The Guardian view on Jeremy Corbyn’s PMQs debut: a very reasonable start
|
Version 0 of 1. New leaders often say they want to change prime minister’s questions. But Jeremy Corbyn went one better on Wednesday by actually trying to do it. The new Labour leader’s PMQs debut was relentlessly rational and unaggressive. He started with a little speech about his election (a less indulgent Speaker than John Bercow would have told him to get to the point) and finally asked the prime minister six crowdsourced questions on subjects from housing to mental health. Mr Corbyn’s approach gave him an immediate tonal advantage over David Cameron, who had to respond in a similarly measured and respectful way. What’s more, the Labour leader managed to sustain it. The result was a remarkable parliamentary quarter of an hour. It was as though, in those few exchanges, the most theatrical moment in the Commons’ week had suddenly been transformed from the usual rugby match brawl into a game of crown green bowls. For Mr Corbyn, the upshot was a much-needed breathing space. Since winning the Labour contest last Saturday, he has had a baptism of fire, with swirling controversies about his media handling, his shadow cabinet picks, some basic policy switches and his failure to sing the national anthem at the Battle of Britain commemorative service. So a lot was riding on Mr Corbyn’s PMQs performance. He could not afford to fail. In the event, he did much better than that. But it would be premature to suppose that his leadership has turned a corner yet. Almost nobody likes prime minister’s questions as it has evolved in the more than 60 years since it became a regular event. Most weeks, the confrontational braying of MPs shows tribal and male politics at their worst. Government backbenchers ask sycophantic and pathetic planted questions. Opposition MPs demand to know how many babies the prime minister ate for breakfast. Party leaders have to prep for precious hours beforehand. Yet the exchanges only elicit public enlightenment once in a blue moon. The public, meanwhile, loathes it all roundly, and is right to do so. PMQs ploughs on regardless, in part because both sides know the weekly exchanges shape backbench morale, in part because one side will always think it gains an advantage over the other at such sessions, and in part because too many MPs are afraid of radical parliamentary change. It matters enormously to hold government ministers to account in public. Few modern democracies do this properly, and Britain’s way is on the virtuous end of the spectrum in spite of all its faults. But Britain can do better than the current system. There ought to be a way of questioning the prime minister which combines genuine forensic questioning with political argument without degenerating into insults and bad behaviour. Mr Corbyn’s approach is promising. But these are early days. At PMQs content matters as much as form, and crowdsourcing will be a rapidly diminishing asset if Mr Corbyn cannot win the big political arguments. The new way worked on Wednesday because the Labour leader had surprise on his side. But the leader of the opposition is more than a radio phone-in host. He has a political argument to win. And remember this: Mr Cameron does reasonable too. He may prosper from the new tone if it is sustained. There have been false dawns at PMQs before and old ways have then reasserted themselves. Fingers crossed that this is not another such time. |