And another thing…

I agree that the tradition of referring to the constituency rather than the person can make it damn difficult to keep up with who is saying what in the Commons.

However, I agree that it does help to remind us that the MPs represent constituents, not themselves (if more in theory than practice).

I also noted a comment elsewhere that the use of titles elevates the debate slightly as it helps to minimise the chance for personal animosity to encroach on the debate.

Whether an MP should be referred to as “honourable”, I leave to the wits to mock, but I certainly would be unhappy if the principle of referring to MPs by their constituency was abolished.

That bit at least serves a valuable function.

I guess you’ll not be surprised that I fall into the making it less stiff and formal camp.

The members of the Scottish parliament seem to be able to conduct their business by referring to each other by their names without any dire consequences.

I would rather that MPs concentrated on what they were saying about the issues in hand and how they were going to vote rather than having sleepless nights trying to remember whether you are the honourable gentleman for Glasgow South or Glasgow South West.

From what I understand there really is an almost childish, public school sort of stigma about looking stupid in the Chamber by getting these sorts of things wrong.

To be honest, if using the constituency names is the only thing that reminds MPs that they are there to represent people, then, frankly, they shouldn’t be there in the first place.

I wouldn’t go for total informality – ie calling someone by their first name alone in the Chamber, but I don’t see why you can’t refer to Jo Swinson as Jo Swinson and not as the honourable member for East Dunbartonshire in a speech and address her directly as Ms Swinson.

When you’re caught up in the bubble, you sometimes can’t see how other people looking in see how ridiculous it is to hear people addressing each other in language that hasn’t changed for hundreds of years.

I remember my dad in the 70s predicting the downfall of society because people were starting to address their bosses by their first names rather than Mr (as it usually was then). He was wrong and in fact the strongest and best peforming teams are in my experience the ones where there are no artificial barriers like that.

Go with the reform – it’ll all be fine.

I quite like these terms as long as you are actually honourable. In fact, it would be nice to see them extended beyond the House of Commons, as in:

‘Would the Right Honourable Technical Manager for Workshop please inform us why the damned computer isn’t working?”

I’m not a great fan of any titles in a modern democracy. I would like to see peerages and knighthoods dropped. Awards should be given for merit in civil life and bravery and service in war or peracetime operations. As a socialist who feels quite strongly about equality it is inevtiable that I should be unimpressed by anyone simply by virtue of their title.

I enjoy our history, of course, but the future, for me, is more interesting than the past which can be reviewed at leisure. They say we are shaped by our history. Fortunately, socilaism over the last 100 years has shown that aren’t and that new thinking, new ideas, can shape our country – ideas which, of course, must stand up to close scrutiny and public analysis.

I would like to see judges taken out of the knighthood/peerage loop – to provide a better sense of judicial independence.

In telation to Parliament – Member of X and Y etc seems perfectly sensible without any prefix. You make a good point about the constituency and place in the nation’s geography.

There will always be those who like tradition and pageantry – but as with other pageant, such tradition can be reserved for special days – the opening of Parliament?

I’d like to see a more modern approach to language and behaviour in Parliament and increase the reality of debate.

Televising proceedings in Parliament was a major step forward in connecting Parliament to the electorate and blogging politicans are obviously going to become far better connected than those who simply rely on static websites or their time in the constituency.

I tend to agree. I think a lot of the things being done at the moment are to give the appearance of change rather than anything else. Of course there is some nonsense that needs to go (like come of the archaic and downright silly parts of the state opening, like that stupid santa hat they carry round!) but i think you’re in danger of ripping out the soul of parliament quite frankly.

I like Hon. and Rt. Hon. it think it gives the place a bit of character if nothing else!

Caron at 11.05 am: “I guess you’ll not be surprised that I fall into the making it less stiff and formal camp.”

No, not at all surprised. You’re a LibDem, after all. So I expect you would also prefer the Commons to meet from 9 am to 5 pm and for it to be semi-circular (to remove the confrontational element, of course)?

As one of the two I have no difficulty with the present system. I got used to it when I started reading Hansard in 1974, then listening to PMQs – JHW (Huyton) vs MHT (Finchley) on the radio in 1976.

Oh, I AM SO sorry. I must try harder to keep up with modern usage.
I mean ‘back in’ 1974 and ‘back in’ 1976. Not ‘forward to/in/on/’ – choose your own preposition but, whetever it is, remember to leave it out when talking about weekdays because the Americans leave it out. So, recently, I have learned that Mr L. Hoyle is member for Chorley, for example.

Leave it as it is would be my recommendation. That’s often my recommendation but it’s not an age thing – I would have recommended the same in 1974 if Tom had blogged about it at the time. (He didn’t though did he? No. I was kept waiting quite a while). The present system helps reminds us that MPs are there as representives of us all in our own areas. Reminds them too.

Just to show I’m not a total Luddite – I’d do away with the Rt. Hon. title for Privy Councillors. I’d do away with all titles.

Well, I think there are better things to spend money on than changing the layout of the Commons chamber and I’m also a Scot and can see the problems with a 9am Monday start!

@IanVisits, Cameron was told off by Michael Martin during his last PMQs for saying “you are not worthy to be PM”. The problem? The word you, not the gratuitous insult.

Caron – there’s a lot to be said for continuing the practice of addressing all your contributions through the Speaker. otherwise there would be chaos. Fortunately, that’s not a change that’s being proposed.

Cameron very cynically chooses his soundbite in advance of PMQs and then deliberately breaks the House rules in order to appear o be addressing the PM directly. Being called out of order by the Speaker is a risk he’s willing to take.

I don’t see how putting ‘right honourable’ in front of ‘member for Perkton Haverbung’ makes it easier to memorise. I assumed titles were the point of this entry, after all?

I know at least one person with an MBE after his name who is one of the most duplicitous, manipulative individuals I have had the misfortune to encounter, so put me down as a republican in this regard. Marilyn sang ‘Happy Birthday, *Mr* President’, and if it’s fine with the world’s most powerful man, it’s fine with me.

By name would suffice.

Being able to address each other across the floor directly would be far more sensible, than addressing the Speaker and stop referring to the House of Lords as that ‘Other Place’.

We live in the 21st Century.

Pomposity in the Commons is farcical.

The concept of ‘honourable’, ‘right honourable’ etc. died in the mid 20th Century.

Many people would like to see open and honest discussion between politicians.

Shrouding comments in an archaic language and speaking manner does nothing not make anything anymore respectful (and can in fact seem sarcastic and therefore less respectful) than addressing each other by real names directly and in many ways turns people away from what is increasingly seen as a remote and distant body politic.

Just refer to MPs by their surname and Constituency:

ie Harris, Glasgow South. We don’t need to know the marital status, or otherwise of female MPs and the term Ms still gives an impression of feminism.

A week after this sensible changecomes in you won’t even remember the old days.

The Speaker’s wig went without a ripple.

And if the connection with their constituency is capable of being meaningfully strengthened by the mere repetition of its name, then MPs must be perilously close to irrelevance.

If you’re still worried, what’s wrong with “Joe Bloggs,Troughchester.”?

The Government is just as cynical in preparing for PMQs, though – all these planted questions about the Tories from the Labour benches are not exactly treating the occasion with the seriousness it deserves.

PMQs is a complete pantomime it’s all about macho posturing and not enough about holding the Government to account.

You are, of course, right about the principle of addressing contributions through the Speaker, but my original point aobut using names when referring to your fellow MPs stands.

Having spent a lot of time camopaigning on doorsteps in the lead up to the local and Euro elections, I have to tell you lot that how Mps address each other in the Commons was not up their in the list oif important subjects! probably the biggest reason Mps have lost respect is that they lost any connection to real people once they sat on that green leather. People at the door didn’t moan about Gordon, they moaned about expenses. And what an opportunity we in Labour have missed. The Banks and that system was ripe to be reformed on a tide of popular and real antipathy. Instead, Mps spend their time discussing terms of address and which silly costume to get rid of next!

I think you should keep the honourables, more scope for sarcasm

do you still use
‘learned’for those having a legal qualification

and

‘gallant’ for those who had military rank ?

i rather like the use of titles that have a history and so what if it is old fashioned !

The houses of parliament including the lower house and the other place has a distinct part in the history of democracy.

I find this constant dumbing down and changing long held traditions a real pity.

In general most people go into politics for the right reasons. Sadly the party system, although advantagious in some regards, crushes many the intent is still largely there.

I view the cause of the MP to be honourable and therefore the strange little man who insists on wearing a lounge suit instead of the robes of office should be told to get on with his job rather than fiddle with protocol like this.

I thought ‘gallant’ was for knighthoods.

I’ve always believed in the adage “If it isn’t broken; don’t fix it”. Managing the Daily business in the HoC doesn’t appear, to me, to be broken.

I think it important to retain the formality of managing our nations business. It may well seem like the perpetuation of a Gentlemans’ Club but the armchair style of management of the Blair Cabinet, seems to me, to have allowed us to go to war.

It might be a source of broadcasting ‘Out Takes’ when the Speaker gets it wrong, but I for one would see this a little more than change for change sake – Please keep the status quo.

I think you should refer to “that bloke / lady over there” if necessary. The present system disbars people such as me who can’t remember names (damn I suppose that’s a fair argument for keeping it!).

Much as I love the traditions (even the majority that only go back to the Victorians) and atmosphere of the Palace of Westminster I think both help to set MPs apart from the rest of us.

The place is all rather unreal – a bit like a cross between Hogwarts and a posh London club. All that being called “sir” by jolly policemen and odd men in tights can’t be good for your mental health…

Speaking of forms of address, this is a bit familiar, wouldn’t you say, this ‘ere below in quotes that I got im my mailbox yesterday? Also I have to work for a living and cant’s sit around watchinmg tennis and in any case I hate tennis and hot weather despite what the brainless twit on BBC news said about ‘Everyone enjoys the hot weather’. Why don’t they keep their brainless presumptions to themselves? And their other presumptions too, come to that?

But it’s good to know that something important happened this week. I can’t claim to be a new person though.

‘Dear Jim,

I hope you’ve had a good week, watching Wimbledon and enjoying the sunshine. I’ve had a really fast-paced few days, giving an interview for Helen Newlove on her new radio station, delivering a big speech at the Local Government Association conference, and doing everything I can to get Gordon Brown to be honest about his spending cuts.

But one of the most important things that happened this week was the Conservative Party’s Social Action conference. It’s hard to imagine us holding this kind of event three or four years ago. But social action is now a big part of the Party and it’s got a really important role to play.

There are around 150 Conservative-led projects up and down the country. These aren’t token PR efforts – they’re tough, useful and important schemes which make a real difference to communities. We’ve got mentoring, sports, and environmental programmes here in Britain, as well as development projects planned for the summer in Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Srebrenica.

Watch the video from our 2008 social action project in Rwanda

It’s my hope that the social action undertaken by the Conservative Party is the start of something much bigger in terms of changing the way we do politics in this country. It’s about making politics relevant, inspiring new people to get involved, and showing that by working together, we can deliver real change.

Have a great weekend.

DC’

I wonder how many of the people calling the current system too complex have ever read a Parliamentary Bill?

If MPs are expected to understand the laws they vote on, then remembering who is the Honourable Member for Bexley (etc) is a piece of proverbial cake by comparison.

MPs do understand the laws they vote on, don’t they?

That’s the new Tory party then, in touch with all our lives, from cleaners all the way down to merchant bankers.

Tom’s right about them you know. There it is, in their own words.

I would just like to see and hear Brown answer the questions he is being asked.
Instead he just wants to change it to ” Leader of the Oppsosition” questions.

If MPs are going to refer always to their honourable constituents, then I think it is perfectly reasonable for them to retain the honourific for themselves.

Or do MPs consider themselves better than their constituents? I’m sure MPs will have thought that in the dim and distant past when MPs and the bulk of their constituents considered themselves to be different classes. Is that still true in modern Britain?

Charonqc
Sunday 5 July 2009 at 11:21 am
… As a socialist
**************************************

Wow, I knew there had to be one out there somewhere. I mean we see and (unfortunately) hear from lots of pretendy ones, but a *real* one, there’s a thing.

You ever see the film The Omega Man?

Chime a chord, did it?

I say keep the titles and the honorifics. It’s hardly an issue, and I’d hate a bland parliament.

I agree that the place the MP is supposed to represent should be retained, I also think that refering to MPs as honourable or right honourable is a poor joke.

How about, “the MP for add in name of constituancy“, then you aren’t lying about them.

Calling them by name is silly; who knows the name of their MP, most people do have a vague idea as to the name of their constituancy.

As for the what the scottish council does, well they probably do it because they like to hear their names spoken out loud.

I’ll now away and check up who is meant to serve me in the scottish council.

I see no problem with the system as it is. It’s causing no real offence to anyone, it’s not causing harm, I personally have no difficulty in following proceedings on BBC Parliament, I don’t know if others do of course. I’m a fan of the pomp and traditions – it’s just delightfully British and quaint. Part of what makes Parliament special.

“less stiff and formal camp.”

is that a Gay dig

lately it may be more suitable to use ‘The Accused’

or more in Dave cameron’s style at PMQs…I accuse

Well, you can hardly have MPs in the Commons shouting “Oh, for █████’s sake, will the lying ███████ just answer the ███████ question already?”, can you?

If this was a question about pointless jargon in business, the sort where you can play buzz word bingo, then I suspect you wouldn’t be in favour of the jargon. At least some jargon serves a purpose in that it explains a complex point succinctly for those in the know. The ‘trimmings’ in Parliament definitely don’t serve the public interest, simply make it less accessible. MPs don’t (or rather shouldn’t) need to be reminded of their commitment to constituents and I don’t seriously believe that archaic rituals pay more than lipservice to this anyway. Out with the old and in with the new I say.

An Army officer is not referred to by his rank amongst personnel. So for example Major Timbone would be Mr Timbone, Captain Harris would be Mr Harris.

Is the country really crying out for this?

As names are given in brackets in Hansard, the only people who can be ‘confused’ are people who watch Parliament live or on TV. Anyone who does that gets used to the convention within a few hours’ worth of watching.

This is a complete red-herring – tilting at tradition as an easy way of calling himself a reformer. There is a long history behind the reasoning of naming conventions in the House, and I’d be sorry to see Parliament looking more and more like a meeting of the local Council.

Keep the honorifics.

There is substance to the pov that an MP is not there as an individual so personal names are not appropriate, otoh Right/Honourable are anachronistic. What about “The MP for…”?

I think it would be a real shame to lose some of the traditions of Parliament. If we need to modernise to make it more effective, fine, but change for changes sake seems unecessary really. And really, is this the time to be having this debate in Parliament? After all, Lord of the Universe told us that there wasn’t enough time to debate the Royal Mail sell off, so how can there be enough time for something this trivial?

[...] Tom Harris MP doesn’t like it either. [...]

Leave it as it is. First, although it’s a bit roundabout, it’s a good way to inject a bit of decorum into debate, helping to defuse excessive animosity. Secondly, it reminds MPs that they are they not for themselves but their constituents. Thirdly, it adds a bit of colour to the often mundane business of government, and that’s a good thing. Finally, while symbolism and tradition are important, changing this particular practice will do absolutely nothing to restore the reputation of Parliament. There are far more important changes – such as reforming select committees to make them more powerful and independent – which should be the priority.