MPs' Expenses

[rynner2]

Let's be fair, the amounts being spoken of here, all of them, are piddling compared to bonuses of hundreds of thousands of pounds which have been paid to the excessive risk takers who have pissed our financial security away. Yes, MP's have been spending our money in a reprehensible fashion, and they deserve punishment, but let's not forget that the biggest snouts in the trough have more or less got away with it.

And the public know who let them get away with it; the government, by throwing taxpayers' money at the banks! (And the banks used the money to pay big pensions and bonuses!!)

 

[Ginando]

Pleased to see that Ray Mallon has taken the bull by the horns and made a complaint to the Commisioner of the Met regarding what he describes as clear offences under the Theft Act by various MP's. What will be even more interesting is how the Commisioner will wriggle out of doing anything about it, probably citing that there's to be an independent inquiry. That'll make it all better, some Government appointed mandarin enquiring into the people who put him in post in the first place.

 

[Cavynaut]

And the public know who let them get away with it; the government, by throwing taxpayers' money at the banks! (And the banks used the money to pay big pensions and bonuses!!)

Point taken Rynner, but ask the average man in the street what he thinks about the massive bonuses and you are likely to be met with a fatalistic shrug of the shoulders. Ask him about an MP claiming expenses for a tin of dog food, a bottle of gin or a packet of tampons and you will be told that the politician should be jailed or shot at dawn.

It's not an MP claiming cash from the public purse to have his moat cleaned which has caused 12,800 homes to be repossessed or thrown thousands out of work, reprehensible though such a claim is.

It seems to me that we have lost control of our destinies to such an extent that we can only lash out at those who we feel we have a chance of punishing. Meanwhile, the real agents of misfortune quietly retire into the shadows. And the whole stupid bloody system grinds on and on.

 

[rynner2]

...ask the average man in the street what he thinks about the massive bonuses and you are likely to be met with a fatalistic shrug of the shoulders. Ask him about an MP claiming expenses for a tin of dog food, a bottle of gin or a packet of tampons and you will be told that the politician should be jailed or shot at dawn.

I don't think things are quite that bad..... yet!

But the public would like to feel that they can trust their legislators, in small things as well as big.

And if MPs in future have to jump through the same sort of hoops that the man in the street has to tackle whenever he's unfortunate enough to have to claim jobseekers allowance, incapacity benefit or pensions credit, so much the better! 8)

 

[rynner2]

And this man-in-the-street thinks MPs have it cushy, as he has to struggle to keep in work...

Camping commuter angry with MPs

A man from Cornwall forced to live on a campsite when he works in London during the week has said he is "disgusted" by the MPs' expenses scandal.

Philip Hanman camps in Epping Forest, Essex, from Tuesday to Friday, because he said he cannot afford a second home.

He said he would "love" a job in Cornwall but there was nothing in his "line of work" available locally.

Mr Hanman's MP, Andrew George, has rejected claims his daughter lived in a flat he claimed mortgage interest for.

Mr Hanman, a council benefit fraud investigator, said: "I see Mr George (Lib Dem MP for St Ives) has a £300,000 second home in Rotherhithe.

"I would very much like him to come out to Epping and share the bliss of the forest and see what life is like outside the sheltered environment of the Palace of Westminster.

"Just to see how ordinary people who have to work a long way from home have to live.

"I interview suspected benefits cheats every day of the week and the politicians are coming out with exactly the same excuses that they do."

Mr Hanman, who is married with two children under 10, said it costs him £100 a week to commute to London and £7 a night for the campsite "plus money for food".

The only furniture in his tent, apart from the Cornish flag of St Piran flying outside, is an army sleeping bag and "brew kit".

He has been camping in Epping each summer for four years. During the winter he stays in a nearby conference centre.

"Last summer it was foul weather," the former Territorial Army member commented.

"Dressing up in the morning to attend court for my job when you're surrounded by mud takes some doing."

"I'm pretty exhausted by the time I get home to Penzance.

"I would love a job in Cornwall, I really would, but there's only one council here and no positions in my line of work or similar available."

Mr Hanman believes MPs should have accommodation in London like the army's Union Jack club, where servicemen can stay the night for a low cost.

Earlier this week Andrew George MP said he was "incandescent" about newspaper allegations his student daughter lived in the London second home he was claiming mortgage interest and furniture for.

He also said he was against MPs profiting from the sale of their second homes and any capital gains tax should be returned.

"Parliamentary allowances are not there for private profit or gain," he told BBC News.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/8052138.stm

 

[rynner2]

Pleased to see that Ray Mallon has taken the bull by the horns and made a complaint to the Commisioner of the Met regarding what he describes as clear offences under the Theft Act by various MP's. What will be even more interesting is how the Commisioner will wriggle out of doing anything about it, probably citing that there's to be an independent inquiry. That'll make it all better, some Government appointed mandarin enquiring into the people who put him in post in the first place.

Police to look at MP allegations

Allegations about MPs' allowances are to be examined by a panel of police officers and lawyers amid growing calls for action over the expenses scandal.

Met officers and Crown Prosecution Service lawyers will look at complaints made against individual MPs to see if they merit a criminal investigation.

Labour minister Shahid Malik stood down on Friday pending an inquiry into his expenses, and has defended his actions.

MPs from all parties have repaid thousands of pounds for claims made.

In a joint statement, the Metropolitan Police and Crown Prosecution Service said the panel would hold its first meeting next week.

Public anger over the behaviour of MPs has grown as the Daily Telegraph has published details of individual expense claims made over the past few years.

The disclosures have led to the suspension of one former Labour minister, Elliot Morley, and justice minster Mr Malik stepping down pending investigations by ministerial standards watchdog Sir Philip Mawer.

A senior adviser to David Cameron, Tory MP Andrew MacKay, was also forced to relinquish his post after the party said claims he had made towards his second home were "unacceptable".

The Met said it had already held meetings with the CPS about the issue of parliamentary expenses before the newspaper began its campaign a week ago.

But it said that it had now decided to act upon the stream of allegations which had come out.

"Due to the increase in subsequent allegations received by the MPS, the Commissioner and Director of Public Prosecutions have jointly decided to convene a panel to assess allegations in order to decide whether criminal investigations should be started," a spokesman said.

Former senior police officer Ray Mallon, the Mayor of Middlesbrough, called on Friday for the police to look into allegations against MPs on the grounds of potential fraud - the most high-profile figure to do so.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8052709.stm

 

[Ginando]

I saw this on the news tonight re the Police enquiry. However I stick to my guns that the Police won't actually touch this with a bargepole. (or even a telescopic baton)

 

[Novena]

Point taken Rynner, but ask the average man in the street what he thinks about the massive bonuses and you are likely to be met with a fatalistic shrug of the shoulders. Ask him about an MP claiming expenses for a tin of dog food, a bottle of gin or a packet of tampons and you will be told that the politician should be jailed or shot at dawn.

That's an interesting point. My other half mentioned something the other day - who has provided this information about expenses to the Telegraph in the first place? It's clearly been drip-fed to the newspapers in a deliberate manner. His theory was that it was something to do with the bankers who only a few weeks ago were being vilified by MPs for their excesses. It certainly has detracted from the banking news stories, plus it would serve as a sort of warning from the bankers to say "we can bring you down as well", so go easy on us. Perhaps it's just a bit of tinfoil hattery, but it did make me wonder... :?

 

[Analogue Boy]

I think what you just said could be considered hysterical.

I think the true hysteria lies in the way they've rushed to claim for pet food, patio heaters, sausages, plugs, chandeliers, moats and goldfish. It's like the wish list of the Young Ones having been given a blank cheque.

I don't think there's anything hysterical about my feelings on this. I have never fiddled expenses and I'm not even in a position of accountability.
As far as hysteria goes, it seems some have unfortunately been resignerisated and the there may be criminal proceings a comin.

 

[Analogue Boy]

That's an interesting point. My other half mentioned something the other day - who has provided this information about expenses to the Telegraph in the first place? It's clearly been drip-fed to the newspapers in a deliberate manner.

Well that's quite the thing about information isn't it?
If you have nothing to hide.....

 

[Quake42]

I think the true hysteria lies in the way they've rushed to claim for pet food, patio heaters, sausages, plugs, chandeliers, moats and goldfish.

Not really. The majority of the smaller claims were clearly tiny items included on a a much larger receipt. To be perfectly honest if, on review of someone's expenses for five years, the only sh*t to throw is in relation to a 30p can of pet food, I can't get remotely excited. At best it's an honest error - at worst it's the equivalent of taking a pen from the stationery cupboard. To compare an an accounting error of this nature with "flipping" or outright fraud is ludicrous.

I have never fiddled expenses

No, me neither. What's your point? Are you suggesting that anyone who doesn't agree that MPs should live on £100 a week is an expenses cheat?

My other half mentioned something the other day - who has provided this information about expenses to the Telegraph in the first place? It's clearly been drip-fed to the newspapers in a deliberate manner.

The information was apparently contained on a CD which was stolen from the Commons Fees Office and hawked around Fleet Street for a number of weeks. The mole or his/her representantives were apparently asking for £300,000 for the information, but allegedly agreed a payment of £150,000.

I don't think the information was drip-fed, but the way the Torygraph has chosen to release it is clearly death by 1000 cuts.

 

[rynner2]

My other half mentioned something the other day - who has provided this information about expenses to the Telegraph in the first place? It's clearly been drip-fed to the newspapers in a deliberate manner.

The information was apparently contained on a CD which was stolen from the Commons Fees Office and hawked around Fleet Street for a number of weeks. The mole or his/her representantives were apparently asking for £300,000 for the information, but allegedly agreed a payment of £150,000.

I don't think the information was drip-fed, but the way the Torygraph has chosen to release it is clearly death by 1000 cuts.

There's also the practical consideration that if all the CD's info was released at once, the newspaper would have been as thick as an encyclopedia!

It also makes commercial sense to issue the info in instalments - it has the ongoing appeal of an exciting serial. The other papers have realised this too, which is why they have all given it extensive coverage, even local ones, who can comment on their local MPs. A veritable feeding frenzy!

However, it's way off the mark to suggest that this is all a story about nothing, puffed up by an hysterical press. There are serious issues here - there's no smoke without fire.

 

[Quake42]

However, it's way off the mark to suggest that this is all a story about nothing, puffed up by an hysterical press. There are serious issues here - there's no smoke without fire.

Absolutely - it's just that a lot of the comment on the story, not least much of the comment on this board, doesn't seem to be filtering the serious from the trivial.

It also makes commercial sense to issue the info in instalments - it has the ongoing appeal of an exciting serial.

I'm surprised the Commons hasn't just spiked the story by putting all the receipts - which were due to be released in July anyway, albeit with redactions - in the public domain immediately. Allowing the Torygraph to set the agenda in this way for over a week strikes me as very poor leadership.

 

[Novena]

My other half mentioned something the other day - who has provided this information about expenses to the Telegraph in the first place? It's clearly been drip-fed to the newspapers in a deliberate manner.

The information was apparently contained on a CD which was stolen from the Commons Fees Office and hawked around Fleet Street for a number of weeks. The mole or his/her representantives were apparently asking for £300,000 for the information, but allegedly agreed a payment of £150,000.

I don't think the information was drip-fed, but the way the Torygraph has chosen to release it is clearly death by 1000 cuts.

Ah I see - so probably not drip fed by whoever was behind the stolen CD then. Thanks for clearing that up Quake42.

So the question is - was the person who stole it just in for their own profit, or was somebody else behind them? I did think it was odd that the Telegraph, usually loath to admit any misdeeds on the part of Tory politicians, also included Tory MPs in its bashing (to a certain extent). I always get suspicious when newspapers move away from their usual stance... Aarg! Where's my tinfoil hat!

 

[Quake42]

So the question is - was the person who stole it just in for their own profit, or was somebody else behind them?

It was almost certainly an insider - possibly a Fees Office employee, although suspicion has also been directed at contractors who apparently did some IT work there a while ago.

I did think it was odd that the Telegraph, usually loath to admit any misdeeds on the part of Tory politicians, also included Tory MPs in its bashing (to a certain extent). I always get suspicious when newspapers move away from their usual stance... Wink Aarg! Where's my tinfoil hat!

A few thoughts:

(1) If the Telegraph had only published details of Labour MPs' expenses it would have looked like a purely partisan attack. It also would have been harder for them to argue the "public interest" defence to, essentially, purchasing stolen goods.

(2) They went public with Labour claims first and apparently warned Cameron & co of what they were going to publish on the shadow cabinet several days before.

(3) I agree with the post a few days ago that some of this is payback for the 50% tax rate, which has journalists everywhere up in arms.

 

[ramonmercado]

I certainly have no love for the DUP but Peter & Iris Robinson are now being hassled for claiming £30,000 for food over a four year period. Thats £3,750 per annum each. I don't think thats an extraordinary amount, just over £10 per day.

Certainly there are crooks among MPs but a sense of proportion is needed.

 

[rynner2]

I don't think thats an extraordinary amount, just over £10 per day.

Fine! You pay me £10 a day, and we'll say no more about it!

 

[ramonmercado]

I don't think thats an extraordinary amount, just over £10 per day.

Fine! You pay me £10 a day, and we'll say no more about it!

Done! Provided you relocate to Baghdad.

In terms of expenses I (as a civil servant) would get £166.56 for an overnight in London. That would include hotel & 3 meals.

But elsewhere in the UK I'd only get £116.77 o/n with a miserly £113.77 in NI.
I reckon Edinburgh is as expensive as London.

Interestingly the o/n in Kabul is only $110 and in Baghdad is vouched costs plus €10 per day, that must be danger money.

 

[rynner2]

The eight weasel ways MPs avoid saying sorry
Dominic Lawson

In years to come, psychologists will be writing doctoral theses on the responses by British MPs to the charges of dishonesty in the great allowances scandal of 2009. In the meantime it has been fascinating to apply that profession’s existing state of knowledge to the events of the past week; Ethics in Psychotherapy and Counselling: A Practical Guide (2007), by Kenneth Pope and Melba Vasquez, has been most helpful.

In a section entitled Using Words to Deceive, Pope and Vasquez identify what they call “eight bogus apologies”. These include: “substitute the general for the specific”, “use the passive voice”, “use the abstract language of technicalities”, “make unimportant by contrasting with what did not occur”, “smother the events in the language of attack” and “replace intentional unethical behaviour with the language of accidents, misfortune and mistakes”.

This last is perhaps the one most favoured by those caught out in false claims under the much abused “additional costs allowance”. For example, Jack Straw, the Blackburn MP and justice secretary, shown to have successfully claimed reimbursement for the full council tax on a home for which he had in fact received a 50% council tax discount, said: “I will not be the only person in Blackburn who’s made an error in good faith . . . the system needs reform.” As a matter of fact, I do believe Straw was guilty of incompetence rather than theft, but the “error in good faith” rubric, combined with blaming “the system”, has become the stock response with which we have become wearily familiar.

The locus classicus of the “good faith” get-out was provided by Tony Blair, after it became clear beyond dispute that the Iraq war had been based on false claims. He declared, inimitably: “I have searched my conscience, not in the spirit of obstinacy, but in genuine reconsideration . . . For any mistakes made in good faith I of course take full responsibility.”

It’s true the phrase “good faith” is widely used in legal argument, but in a politician’s hands it is also cunningly designed to create the impression that the person concerned is actually “good” as well as, in Blair’s case, motivated by some higher moral authority.

Similarly, that other maddening phrase so favoured by the allowance abusers – “it was a genuine mistake” – has an intended meaning beyond merely the avoidance of a straightforward apology. So when Andy Burnham, the culture secretary, describes as “a genuine mistake” his claiming for a towelling robe as “wholly necessary” for the performance of his parliamentary duties, we are meant to think not just that this was better than an ordinary unadorned mistake, but that this is the sort of error made by a “genuine” person.

The use of the “passive voice” was the choice of Margaret Beckett when David Dimbleby asked her on BBC1’s Question Time about her claiming for hanging baskets and pot plants. The feisty housing minister responded: “That was a mistake. It should not have been made.” The first person singular is notable by its absence.

Although the subsequent heckling of Mrs Beckett was judged to be a news story, this was much less interesting than Sir Menzies Campbell’s defence of his own behaviour in charging his interior decorator’s bill to the taxpayer. He told the studio audience he had now decided that it was wrong to have done this and he would repay the money; but when Dimbleby asked the former leader of the Liberal Democrats why this thought had not occurred to him when he made the claim, Campbell blurted: “The public perceptions at the time were quite different.”

Here, under pressure from an expert inquisitor, was something much closer to the truth than all these carefully contrived official statements of regret. Campbell – a man whose moral tone has always managed to be simultaneously grandiloquent and prim – was saying nothing more than: “Back then we thought we could get away with it.” Moral Ming, let’s not forget, had “decided” to repay the money only after his dealings had been made public. 8)

Perhaps the most convoluted of all the bogus apologies came from the husband-and-wife team of Tory MPs Andrew MacKay and Julie Kirkbride; they nominated two different properties as their singular designated “second home”, thus getting the public to finance both their houses. While Kirkbride said, “I bitterly regret the system” (substituting the general for the specific), her husband told his constituency association: “I am sorry we have all become embroiled in this expenses row, particularly as I was following advice.” Yes, it was the junior clerks of the parliamentary fees office who should apologise for allowing MPs to make claims that have not survived a day of public scrutiny. Of course, it would be too much to expect such honourable members to have made their own independent judgment of what was right and proper.

etc....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 301874.ece

 

[rynner2]

Party funding: Top donors turn against Labour over MPs' expenses
• 'Shameful' expenses row hits coffers
• Second MP suspended over mortgage
Rajeev Syal, Gaby Hinsliff and Toby Helm guardian.co.uk, Saturday 16 May 2009 19.58 BST

Labour's most generous donors are to withdraw financial support worth millions of pounds and have called for the arrest of the party's errant MPs in the wake of disastrous revelations about parliamentary expenses.

The disclosure is a further body blow to Gordon Brown's advisers after 10 days of damaging disclosures. Yesterday a second Labour backbencher, David Chaytor, was suspended from the party whip after admitting he claimed £13,000 for a mortgage he had already paid off, while a senior minister predicted that sitting MPs would be deselected in a purge of parliament.

A poll published today on the website PoliticsHome.com, and previewed exclusively by the Observer, shows that the scandal has driven more than a quarter of voters to change the party they support. The main beneficiary is Ukip, followed by the British National Party and the Greens.

The Observer has spoken to 10 prominent donors and only one pledged to maintain financial support for the already heavily indebted party. Anthony Bailey, the public relations "fixer" who introduced the £1m donor Mahmoud Khayami and has given more than £72,000 himself, said that he would not be donating to Labour and would not encourage others to do so. "The expenses stories are shameful. Anyone who is thought to have broken the law should be investigated by the police immediately," he said. "I have no intention of giving a single penny to Labour at this time, and I cannot see how I could introduce any of my contacts either."

etc....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009 ... ty-funding

 

[Stormkhan]

I don't think thats an extraordinary amount, just over £10 per day.

I only have £20 a week to spend on food. I could spend more ... but I don't get paid enough, don't get to claim expenses (fraudulently or not) and don't get paid by the general public.

If I were to claim expenses which were subsequently found to be excessive, non-work related or - gasp! - pointless, I'd firstly lose my job and secondly, risk conviction for fraud.

Of course, I'm not a feckin' poor, hard-working politician who gets paid by tax-payers and seem to have no moral restraint!

 

[ramonmercado]

My point was that the Robinsons expenses were legitimately claimed. They could have claimed a lot more.

If I made an improper expenses claim then I would certainly be subject to disciplinary action, if the amount was really big then I could be sacked.

 

[Cavynaut]

Nice Riddell cartoon in todays Observer showing a fat cat banker and a respectable looking BNP candidate whispering sweet nothings into the ear of a scandal sheet reading Joe Public.

I think that this is one of those seminal moments in British politics.

 

[Timble2]

When you thought things couldn't get any worse...

Rantzen may oppose expenses row MP
4 hours 19 mins ago

Esther Rantzen has said she has received a "very warm" response to her proposal to stand for election against a Labour MP criticised for her expenses claims.

The TV presenter has suggested she might take on Luton South MP Margaret Moran, who has agreed to repay £22,500 she claimed for treating dry rot at her home in Southampton, 100 miles from her constituency.

Ms Rantzen said she had not yet committed herself to running and would now visit the Bedfordshire town to judge whether local people wanted her to stand.

She said: "I think the voters in Luton South have been horrified by what has been revealed about Margaret Moran, among of course many other MPs.

"It does seem extraordinary that someone who represents a constituency in Luton should be claiming for her dry rot to be repaired in Southampton."

Ms Rantzen suggested she might be able to tap into frustration among floating voters by running against Ms Moran.

She said: "What it's made me feel, as a floating voter myself, is that there may be a number of people who respect and admire our democratic institutions who would like to serve the country but have never been able to join one party more than another because we floating voters tend to make up our minds on the issues. Maybe the electorate would like a few of us in Parliament."

Ms Rantzen said she had been struck by the levels of tribalism MPs have displayed in response to the expenses scandal.

She said: "A few more independents and a few more people outside politics who would like to work hard and do their best might be a good thing."

Rantzen admitted she had no links to Luton but joked: "I like hats."

 

[Analogue Boy]

About time too. We need someone to take a stand on this and the more important issue of the european standardisation of fruit and vegetables. There is a clear and provable statistical link between the rise in expense-fiddling MPs compared with the decline of lewd genital-shaped root vegetables.

 

[stu neville]

..and it's a pity Cyril Fletcher's gone. He'd have made an excellent replacement speaker (complete with smoking jacket and aspidistra.)

The eight weasel ways MPs avoid saying sorry
Dominic Lawson..

Lawson would know, his own father having been Chancellor during the last economic upheaval (though in fairness to Nigel Lawson, he subsequently took his own role in it all on the chin: he still asserts however that had Thatcher actually left him alone to get on with it then things wouldn't have been quite so bad, but that's a moot point. More to his credit is that he later resigned over a point of principle, a practice which sadly seems to have died out in the past couple of years.)

 

[Stormkhan]

The Expense Scandal will have the effect of encouraging more Independent candidates but also more drift voting towards smaller parties, like the BNP. It's not that the smaller ones would be less likely to fiddle expenses ... but we, the voters, are running out of candidates.

The biggest fault with our political system is that to work within or to vote for one party means you have to accept all policies of that party, even if you don't agree with them. That's what the Chief Whips are for, to reinforce the message "If you want to be a politician, and join our party, you have to go along with everything we say!"
Independents do gain from such scandals but, ultimately, they have little power to do good since the bigger parties can override them.

 

[rynner2]

The biggest fault with our political system is that to work within or to vote for one party means you have to accept all policies of that party, even if you don't agree with them. That's what the Chief Whips are for, to reinforce the message "If you want to be a politician, and join our party, you have to go along with everything we say!"

It's not quite so cut-and-dried as that. Happily there are many, many examples of pols (of all parties) defying the whip, either by abstaining or even by voting against their own party.

Of course, if this happens too often, an MP might even consider changing his party. Again, happily for the health of our democracy, this does happen quite regularly. (Perhaps the highest profile MP who ever did this was one Winston S. Churchill... 8) )

Back to expenses: I just heard Cameron on the radio explaining how he wants the system reformed - basically, tighter rules, and total transparency for all claims, which would be displayed on a website as soon as they are made. Sounds good to me.

 

[JamesWhitehead]

Keep Britain Singing Revisited:

Looked down my toilet the other day,
Something like a sausage was looking my way,
It bubbled and it burbled through its pearly-white gnashers,
"I'm a floater, you're a voter!" and it fluttered its lashes.

Hey man, Take a vote on the mild side!
Do-de-do etc.


(Floats on, arranges vast shroud-like dress and settles onto throne) Thank you and good evening! Mrs Hunt from Bury has sent us this photograph of her local MP. She says that if all the soil was washed off him, he'd still look like a bright orange dick.

Now a serious-voice tale about some perverts who disguise themselves as bicycle-seats . . :nonplus:

 

[rynner2]

Breaking news...

Speaker Martin 'to resign this afternoon'
Philippe Naughton

The Commons Speaker Michael Martin is to resign from his post this afternoon, Sky News reported.

It said that Mr Martin, the veteran Labour MP for Glasgow North East, had reached his decision after losing the trust of the Prime Minister.

Sky quoted "authoritative sources" as saying that Mr Martin would inform MPs of his decision at the start of Commons business this afternoon. He was expected to leave with immediate effect rather than trying to stay on in the post until the next election.

The move will avert debate on a no-confidence motion tabled by a Tory backbencher, and follows amazing scenes in the House yesterday when a string of senior MPs rose to challenge Mr Martin's authority and demand his resignation over his handling of the scandal into MPs' expenses.

If Mr Martin had lost that vote, he would have been the first Speaker forced from office since Sir John Trevor was removed in 1695 for taking bribes.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/p ... 318255.ece