Think PMQs is outdated, unprofessional and needs to change? Mumsnet petition this way.

This is not about PMQs, but about Ed Balls' budget statement reply. It was disastrous as even Labour members agreed. And the intimidating, raucous, rowdy atmosphere of the Commons contributed to the disastrous performance.

I am sure that there are Ministers who want to make the atmosphere more "professional" and less rowdy so that they can not come a cropper, but the public wants to see them tested in a cauldron to see whether their case stands up to scrutiny.

"The knives were out for Ed Balls last night as Labour MPs denounced his performance as one of the worst they have seen in the Commons.

Red-faced and shouting, the Shadow Chancellor faced mockery as he refused to acknowledge rising growth and continued to insist that he was right to oppose austerity all along."

...

Mr Balls was greeted with a roar of derision from across the House when he claimed that it was the Chancellor who was ‘in complete denial’ about the state of the economy.

Mr Osborne hit back, saying: ‘The man who said that borrowing wouldn’t come down, unemployment wouldn’t come down, growth wouldn’t happen and the man who refuses to apologise for what he did to the British economy – he is the very epitome of denial.’

The Chancellor branded Mr Balls’s speech ‘a turkey’ and mercilessly ribbed him over his decision to cancel a grade three piano exam because it clashed with the Autumn Statement.

‘He probably should have gone ahead with his Chopsticks routine,’ Mr Osborne said.

Labour leader Ed Miliband grimaced as Mr Balls yelled himself hoarse, while Labour MPs sat mute and grim-faced behind him.

A senior Labour source admitted the party’s case on the economy ‘was not made well in the chamber today’.

One Labour MP went further, saying: ‘He f it up. I was watching it thinking “we are f”.

‘He’s supposed to be a bright bloke, but there was no analysis of the Autumn Statement in what he said. Ed Miliband should really have sacked him in the last reshuffle. It was a sign of weak leadership that he didn’t.’

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2518768/Autumn-Statement-disaster-leaves-Ed-Balls-red-faced.html#ixzz367f6zerp

"The Labour leader said he backed Speaker John Bercow's call to curb the "yobbery and public school twittishness" of PMQs to show that MPs can behave better than children."

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/02/23/pmq-miliband_n_4842707.html

It is all very noble and dare I say smacks slightly of spin, but has Miliband mentioned it to Ed Brawls.

Everytime I tune into PMQs, all I seem to be faced with is Ed Brawls gurning, growling and grimacing, hurling insults that I am fortunate enough not to be able to make out clearly amid the general maelstrom, and making West Coast gang-like signals with his hands as he tries to put off a good man, our Chancellor George Osborne, who is patiently trying to explain how he has delivered us from the mess that Ed Kool and the Gang got us into.

And as soon as that is over, Ed Miliband launches into attacks on a good man, our Prime Minister, David Cameron, and refers to him disrespectfully as the "dunce of Downing Street".

And it is bloody marvellous viewing. It is better than a night at Jongleurs as Ed expounds on the failings of the "comedians in the Cabinet". This necessarily elicits a reluctant response in a similar vein from our Prime Minister who is no longer able to restrain himself after having been so disrespectfully addressed and abused, and so the show goes on for another 30 exhilarating minutes.

At the end, Ed says we really must do something about the awful way in which the Tories behave and the Labour luvvies all say "hear hear" and ignore the Speaker who has shouted himself hoarse trying to rein them in and manitain order.

Marvellous! It's entertainment of the highest order and you don't even have to pay. No wonder tourists queue up to take a seat at the world famous weekly spectacle that is marvelled at across the planet and even up on Mars.

But now, some right-on Labour luvvies want to deprive the public of even this small pleasure and chink of light amidst the grey, blandness of our political class.

They want us to look us to them as "role models", as paragons of virtue and as "professionals". They think that that will re-engage us with politics and get us to turn out and vote for them again and make them less out-of-touch. But they are so out-of-touch that they don't understand that it is "professionals" that we don't want. We don't want "career politicians", trained spinners, on-message mediocrities and PPEa from Oxford who stepped on the elevator to internships, think tanks, publicly funded NGOs, Labour Party speech writers and then onto "professional" parachuted-in parliamentary candidates. We want a return to the old days of Aneurin Bevan et al - amateurs who cared and felt and meant what they said. Did the public vote for UKIP because UKIP are "professionals"? Get real and get in touch. Speak about what the people care about, stop spinning and behaving like professional cardboard cutouts who speak glibly forever and end up saying nothing meaningful at all.

If you look at the Hansard Society webpage and look at the staff and google for "conservative", it draws a blank. But then google "Labour" and you will see worked "at the Labour Party", or worked "for a Labour MP and Minister" etc.

If you want to change PMQs, you have to create pressure to do so otherwise there will be no justification for the change. You need surveys and focus groups. There is not much point "The Hansard Society" starting a petition because most of the public have never heard of the Hansard Society.

What are some of the changes that the Hansard Society suggests?

"The change in behaviour should be backed up by a new sin-bin penalty - naming a Member for disorderly conduct and removing them from the chamber -for use at the Speaker's discretion. The model of questioning should be varied to facilitate more discussion, pursuing genuine scrutiny and debate on a few topical areas rather than sole reliance on rapid-fire Q&As solely designed to trip participants up. The use of 'open' questions - where MPs can ask the Prime Minister about absolutely anything and he's expected to know the answer on the spot - should be reduced. Instead, there should be a return to some closed questions on subject-specific areas. The number of questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition should also be reduced in order to free up more time for questions from backbenchers. The public could be invited once a month to submit questions for consideration at PMQs. New technology means this could be done in simple and cost-effective ways."

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ruth-fox/pmqs-public-attitudes_b_4761030.html

Sin-bins - that sounds "professional". Treat the "professionals" like children, remove them from the chamber. What next? Put them on the naughty step, don't give them a star and revoke their right to attend the end of session House of Commons Disco?

"The use of 'open' questions - where MPs can ask the Prime Minister about absolutely anything and he's expected to know the answer on the spot - should be reduced"

But this will make it easier for the Prime Minister as he may no longer be shown to not be aware of some important issues.

"Instead, there should be a return to some closed questions on subject-specific areas."

i am not sure what "closed questions" are.

"The number of questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition should also be reduced in order to free up more time for questions from backbenchers"

But that is why we watch it - to see the Leader of the Opposition grill the PM and to see how competent both leaders are. Backbenchers whom the public don't recognise hold far less interest than the Leader of the Opposition. The number of questions asked by the Leader of the opposition should be increased, not decreased if the Prime Minister is to be held to account and grilled on important issues of the day.

"The public could be invited once a month to submit questions for consideration at PMQs."

Why only "once a month"? I would rather the Leader of the Opposition asked searching questions than questions "once a month" from members of the public, and who would choose which member of the public deserved to have their question asked or would it be drawn out of a hat?

Looking at the tweets of the Hansard Society and change.org it looks like this petition is already gaining tens of thousands of votes, so it will very likely be put on the political agenda.

I am sure it will win approval because Cameron will probably think it is a good idea. Watch it while you can, because they will probably eventually change it beyond recignition. It is historic, it is fantastic, it is unique. It will be such a shame to see it changed.

But it is good to see that there are still some real conservatives who don't think it is a good idea, like the fantastic Isabel Hardman
.
"I worked on a film for Newsnight this week in which I argued that the tribal, passionate atmosphere of PMQs was a sign of a healthy democracy – but there are some easy things both sides could do that would make the session much, much better. They don’t need to stop cheering and acting as though they’re at a football match: deferential politics is not a good thing. But backbenchers could, as a group, decide that they’re not going to take those ghastly questions from the whips that involve them asking a poorly-worded variation of ‘does my right honourable friend agree with me that he’s doing a fantastic job?’. Some MPs have, to their credit, tried to jazz them up: Alun Cairns has rewritten loyal questions to include references to curry and added his own jokes. But if MPs want more voters to think that parliamentarians spend this weekly session debating the issues that affect real people’s lives, they could at least use their one opportunity to quiz the Prime Minister as an opportunity to really quiz him, rather than just suck up to him.

There’s also no need for MPs to jeer one another when they stumble over questions (although quite often an MP who stumbles is doing so because they are reading a pre-written missive from the whips, rather than asking about something that affects their constituency, for instance).

These are just small changes, and some will argue that the whole nature of the session should change. Miliband was certainly hinting that he thought the structure of the Commons Chamber didn’t help matters in his Radio 4 interview. But the sort of consensual approach encouraged by circular chambers and group systems dilutes the ability of an opposition in checking the power of a governing party and holding it to account over hopeless reforms."

blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/02/ed-miliband-children-behave-better-than-mps-at-pmqs/

Is there a petition to keep it as it is? Let's hope someone cares enough about it to counter the "professional" approach.

Whoops I seem to have put the wrong point forward at the wrong discussion :/

Nice to see such an active discussion OtheHugeManatee and Justine!

I used to make a point of catching PMQs as often as possible but now just tune in when there is an important issue. I find it shouty, not informative. I feel embarrassed by the whole thing. I think it is important to be engaged with politics, I have a brilliant local MP but when I see MPs particularly during PMQs I do not feel they can speak for me. It all seems to be for the cameras to make sure they get quotes in the media. I think the current leader of the opposition comes off as very passionate and earnest which I find surprising sometimes.

"Here's the link to the questions and answers. Can you explain how they were leading?"

Are you going to tell me that "Do you think that the atmosphere of PMQs is unprofessional & outdated?" is not a leading question?

"I'm just going to ignore your question about the Hansard Society, frankly, because it's bloody rude."

I think you're also ignoring it because you don't want to discuss where the impetus originated for this 'MN campaign'. Because it wasn't from MN. And that traduces the idea of MN (and you) acting as the mouthpiece for concerns widely shared by ordinary women. That's a powerful idea that has already done a lot of good in many ways and I'm really hacked off that you are exploiting it like this.

Basically here you've picked up something that you (or the Hansard Society, or whoever you're really doing this for) are concerned about, gone looking via MN for some ordinary women who can be made to look concerned about it, then dressed the resulting campaign up as originating from MN and used MN as an amplifier. That's ultimately what I'm annoyed about: it's bogus, and exploitative of a community that is fundamentally powered by goodwill and genuine exchange of views. In my professional life I have worked around online communities for years and I can tell you that if you carry in using MN cynically like this as a soapbox or lobbying amplifier you will in the end hollow out any moral force that 'the voice of MN' might have to campaign for change anywhere, and ultimately damage or destroy the willingness of your community to contribute their voices.

I'm bowing out now as I don't think there is much point in continuing to rehash this point and have it ignored. But please go back to real MN campaigns, Justine.

I do understand that, but was more concerned that it may be mis-translated into a certain % of all Mumsnetters support x policy rather than a certain % of the respondees support x policy , which wouldn't be true.

Having a disaffection for politics is not the same as wanting to abolish PMQs.

Many people fail to see that politics is part of almost every aspect of everyday life, you would be doing a far greater service educating people about everyday politics (and may even earn your MBE) than relentlessly pushing wishy-washy Labour policies to get in the news.

.

It's a joke... To anyone reading this including the Press we do not support this and this is a joke.

Lets just hope the Politicians do not use us via this ridiculous ' campaign' for their own ends... Oh but they will.

And that is RESPONDEES not those expressing a wish to change PMQS

Wiki says MUMSNET has 4.6 million unique visitors per month and 5000 bloggers

1200/4.6million x100% = 0.026 % of Mumsnetters

So not in anyway representative and this should be made very clear

'At the end of the day you can do as many surveys as you like but what's the point of them, if you don't then try to change things based on the results...'

The problem with our politics is that most of the surveys and focus groups are not really representative of what the public really think and making changes (which incidentally coincide exactly with the wishes of our modernising political class) on the basis of these limited surveys changes our political system in a way that can make it easier for our political class and metropolitan class (who have all the money and media means available to them, and often our public money too) to drive through changes that suit them and may not benefit the people.

I am all for the call for "direct democracy" as Farage recently spelt out, which would involve referenda and proportional representation, because that would reflect the true wishes of the public in a way that limited surveys or focus groups cannot.

The Guardian commentator in the following article spells out exactly why policy making based on surveys and focus groups is not a true reflection of people's wishes. In a "modernising" media coordinated campaign to swing public mood, people often reply how they think they should but not how they really feel.

"We should be careful not to put too much store by the views of focus groups, where wanting to say the right thing can influence results."

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/27/three-cheers-pmqs-ugly-prime-ministers-questions

If MN ran a survey on whether MNers think Ed Miliband is a geek and not suitable to be Labour leader, then I think we all know what the result would be. But you can't make decisions on the basis of surveys like that because they do not represent the true feelings of the majority of the public and are often ill-considered judgements.

Only today we have poor Jon Cruddas being criticised for telling the truth about the "dead hand" that prevents really innovative policy emerging in order to fit in with focus group findings, which may not be representative of real public opinion and may not be what is right to do.

"Labour's pledge to deny unemployment benefits to jobless youths is a “cynical” move designed to “chime with focus groups,” the party’s policy chief has said."

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10933853/Our-welfare-policy-is-a-cynical-pitch-to-focus-groups-Labour-policy-chief-says.html

It is this easy emphasis on surveys and focus groups that is preventing brave politicians from coming up with policies that people really want and believe in but often do not articulate.

Surveys and focus groups can often act as an easy fix where the political class can say "we are listening", "we have heard you", but which really ask the wrong questions and sometimes serve the interests of the political class themselves rather than the people.

They run the danger of preventing Jon Cruddas coming up with policies that are right for the people in an attempt to "play safe" and only ask questions and frame debates that the political class feel are safe and suit their interests.

1200 people? That is a drop in the ocean in MN member numbers!

And you cannot say that it was a sample of women because it is a gender-anonymous site. How can it be claimed to be a representative sample of UK women? You don't know if the respondents were women, whether they live in the UK, and what their demographic is. Please don't compare a MN poll with Mori, it makes you look daft.

The questions were leading, the premise is shaky. This is embarrassing.

The questions were incredibly leading. The respondents were self-selecting. You manufactured the mandate. I'm a long-time poster and generally think MN campaigns are great but you're being incredibly disingenuous on your motives for this one.

If it's not a personal crusade then on whose behalf who are you lobbying? I refuse to believe it's that of MN, because unlike all other MN campaigns I've ever seen this one didn't originate on the boards. No-one on MN asked you to do this campaign and indeed many people think it's pretty silly. So who are you really doing this for, Justine?

Did someone at the Hansard Society ask you for a favour, are you angling for a board position somewhere, what is it?

How many Mumsnetters responded to the questionnaire?

What is the total number of Mumsnetters and then what percentage of us responded to the questionnaire?