Prime Ministers Questions

[Onetwothreeoops]

BBC link

It really is time our politicians stopped behaving like children, it's a national embarrassment. Well done Ed for tackling this.

Here is something from an American writing on the left wing UK Liberal Conspiracy site

"I’m jealous. Every Wednesday, I watch members of parliament ask hard hitting questions and get brutally honest answers from the prime minister with some raucous, yet good natured, cheers and jeers from the MPs.

And I wish, as an American, that there was something similar in the states. The PMQs are entertaining in and of themselves and I enjoy the little differences between American and British English.

The language quarks and entertainment value aside, PMQs get at the heart of democracy: debate

The live and lively back and forth of PMQs is unlike anything in America . While there are debates between candidates in a campaign and within Congress, they aren’t as frequent or as brutally honest as PMQs.

...

Also, whether David Cameron is calling Ed Miliband Balls a “muttering idiot” or Milirand is making the prime minister look like one, these off the cuff remarks give insight into the people behind the party whether the insight centers on their personality or what motivates their policy positions."

liberalconspiracy.org/2012/05/27/as-an-american-i-value-and-love-pmqs/

And John McCain said he would introdice a PMQ in the US if he became President

"John McCain has said he would introduce an American version of prime minister's questions if elected US president.

The Republican candidate will pledge later to submit himself to regular grillings by both houses of Congress.

He said exchanges such as those in the British House of Commons were a way of holding leaders accountable.

The weekly half hour PMQ sessions in the Commons are often rowdy affairs with party leaders trading insults spurred on by baying MPs.

But they allow the main opposition party leaders to put the prime minister on the spot on a subject of their choice and backbench MPs to raise issues on behalf of constituents.

There is no equivalent in the US - formal speeches such as the State of the Union address do not include question and answer sessions."

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7403162.stm

It is brilliant and that is why they will get rid of it and then the people won't watch any of Parliament at all.

The Daily Telegraph's left wing blogger, Dan Hodges, is against it and says "PMQs is a joke, and the world is laughing at us. Time to end it" also senior Telegraph political commentator, Iain Martin, is against it and says "Time to overhaul the contemptible farce of PMQs"

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100248170/pmqs-is-a-joke-and-the-world-is-laughing-at-us-time-to-end-it/

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100251144/time-to-overhaul-the-contemptible-farce-of-pmqs/

We will probably lose it forever when even the Telegraph doesn't want to maintain our traditions. But as they say, you never know what you miss till it's gone.

No, I don't think that's a good thing. It defeats the purpose of PMQs. I'd like to see the Speaker having some discretion to direct the PM to actually answer the question.

"How is it a good thing that politicians don't answer the question?"

It is good that you as a member of the public can see that they don't answer the question. It gives you a better insight to them and their policies. Ultimately that is what politics is all about, serving and informing the public and letting the public decide which party and which leader answers the questions that the public wants answered.

I'd rather know their actual answer.

'If they don't know the answer then written follow-up should be fine.'

It's not good enough if they don't know the answer. That is why it is tough and why Blair said he "feared" it.

That is why Thatcher made sure she was briefed and quizzed her ministers and she soon found out which minsiters were not on top of their brief and could then get rid of them. Thatcher was not running a "let's be nice to Rupert" game, she was running the country and she expected answers and she delivered answers.

And she said that PMQs was
"the real test of your authority in the House, your standing with your party, your grip of policy and of the facts to justify it"

The last thing we need is the Speaker deciding whether or not someone has answered a question in the House.

Going back historically, almost every single one of Gordon Brown's answers were basically "Lord Ashcroft" or "3000 wealthiest estates". And though it was an idiotic answer, the speaker would have been correct not to intervene then either. Similarly, it's not for him to decide if it's germane to answer a question about benefits with a comparison of the previous government's record.

PMQs should not be filtered. The politicians speak; we get to judge them on it. Apart from the basic maintenance of scheduling (and some degree of order) the Speaker should sit back and not distract us from the main protagonists.

'I'd rather know their actual answer.'

If they haven't got an answer, that means they don't know and that is all the public need to know in order to make their decision about their competency to run the country.

Also, sometimes it's better to avoid answering a question which is the Parliamentary equivalent of 'have you stopped beating your wife'. Loaded questions are a potent tool in rhetoric; it takes no mean degree of oratorical skill to gracefully deflect them.

I'm not interested in rhetorical games. PMQs should be about giving sensible answers to proper questions. Not, as above, about I'm cleverer than you showing off and avoiding the point.

Why? Serious answers are best given by individual Ministers in specific debates, not the PM in a generalist forum. The purpose of PMQs is more the politics than policy. Though as above, it has the ancillary benefit of forcing the PM to be updated about policy.

'PMQs should be about giving sensible answers to proper questions.'

You're not going to get sensible answers. Are they going to admit they got things wrong? Only Pickles will do that and apologise but then he will end up gagged for not playing the game as it is meant to be played. You don't go round criticising departments or you get gagged.

But the thing about PMQs is that in that live confrontational approach, a leader can get caught out, can slip up, can show that they are not on top of their game and have not adequately prepared and they don't want that to happen because of what the public and the rest of their party might think.

It is tough, and that is why they fear it. It is tough and that is why the public watch it.

PMQs is great precisely because it is a rhetorical game, a game to try and catch the other party out, not to make it easy for them.

And that is why they do the heckling and jeering, to put the other party off, to trip them up and make them fall flat on their face and that is why the public tunes in. It doesn't get much better than that and that is why they want to end it.

Fascinating article about what is involved in preparing for PMQs. It is very tough and hats off to them for handling it well.

For me, both Cameron and Miliband come across very well, and both come out on top at different times.

'One senior civil servant told me, “It’s our job to make sure the PM isn’t savaged, because the whole government can look weak and the reputation of ‘UK Plc’ can literally be smashed. That’s why we’ll move hell and high water to appraise him of all the facts.”

...

'Whether it’s because PMQs is televised, or down to the bear pit atmosphere and noise – around 95 decibels on a noise meter, according to Thatcher’s former employment minister Peter Bottomley – stage fright and nerves seem to affect every leader. Blair wrote of PMQs as being “the most nerve racking experience of my prime ministerial life” causing him “fitful nights”. Cameron told me last year that, “Anyone who says they don’t find preparing for 30 minutes of PMQs intimidating is lying.” Thatcher would suffer major anxiety, according to one confidant – “If you were actually able to see her standing at the dispatch box, you could see her legs trembling” – and Brown would get “decidedly jittery”, according to a close aide : “if anything, he was too busy to fly off the handle so much. That was the one good thing about Wednesday mornings.” Only Miliband claims never to be intimidated. “I don’t get nervous,” he told me last year for Total Politics, but political commentator and LBC radio host Ian Collins dismisses Miliband’s confidence as “total guff”. “I know nerves when I see them,” he says, “and for Miliband it manifests itself as higher than normal pitch, increased speech rate and inefficient breathing. Now that’s not a criticism of the Labour leader – he has a hard gig – but I think Cameron was on the mark with his comments on the matter.”

www.totalpolitics.com/print/365747/pmqs-behind-the-scenes-at-the-weekly-matinee.thtml

I think Miliband does a great job at it and comes across very well. I think it is particularly important for the opposition party because they get very good exposure in it which they don't get in day-to-day news since the government minsters are always on TV instead of the opposition.

'UK plc'?

Isn't this madness evident to anyone else? Or has it just become so normalised nobody notices?

YY ttosca, the corporatisation of everything is deeply troubling. As a society, we seem to have internalised capitalist discourse.

'UK plc'

No I think that is OK, because they are referring to our suitability as someone to do business with and invest in as a country. We have a brand, a global image to the rest of the world and we mustn't damage our brand or we become less attractive to investors in our country.

Everything we do and have is part of our brand - the Beatles, Manchester United, Thatcher and Gordon Brown. Obviously some are better than others.

That's right - as Janine states, it's Capitalist discourse.

The UK is a product with a brand, which needs to be marketed.

That's not any way to run a country. You don't run a country the same way you run a business. They (should) have different purposes and different means.

That's a lame argument.

I agree with everything LongFingerNails said on the first page, and doubt that Claig has ever listened to PMQT if she doesn’t care about policies, especially Ukips as it turns out.

In 1997 onwards when Blair had a 170 seat majority, that was still over 100 seats if memory serves until 2010, you had this ridiculous political situation where very few Labour MP clones dared to challenge their own party’s controversial policies i.e. immigration and the signing of the EU Lisbon Treaty, but had the VOCAL power to shout down the opposition.

Now Labour’s failed and anti Conservative ideology is not only projected with such bile across the House, but week after week Miliband attacks Cameron, on the results of New Labour’s failed policies; 1.5 to 2 million economic migration affects on pressured public services, domestic welfare, lack of housing AND those due to the great recession in 80-years, like 10-year plus trending up of unemployment and the cost of living – so is it any wonder the Conservative and Lib Dems that realise that, shout BACK???

Blair had ‘swagger’ as they inherited a growing economy and they were spending money like drunken sailors in a brothel.

Brown who told everyone in the world that he cured the UK “booms and busts” thought answering anyone, was beneath him.

Cameron sorting out the mess answers 9 out of the 10 he is asked and if he doesn’t know, confirms a minister will get back to them – so unless anyone has any stats to say he doesn’t, they have to assume that he does.

'Cameron sorting out the mess answers 9 out of the 10 he is asked'

That confirms it. You have never watched it.

Duh no, it confirms what I have just said – the majority of Labour MPs statements (rarely questions) at PMQT are on issues they cynically blame the coalition for, that are a direct result of Labour’s policies/legacy, caused during a time when they had economic and social options – but have to be ‘fixed’ once they left office and the country ANNUALLY overspending £150 billion a year more than we earned, and heading for £1,500,000,000,000 (£1.5 trillion) of national debt by 2015

Cameron sorting out the mess answers 9 out of the 10 he is asked and if he doesn’t know, confirms a minister will get back to them – so unless anyone has any stats to say he doesn’t, they have to assume that he does.

Bah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. How much do they pay you for this shit?

Whatever they are paying is too much for what they're getting!

JanineStHubbins...pay me, nothing, try telling yourself and this board how many of the problems facing this country was CAUSED by the coalition inheriting a £150 billion a year overspend, versus the Labour government who squandered £trillions over 13-years?

Time for MY amusement, waiting.