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.