Comments on: An unnecessary ceremony?

By: lordnorton

lordnorton — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:27:25 +0000

Thanks for all the copmments. I was pleased that it generated a discussion between readers. I thought it may be appropriate to make some general observations in response. I was not suggesting that there should not be a ceremony, nor that a new Speaker should not receive the monarch’s approbation. I think there is a value in ceremony that reminds holders of public office that they owe a duty to the state, represented by the figure of the monarch in whom the Crown vests. My point was that this may not be the most appropriate form for the ceremony to take. I appreciate that it is not a frequent event, so not something requiring quick action or lost sleep. Some thought, though, may be given to utilising a different medium for giving royal approbation.

By: Alexander

Alexander — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:25:40 +0000

A general comment on ceremony and ritual:
In thinking about change and development in ritual and ceremony might I draw your attention to the substantial body of research on this subject in anthropology. Theory has now reached the stage where it can make predictions which are empirically testable. An overview of the state of research is given in a collection of essays edited by Kreinrath [Theorizing Rituals: Issues, Topics, Approaches, Concepts; Jens Kreinrath, Jan Snoek, and Michael Stausberg (Editors); Pub: Brill; Leiden; Boston 2006]. In particular the essay by Schiefflin [Edward L. Schiefflin Participation; pp. 615 - 625; ibid] explains the manner in which dramatic ceremony can create a state of deep focus even for uncommitted observers. As Schiefflin points out (p. 622), this should not come as a surprise. Public relations companies are frequently paid to achieve just such an effect. In short ceremony can alter the way people think even when they regard themselves as uncommitted observers of the ceremony.
In the context of parliament it seems appropriate to ask what the true effect of ceremony is. In particular, is it not possible that the ceremonies that have developed and lasted serve to inculcate in parliamentarians habits of thought which accept limitations on their powers. Put another way, might it not be that apparently meaningless ceremony is constitutionally important?

By: baronessmurphy

baronessmurphy — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 10:39:54 +0000

I have now witnessed several Royal Commissions like the one we had for the new Speaker and have had serious problems keeping a straight face. I just think the whole business is utterly hilarious and liable to generate fits of uncontrollable giggles. If there is a serious constitutional purpose then lets do it in a suitably serious fashion fit for this century. But I just love Croft and stephenpaterson’s comments on this one.

By: stephenpaterson

stephenpaterson — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 23:01:41 +0000

Nothing wrong with the method, I think, just the approach. Between Michael Martin’s notice of resignation and the election there was much time. Two of three days for candidates to decide whether to stand, then hustings could have been held early on, and votes and counts carried out from day to day in the background rather than suspending the Commons for an entire day specially. Not rocket science.

By: stephenpaterson

stephenpaterson — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:51:13 +0000

It would surely have to be a very large fag packet. King Size wouldn’t be in it. King Kong size, perhaps…

I did have something more dramatic in mind involving a Kalashnikov. Still, I quite like Alan Johnson and I suppose he should be given a chance.

You raise the interesting subject of the Damian Green arrest. Now I had always thought that an MP was immune from arrest for matters done in his/her capacity as an MP. Wasn’t there a lot of trouble over it in the past culminating in one of the Stuarts losing their heads?

I was surprised and rather annoyed there wasn’t more of a fuss, especially from the Government front bench. Too many MPs and not enough parliamentarians, methinks.

Still, I suppose if the Sin Fein MPs had started carting large boxes of Semtex into the place in the bad old days, some effective mechanism would have had to be found to deal with the situation.

Perhaps having all police officers within the precincts under the direct control of the Sergeant at Arms?

And all this over Home Office leaks. The lengths Jacqui Smith would go to to avoid forking out 88p for a plug!

By: Blue

Blue — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 08:41:32 +0000

I think we should be looking at changing the method of election again, if i’m honest. Effectively, a whole day of Commons business was ‘wasted’ by an election that dragged on for the whole day.

By: Croft

Croft — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 08:25:01 +0000

stephenpaterson: The ‘Home Office Shooting Itself in the Foot’ could be incorporated into the ceremony. The Monarch could be handed the latest justice bill written on the back of a fag packet – as many of us already suspect some measures are announced when they are in roughly that level of policy development.

Adrian Kidney: I agree with much of what you say but your comment that ‘Mr. Bercow, who didn’t have to confirm the rights of the House in the middle of a Parliament’ seems to point to the opposite. In the light of the Damian Green arrest we needed a declaration of the rights and privileges more than ever.

As the speaker’s confirmation occurs only once very 8-10 years it hardly presents a time issue.

By: ladytizzy

ladytizzy — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 21:40:53 +0000

The status of Speaker needs to be confirmed by the monarch – without the ceremony, why bother with the Crown?

By: Adrian Kidney

Adrian Kidney — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 21:28:10 +0000

I am also in favour of ceremony except where it intrudes into business. As you point out, Lord Norton, the interruptions to inform of Royal Assent have been removed and it’s a less monumental affair. I support a move like that.

However, when it comes to election of the Speaker, I don’t think the same argument applies, as normally the House reserves a whole day to the business of electing the Speaker. The approbation is then done in the Lords, and they all then clear off, much like they do for prorogation and opening of Parliament.

I see ceremony as constructing a narrative of the Constitution. This is why we have the Opening (to show the historical alignment of British society into Crown, Lords and Commons) and the prorogation (same reason). I think the Approbation is just as important, as it narrates how the Commons wrested its rights and privileges from the Crown and the Speaker, upon every new Parliament, asks the Queen to reaffirm those hard-won rights.

While there may be a few Bennites who might grumble and say things about class or reverse snobbery, I think, if it serves a useful narrative for our unwritten constitution, it should stay. Of course, it could be sensible to remove it for incidents like Mr. Bercow, who didn’t have to confirm the rights of the House in the middle of a Parliament. In this case, perhaps your proposal regarding the Lord Chancellor would suffice.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 20:40:17 +0000

I don’t know – it’s a ceremony that happens very infrequently, so it’s hardly a great interruption to business on a regular basis like the royal assent it.