I have a confession to make. Prior to her recent Commons tour de force, I was culpably unaware of the achievements (and existence) of Dr. Ellie Chowns, the recently elected Green Party MP for North Herefordshire.
Dr. Chowns (an expert in “factors influencing sustainability in Malawi’s rural water supply sector”) has caused quite the stir on social media following a maiden speech in which she suggested several “improvements” to the procedures of the House of Commons, intended to increase the efficiency of the legislative process. Felicitously – and doubtless coincidentally – these would also increase the comfort and convenience of Honourable and Right Honourable members themselves. Who’d a thunk it?
Her suggestions include: the abolition of the lobby tradition and its replacement by a system of electronic voting; less “bobbing up and down” in often forlorn attempts to catch the Speaker’s eye; that provision be made for allocated desks (Dr. Chowns finds it “extraordinary” that there is insufficient room for all MPs – I can only assume she’s never tuned in to watch a debate on vaccine harms); and the replacement of daily Christian prayer (not appropriate “for this day and age”) with something more representative of “a range of faiths”. And none, presumably. Perhaps in Green Utopia, MPs will be sworn in while gripping a well-thumbed copy of Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion.
Is it stuffy of me to find all this a bit discourteous? The Commons is a centuries-old institution, which has navigated its fair share of bother and whose members are guests, not freeholders. Would Dr. Chowns accept an invitation to a dinner party only to insist on changing the “old-fashioned decor”? Would she presume to rewrite grace?
I very much fear that she might.
I have no wish to improve the comfort of MPs; no desire to make the execution of their parliamentary responsibilities more convenient; and I am horrified at the very suggestion that we should improve the efficiency of the legislative process. What good ever comes of yet more laws? The opportunity to make a law should be like the opportunity to own a gun: it should present itself only in exigent circumstances. And never to the people most eager to make use of it. To be fair to Dr. Chowns, she cut her teeth in the EU Potemkin Parliament, an expensive caricature of the democratic ideal, and a body which is forbidden by the EU nomenklatura of initiating any legislation not handed to it via European Commission stitch-up. Doubtless, she is chomping at the bit.
The inconveniences that attend Commons procedures are, in fact, quite benign. The lobby interactions facilitate unlikely cross-party friendships; and the seemingly interminable waiting around between votes reminds MPs that they are part of something bigger than themselves – a reality check that many, if not all, of them should find salutary. The traditions of the House serve to put them in their rightful place.
The Green Party’s reformist instinct is an expression of progressive beliefs which are at least honestly held (one might contrast them with the convenient progressivism of the One Nation milquetoast “Tories” and their doomed quest for an imaginary “centre ground” – but that’s another discussion). But the instinct to reform all too frequently is supplanted by the instinct to change for the sake of it.
The House of Commons should not serve as an experiment in progressivism. The fit is not right. The traditions of Parliament are tried and tested remnants of a history we have no business unpicking. For what will replace it? The progressive reformist is a bit like that person who would gladly travel back in time to assassinate Hitler, oblivious to the fact that they are thereby risking a present which may be many times worse than the one history has gifted to us.
This perhaps, then, is the primary conceit of the progressive worldview: that its modern certainties are any sort of match for, and indeed should supersede, the lessons of history. The House of Commons exercises good manners and will find a way to accommodate that conceit because, despite not having individual desks, it always does. But it should not bend to it.
On that latter point, though, I am less optimistic. Now that the Mrs. Dutt-Pauker types have migrated from the columns of Peter Simple and inserted themselves into public life we’re in for a bumpy ride.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
A “doctor” eh?
“Chowns studied geography, environmental studies, and development studies at the University of Sussex, graduating with a Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree in 1997. She then undertook a one-year Master of Professional Studies (MProf) degree in sustainable development at the University of Middlesex, graduating in 1998. She later undertook doctoral research in international development at the University of Birmingham. She completed her Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degree in 2014, with a doctoral thesis titled “The political economy of community management: a study of factors influencing sustainability in Malawi’s rural water supply sector”.[5][6
She is a noddy doctor and really took the piss when being awarded “a doctorate for a study of factors influencing sustainability in Malawi’s rural water supply sector”.[5][6]
Because I am sure her work was measured against all those who had studied a similar subject before her.
She’s not very bright clearly because her degree was nothing but brain washing.
“Noddy Doctor” love that though arguably an insult to Noddy.
Sorry tof.
My Daughter in Law graduated in environmental studies but got a proper job working for a major waste management company. Whilst she and I disagree over many aspects of climate change and politics, we both agree about the importance of efficiently managing both domestic and industrial waste.
Unlike many youngsters today she understands the importance of hard work, is ambitious, and is happy to operate in the profit-driven commercial sector.
Many of their clients are local authorities. She describes them as disorganised and arrogant, and having zero commercial nous.
Local Authority people just accept the top down eco garbage as if it were all ultimate truth. It all emanates from the UN/WEF and filters its way down through all National Governments, and Local Governments. It is a Political Agenda and is adopted as FACT. You will then see silly council people plant Yukka Plants everywhere because they think Inverness and Gateshead will soon be Tropical, only to see them all turn yellow. They truly are blithering idiots, yet these wasters get to squander our taxes on all of this eco crap.
And the Guardian, read by every Council employee, possibly except the waste disposal operatives on minimum wage!
Off topic, but this is the footage from Manchester airport showing the full clip *before* the guy on the floor was kicked in the head by the officer. I’d only saw the clip from that part previously. You might need to watch it a few times because it’s blurry and things move fast. Watch the guy in the grey T-shirt and the skinny guy in blue. They just go mental and you can see where the female officer gets punched in the nose. What do you think?
”CCTV Footage of MANCHESTER AIRPORT incident has now been released
HORRENDOUS assault of Airport Police that took place before the footage that went viral
A lot of people need to hang their heads in shame
These officers deserve a MEDAL!
Why aren’t they in jail ? These two deserve a custodial sentence.”
https://x.com/KosherCockney/status/1817248101372940418
Thanks for this Mogwai – it puts the subsequent event in context. I don’t envy the job these guys do.
Well what I’m wondering is why the edited clip was circulated in the first place. Why was this full length clip not released, so that we have the bigger picture and all of the context and drama that went before the guy in blue hit the deck?
I wonder who’s responsible for manipulating us to such an extent, because that’s seriously suspicious and devious. You must’ve seen the reaction of the Muslim community, there was loads of videos of them kicking off, which presumably was exactly what was intended, so somebody needs held to account for this underhand tactic to incite hostility and violence.
Not a lot of uproar over the soldier that was stabbed multiple times, in comparison though, was there?
As far as I have researched, armed airport police are trained to use their feet and not their hands to restraint a criminal this is because they must keep both hands on their gun at all times in case in should be dropped in a scuffle and then used against them!
So if a perp will not stay down they have the choice of shoot or kick, thankfully they chose kick! I wonder how many other of the world security forces would have chosen the same way? America or Russia for instance? I’ll wager those two men would be dead!
A couple of decades ago, or more, there was much in the news about whether the UK’s armed police had a ‘shoot to kill’ policy. At around that time I knew a former member of the Hong Kong police who pointed out that if a ‘situation’ had escalated to the point that deadly force was deployed then it was likely that someone should die. The last thing a firearms police officer would want is for his bullet to miss his target and potentially hit someone else, so they aim for the central body mass or if they suspect a suicide bomber, the head. Either way a probable death.
I understood at least some were armed police. It’s a wonder nobody was shot.
I have just seen it for myself, Mogs. It really puts into context the head kicking and stamping – this extremely violent young man was starting to get up after having been tasered. I think tasers only have only one shot so there was no other opportunity to ensure the gey didn’t re-enter the fray in such a short space of time.
Top marks in my view for this swift action.
I don’t think the officer should’ve kicked the guy in the head, mainly for the obvious reason that it only takes the slightest thing and these people will use it to their advantage and milk it for all it’s worth, which is exactly what they have been doing. They’re nothing if not 100% predictable. The guy was already on the deck immobilised and it’s a shame the officer didn’t have the presense of mind to just cuff him. Now he’s been suspended because he momentarily lost control of his emotions, which is understandable due to serious provocation and being physically attacked.
However, there’s now a groundswell of support and general uproar since this latest clip was released so let’s hope justice will be done. There’s calls for Yvette Cooper to resign too.
Having waited so long for her elevation to the post of Home ‘Seckatry’ I fear the unlovely Ophelia will never resign. Ministerial cars, lavish perks, flunkies to do her least bidding – she’d have to be dragged screaming from the office!
At the very least she needs to give a more considered response once all the facts are known, otherwise she is just stoking up the flames that she condemns in others.
And the BBC won’t go after her the way they’ve gone after people like Boris etc.
I saw someone on YT saying that those men had been released without charge. If so some “Chief” should go with loss of pension!
And what if that gun is used to stop evil bastards mutilating children? Eager? Yeah, I’m pretty sure lots would be.
Probably the walking she objects to.
What is the difference between a Green and a plank of wood? —–I don’t know, what is the difference between a Green and a plank of wood? ——The Grain. —————Greens are either thick or colour blind. probably both since they probably don’t realise that they are not Green at all, they are RED.
Chowns? Is that a typo? Clown – surely.
Actually I knew a Bill by that surname a long time ago. I think he was unremarkable.
Her suggestions include: the abolition of the lobby tradition and its replacement by a system of electronic voting; less “bobbing up and down” in often forlorn attempts to catch the Speaker’s eye;
what is wrong with the standing up and sitting down? is good exercise ,and ‘electronic ‘ means using more electric energy i thought she was from the green party.
The Scottish “Parliament” then. Use;less.