7,00 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: Biteback Publishing
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Sprache: Englisch
Prime Minister's Questions is the bear pit of British politics. Watched and admired around the world, it is often hated at home for bringing out the worst in our politicians. Yet despite successive leaders trying to get away from Punch and Judy politics, it's here to stay. Ayesha Hazarika and Tom Hamilton spent five years preparing Ed Miliband for the weekly joust, living through the highs and lows, tension and black humour of the political front line. In this insightful and often hilarious book, including an updated afterword discussing the key events of 2018, they lift the lid on PMQs and what it's really like to ready the leader for combat. Drawing on personal recollections from key players including Tony Blair, David Cameron, Harriet Harman, William Hague and Vince Cable alongside their unique knowledge, Hazarika and Hamilton take you behind the scenes of some of the biggest PMQs moments.
Das E-Book können Sie in Legimi-Apps oder einer beliebigen App lesen, die das folgende Format unterstützen:
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2018
Ähnliche
“A splendid insider account of the regular punch-up that is Prime Minister’s Questions, packed with entertaining anecdotes.”
DAILY TELEGRAPH, BEST BOOKS OF 2018
“Westminster junkies would be happy if their stockings were filled with a copy of Tom Hamilton and Ayesha Hazarika’s Punch & Judy Politics, a juicy insider account of what happens behind the scenes in prime minister’s questions.”
THE GUARDIAN, BEST BOOKS OF 2018
“It really changed how I thought about PMQs. It illuminates not just that famous half hour of politics, but so much about why political parties make the decisions they do, and political strategy more generally. If you want to read one book to really get your head around how political parties work and plan, it would be Punch & Judy Politics.”
STEPHEN BUSH’S ‘BEST POLITICS BOOKS OF 2018’, FIVE BOOKS
“All the fireworks and the fear of PMQs from two people who’ve seen it from the inside, with unique insights from PMQs survivors – those who’ve done it and lived to tell the tale, from both sides of the Commons. This book captures both the importance and the quirkiness of the biggest event of the parliamentary week. Reading it sent shivers down my spine, taking me back to the thrill and terror that is PMQs.”
HARRIET HARMAN
“That rare thing: a genuinely informative, funny and original book on politics, which takes something you vaguely thought you knew all about – Prime Minister’s Questions – and makes you look at it freshly. Hamilton and Hazarika combine a serious, rigorous analysis of tactics, strategies and outcomes across modern political history with excellent gossip and some hilarious personal recollections of life on the front line.”
ANDREW MARR
“Superb”
JOHN RENTOUL
“A fair, thorough and enjoyable study of the art and science of Prime Minister’s Questions. For those of us who have been participants, it brings back memories of dramatic moments we lived through; for observers, it reveals the techniques and tensions behind the duelling of political leaders. Well worth reading by anyone who wants to understand the workings of parliamentary democracy.”
WILLIAM HAGUE
“First-rate … A remarkably shrewd, well-argued and plausible assessment of what works and doesn’t work at this key encounter.”
ANDREW SPARROW, THE GUARDIAN
“An invaluable study by Ayesha Hazarika and Tom Hamilton of the Wednesday PM quizzing tells of arrogance, fear and astonishing preparation.”
EMILY THORNBERRY MP, SHADOW FOREIGN SECRETARY
“One of the best books on politics to be published this year!”
TOTAL POLITICS
“A joy … For those wanting an insight into how politics works behind the scenes, Hazarika and Hamilton definitely oblige.”
PROGRESS MAGAZINE
“It’s a zippy, insightful read, helped immeasurably by contributions from the likes of David Cameron, Tony Blair, William Hague and Ed Miliband, the former Labour leader with whom both Hamilton and Hazarika worked during the coalition years. Hamilton and Hazarika make a good case for the enduring importance of PMQs in keeping the Government (relatively) honest.”
CAPX
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This book could not have been written without Ed Miliband and Harriet Harman, who gave both of us roles behind the scenes preparing for PMQs and learning its secrets. It’s a huge privilege to have had this unique and very special experience. If we’d been better at our jobs, we might still be helping them prepare for PMQs even now, in government – the non-existence of this book would be one of the least notable features of that alternative political timeline. The book would also not exist without Iain Dale, Olivia Beattie and the rest of the team at Biteback Publishing, who saw the project’s potential and stuck with it, and us, through a series of missed deadlines, stand-up tours and an unexpected general election.
We are still astonished at how many leading figures, including several who were on the opposite side to us during our time working on PMQs, generously agreed to give us their time and their insights: former Prime Ministers and Leaders of the Opposition who have taken part in the leaders’ joust; MPs who have asked questions, heckled from the back benches or even stood in for their leaders; advisers who have helped prepare both sides; journalists who have watched from the press gallery and given their instant verdicts; and the Speaker of the House of Commons, who runs the whole show. Several of the people we spoke to for this book have performed more than one of these roles at different stages of their careers; perhaps some will go on to perform more of them in future.
Our thanks go to John Bercow, Gabby Bertin, Theo Bertram, Tony Blair, Kevin Brennan, Vince Cable, David Cameron, Alastair Campbell, Jo Coburn, John Crace, Angela Eagle, Danny Finkelstein, Miranda Green, Bruce Grocott, William Hague, Harriet Harman, Paddy Hennessy, Rob Hutton, Sean Kemp, Neil Kinnock, Ian Lavery, Alison McGovern, Ed Miliband, Joe Murphy, George Osborne, Bob Roberts, Tim Shipman, Dennis Skinner, Anna Soubry, Ann Treneman and John Whittingdale. We’re grateful to all of them, and to their staff members who helped arrange interviews, as well as to the current and former politicians and advisers who spoke to us on condition of anonymity: they know who they are, and they know how grateful we are. Throughout the book, for ease of reference it should be assumed that unless otherwise attributed all quotations, including anonymous quotations, are taken from our interviews.
We are grateful, too, to those who kindly agreed to read the manuscript at different points in its gestation. Sarah Coombes, James Hamilton, Rob Hutton, Catherine MacLeod, Dominic Murphy (a former custodian of the David Cameron quotes catalogue, as well as regular compiler of the ‘bucket of shit’ – see Chapter 3), James Robinson, Jonathan Simons and Josh Simons read drafts of some or all of the book and made invaluable comments. Any errors that remain are, of course, entirely our responsibility.
Ayesha Hazarika would like to thank Iain Dale for being such a good friend since she left politics (even though he’s wrong on most things) and Tom for being a great person to work with. Again!
Tom Hamilton would like to thank Sarah Hamilton, for her constant love, support and encouragement in this project as in everything, as well as for her constructive comments on the manuscript; and William, who made no constructive comments at all, on any of it.
INTRODUCTION
It’s Wednesday morning. You’re the Leader of the Opposition. It’s your job to choose one of this week’s top political news stories and write six questions to the Prime Minister about it. Not exam questions, not questions that you might ask an expert, but awkward, hostile questions that will put the Prime Minister on the back foot, make her embarrassed and defensive and make you look good. If she can answer them easily, then they’re not good questions. If you don’t know the answers yourself, then they’re almost certainly terrible questions, unless you’re absolutely certain that she doesn’t know the answers either.
Six different questions. Six interesting questions. Six difficult questions. Think about the relationship between them, so that each one flows logically from the previous one. What does the answer to the first question tell you, and what should you ask next? What is the cumulative effect of the correct answers? Keep them tight: a forensic approach is almost certainly more effective than non-specific bluster. Do some proper research: if your questions turn out to contain factual errors then you will look ridiculous.
Now, look at the questions again. What are they leading up to? It has to be more than just a demonstration that the Prime Minister doesn’t know as much as she ought to about the thing you’re asking about. Try to make a bigger political argument at the same time: the government is incompetent, the government’s whole ideological approach is wrong, the Prime Minister is out of touch, the Prime Minister is a bad person, the minister responsible for the area you’re asking about should resign, whatever you like. Make each question support the argument. You can build the argument a sentence or two at a time, but you need to keep coming back to a question. Keep each one brief.
This is still much too easy. Let’s make it more complicated. The Prime Minister isn’t just going to answer the questions factually and leave it at that. She wants to attack you, too. So don’t just think about what the correct answer to each question is. Think about what else the Prime Minister wants to say, and try to block her. If you’re asking about an issue where the opposition has no policies, she will point that out. If you’re asking about an issue where the previous government’s record was not perfect, she will talk about that. And don’t just think about the issue your questions are focused on. Read the papers. What are your own best-known failings as a politician and as a person? What do people, fairly or unfairly, think about you? What is the worst thing people can say about you? What is your party being attacked for at the moment? If your party is divided, if an opposition politician has praised the government or criticised current opposition policy, the Prime Minister will remind everyone. If there is a big political story at the moment which makes the government look good and the opposition look bad, she will mention it – even if it has nothing to do with your line of questioning.
Anticipate the form those attacks on you will take, and think of a couple of responses to each one. Try to make them as funny and cutting as possible. You want to shut these new subjects down, not allow yourself to be side-tracked. Don’t look flustered. Get back to the issue you started with. Write another question.
You’ll have to ask these questions to the Prime Minister’s face, in a room that’s too small for the crowd packed into it, with hundreds of people shouting at you so loudly you can barely hear your own voice. These people are all adults, they’re your colleagues, and many of them are respected and famous and influential – at other times, you have perfectly civilised meetings and work conversations with them – but right now they’re yelling in your face, and neither you nor they think this is odd, or rude. Behind you, hundreds more people will be cheering everything you say and jeering at the Prime Minister – but not all of them like you, some of them want your job and if you do badly they may find it easier to remove you from it.
Above your head, rows of journalists are watching, looking out not just for mistakes but for your tics, your mannerisms, your accent – gathering material for articles whose main purpose is to mock you. The whole thing is being broadcast on live TV and dissected on Twitter. When it’s over, TV journalists will read out a balanced selection of tweets from viewers, half of which will say you were great and half of which will say you were useless.
Let’s approach the same exercise from the other side. You’re the Prime Minister. It’s an important and demanding job, and you’re pretty busy, but you have to spend half an hour each week answering questions from MPs on anything that’s the government’s responsibility. You don’t know most of the questions in advance. It’s your job to know the answers, and if you get any of your facts wrong then you are, by definition, bad at your job. You can’t pass and say, ‘I don’t know.’ Some of the questions will be very easy, but a lot of them will be impossible to answer truthfully without either admitting that you are failing in your job or dumping on a colleague. You are absolutely not allowed to lie.
The government is responsible for a lot of things. Some of them are going well and some of them are going badly. Some of them you know about and a lot of them you don’t. There are well over 100 ministers, and all of them have specialist and often quite technical areas of policy to deal with, any of which you could be asked about. You are ultimately responsible for all of them, and it is your job to know about all of them, even though you don’t and nobody does.
Despite this, you need to be confident and fluent, demonstrating your mastery of detail and your command of the House of Commons Chamber, not only answering the questions but dropping in personal touches about each questioner and their constituency, as well as attacks on your opponents and topical jokes.
Again, you’ll be answering them in the same crowded room, in the face of a wall of noise from your opponents, with many of the people behind you who are cheering you on actually willing you to fail, and on live TV. As Prime Minister, you’re supposed to be the most powerful person in the country. But you’re not in charge here. Perform badly, and your authority will slip.
Prime Minister’s Questions is complex, and doing it well on either side takes skill and preparation. As a joust between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, with each trying to outwit the other, it carries a special element of risk that’s not present in most other political set pieces. Stage-managed events can go wrong – an intruder can disrupt your speech, you can have a coughing fit, or letters can fall off your backdrop, to take just three recent examples – but in general they go the way the political parties want them to. PMQs is dangerous, and it carries a potential for success or failure that few other moments in a political leader’s week can match.
PMQs is important to us. We worked together on it in Labour’s PMQs prep team for several years. One of us – Ayesha – was a special adviser to Harriet Harman in government until 2010, helping her when she stood in at PMQs for Gordon Brown. She then worked for both Harriet and Ed Miliband, preparing them for PMQs until the end of Harriet’s second spell as Labour leader in September 2015. The other – Tom – became the Labour Party’s head of research in 2010 and worked on PMQs throughout Ed Miliband’s leadership, and continued in the same role under Jeremy Corbyn for his first few months as Labour leader, until February 2016.
Many people loathe PMQs. So, sometimes, did we. It occupied too many of our thoughts and too many of our working hours for too long – writing more questions than the Leader of the Opposition could ever ask, predicting the Prime Minister’s answers with varying degrees of accuracy, suggesting jokes that were never delivered, jokes that landed perfectly and jokes that bombed, watching our bosses win and watching our bosses get crushed – for us to think about it with unqualified pleasure. And of course, while we may have played a part in some PMQs victories along the way, we were ultimately on the losing side, and losing hurts. But for all the time we spent on it, and for all the frustration it caused, when we were working on it we would not have wanted to be doing anything else. It is easy to deride PMQs as ‘Punch and Judy politics’ – the title of this book, and the phrase David Cameron used to describe a style of politics he said he disliked, but found it difficult to escape. But PMQs is still the point of contact between the main party leaders, where their arguments clash and their skills and the skills of the teams beneath them are tested. It matters.
It can be difficult to defend some of what goes on at PMQs – indeed, some of what goes on at PMQs can put people off politics in general. Answers that seem to have little to do with the questions; leaders who are more interested in scoring petty political points than in grappling with difficult policy issues that affect real people’s lives; MPs shouting across the Chamber at each other. We won’t defend all of it. But part of the point of this book is to argue that PMQs is more interesting than it looks, and that the more you understand about what’s going on in it, the more you see. PMQs is more than just a weekly question-and-answer session: when used properly, it is a vital tool of internal management for both government and opposition, helping to identify problems and weaknesses and to find solutions to them. It forces both sides to think hard about where they are about to be attacked, and to make sure that they have the right defences in place.
Parliamentary oral questions, of which PMQs is the most prominent example, sit in their own unique category of political communication. The questions and answers at PMQs are not speeches, although they require some of the rhetorical skills and techniques that speechmaking employs: each speaker can only use a maximum of a few sentences at a time, and any attempt to build an argument is inevitably interrupted by the other speaker trying to throw it off course. PMQs is not a debate, although it involves two sides making – usually – opposing arguments. It is not a courtroom cross-examination: while the questioner may try to be as forensic as possible in order to force an embarrassing admission, the Prime Minister in the House of Commons Chamber, unlike a witness in a courtroom, can avoid the question, change the subject or even attack the questioner over an unrelated issue. It is not an interview, despite the question-and-answer format: the two participants in the leaders’ exchanges both want the same job, and neither is trying to give the other the opportunity to make themselves look good. It is not a quiz: there are few definitively correct or incorrect answers, and the scores, allocated by watching MPs, journalists and the public, will be subjective, contested and dependent on performance and party political loyalty as much as on facts.
Even though PMQs has been a significant part of the lives of Prime Ministers and Leaders of the Opposition since the 1960s, it’s noticeable that most political histories, biographies and memoirs mention it only in passing, if at all. As Tony Blair told us, ‘If you describe your premiership in policy terms it can be a footnote, but if you describe it in personal terms it’s quite a big part of your time as Prime Minister’ (Blair’s own memoirs, more personal and less policy-focused than most senior politicians’ autobiographies, are an exception, giving PMQs nearly five pages). This book is partly an attempt to fill the gap, and to do justice to an event which, love it or hate it, dominates the working lives of our most senior politicians.
Margaret Thatcher, who devoted around eight hours a week to preparing for PMQs and for whom the PMQs process was, as we were told by one of her close advisers, an essential part of running her government, hardly mentioned it at all in her own memoirs. But on one of the few occasions on which she did, she made clear how important she thought it was:
It is Questions to the Prime Minister every Tuesday and Thursday which are the real test of your authority in the House, your standing with your party, your grip of policy and of the facts to justify it. No head of government anywhere in the world has to face this sort of regular pressure and many go to great lengths to avoid it; no head of government, as I would sometimes remind those at summits, is as accountable as the British Prime Minister.1
It is not at all difficult to imagine her making this point to her fellow world leaders.
In fact, PMQs has often been a source of great fascination abroad: it is broadcast regularly on the American channel C-SPAN, and has been watched by several US Presidents. George H. W. Bush said in 1991, ‘I count my blessings for the fact I don’t have to go into that pit that John Major stands in, nose to nose with the opposition all yelling at each other.’2 Tony Blair says, ‘I used to have this conversation with American Presidents about what’s it like doing PMQs, they were always fascinated by it, and would it be a good idea to try and introduce it here, and I used to say, “Absolutely not, if you don’t have to do it, don’t do it.” ’ Bill Clinton, Blair told us, ‘used to watch it all, and he could have done it, by the way, because he’s very quick’.
In writing this book we have drawn on our own experience of working on, and what sometimes felt like living for, PMQs, as well as the insights of many other participants and professional observers. We want to use those insights to take you through PMQs. What goes into thinking about what questions to ask and how to ask them? What is happening in the Leader of the Opposition’s office and in 10 Downing Street in the run-up to 12 noon on a Wednesday? How can the Prime Minister really be expected to answer questions on everything? We will look at how the joust works, how both sides work out their best attacks and best defences – and best jokes – and predict when and where to use them. We will try to show you how it feels to be in a packed House of Commons Chamber while PMQs is going on. We will look at the supporting cast and what they are doing: the backbenchers asking their own questions and contributing to the cacophony; the Speaker trying to keep order; the journalists looking on. And we will assess the point of the whole exercise: what is it good for, does it tell us anything useful about those who lead us or seek to lead us, and is it really worth having at all?
But first, we want to look at the history of PMQs: where it comes from, how it has changed, and how it came to occupy the central place in British political and parliamentary life that it now has.
Notes
1 Margaret Thatcher, The Downing Street Years (HarperCollins, 1993), p. 41.
2 George H. W. Bush, C-SPAN, 20 December 1991, available at https://youtube/tR7EUbnvNqY (accessed 28 February 2018).
1
EVOLUTION
Prime Minister’s Questions was not created out of nothing: the weekly event we know today has gradually faded into existence. Depending on how you measure it and which features you think are most important, PMQs dates back to 1997, or 1993, or 1989, or 1979, or 1975, or 1961. Each of these years saw the introduction of a feature of PMQs which was revolutionary – or, at least, noticeably evolutionary – at the time but now seems natural and indispensable. And each of these new elements made a big difference to what PMQs was and, unintentionally, enabled what it has become.
In 1961 Prime Minister’s Questions was formalised as a regular scheduled parliamentary event. In 1975, MPs started tabling open questions, enabling them to ask supplementary questions on whatever they wanted, introducing a new element of both surprise and topicality. In 1979, the new Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, announced that she would answer all the questions at PMQs herself, instead of transferring some questions on given issues to the Cabinet ministers responsible for those issues. In 1989, Parliament was televised for the first time, increasing the audience for parliamentary debates in general and, given its profile and bite-sized length, PMQs in particular. This development built on the introduction in 1978 of radio broadcasts from the House of Commons – both innovations strongly resisted by traditionalists. In 1993, Labour leader John Smith decided that, unlike his predecessors, he would consistently take his full allocation of questions – three per fifteen-minute session, or six per week – creating a precedent that subsequent Leaders of the Opposition have generally followed. And in 1997, the incoming Prime Minister, Tony Blair, reconfigured PMQs from twice-weekly fifteen-minute sessions at 3.15 p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays to a single weekly thirty-minute session at 3 p.m. on Wednesdays; the half-hour slot was moved to 12 noon at the beginning of 2003.
Although the fiftieth anniversary of PMQs was marked in 2011, Prime Ministers have answered questions in the House of Commons for far longer than that. The key 1961 development, commemorated fifty years later, was to give questions to the Prime Minister their own permanent, timetabled slot. Before 1881, all ministers including the Prime Minister answered questions in whatever order they were asked on any day when they were present. Then, as a concession to the 72-year-old Prime Minister William Gladstone, it was agreed that questions to him should come last on the day’s list so that he could come in late.3 The effect on his fitness was evidently profound, given that the last of his four spells as Prime Minister did not end until 1894, when he was eighty-four years old.
Even with efforts to accommodate their needs, Prime Ministers could not be forced to prioritise the House of Commons: David Lloyd George, preoccupied with European statesmanship immediately after the First World War, did not answer questions for a whole year.4 Asking questions of the Prime Minister was not always the priority of MPs anyway: ‘few saw much point in eliciting monosyllabic replies from Mr Attlee’.5 It was the health of another relatively elderly and infirm Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, which prompted the next significant timetable change in 1953, with an agreement that he should answer questions only on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Churchill’s successors Anthony Eden and Harold Macmillan may have been much younger and fitter, but they both stuck with this convention, and who can blame them?6
Despite reforms to increase the length of time spent on questions, and to ensure that questions to the Prime Minister began no later than number fifty-one, then forty-five, then forty on the list for the day, it was common for the question session to run out of time before the Prime Minister had answered them all. Sometimes, he did not have time to answer any. This caused understandable irritation among MPs. On 6 December 1960 Harold Macmillan wrote in his diary:
PQs [he never refers to them as ‘PMQs’ in his diary] were scarcely reached – another protest and demand that my questions shd start at 3.15. I hope still to avoid having to agree. In some ways it would suit me; but I think it will only lead to fewer and fewer questions being got through and longer and longer supplementaries.7
In July 1961 the House of Commons accepted a recommendation by the Procedure Committee to experiment with a fixed fifteen-minute slot for the Prime Minister to answer questions on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Macmillan may have recorded his misgivings in his diary, but he told the House that ‘this arrangement suits me much better because I know when to come here’.8 Three months later the Speaker announced that the experiment had been a success, and that ‘in these circumstances the Prime Minister is willing that it should be continued’.9
The first ever question to the Prime Minister in PMQs’ newly permanent slot, on 24 October 1961, looks at first glance to be a quite exceptionally dull one, and it received what looks like an equally dull answer. Hansard records it as follows:
Mr Shinwell asked the Prime Minister whether the statement by the Minister of Transport during his visit to the Scandinavian countries, about government policy concerning subsidies to help the shipbuilding industry and shipping, represents the policy of Her Majesty’s Government.
The Prime Minister (Mr Harold Macmillan): Yes, Sir.10
We’ll come back to this first question later – there’s more going on here than you think. At this first PMQs the Leader of the Opposition, Hugh Gaitskell, did not ask a question at all. It has got more interesting since then.
Once PMQs had been given a permanent, fixed, timetabled slot, there was no going back. MPs would never again accept a situation in which they could not be sure there would be time to question the Prime Minister in any given week. In its fifteen-minute Tuesday and Thursday slots and now the thirty-minute Wednesday slot, PMQs was and is a regular beat in the rhythm of the parliamentary week. But it took time for it to be seen as the opportunity it is today for any MP to hold the Prime Minister to account. Labour MP Dennis Skinner told us that when he first entered the Commons in 1970, most MPs never even tried to ask questions at PMQs: ‘They had a little coterie of people who used to do Prime Minister’s Questions, and people on both sides used to say, “Don’t, this is a minefield, it’s difficult.” You invaded territory that was occupied by about twenty, thirty people on both sides, like a club. There weren’t many people put in.’ Skinner says that the competition to table a question was so low that on one occasion ‘Eric Heffer had two in one day, and it was only a quarter of an hour’.
The next big change in how PMQs worked made it much more interesting and much less predictable. In 1975 Labour MP John Golding asked what looked on the face of it like a very boring question to the Prime Minister: ‘if he would state his engagements for April 29th’. As Tam Dalyell later wrote,
By asking a purely formal question, acceptable to the Table Office and the stringent rules of parliamentary order, John Golding had outflanked the vetting system on questions of the Prime Minister and gained the opportunity to put a supplementary question on almost any aspect of policy which might be on his mind. The genie was out of the bottle. Pandora’s Box was opened. From now on MPs could ask the Prime Minister about virtually anything under the political sun.11
In fact, it isn’t entirely clear that Golding was the first to do this, or that it was his idea rather than that of the parliamentary clerks – and as it happened the particular question Dalyell cites ended up being answered in writing, not at PMQs, anyway.12 But we like the idea of ascribing it to Golding, author of Hammer of the Left, the classic account of Labour’s battles against Militant in the 1980s, and the holder of the record for the longest ever Commons speech, with an eleven-hour effort on the Telecommunications Bill in 1983; since it was a standing committee debate, and not in the Chamber, he was able to take breaks for lunch and dinner.13
Golding’s innovation – if it was his – was probably the most significant of all the changes to PMQs discussed in this chapter. Before the development of the open ‘engagements question’, all questions to the Prime Minister, like all questions to all ministers, had to be closed questions on specific topics. So for example, here are the first few questions tabled to Harold Wilson on 13 February 1968, a fairly ordinary PMQs session for the time:
Q1. Mr Ridley asked the Prime Minister what proposals he has for celebrating Human Rights Year.
Q2. Mr Ridley asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a minister to coordinate the work of the Department of Economic Affairs and the Ministry of Labour with regard to the pay norm for incomes policy.
Q3. Sir Knox Cunningham asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about his visits to the President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister of Canada.
Q4. Mr Longden asked the Prime Minister if he will give instructions to ministers in the Cabinet to refuse to appear on television programmes whose primary object is entertainment; and if he will seek to confine ministerial appearances on television to occasions when they wish to explain government policy to the nation.
Q5. Mr Blaker asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent consultations in the United States of America.
Q6. Mr Onslow asked the Prime Minister if he will instruct all members of the government that any legislation introduced by them must in future include in the explanatory memorandum an estimate of the effect of such legislation upon the size of the civil service.
Q7. Mr Bruce-Gardyne asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on television, on Tuesday, 16 January, on the economic situation, represents the policy of Her Majesty’s Government.14
Each of these questions is closed. Each one has a relatively narrow focus, and deals with an issue the Prime Minister was personally responsible for. After the Prime Minister’s answer to each one, the original questioner had the opportunity to ask a relevant supplement- ary question. Any other MP who also wished to ask a supplementary, which must again be relevant to the topic of the original question, was then called by the Speaker. Each of the questions on the order paper, then, led to an exchange involving four or five different MPs (except question four on stopping ministers appearing on TV, which appears to have been a personal bugbear of the Conservative MP Gilbert Longden – nobody else bothered to ask a supplementary on that). Harold Wilson didn’t know exactly what supplementaries were coming, but he knew roughly what he was up against, and could make sure he was briefed accordingly.
The ‘engagements question’ has several key advantages to MPs – and disadvantages to the Prime Minister. It can be tabled long in advance, before MPs have given any thought to what they would actually like to ask about. This is particularly important for a popular event like PMQs where there are far more MPs who want to ask questions than the length of the session will allow, so that any time spent devising a substantive question has a good chance of being wasted. It is impossible for the Prime Minister to transfer to another minister, since it is self-evidently a question about the Prime Minister’s personal responsibilities and nobody else’s, and so any supplementary question, whatever the subject, will have to be answered by the Prime Minister too. It provides a new element of surprise, because the Prime Minister can have no idea what the supplementary will be about, unless the MP decides to tell her in advance. And it enables PMQs to be topical, because supplementaries can cover breaking news stories right up to the moment MPs stand up to ask them.
There are other ways of devising questions which the Prime Minister cannot transfer, such as an MP asking whether the Prime Minister has any plans to visit his constituency: the MP can then ask a supplementary question about whatever local issue he likes, without risking it being transferred to the relevant minister. This is not as good as the engagements question, because the supplementary will still have to be about something to do with the constituency, so lots of possible topics will be out of bounds. In 1971, Dennis Skinner found an ingenious variant on the constituency question when he wanted to highlight the amount of time Edward Heath, a keen sailor, spent on his yacht. He tabled a question asking the Prime Minister ‘if he will pay an official visit to Cowes’15 – not in Skinner’s own constituency. He told us: ‘There was a big argument as to whether it was ironic, in the Table Office, because they said, “It’s irony.” I said, “Well, if I said pay an official visit to somewhere else in Britain, you’d agree to it.” And it got a laugh before I even opened my mouth.’
The apparently dull question to Harold Macmillan about shipping policy quoted above, the first one ever to be asked in the new permanent timetabled PMQs slot, was itself designed to be untransferable. By asking the Prime Minister whether a statement by the Transport Secretary represented government policy – that is, whether Macmillan was prepared to endorse a statement by one of his ministers – Emanuel Shinwell was able to avoid having it transferred back to the Transport Secretary, and therefore to attempt to embarrass Macmillan with a supplementary question about a possible contradiction over subsidies to the shipping and shipbuilding industries. It’s a convoluted way of going about it, though.
Even after the engagements question became widespread, and the most common question tabled in every PMQs session, the Prime Minister still had to answer it every time. The standard formula at the start of PMQs, even now, is ‘This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House I shall have further such meetings later today.’ This is a notably uninformative answer to a question nobody really cares about in the first place. Subsequently, MPs would stand up and say the number of their question, and the Prime Minister would respond, ‘I refer the honourable gentleman/lady to the answer I gave some moments ago.’ When we first started paying attention to PMQs in the 1990s, we heard these words so often that we started to think of them as John Major’s catchphrase. Only then would the supplementary, the real point of the exercise, be asked. In a fifteen-minute session, these formulaic responses would take up a significant amount of time, cutting into the space available for actual questions. As Matthew Parris wrote in a parliamentary sketch in November 1996, ‘Along with the pauses and the getting up and sitting down, it consumes some eleven seconds. The initial diary recitation consumes some fifteen seconds. Simple arithmetic suggests that Major has now spent nearly six hours of his life in bland recitations of his day’s diary, or referring his Hon Friends to the reply he gave some moments ago.’16
It was only in 1997, as part of Tony Blair’s wider overhaul of PMQs, that this was rationalised so that after the very first question MPs could just stand up and put their supplementary question as soon as they were called.17 Today, submitting an engagements question has been simplified to the extent that MPs now merely have to sign a form containing the letter ‘E’. The whips on both sides hand these forms out to try to make sure that as many of their party’s own MPs as possible are in the draw. Labour MP Kevin Brennan describes Labour whip Jessica Morden as ‘the principal purveyor of “E”s’.
The unpredictability of PMQs is a big part of what makes it so daunting to Prime Ministers, and the reason it needs so much preparation: when you don’t know what’s coming, you have to prepare for everything. It is the open questions that make it so unpredictable. But closed questions on a particular, defined subject, now almost unheard of at PMQs, have their perils too. With closed questions – still the main type of question at departmental question times in the Commons – the minister has to keep taking supplementary questions on the same topic, from all sides, until the Speaker decides to move on.
The sustained pressure this can lead to is almost impossible to replicate in the modern PMQs. Aside from the leaders’ exchanges, questions do not come in sequences of two or more. The fact that questions have no set topic means that after a difficult question from an opposition MP, the Speaker will always call a government MP next, on whom the Prime Minister can rely to change the subject. Before open questions became the norm, this release valve did not exist. Indeed, throughout the 1960s and early 1970s Prime Ministers frequently had to deal with supplementary after supplementary on the same issue, often with the Leader of the Opposition coming in towards the end if it appeared they were struggling.
In his diary for 5 July 1960 – before the creation of the dedicated fifteen-minute PMQs slot – Harold Macmillan records:
PQs went very badly for me. There was a sudden storm about U2 [a US spy plane which allegedly flew reconnaissance missions from British bases], arising from a supplementary, and I allowed myself to be taken by surprise and rattled by Brown, Healey, Silverman, Warbey, like a lot of hounds. When he saw it was a good run, Gaitskell joined in. I did not manage it at all well.18
Hansard shows that Macmillan was asked a total of nine increasingly hostile supplementaries on the same topic, without a break, an ordeal for the Prime Minister that simply could not happen today.19
The growth of the open question made the next significant development in PMQs almost inevitable. The number of topics that are unavoidably the responsibility of the Prime Minister alone is relatively small, so Prime Ministers could justifiably transfer questions to other ministers, leaving PMQs to focus on a fairly narrow set of subjects. Before the 1960s, most questions to the Prime Minister were on foreign affairs.20 Once open questions, with their unpredictable supplementaries, were on the table, the number of questions the Prime Minister could choose to transfer went down, and the number of subjects the Prime Minister had to be briefed on went up. Eventually, transferring questions became pointless.
At the same time, it also transformed the role of the Leader of the Opposition at PMQs. When questions were closed, and invariably tabled by others, the Leader of the Opposition had a small number of known topics to choose from when deciding when or whether to ask a supplementary question or questions, and had only a limited opportunity to introduce up-to-the-minute new information. In fact, PMQs could only sometimes, by coincidence, cover what we would now think of as ‘the issue of the day’. With open questions, and with no restrictions at all on the topic of supplementaries, the element of surprise expanded hugely, as did the ability of the Leader of the Opposition to set the PMQs agenda rather than following a backbencher’s lead. The ability of PMQs to include a self-contained duel between the main party leaders, on an issue of the Leader of the Opposition’s choosing, is a direct result of the ‘engagements question’ becoming the dominant question tabled to the Prime Minister by backbenchers.
In July 1979 Margaret Thatcher announced that although she retained the right to transfer questions to her departmental ministers where they related to ‘detailed constituency matters’, in general she expected ‘to answer substantive questions that raise issues of general significance and national interest, if Honourable Members wish to ask them’,21 whatever the subject. Her predecessor, James Callaghan, had only rarely transferred questions, making Thatcher’s announcement less of a watershed than some have implied it was. But Thatcher boasted, accurately, that she was going further than Callaghan by transferring none,22 and she stuck to her commitment. Neil Kinnock, Leader of the Opposition for most of Thatcher’s premiership, thinks that ‘Thatcher decided to take Prime Minister’s Questions seriously, because having flagged badly behind Jim as leader of her party and potential leader of the country this must have been seen by her advisers as a way of demonstrating capability and strength.’
Thatcher’s decision not to transfer questions to the relevant departmental minister was not as brave as it looks, and given the increase in open questions she was bowing to the inevitable: continuing a trend rather than making a new departure. By the end of the 1970s no Prime Minister was ever going to get away with the approach taken by Sir Alec Douglas-Home, who, when Harold Wilson asked him about the UK’s trade figures in March 1964, simply refused to answer on the grounds that he had not been given notice of the question.23 Refusing to answer questions makes the Prime Minister look weak; being willing to take all of them doesn’t just make her look stronger; it really does strengthen her, at the expense of her departmental ministers. As early as 1972, we find complaints that ‘The increasing use of “peg” questions to the Prime Minister, on to which are hung supplementaries about anything the MP cares to raise, blurs the concept of individual ministerial responsibility. The Prime Minister is made to appear responsible for all the actions of the government.’24 This process reached its logical conclusion under Margaret Thatcher, and has stayed there ever since.
The real impact of making PMQs cover any and every possible topic was the consolidation of the power and reach of the Prime Minister’s office. If the Prime Minister is prepared to answer questions about anything and everything, then the Prime Minister must be briefed about anything and everything. If the Prime Minister is accountable to Parliament for the performance of every department, then every department must make sure the Prime Minister is aware of how well it is performing. You can’t keep secrets from a Prime Minister who is about to be asked in public about all your secrets.
This is the hidden power of PMQs: it doesn’t just make the Prime Minister accountable to Parliament, it also makes every minister and every department accountable to the Prime Minister. It extends Downing Street’s tentacles across Whitehall, giving it a legitimate pretext to know about everything that might be going wrong. It even functions as a form of ministerial performance management. This is why Thatcher resisted attempts by Bernard Weatherill, elected as Speaker in 1983, to ‘restore the former practice whereby questions of detail were deflected to the departmental minister concerned, leaving the Prime Minister to answer for broad strategy … Mrs Thatcher liked open questions precisely because they enabled her to display her command of detail: the fact that she might be asked about anything gave her the excuse she needed to keep tabs on every department.’25 As Peter Hennessy put it, ‘It was an irony that an increase in prime ministerial accountability to Parliament after 1961 strengthened the possibility of an overmighty premiership.’26
In 1965, Tam Dalyell visited Harold Wilson in No. 10. ‘Apart from the “Garden Girl” typists,’ he wrote, ‘the Prime Minister’s staff appeared to be his personal secretary Lady Falkender, his press secretary Sir Trevor Lloyd-Hughes, and the cat. Twenty years later [sic] I witnessed Tony Blair’s Downing Street, bustling with special advisers – a veritable parallel government to the great departments of state.’27 Dalyell ascribed the growth of this parallel government, a wholly negative development as he saw it, directly to the new requirement for accountability arising from a changed PMQs. Thatcher wrote in her memoirs that ‘each department was, naturally, expected to provide the facts and a possible reply on points that might arise. It was a good test of the alertness and efficiency of the Cabinet minister in charge of the department whether information arrived late – or arrived at all; whether it was accurate or wrong, comprehensible or riddled with jargon.’28
A prize like this for a Prime Minister can make the ordeal worth-while, as David Cameron recognised. Answering a question about PMQs at PMQs in July 2015, he said: ‘For all its faults, and there are many, I would say that it has two important points: it puts the Prime Minister on the spot to the public, but it also puts the government on the spot to the Prime Minister – needing to know issues right across every department before coming to the House at twelve o’clock on a Wednesday is an important mechanism of accountability.’29
Theo Bertram, an adviser on PMQs to Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, has written about the scene in the Cabinet Room on a Tuesday evening or Wednesday morning where ‘briefing documents from every department are coldly laid out like dead bodies on a slab in a mortuary. Each stack of papers contains the evidence of some government or political failure that might be raised in the Chamber.’ The No. 10 advisers go through emails from government departments on Wednesday mornings, trying to spot ‘the cryptically casual comment in a sub-clause from a special adviser, the “just-wanted-to-let-you-know-about-one-small-thing” from a principal private secretary, or the matter-of-fact group email from some cheery researcher in the Whips Office who is just doing what his boss tells him: all calculated to ensure the sender can later say truthfully that the Prime Minister had been informed of this problem before PMQs’. There are politely threatening calls to officials who haven’t provided the information the PMQs briefing team needs from them: ‘Look at the clock: in thirty minutes we will talk to the Prime Minister. Shall we tell her that there is a problem and that you are withholding the solution from her?’30
The possibility of being asked questions on everything led Margaret Thatcher, and her successors, to ensure that her briefing book had everything covered. As Neil Kinnock remembers, ‘She developed the technique of turning up to Prime Minister’s Questions with this massive compendium to answers on everything. I mean, previous leaders maybe starting with Heath had brought in files, but what she brought in with her was at least twice or three times as thick as anything anybody had ever taken in before.’
The next important development in the evolution of PMQs was to allow it to be seen by a larger audience than the one in the Chamber itself. The idea of broadcasting Parliament was under discussion almost as soon as the technology was available, but it was a long time before anything could actually be agreed upon. Most MPs were hostile, for reasons ranging from the technical problems created by putting cameras and TV lighting in the House of Commons Chamber, to fears that some members might try to communicate with the public outside rather than their fellow MPs or, as Sir Godfrey Nicholson put it in 1962, that it might ‘encourage the exhibitionism and vanity which are occupational hazards of politics’.31
Radio broadcasting of Parliament, including PMQs, began in April 1978, although live coverage of PMQs stopped again in 1980. It was not universally regarded as a positive development. According to Charles Moore’s biography of Margaret Thatcher, her advisers were concerned that the broadcasts ‘had made life even more difficult for a woman leader because the public could hear her shrieking to make herself audible over the hubbub’. Labour, meanwhile, found Thatcher’s first broadcast PMQs very encouraging, with James Callaghan’s head of policy, Bernard Donoughue, writing in his diary that ‘she looked very pale and tense and sounded harsh. This was in some ways a trial run for the election, and we came away feeling very confident.’32
The Conservative MP John Stokes, arguing in 1985 against the televising of Parliament, said that ‘the [radio] broadcasting of Prime Minister’s Question Time has harmed the occasion and damaged the institution of Parliament. Why? Because of the gladiatorial nature of that quarter of an hour twice a week, which is by no means typical of how we spend most of our time.’33 Much, in fact most, parliamentary business is indeed less raucous, less crowded, more technical and, frankly, duller than PMQs, and so PMQs does give a misleading picture of what MPs get up to most of the time.
Parliament continued to reject being televised throughout almost the whole of the 1980s, with Conservative MPs taking a lead from the Prime Minister herself. Margaret Thatcher ‘thought it would do her personally no good. Gordon Reece and Bernard Ingham both tried to persuade her that she would only gain from being seen trouncing Kinnock at the dispatch box twice a week; but she was afraid she would come over as strident (as well as being seen wearing glasses to read her brief) and feared that the BBC would edit the exchanges to her disadvantage.’34 MPs voted narrowly against a motion to televise Parliament in November 1985, after a debate in which the Labour MP Joe Ashton warned that ‘politicians will ultimately end up as the nation’s clowns, portrayed as they are in Spitting Image’, and that
Every Tuesday and Thursday we shall have ‘The Maggie and Neil Show – Scrap of the Day’ – an everyday story of people having a bash at each other. Prime Minister’s Question Time would become another soap opera, like the ‘Buckingham Dallas’ with Prince Charles and Princess Diana. It used to be said that religion was the opium of the people. We now have the ‘soapium’ of the people, and the House will become yet another soap opera.35
Thatcher made her opposition clear, telling the BBC, ‘I’ve thought about it very deeply. The Commons is a small, intimate chamber; those heavy lights, the heat, I think it would be dreadful.’36 In contrast Kinnock supported the idea equally strongly: ‘I thought you couldn’t have democracy and technology and not put the two together, just ludicrous.’ In 1988 MPs voted to televise the House of Commons, and in November 1989 proceedings were shown for the first time.
The Conservative MP Roger Gale wrote a letter to the Prime Minister before the first televised session to give her advice on how to change her performance to make sure she came across well on television, with tips including ‘Ministers should speak only at microphone level and never seek to “top” heckling from the opposition: this may sometimes work in the Chamber but will sound – and look – strident on television’ and ‘To give the impression of looking the opponent – Leader of the Opposition or spokesman – in the eye, it may be necessary to “cheat” the eyeline over the head to Camera 2.’ A note from Thatcher’s private secretary Dominic Morris suggested that MPs should be encouraged to be animated in their support, so that the viewing public could tell they were impressed: ‘It looks much better if, rather than sitting solemn, they show obvious approval (as did Mr [Kenneth] Baker on one occasion) when telling points are made. That clearly applies generally to the support which colleagues give to any frontbench spokesmen.’37
Kinnock was less well prepared: ‘What I didn’t do is even think about mastering the technique of leaning into the microphone and recognising that my voice would carry whatever the noise in the place, and that was a serious mistake on my part. Thatcher got it a long time before I understood it. She had a lot of coaching in any case, but I should have realised that if you leaned in and spoke firmly into the microphone then your voice would carry.’
Nick Robinson writes that Thatcher’s preparation was thorough, with a rehearsal in the Chamber, new TV-friendly make-up and notes in larger type which she could read without her glasses. But ‘though she produced a confident performance she was seen shuffling through her papers, destroying the impression given to radio listeners that she carried all the relevant facts in her head. Despite the bigger type she still had to reach for her glasses to read out key quotes.’38
Television changed Parliament, and PMQs, for ever. For a start, it gave both sides the ability to have their best lines shown on the evening news and seen by millions; which meant that for both sides it was worthwhile – even more so than before – to have some good lines. For the leaders, PMQs was now a high-profile public-facing event. They had to look the part, sound the part and, most importantly, deliver pithy, witty, powerful political messages. You don’t need soundbites if nobody is listening; you don’t need to make sure your best line will work properly in a TV package if nobody is there to clip it. As Kinnock says, ‘To the extent that we spent time on preparing for Prime Minister’s Questions, a fraction of the time that Thatcher spent on it, we were acknowledging the importance of the fact that the words were being broadcast.’
The need to make sure PMQs would work on TV could, at worst, lead to a focus on the scripted clip at the expense of the argument. John Whittingdale, who was working for Thatcher when the cameras first came in, remembers that especially in the days before 24-hour news, ‘On Tuesdays and Thursdays the chances were that the six o’clock and ten o’clock [news bulletins] would carry the clip from Prime Minister’s Questions, and there wouldn’t be any other opportunity for them, that would be the only time in the entire day when they had got the Prime Minister on record, so inevitably they used to carry it.’ Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair’s press secretary in both opposition and government, told us, ‘There definitely did come a point where we had a sense that both the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister were delivering the clip in the last question. It got a bit tedious.’
Television adds to the pressure on modern leaders to look the part. Jeremy Corbyn’s unconventional dress sense was part of his appeal during his leadership campaigns, but it was highlighted by David Cameron during a PMQs exchange in February 2016. When a Labour MP heckled ‘Ask your mother’ (Cameron’s mother had been revealed to have signed an anti-cuts petition), Cameron responded, ‘I know what my mother would say. She would look across the dispatch box and say, “Put on a proper suit, do up your tie and sing the national anthem.”’39 Corbyn’s Twitter account responded later in the day with a quote it attributed, not necessarily accurately, to Einstein: ‘If most of us are ashamed of shabby clothes & shoddy furniture let us be more ashamed of shabby ideas & shoddy philosophies.’40 But it wasn’t long before Corbyn was taking Cameron’s advice and wearing smarter suits. During the 2017 election campaign The Sun quoted a senior Labour source as saying, ‘Jeremy looks good in a blue suit, and we’re pleased with how he’s coming across. Presentation is important.’41 By the end of the year, he was on the cover of GQ.
Politicians of both sexes are used to getting the full works at the TV studios: being made up by the miracle-worker Brenda before The Andrew Marr Show is a rite of passage. And since the Chamber is, among other things, a well-lit TV studio it makes sense for leaders to get made up before big appearances – even if it is just a light dusting of face powder. Tony Blair was one of the first male politicians to realise this, and Gyles Brandreth, then a Conservative MP, told his diary in March 1997 how his party attempted to exploit it:
When I told the PM a few weeks back that I was sure Blair wore make-up at PMQs he seemed genuinely surprised. ‘We need to give that greater currency, don’t you think?’ So we’re going to have a go tomorrow, either with a planted question, ‘Can my Right Honourable Friend take this opportunity to salute the cosmetics industry in the United Kingdom etc…’ or by having someone shout out as Blair rises: ‘He’s wearing make-up!’ Yes, it’s come to this.42
The following day, at John Major’s last ever PMQs as Prime Minister, ‘our absurd cries of “He’s wearing make-up” bounced off Blair unheeded’.43
