Yesterday (27 July 2014) Ed Miliband announced to the world his idea that the public should be given their own Prime Ministers Questions (PMQs) to bridge the gap between the public and Westminster, for full details of the proposal click here. I am very much in favour of bridging the gap between the public and Westminster but I am incredibly sceptical about whether allowing the public into Westminster to ask questions would actually achieve this or be necessary.
The first reason for this is that in Britain we have a democratically elected government, with MPs who represent us in Parliament. Therefore, the existing PMQs should already be a channel for the public to get their MPs to voice local issues to the Prime Minister (PM). This would mean that a public PMQ would be duplicating the existing PMQs.
Secondly, how would members of the public be selected to go to the public PMQs. With often fast moving issues, it would not necessarily be possible to apply in advance to ask a question, as the issue may be redundant by the time the person made it to Parliament to ask the PM. Also, how would issues be prioritised without the need for an independent body sifting through applications, as not to result in only favourable issues that the government were dealing with to be asked about in parliament.
Furthermore, how would it be balanced so that members of the public across the UK be able to come to Westminster for a PMQ session, as someone who lived in London could easily hop on the Underground in a lunch break but someone who lived in Orkney or Shetland would have a much more arduous task of getting to London and need time off work to do so. This would result in differing costs for people to travel, which it could be argued could be covered by tax payers as the people would not just be representing themselves akin to MP expenses (we all know what problems they caused). It could lead to those closer to London being represented at public PMQs at a greater level than those on the peripheries, which would be rather undemocratic for regional issues. Surely, it would be easier to just have MPs ask the questions in parliament as it is their job to be there.
Fourthly, party leaders and MPs frequently go out into communities to ask for opinions of the public on issues that effect them. These are often prearranged and only a select few attend, but this would not be dissimilar to the way public PMQs would have to be managed. Also, programmes such as Question Time offer a similar platform to the public PMQs but of course the PM is not in attendance. Question Time has the advantage that it travels around the country which eliminates the aforementioned problem of regional variations of representation.
Therefore, in theory Ed Miliband has had a good idea in trying to bridge the gap between public and Parliament, which is something that could leave the next general election in a state of apathy. However, the logistical implementation would be difficult. His statement also comes a mere four days after the closing of Parliament for the summer recess, meaning the issue would likely be forgotten by the resumption of Parliament in September, in terms of the lifespan of a political issue, but will have a beneficial boost to Labour ratings in the polls for voicing such a policy. There is no easy solution to the problem but putting individual MPs in some form of mandatory PMQ in their constituency on a Friday when the House does not sit might bridge the gap between the public and their MPs, also giving MPs a real view of what their constituents would like bringing up at PMQs.
Comments
Post a Comment