I obviously think it was the right decision for Michael Martin to resign, and by it coming a day after the attempted vote of no confidence it will be a footnote rather than a chapter in itself in the annuls of history.
Can someone educate me, why must we wait until 21st June? I seem to recall that Parliament will sit until July before summer recess, so I don't think it is timed to coincide with that. Surely given the magnitude of what has happened and of what needs to be done, the best option would have been for the Speaker to go now so that the reforms that are needed can begin.
I have not long been home from work so I need to read up, but I am not sure I like the idea of handing controls outside of Parliament. But, that will have to wait for a later post as my ideas on this are a little long-winded.
I am perhaps missing something, but if you know why we must wait 1 month and 3 days to get the urgent business of rebuilding faith in Parliament could you let me know in the comments.
Ta very much.
1 comment:
When Martin was originally elected there was a lot of criticism because although Betty Boothroyd announced her retirement some months earlier the recess meant there was no parliamentary time to debate any changes to the method of election (the system proving unworkable for more than two candidates).
If Martin had immediately resigned there would have been a sudden election with no time to consider the candidates, no time to investigate their expenses and no time for MPs to ask if the election rules should be changed. Instead we'd have got either a snap decision on the Speakership or a whip bounced rubber stamp. The one month allows more time for careful consideration.
Post a Comment