It's Time to Ditch PMQs
An unedifying spectacle or an integral part of our democracy or both? Is it time we reform Prime Minister's Question Time?
Every Wednesday around noon; Members of Parliament, Westminster Lobby and members of the public cram into the Chamber of the House of Commons. Alongside that thousands of political obsessives, like me, take half an hour out of their lives to tune in for another Prime Minister’s Question Time. In the hour before, my Twitter (or X, Y, whatever we’re calling it) is full of us posting “let’s hope it’s better than last week” - an hour later we collectively say “well that was predictably dreadful”. It’s that air of anticipation that something noteworthy might come up beyond the cringe-worthy jokes or tired slogans that we can sink our teeth into, something to make us stop, think and reflect.
Of course, the temptation for MPs and party leaders to deliver a ‘zinger’ written by their own Ollie Reeder, to an audience of hundreds of thousands and maybe even make the 1 o’clock news is just too irresistible (I have a higher regard for some politicians than the general public, but let’s not pretend the ego you have to inhabit to become a leading one doesn’t lean into this temptation). In short, it is a performance featuring our main characters facing up to each other, supporting cast either side of them, backbenchers playing the baying mob waiting to rise up and cheer that coveted Henry V moment from their leader.
You maybe asking then: why do we bother? Well as much as I do not hold it in much regard, as made clear by my cynicism, we do sometimes get glimpses of important detail. This is often when the PM is in a pickle - glaring recent example being the partygate fallout late 2021/early 2022, when Boris Johnson’s responses to some concise questions eventually led him to being suspended by the Privileges Committee. As much as I claim to detest the performance aspect, some of the most memorable political moments have occurred at PMQs - “I am a fighter, not a quitter!” springs to mind. These performances can set the tone of debate for MPs, an attack line used by a LOTO at PMQs suddenly becomes the attack line for the whole party to use.
The public meanwhile, do not appreciate the dramatics. Poll after poll, focus group after focus group, has shown us they do not hold the convention of PMQs in high regard. The Hansard Society has been the most recent comprehensive study of PMQs and the public; respondents stated it was “childish”, “unprofessional” and “aggressive”. 10 years since this study, it’s hard to see how this perception has improved - we know trust in politicians has declined since then and the loud vitriol behaviour has quite often been worse from some leaders.
There is clearly an incentive to reform this tradition, and would it be so radical to change it? After all, like much of our Parliamentary processes PMQs is just a convention. The PM is not bound to come to Parliament every Wednesday, the LOTO isn’t obliged to ask 6 or indeed any questions - these traditions have only come about particularly in the past 20-40 years. PMQs itself was only introduced as a concept first because of Gladstone’s age in the 1880s, unable to attend the Commons when called upon at a moment’s notice (like any other SoS/Minister) and brought back in the early 50s due to an even older Churchill.
In short, there is nothing inherently stopping Parliamentarians flipping the table on PMQs. So, what alternative do we have that might be radical but also a common practice anyway?
Commit to Committees
If we want stringent accountability, to move beyond soundbites, slogans and pre-prepared lines on the most important issues then do we look no further than the format of select committee? The Prime Minister already attends the Liaison Committee three times a year, where the chairs of the Select Committees (i.e. Foreign Affairs, Home Affairs etc) grill the PM for 90 minutes - each with notes and questions contributed by their committee, often knowing more detail than the PM on particular matters and with the ability to reply. All done from a small, quiet committee room.
I need not explain what they are to you of course, if you’re reading this you’re likely to be slightly weird like me and often tune into select committee sessions1. They’ve certainly given us some moments in the past; Braverman being quizzed on her asylum policy, Nadine Dorries finding out how Channel 4 is funded, Tony Blair’s pivotal appearance before the invasion of Iraq - all focused on policy, and all extracted far more out of ministers and the PM.
But how could we take PMQs and contort it into a select committee format (and should we?):
A committee consisting of the LOTO, 2nd largest party leader and 6 MPs (two governing party, two opposition, two from other parties that are selected randomly at ballot).
Instead of an MP chairing as is common in Select Committees, it would be chaired by the Speaker.
Each MP will be given an allotted time to ask a question of the PM, who themselves gets an allotted time to answer. No limit the amount of questions, unlike now. The session would last for 60 minutes.2
Much like now; if the Speaker judges the PM to be stonewalling, answering irrelevantly or if the questioner is rambling he will intervene.
The PM would be accompanied by their PPS and a Minister if they choose, but all questions would be answered by the PM.
Crucially this wouldn’t be an opportunity for long and rambling party political broadcast - guidance and precedent would have to be set by the speaker for this to stick strictly to a question and answer session. If MPs or the PM run over their time then the Speaker would have to intervene and continue with the debate.
Another point is this would give an opportunity for an MP to respond to the answer the PM gives them. How many times have backbenchers from all sides been left frustrated by a PMs non-answer? Of course, not naively government backbenchers would throw softballs at the PM, as some may do in liaison committees now. MPs would be able to cede time to this.
What about other MPs? Currently the Speaker can select an MP who ‘catches their eye’ and a format by which MPs are selected would mean that not to be possible. Indeed, as it stands most committee room galleries aren’t capable of holding more than 50 at a push - that’s more a practicality issue - and any MPs attending would be silent or removed from the room (not too dissimilarly to now if persistent) rather than boisterously shouting as now.
The PM still returns to the House for policy announcements, reporting to the house following foreign trips, major events etc. This new format would apply solely to PMQs.
So is this a decent idea? There is certainly merit to this; greater powers to MPs in pushing the PM in their replies, stricter enforcement from the speaker, but importantly removing PMQs away from the furore of the Chamber - something which may appeal to the vast majority of the public who take a dim view of the theatrics.
But, even as I write this there are some doubts - mostly semantic, but others that are actually practical.
Is it right for a PM not to face all their MPs every week? More often than not questions are balloted and No10 can expect what is to be thrown at them, but in those rare occasions when someone does catch the speakers eye it can throw a Prime Minister off-guard. Should we elevate and isolate the PM away from all MPs in a way that almost seems Presidential? After all they are a Member of Parliament and would make any other statement in the Chamber, is there a danger in this demeaning our Parliamentary system of governance further?
Another point is facing both their supportive and opposition MPs (not always in different parties) can be a bolstering show of strength. During the depths of the partygate revelations, the hushed tones behind Boris Johnson emphasised a party in deep dissatisfaction.
It leads onto a purely political tactic - PMQs enables a Prime Minister to rally their troops, set the tone for the week ahead and the same goes for a LOTO. It is theatrics but it is theatrics with a purpose, the same goes for ability to shout down a PM/LOTO - does this vulgarity make for good accountability, policy making? No, but does that matter?
Let’s be honest, there is a reason we all tune in every week and it isn’t just to bemoan it. An exceptional performance at PMQs can change the political complexion of the week ahead; a difficult week for a Prime Minister with pressure from their backbenchers can turn into a supportive one.
I am, on the whole, a traditionalist when it comes to our Parliamentary customs and conventions. I love the history that comes with each quirk of our democracy, whether it be the King’s Speech, the Ceremonial Mace, physically voting etc. A still small but growing number publicly argue this to be ridiculous pageantry, but isn’t that what defines us to the rest of the world? Why shouldn’t the mother of Parliament’s keep some of that grandeur and 900 year old tradition, most of it is inconsequential anyway… and there we get to the nub of my issue.
If precedent and tradition have become instruments of which partly harm public trust in institutions, and if it does not deliver what it was designed to do - which is deliver accountability to the PM on behalf of their other elected representatives - then a change maybe necessary, perhaps? Especially when in recent years the precedent of our Parliament has been pushed to unprecedented levels.
I actually find them quite soothing and am often more productive when they’re on in the background (though I do not go to sleep listening to the banal tones of Bernard Jenkin or anything *shudder*)
The allotted time would go as follows: 20 minutes for LOTO, 10 minutes for 2nd largest party, 5 minutes the 6 other MPs.