« | Home | »

Get rid of PMQs


Ed Miliband has said with not very much reservation that the idea of getting rid of Prime Minister’s Questions is something he ‘might be up for’. He would look into it. As political statements go, that is edging on the emphatic. In the same interview he acknowledged public enervation at shouting matches.

He is dead right. As a sketchwriter I used to watch these encounters, and watched them deteriorate. In Gordon Brown’s time, his sullen people had a slogan, chanted ever and again: ‘No more boom or bust.’ Which, in the light of the outcome of Brown’s devotion to Ayn Rand’s favourite pupil, Alan Greenspan (granted the Freedom of the City of London in 2006), proved a cosmic custard pie too crude for irony.

I minded the chanting almost as much as the economics. ‘Come on the Rovers’ is one thing, rhythmic fiscal projection another. Where’s the dignity? where the wisdom of staying shut-up? I did less than my share of PMQs and tried, if the business of the day could pass in a flickering light as interesting, to stay for that and write the sketch – very quickly, but actually about something.

The general view of the lodge, though, was that this was being done especially for us, knock-about put on for knockers-about. Unfortunately that includes the ones in the chamber. From the leadership’s point of view, it was a pool of dubious light in which to be seen and perform. Thatcher could be iron-sided, Callaghan spurious-paternal, Macmillan a shrewd, not illiberal old gent who knew a thing or two and carried nice crumbs for discerning pigeons. Macmillan was good at it. Major, creditably, wasn’t. And Cameron is awful.

Overall, PMQs diminish the reputation of Parliament. The general contempt for MPs, which so many of them don’t deserve, owes a great deal to the sheer childishness of such overtures to an unattended opera. If you want a fairer and friendlier public, keep the cameras in committee, especially Public Accounts. Get polite. Get detailed. And remember: people are not as interested in party politics as you are.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.

  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • name on Who is the enemy?: Simply stating it is correct doesn't make it so, I just wish you would apply the same epistemic vigilance to "Muslim crimes" as you do to their Hebrew...
    • Glen Newey on Unwinnable War: The legal issue admits of far less clarity than the simple terms in which you – I imagine quite sincerely – frame them. For the benefit of readers...
    • Geoff Roberts on The New Normal: The causes go back a long way into the colonial past, but the more immediate causes stem from the activities of the US forces in the name of freedom a...
    • sol_adelman on The New Normal: There's also the fact that the French state denied the mass drownings of '61 even happened for forty-odd years. No episode in post-war W European hist...
    • funky gibbon on At Wembley: If England get France in the quarter finals of Euro 16 I expect that a good deal of the fraternity will go out the window

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Stephen W. Smith:
    The French Intervention in Mali
    7 February 2013

    ‘Depending on what counts as military intervention, France changed the course of history by force in sub-Saharan Africa about thirty times between 1945 and 1990.’

    Bruce Whitehouse:
    What went wrong in Mali?
    30 August 2012

    ‘The Republic of Mali has long been seen as the exception to the dictatorships or civil wars that have seemed the rule in West Africa since the end of the Cold War.’

    Jeremy Harding: Algeria’s Camus
    4 December 2014

    ‘Camus liked to hector the settlers, whose behaviour reflected the structural injustices of colonialism. All the same, he felt that certain misconceptions in metropolitan France needed straightening out.’

    Hugh Roberts: The Hijackers
    16 July 2015

    ‘American intelligence saw Islamic State coming and was not only relaxed about the prospect but, it appears, positively interested in it.’

Advertisement Advertisement