A sample of the Copeland MP's parliamentary language
As the 2010-2015 parliament comes to an end, it's members cease to be MPs and those who are seeking re-election become parliamentary candidates on a par with everyone else who is standing.
One of those stepping down is William Hague who has been Conservative leader, Foreign Secretary and whose final job in government up to and including today was Leader of the House of Commons.
One of William's last actions in that role was to move a motion yesterday providing for a vote on whether the Speaker of the House of Commons should be re-elected to be held by secret ballot.
I find it quite fascinating and more than a little horrifying that this proposal, which to me looks like an eminently sensible way to make the process more democratic and remove unhealthy influences such as fear of reprisals by a speaker or by the party whips, has been universally interpreted as an attempt to get rid of the present speaker. But that is not the purpose of this post.
What I find of interest and which may be of interest to my fellow electors in the Copeland constituency was an exchange which took place during questions to the Leader of the House about that motion, beginning with a question from the member for this constituency in the 2010-2015 parliament.
Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab): Does the Leader of the House not deserve better than to allow his political epitaph to be written by a lazy, cowardly, bullying, spiteful, vindictive Prime Minister, who is not fit to lace his shoes?
Mr Hague: Hon. Members have clearly had the thesaurus out this morning to find as many adjectives as possible, but I personally think that it is very important that this issue is decided.
Jacob Rees-Mogg: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. What the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) has just said about the Prime Minister—calling him “vindictive” etc.—cannot be within the bounds of parliamentary discourse. I really object most strongly.
Mr Speaker: Order. May I just respond to the hon. Gentleman as follows? My strong sense, and I do take advice on these matters, is that what has been said is a matter of taste— Order. If I felt the need of the advice of the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), I would seek it, but I am seeking to respond to the point of order. It is a matter of taste; it is not language that I would use, and it is certainly not language that the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) would use. I have responded to him, and I think that we should leave it there.
How very edifying.
And on a separate issue, make sure that Cumbria's NHS Trusts know that you want to keep consultant-led maternity at West Cumberland Hospital: #SupportOption1
One of those stepping down is William Hague who has been Conservative leader, Foreign Secretary and whose final job in government up to and including today was Leader of the House of Commons.
One of William's last actions in that role was to move a motion yesterday providing for a vote on whether the Speaker of the House of Commons should be re-elected to be held by secret ballot.
I find it quite fascinating and more than a little horrifying that this proposal, which to me looks like an eminently sensible way to make the process more democratic and remove unhealthy influences such as fear of reprisals by a speaker or by the party whips, has been universally interpreted as an attempt to get rid of the present speaker. But that is not the purpose of this post.
What I find of interest and which may be of interest to my fellow electors in the Copeland constituency was an exchange which took place during questions to the Leader of the House about that motion, beginning with a question from the member for this constituency in the 2010-2015 parliament.
Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab): Does the Leader of the House not deserve better than to allow his political epitaph to be written by a lazy, cowardly, bullying, spiteful, vindictive Prime Minister, who is not fit to lace his shoes?
Mr Hague: Hon. Members have clearly had the thesaurus out this morning to find as many adjectives as possible, but I personally think that it is very important that this issue is decided.
Jacob Rees-Mogg: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. What the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) has just said about the Prime Minister—calling him “vindictive” etc.—cannot be within the bounds of parliamentary discourse. I really object most strongly.
Mr Speaker: Order. May I just respond to the hon. Gentleman as follows? My strong sense, and I do take advice on these matters, is that what has been said is a matter of taste— Order. If I felt the need of the advice of the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), I would seek it, but I am seeking to respond to the point of order. It is a matter of taste; it is not language that I would use, and it is certainly not language that the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) would use. I have responded to him, and I think that we should leave it there.
How very edifying.
And on a separate issue, make sure that Cumbria's NHS Trusts know that you want to keep consultant-led maternity at West Cumberland Hospital: #SupportOption1
Comments