Lord Martin of Ripoff

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by asst_dep_to_dep_asst, Jul 1, 2009.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I see that Gordon has convinced the Queen that Gorbals Mick should be given a Peerage, despite having been thrown out of office for incompetence/cooking the books/fiddling expenses.

    When are we going to get our say in this?

    Yet more evidence of this bunch of crooks just taking the piss.
  2. Not that she needed to be convinced she just does as she is told but putting that aside it's a bloody disgrace. As Robbie Burns said 'Such a parcel of rogues in a nation'.
  3. Brown has repeatedly mis-used the Lords to bulldoze his friends into nice places. How many unelected Government ministers are there now? Can't find an MP you like? Find a random person, elevate them to the Peerage and bingo - completely unaccountable. Who'd have thought a Labour Government would partake in such undemocratic behaviour?
  4. Is Brown being incompetent or very clever? Knowing that such a move would annoy a large part of the Electorate, he probably also knows that they will likely express that annoyance against the Lords. He can then rush through his further reforms of the Upper House by popular demand. Noo Labia is achieving by stealth far more Socialist aims than Wilson/Callaghan’s lot ever did.
  5. This goverment knows no shame when it comes to handing out Peerages.Gorbal's Mick did Gord plenty of favours whilst in the Speakers chair so he get his reward.It was never in any doubt.As finknottle and Rabbie Burns said "a parcel of rogues in a nation" although that was originally a pop at the English but very apt here.
  6. At the risk of being of subjected to the horrors of a mediaeval cod-piece excoriator, I should like to point out that the expenses scandal was largely because MPs voted against Martin's advice to the House last year, and pressure from the Executive to challenge the FoI campaigners original victory. Yes, Martin did make some claims that were, to say the least, questionable, and yes, he has not shown the leadership he ought, but I feel to deny him a peerage would be churlish. As for Lord Jay's assertion that his elevation to the Baronial benches would harm the reputation of their Lordships, they did that to themselves when they voted in favour of the Community Charge/Poll Tax despite Thatcher having no mandate - the Conservative manifesto promised a community charge based on the ABILITY TO PAY. The backswoodsmen were coaxed out of the rotten woodwork and backed the government, on that and some other sticky occasions! If only they had followed the example of her then Chancellor, Lawson: they might have retained an ounce of credibility, but they didn't. Traditionally the Lords have always forced through unmandated Tory legislation whilst trying to obstruct electorally mandated Liberal (think of why the Parliament Acts were introduced - after the Lords rejected the Liberal reform mandate, thrice) & Labour bills.

    Hailsham was right. You cannot reform that Lords, only abolish them, and in the process deny the Commons their usual excuse when poorly scrutinized legislation receives Royal Assent, that they are not to blame.
  7. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

    There seemed to me to be plenty of evidence that Martin connived in and aided and abetted in the expenses ripoff by, for instance, making the clerks pay out on items that they had refused. I regard the man as complete filth and how the words 'noble' and 'lord' will ever fit together in the same sentence I can't think. Cameron isn't right about much but he was right about Gordon Ceaucescu's tin ear.
  8. Your support for ex speaker martin is misplaced Thingy. Yes the commons may have voted to continue the scheme, that is not why he made the public so upset that MPs were forced to make his position untenable. It was his wholly un-necessary attempts to cover up what was goining on, the reality that he emasculated the fees office as a means of controlling MPs expenes, and the fact that he led the rip off merchants by example.

    I don't blame him for the MPs vote, I do blaim him for the rest of his failures in office.

    Then of course there was the reality that he has been the most partisan speaker of modern times.

    No Mr Martin neither deserves a peerage, nor our sympathy
  9. Guy Fawkes was the only person to go into Parliment with any sense!
  10. Peter

    The Fees Office were emasculated by the House of Commons Commission, which backed MPs questionable claims and forced the Fees Office to pay them, thus creating the inconsistencies for which their Head, Andrew Walker, was later, quite wrongly, blamed. I'm glad that, however belatedly, Sir Stuart Bell conceded this point a couple of weeks ago. Though Martin was Chairman of the committee, it was their collective decisions that put MPs interests above those of accountability to the taxpayer that is at fault.

    Anyway, Martin's a left footer and I still have a residual bias towards my former fellow left-footers! ;) :oops:

  11. However it was Martin that used sh1tloads of tax payers money in an unsuccessfull attempt to keep expenses secret! :twisted:
  12. I believe it was better when we had an unelected Upper House.A lot less cronyism and probably more honesty.You were there by accident of birth,wether you exercised your right to sit and speak in the Lords was left to your concence.
  13. What the last few months has proved is that, elected or no, politicians are too tempted to grease each others' palms at the taxpayer's expense.

    The pitiful amount of tax paid by those who can afford an accountant to get them out of paying tax shows that our society is riddled with thieves and chancers, many of whom are employed by the State.

    Our society is sick.

Share This Page