# Why is British House of Commons debate so different from US House? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [July 3, 2008, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-british-house-of-commons-debate-so-different-from-us-house/455234 "2008-07-03T21:51:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2008, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-british-house-of-commons-debate-so-different-from-us-house/455234/41 "2008-07-10T05:52:58Z")
> [@](#): > > Exactly. If a member wishes to dispute the claims of another, he or she must act as if the member is mistaken or misinformed, not as if they’re telling baldfaced lies. Even if they are. In fact, MPs rarely do tell outright lies (to the House, at least) since doing so is a serious breach of House rules. I’m just saying that if the Parliamentary equivalent of Joseph McCarthy is saying _“I’m holding in my hand a list of seventy eight known Communists who are working in the State Department”_ then I’d want to be able to say _“Good for you. Hand over the list and we’ll arrest all of them.”_ and if he doesn’t have a list of names, I’d want to say something a little stronger than he was mistaken in his claims. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2008, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-british-house-of-commons-debate-so-different-from-us-house/455234/42 "2008-07-10T10:32:53Z")
[This article](http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20000317/ai_n14282752) gives a lighthearted overview of these aspects of the Commons. In terms of procedure, an appeal for the list of names to be handed over would be made to the speaker, not to the other member directly. (Note that all statements are actually made this way, or at least phrased as such.) If the speaker considers the statement to have been untrue, then they’re in trouble. ---
**Author:** ![Wallenstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b5a626/32.png) [@Wallenstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wallenstein)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2008, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-british-house-of-commons-debate-so-different-from-us-house/455234/43 "2008-07-10T11:23:01Z")
> [@](#): > > Among the words to which Speakers have objected over the years have been blackguard, coward, git, guttersnipe, hooligan, rat, swine, stoolpigeon and traitor. […] Members sometimes use considerable ingenuity to circumvent these rules (as when, for instance, Winston Churchill substituted the phrase “terminological inexactitude” for “lie”) but they must becareful to obey the Speaker’s directions, as a Member who refuses to retract an offending expression may be named (see below) or required to withdraw from the Chamber. [http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/G07.pdf](http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/G07.pdf) You also need to get your terms of address in order… Members of the House are “_honourable_” Members of the House who are also Privy Councillors are “_right honourable_” When referring to a member of your own party it’s “_my (right) honourable friend_” When referring to a member of another party it’s “_the (right) honourable member_” If the person is a QC it’s “_my (honourable and) learned friend_” If the person is a serving military officer it’s “_my (honourable and) gallant friend_” If the person is holder of a courtesy title (son of a duke, marquess or earl) they are “_my (honourable and) noble friend_” ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2008, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-british-house-of-commons-debate-so-different-from-us-house/455234/44 "2008-07-10T11:42:50Z")
unlike his Congressional counterpart, Mr. Speaker is supposed to be a neutral, non-partisan figure (although the present incumbent, ‘Gorbals Mick’ Martin, is generally agreed to be one of the worst speakers in many years) ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2008, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-british-house-of-commons-debate-so-different-from-us-house/455234/45 "2008-07-10T15:07:55Z")
[QUOTE=Wallenstein] You also need to get your terms of address in order… [/QUOTE] The rules on address are less strict in Canada. I’ve heard, without comment, assorted variations on “the member,” “the hon. member,” “the member for Outremont,” “the hon. member of the NDP,” “my friend,” “my hon. friend,” “my colleague,” “the member opposite,” etc., or if the member has an office, “the Leader of the Opposition,” “the hon. Leader of the Opposition,” “the leader of the NDP,” “the hon. parliamentary secretary,” “the minister of Finance,” “the hon. minister of Finance,” “the Prime Minister,” “the Rt. Hon. Prime Minister.” I don’t know if it’s okay to snark, say, the Prime Minister by calling him “the member” or “the member for Calgary Southwest” but I do know that when listing votes, Hansard gravely referred to former Prime Minister Martin as “Martin (LaSalle-Émard)” as there were several other Martins in the House. Basically you just can’t call them by their name. In fact, you can’t even call them by their name even indirectly, or when quoting someone. I’ve seen MPs quoting newspaper articles or the like and saying "… '[and here they name the Prime Minister]‘s softwood sell-off…’ ", or being admonished for referring to “the Harper Government” or “the Harper Conservatives”. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2008, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-british-house-of-commons-debate-so-different-from-us-house/455234/46 "2008-07-10T15:19:11Z")
[QUOTE=Wallenstein] You also need to get your terms of address in order… [/QUOTE] The rules on address are less strict in Canada. I’ve heard, without comment, assorted variations on “the member,” “the hon. member,” “the member for Outremont,” “the hon. member of the NDP,” “my friend,” “my hon. friend,” “my colleague,” “the member opposite,” etc., or if the member has an office, “the Leader of the Opposition,” “the hon. Leader of the Opposition,” “the leader of the NDP,” “the hon. parliamentary secretary,” “the minister of Finance,” “the hon. minister of Finance,” “the Prime Minister,” “the Rt. Hon. Prime Minister.” I don’t know if it’s okay to snark, say, the Prime Minister by calling him “the member” or “the member for Calgary Southwest” but I do know that when listing votes, Hansard gravely referred to former Prime Minister Martin as “Martin (LaSalle-Émard)” as there were several other Martins in the House. Basically you just can’t call them by their name. In fact, you can’t even call them by their name even indirectly, or when quoting someone. I’ve seen MPs quoting newspaper articles or the like and saying "… '[and here they name the Prime Minister]‘s softwood sell-off…’ ", or being admonished for referring to “the Harper Government” or “the Harper Conservatives”. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2008, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-british-house-of-commons-debate-so-different-from-us-house/455234/47 "2008-07-10T15:25:07Z")
Also, the distribution of terms of address are different. Members of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada have the title Honourable for life (including ministers, leaders of the opposition, and other party leaders (often), as well as various other functionaries who may be appointed from time to time), as do provincial lieutenant-governors and senators. Others are Hon. during their term only, including Speakers of the House, judges, provincial premiers and cabinet ministers, etc. Although MPs refer to one another as “the hon. member,” they aren’t entitled to the title Hon. by virtue of being an MP. The title Right Honourable is granted to Prime Ministers, Chief Justices, and Governors General for life, a holdover from when those officials were made members of the British Privy Council. Other prominent Canadians are, on very rare occasions, granted the title Rt. Hon. as an honour; the most recent was former Deputy Prime Minister and Solicitor General Herb Gray, who was Canada’s first Jewish cabinet minister when he was first appointed to Cabinet in 1969. ---
**Author:** ![installLSC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/54ee81/32.png) [@installLSC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/installLSC)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2008, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-british-house-of-commons-debate-so-different-from-us-house/455234/48 "2008-07-11T05:40:09Z")
A couple of points to ponder: –I regularly saw British Question Time on C-Span back in the late 90’s. It always struck me that the PM’s party always tossed softballs, while the opposition parties questions sounded highly scripted. Indeed, the Economist featured an article how the demands of good TV had largely eroded the original point of Question Time–when all parties could get updates from the cabinet. –One thing impeding Queston Time in the US is that the Constitution (Art. 1 Sec. 6) prohibits congressmen from holding a post in the executive branch, thus excluding cabinet members from congress. One of the reason British Question Time works is because both questions and answers are by legislative members. Plus, since the President is Head of State, he has tended to be given more reverence (executive priviledge, etc.) than a mere Head of Government like the PM. –A lot of those bizarre speeches you see congressmen deliver on C-Span are actually delivered to empty chambers after the main session. A gentlemen’s agreement has C-Span only shooting closeups. (It’s not always adhered to, though; Tip O’Neil once caused a ruckus by supposedly ordering a long shot of Newt Gingrich orating to an empty room.) ---
**Author:** ![tetranz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a587f6/32.png) [@tetranz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tetranz)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2008, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-british-house-of-commons-debate-so-different-from-us-house/455234/49 "2008-07-11T18:02:28Z")
A related question that I ponder is the pros and cons of a parliamentary system compared to a presidential system with a separate executive who has power of veto etc. I’m sure big changes happen much easier with a parliamentary government. In New Zealand at least, without a written constitution, the government is pretty much a dictatorship for the the length of it’s term. The Governor General can fire the government under extreme circumstances (it happened in Australia long ago) but the only real constraint is the desire to be re-elected. That’s especially true if the government is only one party with a majority rather than a coalition. Luckily we haven’t had a government go completely off the rails yet. The US system seems to be designed for stability which makes big changes much more difficult. There are pros and cons to both I guess but I wonder if it goes some way to explain why the US doesn’t have universal health care, is slow to do much about climate change, doesn’t use the metric system, still uses pennies … ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2008, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-british-house-of-commons-debate-so-different-from-us-house/455234/50 "2008-07-11T23:31:57Z")
Do British MPs waste time sponsoring idiotic bills and “resolutions”, like they do in the USA House? Is time wasted on important stuff like naming government buildings , honoring half-senile politicians, and awarding money to build bridges to nowhere? ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2008, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-british-house-of-commons-debate-so-different-from-us-house/455234/51 "2008-07-12T00:04:03Z")
Perhaps the closest to that is the [Private Member’s Bill](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_members_bill). These are, in the main, serious proposals for new laws, although with the understanding that the vast majority get nothing more than fifteen minutes of fame on Radio 4, if that. These are all a national matter however - the trivial stuff such as building-naming is the responsibility of local authorities and other organisations. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-british-house-of-commons-debate-so-different-from-us-house/455234.md?page=2)