Watch with Mumsnet: live-streaming of PMQs with Anushka Asthana, WEDNESDAY at 12 midday

[RowanMumsnet]

You might recall that last month we conducted a survey on the UK's political culture, following on from our work with Mori on women and politics last year.

The results from the survey showed that 76% of respondents called Prime Minister's Questions "unprofessional and outdated" and 80% thought it "ineffective". As one Mumsnetter put it: "Might as well get some preschoolers to call each other poo-heads and be done with it."

Following on from this and our webchat last week, we launched a petition asking the PM to look at ways PMQs could be strengthened. So far, over 55k people have signed.

On Wednesday we'll be streaming PMQs live at 12pm. Come along and watch with us: we'll be joined by Sky News' political correspondent Anushka Asthana for a live webchat before and after to discuss the session.

Anushka wrote the Mumsnet/ Mori report on women voters last year. Before working for Sky News she was a columnist and chief political correspondent for The Times, and before that was at the Observer, where she worked for eight years. Her final role as the newspaper's policy editor saw her working from Westminster writing about politics and people. While there she covered the 2010 General Election and the formation of the Coalition.

Anushka wants to find out a bit more about what you think. What do you like about PMQs? What, if anything, do you feel needs changing? If you don't like, it why not? What could be improved?

Please join us at midday on Wednesday - and as ever, if you can't be there then please use this thread to post up any questions or comments in advance.

Thanks
MNHQ

[poocatcherchampion]

hi anushka - I know you! this thread is fascinating - thanks!

[longfingernails]

I don't actually think answering the questions is very important in PMQs - nor is it for the Speaker to judge whether the question has been appropriately answered or not.

If an MP wants detailed discussions about the minutae of policy then they can always go and ask a specific minister in a specific debate. There they can debate and argue at length about small details.

PMQs is more about tone, character, political convictions, flair, wit and bringing your concerns and ideas to the fore in the most visible parliamentary forum there is.

And there is simply no point in the PM answering the political equivalent of 'when did you stop beating your wife' type loaded questions. There are only two ways out - to expose the question for what it is, or to defend your record in vaguely the same area. If possible, they will also destroy the opponent's credibility on the matter. That was as true for Gordon Brown as for David Cameron.

The Speaker is there to keep order; not to judge the quality of answers. That is for the public to judge.

[JugglingFromHereToThere]

"But most of all getting some answers to the questions" Yes, that would be good Anushka
Nice summary of things BTW, thanks for joining us here today

[RonSwansonsLushMoustache]

At our Borough Council meetings the questioner is allowed one question and then one comeback question. This ensures that the mayor must provide an answer and not simply avoid it. There is no debate if they can simply not answer a question they don't like.

This would probably help keep proceedings moving, rather than relying on the currently ineffective Speaker to call the PM on it.

A question asked on behalf of a constituent deserves an answer, and the PM and his party should believe this too and act accordingly.

[dawnz]

Hellooo claig? The spectacle isn't impressing the teensy sample of the public here on Mumsnet today, nor does it seem to be inspiring the slightest bit of confidence from most of us. Quite the reverse. I think one of the reasons I seldom watch PMQs is because I don't want to lose the remnants of respect I cling to, re our MPs! Time for change, if they don't want to turn everyone into revolutionary non-voting Russell Brand-ites ...a direction in which I feel myself longing to apathetically semi-excitedly head! Fed up with the lot of them.

[AnushkaAsthana]

The toddler is awake! I'm going to sign off now but that was really interesting. Thank you for taking part.
I took a general sense that people are annoyed by the childishness of PMQs, seeing the yah-boo atmosphere as off-putting and embarrassing. But the real frustration seems to be a lack of a meaningful debate.
Interesting to hear suggestions of change of format, perhaps a longer debate, allowing MPs to come back with 2nd questions, and with more of a voice for actual voters.
Maybe even moving it to the evening so more people can watch...But most of all getting some answers to the questions!

[claig]

Thanks, Anushka. Very interesting points and persepective.

[claig]

Maybe that is why we have so many of them from Eton in charge. Maybe they teach them that at Eton and make sure no one learns it at state schools.

Boris is confident, nonchalant and funny. He doesn't answer questions - that's for the wonks. And the public love it. Even Farage went to a private school and is above mere questions and answers. Maybe they instill that confidence in them there and that is why they seem to get to the top.

[JustineMumsnet]

Anushka's shooting off now - thanks everyone for participating and especially to Anushka for her fascinating insights.

[AliceDoesntLiveHereAnymore]

There is an "art" to it??! Please.. you can see this behaviour in any primary or secondary school playground in the country (well, until the teacher steps in and stops the bullying!).

[claig]

"BUT Amber Rudd - a v impressive Tory MP - says that it is a central part of our democracy. That if you are going to be an MP then being able to make a persuasive argument is central to that - and if you can't do it then consider a job in the civil service instead. She thinks that the Chamber is the heart of that part of the job."

Absolutely. never heard of her, but she'll get my vote.

Detail and answering questions and facts and figures are for the geeks, not the public. They are for the wonks, not the leaders. Anyone interested can read them up in a newspaper or Hansard or something. That misses the point.

[claig]

"She thinks that is pointless, because of a point that a lot of you have raised - that the questions aren't answered."

Then she will never be Party Leader. She should go in order to learn what it is really all about. It is a spectacle that has to be mastered. There is an art to it and the ultimate objective is to defeat the other side and make them look foolish. That keeps the troops on side, instills faith in the leadership and impresses the public. There is no political event as important as PMQs and that is why the leaders prepare for it and fear it.

The heckling and jeering are done to put the other side off, because all of the Chamber are participants in the spectacle and aid their leader in the grand duel to win the public's confidence.

[AnushkaAsthana]

Just one more thing about what is happening right now in Parliament. The journalists watch from above in the gallery.
To one side, sit the Prime Minister's advisers, and Nick Clegg's. On the other, the Labour team. As soon as PMQs finishes we all pile out of the back and have two sets of briefings - first from the Downing st aides (the Prime Minister's official spokesman who is a civil servant and his press secretary who is a political adviser) and then from the Labour team.
Often that is where the stories start to emerge as they put the flesh on the bones of the questions asked and policies raised.

[dawnz]

Re Anushka's post 12:54:40
I am totally fine with the debate being robust, meaningful AND passionate. That doesn't mean rude, interruptious (new word), childish (apologies to children everywhere), or the inclusion of jibes about one's person or gender or disability or sexuality. Of COURSE intelligent grown-ups can have heated debates without shouting!

Yes, I do watch the odd debate in Parliament (HOC & Lords) on topics of interest, or just to check & see what 'my' parliamentarians are up to. Have also watched some committee discussion on matters of interest. So what if people 'turned off' because the lions' den of PMQs wasn't happening any more? - they can get their tabloidic nonsense elsewhere thank you, NOT from the people who are supposed to be running the country.

Centuries of tradition down the drain - boo hoo! Let's progress into the 2000s people - we've been there for 14yrs already, but I imagine parliament feels a bit like it's in the Dark Ages, especially for some of the female MPs.

[claig]

'we just want to win the debate. Who cares about the actual issue?'

We all know they spin. We can't expect a straight answer. Remember Paxman asking Howard on Newsnight again and again. The skill comes in exposing the spin, cutting through the crap and that is what the public are looking for. What is behind the mask, behind the spin? Whoever can upstage their opponent gets to win.

[AnushkaAsthana]

One Labour MP - Sarah Champion - told me she doesn't bother going unless she gets a question. And she said it is nothing to do with women not being willing to step up. She thinks that is pointless, because of a point that a lot of you have raised - that the questions aren't answered. She said the thing that again has been raised here - that she thinks MPs should have a come back question.

BUT Amber Rudd - a v impressive Tory MP - says that it is a central part of our democracy. That if you are going to be an MP then being able to make a persuasive argument is central to that - and if you can't do it then consider a job in the civil service instead. She thinks that the Chamber is the heart of that part of the job.

[AliceDoesntLiveHereAnymore]

the inane cheering after everything said. I'd believe the "passion" and fervor over an issue if it was just over particular things they firmly believed in. But when it's after everything their "esteemed leader" chirps out, then it's just play-acting, ridiculous behaviour. The way they talk down to women. Just all the juvenile antics.

I suppose it's too much to expect them to act like adults??

[JugglingFromHereToThere]

That's very shocking about anyone mimicking someone's disability Anushka - and these people are running the country?

Also think listening to the question I heard from a female MP (the one about funding that led to response about "Red Princes") that the heckling made it difficult for her to ask her question freely in a supportive or reasonable atmosphere

[claig]

"One woman MP tells me - you have 60 words, if you can't ask it in that time then you should expect abuse"

Excellent point and I think that is even what the public want to see. We want the big picture, short, sharp and direct rather than to be swamped with statistics, detail and waffle. We are looking for sharp minds that can prioritise what is important over what is less important.

That is why I feel Ed lost today. Too much detail, too small, too unambitious, too boring, too worthy. Jokes, wit and sharp rhetoric are important to drive home key principles, not detail.

[CrikeyMrsEvans]

That's interesting about Huppert because he's absolutely one of the best MPs out there from any party. He's clever, he knows his stuff, and he doesn't engage in stupid behaviour. I guess that's why the braying crowd don't like him.

Why do people equate yelling with passion? They're not the same thing. i'd rather see thoughtful debate that led to some constructive conclusions. old fashioned I know.

[AnushkaAsthana]

@AliceDoesntLiveHereAnymore

Mob mentality. Pack behaviour.

There's still no reason for it. It makes a laughing stock of the government. I am actually embarrassed watching it (and raging at their behaviour).

How in god's name can they command any respect when they behave less appropriately than a child in reception???

AliceDoesntLiveHereAnymore What is that particularly irks about the behaviour?

[bleedingheart]

I'm happy for it to be passionate and raucous if I felt it mattered to half of them and wasn't a performance.

The backbenchers whooping and hollering when their leader speaks regardless of the topic is embarrassing.
The intimidation of women is shameful.
The crow-barring of statistics into unrelated questions is disgusting.

It feels really shallow.
I can't imagine anyone grabbing the mace in fury these days! They don't seem to care enough.

[AliceDoesntLiveHereAnymore]

But it's like a play, a panto if you will. How can you even believe any of it when it's so OTT? I'd like to see it toned down some. They can be heated and passionate without bullying and making a mockery of the issues that are important to the general public.

It's like they're saying "this is a joke to us, because we're rich and don't care... so we're going to be outlandish and fight just because we can... the outcome doesn't really matter, we just want to win the debate. Who cares about the actual issue??"

[claig]

Yes, I love the panto and the heated debate. That is what a lot of people want to see, because what we are looking for is who gets rattled, who can handle pressure, who is confident, who knows their brief and who can outwit and outsmart their opponent. The one who does that best, is seen as being a more effective leader and gets more votes.

[AnushkaAsthana]

@claig

They always seem to pick on Julian Huppert. Don't know what that is about. I think they discussed it once and said he asks lots of questions or something.

claig - as I say women AND Lib Dems are targets! He gets a hard time because he is viewed as being a bit too worthy, and always asking extended questions. One woman MP tells me - you have 60 words, if you can't ask it in that time then you should expect abuse!