The Problem With PMQs: Performance Over Accountability

You may not have formally heard of or watched Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs), but if you’re on social media you have certainly seen clips.

Created in 1961, every week MPs have the chance to pose a question concerning current issues, policy and proposed action. PMQs ensure that the Prime minister is held to account about decisions they are making to tackle our most pressing issues. Practically, they are accessible to anyone with Internet or a TV, and tickets to watch in person are free of charge. Most importantly, it is the ‘most visible aspect of Parliament’ and attracts more viewers and attention than other political segments, with figures revealing that PMQs are a valuable asset; Ipsos found that 40% of respondents agree that it deals with important issues facing the country. Therefore, it is an important feature —  transparency is vital within a democracy and PMQs have an enormous potential to be one of the most advantageous parts of our political process. 

Despite this, they continue to be criticised. The report by Hansard Society, specifically researching public perceptions of PMQs, suggests that they have a largely negative impact on public perceptions of MPs and Parliament. Only 16% of respondents think MPs behave professionally during PMQs, while 48% disagree. Participants often viewed MPs’ behaviour at PMQs as childish and theatrical, comparing them to school children in a noisy classroom or actors in a comedy show. They criticised the session for being dominated by pointless arguments, political point-scoring and MPs avoiding direct answers, which made PMQs frustrating and difficult to watch. Furthermore, 33% say PMQs puts them off politics, suggesting that its confrontational nature may contribute to political disengagement among the public. 

This trend is supported by wider sources. The Ipsos survey found that 67% of respondents agreed that ‘there is too much political point-scoring instead of answering the question’. The Institute for Government outlines that the government approach to answering questions is to ‘reveal the minimum amount of information to avoid giving the questioner any unnecessary political advantage’, and that the advantages of this method are secondary and not guaranteed.

In short, PMQs are more performative than productive. Its core purpose is lost as it becomes a competition of insults and belittlement between the governing party and the opposition. Though it is not the defining factor of mistrust in government, the format and behaviour of PMQs (e.g. point-scoring and indirect answers) can undermine Parliament's wider legitimacy and contribute to political disengagement. 

This is arguably impacting younger people more than other demographics. One point in the Hansard Society report stands out. The report found that while 68% of people aged 65 and over had seen or heard PMQs in the previous year, this fell to only 35% among 18–24-year-olds, suggesting that younger people are less exposed to PMQs, partly because it takes place during working hours, potentially limiting its ability to engage younger generations. Therefore, young people are less likely to watch PMQs in full but may be more likely to encounter it through short-form social media. As has been researched, social media favours emotive content when discussing politically charged topics in its algorithms. In other words, it shows them the most entertaining, aggressive or dramatic moments of PMQs.

As a short example, take YouTube. When sorting the ‘PMQs’ search by ‘popularity’ with no account, the most popular PMQs video is this 34 second clip of former PM Rishi Sunak being called out by the Speaker for not only dodging the question and deflecting onto the opposition, but shaking his head like a defiant schoolboy after warning. This clip perfectly encapsulates the complaints and views of the general public towards PMQs. In short-form, the incompetency is only sensationalised in 30 second clips such as this.

It comes as no surprise that 43% of those who have seen clips say that PMQs ‘puts me off politics’ compared to just 28% of those who have seen it in full. For reference, those who have seen it in full are more likely to consider it to be ‘informative’ (61% versus 51%), but only marginally. 

There is clearly a risk of PMQs developing an adverse effect, which would be a great loss for British democracy considering its function and potential. 

So what is the solution? There must be more behaviour and content regulation in the chamber to make PMQs useful — not only in the informative sense, but also to manage Parliament’s reputation and show the public that they are actually qualified to run our country.

As indicated by its frequent use in this article, the Hansard Society has produced a lot of data on PMQ opinions, but also PMQ reform suggestions. These suggestions include: reducing the emphasis on personal attacks and party-political point-scoring, giving MPs more opportunities to ask focused questions about specific policies, making the session less dominated by the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition, introducing a stronger role for the Speaker in controlling disorderly behaviour.

As the cost of living and political division and polarisation persist, it is more important now than before for politicians to show a coherent and active example of British politics.