6 and 9 PM (Pacific Coast Time) on SUndays, and (I believe) aired live on Thursday, though I forget the time.
Personally, I don’t think it’s been the same since William Hague quit.
The only time I see the President in anything like a debate is during the election campaign. The only time I see him under any kind of “pressure” is in foreign press conferences (where the present incumbent is literally too cringeworthy to watch).
Surely democracy would be better served by seeing a President forced to answer difficult questions in their own words?
Corrollary to what Spoons said, perhaps the United States’ President is ill-suited to rough-and-tumble question time simply because he is the Head of the State, not simply Head of Government.
The Head of State is (supposedly) the embodiment of a nation’s dignity. The office (in the US) bears executive power and stands above and apart from the legislature. It is a role with symbolic significance beyond that of governance.
As an illustration, if you asked an average Australian about how they would address their Prime Minister to his face, I suspect most would use “Mr Howard”, or “John” at best (or an insult at worst). If you asked an American, I suspect they’d answer “Mr President” or “President Bush”.
Why the difference? One reason is that John Howard is PM, but not Head of State. He’s simply the leader of the party which holds a majority of seats in the House of Representatives. He can be replaced by Parliament without an election – he can even be dismissed by the G-G.
GWB is Head of State. His role is viewed as an office carrying wider significance. He’s not just Leader of Government, he’s the living and walking embodiment of American statehood (insert your own joke here). For that reason, the President may be viewed as being above ad hoc questioning.
Whether or not we agree with the symbolism vested in the office of Head of State is another matter entirely…
It is nice to see the Government in power being constantly challeneged and questioned on policies and laws. Unfortunately not enough people take the time to watch this. The idea that we can tune in anyday Parliment is in session and watch, Live, as our elected officials debate the issues is amazing.
I think it holds the government more accountable as the leadership must answer for their policies before the nation, and are not isolated from open criticism.
I agree, but which President would be dumb enough to offer himself up to such an ordeal if he doesn’t have to? I mean, I doubt even the current President would be that clueless.
Narrad, thank you. Your post very neatly explained what I was trying to say, but obviously didn’t. Thanks!
Would it? Watching PMQ was like watching an Ari Fliescher press conference. Duck, spin, side-step, zinger, spin, zinger, etc.
Second, the president is nothing like the Prime Minister. The president cannot introduce legislation, cannot amend legislation, any executive orders he hands down can be immediately countered by a Congressional act, in short, he’s not really the head of the party. It’s entirely possible for the president’s agenda to be nothing like the Congressional leadership’s agenda. Even if they are from the same party. If you want a bill passed, it’s far more important to have the Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader on board than the president.
The reason the president doesn’t debate in Congress is because that’s not his job. He’s not in the legislature, unlike the PM. The policies themselves are debated in Congress and put under scrutiny there.
If Congress really needs answers, I suppose they could subpoena the president and have him answer questions in a hearing. But it would be pointless to bring in the president weekly for a televised debate because the president might not even support whatever hot topic legislation his party is pushing.
It would be much more effective to have the Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader answer questions ala PMQ than the president since a bill won’t even see the light of day without their OK.
We used to have them, every month or so. Bush has had, what, 3 or 4 since he started, none this year?
I would like to refer the distinguished member from Oregon to the previous answers. 
Ludovic has hit the reason of why I love PMQT on the head. In the US we see pols glom onto any excuse for some additional face-time. In the PMQT if a MP puts a question to the PM as a matter of record to his or her constituents the MP gets the laudably concise reply, “I refer the distinguished member to the answer given previously.”
I would love to see such a thing in a political debate on this side of the pond…
I think we sorely need to have a situation in which the president is asked questions that are not pre-approved and agreed upon, as seems to happen during the few press conferences we have here.
Fat chance though.
As it is, with PMQT, the PM must approve (if I recall correctly) of all question asked by anyone other than Iain Duncan Smith (Conservative head) and Charles Kennedy (the LibDem head).
The excitement comes because, on some questions (all those that have them say “Number 1, Mr. Speaker”), they are allowed an unmonitored follow-up.
Yep, the first question get the standard “I refer the Honourable member to the answer I gave . . .”. response - that’s becasue the first question just asks about the PM’s diary. It’s the supplemental question from the same person the PM hasn’t had sight of.
So I’m interested in when exactly do leading US politicians get to be publicly examined on policies of the day – what is the most immediate forum for opening issues up for public scrutiny and the result of that informing public debate ? Because that is a crucial quality in the parliamentary system; PMQ’s are but the most obvious example of a much wider political information culture that informs and invigorates the wider public debate.
GQ aside, please. Or maybe an IMHO aside. Are these question times ever really probative? I’m a big a fan as the next guy, but it seems to me that they’re pretty standard on the order of opposition member asks, “Does the Prime Minister intend to carry out (announced policy), and if so does that not mean (negative effect of policy) and (witty insult of announced policy)?” and the Prime Minister responds “the Honorable Member can assure his constituents that (announced policy) will be carried out and that it will (positive effect of policy), and I can further assure the member that (witty insult of opposition position).”
Is that pretty much it, or does it ever get more substantive? Do the papers there routinely publish statements from QT that are actual news, or does the government ever announce policy there or does the opposition introduce new arguments?
This isn’t intended as snarky – I really don’t have a clue what the answer is.
The late Roy Jenkins (twice Home Secretary, once Chancellor of the Exchequer, leader of the SDP, and Chairman of the European Commission) comments in the glossary to his biography of Churchill that PMQT has gotten “excessively gladitorial” in recent years, which suggests that, at one point between 1948 and 1987 (the start and end date of Jenkins’ House of Commons service), they operated differently.
It’s very dependent on the quality of the ‘combatants’. Unfortunately, the current Leader of the Opposition isn’t up to the job (political prejudices aside, he is an appalling orator). Also, it’s his misfortune and ours that he faces a man with 6 years experience at the Despatch Box.
The system allows for examination and cross-examination; genuine penetration of policy and other issues of the day. And the previous Leader did occasionally have Blair on the ropes . . . they were excellent duels. The holes found in policy would be magnified in the following day’s papers and thus the issue becomes part of the political debate – PMQ’s don’t happen in isolation.
Also, this form has a pre-emptive quality; ‘I can’t do that, I’ll get my balls ripped off on Wednesday in the house . . ‘
Thanks, Governor and London, that’s good color.
Given that, I’d have to say that a Question Time in the U.S. is a poor idea (it’s certain entertainment value aside). We’ve already got too much policy riding on whether this guy or that guy is a good orator or quick with a comeback. Perhaps in a happier era of politics, if one ever really existed. But now? I’d have to say it’s better to get things out in front of the public as best each side can do and let the press and the people make the chips fall where they may.
Um, the question period isn’t supposed to decide policy. It is informational. The idea is precisely to get things out in front of the public as best each side can do. The difference from the status quo being that a cowardly president couldn’t hide behind his flacks. This would force him out into the light to face the tough questions on camera.
Only briefly - PMQs wasn’t invented until 1961. It was very gentlemanly for the first two years when it was MacMillan vs Gaitskill, and immediately after Wilson became Labour leader (Wilson vs MacMillan PMQs were reportedly rather pally)
Once Home took over, Wilson went in for the kill and since then it’s been its present day bear pit. Jenkins is looking back to a very brief “golden age”
** 2sense ** Mantattan’s just indulging in a little spin, conservatives can’t help themselves. Some say its genetic . . . I couldn’t possibly comment . . .
Yep, it informs the political debate of the day by offering perspective to the otherwise Government spun single dimension; but that’s all it does, it contributes to a wider culture. Policy doesn’t hang on the debating skills of individuals.
interesting Q for me is whether this system encourages a more pro-active, questioning (read: critical) media or, conversely, whether the US system encourages a relatively unquestioning media . . perhaps they’re distinct, perhaps some would argue other influences contribute . .