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.
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.
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.
wasnt Harold Wilson related to half his MPs? no wonder it was civilised
These days, it’s for MPs to get clips for social media.
This. This is what it is used for.
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!
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.
Is this a goddamn joke to them?
I think it is. It’s a PR spin exercise to them.
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.
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?
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.
Downvoted. Because Sentences Should. Not Have Full. Stops In. The. Middle.
When you try typing on a phone. While visually impaired. Ill give the slightest shit about your opinion.
If you’re looking for sympathy you probably won’t get it by insulting them.
On a separate note, have you tried a voice-typing keyboard? I think mobile OSs have got quite good in terms of accessibility tools in the last few years.
Not really looking for anything. Think judgemental idiots like that deserve to be judged.
The issue with voice type. Is trying to use it in public makes you inconvenient to others.
I have no issue with a proper keyboard and large monitor at home.
But 2here as my those can read text via headphones. Me speaking to it is very public.
As much of my time requires me to travel via public transport. (For obvious reasons)
Speaking out my thoughts all the time would not be practical…
Could go with a classic t9 physical keyboard, I remember being able to touch type on one of those back in the day. Might have to make a few sacrifices in terms of other features though…
Yeah used them in the past.
They work. Much easier to find keys.
But the non tCtile effect of a smart phone makes me wonder how effective they would be.
It’s being able to feel the keys that helps I think.
But I may look at trying one on my phone sometime.
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.
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.
I’d pay a monthly fee to see that.
@Cliffjumper @UKFilmNerd Something like a cricket ‘review’ system could be useful (you can refer something you think is wrong, but if *you’re* then adjudged to be wrong, you lose one of three reviews)
Watching PMQs is the only redeeming quality about the House of Commons.
