The Speaker of the House of Commons to step down

[Banquo's Ghost]

It looks as if Speaker Martin, the most disastrous holder of the office for several centuries, will finally offer to resign this afternoon.

Yesterday saw unprecedented scenes in the House of Commons as the Speaker's authority evaporated in front of one's eyes. It was squalid behaviour, but symptomatic of the utterly base moral vacuum that Parliament now inhabits.

One can but hope this cathartic step will spur on deeper and more necessary reform and the immediate dissolution of this parliament so that the next one, empowered for reform, does exactly that.

Whereas I have been reasonably impressed by Cameron (at least in his ability to read and react, if not his initial leadership) one would worry that he will fall into Blair's trap: possessed of a powerful majority, elected on a mandate for reform and change, the lure of the monarchial powers thus afforded proved too much and reform was diluted into uselessness because the status quo is so much more appealing when in government. Cameron cannot allow his undoubted mandate to cheat the people of the United Kingdom a second time.

Electoral reform to PR, an elected second house (or a return to a hereditary house, anything is better than the bastardised version Blair created) application of the Freedom of Information Act across government with minimal exception, and a written constitution must be forthcoming. Only then will the electorate re-engage with the democratic process instead of chasing politicians and their canvassers down the street with pitchforks.

For interested persons, I include a poll to canvas thoughts on the likely successor to the Speaker's Chair. Whereas Vince Cable is clearly the pre-eminent politician of this time, he ought to be Prime Minister, not Speaker. The fact that he is not even leader of his party speaks volumes. My own view therefore is that Sir George Young has the gravitas, record and breeding to be the best Speaker for these turbulent times - though Frank Field might just have the style to succeed, another Labour Speaker is unthinkable.

[InsaneApache]

I'll go with Frank Field. One of the few members of the Labour party I admire. An honest decent man, who, above all, talks common sense.

Martin was just a disaster.

[Furunculus]

Other - They should bring back Betty Boothroyd, she was awesome.

Martin is a cretin, whose limited intelligence is consumed by his partisan need to fight the class-war, which makes him totally unsuitable to EVER have been considered for the role of speaker.

[Furunculus]

Electoral reform to PR, an elected second house (or a return to a hereditary house, anything is better than the bastardised version Blair created) application of the Freedom of Information Act across government with minimal exception, and a written constitution must be forthcoming. Only then will the electorate re-engage with the democratic process instead of chasing politicians and their canvassers down the street with pitchforks.

For interested persons, I include a poll to canvas thoughts on the likely successor to the Speaker's Chair. Whereas Vince Cable is clearly the pre-eminent politician of this time, he ought to be Prime Minister, not Speaker. The fact that he is not even leader of his party speaks volumes. My own view therefore is that Sir George Younger has the gravitas, record and breeding to be the best Speaker for these turbulent times - though Frank Field might just have the style to succeed, another Labour Speaker is unthinkable.

anything but PR, and i say this as a Con who has watched the horror show of the last 12 years. i trust british politics enough to allow a clear mandate to enact change.

i voted other because i don't know any of the other characters well enough to side one way or another.

[InsaneApache]

Aye, he seemed to forget that he was the Speaker not a shop steward. Plonker.

[Vladimir]

"Breeding" Banquo? That's disturbing for a couple reasons. First is that whenever Sir Whatever's breeding is mentioned I think of the Spanish Hapsburgs. Secondly, well, read the monarchy thread. I thought we were past that.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Och, I'll miss old Gorbals Mick. He might not have known what he was doing but he's more likeable than the usual boring conservative.

[InsaneApache]

Och, I'll miss old Gorbals Mick. He might not have known what he was doing but he's more likeable than the usual boring conservative.

Bizzarre! Against convention the last two Speakers have come from the Labour ranks. I think Weatherill was the last tory and that must be twenty years ago. I'll say it again. Bizzarre.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Bizzarre! Against convention the last two Speakers have come from the Labour ranks. I think Weatherill was the last tory and that must be twenty years ago. I'll say it again. Bizzarre.

I don't mean a champagne socialist this is the Gorbals we are talking about.

[InsaneApache]

Now you've completely lost me.

[Banquo's Ghost]

anything but PR, and i say this as a Con who has watched the horror show of the last 12 years. i trust british politics enough to allow a clear mandate to enact change.

The problem with the first-past-the-post system is that it only works if your remove parties and the whip. All horror shows (and the last 12 years is not the only example) have been facilitated by the fact that Prime Ministers have monarchial powers - and if they get a substantial majority, there is no way Parliament can hold the executive to account. Powers of patronage are exclusively those of the Prime Minister so everyone with any ambition for advancement kowtows.

Mrs Thatcher destroyed Cabinet government which was the only restraining hand left that laid heavily on the party system, constitutionally speaking. John Major had small majorities, and had no choice but to try and govern with consensus - which he did, quite successfully (he is, in my opinion, one of the greatly under-rated PMs) until his own party fractured. Blair, with a massive majority, once again rejected Cabinet government and took the familiar route.

British parliaments are actually coalitions anyway. The positions of people within parties are often further apart than between parties. It would be sensible to make this more explicit to the electorate. Furthermore, both major parties now have re-invented the depth of sleaze - yet any new party has an almost impossible task to break the two-party stranglehold because they will never overcome the existing system.

I would be in favour of removing parties from politics and banning the whips. Modern politics may be unable to cope with this - few voters could tell you the name of their MP, but most can identify with a party. However, together with educating the electorate to take responsibility for their franchise (after all, this government and its excesses are only what the supine citizens deserve) a constituency system would be, in my opinion, the best option.

If one wishes to keep any kind of party activity however, proportional representation is the only way to avoid being in this self-same position in a few years time.

[Scurvy]

Bizzarre! Against convention the last two Speakers have come from the Labour ranks. I think Weatherill was the last tory and that must be twenty years ago. I'll say it again. Bizzarre.

I thought the convention was debated? --> something like the ruling party had always appointed the speaker, but it happened that each time the speaker changed, the parties changed.

I didn't vote on poll, as I have no idea who is best suited to the role - although Menzies Campbell presumably ruled himself out with the expenses thing, and IMO it should be a conservative, just to even it out a bit.

[InsaneApache]

With Esther Rantzen standing at the next election, we can look forwards to some skateboarding ducks in parliament. About time an all.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Now you've completely lost me.

I'm just joking about Mike being a hardcore radical (you do know about the Gorbals, right?).

[InsaneApache]

Yes I do. I lived in Scotland for a couple of years.

Boothroyd came from Dewsbury, you know, Shannon Mathews country. Not exactley salubrious. I'm still lost on your point though.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Naturally, I do not know who most of the candidate speakers from the poll are.

Just posting here to say that I am fascinated by recent events in Britain. This time, it's serious. The British electorate means business. Exciting times!

(Do they by any chance have a handful of inconsequential vagabonds and drunks locked up in a small prison tower in London somewhere? About to be freed by a pitchfork-armed mob? )

[KukriKhan]

So, with Mr. Martin being sacrificed, is this the end of it? Or just the start of inquiries, inspections and investigations? And will/would those i,i & i's thwart the House's ability to do its normal business?

[InsaneApache]

So, with Mr. Martin being sacrificed, is this the end of it? Or just the start of inquiries, inspections and investigations? And will/would those i,i & i's thwart the House's ability to do its normal business?

Not the end by a long chalk. People are furious at being bilked by our elected representatives. Combined with the general ineptitude and incompetence of our present government, the people are in no mood to be lectured to by these no marks.

I expect that the three main parties will take a hammering in the EUSSR elections in June. I also suspect that come the general election there will be an awful lot of independent Mps in parliament.

My moneys on the skateboarding duck.

[Furunculus]

the end of it will come after the next general election, which will be a bloodbath for those perceived to be at the forefront of the sleaze.

[Furunculus]

The problem with the first-past-the-post system is that it only works if your remove parties and the whip. All horror shows (and the last 12 years is not the only example) have been facilitated by the fact that Prime Ministers have monarchial powers - and if they get a substantial majority, there is no way Parliament can hold the executive to account. Powers of patronage are exclusively those of the Prime Minister so everyone with any ambition for advancement kowtows.

Mrs Thatcher destroyed Cabinet government which was the only restraining hand left that laid heavily on the party system, constitutionally speaking. John Major had small majorities, and had no choice but to try and govern with consensus - which he did, quite successfully (he is, in my opinion, one of the greatly under-rated PMs) until his own party fractured. Blair, with a massive majority, once again rejected Cabinet government and took the familiar route.

British parliaments are actually coalitions anyway. The positions of people within parties are often further apart than between parties. It would be sensible to make this more explicit to the electorate. Furthermore, both major parties now have re-invented the depth of sleaze - yet any new party has an almost impossible task to break the two-party stranglehold because they will never overcome the existing system.

I would be in favour of removing parties from politics and banning the whips. Modern politics may be unable to cope with this - few voters could tell you the name of their MP, but most can identify with a party. However, together with educating the electorate to take responsibility for their franchise (after all, this government and its excesses are only what the supine citizens deserve) a constituency system would be, in my opinion, the best option.

If one wishes to keep any kind of party activity however, proportional representation is the only way to avoid being in this self-same position in a few years time.

i recognise the flaw you point out, however PR always strikes me as the option for the electorate that does not hold faith in the electorate, and vice versa.

i am proud to live in a country where the electorate has faith in the civic duty of the political class to govern in their name without resulting in authoritarianism, and that the political class has faith in the collective maturity of the electorate not to fall under the sway of demagogues.

moving to PR is admission of failure in team GB in my eyes.

[InsaneApache]

There's a great big gaping flaw in your argument there Furunculus. The scales have at last fallen from the eyes of the electorate. I was just several years in front of the curve, as they say in managementspeak.

[tibilicus]

Either of the Lib Dems, preferably Cable. I'm not just saying that because I support the Lib Dems either, the fact is Cable has 10x the experience and is 10x the politician in comparison to most of the people on this list.

It would also be a nice break to have a non Con-Lab speaker. In the past many have failed to stick to the role of political neutrality and surely putting a third party speaker in place would be a nice balance. Also Cable has proved he is competent when it comes to political affairs.

[InsaneApache]

He does a mean foxtrot an all....

[Furunculus]

There's a great big gaping flaw in your argument there Furunculus. The scales have at last fallen from the eyes of the electorate. I was just several years in front of the curve, as they say in managementspeak.

to you maybe, this is a natural pendulum swing to me which right now has reached its apogee. no need for panic, just make sure that as much of gov't is transparent as possible.

[InsaneApache]

Gone by the 21st of June.

Don't let the door hit your arse on the way out Martin.

[Tribesman]

Other :
Ian Paisley , he is the oldest in the house , make the other half of the chuckle brothers deputy speaker.
Or put in Adams , that will be funny .
Or maybe to bring some Respect to the office put in Galloway , he should be be good at ripping into people over disputes.

[AussieGiant]

It looks as if Speaker Martin, the most disastrous holder of the office for several centuries, will finally offer to resign this afternoon.

Yesterday saw unprecedented scenes in the House of Commons as the Speaker's authority evaporated in front of one's eyes. It was squalid behaviour, but symptomatic of the utterly base moral vacuum that Parliament now inhabits.

One can but hope this cathartic step will spur on deeper and more necessary reform and the immediate dissolution of this parliament so that the next one, empowered for reform, does exactly that.

Whereas I have been reasonably impressed by Cameron (at least in his ability to read and react, if not his initial leadership) one would worry that he will fall into Blair's trap: possessed of a powerful majority, elected on a mandate for reform and change, the lure of the monarchial powers thus afforded proved too much and reform was diluted into uselessness because the status quo is so much more appealing when in government. Cameron cannot allow his undoubted mandate to cheat the people of the United Kingdom a second time.

Electoral reform to PR, an elected second house (or a return to a hereditary house, anything is better than the bastardised version Blair created) application of the Freedom of Information Act across government with minimal exception, and a written constitution must be forthcoming. Only then will the electorate re-engage with the democratic process instead of chasing politicians and their canvassers down the street with pitchforks.

For interested persons, I include a poll to canvas thoughts on the likely successor to the Speaker's Chair. Whereas Vince Cable is clearly the pre-eminent politician of this time, he ought to be Prime Minister, not Speaker. The fact that he is not even leader of his party speaks volumes. My own view therefore is that Sir George Young has the gravitas, record and breeding to be the best Speaker for these turbulent times - though Frank Field might just have the style to succeed, another Labour Speaker is unthinkable.

Great sentiment and I truly hope so, but what part of politicians behaviour have we observed in the last 18 years that gives any indication that this wont simply repeat itself in another 2 to 3 years?

The cycle of disgraceful behaviour is ingrained, institutionalised and terminal.

It's like scolding a dog for licking it's private parts.

(Apologies for the visual representation in arrears there guys. I'm big on analogies and examples )

[LittleGrizzly]

I have to admit i don't really understand this speaker business....

I was basically under the impression his job was to chair debates in parliment, as in keep it running smoothly, make sure people get thier chance to speak and a few shouts of order now and again when the mps get a bit flustered...

But it is also his job to look after MP's which is what he was up to with the whole blocking expenses claims ?

I did feel sorry for him the other day in parliment might be because he looks like a nice guy and i always feel pity for even the most awful people when they get dumped unceremonously out of power...

Is the main reason the speaker is getting replaced because of the blocking expenses thing ?

I like the sound of gable mainly becuase hes outside of the 2 main parties... in all honesty i don't really now any of the names of the list... i could tell my who my local mp is though... names a bit tricky though..

[Adrian II]

Just posting here to say that I am fascinated by recent events in Britain. This time, it's serious. The British electorate means business. Exciting times!

Aren't they? And they certainly put paid to recurrent British whining about corruption, absenteeism and the expenses culture in France or Brussels. Makes one wonder how the British public will react? Will they chop off some heads (the French way) or elect a brute to do the chopping for them (the German way)?

In the background of all of this, I hear the constant drumroll of forces affirming that democracy is a shambles and that there is an alternative, that we deserve better.

[LittleGrizzly]

I heard an intresting bit on the expenses debate the other day...

British mps are paid less than thier counterparts in other countrys (obviously america but more similar countrys like france and germany) back in the eastly 90's mps were told it wasn't politically a good idea to have a pay rise... so they should claim extra expenses instead...

Sounds fairly reasonable....

I think we should give mps a pay rise and make expenses only for no london mps who need a property to stay in overnight sometimes and cover thier expenses for trips they have to make... and nothing else... no moat cleaning, porn or gardeners...