Interestingly, I thought, the BNP Euro leaflets show a sacked party member with his family and a Spitfire pilot who was Polish and downed many Nazis.

UKIP fare worse than the expenses row because some members refuse to attend EU Parliament but take the £65K salary.

Don't disagree, except that it’s a bit rich to spread the blame. We have had a Labour government for twelve years. We have a Labour speaker (despite a widespread feeling that the speakership should have alternated to an Opposition party), who has clearly never been up to the job. We have had a slew of Labour backbenchers, whipped into submission and with no real power whatsoever – they have been bribed into subservience.

Except, David, you are doing exactly what I was complaining about, deflecting attention from the MPs by blaming the Speaker. The Deputy Speaker, Sir Alan Haselhurst has claimed £142,000 for his country mansion... where are the calls for his head? The Speakers Conference includes Tories and Lib Dems. They knew what was going on. Why the silence until they were all found out?

And as for Labour backbenchers being bribed, are you trying to claim the Tories had some honorable intentions behind their petty theft.

Sadly, you Tories are so blinkered that you will evrentually return yet another sleazy Tory Government unless you have the integrity to criticise your own side.

Bob, I think David has a very valid point. Labour are the only ones who could have changed anything, the Speaker has used taxpayers' money to block the release of MPs' expenses and the Speaker has been using his expenses in - shall we say - questionable ways himself.

I think you are being a little generous to Mick Martin, Bob. It may well be that some MPs are trying to hide behind his failings - after all they have hidden behind every other excuse - but I do think his own behaviour merits the censure he is now getting. His own expenses have been severely criticised and he was instrumental in trying to prevent the FOI Act applying at all, for his own protection. His performance generally in the House has been boorish and not in keeping with the role and his interpretation of procedures has been, in my opinion, manipulative.

Yes maybe some are hiding behind Martin, but I still think he should go. A major clean out is required if Parliament is to restore any credibility and I think it starts with him

LFaT, I'm not disputing who is the Govt., nor excusing anything. But Parliamentary expense claims weren't invented by this Government, and neither were the fiddles. In fact, without Labour's Freedom of Information Act you still wouldn't know what was going on.As for Martin's expense claims.... ditto for the Tory Deputy Speaker. Where's his motion of no confidence then?

Brian, I can only assume you took my reference to no particular views on Martin as a vote of confidence. It certainly wasn't intended that way. However, I do think some Tories are using their prejudices against 'Gorbals Mick' as an opportunity to get 'one of theirs' in the Speakers Chair.

Where in my post did I blame the Speaker? I blamed the majority of MPs in the Commons for their failure to ensure the system was fit and proper. Unfortunately for you, that majority is Labour, with a Labour Prime Minister and a Labour speaker, both of them foisted upon the country without much regard to parliamentary convention or democracy.

I will be very happy to see all guilty MPs expunged from Parliament, although I think you would do well to distinguish between those that made claims that you or I would consider excessive (where repayment and facing their own constituency might suffice) and those that fiddled the rules (by flipping or otherwise manipulating the rules).

The present Speaker has always been under attack from those who think he's not posh enough to do the job. The likes of Quentin Letts and Simon Hoggart have been on his case since before he was appointed.

Like nearly everyone else who contributes their tuppence-worth, I'm in no position to judge his performance. I've no idea what his objectives and responsibilities would be if he had a job description. But I'm drawn to defend his cause by the snobs who are attacking him.

The current expenses system pre-dates him and the Labour government. There's clearly been an all party cosy consensus about the whole sorry system for years. Either that or no MP thought they could do much to rock the boat without grave risk to their own position. And, before we condemn them too heartily for that, let's ponder on how much an out of favour MP can really achieve for his constituents.

And how keen were the Tories and/or Speaker Martin's critics on the FOI Act?!

Bob: I have seen 5 year old speak and read better than Michael Martin. He has to go because he is not up to the job, in addition to his corruption.

Last night I had a thought, the only thing I can say in favour of Gordon Brown is that at least he is not a raging cokehead! This might explain David Cameron's muddled thinking.

A bit disingenuous, David, because you did not blame 'the majority of MPs'... you specifically identified the Labour MPs.

By the way, which particular 'Parliamentary Convention' was disregarded in respect of the Prime Minister? Was it the convention that gave us John Major, James Callaghan and Harold Macmillan?

Bring back Betty.

Brown knows how dirty the system was, he should he abused it himself.