1st February 2022
Today the speaker of the House of Commons said he would like parliament to be “nice”.
For this, and for insights generally, listen to this clip to the end:
Commons Speaker Lindsay Hoyle says that while Boris Johnson’s comments on Keir Starmer and Jimmy Saville yesterday were not out of order, he’s far from happy with them
— Sam Coates Sky (@SamCoatesSky) February 1, 2022
Like courts, parliament is a place for conflict and for those conflicts to be resolved.
And, again like courts, parliament has developed conventions and an etiquette for smoothing the jagged edges of that conflict.
“The honourable member” is the parliamentary equivalent of “my learned friend”.
Courts – at least civil courts – have also rules on when a person can be accused of dishonesty.
It is not an allegation that can be made by a lawyer lightly.
But it is an allegation that can, if there is evidence, be made in certain circumstances.
In parliament an allegation of dishonesty cannot be made – at least in debate.
An allegation of dishonesty has instead to be made in a substantive motion – see the commentary here.
As the historian Robert Saunders avers, this rule against accusing in debate other members of parliament of dishonesty was part of a wider understanding:
As this illustrates, the rule exists because lying to the House was once regarded as such a serious offence that it required a full parliamentary debate & contempt proceedings. We've lost the sanction against lying, but retained the sanction against those who draw attention to it
— Robert Saunders (@redhistorian) February 1, 2022
So we now have the ridiculous situation where nothing practical can be done to stop the Prime Minister – or any other member of parliament – from being dishonest…
…and if another member of parliament – grandstanding or otherwise) points this out in debate, it is that other member of parliament that is thrown out of the house of commons.
One can understand how the rules of the house of commons came to end up like this.
But that does not make the rules seem any less daft.
The solution, however, is not “niceness”.
Politeness, yes, and decorum and respect – just as courts (usually) have politeness and decorum.
But courts – while usually calm and polite and respectful – are not “nice”.
Courts can be places of horrible and raw human drama and conflict, where often difficult decisions have to be made that will, in turn, often ruin the lives of the parties involved.
To regard them as “nice” is to confuse form with substance.
A parliament also has to deal with often difficult decisions that will ruin – or even end – the lives of people at home and abroad, sometimes millions of people.
A parliament is a place of conflict and high tension – with immense consequences for real people.
As such, like a court, it is sensible to take off the rough edges of conduct and vocabulary, so as to take the heat and aggression out of exchanges.
But the underlying tensions will still be there – and these tensions need to be recognised if they are to be resolved.
Those tensions cannot be cured by “niceness” – and, indeed, a refusal to recognise those tensions risks turning those tensions into contradictions.
And that will not help anybody.
******
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.
Hoyle went on to plead for a revision of the powers he has to hold MPs to account.
He may be waiting a long time.
[As for the use of the word ‘nice’ – don’t get me started. This word has been on a very long journey, as presumably Hoyle knows. It now is one of the most anodyne words in the English language.]
Hoyle has fallen into the trap of defining the solution in advance of spelling out the objective clearly. It is almost as though “nice” is an objective in its own right. It is not it is just a style, but rules must aim to achieve a clear purpose. That is where he should start. Rules that allow slander without sanction the widespread propagation of untruths, the failure to answer legitimate questions, all undermine democracy. Surely the rules should aim to strengthen it. Only amoral sociopaths like Johnson benefit from the current situation.
We’re certainly in an Alice Through the Looking Glass world where liars are given free rein, but those who challenge them are excluded.
What would happen if Ian Blackford had responded to the Speaker’s request to insert the magic word ‘inadvertently’ in his accusation by saying:
“Mr Speaker, you urge me to say that I believe the prime minister’s actions in misleading the house to have been inadvertent. However, I am unable to do so, because that is not my belief. For me to pretend that it was would in turn make me guilty of misleading the house, which I am sure you would not condone.”
Very neat!
Quite right. The Speaker’s statement was pretty pathetic. There are clearly limits on his powers. But could he at least have asked the Prime Minister to come to the Commons to explain or withdraw the slur, even if he could not require him to do so?
Although there is precedent against accusing another member of being a liar, precedent can be ignored. The Speaker could hoof Johnson out when he lies or behaves as he did yesterday. He could fail to require an Hon Member to withdraw an accusation of lying.
Perhaps that is what is required.
I believe that Chaucer would indeed regard these parliamentary procedures as wonder nyce and straunge.
Nyce meant the opposite of nice back then
One problem is the fixation on lying – as if that is the worst thing one can be accused of. Johnson accused Starmer of incompetence, and by innuendo, possibly worse. That seems to be the basis on which Hoyle based his judgment that the comment was not unparliamentary.
I wonder how an accusation of say, murder, would be dealt with.
One aspect of Johnson’s comment is that it was entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand: it was a fine example of what was called a fallacy in old-fashioned logic books: the argumentum ad hominem.
It seems to me that, rather than asking for more powers, Hoyle might make better (more inventive) uses of the powers he has. I doubt that the sky would have fallen in if he had ordered Johnson to withdraw. (I can’t think that Bercow would have put up with Johnson’s nonsense).
Johnson, meanwhile, is reported as standing by his remarks.
I thought that while MPs are not allowed to openly accuse each other of dishonesty if they could prove “the House has been mislead” then the Speaker could act. MPs can also ask the Speaker to do something and can use all sorts of words close to “misleading” that get the message across.
Anyway Boris probably did himself more damage than good among his own MPs and the public.
Hoyle is just not up to the job, standards and traditions which he is used to are just abused and belittled by this govt. Hoyle needs to either change his stance or stand aside.
Here’s the thing, though. The mere fact that David has seen ample reason to write this article – it is clearly based on events – perfectly shows us just how successful this little bit of political manipulation has been.
Taking another leaf from the Trump Political Playbook, Boris Johnson has very successfully managed to alleviate the growing pressure he was feeling “over there”, [on the Gray report] by creating an entirely new and artificial drama “over here” [with unseemly behaviour in the House].
Unfortunately, what is potentially far worse, the leadership of HM Opposition appear only to willing to walk, nay run, in to the traps so carefully laid by the government. By allowing themselves to be drawn down in to the gutter depths of the debate, they have willfully abandoned the moral high ground.
How much better would it have been to use a platform like PMQs to talk to the electorate by making a public commitment that a future Labour government would immediate re-write the rulebooks, for Ministers, MPs and Westminster’s Public Servants [the Civil Service and SpAds] [[disclaimer, I would ban SpAds in a heartbeat if it were possible to do so]] and make all the conduct we’ve seen disclosed in these events punishable by immediate dismissal.
Instead of arguing with a PM who isn’t taking this matter seriously, demonstrate to the public that they *would* take things seriously and show how.
It would rob PMQs of the “Yaa Boo! factor” and it might surprise the Conservative majority, but to have the chamber filled with braying, ranting fools on government benches while the opposition looked on in silent contempt might – might – just be enough to remind the electorate what parliament is there to do – namely “get on with the job”. It would certainly remind the Conservative MPs that they are supporting a fool – and perhaps give them cause to question that.
Boris Johnson simply isn’t interested in being a competent PM. His years of exchanging “bon mots” with Ian Hislop and Paul Merton on “Have I Got News For You”, being greater than his experience of serious political behavior, is how he naturally wants to mask his own lack of leadership and accomplishment. The way to expose him and make him look foolish – whilst exhibiting a polite decorum and professional demeanour – would be to side-step the barbs and pick arguments against which he has no defense.
For example, call for amendments to the rules to outlaw all alcohol in government offices – take the win if Johnson concedes and the ammunition if he doesn’t.
And if the PM’s response is to go for personal attacks or low-blow responses, don’t fight back. Take the high ground. “Mr. Speaker, I come before the House today to ask serious questions of the Prime Minister, to call for actions long overdue and expected by voters and tax-payers. Let the record show that the Prime Minister’s response is to respond with insults. Now, to turn to my second question…”
Perhaps Johnson and Starmer should settle their differences in the manner that gentlemen used to when Erskine May was pottering about. To wit: a duel. Pistols for two, breakfast for one, that sort of thing.
Or they could settle it with some mediation, followed by a consent order?
“Nice”? FFS. Not even in the proper meaning of precise and exact. Hoyle is beyond pathetic in exercising the powers that the Speaker actually has, but he declines to use. Those he does exercise are in defence of the Executive. The institution of the Palace of Westminster, rather like the building itself, is no longer fit for purpose and “riddled with dry rot”. The leader of the SNP in Westminster was yesterday expelled for stating the truth about the PMs lies – sorry “inadvertently misleading the House”, whilst the PM was allowed to state fifteen lies in a single utterance: the UK is not leading the west against Putin: 40 new hospitals are not being built; UK has not recovered more quickly; Starmer was not responsible for not prosecuting Savile; track and trace was not world beating etc, etc…. Hoyle is weak as water and will never hold the Executive to account to whom he is craven. Deeply flawed as he was, at least Bercow was stalwart in defence of backbenchers, which is central to the Speaker’s role. We need a revolution or at the very least a constitutional revolution. On the other hand we are indeed world beating in flummery, Ruritanian uniforms, “traditions” (usually as ancient as 20th century Edwardian), ceremony and, par excellence, rank hypocrisy.
Hoyle’s mealy mouthed comments only make things worse. To paraphrase he said Johnson’s slander, while not moderate, was not procedurally incorrect. How was it procedurally correct for the PM to make such an accusation, one which he must have known was invalid? I would have thought he should have intervened immediately to ask Johnson to withdraw the slur.
As for the accusations of lying being unparliamentary, I think the convention is fine, there should be no outright accusations of lying. But it is possible for an MP to present two conflicting things another MP said in the House and point out they can’t both be true. Starmer did this in PMQs recently. Also I think there should be a mechanism to require a minister, or the PM, to correct the record, not merely hope that they will.
Post Johnson it’s clear the Ministerial Code needs revision, in particular the fact that it is up to the PM to enforce it, or not. Surely it needs to be independently enforced, perhaps by the Standards Committee or the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
I think your point about the importance of keeping the record factually correct is absolutely crucial. Though doubtless our opinions [and perhaps recollections] will vary, I am reminded of the claims made by then Prime Minister Tony Blair, to the House, when he claimed that Iraq had “Weapons of Mass Destruction”, including long range missiles, capable of striking British interests. This was not in any way substantiated by the record and when he has been subsequently challenged on this has replied that he felt it was correct at the time.
I mention that specific example because Mr. Blair knew or should have known that the information he presented to the House was false. But the UK lost 179 military personnel in the second Iraq War – the one started in part by Mr. Blair’s lies.
There are always consequences when lies are told. We just need to make sure that, in the UK government at least, there is punishment for doing so.
Footnote: I love your observation that it must be a requirement for all MPs, Lords, Civil Servants making or preparing public statements, to correct the record when a falsehood or mistake is identified. Falsehoods are used by despots and dictators to justify their actions.
I appreciate your footnote, but my comment about requiring correcting the record referred to Parliamentary speech. Including Civil Servants is your addition.
As in a court of law where claims must be tested against the facts and evidence, so it should be in parliament. Indeed it was – once. But, parliamentary privilege allows any MP to make any accusation or claim without being held liable in civil or criminal law for making the accusation or claim.
In this case it would help if those outside of parliament, those who know a lot more about what has happened and what has been said about what has happened, than I do, assembled what we know about what happened, (Sue Gray has done a bit of the work here.)
In particular what Boris Johnson has said as against what we now know happened. The problem is, as I see it, no one is able to prove that Johnson knew about the gatherings beyond the hearsay of people absolutely intent on doing him in. For example it is incredible to imagine that Johnson ordered people to prepare a surprise birthday party for him at Downing Street. So when Johnson says he didn’t know what was going on, it is for his accusers to conclusively prove otherwise with bona-fide evidence – not hearsay.
For example the party in his flat. It seems incredible that he wouldn’t have known and played some part in it’s organisation even if that part was assenting to it happening and agreeing to attend it, and actually attending. But just because something is incredible it doesn’t mean it was not so. Therefore, until, as they say in some places, we get this nailed down, it will continue to move, and people will get thrown out of all sorts of places as a consequence. Someone, eventually might even get thrown out of Downing Street.
Some people think that the clock is still at ten to three.
Until politicians are seen as on the level millions of people will never be levelled up.
There has to be a real determination as to the role of Scotland Ireland Wales and England for the decades ahead. The continuation of the Monarchy has to be questioned and determined .When things are agreed they should be put in writing.
The debate if it ever gets started will not be nice.
Many good points made. My own daft notion is to establish a Committee of Arbitration to adjudicate changes of rules and of retrospective corrections to Hansard (say only in a 30-day cycle). To be drawn from worthies (in the Lords ? and elsewhere) who more concerned about their country and their legacies than their pockets.
But tighten the rules as we will, there will aye be Johnsons, there will aye be Hoyles. Public & parliamentarian’s attitude is what allows or condemns such lying. The FT today proposes early teaching of basic finanncial literacy to schoolkids. We could propose the early learning for our democratic institutions. The Remain camp on Parliament Green could have wished a merry Christmass to the Leave camp, acknowledging they both wanted what was best for the UK and were just arguing about how to get there. I do not mean, let’s be nice. My own view is that leavers are either sheisters who see a way to financial gain through Leaving, angry refusniks, or schmucks who hanker after the empire days. But this is still a democracy, which means at times accepting the opposite view (even if they had only an apparent majority- « perception is reality » said Jack Welsh).
When we stop accepting the majority view, pace the US Republican party, democracy is in danger.
This an opportunity for reform. Abolish the position of Speaker and all the rules that go with it and replace with a rota of female primary school teachers. We would see a very different, truthful and respectful House of Commons in an instant.
‘I am sure,’ cried Catherine, ‘I did not mean to say anything wrong; but it is a nice book, and why should not I call it so?’
‘Very true,’ said Henry, ‘and this is a very nice day, and we are taking a very nice walk, and you are two very nice young ladies. Oh! it is a very nice word indeed! – It does for everything. Originally perhaps it was applied only to express neatness, propriety, delicacy, or refinement; – people were nice in their dress, in their sentiments, or their choice. But now every commendation on every subject is comprised in that one word.’
Jane Austen, Northanger Abbey
On the particular issue of accusations of mendacity: It is one thing to directly call a Member a liar, but is it not within the rules to drawn attention to an accusation made, say, in the press that the Member has lied? And, just to be on the safe side, one can always coyly remark that one does not necessarily agree with the accusation oneself.