Prime Minister "Question Time" versus President's State of Union Address

Great Debates
41

Manhattan? Speaking purely as an Australian here, but one who is in favour of the Westminster system as compared to the American “separation of powers” system… well, like most things in life there are pros and cons to every thing.

Some of the Pros attached to the Westminster system, in my humble opinion are as follows.

(1) The leader of a “Westminter System” country is rarely a “Johnny Come Lately” as it were. Our current Prime Minister started out 20 years ago as the Treasurer, which is a vitally important role in shaping, and managing fiscal policy and tax law etc. He then spent quite some time in the wilderness during stints when his party was the Opposition, and also because he definitely was NOT in favour with the National Executive of that party. Indeed he was banished to the backbench for quite some time where he didn’t even have an Opposition Portfolio at all. But all along, he was still a Member of the House of Representatives and eventually his star became in the ascendancy once more. In American speak, I guess the equivalent would be like “moving up the ranks” until you become Speaker of the House, as it were. The difference would be, however, if you did NOT have the Presidential Office as a separate Executive Branch. Imagine if the President was merely chosen at any given time as being the leader of the party with the most number of members in Congress, and that President therein was able to choose his Cabinet Ministers from various “stars” in his party from Congress.

(2) Because the Westminster System doesn’t have a separate Executive Branch a la “The Whitehouse”, the voting public recognises that their vote in Federal elections chooses “the party” to hold office, and the makeup of who will fill what roles is clearly known by the electorate before that election. The Cabinet Minsters (and the portfolios they hold) are all existing members of the House of Representatives, and some of them might not even be able to hold onto their local electorate - and the Opposition has a shadow cabinet already announced too, with Ministers holding “shadow portfolios” as well. In effect, the electorate gets to decide on which “team” they would prefer, as averse to which “man” they would prefer - but there’s a lot of overlap obviously.

(3) Each party in a Westminster System needs to assemble the brightest stars possible to form that “team”. If you’re in Opposition, question time provides an opportunity for those “Opposition Shadow Ministers” to actually second guess the official Cabinet Minister - after all, not all questions are directed at the Prime Minister in isolation. There’s quite a lot of prestige in being a very smart and insightful Opposition Shadow Minister who can ask tough questions, and indeed, “Parliamentary Privilige” means that they’re allowed to introduce some pretty damning evidence without any fears of libel. It’s not good etiquette to abuse “Parliamentary Privilege” though, and the unwritten rule is that wives and family personal matters are totally off limits. Nonetheless, question time provides the electorate to guage the various merit and acumen of both teams, that is the incumbent, and the Opposition. And I honestly believe this makes for a more informed electorate all things considered.

Certainly, one major “Con” which is attached to the Westminster system is that occasionally a Prime Minister’s authority can be diluted by not being able to act in an unfettered manner. This can be a good thing OR a bad thing depending on how you look at it.

Also, if a given country starts to have a third (or more) major party which makes the concept of “us or them” much harder to delineate, then you run the risk of shaky coalitions etc and politics creeps into the process of running the country, which can be a bad thing if it gets too unwieldy. In my experience, Westminster countrys which primarily have two major parties with just some crumbs scattered amongst your “independants” - well, they seem to be the ones which function most smoothly.

Unlike Italian or Isreali politics for example.

42

Well, I’m not going to bite on the attempt to turn this into a parliamentary government v. U.S. government debate. I’ll just note that people in this country, even if they don’t remember it, have a very strong reason to distrust parliamentary government; it is, in the main, the reason we declared independence.

As for question time, I love watching it. It reminds me of a series of debates held in this country in 1976 between teams of debaters from England (I believe they were from Oxbridge) and teams from prominent U.S. universities (the one my high school debate team went to see was at UCLA). Now American “debate” was a highly formalized process; I can remember at least two of my years having stock 1st Negative speeches for most of the well known proposed plans being offered by the Affirmative teams. Even the rebuttal periods were rarely scintillating examples of true give and take showing intellectual dissection of the points of the opposition. The debate series in 1976 addressed the proposition of which type of government was the better system, and I remember being quite astounded at both the ready and sharp wit of the English debaters as well as at their ability to provide specific and inciteful rebuttal of the arguments presented by the American debaters. EVERYONE left the debate in general agreement that, at least as far as verbal jousting went, the English debaters were far better than the American team.

I suppose that the point to this is that the American system of politics rarely emphasizes the concept of ad hoc argument and impromptu speaking. Watch our floor sessions of Congress or the state legislatures: each is a carefully stage-managed series of oratorical presentations of personal points of view, with rarely an impromptu moment. Campaigning is done in similar fashion. Even our “debates” at election time rarely involve true debate; for goodness sake Ronald Reagan was given a lot of attention for simply appearing to be a little more impromptu, and therefor more genuine, than his rivals. This does not lessen the amount of marvelous rhetoric (Daniel Webster, Abraham Lincoln, FDR, the Kennedys, MLK, etc.). But even the Lincoln-Douglas “debates” were much more a series of ordered speeches than a true debate between two individuals attacking each other’s statements as presented.

It is this fact, I think, more than anything else that results in a lack of something equating to question time in our own Congress. It is too bad, in a way, because it would be fun watching verbal gymnastics between, say, DeLay and Pelosi. But at the bottom line, can anyone really say that, in the whole, American government has produced worse results and worse people at the top than British government?

Ooops, forget that last question. I promised not to take us there… :wink:

43

Question Time is the high theatre and cutting edge of what I’d consider good government. The UK do it better than here, principally because the Speaker is more independent. Here it’s too often not so much questions without notice as questions without answers. Also in the UK you get more hostile questions from government back-benchers. Here, they are almost exclusively Dorothy Dixers.

But anybody who watched Wilson Tuckey, a conservative heavy, shitting bricks during Question Time recently as he was grilled over his intervention in the traffic affairs of his son will know how hot the spot light gets. (well OK, I’ll accept it should have been hotter and got his resignation). I was in the gallery once during the debates between Whitlam & Fraser not that long before the 1975 dismissal. Still get a buzz remembering the drama and tension.

However it’s not something you’d expect somebody to walk into. The preparation and swatting up necessary is phenomenal. “Mr President, tomorrow you need to answer 20 impertinent questions without notice or notes from GOP and Dem Senators/Congressmen on any topic and it’s televised live.”

As mentioned previously, almost all political leaders in parliamentary democracies have cut their teeth on the system. As Gough Whitlam, (a pretty handy parliamentary debator, I’d pay quids to see Gough v Blair) said, you win the confidence of your colleagues on the floor of the House.

Whether it would improve the quality of governance, or merely the ability to answer questions is entirely a different matter.

44

Can’t blame him. (Why did the Tories pick Home? Why not Butler or Maudling?)

45

If the President has to put up with “question time” does that mean he also gets a seat and vote in both Houses of Congress and likewise is free to personally participate in debate there?

A PM is not a president.

46

Well would the US Congress make hard question to Bush with no election coming up ? Doubtful in 1991 when it really mattered.

Thou I love to see the PMQT and its one of the reasons I regard Blair highly… and something similar would be very healthy to most Republics like the US and Brazil… a lot of it seems to be plain politics thou… “lets attack the opposition” moment. A good President doesnt necessarily have to be a good orator… but he should be able to answer most questioning.

Technical question... can the Prime Minister request information to answer a question from his Aides ? Or the topics are set before so he can be briefed accordingly ? Can he NOT ANSWER a question because he doesnt have the relevant info in memory ?
47

I refer the right honorable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.

48

Ok, but the previous answer has to have something to do with the question, right? Or is that just a general purpose, weasel out of answering line?

49

Spread that response on a field, London_Calling – maybe it’ll help the crops grow.

My point was simply that here in the States with our system, we’re already too dependent on the quick sound bite, the charismatic person, the guy who “looks prepared.” I don’t think a QT would be helpful to the process here.

I have offered no opinion on which system is “better,” simply that exporting the QT time of the English-style parliamentary system in isolation would not be helpful in terms of the electorate better understanding or having input on the issues of the day.

I mean, seriously – can you imagine Question Time during the Clinton administration? “Is it not true, Honorable President, that the Government proposes to have the President’s wife socialize the health care system, and is it not further true, Honerable President, that this socialization would bankrupt our future and deprive consumers of choices, and when did the Honorable President intend to inform the Americans that the government intended to supplement this plan with black helicoptors?”

Our system, for all it’s plusses and minuses, already has too much show biz.

50

I agree you can’t export that kind of thing in isolation. But I’m surprised you characterise it as both ‘sound bite’ politics and show biz. It’s great theatre but to ignore or dismiss the hundreds of years of PMQ’s before teevee was finally allowed in the House of Commons doesn’t make sense. Sure, it’s now on teevee but that’s not what it’s *primarily * about anymore than has been the case through history.

Besides, anything adversarial has natural threatrical qualities – like for example a English Common Law-type trial – but that theatrical quality doesn’t have to impinge on the reasons for process itself or for the purpose.

I also don’t have an opinion on which is better, not least because it implies one system is better; it’s like comparing the 1950s Yankees with the 1897 English cricket team.

51

I’m simply asserting that it would be a sound-bite competition here – I can’t speak for the other countries of the former empire, except to the extent that several people in this thread have opined that it’s become increasingly sound-bitish there.

General Question aside: Does someone have a good cite to the history of this thing? I’m seeing 1961, I’m seeing “hundreds of years”, all kinds of stuff.

Hey, wait a minute – you guys invented this to replace Benny Hill, didn’t you? :wink:

52

Benny Hill to Blair and Bush; not as far in time or style as I like it to be . . .
I looked but but didn’t find. Fwiw, the history of PMQ’s is as long as a piece of string, imho. Sure, it’s been increasingly formalised and re-jiged in recent times but it’s an adversarial House - even Blair has chaged PMQ’s in his short itme (from two 15 minute sessions to one 30 minute).

Not that it means much but I was reading at the weekend about one occasion when Oliver Cromwell had to placated the other members with some timely answers on a particular issue. But that wouldn’t have been called ‘PMQ’s.

So I’m saying the form changes but the principle remains.

Hope someone comes up with a link, though . . okay, I’m done here.

53

ok, this is kind of more for the OP than the most recent postings:
if the President’s job is more about foreign policy than domestic, couldn’t a QT be potentially detrimental on the international front? even though it’s probably ok if your Prez is a good debater, it still seems kind of debasing for his/her position as your head of state. and if he/she isn’t an “off-the-cuff” person…

54

**[Out-of-place boasting]

Check out the overall result of the 2003 International Law Moot Court Competition. Won by none other than my (Australian) law school…

[/Out-of-place boasting]

manhattan: this Canadian cite says 1721.

**

55

Manhattan? I agree, yes, to export Question Time in isolation to the US system wouldn’t really have any great effect. As it stands, Question Time within the Westminster System is effectively a byproduct, (and some would say benefit) of the adversarial system of having an incumbent party in power sitting across from their Opposition party, with all aspects of Executive Office being drawn from the Incumbent Party in Power.

I suspect that in the US System, the Executive Office would need to be merged back into the Congress and then you would need to have your President be elected from within that Congress for Question Time to have any real benefit I rather think. And I don’t see such a thing happening.

The best way to describe things is that in the Westminster System, you never actually get to vote for your Prime Minister - you merely get to vote for your local Electorate (or Seat). If the winner of your Local Electorate happens to be a member of Party X, and Party X ends up having a ruling majority in the House of Representatives, then Party X gets to choose a Prime Minister and Cabinet.

Some would argue that to do things this way in the Westminster System is a drawback because you never get to vote directly vote for your Country’s ultimate leader. Others would argue that this is inherently a check and balance. So, there’s no real right or wrong answer.

56

I would respectfully disagree with this characterisation. The PM is the head of the executive and ultimately responsible for the implementation of all government policies and laws. That’s what a lot of the questions to the PM often focus on: how well are the government/civil service/boards and commissions carrying out their mandates? How is the public money being spent?

The Speaker of the US Representatives doesn’t have any executive functions and has no direct responsibility for the way government policies are carried out. That’s the function of the President - the laws being faithfully executed jazz. In fact, if the Speaker is from the other party than the President, the Speaker’s analogue in the parliamentary system would be the Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. For example, Speaker Tip O’Neill played this role very well against President Reagan.

57

This point illustrates that there’s considerable differences even amongst the Commonwealth countries. In the Canadian Parliament and Legislatures, PMQT isn’t as formalised as this: the Opposition does not have to reveal any of its questions in advance, and any Opposition member, not just the party leaders, can direct a question to the PM/Premier. But, they can’t require that the PM or Premier answer a particular question, even if they direct it to him/her. The PM can wave it to one of the other Cabinet ministers, if it’s more appropriate for that minister’s portfolio. (E.g. - a detailed question about the budget might be waved to the Finance Minister, or a question about the details of a Criminal Code amendment to the Justice Minister.) Or, in other cases, the Opposition might direct a question to a particular Cabinet Minister, but the PM/Premier may decide to answer it instead of the minister the question was posed to, if the PM thinks it’s important enough.

The PM has to be careful about waving off questions to another minister, though, since the PM has to lead the government in the house. If the PM constantly waves off questions, he’s risking losing support from his own caucus, since he might appear not to be a good leader. It’s all incremental, of course.

58

Again, I would expect it would vary considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but there have been recent examples in the Canadian Parliament where question period has had a significant impact on politicians’ careers and public debates.

For example, a couple of years ago, the Opposition started grilling the PM intensively about an investment he had made in a golf club/hotel in his own riding, which had got some loans from a federal government development agency. The questions started out as a fishing expedition, but the longer they went on, the more attention the press paid to them. As a result, there’s currently a criminal investigation going on by the RCMP into the allegations, as well as a civil lawsuit by a dismissed manager of the federal agency. The federal Auditor-General (an independent Parliamentary officer, not an executive officer) started looking into the allegations as well. PM Chrétien seems to have personally escaped being inculpated, but the “Shawinigate” affair has certainly stuck to his reputation. The constant question periods raising different aspects of it have no doubt contributed to that.

Similarly, questions raised in the House about 18 months ago about a series of federal contracts to advertising agencies placed the issue on the front burner. One Cabinet minister was hastily dumped from Cabinet (kicked over to Denmark as our ambassador), so his political career is pretty much over. Then, the fellow who was appointed by the PM to clean up that portfolio was then asked very pointed questions about a free stay he got in a private cottage of a major contributer; he got booted from that portfolio shortly thereafter, and a third MP was appointed to it.

Now, I wouldn’t say that question period was the only reason these matters came to light; the media was sniffing around all of them as well. But the constant questioning in the House, which invariably hit prime time news, kept the issues on the front page and put considerable pressure on the government to deal with the issues.

Finally, as others have commented, the quality of the questioner is crucial. For example, until recently the leader of the smallest party in the house, the PCs, was the Rt. Hon. Joe Clark, a former PM and Cabinet minister with 25 years of experience in federal government. Since his party was so small, he was only allowed one question daily. The press reports indicated that the Liberal flacks put more prep work into getting ready for “Joe’s question” than for anyone else, because of his deep experience - his questions were generally the most probing.

59

Again, it will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I beleive that the rules in most Canadian Houses allow a Cabinet Minister, when faced with a very detailed question, to convert it into a “written return”. That means that he will provide a detailed answer in writing to the question, either within a certain number of sitting days, or by the end of the session, depending on the exact nature of the question. Of course, if a minister misuses this power and tries to duck answering a question that he should know the answer to, the Opposition would start to say that the minister was ducking, and so on.

So, if the Opposition asks something like: “Can the Honourable member advise the House exactly how many tenders have been made for new helicopters for the Armed Forces, when they were made, and how many responses the Government has received?” it’s pretty clear that the minister can’t be expected to answer it on the spot, so it would be converted to a written return. But if the question were more general and going to overall government policy (e.g. - “Isn’t it true that the delays in getting new helicopters has jeopardised the ability of the Canadian Armed Forces to carry out their duties?”) then the Minister had better stand up and have an answer ready.

These two examples (made-up, but based on ongoing political issues) illustrate the basic goal of question period - to hold the gov’t accountable, by allowing the Opposition to grill the Government on everything from the big picture to the minute details of gov’t taxing/spending/procurement.

60

Some details on PMQs. Bear in mind that most questions have to be submitted in advance, allowing the respondee (whether PM or minister) to have a prepared answer ready.