I also like your suggestion: “Outside of Parliament’s normal sitting weeks, why not take PMQs around the different
parts of the UK? Indeed, this would open up all sorts of possibilities for allowing
members of the public to ask questions. It would be good to get the public more
involved directly.” But, what I would ask is why don’t MPs themselves also allow the public to ask questions of them ? We keep hearing that there should be “a public debate” on various topics but I never hear where these debates are to be held. So, Ms Featherstone, when will you next be giving a public speech in Highgate, or some other part of the constituency, where local residents can attend, ask you questions etc ? Or, do you believe that the internet has done away with the need for public speaking ?

Parliament, itself, is the bear pit: yielding illegal warfare, uncontrolled growth, climate change, growing inequality, the threat of Big Brother etc etc.

Elections? What for? More of the same.
Unless the world can evolve something much better than the much vaunted democratic system America and Britain is attempting to impose by force on mankind – in the interests of permanent growth and inequality – our so-called civilisation is at an end.

I suspect “Dave” is a socialist posing as a Conservative.

Although some issues are valid (I too hate the Ovine & Bovine who ask either the planted question or the ‘didn’t he do well?!’ question), I would retain this element of procedure for one good reason.

Normally we never see the PM or Leader of the Opposition in a situation of genuine pressure and stress. Usually they are in places of comfort of their own choosing or with people who do not do pressure. But of late we have had a jolly good look at GB under pressure and he has been clearly seen to be a poor performer when stressed. The day when his hand shook is a case in point.

This is one way for us to judge him and I believe it is a valid one.

And if there were no PMQs we should never have had Vince Cable’s bon mots which so wounded GB to the quick.

I suspect that one thing you want to do is to lay the ground for excuses lest your new boy cannot hack it, which I predict he will not.

Politics, you complete moron, is about being animated, you are in the mother of all parliaments. Why shouldn’t people get worked up? why shouldn’t people heckle?

Politics is about passion and believing in something, it is about debate, putting forward a point, a proposal, testing people’s debating skills so that proper scrutiny of the PM can be carried out. The lower chamber isn’t a whispering gallery so people can tip-toe around and it was never designed to be.

If you don’t like it then you may as well leave. I don’t think you’d be particularly missed to be honest.

Of course you can put the case for the behaviour at PMQs putting people off politics. On balance, though, I don’t think that it does. I strongly suspect it is one of those things where people proclaim one thing but, were we to change, they would rapidly tire of a more sanitised format. They get enough of politicians giving set answers to predictable questions as it is; I don’t see that giving people more of this would really help.

And incidentally, when a really serious question is asked then the House does, in fact, tend to go quiet and both sides play by different rules. Take the last PMQs (how many people remember Cameron’s first two questions about Kosovo?) The very fact that these serious sections do not make the news bulletins rather supports my hypothesis that the reason PMQs get the coverage it does is precisely because of the banter, rather than, as you posit, that it gets the coverage because of its status and the banter gets in the way.

And, at the risk of reiterating what I have said above, I think the reason for the success of PMQs (which, I will freely admit, is a rather bizarre process) comes down to the fact that it forces the politicians to express themselves not in the normal language of parliament but in something closer to the language of the street – more “News of the World” than “The Times”. As a result I don’t think that changing this aspect is going to engage more people – it is more likely to have the opposite effect.

… The vast majority, I’d say. PMQs is an exemplar of the wider malaise; media training leads to weaseling away from answering questions unless you can answer them with a quote from the manifesto or an insult to a political opponent. This contributes to the public perception that all politicians are lying weaselly bastards who are incapable of answering a question straightly. The fact that PMQs involves ramping up the volume and shouting the insults and weaselly obfuscation rather than saying it quietly to Paxman just makes it worse.

‘They are forced to make their case concisely, and in demotic terms, and will get turned on very quickly and loudly if they fail.’

I admit that it is true that if the question is answered unsatisfactorily or unreasonably (as in my example of Brown and the election above), then it is basically inevitable that the resulting jeers will signify, albeit in an undignified manner, that the answer given by the PM was unsatisfactory. Thus, the questioner effectively (but implictly) scores a point and the PM loses.

Though I recognise some force in the points you raise above, perhaps it may, at the same time, be submitted that the unedifying character of PMQs is partly responsible for the increasing disengagement and disillusionment by the electorate with the political process. This would appear especially to be the case since PMQs is broadcast and analysed to a greater extent than other such scrutinies. Or would you deny that the manner in which PMQs is conducted is generally a turn off for a sizeable proportion of voters?

Lynne is quite right that it doesn’t achieve what she wants it to achieve, and Passing Tory is quite right that is does achieve what he wants it to.

So the real question is not ‘is PMQs fit for purpose’, but rather ‘what is the purpose of PMQs’?

I tend to agree that Lynne’s suggestion of sending the PM off around the country would not lead to a greater scrutiny, but would lead to a series of dull, carefully stage-managed events. I also find myself thinking, surely the PM has more important things to be doing (like running the country) than traipsing around the regions.

I think that our current system is probably best: the Liaison Committee does the detailed forensic questioning (and look how few people bother watching!! But it is valuable stuff – perhaps allow them to question the PM more often), while PMQs provides an opportunity for the PM to held to account publicly over the main issues of the week – with the public able to decide fore themselves whether he is answering the questions satisfactorily or whether he is evadint them. As PT says – the mood of the House is often a very good indicator of how well the PM and the Govt is doing over particular issues.

I used to hold views similar to Lynne and you but have changed after careful reflection.

To take the point that you make about the greater audience meaning that the PM has to give a fuller response first. I think that the reason that PMQs get the coverage that it does is precisely because of the way that complex issues are turned into small soundbites that capture the essence of the problem. Brown after all does get examined by the Press under more controlled conditions and that usually gets far less coverage than PMQs, and it not more enlightening.

In fact, PMQs is one of the few times that politicans banter in the way that people might down the pub (and it isn’t all guys down the boozer, Lynne), and I think it would be a pity to loose this. I often feel that some of the cleverest guys in “Fleet Street” are not the profound political commentators for the broadsheets, but the guys in the tabloids who are able to distill down complex arguments into easily digestable ideas. PMQs in its current format forces this from politicians, and I don’t think this is a bad thing.

Your two other points are linked, I think. Would Brown fully answer the question if the format was sanitised? No, he wouldn’t, as any check against his press conferences or select committee appearances will testify to. You would just get slightly more sophisticated dodging. The value of PMQs is that someone trying this on will (a) be seen as a crushing boor and (b) get jeered to the rafters. So, what at first glance appears to be schoolboy behaviour in fact acts as a barometer of performance. And the guys I am interested in are not those who are jeering, supporting their guy, but those who cannot bring themselves to (and this has been quite a number on the government benches in recent weeks).

Lynne, and a number of commentators, have said that they don’t think that PMQs is effective at what it sets out to achieve. Thats depends a little on what you are expecting it to achieve, of course. If you are after a forensic examination of the governments performance then you are in the wrong place. But Lynne says it fails to hold the PM to account. I think the opposite, that it holds the PM (and the leaders of the other parties) to account extremely well. They are forced to make their case concisely, and in demotic terms, and will get turned on very quickly and loudly if they fail. Therefore, although on first inspection it might appear unedifying, I think in reality it is highly informative in a way that a more sanitised format would not be. Which it why I would have severe reservations about changing this aspect.

By all means send the PM around the country during recess to answer questions from the public, although I think it would be wrong to see this as a direct extension to PMQs as it would tell you something very different (and, I think you would have to guard against heavy manipulation of these events, as seen with the citizen juries).

It also puzzles me slightly why Lynne feels that she has to wait until her name comes out of the hat at PMQs to ask the PM a question. Is the art of letter writing, or composing an email, completely dead? Or are MPs increasingly willing only to ask a question for the benefit of the cameras so that their constituents can see them on TV?