House Speaker To Step Down
Sadly, it’s the House Of Commons’ Speaker
Michael Martin is set to announce he will stand down as Commons Speaker in a statement to MPs at 1430 BST.
Mr Martin has been criticised over his handling of the furore over MPs’ expenses and a motion of no confidence in him has been backed by 23 MPs.
He also faced open challenges to his authority in the Commons on Monday.
It is understood he plans to step down “soon” rather than immediately. It is the first time in 300 years a Speaker has been effectively forced out.
Well, it’s a start.
Politics | tree hugging sister | 
May 19, 2009 7:36 am
Subscribe
The ‘Speaker’, to use the least obnoxious of his many names, attempted to quash the release of all the ‘Expenses & allowances’ data which presently is the cause of all the resignations, allegations and political dynamite circulating in Great Britain right now.
He resigns on June 21.
His job, in Parliament, was to represent the Members (the equivalent of your Congressmen) against the Executive arm of Government. He failed, he equivocated, so he had to go!
Nancy Pelosi should take a lesson instead of complaining that she’s been lied to. Oh, poor thing.
I’m the last person who’d ever expect to defend Nancy Pelosi, but while she’s a complete wackjob, I don’t think I’ve ever heard of anything to suggest she’s corrupt. Michael Martin was so up to his neck in graft that it’s obvious he was in the job for the sole purpose of self-enrichment. Good riddance.
I don’t know that either politician is corrupt, but both committed the blunder of trying to dodge questions of what they knew, when they knew it, and what they did about it. Regarding MP’s expense claims, for decades Parliament has been using a self-policing expense system (what ho, old chap?!) permitting reimbursement of second-residence expenses under vague rules. I don’t think MP’s expensing of cat food and moat cleaning to British taxpayers is right. But under the current system it’s allowed, and MP’s from all parties have long been doing it to compensate for smaller salaries so they say. More interesting is why the British public didn’t know about it sooner, and why the U.S. media hasn’t reported it more thoroughly. Is it too painfully reminiscent of the bonuses recently paid by Wall Street executives to themselves at the cost of U.S. taxpayers? In the end, whether the issue is enhanced expense claims or enhanced interrogation techniques, the hypocritical equivocating from both of these politicians should be untenable to the publics they represent. I found Ms. Pelosi’s teflon turn at the podium to be an insult to the office and to those of us who expect our U.S. public servants to be honest and competent.