What’s the point of PMQs?

Prime Minister’s Questions is about as alienating as Erskine May. If it’s an opportunity to shop window politics to the public, then we’re going to have to do better than showcasing a public school version of 8 Mile.

Of course, we’re often told – after Bercow has hush hushed MPs – that the public actually rather enjoy the Yo’ Mama aspect of the spectacle. But in actual fact, about half say they enjoy it and half say they’d rather see something a little more… constructive. For the Westminster Village it’s the highlight of the week, so that leaves the rest of the viewers outside of the bubble scratching their heads week in, week out. But for politicos a certain degree of over importance is attached to it. Commentators often use it as a barometer for how the leader is performing overall; bloggers score the contestants based on whether they’ve “won” or “lost” over the six rounds of questions, and MPs pack themselves into the House for a bit of live theatre.

But the level of interest it generates has nothing to do with how valuable it is to our democracy. It’s the one time a week we know that David Cameron and Ed Miliband will come up against eachother, so the hype surrounding it has more to do with the people than the format.

Does the format even allow for effective scrutiny of the executive? Half of the questions come from the prime minister’s own side, and can any opposition leader effectively hold the prime minister to account when they’re so limited by time? The quick exchanges incentivise point scoring and render any depth to questioning pointless. As a consequence, the public are presented with a hotch-potch of messaging, lines and planted questions that do more harm than good if the desire is to instill trust in politicians and engage with voters.

Contrast the format of PMQs with the incredibly popular Question Time. It’s far less confrontational, but there are still lively debates, and without the shackles of parliamentary protocol the discussion feels a lot more natural. Instead of PMQs, why not have the main party leaders answering questions from the public for an hour in a television studio? Like the leaders debates, but every week.

The interest those debates generated superceded even Sky’s imagination, and they set the ball rolling. They showed that people are interested in politics, as long as it’s presented in the right way. So instead of being flies on the wall why can’t we be active participants in the scrutiny of the executive? We might even do a better job than MPs.

Matt Zarb-Cousin is the editor of the Young Fabians blog, and the Secretary and Press Officer for the Young Fabians.