John Bercow is right that PMQs needs radical change: it's a rare chance to subject our leaders to scrutiny, and that's worth defending
The way Prime Minister's Questions is currently conducted is an undignified spectacle. It shows our democratically elected representatives at their worst. The wall of noise, the scripted insults, the "winning" and "losing"– all make parliament look like a poor version of the Big Brother House. But it's also a chance for the representatives of the people to publicly and regularly question the leader of our country. That's important and deserves defending.
I would radically change PMQs, and I applaud the speaker, John Bercow, for calling for this. But there are others who would seek to give up on it altogether. I cannot agree with them. Making government more remote from parliamentary scrutiny is not the answer.
PMQs needs to change. Rules like – for example – "no applause" have led to baying and braying to produce the same effect. In the chamber a sense of how well you are going down with your own troops might feel important. In reality what matters is the questions and the answers given.
So first things first: PMQs is not Mock the Week. While a certain amount of quick-wittedness might be appropriate, a weekly test of macho strength is not. I don't care who is funnier, Ed or Dave. I care about the substance of their policies. I care about them being held to account on those policies.
More than anything, I want the parties to simply grow up a bit. Together they could reach a consensus on a new framework for PMQs. Ultimately it must be run for the good of those seeking answers not for the glory of those seeking five minutes on the Six O'Clock News.
One of the greatest criticisms of the last Labour government was the drift of power away from parliament and to the executive. There have been moves in this parliament to try and change this, with the strengthening of select committees and the creation of the backbench business committee.
Of course PMQs has to change. But then I would change so much of what keeps our parliament arcane and separate from the experience of ordinary people.
What is certain is that any move to reduce the level of scrutiny is a move in the wrong direction. And any attempt to do away with PMQs would certainly fall into that category. Reported by guardian.co.uk 8 hours ago.
The way Prime Minister's Questions is currently conducted is an undignified spectacle. It shows our democratically elected representatives at their worst. The wall of noise, the scripted insults, the "winning" and "losing"– all make parliament look like a poor version of the Big Brother House. But it's also a chance for the representatives of the people to publicly and regularly question the leader of our country. That's important and deserves defending.
I would radically change PMQs, and I applaud the speaker, John Bercow, for calling for this. But there are others who would seek to give up on it altogether. I cannot agree with them. Making government more remote from parliamentary scrutiny is not the answer.
PMQs needs to change. Rules like – for example – "no applause" have led to baying and braying to produce the same effect. In the chamber a sense of how well you are going down with your own troops might feel important. In reality what matters is the questions and the answers given.
So first things first: PMQs is not Mock the Week. While a certain amount of quick-wittedness might be appropriate, a weekly test of macho strength is not. I don't care who is funnier, Ed or Dave. I care about the substance of their policies. I care about them being held to account on those policies.
More than anything, I want the parties to simply grow up a bit. Together they could reach a consensus on a new framework for PMQs. Ultimately it must be run for the good of those seeking answers not for the glory of those seeking five minutes on the Six O'Clock News.
One of the greatest criticisms of the last Labour government was the drift of power away from parliament and to the executive. There have been moves in this parliament to try and change this, with the strengthening of select committees and the creation of the backbench business committee.
Of course PMQs has to change. But then I would change so much of what keeps our parliament arcane and separate from the experience of ordinary people.
What is certain is that any move to reduce the level of scrutiny is a move in the wrong direction. And any attempt to do away with PMQs would certainly fall into that category. Reported by guardian.co.uk 8 hours ago.