The last taboo?

Bully Cameron fouls up.

There are two rules about parliamentary insults. Pick on someone your own size and be funny.  Cameron did neither today when he attacked Dennis Skinner. 

The House felt upset on behalf of the greatly loved and respected Dennis who will be eighty next month. Cameron ends most of his oral answers with a pre-crafted insult. The question that Dennis asked was fair and deserved a proper response.  The Tories have repeatedly mocked Dennis because of his age. Osborne has told him to retire to save public money. If Dennis retired it would INCREASE public spending. His replacement would have a full MP's wage and Dennis would be paid his pension. By continuing to work Dennis and the other MPs over 75 are saving the country money.

 

Paul Flynn(Newport West) (Lab): Although I greatly I admire the work of my close comrade, the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), is not there a danger that apprenticeships that are essentially relabelled job creation and job experience schemes or internships, without a job, skill or indentures at the end, are likely to increase the cynicism and disillusionment among young people?

Mrs Gillan:I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that, for example, all the apprentices at the Welsh Government undertake business administration NVQs and are recruited through fair and open competition via their website, with support from Careers Wales and Jobcentre Plus. That shows that the apprentice programmes are equipping young people to take up jobs in the future.

 [Interruption.] Mr Dennis Skinner(Bolsover) (Lab): When does the Prime Minister expect to be cross-examined by the Leveson inquiry? Does he not agree that the British people deserve an answer to the question of why he appointed one of Murdoch’s top lieutenants, Andy Coulson, to the heart of the British Government?

The Prime Minister:I shall be delighted to appear before the Leveson inquiry whenever I am invited, and I am sure that other politicians will have exactly the same view. I shall answer all the questions when that happens.

It is good to see the hon. Gentleman on such good form. I often say to my children, “There is no need to go to the National History museum to see a dinosaur; come to the House of Commons at about half past twelve.”

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab) rose—

Mr Speaker:I will come to the hon. Gentleman. I am saving him up. He is too precious. I do not want to waste him too early. I call Mr Chuka Umunna.

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. One of the areas of parliamentary life—the manners of this Chamber—that has improved in recent years is that it is now completely unacceptable for one Member to criticise another Member on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity or disability. The most under-represented group in this Parliament is the septuagenarians. Today we heard what I believe many of us thought was a gratuitous and entirely offensive insult to a greatly respected hon. Member, made entirely because of his age. Is it not right that ageist discriminatory remarks should be outlawed in the same way that other discriminatory remarks are?

Mr Brian H. Donohoe(Central Ayrshire) (Lab): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not also the case that “Erskine May” makes it very clear that no Member of Parliament should criticise another and call them a name that relates to an animal? In those circumstances, is it not only right that the Prime Minister should come back to the House and apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner)?

Mr David Winnick(Walsall North) (Lab): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not important that those of us of a certain age group should not be seen as the new persecuted minority?

Mark Pritchard(The Wrekin) (Con) rose—

Mr Speaker: Is it on the same matter? Gosh, a vintage quartet indeed, and a very high quality vintage.

Mark Pritchard: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have seen the grey hairs as well—on my head, of course. I seek your guidance on whether this Parliament and this House of Commons would be better with more or less humour.

Mr Speaker: I am always in favour of humour, but just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, humour is a matter of subjective judgment. Sometimes people are funny, sometimes they think they are funny, sometimes they think they are funny deliberately when they are not, sometimes they do not realise they are funny when they are. There are all sorts of different permutations. It would be unwise for me to offer a view as to the category into which the matter of current discussion happens to fall, but I have never had any doubt about the hon. Gentleman’s well-developed and furnished sense of humour.

I agree with the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) that septuagenarians should not become a persecuted minority. The hon. Gentleman is sometimes in a minority, and a principled minority, on a range of matters, and has been throughout his long parliamentary career. All I would say is that I do not think that the hon. Gentleman himself is persecuted, certainly not by me, and anybody trying to persecute the hon. Gentleman should frankly give up the unequal struggle, because that person will not get anywhere with the hon. Gentleman.

With regard to the point of order from the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe), I think that I am right in saying that “Erskine May” no longer contains the prohibition to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I think that, certainly at one time or another, there has been a prohibition on, or presumption against, reference to an existing animal.

With regard to point of order of the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), it is very difficult for me to interpret the mindset of another hon. or right hon. Member, be that a newly arrived Member, or a very senior Member, or the most senior Member of the Government. Sometimes an observation might be made with reference to perhaps a past attitude, style or conduct, and I do not think that I want to get into the issue of what was said today. I might want to reflect on it. All I would say is that I share the hon. Gentleman’s absolute disapproval of sexism, racism, ageism and other forms of discrimination. The hon. Gentleman’s track record on that matter speaks for itself over a very long period.

Comments

[HuwOS]

You made the news Paul.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16622894

I quite like the idea of Cameron as Flashman, especially if the next election gives him the equivalent send off from the electorate that Flashman got from Dr Arnold.

But on the whole I suspect Flashman had more depth and character.

[Paul Flynn]

Thanks Huw. It's the strangest things that get the publicity. I have been slaving away, spending hours on other work without anyone noticing. A brief comment made because I was irritated with Cameron's dismissive arrogance get's national attention.

[Brian Thompson]

Mr. Flynn. Mr. Cameron referring to Mr. Skinner as a 'dinosaur' was in relation to his politics, not his age, as any 14 year old child could divine. That's an ageist remark by the way.
Your mealy-mouthed attempt at thought policing is in the same league as Karen Jennings fulminating over Jeremy Clarkson's remarks about public sector workers.
A joke's a joke, whether your political ally is the butt of it or not.
Your world would be a sadder place without any humour - whether to your taste or not.
Having heard Dennis Skinner in action over the years, I am quite certain a) that he can defend himself without your help, and b) he has been offensive to many during his career. It's one of the things I admire about him whilst not sharing his politics.
Why not slave away on more productive issues, (like, for example, House of Commons paperclips) instead?

[Brian Thompson]

Incidentally, on the subject of name-calling, were you not rebuked for "immoderate language" about 3 1/2 years ago because you referred to Boris Johnson as a "buffoon"?
There's no hypocrite like a politician. Physician heal thyself.

[HuwOS]

Well to you Paul it was a passing remark born out of minor irritation with Flashman's arrogance, but to Brian it is your core policy of policing thought and he will go to the trouble of fulminating against it even after having read your comment about the relative importance of it as opposed to what you actually spent time working on.

Brian, I doubt you share anyone's politics as any politics at all would require some level of thought and understanding.
Although, perhaps you are from the US, in which case, feel free to call whatever ludicrous jingoistic ignorant knee jerk reactions you have, politics.

[D.G.]

Totally disagree with Brian Thompson. I feel the best answer to Mark Pritchard's question is that the House of Commons would be a lot better off with less of what its members consider to be humour, banter or glorious verbal gladiatorial combat.

If the convention was that MPs addressed each other in a courteous and professional manner, then a/ a lot more work would get done and b/ journalists covering it might finally cotton on to how ridiculous hyperbole like "lashed out" and "hit back" sounds when discussing suited folk making snotty remarks.

[Paul Flynn]

Cameron was rattled yesterday. For the first time ever he was fotced to take respomsibility for part of the ineptocrcy that he is creating. He has got away inthe past by blaming all problems on the previous Government,the EU,and civil servants. All new governments do that.
Cameron's reaction when cornered is to get annoyed and throw pre-crafted insults.
The one against Dennis Skinner offended because it was so irrelevent, contrived and ageist that it annoyed many of us. it's the umpteenth ageist sneer against senior MPs. he will become to ONLY octogenarian MP next month, He has not been very well recently and te community of the Commons defends its own.

[Brian Thompson]

Aaah how wonderful a medium the internet is, instant abuse from those who don't agree with one's arguments!
HuwOS, I am Mr. Thompson to you, until we get to know one another.
I do not believe I insulted you, or indeed Mr. Flynn in my remarks, so I am amused in the extreme that you, whilst telling me that humour and insults are unacceptable, should go out of your way to attempt to insult me! Don't worry though, I went to a Comprehensive School in Bristol, so I know all about "sticks and stones, etc.", and can live with your jibe. Incidentally, isn't your assumption that I am from the US and comments about their politics as insulting to the Americans as the "dinosaur" remark was, supposedly, to older politicians - and if not why not?

Now here is the point: people today are terrified of making jokes or any kind of remark about anything because the thought police will jump on it - when it suits their agenda. Let one dare make a remark about anyone relating to age/colour/religion/bedroom orientation to name but a few, and one could end up facing criminal charges. This special consideration given to any such grouping undermines and strangles debate and process.

Mr. Flynn himself is a perfect example of this, when he recently made remarks about the new UK ambassador to Israel, and was roundly shouted down and had to apologise. In the abstract, I tend to agree with his remarks, not I hasten to add out of any spirit of anti-semitism. The fact is that any valid concern expressed was lost in the loud background noise about alleged anti-semitism, and that situation has only come about because in the past 40 years it has become unfashionable and unacceptable to call someone names. Except if you are calling them anti-semitic, homophobic, racist, etc. No irony there then.

I am sorry to hear Dennis Skinner is unwell. I have greatly enjoyed his amusing (and to you, presumably offensive) remarks over the years, and I hope he gets well soon. My point, again, is that he shrugged the remark off, while others make a point of complaining about it - whilst taking the opportunity to insult others on the way!

Finally, for those who may wish to insult me on here, please feel free to do so. I am 53, English, white, professional, middle class (whatever that is), something of a womaniser. Feel free to offer me any abuse on those subjects you like, but do try to stay to the point of the debate; there's good chaps.

[DG]

"Let one dare make a remark about anyone relating to age/colour/religion/bedroom orientation to name but a few, and one could end up facing criminal charges. This special consideration given to any such grouping undermines and strangles debate and process."

In debate, making remarks about your opponent's age/colour/religion/bedroom orientation is called ad hominem. Nobody needs to know that you're a 53 year old white man to address your points. I'll not be offering such information on my own particulars, but feel free to make an assumption about them if it's important to you.

Back to the points - I understand your concern about incidents such as the trouble our host got into a while back for alleged anti-semitism, but I feel this is not comparing like with like. By speaking on the subject of Israel, Mr Flynn couldn't help but discuss the religious aspect as this was part of the issue at hand. While some people were no doubt unfortunately genuinely offended, it certainly was mischievous of others to shut the discussion down by playing up the offense given.

But there was no need for Cameron to rudely bring Mr Skinner's age, or even his political views, into a straightforward question about the Leveson inquiry. In this case, it was the *use* of insult that was calculated to shut down debate, not the allegation of insult.

[HuwOS]

Brian, you can be Brian or Mr or indeed Mrs Thompson if you wish, this is the internet and you could just as easily style yourself Wally the Weasel, I assume nothing about a person by how they style themselves, other than what can be assumed about a person by how they style themselves when they are to all intents and purposes anonymous and given that, I will refer to them in any way I choose.

I did not for example assume you were American, I simply noted that if you were American than you could indeed feel free to call your nonsense politics, it is or rather it should be an insult to Americans for me to say so, but then I have seen American "politics", I have seen Republican audiences boo the golden rule and I have seen people from all sides of their pseudo "political" divide cheer and take glee in the murder of the unarmed and excuse torture and kidnapping.
What they have isn't any kind of broad politics (with the exception perhaps of Ron Paul, who despite starting from an irrational place carries on utterly logically from there without feeling a need to pander to the worst parts of the US public), for the rest, what they have is a horrible mess of knee jerk reactions dressed up in a pretence of philosophy with practically all of their "views" firmly and deeply entenched in and grown from fear.

I have no need to insult you based on your age, race, sexuality or background, indeed it would be impossible for me to do so as I have no way of knowing any of them. You claim certain attributes, but I have no way of knowing whether they are true or not.

Although a claim to be a womaniser smacks of wishful thinking rather than honesty, but who knows, perhaps the lowness of the claim backs it up.

Still for all I know, you could be a spotty and somewhat horny 14 year old virgin lad from Argyll or a matronly lesbian writer of cook books from Armagh.

All I will ever actually insult someone about are the comments they make, if they make ludicrous, irrational, or pathetic comments such as calling Paul's "brief comment made because I was irritated with Cameron's dismissive arrogance" a
"mealy-mouthed attempt at thought policing"

It isn't a political point, it isn't a valid comment, it's the kind of knee jerk, froth at the mouth response typical of people who do not have any actual political views but who have a tinfoil hatted view that if there is any convention at all that discourages them from being as unpleasant to people as possible on the basis of age, gender, sexuality etc. that it is part of a conspiracy to deprive them of all happiness, from this we could all probably take a wild stab in the dark and pretty much nail any and all views that you think you hold as they will all be of a piece.

This, picked upon, put upon attitude is so common to one group of people in particular that it does rather back up the claim you make of being English as there is a subset of them that is a small but loud, whiny and thoroughly self obsessed minority, the kind of people who have fully earned for all their fellow countrymen, many of whom do not deserve it, the internationally recognised title of "Whingers".

[Harry]

Hardly think you are one to complain about 'abusing' fellow members Paul, given your less than flattering comments about your colleagues. Slight hypocrisy isn't it. And as for the dinosaur jibe, he was referring to Skinner's political views, not his age.

[Brian Thompson]

Goodness me, HuwOS, calm down! You'll have apoplexy boyo! Is someone poisoning your AKB down at the working men's?

Sorry about the delay in my reply, (not that your rant truly deserves one), but the Memsahib was sick, and I had better things to do with my time.

You couldn't resist the jibe, could you? It's so funny, because I put all that information there to tempt you and you walked right into it, anti-English abuse and all. I will say one thing directly to you though, you are a coward. Although you may not want to hear it, I use my real name on here, and the personal information I posted is true. You hide behind a pseudonym. You are a coward for so doing. If you have something to say, have the guts to stand up and say it publicly, instead of abusing others anonymously.

Think about what you are saying, if you can please. The thread is about David Cameron 'abusing' Dennis Skinner, and my observation that Mr. Flynn's defence of Mr. Skinner is mealy mouthed - given both Mr Skinner's and Mr. Flynn's track records I say so again. You accuse me of a 'knee-jerk reaction' - twice. How is that knee-jerk? I simply made an observation of hypocrisy against Mr. Flynn. You divine from that that I have no politics at all. How so? Just because someone does not agree with you does not make them inarticulate fools who are unable to think for themselves - quite the reverse I suggest.

It's all rather amusing to me, because if nothing else it shows the readers what a massive chip you have on your shoulder. If you are going to engage in debate, please try to do so, instead of resorting to the very abuse you seem to be so exercised about.

Finally, Parliament will be a very boring place indeed if the suggestion of 'DG' above ever becomes reality. Some of the best political debaters have been those able to put down their opponents with speed and lightning wit. Dennis Healey and Dennis Skinner to name but two from recent times. If routine leg pulling is banned, Parliament will become a very borning place indeed. There are more important things to worry about than that - and that, my friends, is where we started.

[HuwOS]

Oh dear, Brian you do have an ego don't you?
Rest easy, no one was awaiting your reply with bated breath, it may even be fair to say that no one was awaiting your reply at all.

You simply cannot get your head around the concept that the letters forming Brian Thompson make you no less anonymous than any random assortment of alphabetic or numeric characters.

All you have are self stated claims to identity, you may as well be claiming to be the Maharajah of Jaipur or the tiniest pixie in all the land.

Without a good reason to do so people will not automatically assume that you lie when claiming certain attributes in your life but neither will they simply assume that such claims are actually true, in general it is safest and most sensible to be agnostic about individuals' claims on the internet.

...

"You divine from that that I have no politics at all"

Because dear Brian, to be as exercised about such a matter, to feel the need to attack Paul for what he has described as a "brief comment made because I was irritated" demonstrates that you have absolutely nothing else to occupy your mind.

That you actually managed to go further and utterly miss his frustration with the news for carrying that one irritated comment while happily ignoring all the serious issues that he puts a lot of time and effort into.
You missed it to the extent that you even partly parrot his own words giving a great deal of credence to the idea that you failed to understand them.

With all that, but specifically for considering an irritated remark to be something worthy of your attack cry of hypocrisy makes it quite clear that there is room for nothing larger in your mind.
Therefore, no politics.

Of course, it is possible that you are not a small minded, bitter individual with deep seated resentment to anyone that you think gets or has anything that you don't get or have. That you do not believe that there is a conspiracy of PC Brigades and Health & Safety nutters who are determined to bring misery and destruction not only to your country but more specifically and more importantly targeting you.
In which case you will be obliged to me for pointing out, that, that, is how you come across.

[Brian Thompson]

HuwOS, whoever you may be. A straight reading of your script would lead the reader to conclude that you, and you alone, hold all the answers. What an earth is a man with your intellectual gifts doing as a lackey to Mr. Flynn in Wales, when clearly one so gifted should be on his way to London tonight? Westminster and Whitehall are obviously in desperate need of your intellect.

Then again, it might just be that you are an over-inflated aspiring (or failed) politico from the Valleys who thinks he knows a good deal more than he does. (A humble little man with plenty to be humble about?) The jaundiced view you have formed of me is based solely upon the few words I have written upon here as modified by your prejudices. Let's look at just some of the adjectives you have used to describe me: ludicrous, jingoistic, ignorant, small-minded, bitter. The first three used in your first response to me.

My dear HuwOS, you would appear to need counselling to control your anger against your fellow man! You certainly need to learn how to debate an issue, rather than resorting to personal attacks the whole time. That's what makes me wonder if you are not the zit faced 14 year old you alluded to earlier? You have certainly the crude debating style of a schoolboy.

It really doesn't matter what you think of me. Do you really suppose that anyone gives a toss about what's written on here? Do you really suppose that anyone's mind is going to be changed as a result of this intercourse? I don't - it's a complete waste of time. I don't mind that, though, as I am currently sitting in an hotel room 5659 statute miles from home wih nothing but time to kill. You have and will be wasting your Sunday afternoon/evening on it. In any case it amuses me to bait you. You're a bit too easy for me though as you fall for the bait and bite every time. If I were you I'd pop down to the working men's tonight for a pint instead of wasting my valuable time on here, but that's my paternal instinct speaking. That, of course, assumes you're old enough to get into the working men's?

Given your chronic paronia about the internet you probably don't believe that I am in an hotel right now, but that I am beaming this to you from Mars. Venus and Uranus are in conjunction tonight by the way. Just trying believing in people for once - I know you are probably surrounded by politicians, but some of us are capable of telling the truth you know.

I am not aware of having 'parrotted' Mr. Flynn's words or sentiments, in whole or in part. I am more than capable of speaking for myself. I am one of those people who believe that politicians should be held to account for their words, and when their words and deeds differ it should be pointed out to them. Most people would agree that there is nothing 'empty-headed' in pointing out hypocrisy among politicians, your opinion on the subject to the contrary. Far from my reaction being 'knee-jerk', your leaping to Mr. Flynn's defence in such an aggressive fashion on 18th was. Both Messrs. Flynn and Skinner have been more than a little rude to their colleagues over the years. It was therefore the height of hypocrisy on Mr. Flynn's part to make his comments. Both you and he complain about the 'off the cuff' nature of his remark, and the diversion it has meant, but unless I am mistaken this is Mr. Flynn's blog and he posted the opening comments. Why, therefore, complain if people should comment upon them?

[HuwOS]

"I am not aware of having 'parrotted' Mr. Flynn's words..." -BT

Paul wrote "I have been slaving away, spending hours on other work without anyone noticing"

You wrote 20 minutes after Paul's comment "Why not slave away on more productive issues(like, for example, House of Commons paperclips) instead?"

You parroted back the concept of slaving away at anything having either completely missed the point or simply chosen to ignore it.

Either way the intelligence you display makes me suspect that if you are indeed thousands of miles away from home, then you probably got lost.

The point you continually miss, despite the simplicity of it, is that being a bit mean to someone is not a problem as long it is relevant to either the argument or how they approach the argument.

There was no call for nor point to a gratuitous insult referring to dinosaurs when the prime minister was asked when he expects to be questioned in the Leveson inquiry and whether he thinks the public have a right to know why he employed Coulson.

The PM in uttering it, was pointlessly obnoxious and Paul spent about 2 minutes on it but it seems to occupy you to an astounding extent.
So much so, that while you state that Dennis Skinner is well able to look after himself if insulted, you quite obdurately feel the need to defend, as if it is, a right to make insult without criticism or reproach.