Whenever I'm confused about something I try to read around it until I get an answer and invariably find that a rich, white Victorian man is the cause. This might be because I'm obsessed with Victorian England but it also might be that we haven't bothered to update anything since the late 1800s. Why bother, when it clearly works so well? I mean nothing has changed since then has it? England rules the waves, slavery is making us all rich, women have no agency, we had a prime minister (Palmerston) known for his 'vigor' and stimulating public support with dangerous nationalism.
So, it's unsurprising that when Dawn Butler was thrown out of the House of Commons for calling the Prime Minister a 'liar', it was the fault of a Victorian. I don't want to jump on the band waggon of saying her treatment was disgraceful. It was clearly a clever stunt on her part, she knew it would get reported but I did wonder why the word was so offensive.
How people must behave in the House of Commons is set out in a book called Erskine May, which I think sounds like a firm of dodgy solicitors. However, it is just the name of one, who wrote down parliamentary procedure.
Thomas Erskine May, was born in 1815, educated at the Bedford school and became a lawyer. He was appointed the librarian of the House of Commons in 1831, called to the bar in 1838 and became the clerk of the HoC in 1871 until shortly before his death in 1886. He was ordered to have a bath (I know, its a joke!) in 1860 and promoted to Knight Commander in 1866. He seems like he might have been an alright guy, donating lots of books to the first free library. He wrote a about history and at some point decided to write everything down, so that politicians could behave well.
I've searched the book and can't find any specific reference to not calling people liars. However, paragraph 20.10 states that certain matters (relating to the conduct of certain categories of person...) cannot be debated except on a substantive motion which allows a distinct decision of the House. critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate may therefore be permitted in motions of this form.
Thomas Erskine May wanted to stop the debate descending into a slanging match.
There is an old joke that the reason you can't call someone a liar in parliament is because everyone lies. This rule doesn't stop them being mean to each other. They are basically children who can't resist a game of, "Your mum is smellier than my mum!"
It doesn't make much sense that the Prime Minister can call the leader of the opposition 'Captain Hindsight' but it seems as though they can be as rude as they like about each other providing they are not clear about it. Benjamin Disraeli, when asked to withdraw his remark that half the cabinet were asses changed the statement to 'half the cabinet are not asses.' Winston Churchill used the phrase 'terminal exactitude' rather than accuse someone of lying.
As far as I can see there is no list of words that can't be used and it is up to the speaker to decide if a breech of parliamentary language has occurred.
Clearly, we all agree that Dawn Butler has a point, so why has no one brought a substantive motion on the subject of the Prime Minister's terminal exactitude? I'm sure there is enough evidence.
Now, I wonder which Victorian I can find to blame for the current decision the government has made to allow boarder control workers to be exempt from isolation if they have been in close contact with Covid? Logically, their isolation is still in force for anything they might want to do personally, like stand in a meadow ad infinitum but going to work to spread the disease all around the world as fast a possible is perfectly fine.
There is so much I don't understand and the answers aren't always in books written by Victorians.
No comments:
Post a Comment