This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/15/jeremy-corbyn-prime-ministers-questions-reform-david-cameron-labour
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Jeremy Corbyn should reform PMQs to make it prime minister’s answers | Jeremy Corbyn should reform PMQs to make it prime minister’s answers |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| Jeremy Corbyn has put reform of prime minister’s questions, the weekly outing of MPs’ egos, back on the agenda. That puts him – again – smack on the sweet spot of public opinion. Westminster loves PMQs. But, as research from the Hansard Society showed last year, for voters it confirms everything they believe about the sheer futility of the political world. It is theatrical tribalism, irrelevant to anything that happens in their own lives. | Jeremy Corbyn has put reform of prime minister’s questions, the weekly outing of MPs’ egos, back on the agenda. That puts him – again – smack on the sweet spot of public opinion. Westminster loves PMQs. But, as research from the Hansard Society showed last year, for voters it confirms everything they believe about the sheer futility of the political world. It is theatrical tribalism, irrelevant to anything that happens in their own lives. |
| Related: Jeremy Corbyn probably won’t be prime minister, but he can change politics | Deborah Orr | Related: Jeremy Corbyn probably won’t be prime minister, but he can change politics | Deborah Orr |
| Corbyn’s ideas sound fittingly radical and authentic. In fact, they match most of the Hansard suggestions for reform from February 2014, not including his plan to stay away from PMQs altogether, which was not on their agenda. But other ideas like giving himself, as leader of the opposition less prominence, and backbenchers more, was on their checklist, and so was his suggestion of crowdsourcing questions from voters. One of the cross-party select committees, education, has actually tried that, and it was deemed a success, although not so much so that it has been repeated. | Corbyn’s ideas sound fittingly radical and authentic. In fact, they match most of the Hansard suggestions for reform from February 2014, not including his plan to stay away from PMQs altogether, which was not on their agenda. But other ideas like giving himself, as leader of the opposition less prominence, and backbenchers more, was on their checklist, and so was his suggestion of crowdsourcing questions from voters. One of the cross-party select committees, education, has actually tried that, and it was deemed a success, although not so much so that it has been repeated. |
| Part of the trouble with PMQs is that it is the one regular event in the parliamentary week that makes it onto the news bulletins. It is parliament’s shop window, which is a bit like a car showroom replacing its sleek and spotless motors with graphic images of horrendous accidents. | Part of the trouble with PMQs is that it is the one regular event in the parliamentary week that makes it onto the news bulletins. It is parliament’s shop window, which is a bit like a car showroom replacing its sleek and spotless motors with graphic images of horrendous accidents. |
| Typically, viewers see no more than 20 seconds of the braying, posturing and head-to-head between the prime minister and leader of the opposition – exchanges that will probably have lasted six or seven minutes and will have been wearisomely choreographed to reach a killer soundbite climax. None of the backbench questions where MPs often raise serious problems that tend to be dealt with courteously by the prime minister of the day (although regrettably often neither side can resist point-scoring) ever make it beyond Today in Parliament. | Typically, viewers see no more than 20 seconds of the braying, posturing and head-to-head between the prime minister and leader of the opposition – exchanges that will probably have lasted six or seven minutes and will have been wearisomely choreographed to reach a killer soundbite climax. None of the backbench questions where MPs often raise serious problems that tend to be dealt with courteously by the prime minister of the day (although regrettably often neither side can resist point-scoring) ever make it beyond Today in Parliament. |
| John Major and Tony Blair agreed it need changing in 1994, but nothing actually happened | John Major and Tony Blair agreed it need changing in 1994, but nothing actually happened |
| In the context of 1,000 years of Westminster history, this form of prime minister’s questions is relatively new, a product of Margaret Thatcher’s determination in the 1980s to be seen to be in charge of everything that anyone in her government did. As a result, unlike her predecessors, who referred questions that were not directly about their responsibilities to the relevant departmental minister, she always had something to say about everything. | In the context of 1,000 years of Westminster history, this form of prime minister’s questions is relatively new, a product of Margaret Thatcher’s determination in the 1980s to be seen to be in charge of everything that anyone in her government did. As a result, unlike her predecessors, who referred questions that were not directly about their responsibilities to the relevant departmental minister, she always had something to say about everything. |
| The principal participants may be able to do a bit to change it, but on the whole it takes two to make a difference, and there is not yet any indication that David Cameron plans to do anything other than try to dial down his Flashman tendency. Leading Tories are keenly aware that a lot of people voted for Corbyn, and getting red-faced and bullying is not a good look for the prime minister. They are also hoping that there will be plenty of people on the Labour side who one way or another will be happy to do the job of undermining him for them. | |
| John Major and Tony Blair agreed it need changing in 1994, but nothing actually happened. When Blair became prime minister he combined what had been twice-weekly sessions into a single half-hourly one, all part of his general downgrading of parliament’s status. The only innovation since is that the prime minister faces questions from all the committee chairs once or twice in each parliamentary session. Even though these last for a couple of hours, they never generate much light, and certainly absolutely no heat. | John Major and Tony Blair agreed it need changing in 1994, but nothing actually happened. When Blair became prime minister he combined what had been twice-weekly sessions into a single half-hourly one, all part of his general downgrading of parliament’s status. The only innovation since is that the prime minister faces questions from all the committee chairs once or twice in each parliamentary session. Even though these last for a couple of hours, they never generate much light, and certainly absolutely no heat. |
| Related: Speaker backs all-party talks on MPs' behaviour during PMQs | Related: Speaker backs all-party talks on MPs' behaviour during PMQs |
| Yet one of the most interesting findings of the Hansard research was that when people watched the whole 30-minute session, they thought a little more warmly about PMQs. That suggests, at least to the optimistic, that moving it from midday on Wednesdays to a later time, when more people could watch it live, might just conceivably lead to improved perceptions. | Yet one of the most interesting findings of the Hansard research was that when people watched the whole 30-minute session, they thought a little more warmly about PMQs. That suggests, at least to the optimistic, that moving it from midday on Wednesdays to a later time, when more people could watch it live, might just conceivably lead to improved perceptions. |
| Another idea, to limit the number of subjects for questioning, might work better: keep it topical, let the prime minister face more detailed and persistent examination. That would be worth watching. | Another idea, to limit the number of subjects for questioning, might work better: keep it topical, let the prime minister face more detailed and persistent examination. That would be worth watching. |
| Three cheers to Corbyn for putting reform on the agenda. But surely his list of questions raises questions itself. He says he wants to ask why a million people use food banks, why so many are still homeless, why so many graduates can’t get jobs. Where ever has he been for the past five years? What does he think Ed Miliband demanded week after week? Perhaps he should check out what happened next, and then he may turn his thoughts not to the question of questions, but of actually getting answers. | Three cheers to Corbyn for putting reform on the agenda. But surely his list of questions raises questions itself. He says he wants to ask why a million people use food banks, why so many are still homeless, why so many graduates can’t get jobs. Where ever has he been for the past five years? What does he think Ed Miliband demanded week after week? Perhaps he should check out what happened next, and then he may turn his thoughts not to the question of questions, but of actually getting answers. |