Think PMQs is outdated, unprofessional and needs to change?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

[JustineMumsnet]

Hi all

Following on from our survey into the UK's political culture and the subsequent webchat with the women MPs from the three main parties, one issue that came up repeatedly was Prime Minister's Questions. While 61% of you felt that they offered an opportunity for MPs to hold the government to account, only 13% of you thought they weekly sessions were actually effective. 76% of you thought they were unprofessional and outdated, and half of you (50%) believed they actually damaged Parliament's reputation. As CalamitouslyWrong put it: "[we] might as well get some preschoolers to call each other poo-heads and be done with it."

David Cameron said he was "fed up with the Punch and Judy politics of Westminster" wanting to change "the name calling, backbiting, point scoring, finger pointing" and Prime Ministers can change PMQs unilaterally - Tony Blair went from 2 sessions a week, to one longer session in 1997. So we think he should fulfil his promise and look at the the process of PMQs now.

So we’ve launched a petition asking David Cameron to give this huge Parliamentary showcase a refresh.

The Hansard Society has proposed a a few changes to the format, including rapid-fire Q&As, more open questions, taking questions directly from voters via social media, and penalties for MPs who behave badly. And we're asking for David Cameron to pilot these changes and so improve the way parliament works.

Hope you can sign up and, as always, if you want to make some noise about this on social media, that would be fantastic.

Justine

[claig]

What can you do?

Took a walk around the village today, got some fresh air, it was a gloriously sunny day. Saw Mrs Walker walking her dog. Exchanged pleasantries, but she was in a steaming mood, upset at the news, told me she had heard that they was trying to change our PMQs.
"Who's doing it?" I said.
"Metropolitan elite," she said, and I just nodded. I might have guessed. They never give it a rest.
"Terrible", I said, "but what can you do?"

Went into the corner shop to buy a sandwich, stood in the queue as you do and there was a pensioner in front, white-haired and carrying a stick.
There seemed to be some hold-up and dispute and it started getting heated. She had some alcohol in her shopping cart and the teenager serving refused to serve her until she could prove she was over 18.
Poor woman rifled through her purse and bag looking for the "ID" he demanded, but she didn't have none, didn't need any when she was young. It was embarrassing and we in the queue felt bad and to tell the truth a little sad, someone even said it was mad.
"Probably New Labour," said someone, "that's the type of thing they always do." And everyone nodded, but what can you do?
"Soon kids will need New Labour C&A piometric ID cards just to buy jelly beans," someone said, and we all nodded and sighed and someone said "Sweets has probably got too much sugar, but what can you do?"

In the end, the poor woman was sent packing without her alcohol. Such a shame, she probably just loved a sherry with her dinner, she weren't no criminal or sinner.
Someone said, "It's getting worse every day, now they even want to change our PMQs" and we all nodded and said
"What can you do?"

Went round the corner and there was a group of boys kicking up quite a noise. Young group of buskers playing music in the street, good foot-tapping stuff, with a blues and boogie beat. It was the old school RnB that I loved and the Rolling Stones used to play, those were the days, no one woud have dreamed of messing with our PMQs when Jagger ruled the waves. Some youngsters were dancing and it was a great vibe, really buzzing, made you feel good to be alive. Good to see that youngsters still liked the old stuff - the real stuff I call it, not the new "hop hop" stuff that's all the rage. As I got nearer i could hear the lyrics as the singer blasted them out

"Shame, shame, shame,
They're gonna change our PMQs
Ain't it a shame, shame, shame,
The way they do what they do
Yeah shame, shame, shame,
Oh Lord, shame on you"

Great stuff, but I'd heard enough.

Walked down past the Labour club - totally empty and boarded up, place was bare, had been ever since Blair.
Passed the Conservative club on the right, used to be heaving, now everyone was leaving. Membership had halved, subscriptions were down,
no one could be bothered anymore, no one believed in what they stood for.

Further down the lane, I passed the new UKIP club. Place was packed, yellow and purple flags and banners everywhere, people handing out fruitcakes to passers-by and who should catch my eye but my 90 year old friend Jean, looking sharp and preened as if she weren't a day over 17. She had a megaphone in her hand and she was hollering and shouting and shaking her fist, this was not to be missed.

She was so loud, I put a hand over my ear as I drew near.
"Sign up, sign up, Save our PMQs," she was shouting and the queue to sign stretched out for nearly a mile, I hadn't seen enthusiasm like this in quite some while.

There was young and there was old, there was tall and there was short, there was people of each and every sort. There was kids of 9 and old people of ninety, there was newly-weds, widows and spinsters, but there weren't no luvvies or spinners, but I guess this ain't Westminster.

A young lad no more than six years old held a huge pen and was writing a letter to our Prime Minister.

"Deer Phryme Munster,

Pleese save hour PMQs"

he wrote. His spelling wasn't all that, but mine was worse at that age, and you'd have to have a heart of stone to correct it. It was full of sentiment, you could tell it was meant. And everyone in the queue felt the same, it was all a terrible shame. But I didn't think our Prime Minister would listen, or any one of his advisers, after all they are all just modernisers.

I walked up to Jean and said "Hello, trouble, I might have known you'd be stirring it up. But what are you doing here with UKIP, I thought you was a Tory, and had been for years, true blue to the core. She looked me in the eye with disgust and said "Not anymore. What do you take me for? That useless bunch of tossers, wasters and no-good dossers, they ain't worth voting for." I must admit I couldn't agree with her more, they was all about "save the luvvie", "save the planet" and "save the tree" as far as I could see.

Went into the hairdressers to get my hair done. Had barely sat down when the woman waiting, whom I'd never met before, waved a Daily Mail in my face and said "Have you seen this?"

"What are they going to change now," I said.

"It's that luvvie, Thick Clegg," she said.
"Are you referring to our Deputy Prime Minister," I said, "a Westminster, Cambridge and College of Europe man, an honourable member of our metropolitan elite."

When she heard that, she looked as if she would explode with rage and her face turned an awful red, but I winked and we both exploded with laughter instead.

"He is backing this campaign to change our PMQs," she said.
"Of course he is," I said, "they all are. But what can you do?

She thrust the article in my face and there was a picture of Clegg, the superhuman dynamo, in mid-stride, all wild-eyed, pointing at a poor member of the audience.

She read out some of the quotes from the Daily Mail article

"Mr Clegg backed a Mumsnet petition calling for PMQs to be overhauled and made more accessible.

‘I think it’s brilliant… basically saying, ..."

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2676270/Put-PMQs-prime-time-TV-help-end-macho-chest-beating-testosterone-driven-shouting-match-says-Nick-Clegg.html#ixzz36OxEbmUH

What does 'basically saying' mean?" she asked.
"It's most probably metropolitan spin," I said.

She continued to quote from the article

"MPs must also speak through the chair, so instead of telling an opponent ‘you are wrong’, they must say ‘he is wrong’."

"Is he for real?" she asked.
"Unfortunately so", I said

And she continued with even more of what the learned leader had to say

‘And so the whole thing is in a language which wasn’t used since 1867 and in a kind of highly aggressive, sort of, macho, chest?beating, testosterone?driven idiom which is deeply off?putting to – to any normal person.’

"What does he know about normal people?"
"Quite!" I said, "but that won't stop him and no one can say he doesn't know his dates."

"With all the problems in our country - the hospitals, the care homes, the queues at foodbanks, what is happening in Iraq, Syria and Ukraine - he wants to do this."

"Well, he probably can't fix any of that, so he has decided to mess up our PMQs instead, but what can you do?" I said

As I walked home, I realised it wasn't right to feel so blue, there was something we could all do, we could start by saving our PMQs.

[claig]

They only want to change our PMQs

I went to visit my old friend Jean in the old people's home today, she's gotta be 90 years old if she's a day. I've known her since I was a child, that's when she was middle-aged, that was back in the 70s when glam and platform shoes were all the rage.

When I walked in to see her, she was in a right old mood. She threw down her Daily Mail and shouted at me "Have you seen what they wanna do?" - not even so much as a polite "How d'you do?"

"No," I replied, "I haven't been keeping up with the news, I've been a bit preoccupied".
"Have a look at that," she said, "I can't believe it's true".
I read the headlines and could scarce believe my eyes - they only wanted to change our PMQs. I had to read it twice, to make sure it was true, what on earth were they trying to do?

Jean had seen it all, she'd lived through it all, she'd seen em come and she'd seen em go and she'd seen the high and mighty fall low, and throughout all those years, she had never once missed her PMQs - dental appointments, yes, but never, ever PMQs.

She told me tales of the despatch box, of Harold Wilson and a man called Callaghan, about the 70s which were a time of gloom, but when she spoke of Lady Thatcher, her smile lit up the room. She told me how Thatcher showed them, how she bested each and every man who dared to appear opposite her at the stand. Then she mentioned a Labour leader, she couldn't remember his name. Shifty looking guy, she said, all teeth and fake smile. Said she could she him coming from a mile.

"Well I'm going to start my own petition - Hands Off our PMQs - if it is something the Tories ain't gonna do," said Jean.
"Don't be silly, Jean," I said, "the campaign is now in lots of newspapers and on the BBC. What the hell are ordinary people like you going to be able to do?"

She looked me in the eye with some disgust and said "It's what Thatcher would do!"

And never was a word spoken more true, and so without further ado, we drafted a petition right there and then. It's what we had to do, to save our PMQs.

[claig]

The Labour Party was formed to give voice to the millions of unrepresented working people at the start of last century, and it was a truly great thing and a great moment in history.

Now that Labour has lost its way and lost its roots and is no longer made up of the people it was formed to represent, let's make sure all our parties and our system can adapt and represent the millions of people who remain unheard, who are not switched on and tech savvy. Let's not create a new divide.

[claig]

I think we are going to have to find a way to make politics really inclusive

We will need to find a way to ask millions of people about any changes, not just 100,000 in a change.org petition etc if we are to make changes that reflect real public opinion and include everybody or we will end up with a digital divide and millions will be left out and be unheard.

Samples are fine, but they are just samples. We need to broaden out decision making and the power to call for change so that it includes everybody.

[AnneEyhtMeyer]

Big cross post there! Apologies!

[JustineMumsnet]

@AnneEyhtMeyer

So Justine will reply to a compliment but not to OTheHuge's question? Says it all really.

[claig]

And it is obvious what will happen next. Tory Party membership will halve, the Tories will have no one to campaign for them at the doorstep anymore. Pensioners and millions of others will switch to a new trip, they'll start voting UKIP. And the divide between the people and the metropolitan elite wlll grow ever wider and the metropolitan elite will run more campaigns and rush through more change and say they are inclusive

SarahThane is probably onto something

"I'm worried PMQs would turn into a corporate business plan type scenario, where they all behave politely and say what they're supposed to say and behave just as badly behind the scenes but it doesn't matter because they have they're proof, they've spoken sensibly on camera. That seems quite chilling."

[AnneEyhtMeyer]

So Justine will reply to a compliment but not to OTheHuge's question? Says it all really.

[JustineMumsnet]

@OTheHugeManatee

Ah, sod it. One final post

We campaign/ get involved with lots of issues - libel reform, family friendly work, everyday sexism, better sex education for children, better childcare solutions - which aren't directly the result of a specific demand on a specific thread but are clearly part of our users' everyday concerns and where there appears to be a pretty clear majority/ consensus.

You say reform of PMQs comes into this category. I agree that it's not the result of a specific demand on a specific thread - absolutely - but 'clearly part of our users' everyday concerns'? Really?

Yes I'd say there was considerable discussion/lamenting of how out of touch politicians are/ how there aren't enough women MPs/ how govn. would would be better women in the cabinet. Obviously not as much lamenting as there is about M-i-ls but not sure we could make an inroads on them...

@OTheHugeManatee

No, I'm very happy to discuss this with you - as evidenced by this thread. But the implication that this whole campaign is about my personal agenda/vanity/wish to gain a board position is rude and not worth answering IMHO. It's also wrong.

See, where you say discuss, I still see evasiveness. I will take your word for it that this whole campaign is not about your personal agenda or desire for a board position somewhere. But my core concern was that someone has asked you to do this and that you're being disingenuous about the origins of the campaign. Has someone (say, the Hansard Society, or Ed Balls, or whoever) asked you to do this campaign? That question you haven't addressed. Why?

Ok I think I have answered re Hansard etc but just to be completely clear...

No one asked us to campaign on this issue - it's not anyone elses' agenda. The idea for the survey into political culture, as I've said a couple of times, came out of the report we did last Autumn with Mori - which was a kind of state of the nation thing (re women and politics). The idea for that was mine and I approached Mori myself but it was very much with a view to see what was going on, rather than with any particular agenda.

It revealed lots of disaffection/ disillusionment with the parties, the leaders and the entire political process. We wanted to explore that more so we did our survey. When they saw our survey results Change.org, who we've worked with on a few things before, suggested we put a petition up. The Hansard Society evidence merely chimed with our own and given that they'd done a lot of work on actual measures might be changed, it made sense to put some of the suggestions in their report to MNetters in our survey.

@OTheHugeManatee

See, if you were to just say 'OK, look, the Hansard Society wanted to campaign on these issues and here's why we agree with them that it'd be a good thing so we said we'd run a campaign and here's the survey that says loads of MNers agree too' I'd shrug my shoulders and say 'meh, OK, I disagree but whevs, free country.' It's the nagging worry that the campaign originates from someone or somewhere else and that you're not being honest about the role of regular MNers in what is being presented as a MN campaign about issues that MNers feel is of concern.

Fair enough, I can't do much about nagging concerns/suspicions etc - not fair enough to continue to assert something as fact that's simply not true IMHO.

@OTheHugeManatee

But I should let this go and do some jeffing work. I don't want to end up looking like I'm on some kind of crusade myself At the end of the day it's your website, innit

Well I came up with MN but really, truly have never wanted or believed I could use it to pursue a personal agenda, so forgive me if I've reacted quite robustly - I do feel quite strongly about it I suppose but I hope you don't feel picked on (am conscious that I have the advantage of a quote facility . Thanks for your input - I do think all the questions you've raised are perfectly valid.

[SarahThane]

Steady on.

[claig]

'That seems quite chilling.'

Absolutely. And what is chilling is the future. Social media that will be used to change our system without asking the majority of the people.

Self-appointed metropolitan, media-savvy luvvies who all know each other and are all chums but do not represent the majority. It won't be a Big Society, it will be a Small Society of the chatterati and the luvvies who will be able to run twitter campaigns and everything.org petitions and coordinate media campaigns in newspapers, social media and on the BBC. And they will in the future know all of the politicians, go to dinner parties with them, rub shoulders with them like the Flipping Norton Set.

Campaigns will change our system and the majority won't even know it has happened, as they were not paying attention. All those millions of poor old pensioners will never be asked, many of them don't know how to twitter and still read real books rather than facebook. They will wake up one day and find PMQs has been tamed down. They'll just shrug their shoulders and feel sad and say "what do you expect from the metropolitan set? It's just more political correctness gorn mad"

[SarahThane]

Agree it is worthless and ineffective but can't see that window dressing would help. So many organisations trumpet their transparency, their inclusiveness etc and they know what to say, and it is worthless because they just say it, they don't do it. I'm worried PQs would turn into a corporate business plan type scenario, where they all behave politely and say what they're supposed to say and behave just as badly behind the scenes but it doesn't matter because they have they're proof, they've spoken sensibly on camera. That seems quite chilling.

[JugglingFromHereToThere]

Also liking badoobys post - I appreciate a good argument whatever the conclusion hence liking claigs poetical contribution. But actually agree more with badooby

[SarahThane]

Having read and thought more, I agree with OTheHuge.

[JugglingFromHereToThere]

Thanks Justine

Loving your poetry claig - genius

[JustineMumsnet]

@JugglingFromHereToThere

Just saw you on the Daily Politics Justine - great stuff!

Don't want to get rid of it, but it could be so much better, and less off-putting to many, was the gist I picked up?

Thanks Juggling, and yes that is about the size of it!

[claig]

'And scores of Prime Ministers waffling away about how brilliant '

They are all terrified of it. Thatcher's legs were "shaking". But all the decent ones know it is brilliant and it is their duty to the people, to democracy and to the great traditions of our country, to go through it and respect it and respect the people in whose name it is carried out.

Don't let self-appointed metropolitan elites and Hansard Societies or any other of the great and the good tamper with our traditions unless they put it to all of the public in a national referendum.

[badooby]

Nobody. Wants. To. End. PMQs



Sign it, don't sign it, whatever. But it's not about ending it! It's about MAKING IT BETTER.

It's about holding power to account.

Which PMQs currently does NOT do.

And scores of Prime Ministers waffling away about how brilliant it is rather proves that they don't genuinely fear it, which they would if it was properly effective.

[claig]

Mind your Ps and Qs, hands off our PMQs!

Blair feared it and as he neared it had sleepless nights and awful frights, not even his best spin doctor could set him right.
As the clock struck twelve, the world stood still, the public awaited its weekly thrill and it really shook his will.
He stood alone at the despatch box prepared for all the knocks, he looked around for someone to blame and found the Leader of the Opposition who intended to put him through an awful inquisition.

The famous green benches were packed, illustrious and honourable members like sardines were stacked, they all wanted to see who would be the first to crack.

Lies were two a penny, jibes and jeers were many, Blair was on the ropes, he looked like a dope, now there really was no hope.
The opposition benches were in uproar, Blair was getting what for, and the public shouted "more, more", this beat any Old Vic encore.
The Speaker tried to save him. "Order, order" he cried, "can't you see the Prime Minister is getting fried? He's got nowhere left to hide!"

And then alas, the thirty minutes were up. Blair breathed a sigh of relief, he'd get no more grief, but the public thought his grilling was far too brief.

He'd babbled, he was bedraggled, they had him snaggled. His throat was hoarse, his voice was gruff, he couldn't get out of the place fast enough.

And now they want to change our PMQs. They want to make it softer, more professional and less mean, but that's the only thing that keeps them keen.

Luvvies, lefties and Labourites want to set the world to rights. Banish the mean, sanitise it and make it clean. But that will ruin the spectacle and people will no longer watch the screen. Instead of fearing it and and being drowned out in the din, they'll look forward to it as another excuse for spin.

So if there are any real conservatives left in the House, stand up, speak up now before it is too late. Don't let them kill our PMQs, it's far too important to lose.

[JugglingFromHereToThere]

Just saw you on the Daily Politics Justine - great stuff!

Don't want to get rid of it, but it could be so much better, and less off-putting to many, was the gist I picked up?

[OTheHugeManatee]

Ah, sod it. One final post

We campaign/ get involved with lots of issues - libel reform, family friendly work, everyday sexism, better sex education for children, better childcare solutions - which aren't directly the result of a specific demand on a specific thread but are clearly part of our users' everyday concerns and where there appears to be a pretty clear majority/ consensus.

You say reform of PMQs comes into this category. I agree that it's not the result of a specific demand on a specific thread - absolutely - but 'clearly part of our users' everyday concerns'? Really?

No, I'm very happy to discuss this with you - as evidenced by this thread. But the implication that this whole campaign is about my personal agenda/vanity/wish to gain a board position is rude and not worth answering IMHO. It's also wrong.

See, where you say discuss, I still see evasiveness. I will take your word for it that this whole campaign is not about your personal agenda or desire for a board position somewhere. But my core concern was that someone has asked you to do this and that you're being disingenuous about the origins of the campaign. Has someone (say, the Hansard Society, or Ed Balls, or whoever) asked you to do this campaign? That question you haven't addressed. Why?

See, if you were to just say 'OK, look, the Hansard Society wanted to campaign on these issues and here's why we agree with them that it'd be a good thing so we said we'd run a campaign and here's the survey that says loads of MNers agree too' I'd shrug my shoulders and say 'meh, OK, I disagree but whevs, free country.' It's the nagging worry that the campaign originates from someone or somewhere else and that you're not being honest about the role of regular MNers in what is being presented as a MN campaign about issues that MNers feel is of concern.

But I should let this go and do some jeffing work. I don't want to end up looking like I'm on some kind of crusade myself At the end of the day it's your website, innit

[claig]

It's only 30 minutes. They may seem like 30 trivial minutes but they are the most important 30 minutes the public ever get to see.

"in his final speech there Blair admitted he had "always feared" it"

Don't change it, it matters.

[claig]

"He [Tony Blair] described PMQs as "the most nerve-racking, discombobulating, nail-biting, bowel-moving, terror-inspiring, courage-draining experience" of his career."

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[SarahThane]

Help.

[SarahThane]

On the one hand: 'You're a big fat smelly poo poo'.

On the other hand: 'Stick to the line; make sure you look good.'

= I'm not sure how to vote on this.