JOHN BERCOW faces attempts to oust him as the Commons Speaker immediately after the general election amid crossparty anger about his conduct.
Tory and Labour backbenchers are devising an extraordinary plan: to object to his automatic reappointment if there is a change of government.
MPs from both parties accuse Bercow of bringing shame on the office of Speaker by allowing his wife, an aspiring Labour councillor, to give a highly party political interview attacking David Cameron.
Bercow has also alienated MPs on all sides with his handling of the expenses row, triggering accusations of self-interest and inconsistency over his failure to support penalties for "flipping" properties.
He legally avoided paying thousands of pounds in capital gains tax on the sale of two homes by declaring them as his main residence to the taxman despite nominating them as his second homes for the purposes of his expenses.
Advertisement
In a sign of the scale of discontent, many MPs are openly questioning his judgment and preparing to move against him at the first opportunity.
Nadine Dorries, the Tory MP who has been one of Bercow's most vocal critics, said: "When a new parliament sits, we MPs, at a strategic moment, have the opportunity to shout 'no' when the motion to reinstate the Speaker is announced. I reckon it's going to be a fairly loud chorus."
Denis MacShane, the Labour former Foreign Office minister, lambasted Bercow for failing to support MPs against inaccurate demands for expenses repayments after a review by Sir Thomas Legg.
"I voted for John and he has freshened up debates," said MacShane. "But the Speaker is there to defend backbench MPs, not act as the echo of retired mandarins or party leaders outbidding each other in sanctimonious declarations on MPs' pay."
Bercow, the MP for Buckingham, has one of the safest seats in the country with a majority of more than 18,000. Under parliamentary conventions, he will stand for re-election as Speaker, rather than as a Tory candidate, and only independents will be allowed to stand against him.
Advertisement
As he has been in office less than a year, his reappointment to the post after the general election - expected next spring - would normally be a formality. However, he is deeply unpopular among Tory MPs, who regard him as too left-wing to be a Conservative. They will attempt to oust him if they win a majority at the election.
In a personal attack, Bercow's wife Sally last week labelled Cameron a "merchant of spin", accusing him of favouring the wealthy over the "mainstream majority". Backbenchers saw the interview as a serious breach of the convention that the Speaker remains politically impartial.
In her interview, Bercow's wife also described a battle with drink and a fondness for one-night stands when she was in her twenties with men she picked up in bars. "I liked the excitement of not knowing how a night was going to end," she said.
The Tory MP Mark Pritchard warned that the Speaker, dubbed "Red John" by his critics, was on probation.
"John is a very able politician and he will know he is living in a de facto trial period as Speaker," he said. "A large part of the future is down to his own actions between now and the next election."
Advertisement
Bercow's conduct has also raised eyebrows in his constituency, where he faces a challenge from Nigel Farage, a UKIP MEP.
However, supporters of the Speaker point out that parliamentary rules are weighted in favour of retaining the incumbent after the election.
Bercow accepts super-injunctions can gag reporting of Commons
Legal advisers to the Speaker of the House of Commons have conceded that controversial "super-injunctions" can prevent the reporting of proceedings in parliament, writes Steven Swinford.
In a submission to a Commons select committee, Carter-Ruck, a law firm that specialises in libel, argues that newspapers and publishers would be in contempt of court if they published parliamentary questions, answers or debates that fell under super-injunctions.
Advertisement
Advisers to John Bercow, the Speaker, are understood to have informed the culture, media and sport committee that Carter-Ruck's position is correct. MPs regard the position as a serious threat to free speech and the proper functioning of democracy.
Super-injunctions - under which even reporting the existence of the injunction is banned - are increasingly being used to stop the media publishing information. MPs are now concerned that they threaten the media's right to report what MPs can freely say in parliament, a privilege affirmed in the Parliamentary Papers Act of 1840.
John Whittingdale, chairman of the culture committee, said: "The right of a newspaper or publication to quote what is said in parliament, without restraint, is fundamental. If that is not the case, it raises serious questions which parliament will need to address."
In September Carter-Ruck obtained a super-injunction for Trafigura, one of the world's largest oil and commodity trading firms. It banned the reporting of a leaked study which stated that toxic waste dumped by Trafigura in the Ivory Coast was capable of severely damaging human health. It also banned any reporting that the injunction even existed.
The following month Paul Farrelly, Labour MP for Newcastle-under-Lyme, asked a question in parliament that revealed the existence of the injunction. Carter-Ruck subsequently warned newspapers that they would be in contempt if they reported the question.
Advertisement
The lawyers backtracked only after news of the injunction was spread across the internet by bloggers and on Twitter, the social network. Eventually Trafigura lifted the injunction and the parties in the dispute have now agreed that the waste could have caused only "flu-like symptoms".
At the time of the disagreement, Bridget Prentice, the justice minister, said Carter-Ruck was wrong to claim super-injunctions applied to the reporting of parliamentary proceedings.
However, in a submission to the culture committee published last week, Andrew Stephenson, a senior partner at the firm, said the minister was under a "misapprehension".
He said that while MPs were guaranteed the right to free speech under the 1688 Bill of Rights within the House of Commons, the reporting of parliament remained subject to court orders.
The Speaker's counsel declined to comment, but is understood to agree with Stephenson's assessment.
Jack Straw, the justice secretary, last week described the effect of the current law on libel and defamation as "chilling" and promised change.