The American PMQs: What John McCain should expect

Yesterday John McCain made this striking promise:

I will ask Congress to grant me the privilege of coming before both Houses to take questions and address criticism, much the same as the Prime Minister of Great Britain appears regularly before the House of Commons.

Well, I spent five years of my life working week in and week out on Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs), helping prepare both former Prime Minister John Major and then Tory leader, and arch exponent of the PMQ artform, William Hague.

So here, from experience, is what our American friends can expect.

First, it takes a good deal of time. This is a big commitment McCain has made.

If you don't prepare for PMQs you will be roasted alive, whether you are asking or answering the questions. William Hague spent what amounted to about 75 per cent of one working day a week preparing to ask his questions. And senior staff spent even more time than that.

This is the reason why John Major advised Tony Blair to cut the sessions from two a week to just one, which he did immediately he took office. So the burden of PMQs could be eased by being made infrequent, but then a great deal of its force and purpose would be lost.

Second, this time need not be wasted.

The President will need to be briefed on every topic under the sun in order to be prepared. This can be used to hold the rest of the executive to account. The need to produce convincing arguments to all sorts of questions can act as a spur to the whole government. And it can help identify areas where progress is slow.

Third, PMQs provides a timetable for government. The need to answer questions can often speed up events and even drive them.

For instance, Tony Blair moved to force his close friend Peter Mandelson to resign on a Wednesday morning, because he feared that he would find it hard to defend him in the House of Commons later that day. Subsequently things looked a little different - if he had had more time, Mandelson might not have had to go.

Fourth, PMQs are part theatre and you have to work at that.

Much of PMQs is the real stuff - you get real answers, see real weaknesses and learn about real dividing lines. But there is a large vaudeville element. One of my jobs was to help with jokes and if the jokes worked the session was often viewed as a success.

You can't expect to simply wing the jokes - you have to come prepared.

Of course, you might seek to reduce the vaudeville element and make the session more like a committee hearing, but again it would lose a huge part of its force if you did.

Fifth, PMQs provide participants with a strategic dilemma. Do you try to win the exchange or do you try to win over the public?

William Hague famously won his exchanges with Tony Blair - but to no avail, he lost in 2001 in a landslide and had to stand down. Blair, you see, was winning with the public. Voters thought Hague was too much the debater, not enough the statesman.

Yet if you play it too cool, your own side in the room is disappointed and may begin to grumble about you.

Sixth, the details of McCain's idea matter.

The exact steps in the little dance that is PMQs are fundamental to its nature. For instance, the fact that the Leader of the Opposition (the Conservative Party leader) has six questions while the leader of the Liberal Democrats has only two, alters the questions they ask and the impact they make profoundly.

So how many times a month will this session go ahead? Who will be allowed to ask questions? How many will they be allowed to ask? Will the participants be seated or standing? Will the questioners be grouped by party?

Only if he answers these questions will we see the nature of what McCain has in mind.

Here's a video of William Hague talking about PMQs and a PMQs joke which I may or may not have had a hand in.

Comments

[Saint Michael Traveler]

McCain: Do You Support a Federal States of Israel and Palestine as One Nation?

We have had 60 years of experimenting about the Israeli- Palestinian struggle. The region would need help before we will be dragged into a World War III.

No one can reject the fact that creation of Israel on the land of Arabic nations has created tremendous political and economical problems for the United States. We may have to look outside of the box to diffuse the problems. One solution would be for Israel joining us as a member of the Unites States’ Common Wealth.

We are already supporting Israel economically, politically and by sharing intelligence and military hardware. In addition, some Israeli Americans with both Israeli and American citizenships serve in the Israeli Armed Forces. Israel never would have to be fearful of any other nation; our great American Armed Forces will protect the common wealth as they would the homeland.

Would it be politically more advantages for the United States to manage the Jewish state as a member of our Common Wealth?

The Israeli Common Wealth will be free to exercise the religious freedom that our great nation would offer without being isolated among the hostile Arabs.

The Common Wealth should include the Arabs who were forced to leave the land when Zionist invaded the land. It should also include all of the land called by Palestinian as their homeland and by Israeli as their state. I don't suggest this proposal would work or be acceptable by Israel. Then what next?

Would really two nation model for Palestinian and Israeli work in the future? Many experts on the Middle Eastern politics and people would suggest that a two state solution in not viable model. We have struggled with it for nearly 60 years.

Should we be looking at the region as a Federal States with one government elected by all of the people? This model may have a much better chance of survival as a solution for both Israeli and Arabs.

We have been forced into one box by the Israeli Lobby; we need to look outside of this box. We can’t fight wars after wars to support a non-working model of a two state solution. We can’t afford war after war to support a failed two state model.

[Nick]

Do you think that the creation of a PMQs in Congress would lead to creation of a definite Leader of the Opposition who presumably would then be expected to make a strong run to be their party's candidate. It might restructure the party system quite susbtantially if he goes ahead with it.

[marbury]

A great post, thanks. I have a feeling that, transferred to the stately environs of Congress, 'PQs' would lack a lot of the irreverence that makes PMQs such fun (albeit frequently annoying).

http://marbury.typepad.com

[Jason]

McCain isn't as clever or popular as he thinks. He would be eaten alive in a weekly question period.

He can't even deal with the campaign reporters on his bus right now.

[The Remittance Man]

I think it's good that the head of the US executive should face regular direct questioning from the representatives of the people. But we should remember that the Americans very sensibly seperate the powers of executive and parliament. This arrangement means that the congressmen and senators are one step removed from the patronage of their president while still retaining control of matters by being the only body capable of approving the executive's budget. I can't help thinking that a similar situation might not be beneficial in the UK.

[adam]

Good post. I like the idea, but fear the event will be, as they say in financial circles, de-risked to such an extent that it becomes a glorified press conference.

[SG]

Saint Michael Traveller:
"Should we be looking at the region as a Federal States with one government elected by all of the people? This model may have a much better chance of survival as a solution for both Israeli and Arabs."

You clearly have never been to Israel or Palestine if you think this idea can work!

[Peter Chuah, Birmingham]

The proposal by John McCain (if elected as President) to have President Question roughly similar to our PMQs is a gimmick to gain more votes at the Presidential election. Also the proposal may backfire on him during the Presidential election campaign as voters find the plans unworkable, wishy-washy and opportunistic. Also if elected as President, John McCain may not be elected for the second term as President as his performance at the President Question time may turn up to be a fuss with spin, deception, dithering & bottling (like Gordon Brown), 'all talk and no action', boring and may also reveal the various shortcomings of John McCain.

Who is going to regulate (like the speaker in PMQs) at the Presidential Question time the next member to ask questions and determine whether the questions are irrelevant, out of order , too lengthy, etc, as well as keeping order during the question time?