Humbug and outrage: A study of performance, gender and affective atmosphere in the mediation of a critical parliamentary moment
| Author | Katy Parry,Beth Johnson |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/13691481211062933 |
| Published date | 01 February 2023 |
| Date | 01 February 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Original Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/13691481211062933
The British Journal of Politics and
International Relations
2023, Vol. 25(1) 3 –20
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/13691481211062933
journals.sagepub.com/home/bpi
Humbug and outrage: A
study of performance, gender
and affective atmosphere in
the mediation of a critical
parliamentary moment
Katy Parry and Beth Johnson
Abstract
In a Parliament called back following its unlawful prorogation in September 2019, Prime Minister
Boris Johnson touched a raw nerve by stating that the ‘best way to honour Jo Cox’s memory is to
get Brexit done’. Johnson had earlier dismissed concerns about threats to Members of Parliament
which echoed his inflammatory language as ‘humbug’. We examine this critical parliamentary
moment in the context of broader discussions about emotionality, toxic discourse and polarisation
in the United Kingdom. The study combines performance analysis of the Hansard transcripts
and UK Parliament YouTube coverage of the debate, with discourse analysis of national and
local newspaper coverage from 25 September to 1 October 2019. We contend that in-depth
examination of this moment, alongside the subsequent journalistic commentary, contributes an
original case study which works to illuminate the intersections of political performance, affective
atmospheres and gender in contemporary mediated political culture.
Keywords
Boris Johnson, Brexit, emotionality, gender, Jo Cox, performance, political culture, prorogation,
toxic discourse
Introduction
In late summer 2019, newly appointed Prime Minister Boris Johnson found himself in a
fix. Attempts to pass the necessary Brexit legislation through the House of Commons had
stalled, and the government’s controversial strategy of proroguing Parliament for 5 weeks
in early September was declared unlawful by the Supreme Court on 24 September. The
very next day, the United Kingdom Parliament re-convened. Prime Minister Boris
Johnson returned early from the United States to give his statement to the House of
Commons. Rather than directly addressing the Court’s decision, other than to state ‘the
Faculty of Arts Humanities and Cultures, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
Corresponding author:
Katy Parry, Faculty of Arts Humanities and Cultures, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK.
Email: k.j.parry@leeds.ac.uk
1062933BPI0010.1177/13691481211062933The British Journal of Politics and International RelationsParry and Johnson
research-article2021
Original Article
4 The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 25(1)
court was wrong to pronounce on what is essentially a political question’, Johnson lam-
basted Parliament for its dithering and delay, claiming all he wanted was a Queen’s
Speech to set out the government’s programme for life after Brexit.1
The Opposition had perceived the decision to prorogue Parliament for a 5-week period
as an attempt to prevent proper parliamentary scrutiny of government business. Johnson
and his supporters referred to the second European Union (EU) withdrawal act as the
‘Surrender Act’, claiming it tied their hands in negotiations. The scenes which followed
Johnson’s statement on the Supreme Court decision were described as some of the angri-
est ever witnessed, at least since sessions were televised. The PM faced multiple calls to
moderate his language. In a moment much commented upon in the news media, he dis-
missed observations by female Labour members of parliament (MPs) that they had
received threats echoing his rhetoric on Brexit, as ‘humbug’. Possibly aware of the poten-
tial provocation, he touched a raw nerve by going on to state that the ‘best way to honour
Jo Cox’s memory is to get Brexit done’.
This article takes this extraordinary parliamentary moment as exemplifying a corro-
sive strand in British political culture. Our study is based on analysis combining a politi-
cal performance approach and discourse analysis of the Hansard transcripts of the debate,
the accompanying parliamentary YouTube video, along with national and local newspa-
per coverage from 25 September to 1 October 2019. Within this discursive space, the
figure of Jo Cox stands as the epitome of a caring and conciliatory politician. For Johnson
to invoke her memory in a callous, or possibly in a deliberately provocative manner,
sparked an array of commentary and meta-analysis, which only served to reinforce the
continuing emotional resonance of Cox’s murder in UK party-political discourse. We
contend that in-depth examination of this moment contributes an original case study
through which to better understand the intersections of political performance, affective
atmospheres and gender in studies of mediated political culture.
We identify the following three intertwined themes in our analysis: the gendered
nature of the parliamentary exchanges; the emotional registers in their performance; and
finally, the memory of Jo Cox as a shared ‘political resource’ deployed to proclaim moral
and social authority (Gluhovic et al., 2021). As Candida Yates (2019) has argued, the
emotional turn in political culture is a gendered phenomenon, with notions of emotionali-
sation of the public sphere tied to fears about irrational femininity. We argue that the
‘affective atmosphere’ of parliament is a crucial element in understanding our broader
political culture, and that the incongruous division between expressive registers (the
Labour female MPs’ outrage vs Johnson’s offhand disregard) speaks to the importance of
vulnerability as an emerging form of ‘emotional self-disclosure’ (Wahl-Jorgensen, 2019:
68) in political performance. Vulnerability is not usually associated with political leader-
ship, but like political authenticity (Rai, 2015), a political judgement made in relation to
vulnerability can reveal deeper assumptions about what makes a good politician. Our
study therefore offers insights into the ‘emotional regimes’ (Reddy, 2001; Wahl-Jorgensen,
2019) of mediated politics.
To read back over the key events in Parliament during this period is both revealing and
mindboggling. It is revealing in the way the Johnson government sets the tone for its later
handling of political controversies and crises. It is mindboggling in the sense of recalling
the political paralysis and turmoil caused by Brexit: the politicians who left their parties
or were thrown out due to their Brexit positions, the weekly or even daily twists in the
narrative as bills and amendments are debated and voted on, the possibility of yet another
election hanging in the air. And among all this, British politics was said to have hit ‘rock
To continue reading
Request your trial