Leaving aside the squeaky indignations of our inadequate prime minister, and the frankly boring questions by the opposition leader. what exactly is the purpose of this braying, deluded clown show? We don’t get anything of use, we don’t get anything except question avoidance and grandstanding followed by someone shouting ‘more’ so that others nearby will also make the same noise. As if shouting a noise makes the point rather than the brain of the person supposed to be in charge.

I can switch it off but I also don’t understand what the actual use of this excercise is.

  • merridew@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    1 year ago

    PMQs is an opportunity for MPs to put questions to the Government, in public. If the government chooses to publicly dodge a legitimate question, that in itself is worth it.

    Before Blair, PMQs were twice a week for 15 minutes. Once a week for 30 is a recent change. And before Wilson & Heath it was pretty civilised. That too is a recent change, and it’s got markedly worse under the recent run of Tories.

    • SbisasCostlyTurnover@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      The problem is I don’t see them get much push back for their dodges. They’re smart enough to know the better way to handle a tricky question is to merely answer it with a question right back at the opposition.

      Get the PM on Question Time. For all its faults I think that’d be a much more uncomfortable ride for our elected leader.

    • snacks@feddit.ukOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      wasnt Harold Wilson related to half his MPs? no wonder it was civilised

  • mannycalavera@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    The beguiling thing is that about ten or so years ago MPs were asked why they scream and shout and act like children during PMQs and they just laughed it off saying “this is what the public wants robust debate”.

    They’re fucking delusional if they think the public wants to pay for them to act like a bunch of twats.

    Personally I don’t understand why the speaker doesn’t make a public example of MPs throwing them out if they behave like that. It’ll be embarrassing the first couple of times when PMQs grinds to a halt but then after that they surely can’t keep baying like this.

    OOOOORDAAAAAH!

    • rynzcycle@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m sure it was entertaining, and maybe even had the benefit of increasing public engagement when times were a bit more normal.

      But the “drunken lads at a sports event” vibe is somewhere between embarrassing and infuriating throughout the last few years of covid, cost of living crisis, strikes, and assorted other hardships. Is this a goddamn joke to them? Because for the rest of us it’s anything but fun.

  • theplanlessman@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Once upon a time the use of the exercise was to… question the PM. Nowadays it’s little more than a tool for political point scoring.

    I’m with you, I want to watch but I also want the PM to actually answer a bloody question every now and then. I feel there needs to be some kind of requirement for the PM’s response to actually answer the question given.

    I would even much rather they just say “I don’t have than information to hand” or “I can’t answer that question right now but will provide a response within X timeframe” rather than waffle and spin their way to their preferred talking point that they think will appeal to the voters.

  • Noit@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think it is important that it happens, even though it is a fair wedge of nonsense most weeks. The reason for that is the alternative isn’t “better holding of the government to account”. If PMQs was cancelled, nothing better would replace it. And we’d end up in a situation similar to the USA, where the executive can simply choose not to be in a room with dissenting voices.

    Do you think someone like Trump would even choose to try govern when every week he was forced to sit in a room with every member of the opposition and answer questions, effectively under oath, as to why he was governing so terribly? Followed by all the news networks showing clips of him being OWNED or BLASTED or whatever all-caps word they’re using for headlines this week?

  • UKFilmNerd@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I like to listen to it every week but the Tories just keep on spinning every fact to make it look like they’ve done better than ever before.

    Needs a decent fact checking service. The whole thing is over the top though and the rules in the house is antiquated.

    • Cliffjumper@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Especially if the fact checking was in real time, preferably with some variation on the QI klaxon.

      As soon as the feckless bastard says something inaccurate a big screen behind him would let him, and everyone watching, know.

  • HumanPenguin@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    The use of the exercise.

    Is for you to decide how well your government is doing. While opposition questions them.

    The fact that the current gov. And the last few before it. Fail to provide more then bullshit waffle. Should really tell you and every other voter something about them or the opposition.