyxiation due to excessive hot air inhalation of a number of politicians and members of the Fourth Estate and citizens.

The second phase is to take the remaining candidates into what is known as the Cromwellian stage of the election. All of the prospective Speakers must dress up as Oliver Cromwell (warts and all); a pack of King Charles Spaniels is loosed into the Chamber of the House of Commons and the Cromwellian garbed candidates must chase the floppy eared royal hounds around to the strains of the Benny Hill theme music and catch as many as possible, stuffing them into a burlap sack. The winner of this stage is the candidate who captures the most spaniels then rushes to Banqueting House and leans out the window where King Charles was lead to his execution and lean out displaying the canines and yelling "behold the pets of a traitor". Those with the fewest sacks of pups are removed from the candidacy. In 1822 there was a great scandal when a leading candidate was found to have cheated by indulging in 'puppy sack stuffing'. Deemed a dishonourable and untrustworthy scoundrel he was dismissed from Parliament and appointed as ambassador to France.

The next stage of the election sees the remaining candidates move out onto the riverside terrace of the House of Commons. Upstream a group of school children release a large number of rubber ducks with hooks attached to the top of them; underneath each is taped a sealed, waterproof packet detailing the expense abuses of various members of the House. As the squadron of rubber ducks pass down the Thames the candidates lean out over the side with large poles trying to hook out as many ducks as they can, the idea being to use the expense account information attached to each to blackmail other Members of the House into voting for them; obviously the more a candidate has the more Members he or she can press into their camp.

Since the press has effectively revealed most of this information publicly this year (and rather more efficiently and transparently than the official government attempt at openess) this stage will be abandoned this time and replaced by Duck-a-Speaker, where each candidate is arrayed on a hinged wooden platform suspended over the Thames with a number of targets in the shape of fat pigs above their heads. Members throw stones and if they hit the pigs, the pig's head drops into a small trough below them. Once all of the pigs have their heads in the troughs the hinge opens below the candidate and they drop into the Thames. This stage now has no actual effect on the voting process and is carried out simply for fun and to ensure the prospective speakers are well used to the rituals of public humiliation.

The final stage sees the actual election segment of the whole process; this has been made into a secret ballot so that Members can freely vote for the candidate their party bosses and whips have told them to vote for. Each goes into a curtained booth wearing only one brown, left shoe on their feet. A Masonic emblem is drawn by the candidate of their choice as the voting Member then turns three times widdershins reciting "God save the Queen" or in the case of Republicans or Atheists "By the Power of Grayskull". The secret ballots are then collected by the Parliamentary Hunchback who takes them in a silk sack to the Parliamentary grinder, who shreds the ballots before mixing them with barley and oats. The resulting combination is then spread outside to bring down gulls and crows to feast upon it. The birds have previously been had daubs of coloured paint (a shade for each candidate) applied to their wing tips and the winner will be the candidate whose birds eat the most first. To ensure outsider birds do not join in and skew results Prince Phillip stands ready with a shotgun and blasts any errant pigeons who stray into the venerated ancient gaurantee of British democracy.

The winning candidate, now Speaker, is then picked up on the shoulders of Members and carried to the nearest Clark's shoe shop to be fitted with the special buckled shoes of office. This is our ancient birthright of clear, transparent and fully accountable Parliamentary democracy which makes us better than everyone else fully protected for the people of this great land.

Pardon for witches

A Lothians-based paranormal group, Full Moon Investigations, has asked the Scottish parliament to issue a posthumous pardon to all the people persecuted under charges of witchcraft throughout Scottish history; not the finest part of our long history and not a part the tourist industry likes to talk about too much, preferring either (often wrong) ancient history or extolling the Enlightenment (except, of course, if you are promoting a ghost walk tour!).

I know, I know, some people sigh cynically, what is the point of this nonsense? Every month there seems to be someone demanding a government issue a retroactive apology for something which happened long before most folks in the country were even born and aren't we all fed up with it, isn't it just trying to apply political correct modern sensibilities backwards onto long-past events to make us feel better? Well to be honest it is easy to think that way, but then consider that when we ignore past injustices we tend to allow those patterns to repeat.

What were some of the principal elements of witchcraft allegations in previous centuries? Picking on someone who was a bit different (old woman living on her own with cats), groups who may not have been popular with the majority (ultra Calvinists suspicious of Catholics), people in positions of power encouraging utterly irrational hatred, suspicion and fear of those who are different for their own ends and using them to consolidate their own grip over the populace, justify draconian changes in law and to prosecute actions which would normally be seen as uncivilised... Gee, sound even remotely like certain events in modern society? And if you are still thinking nah, it is just PC nonsense, just remember how the phrase 'witch hunt' has become a phrase we use regularly when talking about the persecution of any individual or small group. Then think again.

Referendum? Why would we want to know what the people think?

The three main opposition parties in Scotland have done pretty much what they threatened to do and joined together to try and block any possible referendum on the likelihood of Scottish independence in the face of the new SNP government's attempts. I remain far from convinced that independence is a good idea and so far the SNP hasn't really outlined exactly how it will work, how it can be paid for and sustained and how transnational obligations such as defence or even something as simple as running foreign embassies, will work. However, I am furious that the other political parties are not just campaigning against the idea of independence (which is their right if they choose) but against the idea of a referendum - put simply they are utterly against the idea of the citizens of the country being given the chance to put forward their own opinion, hardly a democratic stance. In fact, quite the opposite. If you don't believe in allowing the people to voice their own opinion and vote then why masquerade as a 'democratic representative of the people'? And I'm especially ashamed of the Scottish Liberal Democrats partaking in such anti-democratic actions - they held this stance before the recent elections and it certainly cost them my vote.

Elected

Well, finally last night the last result crawled in from Thursday's elections (for local councils and also the Scottish Parliament) - there was a huge mess in counting votes because of a new syste, exacerbated by running both parliamentary and local elections at the same time, meaning three sets for folks to fill in (the parliament has two votes, one for constituency MSPs and another for the list vote, which gives independents a chance) and using two different methods. I found it clear enough to use, but I actually took a few minutes to read the instructions, I suspect a lot of the spoiled papers are a result of people simply not paying attention or because they are so used to the older system they never realised it was now different.

Still, with tens of thousands of spoiled papers and a counting breakdown which delayed everything it is little wonder Scottish political commentators are calling it a 'guddle' (there's a good old Scots term for you). And it means a large number of people have been disenfranchised; since in some places the winner only got in by the skin of their teeth (sometimes as low as 40-odd votes) but the number of spoiled ballot papers was higher than their majority it effectively means there can't be much confidence in their election. Between electoral mess-ups, disenfranchised voters and the recent bout of sunny weather it is just like being in Florida...

So after being neck and neck all day yesterday the final result has come down to the Scottish National Party under Alex Salmond winning by a single seat, to be the biggest party in the Scots parliament. But with such a tiny majority they can't form a proper government without going into coalition, most likely with the Liberal Democrats. The Libs bland leader in Scotland already ruled out doing a deal with the SNP if they stick to their guns to set up a referendum for the people to vote on whether we should pursue independence or not, which I really don't understand. I can understand the Libs may be against independence (I am far from convinced myself since no-one has really, properly explained how we can work it) but to be against the most democratic of things, a public referendum where all the people are asked what they think is simply foolish and undemocratic and, in my opinion, a betrayal of Liberal values, which is another reason why I have no faith in the Scottish Liberals anymore. Agree or disagree with the idea of independence by all means, but how can you be against allowing the people to vote on it??

It is also a big shocker to Labour - Scotland has been a huge block of Labour votes for generations, something they could take for granted, even in the bad old days of Herr Thatchler's evil dictatorship from London in the 80s when Labour lost tons of support they still had a huge block here. Now they have blown that after decades, which speaks volumes for how much people are pissed off with their cronyism, nepotism, corruption and utter inept handling of government. A lot of it was also because of what the Labour party has done in power in the London parliament under Blair - clearly a lot of us thought yeah, we know that isn't the fault of the Scottish parliament, but neither have you stood up and criticised them, so you are tarred with the same brush.

Still, such a small majority means it looks like people didn't vote so much for a march to independence as vote against Labour in disgust. It does means that when the notorious war criminal Blair steps down from the London parliament and Gordon Brown takes over (as seems likely) he is going to be a Labour prime minister in London dealing with a Scottish parliament run by his political opponents (embarassingly the constituency right next to Brown's own in Fife also went to the SNP) which means the relationship between London and Edinburgh is going to be rather interesting in coming months and years - which I am sure Salmond will exploit to push the independence agenda. I wonder if I should declare my own Independent Republic of Woolamaloo and offer to make it the free homeland for bloggerdom?