Calls to force out the Speaker may be misguided

Today things really began to hot up in the House of Commons, and this was not because they were afraid to claim for air-conditioning expenses.

18 MPs have so far signed a motion of no confidence in the Speaker Michael Martin, and several of them have openly attacked Mr. Martin. Among them, David Winnick MP said, "your early retirement sir, would help the reputation of the House".

Mr Martin replied that was "not a subject for today", but that was all today was about for many MPs. Significantly, the Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has now added his voice to the ranks of dissenters, calling for 'Gorbals Mick' as Martin is known, to stand down . Martin however, has so far stood firm.

Scapegoat

But is this really fair on the speaker? It is true that Martin has not covered himself in any glory over the past few weeks, and many see him as a roadblock to reform. Indeed, there were calls for his resignation when the Damian Green affair unfolded.

But wait a moment, is there just a hint of the commons looking for a scapegoat here? There is a great deal at stake for a still growing list of MPs that have become embroiled in the sordid expenses revelations, and they will not want to lose their seats.

So by blaming Mr. Martin for standing in the way of reform and allowing the murky culture of expenses claims to develop, are the MPs trying to deflect attention away from their own dirty deeds? It seems like a distinct probability.

Taking responsibility

Surely the MPs can not continue to blame the system for their own failings? Well if they do then it will just not wash with the public, and only make things worse for them. They have to admit their failings and this means taking responsibility for their actions.

An MP claiming for a non-existent mortgage can not really blame their actions on Michael Martin, but at the moment Parliament look hopelessly detached from the real world.

This was perfectly illustrated by the bizarre argument in the House today, over "early day motions" and "substantive motions". If there is anything that is sure to turn the electorate off, it is a squabble over arcane Parliamentary practice.

Parliament out of touch

There is no doubt that the House of Commons needs reforming. It is an institution that clings fiercely to tradition, but perhaps this whole affair really will force some changes through.

Michael Martin has not been a good speaker and neither has he acted professionally in his dealing with the issue of expenses, but will removing him now really make a difference to public confidence in parliament?

I suspect not, and this is where MPs are misguided. By obsessing over Michael Martin's job, they have forgotten about their own job, representing the public.

How many people on the street really care about the speaker of the house of Commons losing his job when they may well have lost their's? The answer is probably very few, and parliament should recognise this.