MPs' expenses: parliamentary responsibility

So where is the justice in the resignation of the speaker? What has been gained, in terms of reforming parliament?

Even if Michael Martin was not a good speaker, theexpenses scandal preceded his speakership; there was a collective failure of MPs over many years. If he should have gone, he should have gone later; the honourable course of action was for members of the House of Commons collectively to take the blame, and responsibility.

In an ideal world, and it is ideal given where we are, a parliamentary debate would have been the highlight of the crisis. After this we might have seen the speaker, as house leader, apologise to the people. The party leaders would have the status of individual MPs; they would have deliberately stayed in the background as they are supposed to do for votes on matters of conscience. This is because Parliament is sovereign, which people forget. Such constitutional niceties will be seen today as hopelessly unrealistic ...

Would MPs have voted for a reduction in pay starting after the next election? Part of the answer is the de-professionalisation of parliament, as Charles Moore is saying. The left won't vote for that and maybe the conservatives in their present form won't either; but in a general election, those candidates might have an advantage, who argue that being an MP is a public service, not a job. Lowering MPs' wages would help facilitate the demise of the professional political class.

The fact that the resignation followed a meeting of party leaders shows where the power lies. You might say with the people ultimately; but what they see is determined by the media, whose propensity is to reduce political stories to what key individuals say and (say that they) think; the opinions of the leaders are given disproportionate weight. The voters rage about corrupt politics; party establishments calculate electoral advantage and apply their preferred "change agenda" as panacea, or try to.