 | 'When the by-election is called in Glasgow North East, the idea, once widely touted, that Mr Martin's son Paul - a Member of the Scottish Parliament - would inherit the seat under the old, unwritten rules, will be tossed out of the window. Not only has Mr Martin Jr ruled himself out, the party would be crushed if it was seen to be perpetuating a discredited system.' Magnus Linklater in the Times, 20 th May 2009. |  |
No explanation. No regrets. Just a 35-second resignation statement, with one curious reference to the unity of the House of Commons. But that reference is crucial. Michael Martin is, first and last, an organisation man, and the organisation to which he owes his loyalty is not the public, but the power base that he represents.
For most of his life that has been the Labour Party in Scotland - the old, pre-Blair party machine that still holds sway, particularly in the west. It has never set much store by openness or accountablity, it has protected its institutions and people with ruthless self-interest, and it resents bitterly any attempt to challenge its authority.
For more than 50 years after the war, it ran councils and constituencies as a self-perpetuating oligarchy, with a code as rigid as that of a latterday mafia. The assumption that Labour was the natural expression of the people's opinion was so endemic that the people themselves were rarely required to be involved in its affairs.
So, when Mr Martin responded to the wave of outrage that has swept the country in the wake of the expenses scandal by turning on his critics rather than promising to expose the abuse, he was merely reflecting the system he represents.
As did his defenders. Jim Sheridan, the Labour MP for Paisley & Renfrew North, accused Nick Clegg of being Òopportunistic and cowardlyÓ in attacking the Speaker, complaining that Mr Martin was being hounded Òlike a paedophileÓ; Jim Devine, MP for Livingston, said that Mr Martin should be allowed to make his own decision without interference from other Members.
For these and their colleagues of the old school, the normal rules of democracy seem no longer to apply. They have ceased listening to the people they represent, and seem even to question why that should be part of their responsibility. Opening hospitals or touring schools has taken the place of understanding the voter. This is the true corruption of a party that has been in power too long - it is not the bathplugs or flat-screen TVs that matter in the end, but the failure to connect with those who put them there in the first place.
For Mr Martin and his supporters, the expenses story was seen as an unwarranted intrusion into private affairs rather than an exposure of abuse. These diehard representatives of Labour hegemony seem to believe that power is theirs by right, rather than something to be fought for. In the long course of Labour domination, the fundamental question of why they came to politics in the first place has become blurred. The old notions of championing equality, fighting poverty and defending the underprivileged have grown emptier over the years as the gap between rich and poor has widened. And poverty appears as ingrained as ever, while the underprivileged remain just that.
No one walking through Mr Martin's constituency of Glasgow North East yesterday could have failed to note the stark contrast between the deprivation on the streets, and the stories of refurnished second homes and thousand-pound food bills that have been front-page fare for the past two weeks. The gap between the haves and the have-nots has always been incendiary in politics. It is what brought Labour to power in the first place. Now, as the voters look around, they see that, for all the promises, the reality of their own lives bears no comparison with the luxuries to which their MPs have grown accustomed. That is why the anger is so palpable, the desire for electoral revenge almost tangible.
One woman, approached by a Times reporter yesterday, summed up the mood of disillusion in this way: ÒAfter I have paid my bills I have nothing. I can't afford to buy my TV licence. The people at the social tell us that teabags are luxuries and then you hear what the MPs spend their money on, and Michael Martin has been protecting them. I would never vote for Labour again.Ó This is the voice that Labour should have been listening to, but it is a voice that it has ceased to hear.
The resignation of Speaker Martin is perhaps the last blast of a trumpet, the sound of which has become increasingly strangulated.
In 1999, when Scotland elected its new Parliament, it did so under proportional representation, so Labour had to form a coalition at Holyrood rather than rule unchallenged. Local councils too were elected under the PR system, leading to a silent but stunning revolution: no single council in the whole of Scotland is now controlled solely by Labour, a state of affairs unimaginable ten years ago.
The City of Glasgow, once the very bastion of old Labour power, is now run, efficiently and well, by an openly gay new Labour moderniser, Steven Purcell, who has presided over reforms that include the semi-privatisation of all the city's museums, libraries and galleries.
Only at Westminster, where old Labour diehards continued to be returned, has the dynasty remained unchallenged. That story, however, is now ending, and the resignation of Speaker Martin may well prove to be the catalyst that brings about its conclusion.
When the by-election is called in Glasgow North East, the idea, once widely touted, that Mr Martin's son Paul - a Member of the Scottish Parliament - would inherit the seat under the old, unwritten rules, will be tossed out of the window. Not only has Mr Martin Jr ruled himself out, the party would be crushed if it was seen to be perpetuating a discredited system.
Labour must now reinvent itself, go back to its roots and discover again the simple maxim that it is there to serve the people rather than help itself to power. When, at the next general election, it presents itself to the voters, it must do so in sackcloth and ashes and in a mood of humble contrition - as different as it is possible to be from the mumbled resignation speech of a man who simply failed to recognise that history has moved on.
Return to home page