Despite the simplifying of dress, it seems that MPs are still expected to observe the tradition of standing still with their backs to the wall and their eyes diverted when the Speaker walks down the corridor. Nadine Dorries has rebelled against this tradition, causing great annoyance to the Speaker by doing so. She writes:
My response: if you want to drop the tradition of wearing the Speaker’s dress, then don’t expect me to honour the tradition of standing still in the corridor when you move along it. You don’t pick and choose traditions. If you do you begin to erode away at what brings millions of pounds into this country each year via our tourism economy. You erode the authority of the Speaker’s chair and, by doing so, erode the authority of Parliament itself.Something doesn't seem entirely right here: I am not sure that flouting one tradition is a good protest against the loss of another. Nevertheless it is interesting to read an MP on the importance of tradition; and she is right that you can't just pick the ones you are "comfortable" with.
A question I would ask is "Why bother with the gown?" Plain and simple it may be, but if you are not going to wear the proper stuff, what on earth is the point of wearing anything distinctive at all? It rather reminds me of priests saying Mass in jeans and a t-shirt with a stole thrown over. Why do they wear a stole?
9 comments:
My maths teacher, well, most of my teachers, used to dress like that.
Let's hope that a newly elected parliament brings forth a new Speaker who 'gets it'.
How about religious, particularly active sisters, who have done away with the habit but wear a lapel pin? Mon Dieu...
So we have a cafeteria government.
Pick and chose what they personally like and favour.
John Bercow has decided to change tradition because he personally doesn't like it.
Nothing is for the common good. It is a me and myself society in every walk of life.
In most cases, those who want to simply cast off tradition but lack a sense of understanding of the reasons for the tradition in the first place will seek to hold on to something "nominal" due to a lack of confidence. They want to appear "new" and "unshackled by the past", but at an instinctive human level know that traditions generally have a sound basis for them and act as a reassurance for others. Alternatively, people want to do away with formality to appear more "connected to the people". Randomly casting off aspects of tradition is in my view just as bad as slavishly following traditions merely for the sake of it, again without understanding why. Simmilarly, formality, hierachy and respect for office are also deeply reassuring and necessary, so long they do not become confused with pride and conceit and ways of enforcing inequality and respect for every persons' dignity.
We need to maintain traditions, properly understood, to commemorate those who have gone before us and also maintain the dignity of offices which many people have in the past given their lives for.
All that Bercow needs is Keir Hardie's cap to top off his outfit. (You need to be a fan of an old comedy program called Brass to get that one).
IngSoc are not without form in this matter.
Gordon Brown wore a lounge suit to the Mansion House on his first outing as Chancellor of the Exchequer, I believe.
I am not convinced that defying one tradition is the best way to protest against the loss of another. But Nadine Dories is right. There are many things about George Thomas that need back. We need back his uncompromising support for national sovereignty and the Union, both safeguarded by the monarchy, as the means to a social democracy which was itself the bulwark against Communism, and which was founded on the traditional Christianity also embodied by the monarchical institution.
That tradition demands a restored voice in the House of Commons at the earliest opportunity. And to the Speakers’ Chair at the earliest opportunity after that. In full fig, including wig. As with a Bishop’s mitre or a Mayor’s chain, and as with the Queen’s Crown, it is about the office signified by the wearing, not about the individual who happens to be the wearer.
"Lead us not into Penn Station"
Demolished starting October 1963...
http://citynoise.org/article/10235
I don't wear a tie very often but when I do I wear it correctly ie with the top button of my shirt done up and the knot covering it. At funerals and weddings these days one sees so many men with the tie loosened and the top button undone - and this is at the start of proceedings. Why bother to wear a tie at all?
Now, as for men wearing hats in church..........
Crux Fidelis;
men don't wear hats in Church, to show that they're not clerics.
Clerics wear birettas in church to show that they're not laymen.
Simple, when you come to think of it. :-)
That said, Ms Dories is wrong.
If you want to show your disapproval of others scouting tradition, you do it by strict adherence to it, not by ignoring it.
In the old days - before Mrs Thatcher changed it - Mr Speaker was 'First Commoner in the Land', and treated as such; and his attire - basically the same as that of the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, & al, commanded respect.
George Thomas used to tell how once, during his procession into the House, he unexpectedly saw an old friend, and inadvertently blurted out 'Neil' - at which a large party of American tourists did just that !
Post a Comment