Silencing the Speaker

It was the resignation that never was. Despite mounting pressure and calls for him to resign, Michael Martin stood defiant in the House of Commons earlier today as he apologised to the country for the expenses scandal.

Not a word was said about his future – well, at least not from him. At least five MPs, standing one after the other, directly challenged the Speaker’s authority when he finished his statement. This significance of this should not be overlooked; no Speaker has been ejected from his seat for over 300 years.

It shows just how deep feelings of impropriety are running as the Daily Telegraph continues to drip feed details of expense claims – everything from manure to moats and massage chairs – into the public domain.

I am actually surprised by the relatively modest number of MPs who have publicly called on the Speaker to stand down so far because, while this current controversy has certainly caught the public’s imagination, it is not the first time members of the Commons have felt Michael Martin isn’t up to the job.

Accusations of bias have been a constant feature of his time as Speaker. Just a month into his role he provoked controversy after expelling Sir John Butterfill MP from the Commons, after he complained that he had not been called to speak during a heated debate on the Middle East while six pro-Arab MPs had been allowed to give their view. Butterfill had wanted to put forward Israel’s case.

Martin was also rebuked by the Conservatives after refusing to allow David Cameron to question Tony Blair about his leadership of the Labour Party in 2006. That incident followed a similar one a few years earlier when both Tony Blair and then Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith were both reprimanded for raising what Martin described as party matters during prime minister’s questions.

At the time, the BBC said:

In the ensuing row, it was reported that Mr Martin felt he was being undermined, because of his background, with each slur “an attack on every working class person from Clydeside”.

That is highly significant. Martin seems to be exhibiting the same form of self obsessed paranoia which is currently afflicting the Prime Minister so acutely. Reporting on ‘smeargate’ Nick Cohen argues:

…you underestimate the Prime Minister if you see him merely as an ordinary operator, inspired by the everyday political calculation that it may be advantageous to besmirch a rival. He has a characteristic left-wing belief in his own righteousness. Those who oppose him cannot have an honest objection to his policies, but must be motivated by malice or envy. In his mind, no blow is too low when he fights critics who are not merely mistaken but wicked.

Like Gordon Brown – who earlier today washed his hands of the Speaker – its seems that Michael Martin is incapable of standing back from the current situation and looking at his own position with dispassionate objectivity. He can’t see that those who are now turning on him are motivated by more than just the expenses scandal.

Of course expenses have been the straw that broke the camel’s back, but that’s all they are. The sooner Michael Martin realises that, the better it will be for our democracy – and the more inclined I’ll be to believe his apology.

UPDATE:

So, the Speaker has announced he’ll stand down next month. After all the hype that this would be one of the defining moments of our parliamentary democracy the statement itself took less than a minute to make. In effect Michael Martin acknowledged that it would be best if he stood down and said he’ll go on 21 June. Then he took questions on Foreign Policy.

I’m pleased the Speaker finally saw sense. Still, I can’t help but think that even the process by which all this happened only underscores even further why he wasn’t the right man for the job. Why couldn’t he have just made this statement yesterday rather than prolong the inevitable and spin this whole charade out for even longer than was necessary?