What does it actually mean to say Gordon Brown or David Cameron ‘won’ PMQs and is there any objective way of verifying that victory? I ask because as tomorrow’s contest looms bloggers are probably lining up for the usual tedious spats calling victory for their man and humiliation for their opponent. Last week Iain Dale called for Cameron on Sky News, much to the chagrin of Chris Paul, and Labour blogger Hopi Sen regularly ruins his otherwise interesting observations on PMQs by calling for Brown regardless of how either man actually performs (touchingly loyal I suppose). So is there an objective way to cut through this mire…?
First up – how to determine victory. The one definite thing you can say here is that victory can’t be ascribed with reference to the policy or the substance of the arguments, certainly not in any objective way. In the 30min slot we regularly get everything from grand foreign policy pronouncements to local litter schemes so it’s naïve to expect any worthwhile detail to emerge from it. Besides, neither party views the encounter as an opportunity to make their case or deliver fatal blows to their opponents. The ‘theatre’ tag may be a cliché but it’s apt – this is about performance alone.
What about reaction in the house? Again, difficult to get any sort of objectivity here since both sides are whipped to within an inch of their lives to whoop and holler at their man’s lines and scornfully dismiss the comebacks. It’s not hard to spot when this reaction isn’t entirely genuine though and depending on the political context in the run up you can normally anticipate how animated the supporting cast will be. Failing to appear suitably impressed with your leaders performance might raise some eyebrows but being too openly appreciative of the witty one-liners coming from the opposite benches will definitely catch the attention of the sketch writers (and, no doubt, the whips).
As for reaction beyond the house, this is probably as close as we get to a reliable way to call victory for either party. Not that it’s that close – or that reliable - but the media reaction is how most of the disinterested apolitical masses ‘decide’ who got the upper hand at PMQs. A killer line or a clearly flustered response will usually draw a unanimous response from the sketch & leader writers and if it’s a slow enough news day (or there’s a big political story) then the main news bulletins can be expected to run with it that evening. Ironically the best recent example came not from one of the main parties but from the acting leader of the Lib Dems when Vince Cable forever saddled Gordon Brown with the ‘Mr Bean’ tag. People will have their own views on where Boulton & Robinson loyalties lie or whether Hoggart & Letts are letting their politics cloud their judgement but on the rare occasions when all these players agree on an outcome you can be pretty certain it’s a fair judgement.
So, if there is a clear victor is it important or in any way relevant to the wider political context? The lesson of history has to be no – although again, context is important. Conventional wisdom had William Hague wiping the floor with Tony Blair every week and if I recall the sketch-writers broadly agreed – that clearly had no long-term political impact, largely because in all other respects the Tories were a complete mess and Blair was still bathed in the glow of victory. Likewise when Michael Howard faced Blair, their encounters were entertaining and probably evenly matched over the course even although the polls never followed suit. The key thing to note about the current encounters is that the context has changed markedly – even among hostile commentators the Tories are now considered serious contenders and that colours their call on who wins. In short, where Blair could afford to ‘lose’ every other PMQ (if not more), Brown can’t and the media know it. And while ‘victories’ for Hague or Howard yielded little political traction, for Cameron they could prove very valuable.
So, in short, the best shot we have at independent arbiters are the main sketch-writers and political editors and at the end of the day their call won’t have a tremendous impact on political fortunes anyway. Makes me wonder why I’ve I just spent 700 words on this if I’m honest…
First up – how to determine victory. The one definite thing you can say here is that victory can’t be ascribed with reference to the policy or the substance of the arguments, certainly not in any objective way. In the 30min slot we regularly get everything from grand foreign policy pronouncements to local litter schemes so it’s naïve to expect any worthwhile detail to emerge from it. Besides, neither party views the encounter as an opportunity to make their case or deliver fatal blows to their opponents. The ‘theatre’ tag may be a cliché but it’s apt – this is about performance alone.
What about reaction in the house? Again, difficult to get any sort of objectivity here since both sides are whipped to within an inch of their lives to whoop and holler at their man’s lines and scornfully dismiss the comebacks. It’s not hard to spot when this reaction isn’t entirely genuine though and depending on the political context in the run up you can normally anticipate how animated the supporting cast will be. Failing to appear suitably impressed with your leaders performance might raise some eyebrows but being too openly appreciative of the witty one-liners coming from the opposite benches will definitely catch the attention of the sketch writers (and, no doubt, the whips).
As for reaction beyond the house, this is probably as close as we get to a reliable way to call victory for either party. Not that it’s that close – or that reliable - but the media reaction is how most of the disinterested apolitical masses ‘decide’ who got the upper hand at PMQs. A killer line or a clearly flustered response will usually draw a unanimous response from the sketch & leader writers and if it’s a slow enough news day (or there’s a big political story) then the main news bulletins can be expected to run with it that evening. Ironically the best recent example came not from one of the main parties but from the acting leader of the Lib Dems when Vince Cable forever saddled Gordon Brown with the ‘Mr Bean’ tag. People will have their own views on where Boulton & Robinson loyalties lie or whether Hoggart & Letts are letting their politics cloud their judgement but on the rare occasions when all these players agree on an outcome you can be pretty certain it’s a fair judgement.
So, if there is a clear victor is it important or in any way relevant to the wider political context? The lesson of history has to be no – although again, context is important. Conventional wisdom had William Hague wiping the floor with Tony Blair every week and if I recall the sketch-writers broadly agreed – that clearly had no long-term political impact, largely because in all other respects the Tories were a complete mess and Blair was still bathed in the glow of victory. Likewise when Michael Howard faced Blair, their encounters were entertaining and probably evenly matched over the course even although the polls never followed suit. The key thing to note about the current encounters is that the context has changed markedly – even among hostile commentators the Tories are now considered serious contenders and that colours their call on who wins. In short, where Blair could afford to ‘lose’ every other PMQ (if not more), Brown can’t and the media know it. And while ‘victories’ for Hague or Howard yielded little political traction, for Cameron they could prove very valuable.
So, in short, the best shot we have at independent arbiters are the main sketch-writers and political editors and at the end of the day their call won’t have a tremendous impact on political fortunes anyway. Makes me wonder why I’ve I just spent 700 words on this if I’m honest…
1 Comments:
Cassie
I guyes you're right that there are no objective criteria but maybe that's part of the fun of the thing. The best way to 'win' is via a oneline 'zinger' or a nicely turned joke, either at one's accuser's expense or one's own. Blair was good at all three of these, especially the last and got away with murder(some would say literally).
It's not really a test of political knowledge-though it can be and PMs have to prepare pretty thoroughly for all eventualities- but it is a test of verbal deftness and wit. That's why Gordon so consitently comes off worst. Incidentally, don't forget the role of political editors: people like Marr, Robinson, Boulton etc give influential judegments and the editors we can't see give judgements in the clips they decide to show. It's a waste of time, I agree, but I daresay i'll be watching tomorrow...
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home