How would you run it?

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...

If you talk to some backbench MPs (usually opposition and/or minority parties) you will find that they (claim to) struggle to get the (partisan) speaker to allot time for them to speak, particularly in high-profile debates and sessions.

There are over 600 MPs, that's always going to be an issue.

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.

> There are over 600 MPs, that's always going to be an issue.

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.

The current speaker was the first the be voted in in an exhaustive ballot suggesting that he's likely had more support (or at least more consensus) than previous speakers.

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.

> You're never going to get an entirely impartial speaker given that this is someone who ran as a political candidate for one party

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.

Yeah, appointing the speaker is a problem. Good ones can be great, bad ones dreadful.

You could at least create the appearance of order by creating an electronic system that registers the desire to speak, then selects speakers at random and/or in order of request or seniority, automatically alerting the chairperson at certain intervals to ensure a fair distribution of time.

This is pretty much what the Speaker does. The Speaker knows most of the MPs personally, knows where their expertise lies, whether they will have something valuable to add to the debate, etc.

Generally speaking, it works.