We can all heave a sigh of relief as this morning’s election results from the United States indicate that they may be moving to a more enlightened future. Fingers crossed.
Here in the UK Andy Burnham promised us a different kind of politics with a move away from point scoring to an emphasis on solving problems.
There was sadly no sign of this new deal at Prime Minister’s questions today. With Mr Burnham in the Caribbean for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference his place was taken by the Deputy Prime Minister Louise Haigh. The Conservative Deputy turned out to be an Alex Burghart. This was the first time I’d heard of him. He hammered away with all his six questions on the size of what he called the Welfare Bill and what was the government doing to bring it down.
M/s Haigh put in a feisty response, pointing out that the bill had grown very large under the previous administration and the government would do its best to reduce it by helping people back into work.
The ding-dong lasted a full ten minutes or so, with some humour and cheers and jeers from the respective back benches.
Happily I have never had need for what I prefer to think of a “social security” which has more feeling of well-being secured by social insurance rather than "welfare " which has the air of help at the whim of a lady bountiful.
Be that as it may , if I were one of the six million or so (I pluck the figure out of the air: more accurate and detailed figures are easily available) who for one reason or another are unable to participate in a normal lifestyle without help, and watching this, I would be distressed.
I/we are not a joke, we are not an object for point-scoring, quips and jeers, but men and women, part of the “poorest hes (and shes) who have a right to live as the richest hes (and shes”
No wonders many of them feel that “ the system doesn’t work for us” so don’t vote.
Rather than a display of verbal dexterity, this “Leaders’” part of Question Time should be reformed so that each leader of an opposition party must give advance notice of a question, seeking genuine information, to the PM, then allowed a given number of “supplementaries” to the answer.
This could just provoke some serious discussion rather than a display of presentation skills. (To adapt quotation from the Brexit debate era: “This country has had enough of presentation skills.”)
There was some indication of this approach when later questions came from back bench MPs, a very large number of whom were Liberal Democrats. Unless she is astonishingly well-informed, M/s Haigh had obviously been informed of their content and was able to give constructive answers.
Thus backbench MPs were given the opportunity to show to their constituents that the government was being made aware of and challenged to deal with their problems. That is what “ holding to account” is all about and one of the reasons parliament exists (though a lot of these issues should be dealt with by local councillors with genuine devolution.)
If I am right and Liberal Democrats and Labour are indeed co-operating in this a to improve the government’s performance and the relationship between government, parliament and the electors that is good news.
this “Leaders’” part of Question Time should be reformed so that each leader of an opposition party must give advance notice of a question, seeking genuine information, to the PM, then allowed a given number of “supplementaries” to the answer
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't sound like a very good way to hold the government ot account, but then perhaps you think that governments never need to be held to account.
I assume you think that Mr Starmer should have been giving Mr Johnson advance notice of the questions he would be asking (I don't know how well that would have gone down with a former barrister!), and that when Mrs Badenoch is Prime Minister whoever is leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition should be giving her the questions in advance as well, so that she can have her answers well-prepared?
My point is to try and turn the session into a serious discussion of how to solve the many problems facing us rather than a point-scoring jousting match
DeleteMy point is to try and turn the session into a serious discussion of how to solve the many problems facing us
DeleteOkay, but if you think that the person at the despatch box is actively pursuing policies that will make the many problems worse, and is incapable (whether for reasons of personality, ideology, or party management) of enacting the policies which will make things better — as some think about Mr Burnham, and Mr Starmer before him, and as you presumably thought about Mr Johnson — then what is one supposed to do, other than use the session to expose their weakness and convince the country that they need a change?
Explain politely why you think they are wrong and offer constructive alternatives.
DeleteExplain politely why you think they are wrong and offer constructive alternatives.
DeleteThe problem with that is that in order to enact your alternative you need people to vote for you, and they can't vote for you if they are sleep because you have bored them senseless, which is all that would achieve.
National politics is import. It is about the big questions of what sort of country we want to be. It is a clash of incompatible world-views. It shouldn't be like a local council working out what climbing-frame to buy for the playground or which days to collect the bins. Important as bin collections are, there are bigger values at stake in national politics, and emotions should run high because people should care about what they are doing and where the nation is going, not just be glorified caretakers managing decline.
Normally, when people say 'I wish politicians would stop scoring points and work together constructively' what they really mean is, 'I dn't like it when politicians argue about the big questions of principles and values and what sort of country we want to be; I would prefer it if we regard those questions as settled, and settled in the qay I agree with, and then we can get on with just managing the implementation of my preferred values and principles for the way the country should be'.
DeleteIs that what you mean? It looks a lot like that is what you mean.
But of course that is impossible, because not everyone agrees with your values and principles and idea of what kind of a country we should be. So we have to keep having the arguments, because neither side can ever win decisively.
Ideas can be debated vigorously without sloganising, name calling and false accusations of base motives.
DeletePeter
ReplyDeleteI've long wondered about PMQ and any value added
It's degenerated into political theatre and I suspect that those who come across it by account on the media must scratch their heads in puzzlement
The consensus view appears to be that its purpose is to hold the PM publically to account.
In my view it fails in this abysmally with both major parties following a standard script
In Scotland we have First Ministers Questions (FMQ) which overall appears to function better.
There are 2 sessions each week
The first for rank and file MSPs to raise issues primarily of constituency concern. These tend to result in some sort of action on the part of the Govt.
The second for other political leaders to raise issues of policy and strategy. Unlike PMQ discussion generally takes place without the yahoo element and does highlight key differences between the parties
Unlike PMQ, the second session is not dominated by the leader of the opposition. The Speaker varies which parties get to ask questions and in what order
The plan of the chamber has also been cited as a factor in helping debate be conducted in a more orderly fashion. Unlike Westminster with its 2 halves facing each other, Holyrood is in a rough U shape with everyone facing the Speaker
FMQ seems to attract more mainstream coverage in Scottish media than PMQ on UK media
(BTW on a personal note, I still remember when you took a group of us from BGS to see PMQ live in Westminster in 1967/68 with a ding-dong between Harold Wilson and Ted Heath)
Thanks for the details of FMQ: that sounds very much like what we need (as so much in Scotland does.) Similarly the shape of the chamber. As Simon Jenkins writes in yesterday's (06/11/26) Guardian: "The Commons should go somewhere circular, like most national assemblies." He suggests Manchester, Liverpool or Birmingham. In my view Manchester is already to big for its boots: I suggest York.
DeleteRe 1966/7, were Wilson and Heath (and before them Attlee and Macmillan) wiser and more statesmanlike than the present lot, or were we (including me) just younger?