Skip to main content

Do we really need Public PMQs?

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.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Scotland be an independent country?

On the 18th September 2014 the Scottish people have an important date with the polls, they are going to decide whether Scotland should be and independent country. The referendum will change not only the future for Scotland but will also change the political landscape in the rest of the UK and Europe. This brings forth the question of whether it should be just those who live in Scotland who should in effect decide on the fate of the UK as a whole. Another problem with the referendum is that until the results are counted and negotiations take place the nature of an independent Scotland is unknown. I will also hypothesise over what I believe will happen as a result of Scotland voting "no", as this is much less documented than what independence will lead to. I am not going to use this blog post to influence voters either way as that is not the nature of my blog and any statements that may be perceived as such are caused by my view of the logistics of the referendum rather than a...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why Britain should leave the EU

The debate of whether in the EU referendum on 23 June 2016 we should vote remain in the EU or to leave is beginning to heat up. This blog post is one of two posts on the matter this one focuses solely on why Britain should leave the EU. To see the post on Why Britain should remain the EU please click here , please note these posts are designed be read in either order, if you have already read this post you can skip this introduction. The reason why I have decided to do two posts is primarily not to have to negate statements to put forward the view of the other side which may show bias towards one side or the other which is common in many comparison pieces I have read. The format of both posts will be a mirror, focusing on the topics of fees vs rebates, trade, investment, immigration, security, jobs, health care, sovereignty, and Britain in the wider world. By creating two posts there will be a great deal of overlap as the same factual information will apply, however, this will dem...
Post a Comment
Read more

The significance of the Eastleigh by-election

What makes the Eastleigh by-election so different? Firstly it is necessary to explain what a by-election is and its significance to parliament, before looking into the particular case of Eastleigh. A by-election occurs when a seat becomes vacant in the Houses of Parliament, caused either by death or a resignation. By-elections have little impact upon the balance of parliament, unless there is a small majority, meaning that the campaign is often subdued and the result is barely mentioned in the national media. There have been 15 by-elections since the 2010 General Election for the 647 seats in parliament. Due to the fact that usually only one seat has a by-election at any one time, the issues are often more localised compared to a national campaign which is used for a general election. The local nature of by-elections often causes more candidates to stand on local issues. In Eastleigh’s case there were 14 candidates. The cost incurred to stand for a by-election is a fraction of th...
Post a Comment
Read more