That House of Commons seems like a really funny business. Why are those people standing up after someone has spoken. Is it something like a +1 mechanism? Is anyone recording it? The whole scene seems like something out of Alice in Wonderland.
In general they are more on their toes but you do occasionally catch a long distance shot (from above the main lobby entrance) of someone waking up particularly at the stupid late night debates they have.
It's the same law that doesn't allow the footage to be used for parody.
I imagine they would have to sign a contract to get the footage and would be bound by the draconian idea that men and women sitting two swords length apart across a chamber guarded by men in tights are not to be laughed at.
The houses actually run fairly well, and part of the reason why is traditions like this. I would happily take this over the American system for example, where there is no back and forward because people have to go to a microphone to talk...
It's worth noting that the chamber of the house isn't the only way to influence proceedings. Recent years have seen a return to prominence of many of the select committees comprised of backbench MPs selected independently of the party whips.
The Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee was front and centre during the phone hacking scandal and any bill put before parliament will have gone in front of a committee before it gets there.
I think their complaint isn't that they were struggling due to shear numbers, but due to the partisan speaker and deference to party leaders.
Where he's disliked it's largely by those in his own party who don't like one or more of his own political move from the right towards the centre (and not just since being speaker), his Labour supporting wife or in some cases either his more humble beginnings than some of his Conservative colleagues or his own apparent ego. To me much of the criticism seems to stem from personal and political divisions within the Conservative party as Bercow's performance.
You're never going to get an entirely impartial speaker given that this is someone who ran as a political candidate for one party or another but I think you need to consider the criticisms in the light of who it's coming from.
I think thats the main problem. He/she acts as a moderator, and I struggle to think of any other forum where a moderator has such a glaring potential for the appearance bias (whether exerted or not). On the plus side he is elected, on the other-hand its by MPs and not the public.
Its not just an issue with the current speaker, similar allegations are levelled at most. Fewer with Betty perhaps, some say because she was a "mother figure" who was well liked and commanded respect, others say she was vicious if you spoke out about her and it wasn't worth it.
Generally speaking, it works.
Quote: "That this House believes the procedure whereby honourable Members are required to wear a top hat or other suitable head covering during certain proceedings on the floor of the House should be ended; calls upon the Select Committee on Procedure to recommend ending the practice; and believes that this whole procedure brings the House into disrepute across the world."
[1] http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/business-pape...