It has been reported that John Bercow favours plans to drop the use of "the honourable member for [constituency]" as the appropriate form of address between MPs in the Commons.
Contrary to today's article in the Telegraph on this subject (p. 2 - James Kirkup: Speaker could strip MPs of their 'honour', not online) the reason that this is a bad idea is not because it might seem like an admission of guilt on the part of our MPs after the expenses saga. Instead, it is very bad because it would strip the Commons of one of the great restraining and civilising and significant features that the role of MP provides - the sense that one is there, not as John Smith or Jane Doe, but as the duly elected member for a particular place. In that capacity, one represents everyone from that place and one should be as responsible and mature and thoughtful as that suggests. One should treat others with respect as they in turn represents their constituents. And in debate things shouldn't be taken personally, or made personal, because, as the title emphasises, people aren't their as X but, instead, are performing a role in society which is outside of their own lives - they aren't shouting the odds as an individual, but rather are part of the great endeavour of democracy. More bluntly, they're not being vindictive or petty - they're there doing their jobs. And if that's ever not the case, then it should be and the use of the title reminds them of that. It's the same as when I put on my wig and gown, or a policeman puts on his uniform, or a Judge his, or - until recently - the Speaker put on his.
Furthermore, it suggests - as if one might not have guessed this already - that our Parliament now lacks a Speaker without any sense of the purpose or traditions of the place over which he presides.
Shame.
