UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE: CALLING A LIAR A LIAR
Image via Wellcome Collection
We once again find ourselves embroiled in a debate regarding what language should and should not be used in the House of Commons. SNP Leader for Parliament Ian Blackford – who was previously ejected from the chamber for refusing to retake his seat after angrily berating former Prime Minister Theresa May – has now turned his fury towards Boris Johnson. In a heated tirade Mr Blackford colourfully iterated that the Prime Minister and the truth ‘have always been strangers’, going as far as to call Mr Johnson a liar outright, breaching the House’s rules on unparliamentary language. Even more controversy ensued when MP for Brent South, Dawn Butler, defended the use of the language and questioned the integrity of the house for allowing lies to be told openly during addresses, drawing the line at questioning said fictions. Likewise, when Labour Party Chair Anneliese Dodds asked disgraced MP Matthew Hancock to come back into parliament and clarify his earlier statements, the MP was told that it is not a matter for The Chair to make a judgement about facts. ‘Facts’, Eleanor Laing explained, ‘are not a matter for The Chair, they are a matter for debate.’ This exchange occurred after Miss Dodds asked Mr Hancock to explain why he misled the country by claiming he had not handed out government contracts to his friends and constituents, something we now know to be untrue.
Looking over the list of ‘banned parliamentary words’ it is possible to divide the language into two distinct categories: accusatory statements and derogatory British jargon. Words such as ‘blackguard’, ‘guttersnipe’ and ‘stoolpigeon’ are all very dated words which no person of a rational or modern mind would use in even the most bitter and formal argument. There are words on this list however that have value in Westminster; words such as ‘traitor’, ‘deceptive’ and of course ‘liar’ have a legitimate place in ministerial discourse, and to tie them in with more ludicrous vernacular only serves to protect those MPs who would stand in the House of Commons and claim to have, for example, held a Christmas party during a lockdown that followed all Coronavirus guidelines. We of course know that this is a fallacy, an impossible situation invented to save face or at least lessen the public fallout; in a single word, it is a lie. To continue to ban such a crucial word implies that the ‘Right Honourable’ members of our parliament are just that, when in reality we have known since time immemorial that those who stand to represent us will all almost certainly mislead us as well.
While Mrs Laing may simply be reiterating the official stance of The Speaker of the House, it is a worrisome precedent that we have set amongst the leaders of our nation. We have created a situation where a minister can stand in the House of Commons and fabricate or alter a situation to fit their narrative, without ever having to justify themselves in the presence of facts that corroborate a contradiction to their version of events. What we do allow, however, is for our public servants to give nonsensical ramblings in response to a yes or no question. Should this not be a matter for The Chair? It is peculiar that a simple list of a few words that cannot be said in Parliament have further bolstered the infallible status of MPs. We have reached a point where even the most cartoonishly despicable Prime Minister, who himself has had a history of using questionable language in the media, cannot be called a liar but can have facts relating to his lies debated rather than accepted as facts by The Speaker of the House.
As the pantomime drama of an illegal Christmas party lingers on over the festive period, we will see various members of the Conservative party making their moves to take over from the tattered remains of Mr Johnson’s disastrous tenure. During this time it is important to remember that although this parliament may not be given the official titles of liars that they deserve in parliament, that we remember the lies that they have told us in order to carry out their illicit deeds. Though facts may be debatable amongst those who we have chosen out of a lack of choice to preside over us, in the realm of public life a fact will never be debatable. We, the public, whom the top brass may secretly still refer to somewhere as ‘blackguards’ or ‘guttersnipes’ do not have the privileged position of being able to ignore our deceit or debate factual evidence presented against us, but we do hold the power to elect public officials of reputable morality and character. The rules surrounding parliamentary language are ancient, potentially elitist and, as we have seen from the actions of our parliament in recent years, can be used by ministers to hide in plain sight. Something as simple as banning the word ‘liar’ from parliamentary discussion has had the overwhelmingly successful effect of allowing a Prime Minister to, ironically, lie to us. And although there may never come a time where we will see a cowardly liar named as one in our parliament, let us never forget that that is exactly what some are when we sign up to vote for yet another inevitable snap election in the not too distant future.