The protective cloak
Peter Hoskin 8:52am
After the events of the weekend, all eyes will be on Michael Martin. Will he buckle under the media's relentless pressure? Or will he dig in his heels, and continue to stress the legality of his actions? The way things have gone so far, I'd put money on the latter scenario.
The most worrying feature of this episode is the protective cloak that MPs have drawn around the Speaker. Most criticism has been dismissed as snobbery, even though the left-wing papers have also taken Martin to task. And – as Nick Robinson put it on this morning's Today programme – numerous MPs blindly regard the allegations as “nonsense”.
Tim Hames gets it spot-on in today's Times: "The real scandal is that the House elevated a man who was manifestly unfit for the role and seven years later it will not press him into overdue retirement."
After Conway, the political class quickly moved to repair its battered reputation. Now, all that good work could be undone just as swiftly.
Previous
Comments
adrian drummond
February 25th, 2008 9:24amI think there was an unwritten agreement at Westminster that the Speaker would be chosen alternatively between the government and opposition. This stopped with the selection of Martin by the new intake of Blairite MPs after the '97 election. I can't imagine the former Speakers Thomas, Weatherall and Boothroyd acting in the same manner as Martin.
Chuck Unsworth
February 25th, 2008 9:33amIf Mr Speaker is unable to understand that his dubious actions (and those of Mrs Speaker and her charlady) have called his moral authority into question then he is not fit to hold that office anyway. Doubtless the old cry of "I've done nothing illegal" will be raised yet again. What these political monsters are choosing to ignore is the fundamental difference between Legality and Morality. They have failed to understand that the electorate expect high ethical standards to be set and observed. Worse, the pure cynicism of introduction of countless pieces of new legislation whilst deliberate efforts are made to circumvent or, in some cases simply to ignore, such 'rules' is salutary. The attempt to downplay these transgressions by referring to 'rules' rather than 'laws' is but one small part of the fraud. If politicians wish to be respected they should set their own Houses in order - and that includes the removal by any means of a Speaker who has not cared to uphold the highest standards of personal probity and integrity. The predictable apologists have been paraded to say their piece to the cameras. It is interesting that not one of them has sought to deal with the questions. Each of them has claimed that this is a class-based conspiracy of lies. Interesting too that Mrs Beckett, who by the nature of her current job should be in a position to know, has voiced that view. Perhaps she'll be prepared to provide the evidence for public scrutiny. Then again, perhaps not.
Trumpeter Lanfried
February 25th, 2008 10:16amAs Nick Robinson explained on Today this morning, many MPs are completely out of touch with public sentiment on the subject of their expenses. They just don't get it.
salieri
February 25th, 2008 11:04amIs it snobbery to regard someone, regardless of his background, as a barely articulate half-wit? It was this feature, not the trough-filling or the partisanship, which in Tim Hames's words made him manifestly unfit for the role from the outset. People forbore to say it for fear of being accused of snobbery. But the essence of the Speaker's role is dignity combined with integrity. Any abandonment of either quality, let alone both, must surely bring it into disrepute.
Nicholas
February 25th, 2008 11:35amChuck hits on the key issue about the inability or unwillingness to distinguish between the moral and the legal. The shameless spivvery (as coined by Dalrymple) beggars belief by publically pleading the legal loophole or non-breach of rules as superior to the simple question of what is right and what is wrong.
Verity
February 25th, 2008 4:07pmSalieri wrote: Is it snobbery to regard someone, regardless of his background, as a barely articulate half-wit? I thought at first he was referring to Harriet Harman who certainly has never proved otherwise. Not only is she inexplicably smug, but she is one of those fat, smug ladies whose weight shrieks "Self indugence!" No discipline - mental or physical. Anyhone who is fat chooses to be that way and their weight is a visible manifestation of other emotional problems.
Fergus Pickering
February 25th, 2008 4:19pmFat is good. Kenneth Clarke fat. Tony Blair thin. I rest my case
salieri
February 25th, 2008 10:24pmA trifle unfair on Harman, Verity, who is neither inarticulate nor thick - merely meddlesome and insufferably self-righteous. As for fat, that really is (or should be) beside the point and below the belt. Ghastly people should be taken to task but for the right reasons.
andrew sim
February 26th, 2008 3:26pmAnd who exactly do we all have to thank for the 'battering' that the political class have taken in the Conway/Martin Cases? The forgotten whistleblower, that's who - Michael Barnbrook, a retired police inspector from Dartford, who prompted both cases with his private investigations. Now I wonder why we haven't been reading profiles of this worthy public servant? Could it be anything to do with the fact that he is a prominent member of the BNP?
andrew sim
February 26th, 2008 3:33pmFROM THE BBC WEBSITE "News - Politics - Speaker's air miles in spotlight The complaint against Mr Martin was brought by Michael Barnbrook, a retired policeman and former candidate for the UK Independence Party, who is now a member of the British National Party. 19 Feb 2008 News - Politics - Tory whip withdrawn from Conway Retired policeman and now BNP member Michael Barnbrook - whose original complaint prompted the investigation into Freddie Conway - also wants a second investigation into his brother. 29 Jan 2008" Why no mention of these salient facts anywhere in the Spectator?