Here's Frank Dobson on the subject. I'd agree for the most part:

"It is a bit like a lot of people in a lifeboat slinging one person out in the hope that the water won't now lap over us."

He added: "I think it is a dreadful example of the House of Commons as a whole - which as a whole is responsible for the mess we are in - trying to scapegoat one man who was trying to represent what he thought were their views on what should be done.

"Until about a fortnight ago, what he was trying to do did represent most members' views."
Paulie | Homepage | 05.20.09 - 1:13 am | #

Martin isn't a regular MP so of course he deserves extra disdain.
Tom | 05.20.09 - 1:16 am | #

http://ollysonions.blogspot.com/...ntest- next.html
Will | Homepage | 05.20.09 - 2:19 am | #

Perhaps I missed it but I didn't notice Kampfner complaining about class attacks when the 'troughers' in Parliament screeched and sneered at Bankers for, er, 'troughing'!
David Duff | Homepage | 05.20.09 - 9:13 am | #

And there was me thinkimg that Martin was just an ignorant, stupid, ill-tempered working-class cunt, shinning his way upwards by arse-licking and playing the class card, and now deservedly brought low. Whereas he's some sort of hero scapegoat.
dearieme | 05.20.09 - 5:41 pm | #

"I would agree that Michael Martin was essentially incompetent but to imagine this was enough to see him ejected from his role as Speaker is pure fantasy. Had it not been for the Telegraph's revelations about MP's expenses, he would have remained in his role."

I don't think it was enough to eject him, but it was perhaps inevitable following on from his very poor previous performance in the role. Had he been the equal of Betty Boothroyd until that time he probably could have stayed. His treatment of Kate Hoey was symptomatic of his failings rather than a temporary lapse.

The Speaker is an important person in the democratic system, but it was not a role that Martin with his Strathclyde political background and its Labour right or wrong mindset was suited to.

Michael Martin represented the worst aspects of Old Labour and particularly the Glasgow contingent of that breed. I have really got to piss myself when I heard tits like Lord Foulkes claiming this is all about Martin being from the wrong side of the tracks when there is serious talk of him going to the Lords so his equally undeserving son can inherit his parliamentary seat like it was his birthright.

I hope Michael Martin is part of a dying breed.
Anon A Moss | 05.20.09 - 7:10 pm | #

Whereas he's some sort of hero scapegoat.

Who said anything about him being a hero? He is, however, a scapegoat.
Shuggy | Homepage | 05.20.09 - 7:28 pm | #

Well hang on a moment.

He isn't carrying the guilt all on his own. MPs are still falling on their swords, and the public sure as hell are not finished with them. And neither is the editor of the Telegraph. It isn't over by a long chalk. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them end up in court. The CPS can't continue to avoid dealing with what Frank Field has characterised as fraud and embezzlement.
Monty | 05.21.09 - 1:36 am | #

Is he the first speaker to lose his job for stating the bleedin' obvious - ie that certain MPs routinely chase TV cameras/journos/etc to deliver themselves of their tediously predictable and banal opinions? (And he actually seems to have got it right in respect of the ones he had a go at.)
mikeovswinton | 05.21.09 - 12:29 pm | #

There is no suggestion of anything matching this level of personal corruption with regards to Michael Martin.

In your dreams, baby. Theft is theft.
Obnoxio The Clown | Homepage | 05.27.09 - 9:55 am | #

'baby'?
Shuggy | Homepage | 05.28.09 - 12:58 am | #

I've seen what these bloggertarian tossers think that the definition of 'theft' is.

http://nevertrustahippy.blogspot...on-draft- 1.html
Paulie | Homepage | 05.28.09 - 10:59 am | #

Sorry... But I don't feel sorry for him. Martin appears to have been incompetent. Just looking at him perform in parliament is frankly embarrassing.

He also seems to have spent much time and taxpayers money in trying to prevent the taxpayers from finding out just how much they were being milked. So i guess you could say he was on parliament's side, against the electorate. Was that supposed to be his job? Though maybe not so much parliament, considering how he welcomed the rozzers in with open arms when they had been set on a shadow cabinet member by the government.

Maybe more just new Labour's side. Maybe he just wasn't able to grasp what he should have been doing? rose to the level of his own incompetence.

When anyone ever called him on it he pulled the "We were so poor" card to distract people.
Moggsy | Homepage | 06.04.09 - 7:30 am | #