Will Martin survive the expenses row?
February 24th, 2008
How long can he go on after his spokesman’s resignation?
The big political news in the UK this morning is about the future of the Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin, following the resignation yesterday of the £2000 a day consultant whose job it is to deal with the media on his behalf.
The Mail on Sunday splashes its investigation and reports that the advisor, and former Whitehall mandarin Mike Granatt, had quit “after admitting that the Speaker’s office had not told the truth about £4,000 worth of taxpayer-funded taxi rides Mr Martin’s wife Mary took to go shopping.”
He is quoted as saying: “I have found it no longer possible to work as the media adviser to the House of Commons Commission, and I have informed Mr Speaker that I am stepping down immediately..It is core to the ethical code by which I and my company operate that I tell the truth, and that I am given the truth to tell..However, I learned on Friday that I had been led to mislead journalists over material facts in a story concerning the Speaker’s household and the use of taxis..I have expressed my regrets to the [Mail on Sunday] journalist who brought this to my attention, and I offer them to anyone else who was similarly misled. I want to make it clear this arose through no fault of the Speaker.”
That last point might provide some help to Martin - who has been in the job since 2000. Also the role of Speaker is totally above the fray and he cannot be sacked. So the question is whether he can ride out the media storrm.
The essence of this morning’s story is that the paper established that he and his wife have been “using a secret limousine service to ferry them around in London and their home town, Glasgow – also at taxpayers’ expense..The Martins use £50,000 S-class Mercedes and Jaguar cars.”
This follows the row over him claiming a second-homes allowance on his constituency house in Glasgow – even though he has no mortgage on it and he is provided with what is described as a “lavish grace-and-favour apartment in the Commons”.
There is, of course, a political dimension with many opposition MPs claiming that he favours Labour members in debates. But he has his defenders. The Labour MP and regular PB contributor, Nick Palmer, posted this last night:”..there’s a lot to be said for MM’s charm - “The Honourable Member is usually very calm, it’s a shame he is getting so excited” rather than “Sit down!”
Will he survive? I would not bet on it but you don’t get to progress in Glasgow Labour politics without being tough.
There is no betting market yet - but I’m sure one will emerge in the next day or so.
MessageSpace Advertising
Mike asks: “Will he survive? I would not bet on it but you don’t get to progress in Glasgow Labour politics without being tough.”
This is surely the key aspect and we’ve already seen some evidence of just how fiercely he’s prepared to fight his corner.
My guess therefore is that he’ll resist tooth and nail being pushed out unless it becomes clear that this is the overwhelming wish of the House, but I certainly don’t see him staying beyond the next GE. From a betting perspective, I’d be looking for odds of at least 4-1 on him going before then.
Although he may occasionally “favour” Labour or the Government, isn’t the main complaint simply one of pure and simple ineptitude at keeping the House in order? His handling of PMQs naturally results in favouring the PM, but it is at heart a procedural incompetence and lack of control. He is letting people down because he is preventing Brown from being held to account.
Worst Speaker Ever
The words “It is core to the ethical code by which I operate that I tell the truth” should be tatooed on the back of each hand of each Member of Parliament so that they are reminded of them every time they put those hands into the public till.
The sooner Mr Martin goes, the better. He seems to find it difficult to maintain order in the Chamber, his rulings (when he bothers to enforce the standing orders at all) often seem incoherent and ill-founded, and his repeated incidents with Tory MPs such as David Heathcoat-Amory demonstrate that he is incapable of the impartiality and the appearance of impartiality that the job requires of him. He is quite frankly an embarrassment to the House of Commons.
Sir Alan Haselhurst would be my choice as a replacement, but certainly Sylvia Heal from the Labour benches would be a great improvement if the Government insist on having one of their own in the chair once again.
What are we to make of the departure of Mike Granatt*? Seems that somebody left him high and dry - but he says not the Speaker, so who then, the Speaker’s wife?
Whatever, surely Gordon will do all he can to keep him until the next election. No-one else could ever be remotely as supine a Speaker for Gordon. Imagine if at PMQ’s each week, the Speaker was chiding the PM for not answering the question - and for asking questions of his own.
*Granatt. Granite. Granita. What other formualtions of this word are going to come along to cause Gordon grief?
He’s the worst speaker in my lifetime imo, Betty Boothroyd showed that party affiliation was no obstacle to doing the job and certainly had no problem taking charge of the playground.
If Gorbals Mick is ousted it should be because he is utterly inept and always has been, as to whether he goes or not is another matter, doing the ‘honourable thing’ is an alien concept for his party.
5 “Sylvia Heal from the Labour benches would be a great improvement”
Labour would show their continuing contempt for Parliament if they again chose one of their own. The only reason we have had the current disaster is because Blair broke the convention of alternating Labour/Tory. Three Labour in a row is just not on.
Wouldn’t have a problem with it going to a LibDem or a Nat, though, next time. Any candidates?
8 Ming? - he’s nowhere else to go really and as a lawyer, he’d be both fair and firm.
I too would have no problem with a Libdem (is Ming free?) there appears to be no obstacle to this other than convention as the only criteria is by majority vote.
Mike - sorry to go O/T so soon, especially after having requested this thread, but I felt you’d wish to see this brief piece from The Sunday Times on a specific subject you have recently written about:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article3424490.ece
9 I’d support Ming. Even if he is perhaps a bit too chummy with Gordon - that might be what would seal it.
12 If there’s a hung parliament on the way, are you sure you want a Tory/LD speaker? 1 vote could make a difference.
BTW The new site is speedy!
Jonathan - the Speaker and Deputy Speaker are matched in HoC voting terms.
14. So fast, it time travels too - your comment will be posted in 12 minutes time! (Its now 08.08). Agree Martin useless - and Ming would be great - something needs to be done to raise public perception of HoC
Lib Dem Speaker and A Tory Deputy?
Re. 8, ‘three Labour in a row is not on’. Why not? Between 43 and 65, they were three Tories in a row (David Clifton-Brown, William ‘Shakes’ Morrison, and Harry Hylton-Foster).
Re. 5, I agree entirely.
O/T The Sunday Times suggests McCain’s fight back over the lobbyist story may be starting to come unstuck:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3423459.ece
18 Only another 11 years of Labour speakers to go then!
I don’t mind who the speaker is if they are genuinely neutral, but Martin is obviously not and let’s the Government do whatever they want.
lets even
testing time
18 The 1943 Speaker may have been a Tory, but was appointed during a wartime coalition government - so not sure if that should be comparable to “politics as usual”.
19 Pb.com was 24 hours ahead of TimesOnline on that one!
19: on a similar same tangent, this story about McCain’s problems with the FEC is worth a read (from Talking Points Memo):
http://tinyurl.com/2kpx9f
I particularly like the (admittedly not very likely) thought that McCain could end up serving a prison sentence of up to 5 years for violating the McCain–Feingold Act.
20. The Speaker’s political affiliation only comes into it if they are not up to the job - there were few complaints about Boothroyd, Weatherill or Thomas - and if they are not up to the job then incompetence is tied back to political affiliation.
18. Weren’t there Tories from 1928 - 1965 (Fitzroy, Clifton-Brown, Morrison and Hylton-Foster)
The new server has an accurate clock compared with the old one. I have pulled it back by 10 minutes but we are still 10 minutes fast. Posts have been re-timed
18 Longer than that - Fitzroy was Speaker from 1928-43 so there was a Conservative Speaker from 1928 until 1965. It was only the choice of Betty Boothroyd in 1992, when an opposition Speaker was elected. That might have taken cognizance of Major’s small majority.
Think it was the manner of Speaker Martin’s election (and the betting story) that gave him a bad start plus his ineffectiveness in dealing with Tony Blair’s disdain for the House.
Good Morning All
Marquee Mark @ 8.
There is no convention of alternating Speakers. Normally the Speaker comes from the governing party.
See the end of last but one thread.
25 Whether or not there is officially a “convention”, for almost fifty years (and during all my lifetime) the post of Speaker has alternated between Labour and Conservative. Betty Boothroyd was appointed to the post even though the Govt. of the day was Conservative.
First things first: congratulations on the server move. (And I rather like the idea of Peebie time being five or so minutes ahead of everybody else’s :lol:)
[27] Quite right, Peter, but that won’t stop people here arguing that there is such a convention. As was explained yesterday, the Speakership is not in the Prime Minister’s gift, although Brown seems to have lost his “touch” to the extent that he may have forgotten that.
If Martin does go, Sylvia Heal is of course disqualified by the ancient convention that the Speaker cannot have any siblings who are also MPs.
(Oh, all right then, I made that one up…)
At Christchurch Oxford the college time is always 5 minutes out. In a splendid act of isolation that continues until this day it was decided in the 1830s or 40s not to adopt national railway time which was being introduced.
My answer to the question posed by the thread ,No.
High time for a change in convention.
IMHO Vince Cable would perform the task of Speaker admirably.
Go Vince go!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti…70&ito=1490
Financial watchdog boss ‘tried to gag MP who warned Northern Rock was heading for disaster’
Vince Cable was told Northern Rock was not caught up in the US sub-prime mortgage fiasco
The head of the financial watchdog criticised for not acting sooner to prevent the Northern Rock scandal tried to gag a senior MP who warned the bank was heading for disaster, it was claimed.
Financial Services Authority chairman Sir Callum McCarthy telephoned Lib Dem deputy leader Vince Cable in September and accused him of “scaremongering.”
He told Mr Cable Northern Rock was not caught up in the sub-prime mortgage fiasco in the US.
Hours later the bank admitted it had been hit by the cheap mortgage collapse there.
Marquee Mark @ 30.
It is simply inaccurate to say that the post has alternated.
Normally the Speaker is elected from the government benches. Betty Boothroyd is an exception. The Conservative government had a small majority and the attempt by the Major government to foist former cabinet member Peter Brooke on the House was widely resented not least by independent minded Conservative backbenchers.
I think the time is now correct and post timings have been edited to keep them in order.
At the risk of sounding like I’m hedging my bets, I’d say that Martin will have to go at some point, it’s just a question of when.
There are three issues regarding why he should go:
1) bias in favour of the Labour Party, most blatantly at PMQs (a recent Newsnight piece even showed a clip of him publicly supporting government policy!)
2) being generally rubbish at this job
3) expenses issues
Although I personally think that 1 + 2 are the more serious, I think that only 3 will be the area that could actually see him come unstuck.
I doubt he’ll go before the next election, even though he should. MPs won’t dare criticise him publicly (en masse anyway) and they’ll probably hold their fire and try to give him the natural chance of the election to step down.
30. Speakers:
1801 - 1834 Tory(4)
1835 - 1857 Whig (2)
1857 - 1905 Liberal (4)
1905 - 1921 Conservative (1)
1921 - 1928 Coalition Liberal (1)
1928 - 1965 Conservative (4)
1965 - 1971 Labour (1)
1971 - 1976 Conservative (1)
1976 - 1983 Labour (1)
1983 - 1992 Conservative (1)
1992 - 2000 Labour (1)
2000 - Today Labour (1)
So ‘alternating’ between parties, if it is a ‘convention’ is a recent one. The Speaker generally stays in office until they retire - and then its down to the MPs to vote for whom they wish - not always on a partisan basis as quite a few Conservatives voted for Betty. So ‘which party gets it’ is purely a function of the wishes of MPs when a speaker retires.
33:- Why on earth would the Libdems want Vince Cable in the chair when he is a far more effective MP on the floor?
Cable will probably never be Speaker, if only because he’s too valuable to the Lib Dems. They’d be crackers to shift one of their best known and wittiest frontbenchers to a position of neutrality.
smiley test
32. For some reason Merton runs fast - as the Choir Master of Magdalen found to his chagrin one May Day Morning - ready to start his choir singing after the 6.00 chimes from his own bell tower, Merton started early and his comment ‘Bloody Merton’ was broadcast to the world courtesy of Radio Oxford!
Oh, they’re working now (see my post [31] when they didn’t…)
Carlotta Vance @ 37.
With the exception of Boothroyd, for reasons I noted @ 34, the former party of the Speaker has all to do with the timing of the retirement of the previous holder and any change of government after a general election.
Potential speakers - Haslehurst, Beith, Ming and Heal are all perhaps a bit too old. You need somebody who is likely to be in Parliament in 10 years’ time.
Look forward to a market on this. Could be very interesting.
Charlie Kennedy ? Or have Mings memoirs finished him ?
O/T Michael Portillo on why the Tories will not win the next election:
http://tinyurl.com/27s8o2
How about for speaker one of the Tory wets? David Curry or Ian Taylor.
The way that the role of speaker has been tarnished by the expenses stories and blatant partisanship nicely encapsulates the whole modus operandi of New Labour…a bucket of manure chucked over each and every important institution in the UK.
Not only should he go, (surely a diplomatic illness could be arranged) but the rules should be altered. The speaker should not be chosen from the governing party.
Will he survive? It seems very much in the hands of the various party managers. While I wouldn’t expect anything so overt as a vote of no confidence, it is just about possible his conduct could be referred to the Standards authorities. That would almost certainly finish him, but it would be a brave MP to do it (or one who was perhaps just particularly wound up at one of Martin’s rulings).
If any party - but presumably one of the opposition ones, given that incompetence in the Speaker’s chair effectively favours the government because of the powers the government has at its disposal - were to indicate privately that one of its members was thinking of taking such an action, that ought to be hint enough.
Question is: would they want to? I can’t really think of any good reasons apart from not wishing to cause further damage to the institution’s reputation (but would leaving Martin in place avoid that?), and not wishing to rock the boat and create precedents. I would have thought it pretty much touch and go. An announcement that Martin intends to stand down at the next election ‘on health grounds’ would probably stave off hostile action; otherwise, it’s probably odds-on that he’ll go earlier.
IMO it makes more sense to have an independent speaker from the Governing Party.
O/T McCain won the Republican votes in Northern Marianas and in American Samoa - another 18 delegates in total.
45 Mail’s Ming on Kennedy:
http://tinyurl.com/yunm3o
49 - I think that overturns an important principle - that the Speakership is solely in the gift of MPs - who have before now shown independence.
O/T
Oh Dear…
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23441088-details/CIA+%27plane+used+for+torture+flights+landed+in+Britain+last+week%27/article.do
The deputy speaker of the Scottish Parliament is in a spot of bother. NatWest Three/Enron Three etc…
“The £3.5m fraud, the £250,000 flat… and the deputy presiding officer”
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2068685.0.0.php
53
If the speaker comes from the governing party, there’ll always be a suspicion of bias.
The MoS continues its tradition of at least one anti-Dave story every week.
http://tinyurl.com/2nmpn8
nudge,nudge,wink,wink.
I do wonder where this myth of a ‘convention’ by which the Speakership alternates between parties comes from?
I suspect its something that has come about in the media simply due to lazy journalism, by which the news media have simply looked at the list of most recent speakers and ‘assumed’ that there was some mythical convention.
The majority party has ALWAYS appointed one of its own apart from when that majority was too thin and would benefit from graciously allowing one of their opponents to have it as with Major in 1992.
In 1965 Wilson did his damnedest to have a Liberal put in the Speakers chair but had to give way to his own back benchers as there had never been a Labour Speaker up to that time.
55 whats the flat worth now? Surely by buying it for only 5k more than he paid for it, even after 5 years, she is helping him hide assets from the authorities?
The Speaker definatly should go, but I’m not sure who would speak out and tell him to. The course, IMO, would be for a delegation of government whips to go to him privately and tell him to stand down, but failing that, the only other way I can see it happening, is for Cameron and Clegg to issue a joint statement saying he has lost the authority of the house and both opposition parties.
Martin should go, if only because of his tacit support for the bill to exempt MPs from the freedom of information Act.
58. sp
Well, exactly!! Any idiot can see that over the last 5 years a flat on Holyrood Road, in central Edinburgh, would have appreciated by about 15 times more than the GBP5000 paid by Godman to Mulgrew. In fact, probably 20 times more. Very easy to compare with neighbouring properties.
59. “the only other way I can see it happening, is for Cameron and Clegg to issue a joint statement”. It doesn’t need to be done publicly, or not to begin with anyway. The opposition whips - including the minor parties - could simply let it be known that a backbencher would initially make the call, but there will be no support for the Speaker from either front bench.
Claiming a second home allowance when you don’t have a mortgage or rent to maintain on that home, should surely be a matter of disgrace and resignation for any MP. MPs should seek to minimise unnecessary expense to the taxpayer at all times.
I don’t see there being any clamour on the Labour benches for this pro-Labour speaker to be ousted, so I don’t think change will come til the next election.
61 bang to rights then.
The clamour against him has now become too loud and too sustained. Michael Martin will be gone this week. IMHO
Re the clock: I have no idea why it’s running 15 minutes fast… I will investigate… but probably not today
65. If only the same were true of the rest of the wretched Broonite crew.
A MUCH more interesting story from the Mail on Sunday is this one - FSA tried to gag Vince Cable over NR…
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=517850&in_page_id=1770
57. Interesting, Galloglass: my understanding of this is slightly different.
When the speakership came up in 1965, Labour had a majority of just 3 and didn’t want to weaken this further by appointing a Labour speaker. So Roderic Bowen, Liberal MP for Cardiganshire, was offered the post; but he turned it down under pressure from some party colleagues - a move which David Steel thought was a mistake. Horace King then became the first Labour speaker, with Bowen as his deputy. Bowen could have done with the free run the speakership would have brought: he lost his seat to Labour in the 1966 election.
As you say, this shows that Labour have form for turning to the Liberals in this kind of scenario.
I have done a bit of number-crunching since Thursday’s by election in Perth and Kinross.
There have been 6 local by elections in Scotland since the council elections in May 2007. There was 1 by election each in Aberdeen, Argyll & Bute, Dundee, Moray, North Lanarkshire and Perth & Kinross.
In total over 17,300 1st-preference votes have been cast (all Scottish local elections are now Single Transferable Vote).
The total votes cast in these 6 contests were as follows:
1. SNP 6,686 (38.6%)
2. Lab 4,213 (24.3%)
3. Con 2,798 (16.1%)
4. LD 2,064 (11.9%)
5. SSP 103 (0.6%)
6. Sol 88
7. Grn 66
8. SSCUP 32
9. UKIP 20
ind 1,266
Total votes cast: 17,336
Councillors elected:
SNP: 4 (+2)
LD: 1 (+1)
Lab: 1 (n/c)
Con: 0 (-1)
ind: 0 (-2)
The above. Short of being arrested I see no way Martin will step down without a long preannouncement. His ego is the size of Everest and he loves all the glitz even more than most Speakers. As for regard to public service, well he thinks that is him like Louis XIV
Whether Martin or Goodman, the Scottish Labour Party seems to be full of rogues and incompetents. (And wasn’t one of Sarwar’s business found guilt of carousel fraud?)
Scottish independence is inevitable — all that is needed is for the Labour Party in Scotland to behave for the next 10 years like they have for the last 20.
70: Zzzzzzzzzz
68
You think thats more interesting than, attractive blonde,given job,leaked emails, a tip, don’t go into journalism!
Just a factual note - Speakers are normally ‘promoted’ from the Speakers’ Panel, who have all shown in Committee whether they can run sessions fairly. That doesn’t mean that they are universally acknowledged to be Speaker material (e.g. Derek Conway was until very recently on the panel, but would probably not have been a strong candidate for Speaker even before the recent controversy) but if you’re not on the Panel nobody has any idea whether you can run a discussion so you’re unlikely to be considered.
74. Dead right Coldstone
Lee Jasper responds to the Evening Standard allegations:
http://torytroll.blogspot.com
I was asleep all night so I’ve obviously missedd something - but what happened to the link in 244. in the previus thread, which claimed that an MP had been killed in a car crash? Presumably it’s not true, but was it some sort of clever joke or spoof or just an erroneous report?
66 re the clock. We’ve done this sketch before but: use ntp! You’ll need to manually set the time correctly-ish first though.
78 Probably just the usual attempt to mislead with non existent link. If a ‘joke’ it qualifies as neither funny or clever really
77. Why don’t you just call yourself ‘the Labour hack’? it would be far more accurate.
75
Surely its time to stop all this 17th century nonsense.
The speaker, should at the least not come from the governing party.
That would mean they would change when the government changes etc.
The present system, is all part of this cosiness, which the public are sick of.
Hillary hits a new all time low in the Iowa exchanges -
http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/quotes/Nomination08_quotes.html
82, Four sentences and only one is true.
Hope your betting average is better.
Nick @ 75 (or possibly Andrea!)
Have you got a list of the members of the Speaker’s panel?
82. shame the pubs aren’t open until 12 on a sunday…
Martin should go and salvage some dignity before he is hounded out in shame.
Impartiality is an insult to the House of Commons. Serious, but frankly most of the population dont care about that. Abuse of expenses is an insult to the public, and so he should go, NOW.
Isn’t it the case that the Govt supported (as much as they are allowed to do) Sir George Young in 2001?
83 Yes Peter, it’s just about over now. Looks like it will be down to Texas to deliver the final blow. Kind of apt really.
OT. I’ve been away but have just arrived back in time for Oscar night!
Following on from UKPaul’s post on the thread I did for the Oscars I’ve been looking at outsiders that have a chance of winning and could therefore be good value bets.
(For those who aren’t scared of short prices the thread I did two weeks ago is a list of my choices irrespective of odds. A couple of which are in both lists)
Best Actress - Marion Cottilard - 5/2
” Ellen Page 9/1
Best Director - Julien Schnabel (Diving Bell and the Butterfly) - 15/2
Best Film - Atonement - 12/1
” Juno 18/1
Supporting Actress-Ruby Dee (American Gangster) - 9/2
Best Adapted Screenplay - Diving Bell and the Butterfly - 2.25/1
” Atonement - 6/1
Cinematography - Roger Deakins (Assassination of Jesse James) - 3.1/1
Costume design - La Vie en Rose - 4/1
Best Editing - Bourne Ultimatum - 1.04/1
Sound editing - There will be Blood - 5.8/1
68 - “”Sir Callum said I was scaremongering, that there was no problem with the bank and that it had a good loan book, and any problems were due to international markets beyond its control,” said Mr Cable.”
lol - conveniently ignoring the business plan which made them heavily dependent on available credit from the international markets!
Banning notice A poster giving his email address as Browng@parliament published comment 244 in the US thread last night stating that a Labour MPs had died in a car crash after “cruising in a notorious cottaging area in London before the incident”.
Spreading false news here is not acceptable and all steps will be taken to ban the perpetrator.
Independent Speaker? Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrm.
“I welcome the vouchers being abolished because they take away from people’s dignity and I know that from my own experience,”
Imagine the loss of dignity by having to take the bus to go shopping rather than a limo. - The govt. should sponsor trips for kids to visit bus stops to prevent anything like that happening again. It’s VITAL that the young generation know the horror of seeing one come along saying ‘Not in Service’.
Presumambly, if Martin vacates the Speakership now, he will also leave Parliament, causing a by-election in Glagow NE. There is no precedent in our history for a former Speaker to return to the backbenches.
If he has any sense, he will announce now that he will retire at the next election. By 2010, he will be the longest-serving Speaker since the War. What more does he want or deserve?
Failing that, he will become the first Speaker to be terminated since Charles Sutton-Manners in 1834…
91. The behaviour of the head of the FSA in this case is very difficult to understand.
Was he simply hopelessly out of touch with reality, or there is another explanation?
It’s even more disturbing - though not surprising - that the government proposes to increase yet further the role of the FSA in the oversight of the financial system. It seems to be a macro version of the classic public sector approach of promoting incompetence.
The papers are all (but one) full of this Martin thing today on their front pages despite the fact that to 98 per cent of the people of this country it’s all just one big yawn. They are still more interested in Tony Martin than Michael Martin. “He’s no worse than the rest of them,” which is in reality true. MPs put in Martin precisely because they wanted a weak speaker - and the fact that they would have gaily had Conway as a replacement had not the recent blow-up happenend says even more about them. Speaker of the house is a position which very few ‘useful’ Most back bench MPs of all parties (and a lot of the front benchers) are not particularly able individuals who have played their cards right to get onto the gravy train into this wonderful club which massages their bank balance nearly as much as it does thier egos. As with expenses scandals, sexual coercion of researchers etc, all that most of them want is to maintain their status quo in a quiet life dominated by their own choices, which is why the incumbents of all parties voted this monstrous ‘communications allowance’ which is in effect an incumbents’ re-election fund.
re 94. Rod - Would there any chance of an upset in a by election in Glasgow NE? I think we can rule the Tories out but what about the nats?
95 The FSA this week was quoted a the expert source by Chancellor Darling when he claimed NR had high quality mortgage assets outside of those in Granite. Worrying isn’t it.
96. Apols for posting in mid-editing. Should read:
The papers are all (but one) full of this Martin thing today on their front pages despite the fact that to 98 per cent of the people of this country it’s all just one big yawn. They are still more interested in Tony Martin than Michael Martin. “He’s no worse than the rest of them,” which is in reality true. MPs put in Martin precisely because they wanted a weak speaker - and the fact that they would have gaily had Conway as a replacement had not the recent blow-up happenend says even more about them. Speaker of the House is a position which very few ‘useful’ MPs aspire to.
Most back bench MPs of all parties (and a lot of the front benchers) are not particularly able individuals who have played their cards right to get onto the gravy train into this wonderful club which massages their bank balance (more through doors opened than directly) nearly as much as it does their egos. As with expenses scandals, sexual coercion of researchers etc, all that most of them want is to maintain their status quo in a quiet life dominated by their own choices, which is why the incumbents of all parties voted this monstrous ‘communications allowance’ which is in effect an incumbents’ re-election fund.
97. I’d say not just a chance, Mike. Near-certain SNP gain. Only half the swing of Govan ‘88 would do it…
98. It’s easy to reach some fairly damning conclusions about the UK’s supposedly ‘independent’ regulatory authority.
90. Roger. Don’t know if you spotted my post upthread from ukpaul on The Oscars yesterday? I’ve had a few quid on some of your longer shots and a decent bet on Marion Cotillard. I haven’t seen the Piaf film but my wife Kate has and she agrees with you that it was a superb performance. So Cotillard had better win for both your sakes! Which of your tips is the “banker” bet?
I’ve also had a few quid at your suggestion on Saoirse Ronan in the best supporting actress category at 33/1, since there is no best sequence of vowels in a first name category this year. Peter from Putney thinks that I would have struggled in that category anyway. I am not too sure that I will do particularly well in the best supporting actress vote.
Quick bit of housekeeping as I have been unavoidably prevented from posting for nearly 24 hours! Completely agree with Gabble and Mike re Ed Balls. He is a total disaster for Labour, while Denham is a star. Michael Martin is also a disaster and if a book is opened I would be backing him to be gone soon. I thought ITN News reported last night that he had stepped down?
Hope some of you followed my tip to back Wales to win the 6 nations at 10/1.
The last fig leaf of the speakers “neutrality” was shed today when a government minister defended the speaker. Martin will have to go, he is not upto the job and shows poor judgement in the execution of his duties. No wonder parliament has never been held in such contempt by the electorate.
Think the monachy had the right idea, when they use to execute the speaker! A political execution needs administering now!
We’ve just put some Democratic VP betting up at ladbrokes. If I’ve missed anyone plausible, shout and I’ll add them in.
Iain Dale suggested Derek Conway as Speaker a little while back as he’d “add some colour to the role” - yes, you could say that!
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2006/02/who-will-be-next-speaker-of-house-of.html
I can’t find a list of the Speaker’s Panel members, though a good many individual names come up if you Google it with “house of Commons” as a second phrase.
A list of the members of the Chairmen’s Panel can be found here.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/listgovt.htm
Willie McCrea for Speaker…
103 Well Parliament could always pass an Act of Attainder against Martin
Speaker Martin saved by intervention and support of David Blunkett and Margaret Becket.
Oh I forgot, wasn’t Mr Blunkett sacked (twice) with the innappropriate use of taxpayer funded rail tickets for his Mistress as one reason.
2005 Results:
Speaker: 15153 (53.3%)
SNP: 5019 (17.7%)
Other: 8246 (29%)
Majority: 10134 (35.6%)
97 & 100 The results are skewed though by no Lib Dem contest against Martin for two elections. They do have a powerbase in neignbouring Glasgow North. You’d have to bet on the SNP, but Labour could always hope for a Watford style result to get them back
109 and failed to declare an interest in a company that received contracts from his department……and sits on the board of a company bidding for the ID card contract that he champions at every opportunity…. with friends like these…..
97, 100, 110.
To get a fair idea of the real state of play in the Glasgow NE constituency you really need to look at the council results May 2007.
FWIW I have a chum in Prague - a cityguide - who took Speaker Martin and his wife on a luxury tour of the Czech capital. Not sure if they used airmiles to get there.
Apparently Martin is very nice and charming in person, however my friend was surprised by quite how much Martin liked to drink. And that’s saying something, when it comes from a Czech.
That said whenever I go to Prague I spend most of my time squiffy as the beer is so good.
I can’t see Ming Campbell as speaker. He’s got he gravitas and all that, but he’s just a bit too dodery and quavery -you need a robust and forceful personality who can command the house: who can literally shout down the miscreants. Ming doesn’t do shouting.
How about Diane Abbott. Now there’s a thought. She’d have to renounce her disgraceful and disgusting views on Mao, first. And she’d have to give up her lucrative TV stuff.
But I have a feeling she’d be quite good - and more evenhanded than Labour-loyalist Martin.
I’ve always wondered how its works, when you have the Speaker also as a constituency MP? Does he still meet his constituents? Can he still take up issue’s on their behalf? Is he entitled to ask questions for them, in the house? This aspect always seems like something of a conflict of interest to me. I have always thought it would make more sense if the Speaker resigned his/her seat on election to the Chair?
109. Margaret who?
107. An excellent choice.
116 Clegg’s Target list in Wales. You think seems ambitious:
‘Declaring it is “time to reawaken the dragon”, he set his party the challenge of doubling its number of seats to eight. He believes the party can win in Newport East, Swansea West, Cardiff South, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney.’
Re, 114. Also, when he goes back for re-election, does he still stand on Labour’s manifesto or is he like an Independent?
113: Michael Martin is one of the nicest people in Parliament and notably kind to new MPs. It’s not the only qualification for the job, but it helps.
114: Yes, the difficulty that Speakers have in publicly campaigning for constituents is recognised, and Speakers (and their deputies) therefore always have exceptionally good access to ministers to raise issues privately. On the whole you probably have a better chance of getting attention if you’re represented by a Speaker, though obviously if you want a law changed and the Minister and Parliamentary majority don’t agree, it still won’t happen. Having a non-MP as Speaker would have advantages and drawbacks - the main downside would be that MPs would be much more reluctant to accept the authority of an outsider, even an ex-MP.
Note that Ministers, shadow Ministers and whips have similar problems in raising matters outside their briefs - in fact whips on both sides have the unique problem that they are normally not allowed to speak at all. Why not? Beats me.
These constraints don’t apply to the Speakers’ Panel, who are allowed to be loud and partisan when not acting as committee chairs. Nicholas Winterton, for instance, is not noticeably reticent.
117? Sound like he’s off with the fairies. He’ll be doing very well if he holds onto Ceredigion next time around.
119. Thanks Nick.
120 I’m not sure he put a timeframe on it wisely. Even so I wondered if he’d been drinking CK’s water when Merthyr came up. I think they can hold Ceredigion though
112 - Council results probably aren’t all that useful as Labour had quite a few more candidates at council level than the SNP which skews the first preference votes a bit.
It may be more useful to look at the results in Glasgow Springburn (particularly) and Maryhill which make up much of the Westminster seat.
19. I agree with you Nick that Martin seems charming (and my friend backs it up). And I also think the snobbery hurled at Martin is vile and stupid, and does Tories no credit.
So he comes from the Gorbals. So what. Good for him. Give him a slap on the back for making it this far.
However Martin DOES come across as favouring Labour. I don’t think it’s his fault - it’s just he’s such an Old Labour stalwart I reckon he finds it impossible to be even handed when he sees a toff like Cameron apparently bullying a socialist like Brown.
He also defends other Labour guys when they are getting a hard time. I’m sure this isn’t deliberate. I’m sure he consciously tries his best but… its in his political DNA to favour the little guy - i.e. the lefty. This is particularly objectionable when the left is in power, when the left is the establishment. And when the ministers he defends are so powerful, and often poshos like Harman.
I never got the impression of any bias with Boothroyd, another Labour Speaker.
124 - Labourite Speaker Thomas was notably biased. But to the Tories.
119 Recognise that it’s hard to judge the Speaker from a few televised appearances and much of his work is in the background running Parliament.
I think Speaker Martin has been unfortunate in that there is of increasing desire for transparency and less acceptance of what were perquisites of power. The concentration on finding sleaze kicked off in mid 90’s, the inclusion of benefits in kind in the tax system, perhaps the post Blair desire for less obvious enjoyment of those privileges.
Then he has been speaker for nearly 8 years and understandably MPs and media are looking at who will/should succeed him. Could be that on Labour side there is desire for another Labour speaker - unlikely if re-election comes after next election. Could be the real concern that new MPs will not know enough about the candidates if election is after the general election.
Shame that it will be seen as press driving him from office so he leaves under a cloud. He perhaps should have been less of a fighter and recognised it was time to clarify his plans last year.
125. George Thomas was a man of integrity and a patriot. Two qualities that have all but vanished from today’s Labour Party.
123. Max
Valid point.
Glasgow Springburn - May 2007:
1. Lab 10,024 (56.9%)
2. SNP 4,929 (28.0%)
3. LD 1,108 (6.3%)
4. Con 1,067 (6.1%)
5. SCP 484 (2.8%)
127 George Thomas as a minister took cash from the Aberfan Disaster Fund to pay for tip removals and stabilisation - costs that should have been borne by the NCB and UK Government. Paid back decades later without interest.
I can’t really see any LDs in the line to be speaker. It won’t be Ming, and I can’t see Beith. The only other possible name might be Malcolm Bruce.
I note that all the ’support’ for the speaker from Labour politicians today do not address the question of his actual conduct. They all talk about how he is ‘likeable’, ‘held in high regard’ etc etc but say nothing about the fact he is claiming for a mortgage that doesnt exist. how is claiming mortgage subsidy that you are not paying out any different from conway paying his son to do nothing?
Cameron kicked conway out for the same offence, will gordon do the same? (not holding breath)
Roger - If you have a look on yesterday’s main thread I gave my predictions for all the categories (including the technical ones, I even did my homework on animated and documentary shorts!).
Stjohn - the banker bet has always been Ratatouille, the only real competition is the French film Persepolis but Ratatouille has cleaned up elsewhere. It was at 1.20 on betfair as recently as a week ago, it’s about 1.12 now.
On topic - Martin comes across as being increasingly bumbling and unable to control debate, it’s purely a competency issue.
Glasgow Maryhill - May 2007:
1. Lab 7,955 (48.0%)
2. SNP 5,645 (34.1%)
3. LD 1,936 (11.7%)
4. 1,028 (6.2%)
133. Number 4 should show “Con”.
119 “Having a non-MP as Speaker would have advantages and drawbacks - the main downside would be that MPs would be much more reluctant to accept the authority of an outsider, even an ex-MP”
Perhaps the time has come for a speaker the public can elect at each general election then if MPs feel uncomfortable, well tough.
Michael Fabricant for Speaker. Let’s return to the custom of the Speaker wearing a wig.
If Labour are smart they’ll dump Martin and replace him with someone in a marginal constituency
136 Ian Paisley could be up for it come May
136. Frank Luntz for Speaker
Possible speakers…
Andrew Rosindell, Lembit Opik, Dennis Skinner, George Galloway…
131 Martin ceased to be a Labour MP when he was elected Speaker; he might occasionally show bias to his ex colleagues but as we really only see him for half an hour a week it’s probably rare and I doubt intended.
I also doubt he has intentionally been breaking any rules, if indeed he has broken any (the taxi fares look the most suspicious). MPs expenses have been designed to be “flexible” - that’s what needs to change. He and many of the longer serving MPs, protective as they are of parliamentary privileges, are perhaps not best placed to drive the changes necessary but neither are MoS reporters.
George Galloway?!?!? Please, please tell me you are kidding.
140. You’re just being silly now. How about Boris Johnson or Diane Abbott?
141: What sort of rules allow you to claim for a non-existent mortgage?
In any other business, that’s fraud.
142-3 - I am kidding!
This non-existent mortgage… Surely other MPs without mortgages take out a mortage, invest the cash and then claim for the mortgage. Or the Wintertons transferred their property to a trust and then charged rent to themselves, paid from allowances. Is there morally any difference?
131: MM is not a member of the Parliamentary Labour Party - he resigned at once on being elected. IIRC he resigned his private party membership as well. Derek Conway remains a meber of the Conservative Party in good standing and neither Cameeron nor anyone else seems to be doing anything about it - he just doesn’t take the Parliamentary whip.
In any case, without getting into detailed allegation-trading (since I don’t actually know the fact in either case), the suggestions about Conway are of a very different order to the stuff about air miles etc.
I don’t think that people who see MM in action over the week do think he’s biased. The complaints centre on the belief that his rulings in the Cameron-Brown exchanges favour Brown. I don’t think that’s correct, myself - the leader questions are notoriously difficult to regulate and partisans tend to remember the decisions that went against them rather than the reverse.
Maggie will be spinning in her armchair!
“New generation of council houses planned after end of right-to-buy”
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2068675.0.new_generation_of_council_houses_planned_after_end_of_righttobuy.php
145 so claiming a mortgage subsidy when you already own the house outright, and are also housed at public expense, is acceptable behaviour for someone who is tasked with upholding the integrity of parliament?
if he has been claiming for a mortgage that doesnt exist i take it you will be calling on him to resign?
142-3 - I am kidding!
This non-existent m0rtgage… Surely other MPs without m0rtgages take one out, invest the c@sh and then claim for the m0rtgage.
Or the Wintertons transferred their property to a trust and then charged rent to themselves, paid from allowances. Is there morally any difference?
(let us see if this gets stuck in moderation, like my last effort.)
Nick 145 - do you pay tax on your housing allowance?
148 - no, not acceptable. Perhaps more illegal than some housing allowances claimed by some MPs, but no more distasteful.
“i take it you will be calling on him to resign?” - what? What bloody difference does it make what I think anyway? It would be a bit pompous for me “call on him to resign.”
151 sorry that was meant for nickp
152 - no problem! My post got stuck in moderation and then reappeared - confused the numbers.
New thread - Could McCain be skewered by his own law.
Could we use the new thread for US politics only and continue discussion on UK developments here?
148 Think the MoS say is that he has been claiming for costs associated with his second home; not for a mortgage. Allowable claims, similar to Ancram’s reported claims for maintenance. Questionable thing is that idea behind allowance was that MPs needed accommodation in London & Constituency as requirement of the job and therefore the additional costs of a second home should be claimable as an expense. In Speaker’s case (and that of Gordon Brown and others with state provided accommodation) there is no second home required - Speaker only has to pay costs of the constituency house.
Same applies to all those London MPs claiming for central London accommodation when they are less than an hours commute from Parliament.
155 - trouble is we end up with a situation when it is tempting to say “they are all at it.”
I am sure they are NOT all at it.
Whatever the yes and nays about Speaker Martin, anyone who uses the faux nickname “Gorbals Mick” ruins their argument.
Becuase it is inacurate, snobbish and just plain dumb.
157 - I agree. I also find the word “faux” quite “faux” too.
A couple of weeks ago we were debating whether Dr Rowan Williams would hang on. He has. That blew over. So, rightly or wrongly, might this.
157 Is that GOP Senator who beat Clelland in Georgia after that loathsome campaign up for relection this year
158, the Archdruid’s predicament was different though. For a start, the Church doesn’t make the law. In addition, the Commons is seen as having a festering problem of corruption at worst, or over generous expenses at best. This is a serial issue, not a one-off.
Martin isn’t the man to reform the House, he isn’t even a competent or neutral Speaker. Of course he should go, the question is will it be of his own accord, or because he’s forced into it.
146. without getting into detailed allegation-trading (since I don’t actually know the fact in either case), the suggestions about Conway are of a very different order to the stuff about air miles etc.
Another Palmer embedded spin special…’I don’t know the details, but that nice Mr Martin hasn’t done much, has he? No worse than submitting a late tax return…not like that evil Mr. Conway…’
Martin = worst speaker of all time!
161 - lots of people who visit this site dislike Martin and will use anything to get rid of him. I am not overly impressed by what I see at PMQs, and think Haselhurst does this much better. Nevertheless, I know the speaker does far more than this 30 minutes, and I do not know if he does a good job the rest of the time.
I think this will probably blow over. However, like Williams, he is damaged, and I would expect both to go in a couple of years, somewhat earlier than expected. Williams will become Master / Rector / whatever of an Oxbridge College; Martin will just retire.
A by-election the SNP won would not really damage Labour in Scotland more than they are damaging themselves at the moment.
Keegan = LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Agreed, he’s dire. He doesn’t have command of procedures or the rules. He’s viewed as biased by one side. He lacks authority. However, why would this mean that his time is up?
Why would Labour MPs want to get rid of someone who gives Gordon Brown an easy time? The complicated, more demanding debates seem to be chaired by his deputy, anyhow.
No, my betting is that he stays till the election.
165. Unfortunately that’s probably right. In the world of New Labour, almost any degree of incompetence or sleaze is fine as long as the person concerned is suitably partisan/on message.
D
R
O
G
B
A
165 - Because if he goes before the election, Labour MPs get to choose the successor, whereas after the election, they might not have the votes to get the man or woman of their choice.
113 - Was this some time ago? I seem to remember being told that Martin was teetotal…
81. Thanks for the suggestion pal. Graciously given as ever.
140 Andrew Rosindell Speaker-did’nt know he could speak-I recall odd grunts as he scrapes his knuckles on the floor,though:lol::lol:
171 - twas a joke, my suggestion!
re 70 Stuart very interesting. This seems to suggest that either the Tory vote is very evenly spread, or that they are not picking up many transfers. What do you think?
re 123 why should it? Having more candidates won’t have increased the Labour vote it will just have mean that they will have got fewer first preference votes each.
150: No, my housing allowance pays for the rent of a one-bedroom flat in London. When I cease to be an MP for whatever reason, I will have gained no financial benefit from it, so it’s not taxable.
Norman Baker for me. There would be no covering up for sleazy MPs with him as speaker. Mps need to be saved from themselves