Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Politics

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Think PMQs is outdated, unprofessional and needs to change?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

153 replies

JustineMumsnet · 25/06/2014 13:43

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only 13% of you thought they weekly sessions were actually effective. 76% of you thought they were unprofessional and outdated, and half of you (50%) believed they actually damaged Parliament's reputation.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

OP posts:
Givealittlerespect · 29/06/2014 12:19

Tony Blair was scared of PMQs and made it nice a week as he couldn't cope with it.

Not that he had anything to hide.

Now where are those WMDs again, I know they must be somewhere around ....

Givealittlerespect · 29/06/2014 12:20

Once a week, he would have liked it to be nice a week though

OTheHugeManatee · 29/06/2014 13:29

Miscarriage care...good, fine , carry on.

Ill thought through political lobbying riding off the popularity of the well known website previously known to be taken note of by the press and political leaders...not on

Don't use us in a way we don't know we are being used because I certainly don't back PMQS reform and although members may have answered in a certain way to the questionnaire,(? Did they know their responses would be used in this way ) that does not give the green light to lobby for this change in our name.

Hear hear.

So, Justine, when are you going to answer the question about why you think it's acceptable to start manufacturing fake MN mandates to support your personal crusades and build your own clout as a lobbyist?

Seriously, this exercise treats MNers like idiot sheep to be exploited. It's insulting and frankly unacceptable.

JustineMumsnet · 29/06/2014 13:52

@OTheHugeManatee

Miscarriage care...good, fine , carry on.

Ill thought through political lobbying riding off the popularity of the well known website previously known to be taken note of by the press and political leaders...not on

Don't use us in a way we don't know we are being used because I certainly don't back PMQS reform and although members may have answered in a certain way to the questionnaire,(? Did they know their responses would be used in this way ) that does not give the green light to lobby for this change in our name.

Hear hear.

So, Justine, when are you going to answer the question about why you think it's acceptable to start manufacturing fake MN mandates to support your personal crusades and build your own clout as a lobbyist?

Seriously, this exercise treats MNers like idiot sheep to be exploited. It's insulting and frankly unacceptable.

I don't think there's anything fake about the mandate to ask for reform OTheHugeManatee - we surveyed users the majority answered in a pretty unequivocal way. We're reflecting that call by putting out a petition (which incidentally has to be done by an individual) that you can choose to sign or not...

I do happen to agree with the majority that answered our questionnaire that PMQs could be improved in it's effectiveness in holding the PM to scrutiny, and that the boorish behaviour of many elected members of parliament during the session is very off-putting and alienating. But it's certainly not a personal crusade or anything I've got involved in before.

You don't happen to agree with that, which of course is your prerogative - should you have the right to dictate what next though, simply because you don't agree?

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...

OP posts:
Givealittlerespect · 29/06/2014 13:56

How many Mumsnetters responded to the questionnaire?

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

JustineMumsnet · 29/06/2014 13:59

And, incidentally, the reason we decided to do a survey about Westminster culture was because of the results of the big report we did last autumn with Mori into women and politics, which included qualitative research on Mumsnet and quant research involving a representative sample of UK women, which revealed much the same results - women put off by a Westminster culture - epitomised by PMQs - that they viewed as alien, childish and ineffective.

OP posts:
JustineMumsnet · 29/06/2014 14:02

Over 1200 Mumsnetters filled in this survey. Mori's polling would have been of many more than that, and as I say was of a weighted, representative sample of women voters. .

OP posts:
OTheHugeManatee · 29/06/2014 14:04

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?

AnneEyhtMeyer · 29/06/2014 14:16

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.

claig · 29/06/2014 14:20

'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.

Givealittlerespect · 29/06/2014 14:25

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

Givealittlerespect · 29/06/2014 14:28

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

Givealittlerespect · 29/06/2014 14:30

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.

Givealittlerespect · 29/06/2014 15:43

.

JustineMumsnet · 29/06/2014 17:15

@OTheHugeManatee

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?

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

This originated from a body of work done over the last year. I'm just going to ignore your question about the Hansard Society, frankly, because it's bloody rude.

OP posts:
JustineMumsnet · 29/06/2014 17:18

@AnneEyhtMeyer

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.

I didn't say our survey was representative of UK women - I said the work with did with Mori on this issue in the Autumn - in which they conducted a quantitate of a representative weighted sample of UK women voters was representative of UK women. The results were pretty similar - showed a deep disaffection with Westminster and UK politics particularly amongst women.

OP posts:
JustineMumsnet · 29/06/2014 17:26

@Givealittlerespect

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

1000+ responses is generally viewed by market research professionals as a reasonable sample size - of course not 100% accurate - on a weighted survey it would be expected to have a margin of error of 3% and of course ours was not a completely random sample of mn users - it's was highlighted mostly on active conversations. The the MORI one was from last Autumn was however.

But you're wrong to say it's "not in any way representative". You can read more about sample sizes here.

OP posts:
AnneEyhtMeyer · 29/06/2014 17:50

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.

Givealittlerespect · 29/06/2014 19:43

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.

OTheHugeManatee · 30/06/2014 08:28

"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? Grin

"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.

JustineMumsnet · 30/06/2014 09:05

@OTheHugeManatee

"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? Grin

I agree with you, that is indeed a leading question but it wasn't how we actually asked the question! link again here

We asked:
Thinking about PMQs, do you agree or not....

there are 7 answer options - 4 of them are positive about PMQs, 3 of them are negative.

OP posts:
JustineMumsnet · 30/06/2014 09:08

@OTheHugeManatee

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.

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.

OP posts:
JustineMumsnet · 30/06/2014 09:25

@OTheHugeManatee

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.

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. Often our involvement will be led by a survey we've done.

Of course there are our other campaigns - We Believe You, This is My Child, Miscarriage Care, Bounty Mutiny - which are more of the organic type of issue you are referring to but by no means all of what we engage with government and other organisations about is limited to that type of campaign.

This political culture, PMQs issue fits into the former category.

I'm sorry you clearly doubt our motives here. There's not a lot, it seems, that I'm going to do to convince you otherwise but am really not trying to avoid your questions.

OP posts:
enyaheadress · 30/06/2014 09:34

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.

enyaheadress · 30/06/2014 10:24

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

Nice to see such an active discussion OtheHugeManatee and Justine!