A220 – Question Sessions Amendment Watch

This discussion is closed.
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 months ago
#1
A220 – Question Sessions Amendment
Proposed by: Saracen's Fez (Speaker)
Seconded by: Connor27 MP (Libertarian), ns_2 MP (Conservative)

This House would amend the Guidance Document as follows:

Remove the following from the section entitled 'Prime Minister's Questions':

3) Members are free to debate with one another in the thread but they have a limit as to how many questions they can ask the Prime Minister.

i) Ordinary users may ask two questions with two follow-ups.
ii) MPs may ask four questions, with a follow-up question for each.
iii) The Leader of the Opposition may ask six questions, with a follow-up question for each.

And replace with the following, renaming the section 'Question Sessions':

3) Members have a limit as to how many questions they can ask the Prime Minister.

i) The Leader of the Opposition may ask six questions, which they may divide up between new and follow-up questions as they wish.
ii) Leaders of other parties may ask three questions, which they may divide up between new and follow-up questions as they wish.
iii) MPs may ask one questions, plus a follow-up question.
iv) Ordinary users may ask one question with no follow-up.

Notes
Question sessions should be distinct from asking questions in Ask the Government or debating in another thread, with a limited number of questions deployed in the most tactical way. The large number of questions that are currently allowed in a session endangers this principle, and so this amendment returns question sessions to a system similar to that employed until a couple of years ago, but with a relatively more prominent role for the Leader of the Opposition (or shadow minister), and a new recognition of the role played by party leaders / spokespeople.

0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 months ago
#2
I fully support this amendment.
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3
Report 6 months ago
#3
As Prime Minister, I fully support this amendment.

I would like to run more sessions of PMQs but the recent session was simply a repetition of debate under the context of a bill or motion. To that end, the current structure, I believe, inhibits true questioning.

In respect to the next session of PMQs, I am happy to hold one whenever is most suitable to the LOTO.
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 months ago
#4
Aye - this amendment gives more opportunities for activity at PMQs.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 6 months ago
#5
All this does is reverse a previous change and change the name all applying to a process that hasn't really been used for some time due in part to the existence on AtG and due in part to having governments who appear to be opposed to accountability.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 6 months ago
#6
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
All this does is reverse a previous change and change the name all applying to a process that hasn't really been used for some time due in part to the existence on AtG and due in part to having governments who appear to be opposed to accountability.
We had a PMQs not that long ago, and in any case I don't see that being an argument against changing the system.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 6 months ago
#7
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
We had a PMQs not that long ago, and in any case I don't see that being an argument against changing the system.
The case against the change is "if it ain't broke don't fix it", if you want to place importance on PMQs and MQs AtG needs turning into a simple announcement thread
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 6 months ago
#8
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
The case against the change is "if it ain't broke don't fix it", if you want to place importance on PMQs and MQs AtG needs turning into a simple announcement thread
Alternatively PMQs needs to turn into something that is a bit different to just asking the government questions with the intention of actually extracting information, which is what I hope to achieve by reducing the number of questions people have to ask.
1
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#9
Report 6 months ago
#9
I fear that users finding MHoC on these threads wouldn't be encouraged to stay in MHoC if they were told that they could only ask 1 question. I don't disagree that PMQs and MQs should have a structured format, but I think some consideration of how this structure makes us look externally, and ways we might want to manage that is needed before I can support this amendment.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 6 months ago
#10
(Original post by 04MR17)
I fear that users finding MHoC on these threads wouldn't be encouraged to stay in MHoC if they were told that they could only ask 1 question. I don't disagree that PMQs and MQs should have a structured format, but I think some consideration of how this structure makes us look externally, and ways we might want to manage that is needed before I can support this amendment.
Alternatively they might look elsewhere for places to post (i.e. bills and motions, or AtG), or they might seek to become an MP and ask more questions. The number of non-MHoCer non-MPs who take part in PMQs has always been low, regardless of whether we've had a single-question or many-question rule for them.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 6 months ago
#11
Division! Clear the lobbies!
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you attending a Global Climate Strike?

Yes, I'm striking (38)
7.42%
No, but I wanted to/I support the cause (299)
58.4%
No (175)
34.18%

Watched Threads

View All