If you find a spot quiet enough in the Palace of Westminster, you might be able to hear a faint creaking.
Yes, the building itself is in dire need of refurbishment, an effort almost certain to take decades and cost billions.
But it’s not the only British institution that seems at real risk of falling apart this week.
Yesterday, I sat in the press gallery of the House of Commons and watched something nearly unprecedented: a debate concerning a member of the royal family. And not only that – one in which everyone was united in condemnation of him.
One by one, MPs stood up to have their say. The Liberal Democrats, who tabled the motion, packed onto their benches. While the rest of the chamber was a little more sparse, there was a sparky atmosphere with each member eager to get a word in.
Want to understand more about how politics affects your life?
Metro’s senior politics reporter Craig Munro breaks down all the chaos into easy to follow insight, in Metro‘s politics newsletter Alright, Gov? Sent every Wednesday. Sign up here.
The official guide to Parliamentary practice (which I’ve currently got on my lap) says ‘reflections must not be cast in debate upon the conduct of […] members of the royal family’ unless they relate to very specific motions.
Given this rare opportunity – reportedly down to Speaker Lindsay Hoyle deciding Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s formal pariah status means he doesn’t get the same protections as a full-blown royal – MPs really let rip.
Trade minister Sir Chris Bryant, speaking on behalf of the government, said Andrew was widely regarded as ‘a rude, arrogant and entitled man who could not distinguish between the public interest, which he said he serves, and his own private interest’. Tell us how you really feel!
Amid all the scathing criticism, there were regular complaints that this sort of thing usually is not allowed in the House of Commons – a place where holding power to account is sort of the whole point.
The rule that forbids casting reflections on the conduct of royals is an example of the old traditions on which the British Parliament is built. Some find these often arcane and quirky customs charming; others find them tiresome.
I thought it was poetic that one of those traditions (a particularly egregious one, according to many of the MPs who spoke yesterday) would be shaken during a debate centred around Jeffrey Epstein.
More than any other scandal I can remember, the Epstein affair has exposed the depravity that can be found among the world’s elite. The files released over the past six months reveal a world where wealthy and powerful people around the globe gleefully commit crimes and bask in the knowledge they’ll inevitably get away with it.
On Tuesday, Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey spoke about a ‘rot that eats away at the British establishment’. This is a scandal that has led people to question the sorts of people who are handed power; what gives them the right to that power; and how they choose to wield it.
When the official guide to Parliamentary practice was first published in the 1840s, almost every Prime Minister sat in the House of Lords, many as a hereditary peer. It was an era when the ruling class was granted fealty and a freedom from constraints.
It’s safe to say we don’t live in that world anymore.
Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.
For more stories like this, check our news page.
