Options
Corbyn: Part time attendance at PMQs?
Rumours going around that Corbyn is only going to be participating in PMQ's 'every few weeks', the rest of the time delegating his role out to his deputies. The Mail & The Independent both have pieces on this.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-is-going-to-completely-change-the-way-pmqs-works-10498068.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3232204/Red-buried-Poll-says-labour-lose-two-elections-Corbyn-sensationally-crowned-new-leader.html
Surely that can't be right?
Say what you like about PMQs, but it is an opportunity for the opposition to be heard and keep the government in check on key issues. And I would have said that the Leader Of The Opposition plays the most critical role in that.
I can't see the logic in this, myself...does this not send a message that you're not taking opposition seriously?
Regards,
Cypher
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-is-going-to-completely-change-the-way-pmqs-works-10498068.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3232204/Red-buried-Poll-says-labour-lose-two-elections-Corbyn-sensationally-crowned-new-leader.html
Surely that can't be right?
Say what you like about PMQs, but it is an opportunity for the opposition to be heard and keep the government in check on key issues. And I would have said that the Leader Of The Opposition plays the most critical role in that.
I can't see the logic in this, myself...does this not send a message that you're not taking opposition seriously?
Regards,
Cypher
0
Comments
Prime Ministers never answer questions at PMQs, anyway.
Of course the Opposition leader has 6 questions. The SNP get 2 or 3 and all other MPs get 1. Why would he want to forgo 5 questions?
I think it is just the opposite. He is talking to the Speaker about dealing with a problem. The problem he perceives is that Cameron thinks it is some sort of amusing game to dodge questions about Food Banks.
But Cameron dodging and ducking questions of national importance only benefits the opposition as Cameron is seen as a man without answers.
Regards,
Cypher
There have been foodbanks for over 50 years.
The last government overturned Labour's ban on foodbanks advertising in jobcentres. That doesn't sound like a man trying to sweep foodbanks under the carpet does it.
I meant in terms of him not being the one fielding the Leader Of The Opposition's six questions. Sorry if that was unclear.
Regards,
Cypher
BIB Not sure how many of the people who took part in this...
"Tuned in or Turned off? Public attitudes to Prime Minister’s Questions"
...survey would agree with you
http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Tuned-in-or-Turned-off-Public-attitudes-to-PMQs.pdf
I can't see anything in that document that goes against the BIB.
That PMQs provides the opposition with an opportunity to be heard and hold the government to account, I'd say, were manifestly obvious facts..
Regards,
Cypher
The Speaker controls parliamentary procedures not Corbyn. Until the members of the chamber decide to change the timing and frequency the rules will be upheld.
Spot on. Leaders on both sides under the microscope. Corbyn will need to establish his leadership credentials - this move won't help one bit. And I'm far from certain that the electorate will take to a party being led by committee - which is what Corbyn is already suggesting and this is exemplifying.
I'm also questioning what Bercow will make of all of this.
For too long people felt left out of the Westminster bubble. This is a great way to make them feel involved.
He will apply the rules laid down.
If Corbyn hasn't got the courage to face the PM once a week then he will look like a total coward.
I believe JC has put a lot of thought into this as you have so eloquently put. I doubt it is for no reason, but a well thought out alternative instead of rabble rousing, swerving and mud-slinging. He's seen it all before.
He has also said that he will have to consult the Speaker about his ideas.
The procedure behind PMQs has come under review 12 times in 1965, 1970, 1972, 1976, 1990, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1997, 2002, 2007 and 2009. While some changes to its format have been notable, testament to its political value, the practice of PMQs, remains, in essence, the same as it was in 1961.
Leaders are meant to lead not deputise.
It shows that by and large people are not interested in what is said by the government or the opposition during PMQ's mainly because of the behaviour of MPs on all sides of the house.
It's a start, fine if it ain't the westminster way, but if there are no objections.... aye ok
Bercow is reasonable. He may even like the idea. Everyone knows PMQs is a farce, its time to make it serious again. If that means letting the public submit questions and letting Labour MPs share the questioning its a bold move but also an interesting one.
I would back it. UK politics is so outdated. I find it embarrassing.
But there will be objections and Corby will be expected to observe the rules. He is not very good at this having voted against his own party over five hundred times. He isn't a serious politician he is just an overgrown student protester.
In the PM's absence a deputy is given the task. In the past it was Clegg more recently, in June, it was Osborne doing it for the first time ever.