EVERY now and again MPs are asked by charities and other groups to wear something at PMQs to signify their support for a particular cause. This usually means a ribbon or lapel badge. Once a number of women MPs turned up wearing ostentatious hats in support of (I think) Macmillan Cancer Relief.

As in so many other areas of life, I adopt the Ebeneezer Scrooge philosophy and generally don’t indulge such requests.

For a start, I’m not a great lapel badge wearer. The only thing I insist on wearing each year is a poppy (English or Scottish – it makes no difference to me). It’s a bit like my attitude to stickers on cars: I’m generally agin them.

Over on Twitter there’s a perfectly sensible and well-meaning campaign to persuade MPs to wear green in the Commons next Wednesday in support of the Iranian reformers who may or may not have had the election stolen from them.

As I say, it’s a perfectly worthy cause. But I object to attempts to persuade MPs to show some visible sign of support because then the assumption might be made that those who choose not to wear green don’t support the cause, when in fact the truth is that they just don’t want to wear green.

Secondly, what happens when more than one charity or worthy cause competes for exposure during parliament’s most-watched 30 minutes? How do you choose between them? What reason do you give for choosing to "snub" one and support the other?

Thirdly, and for me the most important reason, PMQs is supposed to be a serious event at which the leader of the country is held accountable to parliament (cue inevitable shouts of "Brown never answers questions… tractor statistics," etc). It is not an occasion where members sport the latest fashionable cause or label, like a downmarket and less glamorous Ascot.

MPs should be present in the chamber either because they want to witness the proceedings, take part in them by asking a question, support their side, shout or heckle the other side, or Twitter their observations to a breathlessly excited outside world.

But if the sole purpose of being there at midday on a Wednesday is simply to be seen, to be caught on camera ostentatiously sporting a colour, a badge, a hat, a tie or a wristband, then I think you might want to reconsider the point of your being there in the first place.

Now, I’m extremely well aware of how pompous that makes me sound. And I have a feeling that whoever wins the Speakership on Monday will be sufficiently "modernising" to embrace all manner of new practices in the chamber. Michael Martin was known to frown on the practice I’ve just opined against, but I wouldn’t be surprised if his successor thought that such ideas should be encouraged as a way of "engaging" the world beyond Westminster.

Hmm.

From this particular traditionalist’s perspective, that’s only a short step from having MPs sponsored by double glazing firms and brands of lager.

Humbug!