Vince is not chuffed with the handling he got from Speaker Martin at yesterday’s PMQs:
Lib Dem deputy leader Vince Cable has attacked “ridiculous” Commons procedures after he was banned from asking a question about the Queen.
Mr Cable mentioned the Monarch in a question on the economy to Harriet Harman, who was standing in for Gordon Brown at prime ministers questions.
But he was prevented from completing it by Speaker Michael Martin.
Mr Cable said it was “ridiculous” MPs could not mention the Queen in passing “without prior permission”.
In the Commons, Mr Cable was cheered by MPs when he rose to ask the first of his permitted questions to Ms Harman. […]
Outside the Commons he said: “It is absolutely ridiculous that in a supposedly modern democracy Members of Parliament cannot even mention the Head of State in passing without prior permission.
“This is yet more proof of the major constitutional reform needed to drag Westminster into the 21st century.”
But according to Erskine May, MPs need to take care when invoking the monarch:
“the irregular use of the Queen’s name to influence a decision of the House is unconstitutional in principle and inconsistent with the independence of Parliament”.
It adds: “Any attempt to use her name in debate to influence the judgement of Parliament is immediately checked and censured.”
It says MPs have been reprimanded “or even sent to the Tower” for treasonable or seditious language “or disrespectful use of Her Majesty’s name”.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Northern Ireland debates the future of its railways in 1957
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
Endometriosis and acetylation
Jeff
Nonconformistradical
John Peters
David Raw
Henry
25 Comments
It was a pointless question anyway, so why Vince Cable thought it would have Harriet Harman quaking in her boots is beyond me.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
The standard of the question is of course subjective and irrelevant. On the principle of the matter, I do not understand what is meant by “the irregular use of the Queen’s name to influence a decision” – so in conclusion, either I’m being particularly unintelligent or Lord Erskine of May-land is talking crap.
Vince is spot on – again, this is a joke. The fact that something as arcane as Erskine May is quoted clearly demonstrates what a farce Parliament is.
Vince Cable’s question clearly linked Her Majesty with a contemporary political issue and ascribed political motivations – that was an attempt to use the Monarchy to support a particular political argument. That is exactly what Erskine May prohibits. The Monarchy should be above politics and the Speaker was quite right to disallow the question.
A fine bit of democratic talk there David. It’s perfectly normal in NuLab democracy that some things should not be allowed to be talked about.
Have to agree with David, to be honest.
Really pathetic of you, Mark. This rule is so old and fundamental that I can perfectly well respond that “Liberal governments did nothing about it”. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Labour Party nor with this nonexistant “Nulab” which you have invented.
Yet another reason why Speaker Martin has to go (as if his own “unusual” expense claims wasn’t enough)
What, Ross, the Speaker has to go because he does his job? The question was inappropriate and was rightly disallowed. Vincent Cable made a fool of himself and has no-one to blame but himself.
Perhaps the monarchy should simply be abolished, then nobody could claim that it is used to support a particular political argument.
Beware of going down that road, anonymous at 2:26pm. The abolition of the monarchy would have unintended and profoundly negative consequences, hence I would keep the system as it is, even if I don’t !support” it as such.
David B: “Liberal governments did nothing about it”
Yes, because the world was just the same back in 1920. You know, back in the age of deference – when women couldnt vote, and all that.
I am a Constitutional Monarchist, but we absolutely must reform the Monarchy and associated constitutional farce if it is to avoid utterly collapsing under its own preposterous weight.
For something as logically exceptional as a “Royal Family” and Monarch to continue into a rational 21st century, we must sweep away these customs which exist because of situations like regicide and the Civil War. This, Act of Settlement, etc.
Sounds like a small-c conservative argument, asquith.
There are many healthy republics in the world. The reasons why some monarchies have become republics violently can be found from the nature of those monarchies.
David B: “Liberal governments did nothing about it”. Oh yes, like the first Parliament Act for example.
Three perfectly egalitarian countries in Europe: Norway, Sweden & Denmark. What do they have in common? They’re constitutional monarchys. What do they also have in common? A written constitution…
2:40, it is, and you’d be surprised at how small-c conservative some of my views are!
While there are doubtless successful republics, and some find the republican system more agreeable than monarchy, I would still vote to keep our monarchy as it is. On a personal note, I consider that the present Queen is an excellent ambassador for this country.
I had a certain sympathy with Cable at the time, but on reflection it was a bit of a schoolboy error from your guy and the rules about not using the Head of State (be they Monarch or President) as a political pawn are extremely sensible. Maybe what galled was the glee with which the speaker seemed to pull him up – the speaker is also supposed to be above party prejudice but does singularly little to uphold that tradition.
“Three perfectly egalitarian countries in Europe: Norway, Sweden & Denmark. What do they have in common? They’re constitutional monarchys. What do they also have in common? A written constitution…”
If you are picking those three, what about Finland and Iceland? They are republics. Finland was the first country to give women full rights to vote and to stand as as a candidate. And Switzerland is also a republic, for instance.
Dear Vince was clearly aware of what he was doing as he is versed in the apparent hypocrisy of parliamentary rules and relied upon that knowledge to underline the point afterwards.
This was a piece of political theatre (for which Vince should recieve an honorary doctorate, but I’m guessing he’d want to reform the honours system too) designed to emphasise our reformist credentials by highlighting an anachronism (although as a secularist I support idea that the head of state and parliament remain independent of each other).
As a stunt I think it is a great way of getting your point across, but it is political game-playing (of the standard comparable to the walk-out over the Euro referendum and the rejection of the invitation to reception for the Saudi visit) for which you’ve got to be very sure of your ground, as well as careful that the execution gains the impact desired (LDV failed to give full coverage of PMQs) while avoiding serious subjects of wide public contention (to avoid accusations of turning Parliament into a free-for-all at the expense of real public concerns).
I’m guessing that this was Vince’s idea (he has form), but I think the issue is whether it was OK’d by our great leader or if it was a solo operation.
All-in-all I think Ming comes out of this badly, as his comments show how he is unaware or neglectful of the campaigning aspect of politics and didn’t understand how to use his formal opportunities on the floor of the house as a stage.
Campbell is ideally suited for the speakers role, as it seems he always wanted to rise above partisan concerns and never learnt that a technical defeat can lead to a strategic advantage.
er, what was the question ?
I thought it was pretty good myself.
Obviously, Vince could nto get away with it. But look at what he achieved….
He placed under the noses of the media the reinforced idea that the monarch is aware that there is an impending economic crisis.
Why should the monarch think this? Well, she is briefed once a week by none other than Gordon Brown in person.
And so…?
What is the inference that our magnificent media makes?
Only that the Lib Dems as usual are perfect chumps. Stupid media.
essentially: does Harriet Harman agree with the Queen’s negative assesment of the current state of the economy?
It was clearly correct for the speaker to intervene, but Michael Martin was naive in his easily apparent relish for the put-down and Harriet Harman also showed her ignorance (towards the rules if nothing else) with her apparent willingness to answer the question instead of showing some form of contestibility in it.
Hansard won’t show the theatrics.
Two thoughts, first I think the point about invoking the monarchy is reasonable but, the Speaker could have told him to have another go rather than forfeit the question which went unanswered.
Second not sure to respond to the previous commnet that Harriet Harman was going to answer given PMs generally don’t answer questions but rather make smart statements and swipe their opponents.
Vince has admitted on “This Week” that he muffed it so maybe it was a mistake rather than a plan of (series one) Baldrickian cunning
Paul L – HH isn’t PM, still only DPM. Maybe I should’ve said respond, rather than answer.
Labour were clearly caught off-guard as the best response would have been for HH to protest to the speaker, who’d then rebuke Vince. As events transpired it happened the other way round and showed this bunch to be acting in an amateurish and uncoordinated manner to lesser overall effect.
If Vince Cable honestly made a mistake by presenting the still-partisan speaker with a chance to impose on the diminutive third-party, then he quickly made up for it by building on the opportunity it presented to cast parliamentary practise in an out-dated light with the subsequent focus on his performance.
Of course it is possible that Vince used his dancing feet to keep ahead of the pack and bed down into established party strategy, but it fits too neatly into his modus operandi and comes on the first occasion he has had to deputise for the new leader and use his burgeoning reputation as an impact player.
Maybe it was nerves that prevented him from making more of a fist of his opportunity, but I wouldn’t be surprised an old hand got slightly excited at the prospect of a no-lose gambit in a selfless pursuit of political advantage.
Having watched the whole performance of PMQs does anything else leap out as a headline-grabber?
The tories simply have no thunder and can’t lay on a roll for us – it must be disheartening for them!