Speaker’s wife’s secret

Hush! Don’t tell anyone.

Only the most diligent thorough readers of newspapers will have heard the news. I did not hear it mentioned once on radio or television. But a few months ago, the alleged extravagance of the Speaker’s wife’s taxi trips was the stuff of giant screaming tabloid headlines.

It made an impression. Of the reasons for not voting Labour in the Council’s election this was frequently cited as proof of Labour's duplicity.

Illustrating yet again that ‘good news is no news’ the Times did report this week’s sensation. It was on page 4 and was two paragraphs short. The parliamentary sleaze watchdog dismissed the complaint against Mrs Martin. Standards Commissioner John Lyon said the £4,000 was ‘reasonable and within the rules.’

Another body, the Standards and Privileges Committee also rejected the complaint by the Taxpayers Alliance. They said ‘The journeys taken met the necessary requirements to assist him carrying out his official duties.’

The tabloids who denounced the Speaker with sneers and innuendos almost entirely ignored the not guilty verdict.

The Lie is enormous and deafening. The truth is a minute hidden whisper.

Princess pain

Driving up to London today, I was intrigued by an autobiographical reading on Women’s’ Hour. The reader said the nuns at her school disapproved of her mother. Mainly because she did not live with her husband. The reader said that she never shone at school until the final year. Her mother was acutely embarrassed when she won all the school prizes – except the one for religion.

The story was engaging. Only at the end did I realise that I listening to an extract from the much maligned memoirs of Cherie Blair. Perhaps they are other good bits.

Julian Glover in the Guardian praised Cherie for her revelation that she was disliked by Princess Margaret and Princess Anne, ‘two women’ says Julian who look permanently like they were is the middle of a particularly intense colonic irrigation.’

Lobbyists fret

The lobbying press is watching the Public Administration Select Committee probe into lobbying with twitching anxiety.

They worry that we might insist on transparency of their probably murky transactions. Each meeting we have is logged on a swingometer that anticipates our recommendations. The hell is illustrated with a firing squad wiping all lobbyists out. The Heaven is a picture of number 10 Downing Street with an anticipated recommendation that we put lobbyists in charge of the country. None are really likely.

Comments

[Kevin Ward]

Paul

The point is not that there was a "not guilty" verdict (quite correct under the current rules) but that the rules are viewed by the public as bonkers. Claiming expenses from the public purse for grocery shopping cannot be right.

There was, by the way, plenty reported in the regional Press. Here's what my paper, the Worcester News, had to say:

"NOW we have heard it all. The wife of the Speaker of the House of Commons has been cleared after a complaint that she used taxpayers’ money to fund taxi fares for shopping trips – because she is allowed to do it.
As unbelievable as it may sound, Michael Martin’s wife Mary is given a £2,500 annual allowance to pay for taxis used when she goes grocery shopping.
So we are all paying for Mrs Martin’s weekly trips to Tesco.
The more that is known about MPs’ expenses and allowances, the more ridiculous the system is revealed to be.
The Martins originally claimed the shopping was for official functions. During the investigation by Parliament’s sleaze watchdog, however, they admitted they consumed most of the food bought. And still they are not guilty of any wrongdoing.
Meanwhile, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg reveals that he spent more than £7,000 of taxpayers’ money renovating his constituency home in Sheffield. The money was used for new carpets, curtains and light fittings among other items.
All this is happening, let us not forget, against a backdrop of the Speaker leading a High Court challenge against the detailed publication of MPs’ expenses.
It is time for Parliament to take a reality check. Its systems are outmoded, outdated and out of step with the 21st century.
And somewhere along the line it might be beneficial for MPs to be reminded that this is our money they are spending."
(Worcester News, May 15, 2008)

[paulflynn]

Thank you Kevin. But whether the rules are sensible or not is a different matter. They are almost certainly are not. This is being looked at now and some radical changes will almost certainly be produced. What other arrangements should be made for a Speaker's wife to do her shopping? Taxis' are probably the cheapest practical option.

The charge remains that the Speaker and his wife were attacked for breaking rules and claiming taxi fares to which they were not entitled. Those attacks were untrue and unfair. But no paper that i have seen have retracted the allegations.

[Doubled my Tax.]

Paul, you say:
"What other arrangements should be made for a Speaker's wife to do her shopping? Taxis' are probably the cheapest practical option."

What's wrong with the Public Transport that you and your Government keep encouraging us to use.

How on earth do you think people without the means to afford taxis manage?

Incidentally, what's wrong with the Martins paying for their shopping trips out of their own well lined pockets?

A perfect example of snouts in the trough.

[paulflynn]

She lives in Speakers' House which on foot is a good mile from the nearest bus stop and three quarters of a mile from a tube. Not really practical to lug the week's groceries.

London's bus and tube services rea magnificent, but they are not the right vehicles for shopping expeditions between Speakers house and Tesco.