Parliament

John Bercow’s decision to allow MPs in the House of Commons to dispense with ties has been hailed by some as a great liberation, and by others as an insult to tradition cast by a man who ought to be wearing a wig. But Tina Stowell, who joined the government as a secretary and ended up Leader of the House of Lords, has a different view: that ties (and, indeed, standard dress code) are a social leveller. She writes on her blog:- 'As someone without a degree who travelled a long path myself, I can see now that one of the most insidious ways those of us in powerful positions have diminished opportunities for non-graduates over the last 20 years is by undermining the importance of some standards hard-working people of all backgrounds used to share….

O tempora, o mores! The Speaker yesterday announced that men no longer have to wear ties in the House of Commons. In fact, until now it's only been a convention - not a rule - that they should wear one. And that's exactly as it should be. Politics is far too important to be trumped by sartorial rules. If you elect your representative, they should be allowed to wear shorts or a T-shirt in the chamber.  But not encouraged to. The thing about a suit and tie is that they just happen to make men look smarter than they do in shorts or T-shirts.

Parliament is back - but already some MPs are bored. One Tory backbencher was snapped glancing at his phone during the opening session in the Commons this afternoon. Yet the picture of the MP watching a clip on his mobile - which was tweeted out by Anna Soubry - raised a bigger question: what on earth was he watching? The unnamed MP appeared to be watching a racy video on his phone, with rumours flying around about what exactly was keeping the politician so occupied. Mr S. isn’t sure - although he can't help but think that whatever the honourable member was up to, it doesn’t look to be Parliamentary business… https://twitter.com/Anna_Soubry/status/874624713145933825 Update: It seems the MP may be a fan of showgirl art https://twitter.

One of the consequences of the early election is that Britain will find itself without a functioning parliament for six weeks at a time when arguably it has never needed one more. I am sure that many MPs will feel entitled to a holiday after yet another election campaign – or at least those who are not sent into premature retirement. But what about Parliamentary business? The Great Repeal Bill requires debate and scrutiny – and in Parliament, not the TV studio. As thing stand, Parliament will rise in the first week of May.   It will then reconvene in the middle of June only to break up for the summer recess little over a month later. It will not return until October, after the party conference season.

Theresa May told MPs yesterday that Britain will not waver in the face of terrorism. She is widely praised for her emotional address in the Commons, in which she said simply: 'We are not afraid'. But still the question lingers: what can we do to prevent a repeat of Wednesday’s attack? Theresa May hit precisely the right note in her address to MPs, says the Daily Telegraph, which compares the Prime Minister’s response to that of Margaret Thatcher’s after the Brighton bombing in 1984. Yet while her message is an important one, there are ‘inevitable questions’.

As many people have remarked, a terror attack in the centre of London was expected at some point, although it is no less shocking for that. Aside from St Peter's Basilica or perhaps the Eiffel Tower, there is probably no other European building as recognisable to Europe's enemies as the Palace of Westminster. Theresa May wasn't quite correct when she referred to it as the oldest Parliament - both Iceland and the Isle of Man have more ancient bodies, being descended from those egalitarian Vikings - but it's certainly fair to call Westminster the Mother of Parliaments, a powerful symbol of representative government.

Speaking in Downing Street this evening, Theresa May has urged people to go about their business normally tomorrow. In a statement that struck an appropriately defiant tone, May said that the targeting of Westminster and the Houses of Parliament ‘was no accident’. But that that any attempt to defeat the values of ‘democracy, freedom, human rights, the rule of law’ through ‘violence and terror is doomed to fail’. Talking of the police officer who died in the attack, and the others who have been injured, she praised the ‘exceptional bravery of our police and security services who risk their lives to keep us safe’. This is the first terrorist attack that Theresa May has had to deal with as Prime Minister.

James Duddridge is not wrong. The Tory MP for Rochford and Southend East, who has put down a ‘no confidence’ motion in Mr Speaker Bercow, says John Bercow has abused ‘his employment contract’ by his openly political remarks. The last straw was telling students at the University of Reading that he voted Remain in last year’s European referendum. Duddridge is a fiercely outspoken Leaver, but his complaint is that the Speaker should not have revealed any preference at all. Few should contest this. Anger over the Reading revelation builds on a history of complaint: the most recent example is still fresh.

As we have been reminded this week, the most famous words (apart from ‘Order, order’) ever uttered by a Speaker of the House of Commons were those of William Lenthall. When King Charles I entered Parliament in search of the ‘five birds’ in 1642, Lenthall knelt to the King but told him, ‘I have neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak in this place but as the House is pleased to direct me.’ It is only on that basis that the Speaker speaks. As soon as John Bercow said — of the speculative possibility that Donald Trump should address both Houses of Parliament — ‘I feel very strongly that our opposition to racism and sexism’ meant that the speech should not take place, he was out of order.