If you like fast convergence, go to China or North Korea , your request will be guaranteed.
I don't like how a notionally neutral role has been distorted into a political weapon. Historically within modern history the UK parliament has had independent and functional speakers and deputy speakers. Lord Thomas of Tonypandy and Betty Boothroyd come to mind. John Berkow rather let the side down with some facetious behaviour in the chamber and bullying accusations but overall, a neutral arbiter between opposing sides chosen from amongst them is possible.
Fast convergence is not inherently a problem. What's a problem here is not the speaker election, it's the underlying dynamics of destroy-the-joint performative dimwits and serial liars. You know this as well as everyone else.
If the majority of the party is willing to tolerate this guy, then anybody going against him breaks the party trust that they need to get anything done. It bodes badly for the rest of the session.
For a lot of the dissenters, that's OK. This has long been the anti-government party, and it's not surprising that a fraction of it are happy to have no sitting legislature at all. It's actually a bit surprising this hasn't happened before.
So this isn't really about "fast convergence". This is about not even getting to the "convergence" step. (Oh, and you'd be surprised at how much complexity and delay there is in the Chinese Communist Party. It does have an absolute leader at the top, but unlike North Korea, it is a functioning government with a lot of internal competition at all of the lower levels.)