Michael “Piggy“ Martin and 1 in 10

I have to admit that I really dislike the Commons Speaker Michael Martin, but in one of those irrational ways that everything he does irritates.

However it turns out my irritation wasn't so irrational, as he's been caught doing a "Hoon". While living in a grace-and-favour apartment, he claimed a second-home allowance for his constituency home and rented out his actual second home. He has continued to make annual claims of up to £17,166, though he doesn't have a mortgage claiming for basically living costs, bills, decoration and furniture. You would be forgiven for thinking a salary of £141,000 would cover living costs in Glasgow and a home that's allegedly hardly being used. Alas no not to Martins standards, and these standards don't just apply to his home, he's run up bill of £148,657 for just 11 trips aboard between May 2005 and September 2008.

He isn't alone though, 65 other MP's that's 1 in 10, have raised eyebrows by not living within their means and using tax payers money to subsidies buying homes and renting them out. Interestingly 65 is the amount the Conservatives plan to cut from the total number of MPs in Westminster.

Writing these kind of posts is getting really repetitive, to the point that reading them and writing them is becoming an effort. Yet the alternative is we turn a blind eye and I'm not prepared to accept that. There is something so fundamentally wrong, when MPs think it's fine to use tax payers money to subsidies their income and living standards. As every penny they take to line their pocket is robbed from people who actually need and deserve it, from our nurses, fire fighters, schools and hospitals. It's disgraceful, particularly for the Speaker of the House of Commons whose role is to keep order.

Arise Sir Fred Goodloose Your Knighthood

Unable to claw money back from Sir Fred Goodwin and under mounting pressure to do something, Mp's are petitioning for his knighthood to be removed. Like Robert Mugabe before him on hearing the shocking news Freddy will no doubt be stuck by the harshness of such an act, brutal, just so damn brutal he'll think as his lower lip quivers and his eyes burn with tears. He'll close them tightly and bite his lower lip as emotions flood over him. Get a grip it's just a medal he'll say while laughing at himself. Alas though a tear will escape, falling down his face to drop from his chin onto the medal he cradles in his hands.

I'm sure he cares as much for his knighthood as keeping himself in the lifestyle he's become accustomed to. If he hadn't "obtained his knighthood by other means" this might have been a productive route, rather than just looking like a last ditch attempt to save face.

It gets incredibly frustrating that we always have to go through this spin time and time again. Akin to having an urge to sneeze, but for some reason you just can't, so you sit there with a screwed up face and wide open mouth, over and over again.

Sorry Seems To Be The Hardest Word

The push for Brown to say sorry has become like Bill Clinton repeating over and over that he "did not have sexual relations with that women" while a stained blue dress hangs in the background.

Everyone knows Brown bares some responsibly, the situation was either sustainable or even stable. This idea that he got rid of "Boom and Bust" just meant bad preparation for when it did hit the fan. With banks selling as much credit as they could to customers, and house prices so high. All of which the FSA is meant to monitor and report on, and who are they accountable to?

It's always stuck me as a really bizarre trait of New Labour, that the things government should regulate and control they end up being completely relaxed about. Wanting more is such an instinctive trait in people, it's hardly surprising that people signed up to this 'put it on a credit card culture', especially when just walking down a high street you were inundated with people offering you a credit card to put it on.

Brown's refusal to say sorry has made this much more of a story than a simple apology would have been. He can't now back track on the stance he's taken without looking more and more absurd. He was Chancellor of the Exchequer for 10 years, his responsibility was managing the economy, budgeting, recognising risks and dealing with them. Did he do his job properly, or did he take a short term view to be popular, rather than the one to say there's no more credit?

Methinks Prescott Does Protest To Much

John Prescott's campaign against banker bonuses creates an interesting parallel when you change the word "banker" for "politician" and "counter staff" for "tax payer." I of course don't mean in terms of rhyming slang.

This ideal of "no bonuses for failures" or "greed culture" really does beg the question - how can our politicians criticise, when they themselves are no better? It's like being a judge with a criminal record. So what's a 93% victory really, a token gesture to keep up appearances, but really the same old self serving dogma. As what's in the 7% loss? A job for the senior bankers advising Gordon Brown on the economy?

This is just another clear sign that politics really needs to change, but how is it to do that when it's so party focused. Would we get more of the leaders we need rather than they need, if we were able to vote on the party leader nominations? There needs to be a line drawn somewhere in the ground, but will we ever be able to get this balance with politics so closed off to us?

Perhaps the voting polls show a light at the end of the tunnel. The Lib Dems and New Labour are drawing ever closer to one another and since New Labour has inhibited our ability to hold them to account by others means. Would it be enough of a shock wave if they were to become the third party after this election? It would need large amounts of people to tactically vote, are we that angry?

I say, go forth and multiply!

Along the lines of this subject, there's an interesting article by Simon Heffer that looks at the response to Jacqui "fiddler" Smith grabbing money like she's in the Crystal Dome.