Parliament, Mr/Madam Speaker and the TV Debates

It can be a bearpit at times, and heated exchanges and heckling can occur, but certain basic rules prevail in Parliament, and are safeguarded by the Speaker. They include:

• Only one person speaks at a time, and only with the permission of the Speaker.
• Interruptions can only be made if the person then speaking "gives way", or if the Speaker takes a point of order.
• Members may not accuse their opponents of lying to the House.
• Courtesies have to be observed, and "unparliamentary" expressions are forbidden.
• Misleading the House is prohibited and any transgressions may be punished by the Standards Committee.

These rules have been in place for decades, if not centuries, and are widely known - particularly since the advent of TV coverage inside the chamber. So why do parties permit the shambolic free-for-all that we have seen during the TV debates? The hosts/moderators have been appalling in my view, with no attempt made to ensure the participants behave themselves appropriately. If I were a participant or a party negotiator I would at the very least insist that microphones are only "on" for the person whose turn it is to speak. Sunak's conduct in particular last night would lead me to question what is being taught to children at Winchester. His frequent mendacious interruptions must have turned an awful lot of people off. Not that he needs that.

 

All party leaders should be forced to fight duels with pistols of choice in a knockout competition. Eventual winner becomes Prime Minister.

 

George Canning fought a duel with Castlereagh (War Minister) in 1809, but that was before Canning became Prime Minister.

 

They all know the words to Winchester Cathedral.

 

You don't even need to follow arcane Parliamentiary rules as a precedent for keeping 2 people in order.

Your average judge would be able to wither unruly parties.

 

I switched off after about 40 minutes.

Sunak is vile and a blatant liar. And in his desperation to not be the biggest prime ministerial loser possibly in history, he's resorted to his true self.

But potentially worse was how the BBC managed it. Starmer was more aggressive, to try and counter Sunak who isn't capable of respect and following rules, but Sunak dialled up his obnoxious levels to 10. The lie dial got revved up full pelt. Desperation. His mouth would say anything, whenever he wanted. He was PM how dare anyone ask questions of him. How dare people suggest his untruths were untruths. It needed a strong moderator, and again, our systems are proved to be ineffective when cronies and liars get their hands on the levers of power or influence.

But then, am I surprised given the tory ambush of BBC and BBC news in particular? BBC news especially has been hollowed out of talent and those with morals and has repeatedly been overseen by tory donors, ex tory MPs and ex tory councillors.

If Labour do get a majority they have so much work to try and rebalance the impartiality of institutions.

 

My mate wrote a biography of Castlereagh. My takeaway from it was that Castlereagh would definitely have been a lockdown enthusiast.

 

The moderators in these debates have largely been, weak at best and, even biased towards the Tories at worst. It couldn’t be more simpler,do we want a continuation of the last 14 years whereby many many issues such as lying, corruption, sleaze, incompetence, crashing of the economy, self-serving, cronyism, etc etc, etc, have been , and still are all too apparent, or do we want change? Despite what the desperate Tories, their apologists, and the Reform lot think or say, I believe Labour will bring a positive change. I’m no big fan of Starmer, but I believe he will bring an end to the aforementioned’wrongs’ .

 

Has anyone ever seen Keir Starmer and Derek Acorah in a room at the sametime?

 

Don’t give a hoots what he looks like, as long he ends this. 14 years of upper class domination

 

Or Gareth Southgate

 

If they did they saw Jimmy Saville too.