# Why is the Debating Style in the British House of Commons So Weird? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 13, 2002, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-debating-style-in-the-british-house-of-commons-so-weird/113789 "2002-06-13T04:02:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![sirjamesp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@sirjamesp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sirjamesp)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2002, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-debating-style-in-the-british-house-of-commons-so-weird/113789/21 "2002-06-13T11:59:38Z")
**Xerxes** : Don’t worry - I’m aware that both sides of the House are as bad as each other! A quick note - MPs do _not_ have to give the Prime Minister notice of the questions they wish to ask during PMQs. This means that the PM has to think on his feet, without the benefit of spin-doctors, script-writers or party officials - which is why the session is such a valuable tool for scrutiny. One other point to consider about PMQs is that before the back benchers get a proper look in, the PM goes head-to-head with the leader of the Opposition. This really gives the Opposition a chance to get their teeth into the government - and you can be sure that any slip-up by the PM will end up in all the papers and news bulletins that evening. No disrespect to our American pals, but I’m not sure how, say, Pres. Bush would fare in such a free-ranging, quick-fire, in-for-the-kill debate such as British politicians must face in the Commons. IMHO, the system of scrutiny we have in the UK results in us generally having good calibre leaders (or at least ones with the gft of the gab). ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2002, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-debating-style-in-the-british-house-of-commons-so-weird/113789/22 "2002-06-13T12:03:20Z")
But what’s with the numerical reference sans question? George W. Bush can barely put a subject and verb together on his own without a script. I’d definitely like to see him creamed in a question-time situation. Is the prime minister obligated to appear for question time? ---
**Author:** ![Xerxes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/d2c977/32.png) [@Xerxes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xerxes)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2002, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-debating-style-in-the-british-house-of-commons-so-weird/113789/23 "2002-06-13T12:11:39Z")
Yep, he is, though I think he can be deputised if out of the country etc. One (imho) bad decision TB took early in office was to cut PMQs from 2 to 1 session a week (though I don’t know whether the actual time was cut… I seem to think it was). The more scrutiny, the better. ---
**Author:** ![Tamealien](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/0ea827/32.png) [@Tamealien](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamealien)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2002, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-debating-style-in-the-british-house-of-commons-so-weird/113789/24 "2002-06-13T12:12:19Z")
The number is the position of the question in the running order. Most MP’s ask something like “can the PM list his movements for the day?”, so that’s why he refers to the previous answer over and over again. The fun comes because the MP can then ask a supplemental “And why isn’t he doing anything about the dreadful state of the nation’s schools…” I’ve had the task of trying to write briefings second guessing all possible supplementals in the past (only for a minister, not the PM) ---
**Author:** ![sirjamesp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@sirjamesp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sirjamesp)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2002, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-debating-style-in-the-british-house-of-commons-so-weird/113789/25 "2002-06-13T12:19:52Z")
**Xerxes** - the total length of time remained the same when the number of PMQ sessions was cut from two to one. **Tamealien** - the “can the PM list his movements” thing is always the first question to be asked. It’s a tradition thing, I guess. The back bencher who asks this question then gets to ask the first proper question. ---
**Author:** ![sirjamesp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@sirjamesp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sirjamesp)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2002, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-debating-style-in-the-british-house-of-commons-so-weird/113789/26 "2002-06-13T12:21:50Z")
Oh, and **Tamealiean** - when preparing answers for Ministers, weren’t you ever tempted to put some double entendres in there? I’d be unable to resist power like that… 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![jinty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dbc845/32.png) [@jinty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jinty)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2002, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-debating-style-in-the-british-house-of-commons-so-weird/113789/27 "2002-06-13T12:39:56Z")
As well as addressing everything through the speaker, and using the “third party” form of addressing, there’s a rule of the House of Commons that insulting remarks must be withdrawn, to keep things civil. Can’t remember which politician it was who thought up this clever way round this restriction (I’m paraphrasing 'cos this is a half-remembered anecdote): Politician: Mr Speaker, I put it to the house that half the government are idiots. Speaker: The right honorable gentleman will kindly withdraw that remark. Politician: All right, I put it to the house that half the government are not idiots. (uproar) ---
**Author:** ![Phouchg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/41988e/32.png) [@Phouchg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phouchg)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2002, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-debating-style-in-the-british-house-of-commons-so-weird/113789/28 "2002-06-13T12:55:18Z")
Have there been any problems with speakers favoring (pardon, favouring) one party over the other? I think specificially of Betty Boothroyd, who was a well known Labour MP for years and years then being elevated to speaker. Would she shout “order! ORDERRRR!!!” only to the Conservatives and Lib Dems and let her labour pals have free reign? Phouichg Lovable Rogue ---
**Author:** ![sirjamesp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@sirjamesp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sirjamesp)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2002, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-debating-style-in-the-british-house-of-commons-so-weird/113789/29 "2002-06-13T13:12:07Z")
The current speaker (Michael Martin, Labour) came under fire for being biased. ([Cite](http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_1805000/1805475.stm)) However, to be fair he was still fresh in the job. Funnily enough, in recent months he’s got up the Government’s noses by insisting that they stop leaking news to the press before informing the House – so it seems he’s not so biased after all. ([Cite](http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_1813000/1813492.stm)) ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2002, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-debating-style-in-the-british-house-of-commons-so-weird/113789/30 "2002-06-13T13:41:22Z")
I still don’t get the numbered questions thing. Are M.P.s obliged to ask certain questions by number? Why not just ask the question they wanted to ask? ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2002, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-debating-style-in-the-british-house-of-commons-so-weird/113789/31 "2002-06-13T13:41:37Z")
As the Speaker’s authority largely depends on him/her being seen to be impartial, most take care to avoid any blatant bias. This is not that difficult, as most of what they are required to do is routine and uncontroversial. There are always some complaints (rarely voiced very loudly), but, as often as not, this takes the form of the Speaker’s former colleagues complaining that he/she is trying too hard to appear not to favour them. Speaker Martin’s objections to the leaking of news continues a complaint that was regularly made, equally ineffectively, by Speaker Boothroyd. IMHO Michael Martin is not as impressive as either of his two immediate predecessors (I’ve met all three at various times), but it is not unknown for Speakers to gain authority with time. ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2002, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-debating-style-in-the-british-house-of-commons-so-weird/113789/32 "2002-06-13T13:55:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by acsenray \* > \*\*I still don’t get the numbered questions thing. Are M.P.s obliged to ask certain questions by number? Why not just ask the question they wanted to ask? \*\* Because the questions are submitted in advance. Asking one’s actual question would make it too easy, allowing the PM to prepare an answer. Waiting until the supplementary before asking the real question means that the MP might be able to catch him out. That is why officials such as **Tamealien** have to prepare answers to all possible questions. This may be a colossal waste of time on their part, but it does mean that the PM gets thoroughly briefed on all areas of government activity at least once a week. ---
**Author:** ![sirjamesp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@sirjamesp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sirjamesp)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2002, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-debating-style-in-the-british-house-of-commons-so-weird/113789/33 "2002-06-13T15:05:19Z")
**APB** - questions for PMQs do not have to be submitted in advance, and the PM is not normally notified of the subjects either. Back benchers _may_ provide prior warning, but anyone wishing to trip up the PM doesn’t have to rely on supplemental questions; the easiest way is to just not warn him of what they wish to ask in the first place. Questions to other Ministers must be submitted in advance, but the PM gets no such help. [Some info](http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/a-z_of_parliament/p-q/newsid_82000/82556.stm). ---
**Author:** ![Tamealien](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/0ea827/32.png) [@Tamealien](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamealien)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2002, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-debating-style-in-the-british-house-of-commons-so-weird/113789/34 "2002-06-13T15:25:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sirjamesp \* > \*\*Oh, and **Tamealiean** - when preparing answers for Ministers, weren’t you ever tempted to put some double entendres in there? I’d be unable to resist power like that… 🙂 \*\* Extremely tempted - but I was relatively low in the chain, and by the time the briefing reached the Minister it would have been edited by five or six other people… ---
**Author:** ![Gold\_Dragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/d9b06d/32.png) [@Gold\_Dragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gold_Dragon)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2002, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-debating-style-in-the-british-house-of-commons-so-weird/113789/35 "2002-06-13T15:51:09Z")
[hijack] Being a Canuck, I am ignorant of the banter that goes on in the US House of Representatives. Could someone enlighten me on the differences from the UK/Canadian Houses? [/hijack] ---
**Author:** ![Aro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b3f665/32.png) [@Aro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aro)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2002, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-debating-style-in-the-british-house-of-commons-so-weird/113789/36 "2002-06-13T16:06:11Z")
(slightly unrelated…) If you have an interest and enjoy trashy novels you could do worse than read Archers “First Among Equals” to give a basic insight into politics in the UK, and the ‘behind the scenes’ goings-on. (end of unrelated bit.) ---
**Author:** ![mok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/edb3f5/32.png) [@mok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mok)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2002, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-debating-style-in-the-british-house-of-commons-so-weird/113789/37 "2002-06-13T16:12:54Z")
I’m surprised that no one has brought this up yet, seeing as how it’s so basic to the respective forms of government in the US and UK. The US President is _ **not** _ the equivalent of the UK Prime Minister. The above is an extremely important, actually one of the fundamental differences between the two forms of government. The US has quite distinct Legislative and Executive Branches. The President is elected totally separately from the legislators. The President is not part of the legislature, and is certainly not the leader of the legislature. He does have a veto power over legislation. He generally speaking has no right whatsoever to appear and speak in front of the legislature, except the once-a-year mandated State of the Union address. He cannot be compelled to speak to the legislature except when they are sitting in their role of impeachment and trial. And the Vice President has an almost purely ceremonial role in the legislature. In sharp contrast, the Prime Minister of the UK is by definition the leader of the majority party of the legislature. He is elected with the legislature. If the legislature changes, the PM often can be expected to change too. The PM has regular speaking responsibilities in front of the legislature. He has no veto power. Etc., etc. So any comparison between Tony Blair having to stand up to questioning by Parliament, and GW Bush having to do the equivalent, simply shows a basic lack of understanding of the forms of our government. GW Bush doesn’t have to stand up that questioning because that’s the way the government is built in the US. Blair does, because that’s the way the government is built in the UK. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2002, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-debating-style-in-the-british-house-of-commons-so-weird/113789/38 "2002-06-13T16:13:39Z")
There is very little of what might be considered actual “debate” in the U.S. Congress. Usually a senator or representative reads from a prepared statement of some kind. In those cases when this is actually back-and-forth exchange, the two sides will present opposing views, but very rarely do the participants try to do any direct scoring off of opponents’ statements in a real debate-club manner. They mostly just stick to their own “message” and it’s rarely very enlightening or scintillating. The rules aren’t as constrictive in the Senate, where the leadership has less power to limit debate, so there is more of an opportunity for real debate on an issue. Still, as I said, even when there are two senators expressing opposing viewpoints on legislation, it rarely comes out sounding like a real debate. ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2002, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-debating-style-in-the-british-house-of-commons-so-weird/113789/39 "2002-06-13T16:51:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sirjamesp \* > **APB - questions for PMQs do not have to be submitted in advance, and the PM is not normally notified of the subjects either. Back benchers _may_ provide prior warning, but anyone wishing to trip up the PM doesn’t have to rely on supplemental questions; the easiest way is to just not warn him of what they wish to ask in the first place.** No, the BBC article does a bad job of explaining what is admittedly a needlessly complicated system. Here is how the House of Commons official factsheet on the subject explains it. (It’s a pdf file so I’m simply going to ignore any copyright considerations and paste all the relevant section.) [http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/fact.htm](http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/fact.htm) > [@](#): > > \*\*In its present form the origin of Questions to the Prime Minister can be traced to an experiment begun on 18 July 1961, when Harold Macmillan was Prime Minister. Today, one Question predominates, asking if the Prime Minister will list his official engagements for the day on which the Question is to be answered. This is physically done by the first Member who asks a question saying ‘Number One’ to reflect the questions position in the order of business. It is a standard form of Question and it receives a standard form of answer the first time it is asked; from then on the Prime Minister refers the member to his first reply. In answer to this the Prime Minister lists the main engagements for the day. At that point the questioning Member can put as a supplementary almost any Question which relates to Prime Ministerial responsibilities or to almost any aspect of Government policy. In other words the original, indirect Question is simply a peg on which to hang a supplementary. Subsequent Members with engagements questions are called only to ask their supplementary question. > > This practice arises out of the twofold nature of the Prime Minister’s responsibilities. On the one hand the Prime Minister has an overall responsibility for the whole range of government which overlaps the responsibilities of each and every Minister. On the other hand there are only a few specific responsibilities - matters of national security and top appointments are some of them - on which he can be directly questioned. If Members were to confine themselves to questioning the Prime Minister about this limited range of specific responsibilities they would be hard put to fill up the Question period. So they mostly use the indirect or “shot in the dark” Question, as it has been described by a former Speaker. > > This form of Question undoubtedly has advantages for Members. The scope of a supplementary is normally limited by the rule that it has to arise out of the original Question, but since it is hidden by that question, an element of surprise is given to the supplementary. But if the original Question is about the Prime Minister’s engagements, the scope for supplementaries is almost unlimited, since he or she can be asked questions on anything relates to the Prime Minister’s responsibilities. The element of surprise therefore extends not only to the first but to all other supplementaries. Moreover, although a Member has to table his “shot in the dark” Question a fortnight ahead in order to stand a chance of an oral answer, if successful he need not compose his supplementary until the day on which it is to be put. It can thus be right up to date, and, if desired, bear on a pressing issue of the moment. A Member has, in fact, all the advantages of putting a Question without notice, a procedure which is used in several other Parliaments…\*\* (There is also the complication of Private Notice Questions but we can ignore those.) In other words, all the questions printed in the order of business, which are all formalities and which are usually all the same, get submitted a fortnight before, but it is the only supplementaries that anyone is actually interested in. There is nothing to stop an MP submitting the real question in advance but that simply makes it too easy for the PM. Government backbenchers do the same, even if their questions are planted, in order to maintain the pretence that the PM is wonderfully sponstaneous debater. Of course, if an MP wants hard information, he or she doesn’t ask the question at PMQ but instead submits it for a written answer. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2002, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-debating-style-in-the-british-house-of-commons-so-weird/113789/40 "2002-06-13T18:59:05Z")
Mok is absolutely right – under our current form of government there is no way to require the president to submit to the questioning of Congress. The president is not a member of Congress, does not derive his authority from Congress, and does not answer to the Congress. Nevertheless, it would be a wonderful thing to see George W. sputter, stammer, and present his wide-eyed, red face before a crowd of people who can actually think on their feet and who have something to say other than what someone else has told them to. (Okay, so maybe most of Congress doesn’t fit this description. Sigh. It’s as close as we get. Why is it that it’s either thick-headed empty-brained politicians or bull-headed, moronic commentators that we must choose from?) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-debating-style-in-the-british-house-of-commons-so-weird/113789.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-debating-style-in-the-british-house-of-commons-so-weird/113789.md?page=3)