Think PMQs is outdated, unprofessional and needs to change?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only 13% of you thought they weekly sessions were actually effective. 76% of you thought they were unprofessional and outdated, and half of you (50%) believed they actually damaged Parliament's reputation.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

[JustineMumsnet]

@enyaheadress

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

Nice to see such an active discussion OtheHugeManatee and Justine!

Not at all Enya - it's us who were going a bit off tangent!

[claig]

"The Labour leader said he backed Speaker John Bercow's call to curb the "yobbery and public school twittishness" of PMQs to show that MPs can behave better than children."

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/02/23/pmq-miliband_n_4842707.html

It is all very noble and dare I say smacks slightly of spin, but has Miliband mentioned it to Ed Brawls.

Everytime I tune into PMQs, all I seem to be faced with is Ed Brawls gurning, growling and grimacing, hurling insults that I am fortunate enough not to be able to make out clearly amid the general maelstrom, and making West Coast gang-like signals with his hands as he tries to put off a good man, our Chancellor George Osborne, who is patiently trying to explain how he has delivered us from the mess that Ed Kool and the Gang got us into.

And as soon as that is over, Ed Miliband launches into attacks on a good man, our Prime Minister, David Cameron, and refers to him disrespectfully as the "dunce of Downing Street".

And it is bloody marvellous viewing. It is better than a night at Jongleurs as Ed expounds on the failings of the "comedians in the Cabinet". This necessarily elicits a reluctant response in a similar vein from our Prime Minister who is no longer able to restrain himself after having been so disrespectfully addressed and abused, and so the show goes on for another 30 exhilarating minutes.

At the end, Ed says we really must do something about the awful way in which the Tories behave and the Labour luvvies all say "hear hear" and ignore the Speaker who has shouted himself hoarse trying to rein them in and manitain order.

Marvellous! It's entertainment of the highest order and you don't even have to pay. No wonder tourists queue up to take a seat at the world famous weekly spectacle that is marvelled at across the planet and even up on Mars.

But now, some right-on Labour luvvies want to deprive the public of even this small pleasure and chink of light amidst the grey, blandness of our political class.

They want us to look us to them as "role models", as paragons of virtue and as "professionals". They think that that will re-engage us with politics and get us to turn out and vote for them again and make them less out-of-touch. But they are so out-of-touch that they don't understand that it is "professionals" that we don't want. We don't want "career politicians", trained spinners, on-message mediocrities and PPEa from Oxford who stepped on the elevator to internships, think tanks, publicly funded NGOs, Labour Party speech writers and then onto "professional" parachuted-in parliamentary candidates. We want a return to the old days of Aneurin Bevan et al - amateurs who cared and felt and meant what they said. Did the public vote for UKIP because UKIP are "professionals"? Get real and get in touch. Speak about what the people care about, stop spinning and behaving like professional cardboard cutouts who speak glibly forever and end up saying nothing meaningful at all.

If you look at the Hansard Society webpage and look at the staff and google for "conservative", it draws a blank. But then google "Labour" and you will see worked "at the Labour Party", or worked "for a Labour MP and Minister" etc.

If you want to change PMQs, you have to create pressure to do so otherwise there will be no justification for the change. You need surveys and focus groups. There is not much point "The Hansard Society" starting a petition because most of the public have never heard of the Hansard Society.

What are some of the changes that the Hansard Society suggests?

"The change in behaviour should be backed up by a new sin-bin penalty - naming a Member for disorderly conduct and removing them from the chamber -for use at the Speaker's discretion. The model of questioning should be varied to facilitate more discussion, pursuing genuine scrutiny and debate on a few topical areas rather than sole reliance on rapid-fire Q&As solely designed to trip participants up. The use of 'open' questions - where MPs can ask the Prime Minister about absolutely anything and he's expected to know the answer on the spot - should be reduced. Instead, there should be a return to some closed questions on subject-specific areas. The number of questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition should also be reduced in order to free up more time for questions from backbenchers. The public could be invited once a month to submit questions for consideration at PMQs. New technology means this could be done in simple and cost-effective ways."

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ruth-fox/pmqs-public-attitudes_b_4761030.html

Sin-bins - that sounds "professional". Treat the "professionals" like children, remove them from the chamber. What next? Put them on the naughty step, don't give them a star and revoke their right to attend the end of session House of Commons Disco?

"The use of 'open' questions - where MPs can ask the Prime Minister about absolutely anything and he's expected to know the answer on the spot - should be reduced"

But this will make it easier for the Prime Minister as he may no longer be shown to not be aware of some important issues.

"Instead, there should be a return to some closed questions on subject-specific areas."

i am not sure what "closed questions" are.

"The number of questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition should also be reduced in order to free up more time for questions from backbenchers"

But that is why we watch it - to see the Leader of the Opposition grill the PM and to see how competent both leaders are. Backbenchers whom the public don't recognise hold far less interest than the Leader of the Opposition. The number of questions asked by the Leader of the opposition should be increased, not decreased if the Prime Minister is to be held to account and grilled on important issues of the day.

"The public could be invited once a month to submit questions for consideration at PMQs."

Why only "once a month"? I would rather the Leader of the Opposition asked searching questions than questions "once a month" from members of the public, and who would choose which member of the public deserved to have their question asked or would it be drawn out of a hat?

Looking at the tweets of the Hansard Society and change.org it looks like this petition is already gaining tens of thousands of votes, so it will very likely be put on the political agenda.

I am sure it will win approval because Cameron will probably think it is a good idea. Watch it while you can, because they will probably eventually change it beyond recignition. It is historic, it is fantastic, it is unique. It will be such a shame to see it changed.

But it is good to see that there are still some real conservatives who don't think it is a good idea, like the fantastic Isabel Hardman
.
"I worked on a film for Newsnight this week in which I argued that the tribal, passionate atmosphere of PMQs was a sign of a healthy democracy – but there are some easy things both sides could do that would make the session much, much better. They don’t need to stop cheering and acting as though they’re at a football match: deferential politics is not a good thing. But backbenchers could, as a group, decide that they’re not going to take those ghastly questions from the whips that involve them asking a poorly-worded variation of ‘does my right honourable friend agree with me that he’s doing a fantastic job?’. Some MPs have, to their credit, tried to jazz them up: Alun Cairns has rewritten loyal questions to include references to curry and added his own jokes. But if MPs want more voters to think that parliamentarians spend this weekly session debating the issues that affect real people’s lives, they could at least use their one opportunity to quiz the Prime Minister as an opportunity to really quiz him, rather than just suck up to him.

There’s also no need for MPs to jeer one another when they stumble over questions (although quite often an MP who stumbles is doing so because they are reading a pre-written missive from the whips, rather than asking about something that affects their constituency, for instance).

These are just small changes, and some will argue that the whole nature of the session should change. Miliband was certainly hinting that he thought the structure of the Commons Chamber didn’t help matters in his Radio 4 interview. But the sort of consensual approach encouraged by circular chambers and group systems dilutes the ability of an opposition in checking the power of a governing party and holding it to account over hopeless reforms."

blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/02/ed-miliband-children-behave-better-than-mps-at-pmqs/

Is there a petition to keep it as it is? Let's hope someone cares enough about it to counter the "professional" approach.

[claig]

This is not about PMQs, but about Ed Balls' budget statement reply. It was disastrous as even Labour members agreed. And the intimidating, raucous, rowdy atmosphere of the Commons contributed to the disastrous performance.

I am sure that there are Ministers who want to make the atmosphere more "professional" and less rowdy so that they can not come a cropper, but the public wants to see them tested in a cauldron to see whether their case stands up to scrutiny.

"The knives were out for Ed Balls last night as Labour MPs denounced his performance as one of the worst they have seen in the Commons.

Red-faced and shouting, the Shadow Chancellor faced mockery as he refused to acknowledge rising growth and continued to insist that he was right to oppose austerity all along."

...

Mr Balls was greeted with a roar of derision from across the House when he claimed that it was the Chancellor who was ‘in complete denial’ about the state of the economy.

Mr Osborne hit back, saying: ‘The man who said that borrowing wouldn’t come down, unemployment wouldn’t come down, growth wouldn’t happen and the man who refuses to apologise for what he did to the British economy – he is the very epitome of denial.’

The Chancellor branded Mr Balls’s speech ‘a turkey’ and mercilessly ribbed him over his decision to cancel a grade three piano exam because it clashed with the Autumn Statement.

‘He probably should have gone ahead with his Chopsticks routine,’ Mr Osborne said.

Labour leader Ed Miliband grimaced as Mr Balls yelled himself hoarse, while Labour MPs sat mute and grim-faced behind him.

A senior Labour source admitted the party’s case on the economy ‘was not made well in the chamber today’.

One Labour MP went further, saying: ‘He f it up. I was watching it thinking “we are f”.

‘He’s supposed to be a bright bloke, but there was no analysis of the Autumn Statement in what he said. Ed Miliband should really have sacked him in the last reshuffle. It was a sign of weak leadership that he didn’t.’


www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2518768/Autumn-Statement-disaster-leaves-Ed-Balls-red-faced.html#ixzz367f6zerp

[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.

[SarahThane]

Help.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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?

[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.

[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]

'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.

[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!

[JugglingFromHereToThere]

Thanks Justine

Loving your poetry claig - genius

[SarahThane]

Having read and thought more, I agree with OTheHuge.

[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]

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.

[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]

Steady on.

[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.

[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."

[JustineMumsnet]

@AnneEyhtMeyer

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

[AnneEyhtMeyer]

Big cross post there! Apologies!

[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.