Trump is a prime example of why the US needs a version of the UK Parliament Question Time

[repoman]

My guess is that very few people in the US realize that QT even happens over in the UK.

For any UK folk here, what leeway does the PM have to avoid answering a question or preventing one in the first place?

Even Obama would have benefitted from QT.



The idea of Trump having a chance for not looking much worse than normal during QT is impossible.

Reagan in 1972 could have been ok during it, but 1986 it would be obvious he had lost it.

Clinton would have been masterful during his term. Eisenhower, restrained but commanding.


--------------------------------------

But would the prospect of knowing that the election winner would have to be in Question Time affect the voters decisions? Would a Republican leaner decide against Trump because he didn't want to see the label tarnished?

 

[hardeep]

My guess is that very few people in the US realize that QT even happens over in the UK.

For any UK folk here, what leeway does the PM have to avoid answering a question or preventing one in the first place?

Even Obama would have benefitted from QT.



The idea of Trump having a chance for not looking much worse than normal during QT is impossible.

Reagan in 1972 could have been ok during it, but 1986 it would be obvious he had lost it.

Clinton would have been masterful during his term. Eisenhower, restrained but commanding.

The PM can't prevent a question being asked - most questioners are selected by lot then called by the Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition always gets six. (I suspect the SNP leader in the House may also currently get 1 or 2 every time as they are by far the third largest party with over 50 MPs)

The MPs chosen are known in advance so the PM will spend time trying to anticipate possible questions (hence the large folder the PM has in front of her.) However this does also allow MPs from the PM's side to offer to ask friendly questions.

As for avoiding answering questions - the PM can say what he/she wants and will avoid answering a question if they so chose. The opposition may complain but there isn't much they do.

I appreciate from the point of view of Americans it seems a great way to be held accountable but after watching for many years the questions essentially boil down to either "would the PM agree that the government is great" or "would the PM agree the government is rubbish" I'm far from convinced that it serves any real purpose.

However what is effective is the PM giving statements to the House for significant events e.g. The Brexit vote, G8 meetings etc and then having to answer questions for over an hour on that particular issue.

 

[dismal]

Brits in general put much more value in impromptu speaking in a politician than we do.

Maybe this is right as I'm not sure there is much correlation between being a good speaker and a good leader.

 

[prideandfall]

But would the prospect of knowing that the election winner would have to be in Question Time affect the voters decisions?

i doubt it.
but even so, why do you think that would have any impact on a situation like the recent US election?
the inferred correlation here is that if trump were subject to something like this, he would say something that would make his supporters not like him anymore, or be disinclined to vote for him?
i think that the last 6 months have proven quite conclusion this is a completely false assumption, because trump voters love the shit trump says and does on its face, and the more opportunity to blather in front of a camera he has the more his loyalists adore him.

Would a Republican leaner decide against Trump because he didn't want to see the label tarnished?

you're making the incredibly naive assumption that republicans think what trump says is bad.
trump is the essence of republicanism made flesh and coated in a fine layer of cheeto dust - they're not secretly embarrassed by him, they love everything he says and does because it's their id come to life.

 

[whichphilosophy]

My guess is that very few people in the US realize that QT even happens over in the UK.

For any UK folk here, what leeway does the PM have to avoid answering a question or preventing one in the first place?

Even Obama would have benefitted from QT.



The idea of Trump having a chance for not looking much worse than normal during QT is impossible.

Reagan in 1972 could have been ok during it, but 1986 it would be obvious he had lost it.

Clinton would have been masterful during his term. Eisenhower, restrained but commanding.


--------------------------------------

But would the prospect of knowing that the election winner would have to be in Question Time affect the voters decisions? Would a Republican leaner decide against Trump because he didn't want to see the label tarnished?

Such a set up would be entertaining.

 

[bilby]

Like a lot of Westminster play-acting, PM's Qs is not particularly useful for anything. The PM can dodge any questions she doesn't want to answer; and the whole business is full of stupid traditional elements that do nothing but waste time.

In principle, all the questions must be notified to the PM beforehand, the PM answers, and the questioner can then ask a supplementary question, that must be relevant to the original question asked. The idea being that the PM can come prepared with the facts and figures and give an informative response.

In practice, MPs undermined this long ago, as they found that it's far more entertaining to surprise the PM with a question for which she is unprepared, and then watch her flounder as she tries to look statesmanlike while not having a clue.

So 99% of the questions are "What are the PM's engagements today" - a question that ensures that ANY supplementary question asked will be 'on topic', because the PM is responsible for all areas of government. So you can ask "And will the PM find time today to consider [whatever the questioner really wanted to ask]".

As every question is the same, the PM has to stand up between each real question and say "I refer the honourable gentleman to the reply which I gave some moments ago". It's good for running down the clock. But it's not helping to run the country.

 

[credoconsolans]

Like a lot of Westminster play-acting, PM's Qs is not particularly useful for anything. The PM can dodge any questions she doesn't want to answer; and the whole business is full of stupid traditional elements that do nothing but waste time.

In principle, all the questions must be notified to the PM beforehand, the PM answers, and the questioner can then ask a supplementary question, that must be relevant to the original question asked. The idea being that the PM can come prepared with the facts and figures and give an informative response.

In practice, MPs undermined this long ago, as they found that it's far more entertaining to surprise the PM with a question for which she is unprepared, and then watch her flounder as she tries to look statesmanlike while not having a clue.

So 99% of the questions are "What are the PM's engagements today" - a question that ensures that ANY supplementary question asked will be 'on topic', because the PM is responsible for all areas of government. So you can ask "And will the PM find time today to consider [whatever the questioner really wanted to ask]".

As every question is the same, the PM has to stand up between each real question and say "I refer the honourable gentleman to the reply which I gave some moments ago". It's good for running down the clock. But it's not helping to run the country.

Agree that it doesn't seem to help anything if the PM can avoid really answering.

Hasn't that been the US' problem - and the problem with Trump - since day one?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Like a lot of Westminster play-acting, PM's Qs is not particularly useful for anything. The PM can dodge any questions she doesn't want to answer; and the whole business is full of stupid traditional elements that do nothing but waste time.

In principle, all the questions must be notified to the PM beforehand, the PM answers, and the questioner can then ask a supplementary question, that must be relevant to the original question asked. The idea being that the PM can come prepared with the facts and figures and give an informative response.

In practice, MPs undermined this long ago, as they found that it's far more entertaining to surprise the PM with a question for which she is unprepared, and then watch her flounder as she tries to look statesmanlike while not having a clue.

So 99% of the questions are "What are the PM's engagements today" - a question that ensures that ANY supplementary question asked will be 'on topic', because the PM is responsible for all areas of government. So you can ask "And will the PM find time today to consider [whatever the questioner really wanted to ask]".

As every question is the same, the PM has to stand up between each real question and say "I refer the honourable gentleman to the reply which I gave some moments ago". It's good for running down the clock. But it's not helping to run the country.

Agree that it doesn't seem to help anything if the PM can avoid really answering.

Hasn't that been the US' problem - and the problem with Trump - since day one?

View attachment 9495

Trump would probably enjoy question time.

 

[repoman]

Trump would joy it, but which former Presidents would have been improved by it?

Probably Eisenhower and FDR.

Carter was already swimming in too much information because of his personality type. Question Time would have made him look wishy washy, because of his politeness as well.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Trump would joy it, but which former Presidents would have been improved by it?

Probably Eisenhower and FDR.

Carter was already swimming in too much information because of his personality type. Question Time would have made him look wishy washy, because of his politeness as well.

It may not be a problem since all the leaders get coaching from aids on how to answer a question with a non answer and how to make the audience laugh. Nothing else is necessary.

 

[bilby]

Trump would joy it, but which former Presidents would have been improved by it?

Probably Eisenhower and FDR.

Carter was already swimming in too much information because of his personality type. Question Time would have made him look wishy washy, because of his politeness as well.

It may not be a problem since all the leaders get coaching from aids on how to answer a question with a non answer and how to make the audience laugh. Nothing else is necessary.

I'm pretty sure that they get coaching from aides; Immune deficiency syndromes don't make good coaches.