Skip to main content

Why Mr. Speaker Martin should resign, and what happens if he does not

Parliament is a shambles.

The release of the astonishing litany of expenses claims has hurt all parties. In the end though the people who it should hurt the most are those who have tried to stop the release of these expenses.


A core of politicians led by the Liberal Democrats have always believed in transparency and accountability for what is being spent. The Lib Dems have generally released their expenses as a matter of routine. Thus, although there are a few claims that are questionable, they are a dramatically smaller matter than the outrageous claims made by the moat cleaning Conservatives or the double counting Labourites.


Then there is David McLean MP. He, you may recall ,was the MP that led the amendment to the "Freedom of Information" Act that exempted MPs from several of its provisions. McLean was opposed by the Liberal Democrats, but supported by the majority on both the Conservative and Labour front benches.

Worst of all it was supported by the Speaker himself. As the authoritative voice of the administration of the House of Commons, the Speaker has both benefited from the "broken" system and sought to keep his own affairs under wraps. It may not be the "high crimes and misdemeanours" that forced the exit of the last Speaker to be impeached, Sir John Trevor, in 1695, but it is a misjudgement that has undermined the authority of Parliament and threatened the collapse of the Constitution itself. For that alone, Mr. Speaker Martin must leave office immediately.

The political system can not be cleaned while the Speaker remains in office- that is now absolutely clear.

If he does not go now, he must be removed.

If he is not removed, along with the most egregious of the false claiments, there is now such a rage in the country that it could, quite conceivably, threaten British Democracy. The British people are genuinely fair minded, but there is still a sense of shock and of rage at what has been going one over the past few years. Unless Parliament seriously addresses the issue of reform itself, then the British people will do it for themselves. A breakdown of the constitution is no light matter and the consequences could be dire- including a lurch towards fascism.

Those who say "it could never happen here" may overestimate the stability of the system.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...