Farage Needs Some Cash

If you want to see Speaker Bercow unseated, or, if you want to help UKIP in the seat where they are presently most likely to win, then click HERE to donate.

MPs Choice - Who Cleans Up Parliament?

John Bercow's voting record towards a transparent Parliament:

George Youngs voting record towards a transparent Parliament:

Not a great day for our Democracy

Incapable Of Changing

Not Surprised at all, but the Daily Telegraph has up the story that the Labour Whips are touting for Margaret Beckett as she is Browns Preferred Candidate.

The election of Speaker is supposed to be a free and secret ballot so that the person elected has the support of the whole house and is not beholden to a party for this position. If Beckett is elected with the support of the Whip, she will be the place-person of a discredited and unpopular PM, and unable to draw support from across the House... The main requirement for a Speaker looking to reform Parliament in the wake of the MP Expenses scandal.

I have said before, and I say again: Legitimate reform of Parliament requires a General Election, a fresh Parliament and then a fresh Speaker.

Same old Gordon.

Why June 21st?

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.

Order!

Democracy did not fail today, but Parliament, the tool in which we ply our democracy did fail when the speaker refused to allow a debate on his future in an uncharacteristically busy chamber.

The Parliamentary System is built upon the supposition that it will be filled with and defended by Honourable Members, the fault in our system is in the difficulties we encounter when honour is challenged by dishonourable members. Speaker Martin and Prime Minister Brown will continue to put their pocket books, their ambitions and their positions in their political party ahead of the wishes of the public, and seemingly ahead of the wishes of Parliament. The absence of a vote confirms the worst suspicions of the electorate.

Public disdain over the MPs expenses issue is still growing and in reply to public cries of foul-play and fraud we have heard in return acknowledgements that the system must be changed and that it will be done by our repenting politicians. At the head of the list of required actions, before anything can be done is the need to remove the man at the top of the chain whose responsibility it has been over the last decade to ensure transparency and protect the public purse.

The failure to remove Michael Martin demonstrates how it will be impossible to put forward the required changes that will satisfy the public at large. Because of Mr Martins alleged pay deals, he doesn't get his pension unless an election is called; it seems that he is going to fight tooth and nail to secure that.

Well, the future of Parliament is in Gordon Browns hands, for the Speaker declared that any motion on his future needed government sponsorship, despite Gordon Brown having said already it was a matter for MP’s. Upon entering 10 Downing Street on 27th June 2007 the new Prime Minister declared:

"At all time I will be strong in purpose, steadfast in will and resolute in action in the service of what matters most to the British people: meeting the concerns and aspirations of the whole country... I want the best of chances for everyone, that is my mission."

Might I be so bold as to suggest that Gordon Browns sole purpose for what time he remains in high office is to do what he can to restore faith to Parliament. It does need to be MPs that need to make the changes needed, but the service the UK needs most from The Prime Minister right now is a debate and vote on the current Speaker - make that happen, table an appropriate motion and let MPs vote freely.

If this situation is allowed to roll on, the focus will become sharply focused on the PM. The Sunday Mail hinted that the Queen could dissolve Parliament, The Sun has called for an election and tonight Ben Brogan has also called for David Cameron to call for a motion of no confidence on Gordon Brown.

The question now is, if the Speaker does not go, will the political ramifications bring down the government? Or, will Mr Brown summon the acumen to act and prevent this?

Constitutional Mischief?

I am just jumping around the Sunday Newspapers online and came across an interesting article in the Sunday Mail. Entitled "The Queen tells Gordon Brown she is 'deeply troubled' over MPs' expenses" it begins by suggesting there has been a 'candid exchange of views' when Gordon rolled up to the Palace on Tuesday.

But at the end there are these two provocative paragraphs:

Although the Queen's role in Parliament is now largely ceremonial, it is the Monarch who dissolves Parliament, and it is only convention that dictates that she should do so only on the advice of the Prime Minister.

She also retains a key role in the passage of legislation. The Crown is expected to act with 'the advice and consent' of the Commons and Lords, but again, it is only convention which states that she will give Royal assent to Bills passed by the two Houses.

I wonder what action exactly the Mail is trying to invoke. The Queen demonstrated with The Lisbon Constitutional Treaty that she was prepared to sign away powers from the UK that she is supposed to protect under the her Coronation Oath. Why would she not be prepared to invoke her powers there and supposedly be so inclined now?

Gordon Brown got the job without facing the electorate in a General Election, and without an election within his party. He has since pushed legislation through Parliament which contravenes the 2005 Labour Party manifesto.... In short Gordon Brown never has had an electoral mandate in which to govern. This, in part is why some people do not like him. He is governing without consent or due consideration from the public.

In the last week I have seen a few remarks about the Queen stepping in and I believe there are a few petitions out there urging the Queen to dissolve Parliament.

I really do not think the Queen will dissolve Parliament, though I do believe the Queen will not shy away from raising her concerns with Gordon Brown. It did make for an interesting article though. The Queen appointed Gordon Brown PM without an electoral mandate, I do not see how she can dissolve Parliament now, and not then.

Despite all of this I do think that Parliament should be dissolved, I just don't think the Queen will be the trigger for it. Hoping that she might, seems to me to be a distraction. The removal of Speaker Martin this week could lead to a motion of no confidence on Gordon if he decides to back Speaker Martin, and fails by way of a vote in the Commons. The Speaker is after all not completely loved on the Labour benches. I think given this unprecedented nature of the action against the Speaker in modern times it is fair to say this will be an unpredictable week, one in which future conventions may well be written.

Motion Of No Confidence Against The Speaker Has Been Tabled

Tabled by Doug Carswell, Paul Flynn, Gordon Prentice & Ben Wallace.

“That this House has no confidence in Mr Speaker and calls for him to step down; notes that Mr Speaker has failed to provide leadership in matters relating to hon. Members’ expenses; believes that a new Speaker urgently needs to be elected by secret ballot, free from manipulation by party Whips, under Standing Order No. 1B; and believes that a new Speaker should proceed to reform the House in such a way as to make it an effective legislature once again.”

Hopefully Mr Martin will resign tomorrow, if not it will got to a vote.

Despite a potential swoop for Ming a few months back, so as to prevent a Tory being appointed, that may well be out of the question after tonight's story on his expense claims.

I did make my suggestion here in February, I suggested... Doug Carswell.