I’VE JUST returned from a focus group organised by Hansard, looking at the future of communications between the public and parliament. The question of Prime Minister’s Questions was raised briefly, with a general consensus round the table that it did not show the Commons in the best light.
I’m not so sure.
I think politics should be confrontational. That’s why I’m utterly opposed to redesigning the Commons chamber to make it semi-circular, in line with the model used in parts of Europe. If I wanted to hold hands and meditate on what unites me with my opponents I would have entered group therapy, not become an MP. I see nothing wrong with a confrontational aspect to politics. PMQs remains the only vaguely interesting event that parliament produces each week, the only part of the Commons agenda to which TV producers — who, let’s face it, know what their audiences want — are willing to give air time.
Constituents tell us that they respect conviction politicians, yet others will say they want us to be consensual and bi-partisan. Those two views can often be in direct contradiction. When the occasion demands, the Commons can produce moments of clarity and leadership. At other times, we behave like childish schoolboys whose teacher has left the room for five minutes. It’s rough, it’s intimidating, it’s frequently funny and more frequently immature.
That’s why I love it.














Wednesday 13 May 2009 at 2:10 pm
Hooray. And, let’s give MPs more powers back too……be gone with always referring things to external committees. Have it out in the chamber like they used to.
Wednesday 13 May 2009 at 2:40 pm
Fair enough, but the main thing is that those benches have to be filled with people who consider British sovereignty and laws to be sacrosanct, otherwise, what are you all there for?
The way the EU is being allowed to take over, you’ll have nothing left to do but throw paper aeroplanes at each other. So, yes, the current design is preferable for that.
Wednesday 13 May 2009 at 2:42 pm
Leave it all as it is. PMQs looks bad at the moment because the PM is so bad. Once/if we again have a PM with wit and verve the occasion may sparkle.
Wednesday 13 May 2009 at 2:46 pm
I firmly believe we should go for a system similar to the Canadian federal parliament, where there are PMQs every day, but the PM can deflect questions to the relevant ministers. It’s entertaining, it allows more MPs to ask questions and raise issues, and it allows opposition leaders to challenge the PM on the issues of the day instead of having to wait up to a week.
Wednesday 13 May 2009 at 2:57 pm
If you were looking at the future of communications between parliament and the public then might I suggest a simple rule of thumb for you ‘communication works both ways’.
The present system pretty much involves parliament telling people things and ignoring what the public has to say to parliament (case in point, Downing Street disabling comments on ‘that’ YouTube video – NB I’m just using this as an example, not criticising Labour).
theyworkforyou has a ‘Free Our Bills’ campaign that calls for parliament to make it easier to upload bills into a database and allow the public to more easily see how their MP is performing on their behalf. In the 21st century this should be easily possible.
Perhaps a ‘Downing Street Petitions’-like system could be introduced to allow ‘the public’ a question at PMQs (seeing as most of the Government’s questions are planted and most of the oppositions are useless it wouldn’t hurt to give up one question a week).
Wednesday 13 May 2009 at 3:10 pm
I agree. I’m coming to see PMQs in June and can’t wait. I just hope that it isn’t Harriet vs William on the day.
I’ll wave to you Tom!
Wednesday 13 May 2009 at 3:35 pm
You’re right,Tom.
That’s why PR is such a wet idea. Everyone getting together to try and encompass every party’s stupid, pet policy…long after everyone has voted for something else. It’s just a coalition of the most acceptable.
First past the post brings real confrontation and real, distinctive policies, and we’re all the better for it.
Wednesday 13 May 2009 at 4:06 pm
It’s all well and good these modernists coming along and saying they want to re-design the chamber so that it has a dreadful circular design. But what good will any re-design be whilst we have a Prime Minister who refuse to give a proper answer to a single question put to him?
Not that McBroon is the first to use this tactic, of course – Blair perfected it over the years.
Wednesday 13 May 2009 at 4:14 pm
Never change PMQ, it may look terrible to us but if you travel abroad one of the few things they do like about our politics is PMQ. Very few countries have PMQ and for those who don’t to be able to question the head of the government in front of the House and on TV and Radio is a much envied thing.
Wednesday 13 May 2009 at 4:16 pm
Confrontation Good. Browns non answers Bad.
PMQs should be renamed PMQs and As. And he should answer the bloody question rather than spouting the usual tractor production stats…
Wednesday 13 May 2009 at 4:34 pm
Hi Tom
Funnily enough I was talking to a few people last night about politics. The unanimous view was that they hated all the braying and schoolboy atmosphere of PMQ’s.
Sometimes I kind of get what they mean – but I agree with you. I think the confrontational nature of PMQ’s adds zest to politics!
Wednesday 13 May 2009 at 4:51 pm
p.s…if you want to communicate with us – sack the Obama advisors. We’re not interested in brand, really we’re not. In fact knowing that you have people advising on ‘brand’ will only serve to turn people off. To say I’m not a fan of Hazel Blears would be an understatement, but it was unfortunate that her message a week or two back was drowned out by her “youtube if you want to”. She really did have the answer.
Talk to us.
Oh, and be honest. Show integrity. Don’t make promises you can’t keep. Show dignity (you might want to have a word in the ear of a mate of yours who was on tv yesterday – it was despicable). Forget spin. Tell us like it is. Stop attacking someone just because their rosette is a different colour (we’re not interested – we just want to know how are lives are going to be better. If it is a good idea then use it). Put us before yourselves or your party. Try and explain things to us fully and properly. Have the strength of your convictions.
(Just a few ideas for starters)
Wednesday 13 May 2009 at 5:21 pm
So I take it Tom you do not hold with
‘give the person opposite you a hug’.
Wednesday 13 May 2009 at 6:59 pm
There’s a difference between intelligent confrontational (good!) and horrible, childish braying and point scoring, which is often what parliament descends into.
A really good political debate, with contrasting ideologies and strong speakers is one of the best things to watch, and we used to do it really well in the UK. Grown men with no particular differences just going “ya-boo” is tedious and a right turn-off.
Maybe the HoC was always like that though, and just not televised?
Wednesday 13 May 2009 at 9:51 pm
Agreed, let’s not dilute it; it’s fine the way it is. Leaders of men should be able to survive such environments with ease.
Leave a comment