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.