Get your cloak - you've pulled.

The speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin, has been resigned. This is huge. Sacking the speaker is like setting fire to Princess Anne - you just don't do it. In fact if you even dream it, you better wake up and apologise, modda fokka.


There is a precedent for this dismissal however. In 1680, the then speaker, Eddie something, was shown the door. He'd been caught spuds deep in the King's favourite Labrador, and had to go. Even then, they tried to hush it up, but apparently the puppies looked just like him. It was only a matter of time before the papers got hold of it.

Everyone is jockeying for advantage in the race to fill Martin's position. Traditionally it would be a well thought of parliamentary "face". In these extraordinary times, though, tradition can go hang. It's thought that a raft of new, independent MPs might soon be appointed, and that the new speaker might come from their unsullied ranks. Even Esther Ranzen's thrown her sombrero in the ring.

She's only the first to declare an interest. Rumour is rife about who else the PM has approached to fill this important role. As we went to press, The Chuckle Brothers were the bookies' favourite. But the race is a long one, and the brothers are rather too Icarus like to last I think. My money's on either Michael Bentine or Wolf from Gladiator.

Account Code of Conduct

There's absolute uproar here in the UK because our elected representatives in the House of Commons have, it appears, been filling their boots with our hard earned for a number of years. Journalists (those friends of the oppressed) have uncovered a culture of systemic expense account abuse.

The scandal transcends party allegiances too. They're all at it. It's the one area in which there's some political accord. I suppose we should be thankful for that at least. The problem stems from the fact that the members of parliament (MPs) policed their own expense claims. Yes, one could argue that this presents a conflict of interest, but what price hindsight like that?

The story started with a few unimportant MPs being hauled over the coals for making dubious claims. However, seasoned MP watchers pretty quickly realised this wasn't the end of it by the reaction of each of the parties. They shuffled about uneasily and refused to score a few easy points at their opponents' expense (rimshot). Consensus in the British parliament occurs very rarely - generally when we're declaring war, and we haven't done that for months. No, the only explanation was that they were all at it, and felt shamed into silence.

The level of the abuse is staggering. Consider the following:

One unnamed Lib Dem backbencher claimed expenses for having the gaps in his teeth examined by a "registered" faith healer. No treatment was prescribed, but the one-off consultation cost £204.

Another claimed £18 for a bag of conkers he apparently collected for his twelve-year-old son while one tory MP bought a £3000 trampoline, which he claimed was a valid business expense because he'd forgotten to claim for the fax machine in his constituency office, the price of which was £124.99.

And finally, one eminent former cabinet minister claimed nearly £194,000 in expenses over a fourteen month period because he "was concerned by an unpleasant smell in the street - possibly emanating from a neighbouring property".