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).
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?
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.
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.
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…
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and using the “third party” form of addressing, there’s a rule of the House of Commons that insulting remarks must be withdrawn, to keep things civil.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)
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?
The current speaker (Michael Martin, Labour) came under fire for being biased. (Cite)
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)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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…
[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]
(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.)
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.
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.
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.)
(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.
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?)
