How long is prime ministers questions

And they can be effective on the basis of the passage of the votes. And I think it would be a very worrying development if they were to be treated lightly or disregarded. PoliticsHome provides the most comprehensive coverage of UK politics anywhere on the web, offering high quality original reporting and analysis: Subscribe. Can technology deliver a better society? In a new podcast series from the heart of Westminster, The House magazine and the IET discuss with parliamentarians and industry experts how technology and engineering can provide policy solutions to our changing world.

New episode - Listen now. Connecting Communities is an initiative aimed at empowering and strengthening community ties across the UK.

Launched in partnership with The National Lottery, it aims to promote dialogue and support Parliamentarians working to nurture a more connected society. Find out more. The House Live All. We should reflect on this Remembrance weekend with gratitude. In November , PMQs started being filmed, and in it began to be broadcast live. This fundamentally changed the ways in which the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition — the protagonists of PMQs — prepared and delivered their speeches. Advisers on both sides started aiming for short, quotable lines that could make the headlines or the evening news.

Appearance and tone started playing a more important role, as PMQs was no longer confined to a parliamentary audience. This paved the way for the influence of social media on PMQs proceedings. It is common now for both sides to prepare quips that can be easily shared on Twitter or Facebook.

Increased media exposure hence had a direct influence on the types of questions that were asked, and on the style in which questions were addressed, as well as on how questions were answered. Prior to that, since , PMQs had been scheduled for 15 minutes on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons. Tony Blair thought that preparing for two separate questioning sessions was quite time-consuming, and occupied a significant part of his diary in the middle of each week, so a single session would be more efficient.

This allowed for a more extended dialogue between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, as well as potentially more time for backbenchers to ask questions. In recent years, PMQs has frequently overrun up to 45 minutes. Speaker John Bercow was quite vocal in arguing for PMQs to be officially extended to 45 minutes, or even up to an hour, to allow more time for backbenchers.

Weekly questioning of the Prime Minister is another particular feature of the UK. Other parliaments that question the prime minister individually, such as Denmark, Norway or Sweden, do so usually on a monthly basis.

The Leader of the Opposition has six questions allocated at PMQs, and the leader of the third largest party has two. Before the introduction of the minute Wednesday slot, Leaders of the Opposition used to have three questions for each Tuesday and Thursday session.

Once PMQs moved to a single, half-hour session, Leaders of the Opposition, starting with William Hague, began to take up to the full allocation. This meant that questions could be used in various ways, either taking all six questions at the beginning of the session, as is currently most common, or grouping them as two sets of three, or of four and two.

Leaders could use their allocated questions to pursue a single topic in a sustained line of questioning, or to look at multiple issues. The move to allocate the Leader six questions, and their decision to use the full set, decisively shaped the form of this exchange.

The Prime Minister enjoys great freedom in setting their relationship with Parliament. In , Blair agreed to appear once or twice a year before the Liaison Committee, formed of the chairs of Select Committees in the Commons.

Liaison Committee sessions with the Prime Minister have been in place since, and now operate two or three times a year. Our political equivalent of a medieval tomato pelting where only the most dexterous and bold escape unspattered. At around The reporters are watching, ready to make or break a career with a phrase of praise or condemnation, and a particularly juicy put-down could make it all the way to the national evening news — a consummation devoutly to be wished by all fizzy up-and-comers.

It was no wonder that Cameron, who once briefed John Major for his own PMQs appearances, was so implacable when on the spot. If PMQs has been criticised and celebrated as a rancorous storm of put-downs and one-liners, one man has emerged to try and change all that. Jeremy Corbyn, with his ponderous style and aversion to wit, has replaced barbed, carefully-honed attacks with long-winded, crowdsourced questions designed to take the traditional heat out of the exchanges and secure actual answers from nonplussed Prime Ministers.

But his lackadaisical style has done little to endear him to the ever-hungry piranhas of the press lobby, who crave soundbites, slanders, and blood in the water.