Parliamentary language

[Senex]

There are conventions in parliament about the language members may use to speak of other members. These come from a past time when members were all supposed to be honourable gentlemen (no ladies then!), but they continue to be enforced in this very different age when politics has become just another career. The present Speaker appears to find it much more important that members adhere to these old conventions than answer questions honestly or even answer questions at all, and we've seen his enforcement of the policy this afternoon with Ian Blackford [Report on BBC Radio 4 "The PM Programme", just after 13 minutes in, availble on BBC Sounds https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0013zj0 ].

Are these old conventions appropriate for the present day, or do they now inhibit honest debate, prevent proper challenge of ministers, and prevent factually accurate records from being maintained? Why is a wrong for one member to accuse another of being a liar and having that written into the record of proceedings when it is clear that lies have been told? Why is it wrong for a member to accuse a minister of misleading the house when that is exactly what the ministers have been doing? Why is there no option for the Speaker to demand that a minister answers the question he has been asked when he has manifestly failed even to attempt to dceliver an answer? Should parliament be much more a place for court-room-like cross-examination and much less of a very polite nineteenth-century gentlemen's club?

 

[GusB]

It's a load of nonsense. If someone is blatantly lying to parliament they should be called out for it, and it should be permitted without all this silly observance of "convention".

 

[Mcr Warrior]

It's a load of nonsense. If someone is blatantly lying to parliament they should be called out for it, and it should be permitted without all this silly observance of "convention".

As the SNP's Ian Blackford endeavoured to do, only this afternoon.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Has it not been the case where the SNP First Minister in Scotland has been called a liar by a Tory and the SNP said that was not acceptable language and the accuser was thrown out? (30th September 2020).

All politicians know the rules, but they all try to use them to their own advantage and complain when they fall foul of them. Don't fall for Blackford's attempt at playing a victim, it's deliberate to gain support.
Every MP in parliament is a liar, not a single one of them is honest.

 

[deltic]

Ian Blackford deliberately got himself thrown out to get some headlines. It is very difficult to prove that anyone deliberately misleads the House. The aim of the convention is to reduce tension in the House. If it wasnt there you would end up with everyone just calling everyone else a liar. Despite what @Smokey Joe says there are plenty of honest MPs and they generally lie no more than anyone else.

 

[brad465]

Any system/code that relies on good morals to be policed is not fit for purpose. Johnson has no morals and his disregard for rules dates back to his Eton days, according to the records of a teacher of his.

Now when Ministers/MPs adhere to the rules around lying to/misleading Parliament, where they correct the record if they misled, and resign if they lied, then I can see why calling another MP a liar is bad. However, Johnson and his nodding donkey clan of a Cabinet have no respect for the Ministerial code and rules of Parliament, so at this point in time at least I cannot fault anyone using language around calling Johnson (or other MPs) a liar. Perhaps if lying to/in Parliament was a comparable offence to perjury, and enforced as such, then much of what's going on at the moment wouldn't be an issue.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Ian Blackford deliberately got himself thrown out to get some headlines.

Agreed that Blackford knew what he was doing.

 

[Busaholic]

Any system/code that relies on good morals to be policed is not fit for purpose. Johnson has no morals and his disregard for rules dates back to his Eton days, according to the records of a teacher of his.

Now when Ministers/MPs adhere to the rules around lying to/misleading Parliament, where they correct the record if they misled, and resign if they lied, then I can see why calling another MP a liar is bad. However, Johnson and his nodding donkey clan of a Cabinet have no respect for the Ministerial code and rules of Parliament, so at this point in time at least I cannot fault anyone using language around calling Johnson (or other MPs) a liar. Perhaps if lying to/in Parliament was a comparable offence to perjury, and enforced as such, then much of what's going on at the moment wouldn't be an issue.

24/3/2013 - Eddie Mair tells Johnson ''you're a nasty piece of work'' on the BBC1 Andrew Marr Show, which I'd suggest it'd be unimaginable happening in 2022, and not because the opposite has been proved!! Eddie left the BBC in 2018 without a fuss after thirty years: Johnson relentlessly pursues those he feels have wronged him. Please note, I'm not saying the two things are connected. I can only hope that Johnson's fall, when it comes, is fatal, metaphorically speaking of course.

 

[davehsug]

Has it not been the case where the SNP First Minister in Scotland has been called a liar by a Tory and the SNP said that was not acceptable language and the accuser was thrown out? (30th September 2020).

All politicians know the rules, but they all try to use them to their own advantage and complain when they fall foul of them. Don't fall for Blackford's attempt at playing a victim, it's deliberate to gain support.
Every MP in parliament is a liar, not a single one of them is honest.

Which itself is a lie of course. It's exactly what certain people want the public to believe, that way they can excuse the filth that pours out of the government benches.

 

[pdeaves]

I wonder if the intention of 'only certain language' is to encourage all MPs to focus on the facts associated with running the country in the best way for all, rather than degenerate in free-for-all personal attacks that are no good for anybody. Whether it works that way or not is a different matter...

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Which itself is a lie of course. It's exactly what certain people want the public to believe, that way they can excuse the filth that pours out of the government benches.

It is not a lie, MPs are in parliament as a career choice, just like lawyers and car salesmen, they rely on words to keep themselves in with the party they are actually loyal to, while pretending they are loyal instead to the public. MPs say they will vote on the behalf of their electorate, but all it takes is a party whip and the vast majority of MPs follow that order instead.
Of course the best examples are from those at the top with national recognition, who here knows of a cabinet that hasn't mislead the general public in the last 200 years?
Don't say be fooled by a politician's smile and promises when they say they will make your town great again, even though the council rather than the MP has more power in that regard.

 

[nw1]

I do get the impression that the current speaker is more willing to protect or defend the government by rigid adherence to the more stuffy rules of Parliament than good old John Bercow was. Ironically, given that the member for Chorley was a Labour MP while Bercow was, at one time, a Tory!

As for Blackford, I am no fan of the SNP (after they threw English remainers under the bus in voting for the 2019 election) but someone needs to call Johnson and his arrogance and hypocrisy to account. The Speaker is just coming across as legitimising Johnson's actions by doing this. 'Liar' is a four-letter-word, but not a rude one. Its use should be allowed where appropriate. To be honest, I can think of many other four-letter words to call Johnson which would be much more insulting than 'liar' - though I would draw the line at using them in parliament

 

[edwin_m]

Seems it's OK to accuse someone of failing to prosecute a sex offender (when protected by Parliamentary privilege) but not to accuse someone of the non-criminal practice of telling lies.

 

[nw1]

Seems it's OK to accuse someone of failing to prosecute a sex offender (when protected by Parliamentary privilege) but not to accuse someone of the non-criminal practice of telling lies.

Yes, quite. One rule for one, one rule for Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson Esq.

 

[davehsug]

It is not a lie, MPs are in parliament as a career choice, just like lawyers and car salesmen, they rely on words to keep themselves in with the party they are actually loyal to, while pretending they are loyal instead to the public. MPs say they will vote on the behalf of their electorate, but all it takes is a party whip and the vast majority of MPs follow that order instead.
Of course the best examples are from those at the top with national recognition, who here knows of a cabinet that hasn't mislead the general public in the last 200 years?
Don't say be fooled by a politician's smile and promises when they say they will make your town great again, even though the council rather than the MP has more power in that regard.

I'm sorry, you said that every MP in parliament is a liar, and that is simply untrue.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

I'm sorry, you said that every MP in parliament is a liar, and that is simply untrue.

Why is it simply untrue? It is a fact that we are not a democracy, but these party politicians pretend otherwise every day, all MPs have a conflict of interest that exists within their very role, they say they will represent the entire electorate of their constituency, which is an impossibility since in the vast majority of seats less than half of voters elect the winning candidate, and there are never any public opinion polls taken to ask what the public in their constituency actually wants, and the MPs swear loyalty to the Queen, and to their own party whips, which the rules state are paramount.
Ergo, MPs are not there for us as they all claim, they also lack the power to improve local only issues which they often highlight in election time propaganda as councils have that power, MPs broadly follow what party leadership tells them to do as voting records show.
MPs also keep expenses, lobbying, and their voting records as hush as possible most of the time.
Which MP does not meet any of these dis-honesties?

 

[GusB]

Why is it simply untrue? It is a fact that we are not a democracy, but these party politicians pretend otherwise every day, all MPs have a conflict of interest that exists within their very role, they say they will represent the entire electorate of their constituency, which is an impossibility since in the vast majority of seats less than half of voters elect the winning candidate, and there are never any public opinion polls taken to ask what the public in their constituency actually wants, and the MPs swear loyalty to the Queen, and to their own party whips, which the rules state are paramount.
Ergo, MPs are not there for us as they all claim, they also lack the power to improve local only issues which they often highlight in election time propaganda as councils have that power, MPs broadly follow what party leadership tells them to do as voting records show.
MPs also keep expenses, lobbying, and their voting records as hush as possible most of the time.
Which MP does not meet any of these dis-honesties?

Utter nonsense. There are some very good MPs out there. My own MP wears the wrong colour rosette as far as I'm concerned, but he's not actually that bad when it comes down to local issues. His predecessor was also very hard-working at a local level.

 

[edwin_m]

Why is it simply untrue? It is a fact that we are not a democracy, but these party politicians pretend otherwise every day, all MPs have a conflict of interest that exists within their very role, they say they will represent the entire electorate of their constituency, which is an impossibility since in the vast majority of seats less than half of voters elect the winning candidate, and there are never any public opinion polls taken to ask what the public in their constituency actually wants, and the MPs swear loyalty to the Queen, and to their own party whips, which the rules state are paramount.
Ergo, MPs are not there for us as they all claim, they also lack the power to improve local only issues which they often highlight in election time propaganda as councils have that power, MPs broadly follow what party leadership tells them to do as voting records show.
MPs also keep expenses, lobbying, and their voting records as hush as possible most of the time.
Which MP does not meet any of these dis-honesties?

This I think illustrates the level of cynicism that some people have about their elected representatives. That's unsurprising after things like the expenses scandal and the way the current government seems to think the public are gullible idiots. I do believe that a good number of MPs are genuinely motivated by trying to do some good for their country and community, but unfortunately those are the ones you don't get to hear about very much because the other sort make so much noise. And the arcane practices of Parliament certainly don't help with that.