Is PMQ just a political circus? – Hope Baker, Dame Alice Owen

Fueled by selfishness and party rivalry, the weekly exchange between the prime minister and his opposition has increasingly become an over-dramatic spectacle, centered on “zingers” and cheap puns thrown in the hope of humiliating the politician on the other side of the party. sending box. The purpose of all this is apparently not to test the policies put forward to Parliament by the Prime Minister and their cabinet to ensure that the British public get the best possible government, but to score political points against their opposition. For many, the fiery conversation from the phone box that is broadcast to us every week is an example of Parliament at its worst. Perhaps a narcissistic event, more concerned with personal activity and spectacle than real political control, hardly seems like a good use of parliamentary time. Is it so? Would Parliament, and therefore Britain, be better off without such a toxic and sometimes childish tradition of debate? Does it really serve an important purpose in holding our government accountable?

While many do not disagree with how opposition leaders often use their questions as a means of insulting the Prime Minister and his cabinet, often related to their behavior or the latest news around them, rather than to study and carefully analyze policy, in there may be a flip side to the argument. Ministerial issues, which receive less media coverage and are therefore less circus-like, are where most of the detailed policy scrutiny takes place in our system. It could therefore be argued that Prime Minister’s Questions serve a slightly different purpose: to scrutinize the behavior and character of our government. By doing this, we ensure that we have a government that behaves in good faith and does not think that their position gives them the freedom to do exactly as they want without consequence.

President George W. Bush once said, “I count my blessings that I don’t have to go to that pit.” I would argue that the fact that our Prime Minister is not put on a pedestal because of his position is a testament to British democracy. That being part of the Legislature, and not above it, they are forced to undergo a half-hour’s examination every week, where they are made accountable to the people by questioning in the Legislature. Not only does this ensure that Prime Ministers are up-to-date on all areas of government, as they must answer all departmental questions themselves during this time, but it ensures that the Prime Minister conducts himself with dignity both politically and and in a personal context. In this sphere, apparently, immature mockery, insults and attempts to embarrass the opposition from both sides acquire a more positive character. The sheer spectacle of PMQs means it’s the most popular political broadcast every week. This fact encourages the Prime Minister and members of the government to always act in good faith to avoid public humiliation by the opposition in front of thousands of television viewers when their wrongdoing inevitably becomes known. For a prime minister with his eye on the next election, losing the respect of the electorate through humiliation is a disaster to be avoided at all costs.

Two slightly different examples that demonstrate this are the infamous Boris Johnson party scandal and the criticism Rishi Sunak received for re-appointing Suella Braverman so soon after she was forced to resign over a breach of the ministerial code. In both cases, PMQs were allowed to question the Prime Minister on a public stage about the lack of good faith in their actions. In the case of Braverman, Starmer accused Sunak of making a “crude deal” with Braverman, and while the exchange could be called toxic and partisan, it ensured that Sunak was held accountable for his questionable decision. Likewise, Johnson was forced to apologize repeatedly during PMQs, reinforcing an accountability to the people that would have been unlikely without the opportunity for opposition MPs to directly scrutinize and question the prime minister.

So is PMQ really a necessary circus? Overall, while PMQs can undoubtedly be immature and overly focused on scoring political points, there is great value in having a government cabinet scrutinized in such a public way. This ensures that the Prime Minister regularly upholds a standard of correct personal and public behaviour. In this context, humiliation can be seen not only as a completely childish endeavor, but as a political tool. In the right circumstances, this could act as an effective deterrent to force a government keen to avoid the horror of being utterly humiliated by the Leader of the Opposition next Wednesday at PMQs to do better.