Posts Tagged ‘PMQs’

A video is worth a thousand words

I have written many posts about various procedural measures used in the British House of Commons that I think would be welcomed additions to the Canadian House of Commons. While I have attempted to describe these measures in detail, viewing them in action would probably be far more enlightening. The BBC’s Democracy Live website makes available clips of specific proceedings from the UK House of Commons (and Lords), making it quite easy for me to provide readers with clips of urgent questions, ministerial statements and other proceedings.

Note – I don’t expect anyone to watch any of these in their entirely, but even if you watch them for only 10-15 minutes, you will gain a better sense of what is an urgent question, how oral questions to departments and ministerial statements differ from what we have in Canada, and why I prefer British procedure to what transpires in Canada. Some readers may disagree and prefer Canada’s chaotic (and in my view, rather unproductive) Question Period. That is fine. At the very least, you will better understand these procedures when I write about them in the future.

Oral Questions

When it comes to Oral Questions in the UK House of Commons, most people will immediately think of Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) – the weekly half hour where the Prime Minister alone takes questions from the House. The “highlight” of that is of course the 6-question exchange between the PM and the Leader of the Official Opposition.

However, in my view, PMQs is not that interesting, and more of a distraction than anything else. I much prefer the daily Oral Questions to ministers other than the PM. Each day, it is a different ministry (or group of ministries/agencies in the case of some of the smaller departments) which take questions. You can read more about the process here.

The above is the clip of the one hour questions to the Treasury of 8 February 2011. The first thing viewers will notice is that unlike for PMQs, the Chamber isn’t full. There is always sparser attendance for the department-specific oral questions, but at least the MPs who are present are there because they have specific concerns they seek to raise with the Minister. Unlike during Oral Questions in the Canadian House of Commons, where most ministers are present and take questions, only the Minister and parliamentary secretaries associated with the specific ministry facing questions are present. In this clip, we see Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne, seated to his right is Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander (the ginger-haired bloke with the glasses), to Osborne’s immediate left are MP Mark Hoban, Financial Secretary, David Gauke, Exchequer Secretary, and Justine Greening, who was then Economic Secretary (Ms. Greening has been promoted to a different ministry since, and this position is now held by Chloe Smith). These ministers will alternate answering questions, taking the ones which fall under their areas of responsibility within the ministry.

What you won’t see is a minister refusing to answer a question, or a minister from a completely unrelated department answering a question – common occurrences in the Canadian House of Commons.

Urgent Questions

Because government departments face oral questions on a rotating schedule, with each ministry facing questions once every 2-3 weeks, when an urgent matter arises that falls under the purview of a given ministry, any MP may request an Urgent Question. If the Speaker grants the request, the minister responsible will be summoned to the Chamber immediately following that day’s oral questions and will field questions relating to the urgent matter. These sessions normally last about an hour, but on some occasions, have lasted longer than that.

On Monday, 23 January 2012, the European Union agreed sanctions banning all new oil contracts with Iran and freezing the assets of Iran’s central bank in the EU. The following day, Foreign Secretary William Hague was in the Chamber to answer an urgent question tabled by Conservative Robert Halfon, who wanted to know what action was being taken against the country over its nuclear ambitions. Again, what Canadian viewers will note is that we have one minister taking questions on a specific matter from MPs from all parties.

Ministerial Statements

Ministerial statements in the Canadian House of Commons are, in my view, rather pointless affairs. In Canada, ministers are expected to make brief and factual statements on government policy or announcements of national interest. Members speaking on behalf of parties recognized by the House are normally the ones who speak in response to a Minister’s statement. In responding to the statement, Members are not permitted to engage in debate or ask questions of the Minister. Most ministerial statements tend to focus on commemorative matters (i.e. commemorating Veterans’ Week or the anniversary of some event) and explaining key pieces of government legislation. You can read more about ministerial statements here.

In the UK House of Commons, ministers use ministerial statements to actually brief the House on ongoing developments such as a disaster relief effort, an on-going military engagement, the economy, etc. The minister makes a brief-ish statement to the House, the Shadow minister responds, and asks a series of questions in his or her response, and then any MP can rise and ask a question of the minister. Like urgent questions, ministerial statements usually last about an hour, but the Speaker is free to let them go on longer than that is there is strong interest from a great number of MPs.

For example, on 21 July 2011, Prime Minister David Cameron recalled the House of Commons (which had adjourned for the summer recess the day before) to make a statement to the House in which he updated MPs on the remit of the judicial inquiry into the phone hacking scandal, which will be led by Lord Justice Leveson, and named the members of the panel for the inquiry. Mr. Cameron took questions from MPs for over two hours.

You will note that the House is very well attended for that particular ministerial statement. This isn’t always the case.

Prime Minister’s Questions

For anyone who may not have actually ever seen PMQs, you can catch up with the most recent ones on the UK Parliament’s youtube channel.

Related Posts:

Comparing UK and Canadian House of Commons procedure

Going by the keyword search activity on this blog, there seems to be much interest in comparisons of parliamentary procedure in Canada and the United Kingdom. I have written many posts about various parliamentary proceedings which differ notably in both countries, and so I thought I would regroup that information into one post, with links to the more detailed posts for those who wish to find out more. Please note that this is not a comprehensive explanation of all of the differences between the two countries – I am looking only at major areas of interest. Read more

Related Posts:

PMQs – The Game

For political geeks, summer is tedious. The Canadian House of Commons adjourned for the summer recess back in June, and they won’t be back until 19 September. Luckily, we still had the UK House of Commons sitting into July, but alas, they too adjourned on 20 July. UK MPs will be taking a shorter break than their Canadian counterparts – they’ll be returning to work on 5 September.

However, this still leaves us with six weeks of political void. No debates. No bills to ponder. No Oral Questions to entertain us. It’s enough to make one consider watching archived committee hearings of the Communities and Local Government Committee as they conducted an inquiry into the audit and inspection of local authorities.

Fear not, my political geek friends – someone has come to our rescue. It is with great delight that I share with you Prime Minister’s Questions – The Game.

This was brought to my attention curtesy of the kind souls at Rock, Paper, Shotgun. John Walker provided this entertaining review of the game, and at the end, there is the link to download the zip file. The game is free, simple to install and play, and quite endearing. It features real sound clips of UK House of Commons Speaker John Bercow calling everyone to order. You play as Prime Minister David Cameron, deciding how best to reply to the questions put to you by Opposition Leader Ed Miliband. Occasionally, you might also get a question from a backbencher. As Walker notes in his review:

It’s rather clearly a satire on the complete pantomime of PMQ, and its inherent pointlessness since the purpose of the event is for no one to actually answer anyone’s questions at any point. So it is for each question from Ed Milliband, you as David Cameron are required to pick the answer from a list that best sort-of-fits the question asked. None of which actually answer it, of course. Should you not have a question to match you can always try a special move, such as blaming it all on the previous Labour government.

A matching answer is one that in some way loosely references the question without answering it, while ideally insulting the opposition or boasting of your own party’s superiority.

The game’s developer, Mark Richards states in the comments section that:

There is one unique question-answer routine you can do in the game that causes a little upset and Mr. Bercow has to tell them all: “The public don’t like it. And neither do I.”

Anyone who follows UK politics regularly knows that this has become Speaker Bercow’s catchphrase.

I have played through the game a few times now, but haven’t managed to cause said upset. So for all of you out there suffering from PMQ/Oral Questions/Parliamentary Politics withdrawal during the ho-hum days of summer, you now have something to help you survive the next few weeks.

Related Posts:

Perceptions of parliamentary procedure: is the grass really greener?

Last week’s appearance by Rupert and James Murdoch before the UK House of Commons Select Committee on Culture Media and Sport (which you can view here if you missed it) as well as Prime Minister David Cameron’s ministerial statement in the House of Commons the following day (viewable here) received global media attention. Many Canadian journalists who normally report on proceedings in the Canadian House of Commons seemed enthralled by the often small, yet significant differences in how the UK and Canadian Houses of Commons function – the very same differences which I have been writing about here for over a year now.

CBC reporter Kady O’Malley, who regularly liveblogs proceedings on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, has since written two posts outlining some of the differences which she observed and, for the most part, would like to see adopted in Canada (first post on committee procedure, second post on procedure in the House of Commons). One highly respected political commentator, Andrew Coyne, national editor of Macleans Magazine, tweeted on July 20 “Everyone should be watching the UK phone-hacking debate, if only to see what a real parliament looks like”.

O’Malley’s post on committee procedure ignores one very important difference between Canadian and UK House of Commons committees: the majority of Select Committee Chairs are now elected by their fellow MPs. This applies to departmental committees and the Environmental Audit, Political and Constitutional Reform, Procedure, Public Administration and Public Accounts committees. Canadian committee chairs are elected by that committee’s members. Similarly, committee members in the UK are elected by their respective caucuses, while members of Canadian committees are appointed by their party whips. I have discussed this in detail in this post, and so I won’t repeat myself here, but it should be fairly obvious to most why having elected chairs and committee members would make for a more responsive and less partisan committee.

There are also a couple of other inaccuracies in O’Malley’s post on committee procedure. UK select committees do allow witnesses to make opening statements or general comments. Some witnesses decline to do so, but others take advantage of the offer. To her credit, Kady notes:

The following observations were inspired by what I saw when I was liveblogging the Home Affairs and Culture Select committees on Tuesday; as we are so often reminded, committees are, of course, masters of their own respective destinies, which means it is distinctly possible that other select committees operate on slightly – or even substantially – different rules.

O’Malley also writes that there aren’t time limits for questions and answers, nor on the length of time witnesses are expected to stick around to answer. Again, this isn’t entirely true. Each committee hearing has a set duration, for example, from 10:00 a.m. to 11:30. The committee may well decide to go on longer, or to cut proceedings short. Some witnesses do have to leave at a certain time because of other commitments, and so the committee knows it has only a half hour, or an hour, etc., with that specific witness. It is true, however, that unlike the Canadian House of Commons committees I have watched, the UK committees don’t have time limits for questions and answers.

While Kady O’Malley highlighted some key differences (based on having observed one committee hearing), a recent piece on the BBC website questions if MPs are really up to the task of questioning witnesses, stating that “[T]here had been criticism of earlier hearings for not asking sharp enough questions, or following up lines of enquiry.” One MP defended MP inquiries this way:

“We are asking questions as non-experts, as representatives of the public.

“You can’t prepare those questions in advance because you can’t always anticipate the way that the discussion will go.”

The comment by UK MP Nicola Blackwood that MPs are asking questions “as non-experts” also reminds me of former Prime Minister John Major’s recent calls for reforms to increase the number of MPs with expertise in specific areas, which I discussed in this post.

This is a legitimate criticism of parliamentary committees. For example, there has been much criticism of one MP on the Culture, Media and Sports committee, Louise Mensch, for making some comments during the July 20 hearing accusing former News of the World Editor Piers Morgan of phone hacking because he had supposedly admitted to this in his autobiography. This led to a fierce row between Morgan and Mensch, who refused to repeat the allegations outside of Parliament, where she would no longer be protected by parliamentary privilege. Here in Canada, other committee investigative hearings have been less than stellar. In 2007, the Canadian House of Commons Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics conducted an investigation into the Mulroney Airbus settlement. The questioning of former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney by MPs appeared often amateurish and boorish, and Mulroney’s legal counsel, Guy Pratte, described committee hearings as “damaging”:

“At a parliamentary committee there are absolutely no rules. Zero rules. At least at inquiry commissions some rules of fairness apply. Parliamentary immunity means things are said that never would be said if MPs were subject to defamatory libel.”

He remembers New Democrat MP Pat Martin saying to Mulroney: “I won’t call you a liar, but I don’t want anyone here to think that I believe you.” Pratte says, “That sort of thing would never be tolerated in a court of law. Never, never, never!” Mulroney fumed at the insult and his son Ben, the television host, had to be restrained in the audience. “Parliamentary committees play with peoples’ reputations sometimes in a very dangerous and damaging way,” says Pratte. “I understand they have work to do, and it is a political forum. I suppose there is a political advantage to be gained from getting a big headline the next morning.

“I’ve said it many times in the Mulroney affair. It should resemble an ordinary court.” Pratte says. “We should at least try to respect the basic principles of fairness. I wanted to present myself in politics several times, but my experience as much with Mr. Pelletier as Mr. Mulroney left me discouraged by the performance of certain, but not all, MPs and the lack of concern with which they threw out any sort of accusation.”

Kady O’Malley’s second post looked at differences between the UK and Canadian House of Commons in general. On Twitter on July 21, many Canadian journalists were enthralled by the ministerial statement delivered by David Cameron on the phone hacking scandal and the questions and debate which followed. I have also explored the vast differences between Canadian and UK ministerial statements, O’Malley, for some reason, did not comment on that at all. While UK ministerial statements are always far more productive affairs than their Canadian counterparts, this one was quite noteworthy: Cameron took 136 questions from MPs during his statement.

It was interesting to see the many comments from Canadians on Twitter, some of whom lamenting that Canada doesn’t have a Prime Minister’s Questions (not that there was a PMQs on 20 July). It reminded me that only days earlier, the Independent had run an article celebrating the 50th anniversary of PMQs. The sub-headline of that article reads: “No other parliament has anything like Prime Minister’s Questions.” Quite a few readers took exception to that and rattled off a series of countries that they said had PMQs: Finland, Japan, Hong Kong, Australia, Canada, to name a few. It was clear to me that people were confusing a general oral question period where all ministers, including the PM, take questions, which is what both Canada and Australia have, with a questions session where only the PM and no other ministers takes questions. It made me wonder if the Canadian journalists on Twitter, who were expressing such enthusiasm for PMQs, were aware of the UK House of Commons’ other daily questions – the department-specific oral questions, which I’ve written about in detail here. I don’t know if they’d be as impressed by those since they are such staid affairs when compared to PMQs. They should be, however, since again, they are far more productive than the Canadian version of Question Period for both getting information from the government and holding it to account.

Regular readers of this blog will know that I personally believe that the UK House of Commons functions far better than its Canadian counterpart, but as we all well know, the grass usually does look greener on the other side of the fence – or in this case, ocean. At least one very prominent figure in the UK believes there is still room for further reforms at Westminster.

House of Commons Speaker John Bercow spoke to the Guardian and stated that while “MPs and peers have “rediscovered their collective balls” over the phone-hacking affair”, more could be done to strengthen Parliament. First on his list is finding a way to allow Parliament to compel witnesses to appear before committees.

Parliamentary committees (both in the UK and Canada and other jurisdictions) have the power to request witnesses to give evidence to them via an informal invitation issued by the committee clerk or the committee chair. They can also draw on their formal powers to summon witnesses via a Speaker’s warrant. That power is unqualified, “except to the extent that if conflicts with the privileges of the Crown and of Members of the House of Lords, or with the rights of Members of the House of Commons.” (Erskine May, 24th edition, p. 820). Should a witness fail to comply with such a warrant, however, they will be found in contempt of Parliament. In theory, the House of Commons has the power to send for persons whose conduct has been brought before the House on a matter of privilege by an order for their attendance. In practice, however, as Bercow notes, this isn’t really an enforceable power:

“If the Murdochs had refused the warrant to attend, we would have been in an extremely awkward situation. I don’t think there is much we could have done. There has been a complete ambiguity, a lack of clarity, an uncertainty about what our powers are.”

Bercow says select committees should have enforceable powers to compel witnesses in British jurisdiction to attend, and not, as at present, “depend on a toxic blend of bad publicity and the entirely implausible threat of imprisonment.

“I don’t think frankly it should be the Speaker on behalf of the house imprisoning a witness. We have got a creche in the parliamentary estate, but not so far as I know a cell.”

I sort of agree with Bercow that there probably needs to be a better way to compel witnesses to attend when summoned to appear before a parliamentary committee. Currently, the most likely outcome of a witness’s refusal to appear before a committee will be for that person to be found in contempt of Parliament. They may be called before the Bar of the House to be reprimanded by the Speaker or asked to apologize, but again, there is no way to compel them to do so:

The problem is that the sanctions – involving fine or imprisonment – to enforce any punishment are constitutionally somewhat rusty. Vernon Bogdanor, the former professor of government at Oxford University, has suggested they may have fallen into “desuetude” [disuse]. The House of Commons is not believed to have fined anybody since 1666 and has not “committed anyone to custody”, apart from temporarily detaining them, since the 19th century.

The last time the Commons attempted to reprimand anyone at the bar of the house was in 1957 when the Sunday Express editor John Junor was criticised after offending MPs by publishing an editorial accusing them of abusing their petrol allowances. “Such a sanction would now appear high-handed,” the recent standard and privileges committee report acknowledged.

Another MP, Adrian Bailey, who chairs the Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee, has called for new laws to be introduced to force witnesses to appear before select committees. In the US, a federal act makes contempt of Congress a misdemeanor “punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment.., for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.” Perhaps something along these lines would be what Bailey and Bercow have in mind.

Bercow also would like to see witnesses before committees examined under oath “as a matter of course”. Committees do have the power to administer oaths to witnesses, however, more often than not, they aren’t. This too has ramifications. If a witness was not sworn in before testifying, and then found to have provided false evidence or misled the committee, the worse that will happen is that they may be found in contempt. However, again according to Erskine May (p. 824), “[B]y the Perjury Act 1911, s 1, where evidence is given upon oath, the giving of false evidence is punishable as perjury. The power of either House to punish for false evidence is not, however, superseded by this Act.” Meaning that it would still be up to the house to administer any punishment – the range of which are similar to those available for anyone deemed to be guilty of contempt. And again from Erskine May:

it should be borne in mind that in 1978, the House of Commons resolved to exercise its penal jurisdiction as sparingly as possible, and only when satisfied that it was essential to do so. Thus many acts which might be considered to be contempts are either overlooked by the House or resolved  informally.  (p. 251)

And while Canadian journalists and political watchers were so enthralled by PMQs, that item of business remains a source of great frustration and embarrassment for Bercow:

“I cannot think of any business that would put its worst product in the shop window and in some respects it’s our worst product. I think the level of heckling, the extent of catcalling, the sheer decibel level, are not conducive to reasoned debate.”

Related Posts:

The media and oral questions

Contemporary mediated democracies may have enlightenment trappings, but in the Twenty-first century Question Time is essentially a media event. Especially if you’re, say, helping to turn it into a collective viewing experience on the #qt stream, there’s not much point complaining about that. (source)

It was a shocking experience – the first nice prime minister’s questions I can recall. This was a huge disappointment for everyone in the public, press and peers’ gallery and for MPs themselves. (source)

But the painful truth is that, while the theatrics of Question Period in the past may have debased the House of Commons, they enlivened it as well, generating heat if not often much light. This week QP mostly generated a refreshing afternoon nap. (source)

Question period, Questions, PMQs, Question Time, Oral Questions – by whatever name you want to call it, is the part of the parliamentary day where the government is held accountable for its administrative policies and the conduct of its Ministers, both individually and collectively. How effective oral questions can be at achieving this goal depends on various factors. The opposition must ask clear, relevant questions – too often they ask rhetorical questions that really can’t be answered, or use the question to highlight their own party’s position; sometimes they ignore questioning the government on policy and instead look to score points by focusing on personalities or other less relevant matters. The government should provide clear, factual answers; too often, they reply with quips, or turn the question asked into a criticism of the opposition’s policies, or simply refuse to answer the question or defer the question to another minister.

There is another factor that affects the effectiveness of Question Period, and that is the atmosphere in the House and the behaviour of the members in attendance. We’ve all read countless opinion pieces bemoaning the conduct of MPs in the House – the catcalls, the insults, the hyper-partisanship. The more disruptive everyone’s behaviour, the more time is taken away from the actual asking of questions. Since oral questions in every jurisdiction that has one is often the only part of the parliamentary day that will make the evening news cycle, this proceeding has become the public face of parliamentary business for most citizens, and more often than not, it isn’t a very pretty face that is put forward. There is no shortage of opinion conceding that the overall boorishness that too often predominates has done much to undermine the public image of politicians.

Against this background, there was much buzz in the Canadian media when, at the outset of the new Parliament, the new Official Opposition party, the New Democratic Party (NDP), vowed to stop heckling and catcalling, and instead maintain the strictest decorum during Question Period. Some, such as Globe and Mail columnist John Ibbitson, found the quieter, gentler Question Period a rather somnolent affair and said of himself and his fellow journalists: “we’re dyin’ here.” Sun News Reporter Bryn Weese labelled the new Question Period “boring as sin“. Others have commented on how many more questions get asked now because less time is lost to attempts to regain order in the House. However, a rather informal count on my part reveals that there aren’t really that many more questions being asked; on average, only about three additional questions are asked in the new session of Parliament, compared to the last session of the previous Parliament.

The first two quotes at the outset of this post refer to Question Time in the Australian House of Representatives and Prime Minister’s Questions in the UK, respectively. In both instances, the writers clearly favour a rough and tumble oral questions over one governed by order and decorum. From a journalistic point of view, this makes sense. Most debate in the House of Commons (not only in Canada – pretty much in any deliberative body) is, to be blunt, boring. That is why the media very rarely covers anything outside of oral questions. Oral questions devoid of insults, jeering, cheap shots and other forms of grandstanding are also boring – because then all that is left are questions and answers about legislation, policy and programs, which are complex matters, and, as I’ve stated in previous posts, often of little interest to the vast majority of voters, and, it would seem, most political reporters.

Yet the point of oral questions is not to be entertaining, it’s to hold the government to account. The Australian blogger responsible for the first quote believes that this notion is passé, and that Question Time has evolved in the 21st century to be purely a media event. That may be so, to a certain extent, but is that a good thing? If oral questions were always as civil and uneventful as most other business conducted in Parliament, would the media simply stop covering it? Is the real problem not whether politicians get rowdy during oral questions, but that the media isn’t really interested in reporting about the actual content of the legislative agenda of the House unless they can be guaranteed some sort of show?

The substance of questions asked, or the answers received, is almost never discussed in the media. Reporters look for soundbites, for clips that will play well. Members yelling across the room at one another, the leader of the opposition stabbing the air with their finger in mock outrage, the Prime Minister rolling his or her eyes in exaggerated exasperation, etc. What they’re so outraged about, does anyone ever remember? It’s all about the show, the point scoring. An insult caught off-mike will garner more air time than any policy-related matter that comes up during questioning. For the media, politics has to have a winner and a loser. This is always the assessment of the weekly PMQs in the UK House of Commons. Who won this week – the PM or the Leader of the Opposition? And even this focus ignores the bulk of PMQs – the Leader of the Opposition asks only six questions – the rest of the time is taken up by questions from other MPs. But those questions are, for the most part, ignored. PMQs comes down to a scoring match between David Cameron and Ed Miliband. The language used in the media is telling: “Mr Miliband sank to the occasion with a surprise attack”, “next few minutes were enveloped in the fog of war”, “Cameron conducted himself like a Guards officer who finds himself ambushed”, ‘Cameron hadn’t anticipated this attack”, “[T]actical success was gained”, “two leaders continued to trade blows”, “Miliband had scored a clear points victory”. One wonders if one is reading the sports section and not the politics section.

I have to wonder if this reality is a sort of a “chicken or the egg” situation. Is Question Period/PMQs/Question Time rowdy because the media is covering it, or does the media only cover it because it is rowdy? The media rarely reports on other parts of the parliamentary process, which tend on the whole to be much more civil. If cameras were removed from the press gallery, would order and decorum return to oral questions? If the press suddenly decided to cover debates as extensively as they cover oral questions, would the usual decorum fly out the window?

Despite what our Australian blogger believes, Question Period is still first and foremost an attempt to hold the government to account and solicit information from it. Perhaps if the media made a concerted effort focus on the substance of the questions asked and answers given instead of who scored the most direct hits, all members participating – opposition and government alike, would strive to improve the quality of both their questions and answers. But as long as the media essentially ignores the content and focuses only on the performance, there will be little incentive for things to improve.

Our politicians know that it’s not a thoughtful, well-researched speech during a debate on some piece of legislation on agricultural policy that will get them headlines, it’s “scoring” during oral questions. We can’t expect voters to be interested in politics and the issues being debated by our legislators if their only exposure to Parliamentary business is the media’s interpretation of oral questions as being primarily about point scoring, who’s up and who’s down, conflict, us vs. them.

Oral questions is about holding the government to account – and that applies to the media as well. If the government regularly refuses to provide answers with any substance to them, that is what the media should focus on, not who got in the best one-liner. If some reporters feel that they’re “dyin’” because oral questions isn’t a fireworks display anymore, perhaps they could revive themselves by looking at what is being said rather than how it is being said. And if it’s “boring as sin”, then perhaps they should consider covering sports rather than politics.

Related Posts:

Fixing Ottawa: Question Period

(This is the second in a series of posts on Fixing Ottawa. Other installments are: Fixing Ottawa: Committees, Fixing Ottawa: Draft Legislation and Fixing Ottawa: Empowering Backbenchers.)

Canada’s Liberal Party released its election platform (manifesto) this weekend, and it included this pledge (p. 72):

Liberals believe that all parties must act to increase the civility and substance of Question Period. Many observers believe a model closer to that of the British Parliament would be better, with more time for both questions and answers, scheduled themes and rosters of required ministers, and a weekly Prime Minister’s question period (though the Prime Minister should still be expected to attend all days possible). A Liberal government will advance such reform in Parliament.

I’m maybe the only person in the country who has fixated on this one pledge. To me, it’s the most interesting proposal put forward by the Liberals. I firmly believe the British model for oral questions, while certainly not perfect, is still superior to what transpires in the Canadian House of Commons. Regular readers of this blog will know that I’ve written about Question Period many times. Two of my more recent posts can be found here and here. There will be some repetition in this post – I apologise in advance to those who’ve read the earlier posts.

As I’ve repeated many times on this blog, the purpose of Oral Questions is to seek information from the government and to hold the government to account. Please bear that in mind as you read the rest of this post.

How Question Period unfolds in Ottawa

Question Period is a daily occurrence lasting 45-minutes. It begins with the Speaker recognizing the Leader of the Opposition, or the lead questioner for the Official Opposition, who then asks a question of a minister. This lead question is usually followed by two others, called supplementary questions. Normally, the Leader of the Official Opposition will direct his or her questions to the Prime Minister, regardless of the topic of the question. By that I mean, they won’t restrict their questions to subjects that are specifically the remit of the PM, but will ask the PM questions about foreign policy, the economy, etc., – matters that fall under the mandate of specific ministers.

Each of the lead questioners of the other officially-recognized opposition parties is permitted an initial question and one supplementary question. Again, the lead questions from the other party leaders are generally directed to the Prime Minister. Throughout the rest of Question Period, other Members representing parties in opposition to the Government continue the questioning, and these questions are directed to the various ministers present. They may direct questions to the PM, but questions that are not from other party leaders will normally be deferred to the appropriate minister or Government House Leader.

Members representing the governing party, Members of political parties not officially recognized in the House and independent Members are also recognized to ask questions, though not as often as Members of officially-recognized opposition parties. Typically, the questions asked by government backbench Members are considered “softball” questions, meaning they are staged questions written by the government to allow the government to promote some of its policies and achievements. Some government backbench questions are nothing more than attacks on the Opposition parties. It should also be noted that while the questions of government backbenchers are scripted, so are the questions asked by opposition backbenchers. It rarely happens that an MP is free to ask a question of specific interest to them or their constituents.

Participation in Question Period is managed to a large extent by the various caucuses and their Whips, and can be the subject of negotiations among the parties. The recognition pattern of questioners varies depending on party representation in the House and the number of Members in each party. As well, the parties may negotiate a maximum time limit for each question and answer. Currently this limit is 35 seconds for each (remember, the goal of Question Period is to get information and hold the government to account). On average, about 40 questions get asked.

Each party decides daily which of its Members will participate in Question Period and provides the Speaker with a list of their names and the suggested order of recognition. However, the ultimate authority to recognize Members rests with the Speaker.

There are a few other points worth mentioning. The Prime Minister usually takes part in Question Period from Monday to Thursday, but rarely, if ever, on Friday. In fact, few front-bench ministers and shadow critics take part in the Friday session; it is usually left to parliamentary secretaries and junior critics. Also, ministers do not have to answer questions; they can refer them to a cabinet colleague, or simply refuse to answer.

Question Time in the UK House of Commons

Question Time takes place for an hour Monday to Thursday, and each day, it is a different government department that faces questions. Smaller departments are grouped together and share the allotted time – either half an hour each, sometimes less. Each government department answers questions according to a rota called the Order of Oral Questions, which you can view here. The questions asked must relate to the responsibilities of the government department concerned.

Oral questions are tabled by MPs at least three days in advance of Question Time. This is to allow the  ministers responsible to prepare their answers. The questions are then printed in the Commons Questions Book. The order in which the questions are asked is determined randomly by a computer. You can view the Questions Book here.

MPs who are called by the Speaker to ask their question do not read it out, but simply call out its number. After the Minister has responded to the original tabled question, the MP who asked that question is normally the first to be called to ask a follow-up (supplementary) question on the same subject. When that supplementary has been answered by the Minister, the Speaker may call other Members to put forward supplementaries, usually alternating between the Government and Opposition sides of the House. Quite often, Members will rise from their seats in order to attract the Speaker’s attention. Sometimes, a Minister chooses to give a single reply to two or more questions on the Order Paper relating to the same topic. In that event, the Speaker will usually call for supplementaries from those Members whose questions have been answered together.

The last 10-15 minutes (depending on the length of that department’s question time) of question time is reserved for ‘topical questions’. During the topical questions slot, MPs can ask supplementary questions on any subject relating to the department’s responsibilities. Ministers do not have advanced notice of these questions, but must still be prepared to answer. There is no pre-determined time limit for questions and answers, but there is a quota for each department. For a department that gets the full 60 minute question time, the quota of questions is set at 25. In other words, the UK question time is 15 minutes longer (for some ministries) but more substantial answers are given since only about 25 questions will be asked instead of 40+ during the Canadian Question Period. The UK ministries that get 40 minutes for their Question Time have a quota of 20 questions.

Note that each day’s Question Time features questions dedicated to a specific ministry or ministries only, and that the minister and the secretaries of state (similar to parliamentary secretaries in Canada) responsible must answer the questions asked. Other ministers from other government departments are not present (except maybe as spectators). The Prime Minister is not present during these sessions, but does answer questions during Prime Minister’s Questions.

Prime Minister’s Question Time

The Prime Minister answers questions from MPs in the Commons for half an hour every Wednesday. The session normally starts with a routine question from an MP about the Prime Minister’s engagements. This is known as an ‘open question’ and means that the MP can then ask a supplementary question on any subject.

Following the answer, the MP then raises a particular issue, often one of current political significance. The Leader of the Opposition then follows up on this or another topic. They are permitted to ask a total of six questions. The Leader of the Opposition is the only MP who is allowed to come back with further questions.

Most MPs will table the same question about engagements and if they do, only their names will appear on the question book. After the first engagements question has been asked, any other MPs who have tabled the same question are simply called to ask an untabled, supplementary question. This means, in theory, that the Prime Minister will not know what questions will be asked of him.

Urgent Questions and Ministerial Statements

While the UK format seems to me to be far more productive, and succeeds better at providing the House with information and allowing MPs to hold the government to account, the obvious objection is that since a department will be scheduled to appear only once every 2-3 weeks, what if something urgent occurs that requires the House to question that minister? The answer to that is: Urgent Questions and Ministerial Statements.

The UK Question Time is supplemented very nicely by Urgent Questions and Ministerial Statements. Besides being subject to the standard rules for questions, Urgent Questions (UQ) are also judged against two additional and special criteria laid down in the rules of the House: they must be urgent and of public importance. Sudden developments or emergencies fulfill these criteria, although these can quite often be covered in the form of a Ministerial Statement. A Member must apply to the Speaker before noon on Monday or Tuesday, 10.30am on Wednesday, 9.30am on Thursday or 10am on a sitting Friday on the day in question, to put forward such a question. The relevant government department would be informed at once. It is up to the Speaker to decide whether or not to allow an Urgent Question, and if it is allowed such questions will be taken immediately after Question Time, or at 11am on a Friday.

The procedure on Urgent Questions is similar to ordinary oral questions.  The main question will be asked, the Member who has put the question down is then allowed to ask a supplementary. Other Members will then be called to ask further questions on the same subject.

Ministerial Statements are initiated by the Government rather than by a Member or Members of Parliament. The PM or one of his or her cabinet ministers will address the House on a given topic – usually to brief them on ongoing developments such as a disaster relief effort, an on-going military engagement, the economy, etc., and then will take questions from MPs. Ministerial statements exist in Canada as well, but could not be more different. In Canada, ministers are expected to make brief and factual statements on government policy or announcements of national interest. Members speaking on behalf of parties recognized by the House are normally the ones who speak in response to a Minister’s statement. In responding to the statement, Members are not permitted to engage in debate or ask questions of the Minister. Most ministerial statements tend to focus on commemorative matters (i.e. commemorating Veterans’ Week or the anniversary of some event) and explaining key pieces of government legislation. You can read more about the differences between Canadian and UK ministerial statements here.

While the Liberal Party’s pledge to adopt an oral questions format more closely resembling the UK model, while a huge improvement over the current Question Period format, it alone won’t be enough. The UK practice of Urgent Questions would need to be adopted to deal for emergency situations that would require the immediate questioning of a specific ministry, and the current format of Ministerial Statements would have to be overhauled to mimic more closely what occurs at Westminister. The current ministerial statements format used in Ottawa is, to be frank, rather pointless and contributes little.

The Liberals also proposed changes to strengthen parliamentary committees, but sadly, these did not include changes to how membership on committees is determined. Still, at least there’s a faint hope for some reform of Question Period.

(Edit: After posting this earlier today, I learned that today in the UK House of Commons, after the usual hour of departmental questions, there will be an Urgent Question on armed forces redundancies, followed by no fewer than four oral statements by ministers: William Hague on the situation in Libya and the Ivory Coast; Andrew Lansley on NHS Reforms; Owen Paterson on the Omagh bomb; and Steve Webb on pensions. Remember that ministers take questions after delivering a ministerial statement to the House, which means a significant proportion of today’s proceedings will be taken up by questions and answers on key areas of policy.)

Related Posts:

Another oral questions comparison

I am still somewhat fixated on comparing the quality of exchanges during Oral Questions as they occur in both the Canadian and UK House of Commons. I was finally able to find a comparable exchange between both countries’ Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition on a similar topic: the nature of each country’s mission in Afghanistan. First, the Canadian exchange from November 16, 2010, between Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Leader of the Official Opposition, Michael Ignatieff:

Hon. Michael Ignatieff (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since June, our party has been clear: the combat mission in Afghanistan must end in 2011, and Canada must then engage in a training mission. We have heard the government’s proposal. Can the government and the Prime Minister assure us that Canadian soldiers will not be involved in any combat once the new mission begins and that the training will be done—

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we are not proposing a combat mission. I took note of the Liberal Party’s advice in that regard, and I can assure the Liberal Party leader that the mission until 2014 will be a non-combat mission.

Hon. Michael Ignatieff: Mr. Speaker, 20,000 Canadians served in Afghanistan since 2001; 153 brave soldiers did not survive and their sacrifices must not be in vain. We need to be clear about this new engagement of Canada after 2011. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that this is not going to involve combat, that it is going to be out of Kandahar and that the training will occur in safe conditions in Kabul?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper: The answer is yes to all those questions, Mr. Speaker. As the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and others have said, we are looking at a non-combat mission that will occur. It will be a training mission that will occur in classrooms, behind the wire, in bases.

The government has been very clear and we do think this is a way of ensuring we consolidate the gains that we have made and honour the sacrifices of Canadians who have served in Afghanistan.

Hon. Michael Ignatieff: Mr. Speaker, we called for an open national debate on this question as far back as June. The government spent five years saying nothing about Afghanistan. In fact, the Prime Minister said very clearly he wanted no post-combat mission. Then he changed his mind. Then there were trial balloons. Then ministers were saying one thing, then another. There was a period of frantic improvisation, and three days before Lisbon, presto, we get the details.

Can the Prime Minister explain and justify this process of frantic improvisation in the making of Canada’s foreign policy?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, of course, the current mission does not end until well into next year. That is why the government has taken the time to look at all the facts on the ground before making the decision it has taken.

I note that the decisions we have taken are very close to what the Liberal Party in fact recommended, so I am glad that we actually agree on this particular matter.

And from February 2, 2011, this exchange from Westminster between Prime Minister David Cameron and Leader of the Official Opposition, Ed Miliband (caveat – this was an usually restrained and respectful PMQs exchange between Cameron and Miliband, as both note at one point):

Edward Miliband: I am sure there is a consensus across the House on the points that the Prime Minister makes, and I know he will keep the House updated on the situation in Egypt. I want to turn now to Afghanistan. We support the mission and the timetable he has set for the end of combat operations by British troops. During my visit, the commanders on the ground told me that we are bringing real pressure to bear on the insurgency. Will he provide the House with his latest assessment of the overall progress of our mission in the light of the timetable that has been set?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful for that. We are making progress in Helmand, but it is important not to focus just on Helmand; we have to look at the rest of Afghanistan too. If we look at where we are responsible for-Helmand itself-we see that Government authority has gone from six provinces to 12. That is where the Afghan Government have control, out of a total of 14. That is progress. Crucially, the increase in the Afghan national army is on target for 171,000 soldiers by the end of this year and 134,000 police.

I think the key is the better balance of forces we now have. There has been a surge in the number of troops and we have a better balance between the US and the UK forces, so we are more thickly concentrated in fewer areas and better able to do the job. We have set this clear timetable, saying we do not want UK forces to be in combat or in large numbers by 2015. I believe that is achievable, but we are going to have to work hard on training the Afghan national army and pursuing a political track to reintegrate those who have been involved in insurgency, and we also need to ensure that the government of Afghanistan improves in the way that I know the right hon. Gentleman believes, too, is important.

Edward Miliband: It is that point about the political track that I want to pursue with the Prime Minister. Does he agree that setting a timetable makes it even more important that we have a lasting political settlement, and one that endures beyond the departure of British troops? Does he further agree that an inclusive political settlement must reach out to those elements of the insurgency that are prepared to break all links with al-Qaeda, renounce violence and respect the Afghan constitution?

The Prime Minister: Those are the absolutely key conditions. To those who worry about a timetable, I would say that setting a timetable encourages people in Afghanistan themselves to recognise that they have to take the steps necessary to take control of their country again-so, yes, we do need this political track. We need to work much harder at it. The keys are separating the Taliban from al-Qaeda, rejecting violence and accepting the basic tenets of the Afghan constitution, and we need to push this extremely hard so that we can do what we all want to do, which is bring our brave soldiers home at the end of this conflict.

Edward Miliband: I sense that people are not used to this kind of Prime Minister’s questions, but let me finally emphasise to the right hon. Gentleman the urgency of supporting the Afghan Government in establishing that political settlement. I will support him in all the efforts he makes on that with the United Nations, the United States and all our NATO partners. What concrete steps does he believe we can take between now and the Bonn conference at the end of the year to make that happen?

The Prime Minister: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is right. From all the noises off, it is clear that people would prefer a bun fight, but sometimes it is sensible to have a serious conversation about the issues that we face. I know and he knows that when we visit our troops in Afghanistan they want us to discuss what they are doing-to discuss it sensibly and try to get it right. With reference to encouraging the political track, it is important that we engage not just with the Afghan Government, but with the Pakistan Government. It should be our aim to create an Afghanistan that is stable enough for us to take our troops home without it becoming a hotbed of terrorism. We will not be able to do that unless we engage with the Pakistanis. That is the key to solving the problem, and having a political track so that those who have been opposed to us recognise that there is a democratic path-a peaceful path-that they can follow, but they must give up violence and renounce al-Qaeda before that can happen.

I will leave it to readers to decide for themselves which exchange proved more informative and productive.

Related Posts:

It ain’t showbiz

For everyone who regularly bemoans the raucous showdown that is Prime Minister’s Questions, this week’s mostly respectful and thoughtful exchange between David Cameron and Ed Miliband was a welcomed surprise.

In the even that you didn’t see this week’s PMQs, it was described variously as “eerily quiet and unusually civilised PMQs. Politics the way it sometimes can be“, a “display of good manners and calm” that “was pretty unusual“, and “a refreshing change” that left the rest of the House ” stunned into silence by this peculiar scene“, to quote but a few. All the questions from Miliband focused on foreign policy, and Miliband’s office had given the PM’s office advance notice of what topics would be raised. In the end, the two pretty much agreed on everything.

Which would be a good thing, one would think. Invariably, clips of loud, raucous PMQs, where one-liners and put-downs are the norm and precious little actual information exchanged, are what the viewer typically sees, and this leads to dismissive comments that the House of Commons is nothing more than a schoolyard dominated by grown children yelling back and forth at each other. It is frequently cited as contributing in no small part to the lack of respect many feel towards politicians. Consequently, a mature, respectful PMQs in which the Opposition manages to do what it is supposed to do – hold the government to account by extracting actual information from them should be both welcomed and applauded, right?

Apparently not. While many praised what transpired on Wednesday last, many more were very dismissive. In the Guardian, Simon Hoggart wrote:

It was a shocking experience – the first nice prime minister’s questions I can recall. This was a huge disappointment for everyone in the public, press and peers’ gallery and for MPs themselves. (…)

The whole session – or at least the mini-debate between the PM and the Labour leader, which is the only part that counts – was conducted in a manner as calm and emollient as the weekend singalong at an old folks’ home.

This is how bad it got. While David Cameron spoke, MPs were talking among themselves. Not barracking, not trying to score points, but chatting to each other because their private conversations were more interesting than anything he might be saying. All public speakers know, and dread, that experience. For a prime minister it is unheard of. (…)

Certainly Messrs Cameron and Miliband seemed very pleased with their own gentlemanliness. As the sound of MPs chuntering on about anything except Egypt and Afghanistan rumbled round them the Labour leader mused, “I sense that people are not used to this kind of prime minister’s questions.”

Cameron agreed. “From the noises off, it is clear that people would prefer a bunfight, but sometimes it is sensible to have a serious conversation …”

Yes, I thought, and you can have that in private any time you like. But PMQs is our weekly fun. Don’t spoil it.

Meanwhile, over at the Spectator, while Peter Hoskin called it a “refreshing change”, his colleague, James Forsyth concluded that it was “a reminder of just how dull PMQs would be if it was not confrontational.” A commener on Hoskin’s post wrote “I really hope this doesn’t set a precedent of civilised discourse during PMQs. Most viewers watch PMQs precisely because it IS confrontational.”

The Spectator’s Lloyd Evans was also less than enthusiastic about the new tone of PMQs, describing it as “[O]ne yawn every minute”:

Foreign affairs dominated the session as Ed Miliband and the Prime Minister exchanged lofty words about the Cairo demonstrations and the spread of democracy around the world. Doubtless they felt they struck a suitably elevated tone but to the viewers they came across as a pair of prep school smart-alecs trying to sound like great statesmen disposing of liberated peoples after the fall of empires. Egypt and Afghanistan were both treated to a torrent of high-minded vacuities. (…)

Poor old Mr Speaker slumped in his chair like a pensioner watching the covers go on during Day Four of the Oval test. His eyelids drooped and he seemed to be dreaming of the glorious days of yore when he used to leap up every two minutes and out-shout any member who dared to out-shout him. (…)

As soon as PMQs ended the BBC’s coverage flipped straight over to Tahrir Square where history was unfolding while parliament slept.

According to many then, the point of PMQs is to entertain viewers, not hold the government to account. Perhaps, then, in order to raise viewing numbers for other parts of the daily parliamentary cycle, the Commons should consider spicing things up somewhat – maybe even holding a form of Wipeout-based competition to decide which MPs would get to speak during a given debate! Now that would certainly be worth watching!

The point of televising the work of the House of Commons is not to entertain, but to inform. Parliamentarians are not supposed to be competing for ratings, but focusing on ensuring proper legislative scrutiny and holding the executive accountable. If that doesn’t sound especially exciting, that’s fine – it’s not supposed to be exciting. It may not even be very interesting a lot of the time. The minutae of certain bills would put even those directly concerned by them to sleep at times. Parliament isn’t supposed to be gripping TV. No one expects consensus to be the norm, but disagreement doesn’t have to degenerate into raucous yelling matches either.  As Andrew Sparrow noted in the Guardian:

“Politicians sometime agree. It makes for dreadful copy, but it happens more often than you think and it’s sometimes useful to be reminded of this.”

Note to readers: I probably won’t be blogging for the next few days as I am undergoing a surgical procedure that may limit my time at the computer. Hope to be back soon!

Related Posts:

It’s important to have a cheer line

I certainly don’t plan on writing an analysis of PMQs every week, but when there is something noteworthy, I will make a point of, well, noting it.

This week’s PMQs were noteworthy primarily for something that happened outside of PMQs. It seems Labour has sprung a leak. The Times got hold of an internal party memo on how Ed Miliband should handle PMQs. The Times is behind a paywall, so I can neither read the complete contents of the three-page memo, nor link you to the original story. Luckily, various other news sources have kindly cited some of the highlights of the memo. Those I will share with you.

1. The Big Prize. “The big prize is usually to provoke the PM into appearing evasive by repeatedly failing to answer a simple question, often one that requires a simple Yes or No.”

2. Cheer lines. “It’s important to have a cheer line that goes down well in the chamber and can be clipped easily by the broadcasters. Mocking humour is especially useful here, especially if it strikes a chord with Tory backbenchers to silence them.”

3. Cameron’s tactics. “His favourite tactics include: i) Quoting Labour politicians in order to rebut the Leader of the Opposition’s argument, e.g. quoting GB when answering on fiscal responsibility; ii) Shoehorning prepared jokes into his answer, irrespective of the question, normally based on a story in the news that week, e.g. Peter Mandelson’s book, Harriet’s “peace pods” at DCLG; iii) To ask a question to the Leader of the Opposition, particularly in his sixth answer so that the Leader cannot respond.”

4. Cameron’s weaknesses. “His main weaknesses are: i) Predictability. He sticks very tightly to his overall political messages, particularly on the deficit; ii) Detail. Unless he is well briefed on a particular issue, he tends to prefer to answer in generalities before mooching onto the attack; iii) Aggression. He moves quickly to practised answer and, sometimes, unrehearsed insults.”

5. It’s noisy, be concise. Due to the often noisy atmosphere in the Commons, the memo suggested it was hard for an opposition leader to develop a line of argument in their six allotted questions and it was best to be concise and specific.

6. Body language is important. “It is important to get to your feet looking as it you are seizing on something new. If you ‘umm’ or look like you are just moving to the next part of your script, they will think he wrong-footed you in his answer”.

As you would expect, Cameron ribbed Miliband about the leaked memo, but, like other commentators, I think he waited too long to use that trump card, if you want to call it that. His memo reference came only at the very end of his exchange with Miliband:

We all had the chance to read about it in The Times this morning-the advice to the Leader of the Opposition:

“It’s important to have a cheer line that goes down well in the chamber.”

You have to have something that

“can be clipped easily by the broadcasters”,

and:

“It is important to get to your feet looking as if you are seizing on something new.”

The right hon. Gentleman has a plan for Prime Minister’s questions, but he has no plan for the economy, no plan for the debt and no plan for the mess Labour made-absolutely nothing worth while to say. That is it.

Did Miliband follow the memo’s advice? Pretty much. His questions were concise and focused, concentrating on the government’s plans to reform the housing benefit:

  • There are reports the government is reconsidering aspects of their housing benefit reforms. Are they?
  • Is the PM saying all aspects of housing benefit reform are fixed and not going to change?
  • The plan is to cut by 10% the housing benefit of someone after they have been out of work for a year. Does the PM think that is fair?
  • What advice would he give to that family seeing 10% of their housing benefit taken away about how they should make ends meet?
  • How many people does he think will lose their homes as a result of this policy?
  • Isn’t the truth the PM just does not get it? Isn’t it time he thought again on housing benefit?

He had cheer lines:”This is Prime Minister’s questions-the clue is in the title. He is supposed to answer the questions.” and “We can see the faces on the Liberal Democrat Benches. The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) has described that policy as “harsh and draconian”. No wonder he looks glum. Then we have glummer, the Deputy Prime Minister-it is no wonder that he is back on the fags.” (For those less familiar with British expressions, “fags” is a perfectly acceptable term for cigarettes.)

However, I would have to score this session a draw. I don’t think Miliband managed to rattle Cameron the way he did the first week, nor do I think Cameron dominated the exchange as he did last week. The housing benefit cuts is an issue that won’t quickly go away, and Miliband was right to use that as his chosen attack – and he deployed it quite effectively, with a sharpness and focus that was clearly lacking last week. For the most part, though, Cameron also followed his preferred tactics, as identified in the memo, particularly his tendency to play the “What would Labour do?” card: “We are going forward with all the proposals that we put in the spending review and in the Budget. I am sure that we would all love some suggestions from the right hon. Gentleman.”, “Every month, there are 30,000 new vacancies in London, which makes 400,000 vacancies a year. We want to get those people back into work. What does he want to do?” and “The Labour memorandum* states that the cuts implied by its spending plans would have been £44 billion in 2014-15. Those are the Labour party’s cuts, which we are having to implement. I was always told that if you have got nothing to say, it is better not to say it.”

Ironically, as noted in The Guardian, when Cameron ended his exchange with Miliband with “The right hon. Gentleman has a plan for Prime Minister’s questions, but he has no plan for the economy, no plan for the debt and no plan for the mess Labour made-absolutely nothing worth while to say. That is it.”:

it was exactly the kind of pre-cooked “cheer line” he was inviting MPs to mock. Except it was his own. They all do it – and why not? That’s all the leaked Labour memo was trying to do.

__________
*This is a reference to a separate Labour memo that was leaked to The Times, this one an internal party memo about economic policy.

Link to Hansard transcript of PMQs for 27 October 2010.

Related Posts:

PMQs Impressions: Cameron v. Miliband

In a previous post on Ed Miliband’s election as leader of the Labour Party, I noted that I couldn’t help but feel that David Cameron would wipe the floor with him during Prime Minister’s Questions.

This impression was based primarily on my reaction to Miliband’s speech after the results were announced. I’d never heard him speak before, and I wasn’t very impressed. According to media reports, his keynote speech to end the party Conference was much better, but I didn’t hear that one.

The first PMQs featuring Cameron v. Miliband occurred last week, on October 13 (link to Hansard transcript). And I have to say, much to my surprise, Miliband handled himself very well. In fact, he managed to rattle Cameron somewhat. Even very partisan forums such as ConservativeHome gave the edge to Miliband.

Miliband managed to land a couple of noteworthy hits. When Miliband specifically asked Cameron “how many families where one parent stays at home will be affected by the changes that he has proposed to child benefit?”, Cameron replied with a percentage (“higher-rate tax is paid by 15% of taxpayers”). Someone from the Labour benches called out “How many?”, which led to this:

The Prime Minister: I have answered the question, “How many?” The answer is that 15% of taxpayers are higher-rate taxpayers. This is a difficult choice, because as we deal with the deficit we have to ask better-off people to bear their share of the burden. The fact is that today we spend £1 billion giving money through child benefit to relatively better-off homes. We think that has to change, and I have to ask the right hon. Gentleman why he thinks that that is not the case.

Edward Miliband: I may be new to this game, but I think that I ask the questions and the Prime Minister should answer them.

I am afraid that that the Prime Minister did not provide an answer to the specific question I asked. By my reckoning, there are hundreds of thousands of families where one parent stays at home, and the question they are asking is this: why should a family on £45,000 where one person stays at home lose their child benefit-£1,000, 2,000, £3,000 a year-but a family on £80,000 where both partners in the couple are working should keep their child benefit? That does not strike people as fair, and it does not strike me as fair: does it strike the Prime Minister as fair?

The Prime Minister: What I believe is fair is asking better-off people to make a contribution to reducing the deficit. Let me try putting it this way to the right hon. Gentleman-think about it like this: there are thousands of people in his constituency earning one sixth of what he earns. Through their taxes, they will be paying for his child benefit. Is that really fair?

Edward Miliband: I am afraid it is nought out of two on straight answers. We should try to change the tone of these exchanges, but the Prime Minister must provide straight answers to straight questions that I ask him. I am not defending the rich- [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition will be heard, and if there are colleagues chuntering away who then hope to catch the eye of the Chair, I am afraid they are deluded.

Edward Miliband: I am defending the deputy head teacher in her primary school and the police inspector, who are asking a simple question. The Prime Minister used to agree with me. Before the election he went to Bolton, in an event that I gather was called “Cameron Direct”, and he said:

“I’m not going to flannel you. I’m going to give it to you straight. I like child benefit. . . I wouldn’t change child benefit, I wouldn’t means test it, I don’t think that’s a good idea.”

I agree with the Prime Minister: why doesn’t he?

Consequently, it was with great interest that I tuned into this week’s PMQs (link to Hansard transcript), wondering if Miliband would continue with another strong performance. This time, however, it was Cameron who had the upper hand.

When Miliband tried to pin him down by quoting the Justice Secretary (Ken Clarke), who had said in an earlier interview that a double-dip recession could not be ruled out, while on the same day, the PM had said that the UK economy was out of the danger zone, Cameron stated that Miliband was selectively quoting Clarke: “If the Leader of the Opposition read out the full quotation from the Lord Chancellor he would find that it referred to western Europe as a whole. That is the point. Perhaps he would like to read out the whole quote now.”

Miliband, undeterred, pursued the same line:

Edward Miliband: It is a very simple question for the Prime Minister. Who is right? Is it the Justice Secretary when he does not rule out the risk of a double-dip recession? Or is the Prime Minister saying that the Justice Secretary has put his foot-or his Hush Puppy-in it? Is he saying that the Justice Secretary was wrong to say that there was a risk of double-dip recession in the UK?

The Prime Minister: Of course, the Leader of the Opposition must ask the questions and I must answer them, but he must-if I may say so-ask a complete question which should include the complete quotation. Have another go.

When Miliband noticed Chancellor George Osborne leaning over to say something to Cameron, he stated in his next question “I know that he is getting advice from the Chancellor; he can answer the questions himself. Let me try the Prime Minister on another question, because he did not answer that one.”

Cameron quipped in reply: “First, to respond to what the right hon. Gentleman said about me and the Chancellor, I know that it is a novel concept, but in this Government the Prime Minister and the Chancellor speak to each other.”

The Miliband-Cameron exchange ended thusly:

Edward Miliband: This is very interesting, because the Prime Minister used to say that he was a different type of Conservative, but I have given him the chance to say that he will change his plans if unemployment rises, and he has ducked the chance to do so. We all remember the catchphrases: “If it isn’t hurting, it isn’t working”; “Unemployment is a price worth paying”. He sounds exactly like that. What we have is a Prime Minister lashed to the mast of the tax and spending plans. Should he not admit it? He is taking the biggest gamble in a generation-with growth, with people’s jobs and with people’s livelihoods.

The Prime Minister: We all remember some catch phrases: “No more boom and bust”-remember that one?-and “Prudence with a purpose”, which left us with the biggest budget deficit in the G20. We remember that, and who was the economic adviser at the Treasury at the time? He is sitting right there- [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister must be heard.

The Prime Minister: Let me give the right hon. Gentleman one simple piece of advice that I learned sitting in his seat for five years: if you have not got a plan, you cannot attack a plan. He has not got a plan, so he has got nothing to say- [Interruption.]

Point this week to Cameron. I would proffer one word of advice, he might want to watch his tone. He at times came across as rather patronising, which won’t sit well with many. However, what I thought was far more telling was the look on the faces of many on Labour’s front bench. Some of them looked quite dismayed by Miliband’s performance.

I look forward to the next round.

Related Posts: