Comments on: "Number one, Mr. Speaker"

"Number one, Mr. Speaker"

TimeTravelSpeed — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 17:48:32 -0800

Prime Minister's Questions is a weekly televised convention in the UK started in the 1950s during which Members of Parliament get a chance to hold their leader accountable for his or her actions. Sick of boring political meetings? "PMQ" is fast-paced, hip, heated, eloquent, insulting, and sometimes hilarious. In fact, the inherant humor of it is has been well explored.

But brits aren't the only ones; "Question Time", as it's called generically, has been adapted in other countries as well. Yet the show often shocks Americans since the concept of weekly unscripted access to leaders without giving days of question prep-time seems like a fantasy. Of course, maybe the alternative (0:41) is much worse.

By: Artw

Artw — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 17:52:25 -0800

This should be a basic requirement evywhere. Blairs a weasily little shit with a fatal addiction to toadying up to whoever happens to be the American President, but at least he can talk.

By: TimeTravelSpeed

TimeTravelSpeed — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 17:54:14 -0800

First FPP! Enjoy.

By: padraigin

padraigin — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 17:54:20 -0800

They air this on C-Span or C-Span2, right? I used to find it while channel flipping and just get sucked right in.

By: wilful

wilful — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 18:00:05 -0800

Question time is a joke in Australian Parliaments, basically because of weak Speakers and Presidents of the houses. The system is broken, though a few simple reforms would basically fix it. Firstly, an entirely independent speaker – probably a retired judge. This person would ensure that the Minister provided direct, relevant answers. Secondly, get rid of Dorothy Dixers – they do nothing to enhance democracy.

By: cillit bang

cillit bang — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 18:17:34 -0800

Where are these videos from that they have the coat of arms on?

By: EatTheWeak

EatTheWeak — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 18:21:49 -0800

Oh man ... I always get a little bit of Democracy envy watching Parliament ....

By: Schlimmbesserung

Schlimmbesserung — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 18:30:57 -0800

We've got this in Canada, too. It's generally pretty lacklustre, but some spectacular stuff goes down now and then.

By: bunglin jones

bunglin jones — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 18:32:38 -0800

Question time is a joke in Australian Parliaments Hear, hear!

By: rob511

rob511 — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 18:35:00 -0800

Interesting article in today's NZ Herald (subscription req'd) about an exchange in Parliament between PM Helen Clark and the newly chosen main opposition leader John Key. Political correspondent John Armstrong predicts some good verbal sparring based on their first encounter since Key's elevation:

...You could almost see National MPs' heart swelling with pride as they watched their new leader cut loose and confront the Prime Minister with a ferocity rarely seen from [previous party head] Don Brash.... Yesterday's exchange was too brief to draw any firm conclusions about [Key's ability to challenge Clark] -- and the two leaders are not scheduled to square off again before Parliament rises for Christmas. Mr. Key had cleverly chosen [a line of questioning that] showed Key making good his promise to take National's fight to Labour on issues which Labour regards as its preserve. When he asked about the date when New Zealand would become carbon neutral, she ducked the question, saying "a lot earlier than those still in climate change denial like the member." It was at this point Key threw away his notes and suggested that when it came to this PM, "the country shouldn't listen to her rhetoric, just look at her record." As the cheering on the National benches abated, Clark responded in kind to this attack on her credibility. When it came to taking people at their word, she replied acidly, she would take Key at his when he told Parliament last year he was not sure climate change was even a problem. "What's changed, Mr Key?" she barked.

Democracy in action. Fun stuff!

By: George_Spiggott

George_Spiggott — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 18:37:27 -0800

I think the Secret Service is under orders to treat anyone who asks the President a difficult unscripted question the same way they'd treat someone who lunged at him with a baseball bat. And why shouldn't they? On his own he's equally defenseless against either one.

By: anthill

anthill — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 18:50:15 -0800

Just a highlight for those who care for some reason about Canadian question period... as linked in the OP, it's available as a podcast...

By: genghis

genghis — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 18:57:42 -0800

's not a coat of arms, but a rendering of a portcullis. It's the logo of Parliament in the UK. The video was grabbed from the free-to-air (digital) channel called BBC Parliament.

By: googly

googly — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:09:55 -0800

The great electoral divide in the U.S. is between those who: 1) Look at these videos and think, "imagine what things would be like if we had a president who could articulate a complete sentence without 5 hours of prep time, and legislators who had the balls and intelligence to hold him/her accountable." and 2) Look at these videos and think "I wouldn't want to grab a brew with any of these dudes who use big words and have funny accents." Sigh.

By: Jimbob

Jimbob — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:10:02 -0800

Actually, you're probably not too many minutes away from Question Time Live from either the Australian Senate or House of Reps. I can't remember what time it start exactly - 2pm or 2:30? Maybe we've missed it, my clock here in Darwin is too far out of sync with the east coast these days. My wife asked me, last night, why the US President never "goes to congress" to debate and be questioned like the British or Australian or New Zealand Prime Minister does. And I explained that, well, the President was more like the Queen than a Prime Minister...except he has actual powers... but my wife's point was more that there's no "Opposition" to question the President; it looks to us like he never really has to face any scrutiny, despite the power he wields.

By: bob sarabia

bob sarabia — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:11:37 -0800

Oddly enough, I discovered the british version of this from my local sports radio station. They even played some clips. Sounded really entertaining.

By: R. Mutt

R. Mutt — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:12:18 -0800

I'm American, but I often tune into the Prime Minister's Questions on C-span here in the US. I find it oddly captivating, but ultimately depressing. Usually I end up shutting it off while thinking .... if we had this, Bush never, never would have been elected. But of course, thats probably not true.... God help us .... Clinton would have been so good at this ....

By: the duck by the oboe

the duck by the oboe — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:15:44 -0800

Jimbob: it's 2PM most days, 2:30 today.

By: loquax

loquax — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:28:49 -0800

"imagine what things would be like if we had a president who could articulate a complete sentence without 5 hours of prep time, and legislators who had the balls and intelligence to hold him/her accountable." Yes, just imagine Gingrich v. Clinton and all the no-name republican senators and congressmen who would have been able to get their licks in. Question period is a joke, farcical political theatre that serves no purpose but as a springboard for clever backbenchers to launch their political careers. Do you really want to judge a leader or a government on the basis of how they respond to off-the-cuff questions that cost nothing to ask yet can bring down administrations with a wrong step? I thought everyone wanted elevated dialogue and intellectual government that worked on policy and competance, not more sound bites and rhetorical shit-flinging. Should leaders really be hiring Jon Stewart and David Letterman as their question period consultants? What the hell, put them in office, I'm sure they could mop the floor with any of these other jokers when it comes to unscripted one-liners. but my wife's point was more that there's no "Opposition" to question the President; it looks to us like he never really has to face any scrutiny, despite the power he wields. The major difference is that, by and large, the US President wields far less relative power when it comes to the government than any majority party leader in Australia, Canada or the UK. Even with Republicans holding both the Senate and Congress he couldn't push through most of the (domestic) programs he tried to. The Senate and House leaders hold far more power than any comparable position in parliamentary government, and members of congress do not rely on the President for political appointments or air time, like members of parliament do. Question period, if at all useful, is more for holding the Prime Minister to the account of the house members themselves, all jockeying for position, not "democracy" or "the people".

By: George_Spiggott

George_Spiggott — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:34:05 -0800

By: Sparx

Sparx — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:50:06 -0800

At least with question time you can have journalists sitting there noting down the good bits for later reporting. As opposed to having a press secretary address the journalists and tell them what the good bits are.

By: cillit bang

cillit bang — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:51:22 -0800

's not a coat of arms, but a rendering of a portcullis. It's the logo of Parliament in the UK. It's the Coat of arms of the British Government. "Logo" indeed. (I sorta kinda live in Westminster) The video was grabbed from the free-to-air (digital) channel called BBC Parliament. But BBC Parliament uses a standard BBC logo, so it's not from there.

By: YoBananaBoy

YoBananaBoy — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 20:11:35 -0800

Do you really want to judge a leader or a government on the basis of how they respond to off-the-cuff questions that cost nothing to ask yet can bring down administrations with a wrong step? No just yes but hell yes. It isn't the only basis that I would judge US politicians. But I believe the true colors of US Senators and US Represetatives is an important facet we are missing. Sure, it is a show. But it serves its function well. ZOMG! Politics that is entertaining! Get a rope!

By: bunglin jones

bunglin jones — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 20:23:01 -0800

I haven't seen it in a few years, but as I recall about half the 'questions' -- or just about all of the ones from the government side -- were of the form: "Would my learned and honourable friend the prime minister agree with me that..." followed by a short declarative speech consisting of whatever the member wanted to say to the world. Yup - that's a Dorothy Dixer, which wilful referred to upthread. I find them very odd - to the point that I'm so amazed they're still a regular part of Parliamentary politics that I don't even know whether I hate them or not.

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 20:25:13 -0800

What do you mean unscripted? off-the-cuff? Remember the PM is the top of the majority. So that means that most of the MPs' questions have be pre-arranged by his offices and pre-scripted to allow him time to present his ideas and positions on a topic, to which a majority of MPs will respond with a rousing, pre-scripted, "hear, hear!" Sure it looks fun, but it's mostly just as theatrical as the State of the Union and more planned than a press-conference.

By: bunglin jones

bunglin jones — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 20:30:16 -0800

Do you really want to judge a leader or a government on the basis of how they respond to off-the-cuff questions that cost nothing to ask yet can bring down administrations with a wrong step? Even though I think Question Time (in Australia) has become a (weird sort of a) joke, its principles do seem pretty sound. The questions asked by both sides are meant to be about policy and the sitting members really should be able to answer questions about the policies they implement or want to implement. A wrong step in question time shouldn't be enough to topple a government. And, in theory anyway, the sitting members should be asking the questions that their constituents want asked (though not in a cash-for-questions kinda way) - so if democracy's your thing, then Question Time does have the ability to serve some purpose.

By: loquax

loquax — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 20:31:15 -0800

So that means that most of the MPs' questions have be pre-arranged by his offices and pre-scripted to allow him time to present his ideas Perhaps that's true of questions from the PM's own party, not from others.

By: Jimbob

Jimbob — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 20:33:29 -0800

Remember the PM is the top of the majority. So that means that most of the MPs' questions have be pre-arranged by his offices... Well, my understanding of how it works in Australia, at least, is that there is one question by a government member, followed by one question by an opposition member. So even if the PM's party had 90% of the seats, 50% of the questions he would be facing would be hostile.

By: oxford blue

oxford blue — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 20:42:47 -0800

_{Metafilter: Directing you to youtube since 1901} But otherwise, question time is the best thing on TV.

By: aeschenkarnos

aeschenkarnos — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 20:45:42 -0800

I'm of two minds about this. It would select out the inarticulate idiots pretty quickly, and that's all good. But on the other hand, it would also select out the inarticulate deep thinkers; and it would select for the articulate, witty, entertaining idiots. Under any democratic system, politics selects for politicians who hold strong opinions that they are unwilling to change; this wouldn't be addressed either way. Do you think that Rush Limbaugh would have made a better US President than George W Bush?

By: Banky_Edwards

Banky_Edwards — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 21:03:15 -0800

I TiVo the UK's Question Time religiously. I find it infinitely entertaining. And I used to think that such an arrangement would be great in the States...but after years of watching, I now agree with those who view it as just as scripted and artificial as press conferences. Yes, we all know that W has trouble speaking off-the-cuff, and no doubt he could never be a Tony Blair. But for the most part, the PM is either fielding softballs from his own party or reading from his Big Book Of Tory Evils - the correct response to any challenge from the Party Opposite is something about "jobs are up, unemployment is down, waiting lists are shorter," &c. Even W could learn to memorize a half-dozen vague responses, while grinning and applauding his own party's witticisms. I'd still love to *see* it, but it definitely wouldn't make for better government, or even better leaders.

By: oxford blue

oxford blue — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 21:13:42 -0800

I enjoy it because it shows, often, a side of politicians that is quiet different from their carefully constructed façade. On a similar note, who can forget this exchange:

WILSON TUCKEY: Why are you opposing the border protection for all the people? This is not about Liberals, this is about you mob? KIM BEAZLEY: Take your tablets mate. WILSON TUCKEY: Don't you insult me with tablets! I'm asking you why you are defying the Australian people on border protection? KIM BEAZLEY: Off you go, mate. WILSON TUCKEY: Your whole party - I'm just as entitled to stand here as you are. I am interviewing you and asking you why your entire party is going to kill off legislation that the Australian people want? KIM BEAZLEY: And I'm asking you, Wilson, why you would support a weak, soft legislation? WILSON TUCKEY: I don't believe it's that. Why don't you move some amendments to make it tougher? KIM BEAZLEY: We're defeating it, it's a weak, weak piece of legislation, Wilson. That's a nice bit of rhetoric. Why don't you take your weak and worseless self. WILSON TUCKEY: Don't you call me weak, you big fat so and so. KIM BEAZLEY: That's our Wilson.

By: cps

cps — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 21:15:43 -0800

What I envy (and miss, having lived in Europe for a while) more than Question Time itself is being part of a citizenry engaged in politics and able to appreciate such a show, follow the arguments and enjoy the verbal wit.

By: stammer

stammer — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 21:19:36 -0800

I love Question Time, but if it existed in the US, you'd have President Rumsfeld.

By: Jimbob

Jimbob — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 21:33:34 -0800

No no no, the best exchange in the Australian parliament is an old one. DOUG ANTHONY: I'm a country member. ANONYMOUS BACKBENCHER: We remember!

By: C.Batt

C.Batt — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 21:34:07 -0800

Sure, Question Period is political theatre but... if you're going to get screwed by those bastards anways, you might as well get some value out of them even if it's only entertainment.

By: bunglin jones

bunglin jones — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 21:43:25 -0800

Jimbob, I've always heard that it was Whitlam who delivered that greatest of lines, but I can't find anything credible online to confirm it. And - just to be clear - the Tuckey/Beazley exchange, for all its comedy value, happened OUTSIDE Parly House, not in the chamber during Question Time.

By: mattoxic

mattoxic — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 22:00:36 -0800

Question time is a joke in Australian Parliaments, basically because of weak Speakers and Presidents of the houses. Perhaps Wilful, question time is a joke, at least in the federal parliament because speaker Hawker is so ridiculously biased toward the government.

By: knapah

knapah — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 22:02:55 -0800

The first question by an MP is known in advance, but they can then make a follow up question which is not. If I remember the system correctly.

By: mattoxic

mattoxic — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 22:03:28 -0800

I liked Keating's lines Keating to Tuckey "The smallness of you mind is matched only by the meaness of your spirit"

By: ibmcginty

ibmcginty — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 22:35:55 -0800

John McCain once said during his 2000 campaign that he would do something like this a few times a month if elected. Surprisingly, Bush decided not to embrace the idea.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 22:42:44 -0800

Interesting to hear that it doesn't work so well in countries other than the UK. Americans always seem to think that just having it in our system would magically make it as good as the British version.

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 23:04:41 -0800

Argh! It annoys me, the stupid things that exist deep in memory. This thread has reminded me of a ridiculous & unfunny jingle from the 80s Canadian satire show, Wayne & Shuster, which is now gonna be stuck in my head all evening: question time, question time everybody loves question time. there ain't no reason & there ain't no rhyme in [boom, boom] question time! doo-de-do-do-do-do-doo doo-de-do-do-do-do-doo... Some sorta skit about livening up parliament to improve the TV ratings or something. Damned Canucks.

By: watsondog

watsondog — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 23:17:15 -0800

UbuRoivas, you reminded me of that. Prepare to die. Also, the Prime Minister may not be the head of the majority party; he may merely be the head of the party with the most seats. If there are more than two parties in the House, the PM may head a minority government (as is the case in Canada right now).

By: A Thousand Baited Hooks

A Thousand Baited Hooks — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 01:13:25 -0800

I wouldn't want to overstate the unscriptedness of Question Time. Even apart from Dorothy Dixers, the only unscripted part is the 10 seconds or so of rambling it takes a Minister to find the list of talking points relevant to the question, which he or she will usually read from directly for as long as possible in order to limit the time for further questions. It's almost always a pointless exercise in grandstanding, at least in Australia. It's Senate Estimates where the real action is. And still is, just, for the time being.

By: Infinite Jest

Infinite Jest — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 01:26:05 -0800

Knapah: The first question by an MP is known in advance, but they can then make a follow up question which is not. If I remember the system correctly. This is correct (in New Zealand, anyway). You will typically see very innocuous looking initial questions. These are then followed by more probing questions. The follow-up questions have to be related somehow to the initial question. Each party receives a number of questions and follow-up (supplementary) questions based on its number of seats in Parliament (though quite often parties will donate questions to other allied parties). An opposition party will quite often ask a supplementary question following an initial question from a government MP. I think it works reasonably well. Question time is often used by opposition parties to raise serious allegations against or criticisms of the government, and is reasonably well covered in the media.

By: blacklite

blacklite — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 02:03:49 -0800

Question time in the Canadian parliament is incredibly dreary compared to the videos linked in this post. I still think it's useful, though. Questions are asked, answers are attempted. I just wish there was more of the fast back-and-forth that they have in the UK, and I really think it's got a lot to do with the Speaker -- in the Canadian parliament they're usually asleep, but the guy running the show in some of the linked videos in the UK House of Commons really seemed to be useful and intervening in a helpful way. Maybe the Canadian House would feel more fast-paced if it was smaller and everyone was all crunched together like in the UK? With microphones and those little desks? I don't know. Hmm. I think Canada needs to go on a quest to start some serious parliamentary reforms, even just small procedural ones, to start opening it up. Perhaps the best time for this is in the midst of minority governments? If anything, the non-government parties can all agree on having more access to questions and having faster and potentially harder-hitting parliamentary sessions. A few private member's bills and we might even have an impartial Speaker.

By: quarsan

quarsan — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 02:52:31 -0800

When I was in Tanzania we once organised a satellite dish for a couple of days (long story) and had a meal for various guests including the village government etc. we were channel surfing when we came accross PMQ's and we all watched it. They were gobsmacked. Jaw droppingly so. They had never seen anything like it or even heard of any of thier politicians have to face such scrutiny. The unanimous verdict was that Tanzania needed this. They were only slightly more stunned and impressed than a couple of Peace Corps who were also there. Sure it's theatre and full of planted questions etc but it remains raw politics and anyonw can get a front row seat by watching it.

By: vbfg

vbfg — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 03:10:54 -0800

The first question by an MP is known in advance, but they can then make a follow up question which is not. This is correct, and it's why 99% of the first questions are always pretty much the same, usually a request for the PM to list their engagements for the day, with the meat saved for the follow up question. What this thread really needs is a collection of Dennis Skinner heckles and occassions on which he has been thrown out but I don't seem able to find one.

By: pleeker

pleeker — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 03:41:56 -0800

(Is there a video somewhere of that SNL transcript? please? the "well" link in "well explored"?) The major difference is that, by and large, the US President wields far less relative power when it comes to the government than any majority party leader in Australia, Canada or the UK. Oh come on loquax... you don't have to think much of the usefulness of Question Time, but that's no reason to twist facts. There is no way a US president and commander in chief would have less power of any kind, relative or not, than a Prime Minister in a parliamentary system. And, did you know that being accountable to parliament is exactly what a parliamentary democracy is about, since parliamentary representatives, well, represent the people?

By: the cydonian

the cydonian — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 03:59:06 -0800

Interesting to read everybody's response on Question Hour. In India, apparently, you can buy your own questions for as little as INR 15,000.

By: loquax

loquax — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 04:06:45 -0800

There is no way a US president and commander in chief would have less power of any kind, relative or not, than a Prime Minister in a parliamentary system. Really? Ask Bill Clinton and Jean Chretien who was the more powerful head of government.

By: grouse

grouse — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 04:46:15 -0800

I met John Major a couple of days before coming to the UK, and told him that watching PMQ on C-SPAN was my first exposure to British politics. He replied, "I'm terribly sorry to hear that." He then said that he had suggested to George H. W. Bush that the American president should do something similar in Congress. Major said something to the effect of "he looked at me as if I were crazy, or if he would be crazy if he tried something like that."

By: quarsan

quarsan — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 07:20:49 -0800

vbfg - my favourite was when John Major appeared for his first pmq. he stood up and stepped forward to the dispatch box Skinner shouted out: Resign!

By: jack_mo

jack_mo — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 08:46:32 -0800

Prime Minister's Questions is a weekly televised convention in the UK started in the 1950s That's a surprise - I'd always vaguely assumed PMQs had been going on for centuries.

By: TimeTravelSpeed

TimeTravelSpeed — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 08:47:01 -0800

(Is there a video somewhere of that SNL transcript? please? the "well" link in "well explored"?) I looked desperately for a video, and I seem to recall it used to exist somewhere. My guess is that SNL didn't want skits from their Will Ferrell "Best of" DVDs out in public. Truly a shame. Slightly more info on the PMQ skits

By: TimeTravelSpeed

TimeTravelSpeed — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 08:49:38 -0800

By the way, thanks to all the MeFites who declined to correct my mispelling of inherent. I know it must have been a difficult temptation to resist.

By: athenian

athenian — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 10:54:37 -0800

Questions to the Government have been around for a very long time (there is a Question time every day for an hour, with each Minister taking turns on a rota basis to answer for his or her Department). Until the 50s though, since the Prime Minister didn't have a Department to run, he didn't get questions. In earlier times, the Prime Minister was also Leader of the House (now a separate role), and attended the weekly Business Questions session, where the topics for debate in the coming two weeks are discussed.

By: grouse

grouse — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 12:33:54 -0800

Continuing on athenian's theme, I think it is interesting how they force the PM to show up—by asking about his engagements for the week:

The reason for asking the Prime Minister about his/her engagements is because, until recently, any member of the cabinet could answer the posed question, allowing the Prime Minister to avoid answering questions themself, but once someone answers a question, they are obliged to answer follow up questions (on any topic). The only question that the Prime Minister had to answer personally was his/her list of engagements for the week; hence he/she is asked this question first, and all subsequent questions are follow up questions, forcing the Prime Minister to answer the questions his or herself.

By: pleeker

pleeker — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 14:01:44 -0800

TimeTravelSpeed, so that sketch *is* on one of those "best of" dvd's you mention? If so, which one, vol. 1 or 2? thanks in advance :)

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 14:29:59 -0800

It might not have been question time, but former Labor leader Mark Latham's famous attack on PM John Howard during the leadup to the Iraq debacle is worth quoting, for a bit of colour: Mr Howard and his government are just yes-men to the United States. There they are, a conga line of suckholes on the conservative side of Australian politics.The backbench sucks up to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister sucks up to George W. That is how it works for the little tories, and they have the hide to call themselves Australians. In my book they are not Australian at all. They are just the little tories—the little tory suckholes. The backbench sucks up to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister sucks up to George W. That is all they have left on their rotten little sideof politics. Australia deserves better than an American apologist as its Prime Minister. We deserve better than someone who is too weak to say no to Uncle Sam.

By: athenian

athenian — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 14:32:14 -0800

I think Question Time is A Good Thing. Many MPs complain that people only see the rowdiness and the shouting, but at least they see something. And even if the PM is reading from his handlers' script, the script will have gone through the wringer at official and Ministerial level to make sure it's (a) politically beneficial and (b) not definitely untrue, so the issue can't be completely igorned. MPs often point to the much more worthy legislative and scrutiny work that goes on in committees, and in slightly odd things called adjournment debates (where, just before the end of the day's work, an issue of particular concern in one area is discussed). I agree that's all much more worthy and less partisan, but unfortunately, it is also exceedingly boring.

By: FelliniBlank

FelliniBlank — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 16:53:18 -0800

I like the entertainment value of Question Time, but even if it were dull, it should be a basic element of the job description for any head of state that you have to haul your dainty ass over to the legislature every week or so and take your lumps like a (hu)man on live TV.

By: nj_subgenius

nj_subgenius — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 15:50:32 -0800

I particularly enjoyed speaker Boothroyd, back in John Major's day. I almost always hit a good question time on C-SPAN. This kind of spirited and uninhibited debate in an American legislature is, sadly, not going to happen and it's a shame. I don't ascribe that to our leaders as such, but more to the governed, who it seems to me, are far more absorbed in starring in their own lives than possibly thinking.