:nelson
Good, hopefuly Brown is next.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8057203.stm
QuoteMichael Martin has told MPs he intends to stand down, so becoming the first Commons Speaker to be effectively forced out of office for 300 years.
In a brief statement to a packed House of Commons he said he would step down on 21 June, with his successor set to be elected by MPs the next day.
Mr Martin, who will also step down as an MP, has faced criticism over his handling of the MP expenses issue.
The Glasgow North East MP has been an MP for 30 years and Speaker for nine.
At a news conference Prime Minister Gordon Brown paid tribute to his "30 years of public service" - a record of which, he said, Mr Martin and his family could be proud.
It was Mr Martin's third statement on the row in eight days - the first, in which he attacked MPs who questioned his handling of the furore, was criticised by many MPs - one accused him of protecting "vested interests".
Hear hears
On Monday he apologised for his role in events but gave no indication about when he would stand down - only to be challenged by a succession of MPs who asked for a debate on a motion of no confidence in him.
In a statement to MPs on Tuesday which lasted just 35 seconds, Mr Martin said: "I have always felt that the House is at its best when it is united.
"In order to that unity can be maintained, I have decided that I will relinquish office of Speaker on Sunday 21 June.
"This will allow the House to proceed to elect a new Speaker on Monday 22 June."
He finished by adding "that is all I have to say on this matter" before going on to ask for questions to Foreign Secretary David Miliband.
Mr Miliband said the House would respect his wishes and pay its tributes at "a later date".
But independent MP Bob Spink, who asked the first question, paid "the warmest possible tribute" to Mr Martin - to "hear hears" from MPs.
'Aggressive attitude'
Mr Martin's spokeswoman said he would stand down as MP for Glasgow North East on June 21, sparking a by-election in what has been considered a safe Labour seat.
Later in a written statement Commons leader Harriet Harman paid tribute to Mr Martin's "passionate commitment to the House" and said he had served "with distinction".
She said: "Michael Martin's resignation today as Speaker is an act of great generosity to the House of Commons that Members of Parliament from all parties will respect."
Labour MP Paul Flynn, who was among those who signed the no confidence motion, told the BBC it had been "painful" to see the Speaker forced out but it was inevitable.
But he added: "He had not recognised the seriousness of the situation and... made a disastrous situation even worse by his lack of penitence, by his aggressive attitude by his attempt to blame the whistleblowers."
Mr Martin's critics say he was the driving force behind repeated attempts by Commons authorities to block details of MPs' expenses from coming out under Freedom of Information legislation.
But his supporters say he has long been the victim of snobbery and has been made a scapegoat for a scandal that has affected all the main parties.
Meanwhile, in other events linked to the row over MPs' second homes expenses, the Metropolitan Police have said they will not investigate how details of claims came to be leaked to the Daily Telegraph.
A spokesman said it was likely the "public interest defence would be likely to prove a significant hurdle" to a criminal prosecution.
But he said officers from the Economic and Specialist Crime Command had met senior Crown Prosecution Service solicitors to discuss allegations some MPs had misused public money.
Moat cost
Gordon Brown has said no Labour MP who broke expenses rules would stand at the next election.
And former Conservative minister Douglas Hogg said he would stand down as an MP at the next general election.
He has already agreed to repay £2,200 - the cost of clearing a moat at his country estate - which had been on paperwork submitted to the Commons fees office in support of his claims.
Tory backbencher Douglas Carswell - who put forward the motion of no confidence in Mr Martin - said the Parliamentary system had fallen into disrepute with many MPs being seen as "parasites" over the expenses scandal.
But he told the BBC: "Removing Michael Martin is not the end, it is the beginning - a new Speaker has to be reformist, they need to be progressive."
Mr Martin, Speaker since 2000, is due to meet party leaders later to discuss interim reform proposals for MPs' expenses.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=914.0
When a king tried this they chopped his head off, but newspaper editors seem to be above the law of parliamentary dignity.
QuoteBut he told the BBC: "Removing Michael Martin is not the end, it is the beginning - a new Speaker has to be reformist, they need to be progressive."
So much for the Spreaker being non-partisan.
Quote from: Viking on May 19, 2009, 01:03:13 PM
When a king tried this they chopped his head off, but newspaper editors seem to be above the law of parliamentary dignity.
There is never a bad reason for chopping off a King's head.
Quote from: Valmy on May 19, 2009, 01:17:22 PM
Quote from: Viking on May 19, 2009, 01:03:13 PM
When a king tried this they chopped his head off, but newspaper editors seem to be above the law of parliamentary dignity.
There is never a bad reason for chopping off a King's head.
MB was right. You're a tool of Satan.
At any rate, I don't think that this is very significant. On the one hand, it paints Labour as inept and foolish. However, being Speaker isn't very high profile, and the election is far enough out that nobody will remember Martin when the time comes. Moreover, playing with the expenses is playing with fire, since no party had their hands clean.
Quote from: Valmy on May 19, 2009, 01:17:22 PM
Quote from: Viking on May 19, 2009, 01:03:13 PM
When a king tried this they chopped his head off, but newspaper editors seem to be above the law of parliamentary dignity.
There is never a bad reason for chopping off a King's head.
Many bad reasons for not chopping off a King's head.
The king might be dead already, I don't approve of the mutilation of corpses, like they did to Cromwell. No reason is really sufficient.
The downside might be bigger than the upside. The King might bleed on your expensive carpet, you might be about to go out on a fourth date with his daughter etc..etc..
There might be more fitting punishments. You might have procured the services of an expert torturer.
Quote from: Neil on May 19, 2009, 01:48:58 PM
MB was right. You're a tool of Satan.
:yeah:
But come on now, I cannot keep my 'Valmy' name and not cheer on chopping heads off Kings.
Quote from: Valmy on May 19, 2009, 02:01:56 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 19, 2009, 01:48:58 PM
MB was right. You're a tool of Satan.
:yeah:
But come on now, I cannot keep my 'Valmy' name and not cheer on chopping heads off Kings.
I can change your username to Jean Bodin.
Change his name to Joesph Bonaparte.
Armin Miews?
Quote from: Viking on May 19, 2009, 01:03:13 PM
When a king tried this they chopped his head off, but newspaper editors seem to be above the law of parliamentary dignity.
the difference is that the king closed parliament. the papers merely expressed an opinion; sounds like it was the House itself that was sharpening the axe for this speaker.
also, anyone waxing about parliamentary dignity should watch or attend a few Question Periods.
Quote from: saskganesh on May 19, 2009, 02:49:30 PM
Quote from: Viking on May 19, 2009, 01:03:13 PM
When a king tried this they chopped his head off, but newspaper editors seem to be above the law of parliamentary dignity.
the difference is that the king closed parliament. the papers merely expressed an opinion; sounds like it was the House itself that was sharpening the axe for this speaker.
also, anyone waxing about parliamentary dignity should watch or attend a few Question Periods.
Both were trying to remove the speaker. But as to the issue of dignity, parliament gets to behave like complete tossers and keep it's dignity.
Quote from: Valmy on May 19, 2009, 01:16:55 PM
QuoteBut he told the BBC: "Removing Michael Martin is not the end, it is the beginning - a new Speaker has to be reformist, they need to be progressive."
So much for the Spreaker being non-partisan.
Progressive generally doesn't mean the same thing in that sense. What he means is reformist of the House of Commons. Martin was criticised because he was basically a shop steward for MPs who conservatively looked after their interests. That's what got them into this expenses scandal. His replacement needs to be a reformist and progressive in terms of the House of Commons, ie. in favour of changing expenses rules and in favour of transparency.
QuoteHowever, being Speaker isn't very high profile, and the election is far enough out that nobody will remember Martin when the time comes.
I don't know. The election could, God willing, be sooner than that.
This is huge in British terms. I think if some independents got their act together we could see an anti-incumbent wave, regardless of party, if there's the merest whiff of corruption. Interestingly this scandal still doesn't have a name. Most of our scandals just become 'nannygate' or what have you. That this one hasn't is, in my opinion, a sign of its severity (because our -gates are pretty pathetic).
This has made it a bit difficult for people like me. I'm generally anti-anti-politician sentiment which I think is far too prevalent. I actually support far higher wages for them and far more expenses (for staff). But it's very difficult to argue for that with this shower of idiots.
In the name of God, go :(
Quote from: Viking on May 19, 2009, 03:20:20 PM
Both were trying to remove the speaker. But as to the issue of dignity, parliament gets to behave like complete tossers and keep it's dignity.
Parliament's never had any dignity. When you get elected speaker you get dragged to the chair while the house erupts in cheers and howls.
Edit: Also Parliament's a very, very ruthless place once your authority's gone. And to pick you up on your civil war history Charles didn't try to remove the Speaker he demanded the Speaker (who was sitting with his authority) tell him where certain men were. The Speaker said he had no eyes to see except those given him by the House. The King then left.
Cromwell on the other hand removed several speakers and, the last speaker to be removed was done so in the 1695, by the House.
I think it's wrong to say the papers did it. The party leaders refused to meet with him unless he promised he'd announce his retirement date. He totally misjudged the mood of the country when he decided that rather than focusing on the expenses he'd focus on finding who leaked the list of expenses to the papers and call in the police :bleeding:
The initial (bad) consequence will be a relatively high vote for various swivel-eyed extremists in the June 4th elections for the European parliament.
The consequences next year, when the general election is held, are likely to be better. I envisage an interesting campaign where each incumbent will have to defend their expenses record. There will be an increased engagement by the electorate in the process.