MSWHPC Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Of course he is. What do you expect MP's on all sides of the house to do - talk loudly about how their own snouts were in the trough or hide behind a fuss about the speaker? Getting rid of the speaker is a distraction from the real problem, no matter how bad he is. the speaker, tried to prevent the expenses ever coming to light. they were due out months ago, but delayed and delayed until the telegraph took matters to a head. the speaker is as much to blame as anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
three pint princess Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 (edited) Speaker has refused to allow any discussion, MPs are calling for an opposition day. In a stormy Commons session, the Speaker scolded members who interrupted his address with points of order to challenge his position. He said that a motion of no-confidence tabled by Tory MP backbencher Douglas Carswell would not be debated because it was not "substantive". In chaotic scenes, the Speaker was forced to take advice on parliamentary procedure from the clerk of the Commons after Mr Carswell insisted that the motion must be debated. The Speaker was widely expected to use his emergency statement to announce a timetable for his departure, having alienated MPs of all parties. But while his tone was more contrite than last week, Mr Martin refused to discuss his own future. "We all bear a heavy responsibility for the terrible damage to the reputation of this House," "We must all accept blame and to the extent that I have contributed to this situation, I'm profoundly sorry." Fat twunt, won't resign, give any date, allow any discussion. Although considering the contempt he holds the general public in it's not suprising, as the Speaker would say "what the ****** are you going to do about it ?" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...-to-resign.html Edited May 18, 2009 by Tom Peters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwissBob Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Speakers statement on YouTube: Speaker's Statement Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R K Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 He appears to have denied the vote of no confidence in him proposed by Prentice and Carswell tomorrow on a technicality. Amazing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brassed off brit Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Ofcourse the bastaard won't resign, he wants to be able to chair this "all party meeting" in order to make sure he has a chance to keep whatever else secret goings on secret. The last thing he or broon want is someone new coming in and saying "right lets let it all out and be done with it!" That stupid out of touch labour MP who tried to put forward the argument that he has the backing of the majority of the house, did so under orders from broon who is desperate to prevent a by election. By the way this was a historic day in parliament's history,Where was broon?....Feckin hiding somewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indirectapproach Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Gorbals Mick is the Thief in Chief. Completely unable to fulfil his function as Speaker but good enough to preside over a c.10 years of thievery, which is quite a good run really. I’d like to think this was not going on under Boothroyd and Wetherill but my faith in that house of thieves has gone so who knows? I wonder why Boothroyd, unlike Tebbit, has stayed so resolutely in the long grass. Not a good sign. Anyone reckon Ken Baker ever fiddled his expenses, or Jonathan Aitken? “Ofcourse the bastaard won't resign …..” and remember he needs to carry on coining for as long as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shindigger Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Ofcourse the bastaard won't resign, he wants to be able to chair this "all party meeting" in order to make sure he has a chance to keep whatever else secret goings on secret. The last thing he or broon want is someone new coming in and saying "right lets let it all out and be done with it!" That stupid out of touch labour MP who tried to put forward the argument that he has the backing of the majority of the house, did so under orders from broon who is desperate to prevent a by election. By the way this was a historic day in parliament's history,Where was broon?....Feckin hiding somewhere. http://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/story/2009...nd-2018bid.html Text book shytehawkery i think youll agree. This is the leader of our country people. Wheres that slaps forehead smiley?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brassed off brit Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Aha! I'l just worm myself into ENGLANDS bid for the world cup, there is nowhere else important to be today! BROON" can't wait for my free final ticket!" BECKHAM" Troughing *****!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustAnotherProle Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Aha! I'l just worm myself into ENGLANDS bid for the world cup, there is nowhere else important to be today! BROON" can't wait for my free final ticket!" BECKHAM" Troughing *****!" The fact that Jonah McDoom has anyting to do with the 2018 bid means it has failure written all over it, we now certainly wont get it! ..Thanks Brown! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jadoube Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 the speaker, tried to prevent the expenses ever coming to light.they were due out months ago, but delayed and delayed until the telegraph took matters to a head. the speaker is as much to blame as anyone. And so you'll be happy to let all the MP's off if only the speaker would resign? Because that's the ways its being set up. Have calls for MP's to go declined since the speaker was put in the sights? Yes they have. All the sheep bleat for the speakers head and the other culprits sneak out round the side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintJay Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 from The Times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonpo Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWQauM1Z25k et tu? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
three pint princess Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 And so you'll be happy to let all the MP's off if only the speaker would resign? He won't step down like MPs have done, which is why he needs to be given a push. Also he's about the worst speaker in history which doesn't help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSWHPC Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 And so you'll be happy to let all the MP's off if only the speaker would resign? Because that's the ways its being set up. Have calls for MP's to go declined since the speaker was put in the sights? Yes they have. All the sheep bleat for the speakers head and the other culprits sneak out round the side. Far from it - i want prosecutions against all the fraudsters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Methinkshe Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 And so you'll be happy to let all the MP's off if only the speaker would resign? Because that's the ways its being set up. Have calls for MP's to go declined since the speaker was put in the sights? Yes they have. All the sheep bleat for the speakers head and the other culprits sneak out round the side. The public don't believe that it is an either/or situation and nor, I think, do MPs. Getting rid of an obstructive Speaker will not let off the hook MPs who have made scurrilous claims, it will simply allow a clean sheet from which any transgressing MPs can be properly examined. That is not possible with the present Speaker because he is implicated in the concealment of wrongful claims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintJay Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Can he be deposed?There is no precedent for a Speaker being voted out of office. In the old days (before 1560) seven were beheaded and one murdered. In modern times it is seen as a job for life, with the Speaker able to stay until death or retirement. The previous three Speakers were in place for seven, nine and eight years respectively. Given that public criticism is unlikely from MPs, the general assumption is that a delegation of senior Parliamentarians would seek to persuade, in private, the Speaker to retire. There is no suggestion that has happened with Mr Martin. From BBC News - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7263344.stm a beheading might work - there is precedent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaydee Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 The public don't believe that it is an either/or situation and nor, I think, do MPs. Getting rid of an obstructive Speaker will not let off the hook MPs who have made scurrilous claims, it will simply allow a clean sheet from which any transgressing MPs can be properly examined. That is not possible with the present Speaker because he is implicated in the concealment of wrongful claims. Recent days reveal the true hypocrisy of our Rt honourables. Lining up to stab a speaker in the back that had fought tooth and nail to save them (and himself) by blocking the publication of the expenses. Why were they so silent earlier - even when previous speakers were there? - because they were milking the system and hoped to get away with it - now as expected they are jockeying for position in self righteous damnation of the speaker in a shoddy attempt to get re-elected - trouble is given the feckless indifference among many voters they may just get away with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Recent days reveal the true hypocrisy of our Rt honourables. Lining up to stab a speaker in the back that had fought tooth and nail to save them (and himself) by blocking the publication of the expenses. Why were they so silent earlier - even when previous speakers were there? - because they were milking the system and hoped to get away with it - now as expected they are jockeying for position in self righteous damnation of the speaker in a shoddy attempt to get re-elected - trouble is given the feckless indifference among many voters they may just get away with it. They want him sacked because he didn't stop their expenses becoming known by (for example) shredding the lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shedfish Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 well the Queen is at the flower show, presenting her son an award. that's nice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaydee Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 They want him sacked because he didn't stop their expenses becoming known by (for example) shredding the lot. Yes - good point - Martin wasn't as politically astute as he needed to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 (edited) The crooks don't even know what type of motion the no confidence motion is or should be. They've all their heads down with their snouts in the trough for so long they haven't a clue what the proper procedure is. The banana republics must be having a jolly good laugh at all these goings on in the UK. Edited May 18, 2009 by billybong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
three pint princess Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 (edited) The Speaker was happy enough to explain about himself, but there wasn't time for anyone else. It's time he stepped down and returned to the back benches, then faces the general election along with everyone else. His son doesn't have a chance of winning at the moment. With final salary that is the reason he can drag this out, when he gets kicked out it will be on Speaker wages. Brown is far too weak and the opposition may be forced to act and be accused of politics in getting the Speaker out. Last updated at 1:22 AM on 29th May 2008Commons Speaker Michael Martin will retire on a generous taxpayer-funded pension worth £1.4million - after refusing to follow the Prime Minister in ditching the extravagant perk. After a bruising battle, the Speaker won the right to retain a gold-plated pensions package of £836,000 on top of a £572,000 pension he has so far accumulated as an MP. It means Mr Martin - nicknamed Gorbals Mick because of his working-class Glasgow background - will have one of the country's most generous pensions, totalling £1.4million. Critics said it is another damning example of MPs with their 'snouts in the trough' while millions of ordinary hard-working Britons are forced to tighten their belts as the cost of food, fuel and mortgages rises. Mr Martin, 67, who earns £138,724, has already come under fire over his use of public money, including claiming nearly £50,000 in air travel over recent years, while his wife Mary has run up £4,000 in taxi bills. He has also had £1.7million of taxpayers' money spent on sprucing up his lavish grace-and-favour apartment, Speaker's House in the Palace of Westminster. Only the holders of the three great offices of state - the Prime Minister, Lord Chancellor and Speaker - are allowed publicly-funded index-linked 'life' pensions. It automatically entitles them to half their ministerial salary, regardless of how long they have served, every year from when they step down until they die. In Mr Martin's case, this would be half of £76,904 - an annual sum of about £38,000. Because the pension is index-linked it will rise each year by the rate of inflation. If he retired this year and lived to 89 - the age used by the Pensions Regulator to calculate retirement pots - this would amount to £836,000. Mr Brown and Lord Chancellor Jack Straw agreed to forego hundreds of thousands of pounds of extra money. Instead, they will claim a final- salary pension, equivalent to that of a Cabinet minister, once they reach 65. Ministers believed the payouts are 'potentially embarrassing' at a time when public sector pay has been frozen and Britain is facing an economic downturn. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10...n-pot-perk.html Edited May 18, 2009 by Tom Peters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 (edited) and people actually cast votes for MPs to indulge in all this troughery. Amazing. Edited May 18, 2009 by billybong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 (edited) Ministers believed the payouts are 'potentially embarrassing' at a time when public sector pay has been frozen and Britain is facing an economic downturn. They are worse than "embarrassing" at any time, downturn or not. Edited May 18, 2009 by billybong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copydude Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 He won't step down like MPs have done, which is why he needs to be given a push. Also he's about the worstspeaker in history which doesn't help. Speaker Martin is the Godfather of all Commons sleaze, the shredder of Tony Blair's Expenses, the leaner on the Met, the man who knows where all the bodies are buried. Don't be fooled by the show. In Westminster, the big question is how can they buy him off and buy his silence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.