You are here: Home » Comment »

PMQs verdict: Wednesday Shouty Time

May 23, 2012 1:16 pm

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

We’re going to need a new name for what we’re still hilariously calling PMQs. Prime Minister’s Questions is, alas, just a theory of what should happen, not a reflection of what actually takes place.

Half an hour of shouting, question avoidance, insults, planted questions, bad jokes and jeering.

If it didn’t exist you certainly wouldn’t invent it. Unless you were a deeply disturbed individual.

“Wednesday Shouty Time” seems like a far more appropriate name for what we endure in the name of “scrutiny” each week. Out with PMQs, in with WST. At least it’s honest. Quite often the time feels WSTed anyway…

Not that it’s new for Cameron to avoid answering questions, but today was just the most flagrant example. Four times Cameron was asked if he backed the key proposal from the Beecroft report – widely known as “Fire at will” – which would make it easier to sack people. Four times Cameron praised the report but refused to answer the question.

Slippery doesn’t even come close.

His response – to attack the unions. Of course! What verve! What elan! According to Dave, the unions dictate Labour policy. Which is amusing for two reasons a) unions are increasingly hacked off the Labour DOESN’T back union
policies enough and b) Cameron was, at that very moment endorsing a report by a major Tory donor.

Come on DC. Try not to be so blatantly hypocritical. LOL.

But if this session were already descending into farce (which it clearly was), then Flashman Cam confirmed it with his attack on Ed Balls as a “mumbling idiot”. The Balls obsession continues. The shadow chancellor is so far under the PM’s skin he may as well wear him as an apron for his next BBQ.

It was all frightfully un-Prime Ministerial. What would his coalition partners think? But here’s the cherry on the WST cake.

There were no Lib Dems on the front bench. Not one. They had left him to stew on his own.

And stew he did.

Related posts:

  1. PMQs Verdict – Scratching The Paintwork
  2. PMQs verdict: Cut the gags, Ed
  3. PMQs verdict – Ed’s best week
  4. PMQS verdict: Slowly but surely, Ed Miliband is getting better at PMQs
  5. PMQs verdict: How could anyone have “won” something as dreadful as that?
  • treborc1

    each time somebody put up a question of why bother with PMQ’s and the answer is because without it we have nothing to laugh at. I love seeing Cameron losing it he’s attack are like damp squibs. Then you have Miliband with his voice demanding an answer but you have already forgotten the question.

    I suspect it will come to an end before long, otherwise I suspect a lot of politicians will be laying on a bed being ask did your mother abuse you when you were young

  • http://twitter.com/robertsjonathan Jonathan Roberts

    I think it’s always been dreadful and follows a formula of vacuousness nonsense.

    Opposition: Does the Prime Minister agree he’s awful
    PM: We’re fixing the mess they made and besides, his lot are way worse

    or

    Backbench Government MP: Does the Prime Minister agree he is amazing, and will he promote me?
    PM: Why yes I do. Thanks.  And no, I won’t.

    or

    Backbencher: Will the Prime Minister congratulate some random group in my constituency so I can write a press release and get my name in the local rag?

    It was little better during out tenure, the above formula was invented shortly after PMQs itself was and few Prime Ministers ever answer the question.  But it is steadily getting worse.

    Funnily enough, in my office I recently found a copy of Hansard from 1954, where Churchill, Gaitskell and Selwyn Lloyd were all debating on various issues – now that was real democratic debate in action, what a fantastic read it was.  There’s too much politics and not enough policy and forensic analysis these days.  God I sound old.

    • AlanGiles

      Certainly since PMQs have been broadcast (first on radio only) there have been planted questions. Mrs. Thatcher’s crawler-in-chief, I seem to recall, was the late (but far from great) David Evans, a self-made poor-boy-done-good, whose especial trick was to mention “his wife, Janet” at every opportunity. And Clive Soley performed the same role for Blair. Both these men could be relied on for a truly “helpful” question on bad days.

      I think when the public see these performances they recognize that they are acting (and not very well) all the aggression and name calling is part of the performance, the theatre they have created for themselves. These days I suppose it passes for “drama, but in reality it is the old days of Brian Rix – the Whitehall Farce.

      * Marjorie Hyams (1923 –   ) 

      • Brumanuensis

        So Peter Bone, in addition to being thoroughly annoying, isn’t even being original with his endless references to ‘Ms Bone’?  

      • PaulHalsall

        I take all your points, but I still think there is something valuable about the ability of the Commons to question  the executive part of government in the chamber.

        Cameron dodges questions, etc., but I would argue having to face anything like the Commons requires, on average, considerably brighter people to become politicians than, for example, in the US where really dumb people get elected to executive positions all the time, but would fall apart if they faced questions as in the Commons.  Cameron is many things, but he is not unintelligent.

  • Brumanuensis

    I was quite taken by Cameron’s reponse to Ed’s observation that Cameron had been unwise to endorse Sarkozy – made in the post-WST debate on the G8 summit - that he would rather have a reputation for being loyal to his friends than for kniving his brother.

    And by ‘taken’ I mean, ‘disgusted by the crassness of using another person’s family as a weapon against them’.  

    • http://twitter.com/johnringer John Ringer

      …and for Cameron’s use of ‘knifing his brother’ read “standing against his brother as anyone with an iota of political nous expected”

  • AnotherOldBoy

    I think it was “muttering idiot”, rather than “mumbling idiot”, but, whichever it was, Mr Balls is still an idiot.

    As for the proposal for no fault dismissal, it is somethign that seems to be working for small businesses in Germany: http://www.freeenterprise.org.uk/sites/freeenterprise.drupalgardens.com/files/Learning%20lessons%20from%20Germany.pdf

    • Brumanuensis

      Or we’ll end up with ‘French syndrome’, where the rules on works councils apply to firms with more than 50 employees, resulting in a record number of firms with 49 employees.

      Shocking as it is to see a report from the ‘Free Enterprise Group’, written by a former member of the self-described ‘free-market’ (sic) think-tank ‘Reform’, advocating looser workplace regulations, there are a couple of good points on education and childcare. The rest is predictable dross. The usual unsubstantiated points about ‘fear factor’ are made and frankly, I don’t trust Ms Truss’s statistics – especially the ones on employment. She has form in this area:

      http://fullfact.org/factchecks/childcare_statistics_elizabeth_truss-3023

      http://fullfact.org/factchecks/is_there_evidence_that_higher_fees_improve_social_mobility-1577 

  • http://twitter.com/justmckeat Justin McKeating

    A subcutaneous apron?

  • http://twitter.com/HarryThompson11 Harry Thompson

    I do wish the boring Westminster bubble would stop complaining about PMQs being too ‘shouty’ and saying ‘the public hate it’. There’s a reason it has much higher viewing figures than some rubbish Select Committee – it’s brilliant. Nothing holds a Prime Minister to account more than having his floundering economic figures shouted at him by 300 political adversaries. If it was a sane, slow, question-and-answer session, nobody would bother watching it. It wouldn’t make it onto the news – and there wouldn’t be any awareness or scrutiny from the public.

    The only problem with PMQs is that it isn’t long enough – stop being a fun sponge.

    • http://twitter.com/robertsjonathan Jonathan Roberts

      Personally I think the behaviour of MPs at PMQs plays a part in the contempt the public hold for politicians.  If we stamped, screamed and made accusations of evil/stupidity as frequently as they do in our own workplace we’d be sacked.  And rightly so.

      I think Parliament should have a bit of decorum, and MPs should behave in a professional manner.  Decorum and professionalism are not words I would use to describe PMQs.

      And PMQs isn’t about fun.  MPs run the country, and the country is really struggling.  If I want to watch the circus I’ll get a ticket to the circus, I want this lot to run the country using their brains, not waste their time by slagging each other off  and playing silly games of one upmanship.

      • http://twitter.com/HarryThompson11 Harry Thompson

        Well, that’s not a great example – you’d get sacked from dropping a pencil under the governments proposed employment law deregulations!

        I note that the top of the BBC News videos playlist is David Cameron’s comment to Ed Balls from earlier. I also note there are no policy-heavy select committee briefings on there. Coincidence, or an example of ‘Wednesday Shouty Time’ working to raise the public’s interest in politicians?

        • Brumanuensis

          I think now is a good time to remind everyone of the old saying ‘the public interest is not necessarily the same as what the public are interested in’.

        • http://twitter.com/robertsjonathan Jonathan Roberts

          Well, no, actually you won’t be able to be fired for dropping a pencil.  An employer would still, in a case of unfair dismissal, have to shoulder the burden of proof that performance was unacceptable – albeit at a reduced rate.  Perhaps read the report?  But that’s beside the point.

          What BBC.co.uk chooses to cover is irrelevant.  The point you are making is that PMQs should not be a ‘sane…questions and answer session’, when I believe sanity is exactly what we need from parliament at all times, but especially during times of economic difficulty.

          Your main concern appears to be that providing more sanity in PMQs would mean ‘nobody would bother watching it’ and that ‘here’s a reason it has much higher viewing figures ‘.  My disagreement with you lies in my belief that Parliament should not be about a quest for good TV ratings, but a quest for, as Mr Blair put it, the pursuit of noble causes.  Parliament is not about entertainment, it is about the betterment of our country, or sadly at times, the decline of our country.

          You also say that ‘there wouldn’t be any awareness or scrutiny from the public’.  Well, the only awareness  of Parliament at the moment is that 650 people get into a room once a week to make cheap shots, suck up to the boss or argue over who is least crap.  For me this is unacceptable.

          Whilst I disagree with your suggestion that politians are simply giving the people what they want – I don’t think the public want it, and that is why they hate politicians – I simply believe the Mother of all Parliaments should be above Jeremy Kyle-esque squabbling, and that those priviledged enough to represent the public should take their jobs and responsibilities a little more seriously.

          • http://twitter.com/mistyblulabour dave stone

            “Well, no, actually you won’t be able to be fired for dropping a pencil.”

            Beercroft:“The downside of the proposal is that some people would be dismissed simply because their employer did not like them.”

            You won’t even have to drop a pencil.

          • http://twitter.com/robertsjonathan Jonathan Roberts

            Please note: I am not in favour of his proposal.  Although that quote did not appear in the report itself.  That particlar area is only part of the extension of existing legislation, not in the more substantial reforms that come following the initial two year period.  See the section on constructive dismissal.

            Nonetheless, this argument is on the value of PMQs, I’m sure we can debate the report elsewhere.  My point in this context is that inappropriate, unprofessional behaviour in the workplace can and should result in dismissal for ordinary workers, and it doesn’t apply for MPs.

          • http://twitter.com/mistyblulabour dave stone

            Sure. Just didn’t want people to think they’d be ok as long as they avoided dropping pencils.

          • http://twitter.com/HarryThompson11 Harry Thompson

            I feel at this point I should clarify the pencil-dropping remark was a joke. I’m sure pencil-droppers around the country will breath a sigh of relief at your assurances they are safe, Jonathan.

        • Dave Postles

          C-Span.

      • Daniel Speight

         Personally I think the behaviour of MPs at PMQs plays a part in the contempt the public hold for politicians.

        Possibly a very small part. Mostly the contempt seems to be for dishonesty, both financially and in speech, and that our MPs do now seem to be in a different class to the rest of us.

        • http://twitter.com/robertsjonathan Jonathan Roberts

          Daniel, I think the ‘they’re a different breed’ stuff does come from things like PMQs, when we see MPs behave in a way we would never be allowed to behave in our own workplaces.  Expenses etc confounded those already low public perceptions.

          • Daniel Speight

             Again I would say possibly a small part in why the public see it as a political class now. I suspect it’s more to do with this breed of apparatchiks who seem never to have had a job outside of politics or some London based think tank or NGO. The leavening of the MPs with ex-workers from our side, or ex-officers or aristocrats from the Tory side is no longer there. All we have are these clones which showed up so well with the candidates in the last leadership election.

          • http://twitter.com/robertsjonathan Jonathan Roberts

            I think they’re one and the same. People whose entire career and work experience is built around the cut and thrust of politics grow up to think that that the one upmanship of PMQs is what politics is about, not the concept of public service, and have probably never had to worry too much about the concept of professionalism.

            Although it’s worth pointing out from your latter point that Tony Benn was an ex-aristocrat who (besides his I’m sure heroic efforts in the RAF and a brief stint for the BBC) spent the vast majority of his life in politics and couldn’t really be described as an ‘ex worker’.  And he did OK as a Labour politician.

          • treborc1

            I think we should remove the  Cameras, everyone knew in 1989 when the dam things arrived you would get the jokes the daft planted questions and people playing to the audience.

          • Daniel Speight

             Perhaps we will have to disagree on the degree. To me behaviour at PMQs is just a symptom of the estrangement of our  political class from mainstream Britain.

            Not sure how Benn got into the thread as I was speaking about the leavening effect of ex-workers rather that the total ingredients. We see some decline in this between the 1945 government and the 1964 one. Again by 1997 more decline. After 13 years of New Labour it’s becoming far harder to spot a non-apparatchik in the PLP.

          • AlanGiles

            I agree with Daniel. To echo “Mr. Rupert” when I read and saw the evidence of people I had previously admired, and their rank dishonesty, I am afraid that it was the most humble day of my life my opinon hardened – especially the ones like Purnell, Byrne, McNulty and Blears who had professed such “outrage” at benefit claimants “playing the system”. Dishonesty is bad enough, hypocrisy even worse.

            I still feel Cameron did the right thing in insisting on some of the miscreants in his party being forced to stand down (though he should have gone much further, and at the top), and I really feel Brown should have done the same thing, rather than “drawing a line”. That was cowardly and jhust swept the dirt under the carpet.

            I think more prosecutions should have followed – the Met should have sent in a bunch of blonde policemen – then it would have been a “fair cop” :-)

            ———–

            Thats me for today. All my links today were that the men (and one lady) had played in early versions of the Woody Herman Band – known as “Herds”. Margie Hyams played vibes in the band in 1946, and at 88 is still with us – though I assume she has put down her mallets by now

      • Daniel Speight

         Personally I think the behaviour of MPs at PMQs plays a part in the contempt the public hold for politicians.

        Possibly a very small part. Mostly the contempt seems to be for dishonesty, both financially and in speech, and that our MPs do now seem to be in a different class to the rest of us.

    • Hugh

      Excellently put. There’s no evidence that “shoutiness” puts the public off; the existence of the Jeremy Kyle suggests precisely the opposite.

    • Brumanuensis

      Call me a  ‘fun sponge’, but like Jonathan Roberts, I’d prefer our political institutions to conduct themselves with a bit more decorum and not be regarded by the public as a slightly more high-stakes version of the Jeremy Kyle Show.    

    • http://twitter.com/mistyblulabour dave stone

      Long live PMQs! There’s nothing like a bit of parliamentary rough and tumble to reveal the character of our leaders.

      My amusement is always tempered by concern for the future when Cameron’s sets a new maximum on the hysteria scale; it explains a lot, what does he do when faced with a challenge? Start ranting and raving. No wonder we’re where we are.

      • Dave Postles

        Exactly.  There is false hysteria and anger, but then there is Cameron’s uncontrollable temper.  In later age, he runs the risk of bursting with indignation.

        • jaime taurosangastre candelas

          Not just him.  Here’s a man who looks to my eye to be well into the danger zone of myocardial infarction.  The very rapid flushing is a classic danger sign – it is sharply increased arterial pulse pressure meeting restricted veins.  I’m glad to see that since then he’s dropped some weight.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqtANltepC4

          • derek

            I think there’s a difference Jaime.This was a passionate outburst against a screwball whom is hell bent on ripping the heart out of state education while on the other hand Cameron doesn’t answer questions with any degree of passionate response to his governments failings he just flings the mud around. 

            Fascinating who you can diagnose from a TV shot? some may say that’s an additional sense.Are you a sixth sensor? 

          • http://twitter.com/mistyblulabour dave stone

            Quite so, Derek. Mr Watson spoke with wholly justified fury and gave voice to a heart-felt concern central to the well-being of the nation.
            Cameron, on the other hand, loses his rag when facing routine questions amid the hum-drum formality of PMQs.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            Derek,

            speak with a GP.  Most of them diagnose as a patient walks through the door and before they are sat down or have said a word.  It’s a real skill – listening to breathing, looking at pallor, gait, oddities like thick wrists or dry skin.  One of them told me that it is not (of course) the only thing they do, but “a picture paints a thousand words”.  They actually do a course in it as part of their professional formation.  So it is not a sixth sense, merely the application of knowledge.

            On the other hand, you don’t need to be a GP to see Tom Watson’s rapid flushing as he gets his anger going.  Knowledge of basic physiology tells you what causes rapid flushing.  Observation of his (at that point in time) over-weight puts him into a risk zone.  Listening to him you can tell that he is getting excited, which is often a trigger for heart attack.  Even the dropping of his left arm as he really gets going indicates that his body is under some stress (because of the internal plumbing of the body, the non-handed arm often goes into semi-stasis under physical strain.  It is part of the acute stress response).

            So not really a sixth sense.  Just a matter of knowing what to look for.

          • derek

            Sorry Jaime but I feel like there is a ghost-converse here.I could call you Jaime or Jamie or even Brian, why not Jamie Brian but he’s just a specialist nurse, so we return to the nom de plume position, to whom I’m I really addressing? someone gazing through the looking glass? Hmmm, there’s a definite knowledge and well being on the other end but I’ve no idea if there completely real or imaginary?

  • Terryweldon

    This is from the man who pledged (among a dozen other broken pledges), “No more yah boo politics”

  • JC

    Maybe if Ed Balls behaved like someone who thought he had a part to play in governing the country instead of thinking he’s still at school, we might get a better class of discussion. 

    Of course, PMQs has never been about asking the PM something you want to know the answer to, but about making your political point. Should it change?

    • Brumanuensis

      Yes.

  • Hugh

    “frightfully un-Prime Ministerial”. Whereas continual goading just off camera (this time asking Cameron  how many glasses of wine he had had), like some third rate footballer, is totally befitting the Shadow Chancellor. 

    • Paul Burgin

      Like Osborne has never goaded himself, oh no!

      • Hugh

         I’m sure he has, and if I ever profess to be outraged at someone insulting him in response, you’ll have a good point.

        • John Dore

          Paul were you going to respond here?

  • geedee0520

    The PM actually said the Ed Balls was a ‘muttering idiot’ but never mind accuracy!

    The regular viewers probably agree as Mr Balls continuously mutters idiotic statements (no I haven’t done a survey)   If you think getting under the PM’s skin by shouting from the front bench is a good thing then the rest of your ‘it’s not good enough for Cameron to be like this’ falls at the first hurdle.

    How’s EB’s advice to Germany going BTW – makes you shiver doesn’t it.

    • John Dore

      EB seems to think the Christine L is singing his tune, the delusion is epic.

      • derek

        Christ Dore, are you serious? Osborne was warned not to cut to fast and to deep and Osborne was warned not to increase VAT because it would lead us into a double dip recession.

        Where are we now?

  • derek

    Both Cameron and Clegg have repeated some of 
    Christine Lagarde recent statement incorrectly. Christine Lagarde wasn’t talking about any suggested labour governments overspend but was referring to the stimulus that the labour government introduced, she was clearly having a go at Cameron’s government and their reckless attitude to absolute austerity.Even today the conservatives talk about the recession as if it was something that only the labour government was responsible for while they blame their double dip recession on Europe. Totally hypocritical! 

  • Dave Postles
  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Graeme-Hancocks/1156294498 Graeme Hancocks

    DC is slowly morphing into Flashman. Ghastly man. 

Latest

  • News More evidence of that slick Downing Street media operation…

    More evidence of that slick Downing Street media operation…

    By Mark Ferguson

    Ed Miliband is addressing Google’s Bug Tent tomorrow, and is expected to attack them over tax avoidance. So the slick Downing Street operation presumably want to get out ahead of that, right? Not quite. Here’s a selection of the headlines from today’s papers: ‘Stop moralising about tax avoidance, PM told’ – Guardian p.23 ‘Tougher tax rules would cost jobs, minister warns’ – Financial Times p.3 ‘Cameron avoids showdown over Google tax row’ – Times p.15 ‘No taxing questions as PM [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Where are the women over 50 on our TV screens?

    Where are the women over 50 on our TV screens?

    By Harriet Harman

    Most people like to think that we live in a society that is fair and equal but for some it is still not equal at all. When it comes to TV presenters, women disappear when they reach over the age of 50. As part of the work of the Older Women’s Commission, I wrote to the six main UK broadcasters asking them how many older women they employ on screen and behind the camera. The figures provided by broadcasters show [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured The Loneliness of the Long Distance Leader

    The Loneliness of the Long Distance Leader

    By Stefan Stern

    That’s it. Enough is enough. I try to be reasonable. But you can only push somebody so far. It’s time to sort this out once and for all. I am fed up with this huge and growing army of sycophants and cheerleaders constantly bigging up Ed Miliband, and making helpful or supportive interventions on his behalf. The list is endless. Let’s shine a spotlight on the guilty men and women. There’s… well, there’s… er… you know… er… thingy… on a [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Europe We do not stigmatise your country, Deputy Prime Minister. It is you and your party we find distasteful

    We do not stigmatise your country, Deputy Prime Minister. It is you and your party we find distasteful

    By Rob Marchant

    Last Saturday a senior European politician wrote an article in the British press which made you want to shout at the computer screen. Not such an unusual event, you might think, but this was not a debater’s disagreement as one might have had with the viewpoint of a Tory, a Gaullist or a Christian Democrat. It was one which also left the reader feeling a bit nauseous. And that is because, rather than an honestly-expressed case justified with some evidence, it was [...]

    Read more →
  • News Watson urges investigation of “supressed” Leveson evidence – Media roundup: May 21st, 2013

    Watson urges investigation of “supressed” Leveson evidence – Media roundup: May 21st, 2013

    Subscribers to our morning email get the best of LabourList – including the Media and blog round up – every weekday morning. If you were a subscriber you would have already received this in your inbox. You can sign up here. Labour proposes teachers spend time in industry “All teachers involved in vocational education would have to spend a period of each year in industry, under Labour plans to integrate further education with emerging skills gaps identified by businesses. The strategy – announced on [...]

    Read more →