Think PMQs is outdated, unprofessional and needs to change?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only 13% of you thought they weekly sessions were actually effective. 76% of you thought they were unprofessional and outdated, and half of you (50%) believed they actually damaged Parliament's reputation.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

And finally I think it's really cynical to bump potentially really important and beneficial campaigns like the miscarriage care one off the top spot just so MN can flex its lobbying muscles. Not to mention hypocritical, since the way they're choosing to do so is by exploiting tapping into the public's frustration with the political process.

And you have to ask who gains by this campaign? Is it the public or is it the political class?

"Miliband pledges to change PMQs

The Labour leader last night said he would reform PMQs if he gets into power – it's just not clear how"

...

"He described PMQs as a " terrible advert for politics ", where politicians acted like a "bunch of school kids who want to shout at each other".

He admitted that he did not know how he would reform the weekly session, only adding that he would "definitely" do so.

"I don't know how to change it so I'm not going to make false promises about changing it but I would love to change it if I could," he said."

www.totalpolitics.com/print/295537/miliband-pledges-to-change-pmqs.thtml

More about adverts, image, pipularity, focus groups and what comes close to that awful word spin rather than conviction and accountability to the public.

Totally totally totally DIS-agree. What's our country's democratic tradition got to do with you? Self serving, publicity seeking and completely off-road. I'm incensed. Your egos have exploded!

Disagree with this campaign, I mean!

"There’s much debate about the way PMQs plays with the public perception of politics, but Robbie Gibb, the respected editor of BBC’s live political programmes, says that whatever people say about how they want their politics to be conducted, viewers seem to like it as it is . “It’s no surprise,” he explains, “that the audience for The Daily Politics on a Wednesday is more than double the number who watch during the rest of the week .”

www.totalpolitics.com/articles/153702/pmqs-exclusive-interviews-with-pm-miliband-and-clegg.thtml

But that probably won't stop Labour changing it to make it more cosy.

"He [Ed Miliband] admitted that he did not know how he would reform the weekly session, only adding that he would "definitely" do so."

We may see campaigns from the left in particular to butter the public up for the change.

The more I read the more annoyed I am by this campaign.

If the leader of the opposition knew HOW he wanted to reform PMQ then I might have more respect for his opinion.

What do people suggest is done about it anyway? We risk losing something very valuable imo.

I think Milipede probably just wants it changed so he's not shown up as the adenoidal nonentity he is

PMQs is the only chance we get to see politicians live, properly under pressure and exhibiting cracks in the the metres-thick layer of media training that normally coats everything they say.

Politics will always be full of aggression. People are passionate about their causes, of course they'll get agitated. How does cloaking that fact under a passive-aggressive 'rationality' and a shiny happy 'accessible' veneer of totally faked PMQs-by-Twitter change the basic reality that jostling for power and influence is basically about aggression? Campaigning to sweep that under the carpet change that just makes MN look a bit whiny and pearl-clutchy. Who died and made Justine the Parliament Police?

I think it's pretty cynical the way they've ditched some potentially quite meaningful campaigns in favour of exploiting 'the power of Mumsnet' to hype their own profile as lobbyists.

WhoKnowsWhereTheTimeGoes said

'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".

But it is our robustness and lack of deference and combative, tough questioning which can include mockery and laughter and jokes and jeering of even our leaders that is admired by the rest of the world, because it shows that they are all servants of the people however high and mighty or great and good they think they are. It is the same with our free, robust press which also mocks and jokes about them if it thinks they are wrong.

They don't like it but that is part of a vibrant democracy. Thatcher was jeered and mocked at the despatch box and she gave as good as she got and it made her stronger and able to withstand criticism and challenge it.

This is what Cameron said and he was right

"Though I do think it’s interesting that whenever people from abroad come and see PMQs, they almost all think it’s great that our democracy has such a passionate half an hour every week."

www.totalpolitics.com/articles/153702/pmqs-exclusive-interviews-with-pm-miliband-and-clegg.thtml

Our robust exchanges are different to the deference shown in some other countries.

PMQs is not a problem for the public. It is only a problem for the political class who want an easier time.

As Kevin Maguire of the Daily Mirror said

"And in a rare moment of unity across the spectrum, the Daily Mirror’s associate editor, Kevin Maguire, ventures: “I don’t think the public would watch it if it were a Socratic debate.”

Maybe that is what our managerial, all think the same, all are the same, political class want - a Socratic debate rather than one that Blair "feared", where the public tune out and stop watching because the political class holds hands in agreement and cosy debate instead of robust questioning and mockery, and where cosy agreement and committee consensus begin to replace real opposition.

It will only lead to a greater divide between the public and the out-of-touch metropolitan elite.

It's not often I agree with the Guardian, but it is good to see they are starting to get it right

"Three cheers for PMQs

Prime minister's questions isn't easy to love, but millions around the world would give anything to see their leaders put on the spot like this"

...

Except that not everyone loves it. It's "like a scene from a school playground", complained a member of a focus group convened by the Hansard Society"

...

When it comes to PMQs, I don't think we know we're born. Around the world millions would relish seeing their unaccountable, insulated leaders exposed to something harsher than a sycophantic press conference. Only a handful of countries make heads of government face their harshest critics, shorn of spin doctors and autocue, week in, week out. Those that do have tended to model their question times on ours – as with Japan, which adopted the practice in 1999. (Although the first question, "What did you have for breakfast this morning", probably wouldn't have troubled Bercow.) In the US, activists have set up a petition following Obama's questioning by House Republicans. "America could use more of this: an unfettered and public airing of political differences by our elected representatives," they say.

...

PMQs is where we get to know much about the character of those who would have us vote for them.

And people want to watch. PMQs is by far the most viewed activity in parliament, with the BBC's Daily Politics show normally posting its best ratings on a Wednesday, when it broadcasts the session live. 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.

...

The last word – a compelling endorsement – can be left to Tony Blair. He described PMQs as "the most nerve-racking, discombobulating, nail-biting, bowel-moving, terror-inspiring, courage-draining experience" of his career. If this is the means by which our representatives can make the powerful squirm, then long may it continue."

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

Let's not be in thrall to lobbyists, focus groups probably paid for out of public money and political spinners who want to change our traditions, robust questioning and lack of deference into something more convenient for our political class.

That is an excellent article.

"Prime minister's questions isn't easy to love, but millions around the world would give anything to see their leaders put on the spot like this"

Absolutely. How we can be discussing getting rid of it is beyond me.

I think it's rather telling how deafening the silence is from MN in response to the voices being raised against this rather self-serving 'petition' of theirs.

Hi there,
84% of Mumsnetters who responded to our survey on Westminster culture backed the Hansard Society’s proposal to vary the format of PMQs, including introducing rapid-fire Q&As and more open questions.

That's why we've started the petition. Of course you don't have to agree with it, or sign it but the evidence was pretty clear that lots of folk do.

But Justine, that doesn't really answer the question if why this is being promoted so differently compared to other MN campaigns?

I'm fine with people not agreeing with me (though the 84% does come from a self-selecting sample; I don't even recall seeing the survey), but I'm really struggling to see why MNHQ thinks this campaign is more important than others it has run - and if not important, why promoted so differently?

I've come back to say I've decided not to sign. I didn't complete the original survey. I'm sticking with my view that the format is fine, the behaviour is embarrassing, but it is indeed a great way to make the PM accountable, and yes we are very fortunate to live in a democracy where this is possible.

84 % of people who responded to a heavily biased survey with questionable motives and leading questions agreed with you.

This is an embarrassment. It makes MNetters look thick.

This is obviously only being done to further the personal and political interests of the owners.

"84% of Mumsnetters who responded to our survey on Westminster culture backed the Hansard Society’s proposal to vary the format of PMQs"

"Over 1,200 Mumsnetters responded; the key results are below"

What percentage of MNers is 1200?

The survey had incredibly leading questions and the respondents were self-selecting. It was very plain what you wanted the answer to be. That is not a meaningful sample of Mumsnetters and you know it.

This petition is totally self-serving and makes MN look ridiculous. Justine, if you must start all this political sabre rattling, please at least either stop hiding behind MN opinion and be honest about the fact that this is your personal crusade, or else stick to campaigning on things that more than a few rather over-delicate MNers actually cares about.

I would be very interested to hear these people who are opposed to change, say that they are in favour of the current baying mob of hooligans system.

'baying mob of hooligans'

Why focus solely on the Labour front bench?

Ed Balls is entitled to do what he likes!

If the Magna Carta is about anything, then surely it enshrines the right of a Labour Minister to act freely, make a fool of himself and speak his mind (however little there is of it). If a Labour Minister wants to make hand gestures that some impartial commentators have suggested are bordering on the obscene (i.e. the flat-lining hand gestures) in their effect of deceiving the public, then surely that is for the Speaker of the House to adjudicate and for the public to draw their own conclusions about.

Let us not regulate away the freedom of Right Honourable members to drop clangers, act likes fools again or even like hooligans.

Haven't RTFT but surely no one is really surprised that PMQs is as it is!??
It's just a continuation of the same elitist name calling and buffoonery that goes on in the oxbridge union debates isn't it?
Goady twats smirking at their own cleverness and innuendo.
It has no place in 21st C politics.

claig is mischievously pretending that the bad behaviour of MPs is confined solely to one or another party.

However it is of course endemic among all the chubby schoolboys.

Think the layout of chamber makes things worse.

FMQs in Scottish Parliament is a hell of a lot better as the chamber doesn't have opposing sides roaring across the floor at each other.

Doesn't have too many braying private school arseholes either though which also helps.

The presiding officer doesn't tolerate unparliamentary language so it's a bit more respectful in general, though not to say it doesn't get a bit rowdy at times.