The method that the UK House of Commons debates and passes legislation is very strange–especially as compared to the US. People shouting and jeering. I once saw a picture of a member in the House of Commons–wearing a paper hat he made! He had a silly expression on his face too for some reason. Why do they do it this way?
Anyways, I anticipated that some people (in the US esp.) may not believe me. So as a cite, I have what I found in the House of Commons’ official website (but remember, if you use the previous link, you will only get the debating proceedures. Use this if you just want the official page) for the general website.) This is what the official website has to say about House of Commons proceedures:
That is all fine, but it doesn’t answer my question. Why do they do things this way? Where did it begin? And why don’t they stop? When I watch them on cable, they give me a headache :smack: .
I’ve seen the Prime Minister’s Questions on C-Span and my first question is, “Why don’t we do this in the US?” I would love to see Jr. Bush undergo that kind of ordeal. I also wondered about the people standing up and sitting down. I understand them doing it after the PM answers a question (trying to get the speaker to call on them next), but about a third of them stand up between the question and the answer, only to sit down when the PM stands up.
Well, why in the USA do the two parties in a court case try to “win” a fight using distortion and legal trickery? That’s a form of trial by combat, and the goal is not to get to the truth, the goal is to defeat your opponent.
I speculate that the House of Commons situation is like court cases in the USA: it is a civilized version of trial-by-combat. Christians know that Jehovah loves a winner, evil opponents always lose, and anyway, if you lost, it was meant to be.
I wonder if any country has ever tried a “scientific” version, where to use obfuscation or persuasion is entirely banned and harshly punished, and where the entire goal is to expose the truth rather than to “win” some kind of “battle.”
The House of Commons is meant to be a debating chamber - that is its purpose. The Government proposes legislation, and present it to the House. The other MPs can then pull it to bits, point out problems with it, support it, or try and score a few cheap political points - then vote on it.
In theory, this keeps the executive open to proper scrutiny, since it makes it harder to cook up any “back-room deals”. In practice, though, when a government has as large a majority as Labour currently do, they can force through anything they want - which is when PM’s Questions becomes an even more important feature of the week, since the Opposition (and other MPs) can hold the executive to account, and hold open debate with the Prime Minister.
The fact that many Prime Ministers have stated that they dread PMs Questions tells me that the system is a good one. The system of debating allows the Opposition to trip up the Government, and so is a good way to cut through the spin of daily politics.
[Interesting fact] There are two opposing benches in the Commons Chamber, and in front of each is line which MPs are not supposed to cross. The two lines are two sword-lengths apart, so that MPs of old couldn’t get too spirited during a debate. [/Interesting fact]
The main point is that much of the “action” in the parliament actually goes on in committees that scrutinize legislation both before and after passing. Most of the time, the debates in the house are not designed to change anyones mind (the party system exerts a strong control on how the members vote, unlike say the senate), but merely to get public opinion on their side. Thus the theatricals.
The members standing up and down are I beleive trying to attract the speaker of the house (chairpersons) attention so they can make a comment. Probably the only exercise most of them get.
This is standard debating rules, which almost any debating society uses - all remarks are addressed to the chairperson… I’m not sure of the exact reason, but I’d guess it removes the oppurtunity for getting into personal debates, and also helps prevent name-calling etc
This style of debate is the exception. Most of the time the debates are as boring and uneventful as those in any other legislature. The theatricals are usually reserved for controversial occasions. The main function of PMQs is that it gives MPs the chance to get all their excitment out of their system.
As to why it should be like this, the answer is (surprise, surprise) that the Westminster Parliament pretty much invented the rulebook on this. Those rules evolved over many centuries. Indeed, most of the basic standing orders were clearly already taken for granted by the late sixteenth century when the first detailed records of debates survive. What had evolved was the style that politicians themselves, then and now, prefer. Politicians like the rough and tumble; it makes debates more interesting (for them at least), they might make a difference and it gives them the chance to show off. It might even be a more effective way of conducting business.
I assume that the rule that all remarks are made through the Speaker simply reflects the older idea that, on formal occasions, it was polite to address one’s remarks to the most important person present. As ShadowWarrior says, this has the advantage of reducing name-calling.
Incidentally, on sirjamesp’s point about the two lines on the floor, the two swords-length theory has recently been challenged. One expert on the Tudor Parliaments has pointed out that the original lines on the floor of the old St. Stephen’s Chapel almost certainly predated its use as the Commons’ chamber.
Anyhow, what you guys have to remember is that, unless I am mistaken, we Canucks have the British parliamentary style of debate rather than the American congressional one. Question Period is a really good oportunity for the opposition to make points and get its voice heard. And really beat up on the folks in power, of course, live to the country usually as it gets televised and onto radio.
Why would you want to stop something that questions and tests Government policy in real-time ? It’s totally immediate and the Government’s actions are scrutinised by those opposed to it. That sounds like democracy in action to me.
Why watch ?
BTW, a similar but less combative scrutiny also takes place through the day in various House of Commons Committees.
Imaginary scenario:
**Opposition **:
"Mr Speaker. Today the Government announced that on the 8th May the so-called ‘Dirty Bomber’ was arrested while re-entering the US. Can the President tell us his role, and the role of his Administration, in the arrest of this man given that the immediacy of party political imperatives are not always conducive to pragmatic, long-term Intelligence gathering ?
What need was there, from an Intelligence perspective rather than political, to detain this individual, given that he posed no immediate threat and Agencies like the FBI are trained for, are indeed currently already heavily engaged in, operational surveillance activities on many others ?
Mr Bush:
The American people…
IMHO, Prime Minister’s Questions just helps to keep 'em honest.
Except when you get the bloody sycophants from the Labour back benches chipping in:
“Would the Prime Minister agree that he is looking absolutely dashing today, that he straddles Westminster like a mighty colossus, and that his wife definitely does not look like a bulldog chewing a wasp?”
It would take more than this to keep a politician honest! If you`ll notice, the questions at PMs Question Time are rarely answered in any useful way; the whole thing is an exercise in political point-scoring. It may look like democracy in action, but in reality it is pure theatre.
To be fair, sirjamesp, the other side did this too. And both sides use seeded questions as a method of allowing the PM (or whoever) to spout off a set piece.
Well, if you could establish political, or any other kind of dishonesty at PM’s QT ,wouldn’t that be the best possible kind of “point scoring”. That’s the goal of the Leader of the Opposition.
If the Opposition has something to get its teeth into, it does. It just doesn’t get that much to chew. And that is, in part and IMHO, is because of the scrutiny Government is under, including at PM’s QT.
It’s the idea that the questioner can hide his or her real question as a ‘supplemental’ i.e. the second question from that person and the PM can’t prepare for.
