Think PMQs is outdated, unprofessional and needs to change?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only 13% of you thought they weekly sessions were actually effective. 76% of you thought they were unprofessional and outdated, and half of you (50%) believed they actually damaged Parliament's reputation.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

I dont want or need PMQ toned down,its a whimsy down with that sort of thing petition
On reflection,no i'll not sigh.i like PMQ like the principle of spontaneous,passionate
I think it doesn't need a refresh and i dont want to make some noise

I'm also in the minority. I enjoy PMQs. It's theatre but I think under the pressure you can actually learn a lot about the PM's character. Cameron's angry put downs and personal snipes say a lot about him.

I signed, can't see anything remotely 'playfully quaint' about it, all I see is overbearing, bullying, sneering schoolboys who shout each other down and no one listens to a word anyone else is saying.

I have signed. PMQs should be about important political issues instead of playground jeering and point scoring. We teach our children not to talk over other people, listen to what is being said and respecting other people's opinions, however PMQs shows adults being rude, not listening and jeering at other people's opinions. Politicians should be setting a good example instead of embarrassing themselves and the UK by acting in such an immature manner.

Everyone wants politicians to be put under pressure! PMQs reform isn't about saying 'let's give them all a nice easy time'. it's about altering the format so that people can't anticipate every question and give stupid prewritten answers that will have the backbenchers fake-laughing and screeching.

I know a few people who work in Westminster, good people who want to change things, and they have absolute contempt for PMQs. Not because it's difficult and puts the executive under pressure, but because it's so worthless and ineffective.

I find PMQs excruciating but I don't think the answer is to 'shake them up'. I just want to see the oldschool political types replaced with a new generation of ordinary, down to earth, emotionally intelligent men and women who are as tired, repulsed and ashamed by the present political landscape as the rest of us and want to be the change that we need.

It might take much longer but it would be sustainable change. Fannying about adding questions by social media and penalising MPs for bad behaviour will just result in gimmickry and gameplaying, it won't make MPs take PMQs or the public's perception of the political classes more seriously.

What is needed is a drive in schools and universities, and maybe even extra legislation, to encourage and facilitate more ordinary people to engage with and enter politics so they can squeeze out the old guard.

I have thought about this petition, and I won't be signing as it's the behaviour not the format that needs to change. I don't believe there is any real desire for this behavioural change based on available evidence.

David Cameron, 2005:
"And we need to change, and we will change, the way we behave. I'm fed up with the Punch and Judy politics of Westminster, the name calling, backbiting, point scoring, finger pointing." Source

David Cameron, April 2, 2014
"Punch and Judy politics returned to prime minister's questions on Wednesday. David Cameron called Ed Miliband and Ed Balls "Muppets"." Source

David Cameron, April 3 2014, defending "muppet" name-calling:

"I think the language in the House of commons where there's a lot of banter, I don't think that's inappropriate." Source

David Cameron, April 9 2014:

"I’m trying to introduce something new with my children which is a little quiz at breakfast time...I said, “What do we know about Prime Minister’s Questions?” And my 8-year-old son said, “Oh that’s when you shout at each other and call each other idiots and muppets.” And it turned out there had been a feature on Newsround, but he closed this conversation by saying, “I watched the feature on Newsround; I was very proud, daddy,” which I’m not sure was the right answer."

Source

In the full context of the speech above, it is clear Mr Cameron thinks the anecdote is funny rather than showing any need for change.

It's nearly 10 years since he said he wanted to get rid of "Punch & Judy" politics - and this is one of the reasons why people have little faith in politicians, because they say whatever they think we want to hear but it is backed up by very little substance.

I think it shows them for what they are those are the people we are dealing with and relying on to make choices for us all. I think any attempt at reform will just give them an opportunity to put on a show in a new style but still be the same old people underneath. Its them and the system that puts them there that needs to change. The format is fine if the people are decent

Agree the format isn't the problem - it's the system and the people. And currently the PMQs display all that is wrong very nicely. I don't want this hidden. Do we really need MORE veneer and polish??

Have signed as feel it would be good if the whole demeanour of PMQ's was looked at - which I think is the main thrust of the petition. Whether it should actually include questions from the public via social media or rapid fire questions is still up for discussion and debate I feel. But I feel these were just initial suggestions of possible changes?

I take the point about not wanting to put a veneer on the people who behave this way and push it all behind the scenes. But every time I hear it I think to myself "how on earth can we be taken seriously as a world power if our leaders behave like this in a public arena".

If MPs have no shame for how they present themselves to the citizens of their country and the world, then they will continue to shout and taunt like drunken hooligans, and to bellow and catcall like silly schoolboys.

If that's what they do, and that's what they are, then they will not change and the will continue to receive the contempt and disgust they have worked so hard to earn.

It's just depressing that we have allowed people to hold power whose behaviour is so much less adult, so much less focused on solving difficult problems than any primary school council.

missymay - yes my dd is on our city youth council and they take a very mature and constructive approach to considering and debating a wide range of issues.
Agree it's depressing to see them apparently wasting so much time as well, when there's work to be done and decisions to be made that affect people's lives

For me its the persistent question evasion, the at-least-we-aren't-as-bad-as-you-were defence and the nodding, smirking opposition front bench.

I do enjoy watching John Bercow continually demonstrate his strong dislike for his party though, and thereby unwittingly betray himself as perhaps, the most odious of all of them.

The petition ignores the huge role of the media in this. If the media didn't insist on picking 'winners and losers' every week, and punishing those leaders who don't stick to a purely adversarial format, one of the drivers would be removed.

And the pop up is extremely irritating, especially on mobiles. I really don't need to be prompted to sign every time I navigate back to active threads. I can't fathom why you're promoting this petition in such an overkill way when you haven't done the same for other, more important campaigns.

Well Done Justine,

I have often thought this. I have signed the petition and shared it with my friends. I think it is about time something is done about the way they behave.

'I can't fathom why you're promoting this petition in such an overkill way when you haven't done the same for other, more important campaigns.'

Absolutely. Why not campaign on something important like proportional representation?

This almost looks like trying to give some politicians an easier time so that they don't have to face tough questioning. I wouldn't be surprised if Labour support this making questioning more comfortable rather than tough.

"It was Tony Blair in 1997 who unilaterally telescoped the two sessions into one 30-minute slot at noon on Wednesdays. Blair knew the scary session was "irrational but important". Having watched it drain John Major and his diary ("two PMQs equal two days, that's a lot of time") he acted – proof to many MPs of his disdain for the Commons, though in his final speech there Blair admitted he had "always feared" it."

...

"As with John Major, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown before him, Cameron has deplored its rowdy, Punch-and-Judy qualities. They all look back nostalgically to a golden age of scholarly exchanges between gents and promise to do better"

www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/jun/18/prime-ministers-questions-ed-miliband-david-cameron

Let's not throw out all our traditions in order to make it easier and more comfortable for politicians.

"Blair admitted he had "always feared" it."

Maybe that is why we are told that it is just knockabout and Punch and Judy. Maybe they don't like it while the public actually watch and tune in for it more than for any of the other debates or committee meetings.

PMQs is the only chance to see the weaknesses and flaws that can be covered up by "scholarly exchanges". It allows an opposition to highlight and expose lack of preparation and a weak grasp of detail. That is why the public tune in and politicians like Blair "feared it". It is theatre that is exciting and dramatic and that is why the public watch it and the unprepared actors who have not rehearsed their lines fear it.

"PMQs Verdict: Ed Miliband destroyed Cameron utterly and completely

I’ve written in the past about my concerns with Ed Miliband’s style at PMQs. I’ve agonised about his unwillingness to drive a point home, his choice of subject matter and his seeming unwillingness to deliver a knockout blow.

But I couldn’t find fault with his performance at PMQs today. It was utterly devastating. The subject – energy prices – showed Cameron’s weakness and lack of preparation. As Miliband jackhammered again and again against the same festering sore, it became increasing clear that Cameron had no answer to the question of soaring energy prices."

labourlist.org/2013/10/pmqs-verdict-ed-miliband-destroyed-cameron-utterly-and-completely/

I wholeheartedly disagree with this petition. From discussion on another thread I think that people who dislike it have often never listened to the whole thing.

I am glad that annoying pop up about it has stopped bothering me though, I felt harassed!

I like the robust nature of PMQ and think that you need to be very clear about EXACTLY what should replace it or we risk losing a valuable tradition that means ordinary MPs can hold the front bench to account in a very public way.

PMQs is tough, but then running the country is tough and the public are entitled to a forum where leaders are put through tough questioning however much they dislike it.

"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"

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

Another reason why PMQs is very important is because it is the centre point of the entire political week. It gets national and international news coverage and is televised on the BBC. It is one of the few times when they all turn up and the green benches aren't empty as they are in so many of the other debates.

It is a time when like it or not the opposotion is forced to ask questions about topical events such as what was being done to help people whose homes were flooded or what is happening in Iraq or Ukraine or elsewhere that has great significance. Those events can't be swept under the carpet because all the political journalists analyse what was asked and how the leaders performed.

PMQs gets a lot of publicity because it is important. If we got rid of it, then many issues that concern the public would be buried under cosy scholarly exchanges in half-empty chambers that hardly any of the public actually sit through and watch.

PMQs is short, sharp and tough and it happens every single week. Getting rid of it will make it easier for politicians and worse for the public who want them to be accountable.

I think PMQs is fine as it is and am really irritated by this petition (not to mention that stupid pop-up). I think the petition is both incredibly petty and really over-reaching. Miscarriage care; fine. Respect and understanding for children with additional needs; excellent. Prime Minister's Questions. Seriously? Get a fucking grip.

As PP have said, the survey it's based on was packed with incredibly leading questions. MH and Hansard can fuck off with their social media-ization of PMQs. I don't want people pratting around making it more 'engaging' or 'accessible'. Everyone knows that just means 'dumbed down in a different way'.

To be frank I think what we have here is a case of Justine exploiting the huge base of MN opinion to do her own political posturing. Is she just testing her lobbying power in advance of some more concerted interference political activism around the election? Or angling for an OBE or something? In any case it's wildly unrepresentative of MN opinion, especially as respondents were entirely self-selecting, and as a MNer I'm actually quite fucked off to find MN trumpeting all over the place about what I think of PMQs, when in fact I think nothing of the sort.

This is from the website of the Hansard Society

"PMQs is the best known aspect of Parliament’s work, famous throughout the world for its combative, adversarial atmosphere. It is the bit of Parliament’s work that the public are most aware of and have likely seen on the television news. But while politicians and journalists have strong views about the value of PMQs, there is a scarcity of substantive evidence as to the public’s opinions.

Our focus group evidence indicates that heightened awareness of PMQs should not be mistaken for approval – the most common words associated with it are ‘noisy’, ‘childish’, ‘over the top’ and ‘pointless’."

www.hansardsociety.org.uk/noise-and-bluster-and-showing-off-what-the-public-think-of-pmqs/

It's focus group findings. How representative is it really?

The biggest focus group is an election and we have seen from the rise of UKIP that the real focus group of the public believes that the political class and metropolitan elite is totally out of touch with the public and changing PMQs is not going to fix it. In fact, it may make it easier for the political class

"Blair wrote of PMQs as being “the most nerve racking experience of my prime ministerial life” causing him “fitful nights”."

"33% agree ‘it puts me off politics’ – 27% disagree"

So it is about even. But the percentage of the public who think they are all out of touch is far higher than 33%. Why not campaign to change that by giving the public "direct democracy", proportional representation and referenda?

"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"

Who is going to approve the public's questions? PMQs is not about the public asking questions, because the voters don't elect the public. The voters use PMQs as a way of gauging whether the Opposition really are an opposition and whether the Opposition's Leader can hold the Prime Minister to account and whether the Opposition's Leader is fit to become Prime Minister. PMQs allows the public to see the Opposition in action and compare it to the government.

If the political class want to answer the public's questions via social media etc then going on LBC Radio like Nick Clegg is more appropriate than wasting valuable PMQ time when the Opposition Leader and party is supposed to be holding the Prime Minister to account.

I didn't word it quite as the two posts above have done, but I agree. Also agree about the pop-up. I have not seen this used for any other MN campaign, which now gives me the impression that the PMQs campaign is more important than the miscarriage one, the This is My Child one, or others. It isn't. And it should not be.