The former Speaker to the House of Commons, Michael Martin, was elevated to a peerage yesterday despite concerns raised by the appointment committee over the propriety of the nomination. The committee, having no power to reject nominations, reminded the Prime Minister of the terms of its vetting procedure, to assess whether particular appointments would diminish the reputation of the Lords, and warned of possible 'public controversy' if the appointment went ahead. And no wonder. If Martin's position as Speaker was regarded as completely untenable as a result of the Damien Green debacle and the expenses scandal, what should we make of the decision to grant him a peerage (which went unopposed in the Commons on Monday)?
It is true that it would be wrong to see the ex-Speaker as the sole person responsible for MPs' abuse of their expenses, but at the same time his resignation and replacement with John Bercow, the so-called 'clean break' candidate, was presented by some as an indication that MPs saw the need to address the problems at the heart of our democracy. Michael Martin's elevation to the House of Lords is another sign that very little has changed, and calls into question whether MPs are at all aware of the need to radically change the way politics is done in this country. If the one who is seen by MPs to be most at fault for letting expenses get so grotesquely out of hand is also seen by them as deserving of a place in our second chamber, it is hard to believe that the problems with our rotten system will be seriously addressed. The way Martin is being bumped up to the Lords even after his disastrous time as Speaker reeks of exactly the kind of Old Boy's club attitude that Gordon Brown, among others, has been publicly decrying.
When our elected representatives can no longer be trusted to do the right thing, there is a need for citizens to become involved and stand up for a more honest and transparent politics. Rewarding Martin with an 'automatic' peerage despite the furore over Green and expenses, and despite his inability to take any responsibility in these matters, is the sort of undemocratic decision we are in danger of taking for granted. Those who disagree with this undemocratic and insulting action by the Prime Minister and Parliament should consider writing a letter to their MP to protest against Martin's peerage, writing to the Queen to urging her to resist going along with the appointment, and getting involved with Real Change which launches a citizen-led open politics network for better liberty and democracy this month.
Comments
I think the words "disgraced" and "disastrous" are rather hyperbolic don't you? He resigned because he didn't have MPs' confidence and the expenses affair was a convenient opportunity to get rid of him.
The way the Speaker was eventually forced out may have been due mainly to MPs dislike, with the expenses scandal as a convenient excuse, but Martin's behaviour as Speaker and his subsequent elevation to a peerage is deserving of such 'hyperbolic' language. His failure to intervene during the Damian Green affair, and his bungled attempt to cover up certain aspects of it in his statements to MPs certainly do not mark a successful time as Speaker. And his undignified behaviour and aggressive attitude during the expenses scandal, resulting in his position becoming untenable to the point where he was effectively forced from office (an almost unique occurence in our democratic system) would suggest to my mind that 'disgraced' was an appropriate term.
His elevation is indeed a disgrace, and a disaster for British democracy.
I agree with Adam, it is a disgrace, and an absolutely shameful disgrace. Add Mandleson to that too. And Kinnock and Prescott and Moonie.
Hereditary Lords were better than these New Labour placemen.
'Hereditary Lords were better than these New Labour placemen.'
Maybe, but Martin and his ilk provide more ammunition for ridicule which hopefully will hasten the end of this undemocratic fiasco.
One persons tradition is anothers built in corruption.
last year that his wife Mary had racked up £4,000-worth of taxi bills at the taxpayer’s expense. The parliamentary watchdog ruled that nothing untoward had happened.!!!!!!!!
His wife also managed to spend £50,000 of public money on air fares, both overseas and between Glasgow and London as part of her “role” of “supporting her husband in his official duties”. How many of his family were "encouraged" to pursue careers in politics as the financial rewards would be substantial. 4 at last count !!!
Post new comment