Disgrace, national embarrassment, or farce - or all three?
Disgrace, national embarrassment, farce -- just some of the more repeatable words ricocheting around Westminster after the , where he seemed so unacquainted with that he stumbled over its most important parts.
Most astonishing of all, he failed to give any indication of when he was prepared to depart. Most commentators and MPs -- including this Blog -- had expected him to indicate he would stand down at the next election. His failure to do so -- or give any indication of when he might move on -- means he will probably go sooner rather than later -- because he will be pushed.
After yesterday more and more MPs are rallying to the "Martin must Go" standard and the . The Speaker said a motion to force him out was a matter for the government and so the spotlight now falls on Gordon Brown: ?
The PM said yesterday that the was a matter for the Commons, which is not quite the full story. No Speaker can be unseated if a government with a clear majority (as Mr Brown has) decides to protect him. So the ball is very much in the PM's court. His most recent utterances have not been completely supportive -- but we still don't know if he'll allow the Speaker's enemies to gather and do their worst.
The main defence of the Speaker is that he should not be made a scapegoat for the expenses morass. Of course he shouldn't -- and his departure on its own would not restore trust and integrity to this Parliament. But a growing number of MPs -- growing faster after yesterday -- are concluding that there can be no fresh start under the current Speaker: after all, he tried to stop public exposure of expenses, he has been a roadblock to reform and his own expense claims have raised many eyebrows.
As my old philosophy professor would have put it, the Speaker's departure is a necessary if not sufficient step in the cleaning up of the Commons.
Comments
or to comment.