NationStates Jolt Archive

Every Wednesday at 12:00 the British Prime Minister goes into the House of Commons for Prime Ministers Question Time (PMQ’s). This is, essentially, what the name suggests; half an hour of questions from Opposition leaders and other Members of Parliament. These can be on any topic of the MPs choosing, and the Prime Minister generally gets no advance warning of what questions are going to be asked. It is a test of how well he knows his stuff, and how well he can put his ideas across while under pressure, thinking on his feet.

I think this kind of debate is one of the greatest features of the British political system, although many feel it demeans politics and shows politicians behaving in an almost school-like way. However, while it is true that it can be raucous at times, I believe that it succeeds in bringing politics to the people, as it is the one time when Parliament is almost guaranteed to lead the news.

It is a type of debate that just couldn’t happen in American Politics; Clinton would probably have been suited to it, but Al Gore, John Kerry and, of course, George W. Bush would be eaten alive if they had a go in Tony Blair’s shoes.

Is this a good thing? Does gladiatorial politics give us stronger leader, or confine us to leaders who are simply good at debate and not necessary anything else? Does it guarantee a leader who is at least articulate, or does it simply reinforce the usual ‘type’ of people who enter politics, i.e. university educated, career in law etc?

(This (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4856614.stm)link will give you an idea of what happened this week (ironically, considering the thread is about strong leaders, none of the main leaders attended(Tony Blair is in Asia)). There is a video link on the right hand side of the page to watch it, if you want to.)

On the one hand it does mean we can get useful debate out of them.

On the other Cameron has the debating technique of a 14-year-old without the vocabulary to swear.

I've been saying for years that the US ought to have some version of PMQ. It would give us the opportunity to see our politicians in action and we'd be able to hold their feet to the fire more effectively.

And by the way--you're wrong about Gore. He would have done just fine at PMQ. He wasn't as seductive as Clinton, but he knew his shit.

As for worrying that it would demean politicians--take a look at some of the retarded shit our politicians already say, and then ask yourself if a US version of PMQ would really change things. We've got Senators who claim that high school bathrooms are the breeding grounds for lesbians--in Oklahoma, no less--so I wouldn't worry that the level of discourse would fall too terribly far.

And by the way--you're wrong about Gore. He would have done just fine at PMQ. He wasn't as seductive as Clinton, but he knew his shit.
I was trying to be non-partisan so it didn't just decend into another Bush bashing thread. :p

As for worrying that it would demean politicians--take a look at some of the retarded shit our politicians already say, and then ask yourself if a US version of PMQ would really change things. We've got Senators who claim that high school bathrooms are the breeding grounds for lesbians--in Oklahoma, no less--so I wouldn't worry that the level of discourse would fall too terribly far.
Perhaps, but consider if those people were given a weekly slot as first story on the evening news.

I was trying to be non-partisan so it didn't just decend into another Bush bashing thread. :p Well, you're probably right about Kerry sucking at it as well. I defended Gore because he got this rap in the press in 2000 as being wooden and not passionate, and he's anything but.

Perhaps, but consider if those people were given a weekly slot as first story on the evening news.
It might make Americans realize just what level of assholes they have representing them in Congress. That has to be a net plus, right?

Perhaps, but consider if those people were given a weekly slot as first story on the evening news.

Then I think we'd probably see some interesting results on the opinion polls...

It might make Americans realize just what level of assholes they have representing them in Congress. That has to be a net plus, right?
So we all agree that more politicians always being under scrutiny is a good thing?

Quick thread. :p

I was hoping for at least one person to come up with an opposing argument...

I've been saying for years that the US ought to have some version of PMQ. It would give us the opportunity to see our politicians in action and we'd be able to hold their feet to the fire more effectively.


Yes, but you'd have to rely upon the numbskulls in the House of Reps. so I don't imagine much would be accomplished. (Especially as there are no real 'back-benchers' in the US).

Yes, but you'd have to rely upon the numbskulls in the House of Reps. so I don't imagine much would be accomplished. (Especially as there are no real 'back-benchers' in the US).
I wonder if part of the reason for that (the lack of back-benchers) is because there's no political upside. Politicians are, above all, media whores. If they have a chance to get in front of a camera, you'd better not be in the way. You can lose a limb.

I wonder if part of the reason for that (the lack of back-benchers) is because there's no political upside. Politicians are, above all, media whores. If they have a chance to get in front of a camera, you'd better not be in the way. You can lose a limb.
We still have a culture of backbenchers in this country, and I think we're lucky for it. I guess it's the fact that our executive and legislature are combined; one of the best ways to get noticed for selection to office is to be a good MP. Plus, we do have several of that rarest of beasts; the politician there to try and do genuine good, rather than for their own glory.

Is this a good thing? Does gladiatorial politics give us stronger leader, or confine us to leaders who are simply good at debate and not necessary anything else? Does it guarantee a leader who is at least articulate, or does it simply reinforce the usual ‘type’ of people who enter politics, i.e. university educated, career in law etc?
I suspect that it either makes the leader become a better leader, or at least a better debator. :D

I wonder if part of the reason for that (the lack of back-benchers) is because there's no political upside. Politicians are, above all, media whores. If they have a chance to get in front of a camera, you'd better not be in the way. You can lose a limb.

I think its also the way the system runs. The UK has many more MPs per person in comparison to the number of Reps. and also runs a ministerial system (as opposed to the comittee system). As a consequence the majority of MPs in the house are in the 'wilderness', i.e., they have no functions other than introducing private bills and voting on proposed government business*, so they have less to loose by pissing off the government with awkward questions.

You can see it by the fact that the hospital trust party, (1 member) got elected in the UK in 2001. That is inconcievable in the US.

Edit: And of course, opposition MPs have no real power whatsoever, so they also are free to put the boot in.

This isn't real debate, it's just finding ways to cover your ass after what you've done. The real problem is that politics punishes people for admitting they're wrong. This is because people think it's OK to become emotionally invested in their political party, leading to Michael-More-style lack of self-criticism. This "debate" you are talking about is just one-way questioning. That dosen't accomplish anything if either of the parties is unable to criticise itself.

And, for people who think that the President never talks to people, National Public Radio hosts his weekly radio adress. So if you really want to hear what he thinks, find out when the radio adress is and listen in.

I suspect that it either makes the leader become a better leader, or at least a better debator. :D
You'd think, but it doesn't always. The last but one Conservative Party leader, Iain Duncan Smith, was a terrible debater. He wouldn't be able to land a punch on Blair if the PM had just been caught taking bribes from an Indian businessman while in bed in a mass orgy with several male prostitutes. And, as such, his terrible performances were one of the things that led to him being somewhat unceremoniously dumped after only a year and a bit in office. Gladitorial politics is no place for the weak, that's for sure.

I think its also the way the system runs. The UK has many more MPs per person in comparison to the number of Reps. and also runs a ministerial system (as opposed to the comittee system). As a consequence the majority of MPs in the house are in the 'wilderness', i.e., they have no functions other than introducing private bills and voting on proposed government business*, so they have less to loose by pissing off the government with awkward questions.

You can see it by the fact that the hospital trust party, (1 member) got elected in the UK in 2001. That is inconcievable in the US.

Edit: And of course, opposition MPs have no real power whatsoever, so they also are free to put the boot in.
I know. That's part of the reason I envy the British their system. It's not perfect, but it gives minority parties a chance to make some noise and get some stuff done.

And, for people who think that the President never talks to people, National Public Radio hosts his weekly radio adress. So if you really want to hear what he thinks, find out when the radio adress is and listen in.
That's precisely why the Opposition needs a chance to ask one way questions, though. Governments are in a very strong position to get their message across, whether it be in a policy document, a press release or, in your case, a radio message. The opportunities for criticism are much fewer, however, as the press is less likely to cover the objections of those not in power.

And, for people who think that the President never talks to people, National Public Radio hosts his weekly radio adress. So if you really want to hear what he thinks, find out when the radio adress is and listen in.Making a prepared speech is a hell of a lot different from being questioned by a hostile audience, which is what the PM has to face in Britain. It's the fact that Bush rarely if ever faces hostile crowds that keeps even the small number of people who still like him from realizing he's a complete, blithering idiot.

I know. That's part of the reason I envy the British their system. It's not perfect, but it gives minority parties a chance to make some noise and get some stuff done.

Yah, true.

The biggest scam out there is 'bipartisanship' and power sharing. The loyal opposition should be just that: Opposition.

Still, it's a good method if the politicians want to act against the interests of the country without any awkward questions being raised.

Still, it's a good method if the politicians want to act against the interests of the country without any awkward questions being raised.

I'm fairly sure that most politicians will argue that what they are doing is good.

Maybe not directly good for the country, but good in one way or another.

Actually, nevermind that... I lose at this.

As an American (well you know what I mean, as a citizen of the United States ... it's so hard for us to write informally without insulting some other country on the two "American" continents) I have to say that I find the British notin of "Prime Ministers Question Time" the most fascinating and encouraging features of your political system. Of course the parlementary system has more connections between legislative and executive branches so it is more logical for this to happen. In the US the only real interface between executive and legislature occurs at the constitutionally required state of the union addresses, and then this is just a verbal report issued by the president.

I generally find the differences between American and British attitudes within politics interesting. Politics in England seems like a fencing match, people politely trying to "score" impressive shots to make a score. Politcs in the United States seems to be a constant state of "war" in which only the total obliviation of the enemy is acceptable.

As to who in the US would be the best at surviving a Question Time from the US House of Representatives, I would suggest that the person who could think quickly on his feet and be able to deflect things not wanting to be said or to be able to ad lib witty retorts would be the best. On the other hand, I've just mentioned that US congresspeople are not the same as Members of Parliment.

Note also that Members of Parliment aren't trying to get personally re-elected every two years but only trying to preserve the popularity of their party so their party can maintain a proper number of seats over time. In the US moderation can lead to defeat in a primary as easily as defeat in a general election.

Most Presidents, on the other hand, have a hard time dealing with the reporters questions. Questions from the opposition, especially an opposition that is constantly being re-elected could be exceptionally vile. And there are more of them in the US than in Britian. :)

But in general I think that it would be a wonderful idea. Isloationism in relations, a common practice among US presidents only leads to no good.

I generally find the differences between American and British attitudes within politics interesting. Politics in England seems like a fencing match, people politely trying to "score" impressive shots to make a score. Politcs in the United States seems to be a constant state of "war" in which only the total obliviation of the enemy is acceptable.
That is an interesting difference - I don't think any of the parties in this country would ever believe they could 'eliminate' the opposition party; most of them are sensible enough to realise that would not be good for democracy.

It's also interesting to ask that if PMQ's is so hostile in Britain, when our main parties are virtually indistinguishable from each other these days, what would it be like in America, when your politics is so polarised? Can you imagine, for example, the abortion debates that go on here on NS being repeated in real life, in front of the nation?

Politicians demean themselves absolutely by becoming politicians.

Debate is only ever a good thing.

Politics in England seems like a fencing match, people politely trying to "score" impressive shots to make a score.

Ahem, Britain ;-)

Well the traditional distance between the two parties is two sword lengths.

(Interestingly, in the Guardian the other day, there was an article from the 19th Century about the then Prime Minister, Wellington, having a duel to determine policy)

Well the traditional distance between the two parties is two sword lengths.
Very true, you can see the red lines painted down the floor of the House of Commons in front of both sets of benches. Two sword lengths apart, and no speaker may cross it.

(Interestingly, in the Guardian the other day, there was an article from the 19th Century about the then Prime Minister, Wellington, having a duel to determine policy)
Not heard that one. :p

I didn't read some of the other responses, but before you even try to ponder if a debate system works better you have to remember that these countries' political systems are different. The US system, I believe is ill suited for a "gladitorial" debate. The US system and the UK are so redically different that an accurate comparision is hard to make.

Tzoland(sic)(sorry) pretty got it right. The US system is not set up as a democracy, despite what our leaders like to say(democracy has such a nice ring to it, maybe) but is set up rather as a republic.

Not heard that one. :p

Well I tried look on the guardian archive for it, but they didn't seem to have it. I probably still have the edition in the kitchen but I'm in the library and don't have internet connection at home.

Tzoland(sic)(sorry) pretty got it right. The US system is not set up as a democracy, despite what our leaders like to say(democracy has such a nice ring to it, maybe) but is set up rather as a republic.

And Britain was set up as a democracy?

PMQ is getting less rough for the PM simply because all the parties think the same, and they are all fighting for the centre ground now that the idiot Cameron is in charge, hes helping Blair (another Idiot) get through his reforms and plans, even after they have been screwed over my LAbour backbenchers.

Also Britain is a democracy because it was made over time, stealing power slowly from The Monarchy, also the Consitutionmeans it can be made up as it goes long, so freedom can increase or decreae depending on the needs of the state.

Does anyone know if the House of Lords gets to Slow roast the PM at any point?

It wouldn't work in the US because the politicans would just use the opportunity to ingratiate themselves with the President by asking absurd questions along the lines of "Are you aware that you are the greatest leader the world has ever known?"

We see plenty of that in PMQ already. About half the questions asked are deliberately designed to give Bliar the opportunity to make himself look good. No doubt the people who ask the questions are suitably rewarded behind the scenes. Few of the questions are a true challenge to Bliar and his government, and it is exceptionally rare for an entire session to consist of these. In the US it just wouldn't happen.

Well I tried look on the guardian archive for it, but they didn't seem to have it. I probably still have the edition in the kitchen but I'm in the library and don't have internet connection at home.

Found it, la:

Iron Duke fights duel over Catholics
Saturday March 28, 1829


It is our duty to announce to the public an event which fortunately has not been attended with fatal consequences to the personages concerned. A meeting took place yesterday morning in Battersea-fields between the Duke of Wellington and the Earl of Winchilsea.

In order to make the cause of the duel properly intelligible, we give the following extract from a letter from Lord Winchilsea to Mr Coleridge, the secretary for the committee for establishing the King's College, London.

"I was one who thought the proposed plan might prove an antidote to the principles of the London University. Late political events have convinced me that the whole transaction was intended as a blind to the protestant and high church party - that the noble Duke might the more effectually carry on his insidious designs for the infringement of our liberties, and the introduction of popery into every department of the state."

The closing letters must suffice. From the Duke to Lord Winchilsea: "My Lord - is a gentleman who happens to be the king's first minister, to submit to being insulted by any gentleman who thinks proper to attributed to him disgraceful or criminal motives for his behaviour? Your lordship is alone responsible for the consequences. I call upon your lordship to give me that satisfaction for your conduct which a gentleman never refuses to give."

From Lord Winchilsea. "My Lord - the satisfaction which your grace has demanded, it is of course impossible for me to decline."

The Duke of Wellington and Lord Winchilsea met at the appointed place. The parties having taken their ground, Lord Winchilsea received the Duke of Wellington's fire [apparently not aimed at him] and fired in the air. After some discussion the accompanying memorandum was accepted as a satisfactory reparation to the Duke of Wellington

"Having given the Duke of Wellington the usual satisfaction, I do not now hesitate to declare, of my own accord, that, in apology, I regret having unadvisedly published an opinion which the noble Duke states to have charged him with disgraceful and criminal motives in a certain transaction.

"I shall cause this expression of regret to be inserted in the Standard newspaper, as the same channel through which the letter in question was given to the public."


The Duke of Wellington, as prime minister, introduced the final step in Catholic emancipation in 1829. The Earl of Winchilsea was an ultra Tory