Martin to be Peer???!

#1
I am sorry but there is no way the Glasgow Crook should be offered a position of peerage

"Eminent services"? "Make good the same"? I quote Harriet Harman - God bless her

Man's delusional and was sacked. Last man who was, was beheaded.

Why the ffff***** should the man be made a peer?

Farse

discuss....
 
#2
I believe it is traditional that all speakers of the House of Commons are made peers on their retirement from the lower House. Even if they are utterly hopeless.
 
#3
the departing speaker is no more or less guilty than any of the other MP's who've looked to protect their position and resist reform. He's a lightning rod for all the bile and criticism that should be levied on the whole sorry lot.

Comparing him with Sir John Trevor is unfair - Trevor was convicted of taking a bribe. Michael Martin is fundamentally a decent man, who wasn't able to realise that the public would not stand for the House of Commons hiding its indiscretions through the use of parliamentary priveledge. A peerage might not seem appropriate, but it is tradition.
 

maguire

LE
Book Reviewer
#6
nodandawink said:
the departing speaker is no more or less guilty than any of the other MP's who've looked to protect their position and resist reform. He's a lightning rod for all the bile and criticism that should be levied on the whole sorry lot.

Comparing him with Sir John Trevor is unfair - Trevor was convicted of taking a bribe. Michael Martin is fundamentally a decent man, who wasn't able to realise that the public would not stand for the House of Commons hiding its indiscretions through the use of parliamentary priveledge. A peerage might not seem appropriate, but it is tradition.
not in this case. he's a fcuking disgrace.
 
#7
nodandawink said:
the departing speaker is no more or less guilty than any of the other MP's who've looked to protect their position and resist reform. He's a lightning rod for all the bile and criticism that should be levied on the whole sorry lot.

Comparing him with Sir John Trevor is unfair - Trevor was convicted of taking a bribe. Michael Martin is fundamentally a decent man, who wasn't able to realise that the public would not stand for the House of Commons hiding its indiscretions through the use of parliamentary priveledge. A peerage might not seem appropriate, but it is tradition.
And in that case - tradition is bolloxks. Could I have another 'tea leaf' in my cup please.
 
#8
lofty_lofty said:
I believe it is traditional that all speakers of the House of Commons are made peers on their retirement from the lower House. Even if they are utterly hopeless.
It's a Constitutional Convention rather than tradition, and therefore has a much stronger tenet. For example it is tradition that the Speaker wears a wig and stockings; such traditions are easily circumvented qv Betty Boothroid, who did not wear a wig because it messed her hair up!

Conventions are much stronger, but still technically unenforceable. For example it is a Convention that the Lords will pass a budget accepted by the Commons; this was last breached in 1909 and was the route cause of the Constitutional crisis that led to the Parliament Act of 1911.


It does stick in the back of the throat a bit though!
 
#9
I don't like what has happened. I don't agree that MP's should perpetuate a system that hides supplementary income through 'flipping' properties, dubious claims and then hiding the truth through parliamentary priviledge.


But...

Mick Martin is a scapegoat for all this. He is equally complicit, but has been singled out. Why - because the Labour party saw a glimpse of its old self in Mick and didn't like what it saw - a decent, union man who got to the top of the greasy pole. The new band of tories saw someone who they could make snide remarks about to journalists who then would print them in the Sundays.

Maybe giving him a peerage sticks in the craw. I understand that - but the man is no thief (how much did HE claim last year?). Comparing him to Sir John Trevor is not fair.
 
#10
nodandawink said:
I don't like what has happened. I don't agree that MP's should perpetuate a system that hides supplementary income through 'flipping' properties, dubious claims and then hiding the truth through parliamentary priviledge.


But...

Mick Martin is a scapegoat for all this. He is equally complicit, but has been singled out. Why - because the Labour party saw a glimpse of its old self in Mick and didn't like what it saw - a decent, union man who got to the top of the greasy pole. The new band of tories saw someone who they could make snide remarks about to journalists who then would print them in the Sundays.

Maybe giving him a peerage sticks in the craw. I understand that - but the man is no thief (how much did HE claim last year?). Comparing him to Sir John Trevor is not fair.
Worra loada bollix! Martin is a totally corrupt, slimy, greedy, grabbin' little shit who, by his own admission, wanted what was "owed" to him. Nary a mention of "serving the public" but plenty of mention about serving himself.

Are you Ashie in disguise? Or are you taking the piss and I've bitten?

MsG
 
#11
Gremlin said:
lofty_lofty said:
I believe it is traditional that all speakers of the House of Commons are made peers on their retirement from the lower House. Even if they are utterly hopeless.
It's a Constitutional Convention rather than tradition, and therefore has a much stronger tenet. For example it is tradition that the Speaker wears a wig and stockings; such traditions are easily circumvented qv Betty Boothroid, who did not wear a wig because it messed her hair up!

Conventions are much stronger, but still technically unenforceable. For example it is a Convention that the Lords will pass a budget accepted by the Commons; this was last breached in 1909 and was the route cause of the Constitutional crisis that led to the Parliament Act of 1911.


It does stick in the back of the throat a bit though!
Err.. yes,

The Parliament Act of 1911 coincided with the Perjury Act of 1911.
 
#12
nodandawink said:
A peerage might not seem appropriate, but it is tradition.
in_the_cheapseats said:
Man's delusional and was sacked. Last man who was, was beheaded.
In my opinion as beheading is no longer 'in', I think an approprate punishment is no peerage and no pay-off as failure should not be rewarded. I remeber MP's spouting that off about the banks, obviously doesnt apply to their own of course.
 
#13
Not Ashie... Not taking the piss....

Like I said, I don't like the fact that MP's have all had their snouts in the trough. I just think that the media, New Labour and a section of new Tory MP's have positioned Mick Martin to be somehow to blame for the whole thing, and I think that is bollocks. I think that he is no more corrupt, slimy, greedy or grabbing than a whole load of others.

However, one key difference between Mick and lots of others is that Mick Martin isn't a career politician - merchant seaman, school cleaner and factory worker, the Labour party needs more Micks and fewer Milibands.

I'm a Tory, by the way - I just think that both sides need to be a bit more honest about how things got to be the way they did...
 

maguire

LE
Book Reviewer
#14
nodandawink said:
Not Ashie... Not taking the piss....

Like I said, I don't like the fact that MP's have all had their snouts in the trough. I just think that the media, New Labour and a section of new Tory MP's have positioned Mick Martin to be somehow to blame for the whole thing, and I think that is balls. I think that he is no more corrupt, slimy, greedy or grabbing than a whole load of others.

However, one key difference between Mick and lots of others is that Mick Martin isn't a career politician - merchant seaman, school cleaner and factory worker, the Labour party needs more Micks and fewer Milibands.

I'm a Tory, by the way - I just think that both sides need to be a bit more honest about how things got to be the way they did...
er, perhaps because he is to blame? and then he tried to cover it up as much as possible?

and he's a gobshite with not so much a chip as an entire McCain's factory on his shoulder.
 
#15
You are right - he tried to cover it up. But the cover up is as much Cameron, Brown and Clegg's (and every other scamming fcuker who flipped, claimed or hid stuff) responsibility as it is the Speaker. So why is Martin the only one who has lost his job? Something to do with his class, lack of connection to Brown and Blair, and the fact he's an easy target?
 
#16
nodandawink said:
You are right - he tried to cover it up. But the cover up is as much Cameron, Brown and Clegg's (and every other scamming fcuker who flipped, claimed or hid stuff) responsibility as it is the Speaker. So why is Martin the only one who has lost his job? Something to do with his class, lack of connection to Brown and Blair, and the fact he's an easy target?
He's the only one who was "expendable" at the time. He's also the one who actively tried to prevent any details from seeing the light of day, including his own.

Why bother to defend this disgraceful, greedy little shite? He, even more so than anybody else, is to blame for the present situation. If he really had been "a representative of the people" then he wouldn't have been so obstructive in the first place. I hope he has a cardiac arrest and karks it before he gets anywhere near his peerage!

MsG
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#17
If he has an ounce of decency he won't accept a peerage:

Therefore I present.:Lord Mick of the Gorbals!
 
#18
JoseyWales said:
Err.. yes,

The Parliament Act of 1911 coincided with the Perjury Act of 1911.
Very very good point, but can you commit Perjury in the House? I though that it was exempt despite being a legal court?
 
#19
nodandawink said:
the departing speaker is no more or less guilty than any of the other MP's who've looked to protect their position and resist reform. He's a lightning rod for all the bile and criticism that should be levied on the whole sorry lot.

Comparing him with Sir John Trevor is unfair - Trevor was convicted of taking a bribe. Michael Martin is fundamentally a decent man, who wasn't able to realise that the public would not stand for the House of Commons hiding its indiscretions through the use of parliamentary priveledge. A peerage might not seem appropriate, but it is tradition.
Wasn't is also tradition that the speaker was not of the governing party? We all know what liarbour thinks of tradition, esp if it doesn't benefit themselves.

How can "a fundamentally descent man" stand by and allow that level of squandering of British Peoples taxes on utter sh1te and feather nesting? He had his chance to be descent and upstanding, he didn't take it.

Kick him out, no peerage. He is the first speaker in 300 yeara (I beleive) to be forced out, he can also have the honour of being the first to NOT receive a Peerage.

If there are NEVER any consequences to these peoples actions there will NEVER be any improvement.
 
#20
If this happens, it will simply exemplify the level to which the once respected House of Lords has descended to.

The man, like so much associated with 'New' Labour is a hopeless disgrace.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Myss The NAAFI Bar 2
L The Intelligence Cell 27
woopert Aviation 2

Similar threads

New Posts

Top