Talk:Prime Minister's Questions

message: Are the questions pre-submitted so the PM can prepare an answer?  He always seems to have a bevy of statistics on almost any subject, even obscure hospital budgets in obscure regions.
Kitplane01 (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Presubmitted

message: I tried to fix the grammar in the first section, but it's a little unreadable. With the risk of munging the content again, I think I'll propose the change here first.
Original: on every Wednesday that the House of Commons is sitting the Prime Minister spends roughly half an hour answering questions from MPs.
Proposed: on every Wednesday the House of Commons is sitting with the Prime Minister, spending roughly half an hour answering questions from MPs. 
-- is this better, and correct?
Thx Dysprosia 21:45, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Fixed Grammar

message: I've noticed that when somebody gets up to ask a question at PMQs often a number of other MP's from the same party will stand up and then sit straight down again. I was wondering if someone could enlighten me as to why this is? Iron Ghost 21:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's because those MPs are hoping they'll be called by the Speaker. Mackensen (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

text: That is not true. During PMQs, an MP standing up and sitting straight down again is there way of showing support or agreement with a point that had just been made! It is not so they can get picked by the Speaker as the people chosen to question the PM are chosen using a completly random 'raffle' type system.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.213.239 (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

text: This is also not true. MPs are chosen to speak by computer, at random, after submitting a request. Those who stand up and sit down (it is called 'bobbing') are hoping to be called by the Speaker to fill any time available beyond that taken up by those chosen prior to PMQs.Digitaltyke (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Query

message: :The first formal question on the Order Paper is to ask the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for the day, to which the Prime Minister replies: -
::This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today. 
:After this the MP may ask a supplementary question about any subject which might occupy the Prime Minister's time. The reason for asking the Prime Minister about his engagements is because, until recently, any member of the cabinet could answer the posed question, allowing the Prime Minister to avoid having to answer any questions himself, but once someone answers a question, they are obliged to answer follow up questions (on any topic). The only question that the Prime Minister had to answer personally was his list of engagements for the week, hence he is asked this question first, and all subsequent questions are follow up questions, forcing the Prime Minister to answer the questions himself.
Aren't the other questions on the Order Paper technically questions in their own right? Sometimes MPs have tabled specific questions and the Speaker has slapped down supplementaries on different subjects saying it's a "closed question". Can anyone confirm? Timrollpickering 00:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have no such further meetings today, or any other day.  
Tangurena (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Procedure 

message: This article could do with a few further details - why PMQs were launched in the first place and so on. I have a very good book at home on the history of the role of the Prime Minister in the UK and will delve into that to see if it could help here. I know using a book is not always accepted here =) but we'll need historial context as well as modern practices. doktorb | words 16:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Further Content

message: "This, coupled with large majorities that rarely require his vote, has led to the claim that Blair is running a "presidential" government, acting more as a head of state rather than a head of government. (The Queen is head of state)."
This doesn't seem quite right. No PM submits to the Queen; every modern PM is a de facto head of state. The presidential criticism is rather to do with his perceived lack of respect for Parliament and Cabinet. Jon.baldwin 22:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presidential PM 

message: Should something be noted about the often jokey atmosphere in the PMQ? I think that would help to explain why it's become popular in the US. - MichiganCharms 04:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comedy Value? 

message: I've been wondering what the commotion in the House means. It sounds like a mass of people hollering and booing during the question and answer portion. Can this article address it or at least explain what is going on? Is that noise of support or scorn?04:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commotion? 

message: Does anybody else have a problem with the line "Compared to the British questioning it's a rather comb affair" in the introduction? If nobody objects, I'll remove it in a few days. I'm assuming that the original contributor is trying to say that the Swedish PMQs are much tamer than the UK PMQs; isn't this POV anyway (although quite possibly true enough)?
Opticrom (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comb affair? 

message: I've removed this section as neither event was really notable (How is the second woman to take PMQs notable, while the first isn't?) and it's basically a trivia section by another name (In fact it was a trivia section and was renamed). If either event is notable then it could easily be incorporated into the main text.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.229.118 (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable Occurences

message: Section  should be expanded. Also, Harriet Harman was not the first to face Nick Clegg. The role was first delegated to Jack Straw before the Labour election 2010.Cibwins2885 (talk) 08:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: DPMQs

message: I listen regularly to "Yesterday in parliament" on BBC Radio 4 LW. I have not heard the phrase "I refer the honourable gentlemen to the answer I gave a short time ago" since...well in my head, it's John Major's voice. Does this mean that the practice has changed in the house, or is it just that Auntie now edits it out?
Noble Branch (talk) 05:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  PMQ on the BBC 

message: Does PM questions have a fixed or usual starting time? If so, can it be added, in section 'practice'? --Corriebertus (talk) 10:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time 

message: There has been no broadcast of the PMQs today, nor are there any new episodes planned to be broadcast according to the BBC website. is there any reason for this? could the times where PMQs have been suspended be worked into the text? cheers  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.229.135 (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Parliament is currency in recess until September for the summer holidays. Prime Minister's Questions only takes place when the House of Commons is sitting, which is stated in the opening paragraph. --Philip Stevens (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing PMQs 27/07/16 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion