PMQs: Punch & Judy politics

A common criticism of British politics regards its adversarial nature. The ethos of the House of Commons Chamber is often derided as being more suited to a schoolroom of boys from St Custard's than the birthplace of modern Western democracy.

Described by the Economist as a 'gladiatorial spectacle' that 'reeks of conflict', the epitome of this exchange is Prime Minister's Questions. As each side cheers on its champion and jeers at his opponent, the cries of 'Order, Order!' from the Speaker are the only thing that can return the Chamber to, well, order. 

Last Wednesday's PMQs special of the Daily Politics saw Nick Robinson stress just how loud the roar of noise can get. Labour MP Chuka Umunna agreed, identifying it as a major source of disquiet amongst the public at a time of such economic uncertainty. Presumably he would prefer PMQs to be conducted more along the lines of America's Congress. Debates would be carried out with the genteel decorum that proper political discourse deserves.

Yet this is a system so prone to deadlock that it routinely hurts America's interests. Congress's inability to reach an agreement caused the Word's largest economy to lose its triple A credit rating earlier this year. Failure to deal with this intransigence means US politicians still can't agree how to deal with the America's deficit.

The British system might be unseemly but it works. When David Cameron first became Conservative Party leader he vowed to end Punch & Judy politics. He failed. I for one won't judge him too harshly for that.

Racism & freedom of speech: My Tram Experience

At the time of writing 800,000 people have seen a woman send a tirade of vile racist abuse at a tram full of people. Thankfully, the almost universal reaction has been one of abhorrence. A woman has subsequently been arrested in connection with the incident.

My initial reaction was dismay at such an authoritarian response. We find this woman so repulsive because the views she espouses are anathema to an open liberal democracy. If we cease to tolerate such minority viewpoints, however horrible, and abandon freedom of speech then surely we are abandoning the very value-system we are seeking to protect.

On further reflection I realised I was wrong. We place limits on our freedoms all of the time. People aren't allowed to have sex in the streets merely because we believe in sexual liberty. If we didn't have limits on our behaviour there would be anarchy.

Rousseau believed one should distinguish 'natural freedom, which is limited only by the strength of the individual, from civil freedom, which is limited by the general will.' If we are to have true 'moral liberty' we must look to civil freedom, 'for to be driven by our appetites alone is slavery, while to obey a law that we have imposed on ourselves is freedom.'1.

If we are to protect freedom we can't allow this woman freedom of speech.

1. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract (1762).