David Cameron at Prime Minister's Questions last Wednesday. Photo: AFP
Show Hide image

Mumsnet petitions to overhaul PMQs

More than 46,000 signatures and counting.

A petition launched by Mumsnet to overhaul PMQs has almost reached its 50,000 target in less than a week.

Justine Roberts, chief executive and founder of Mumsnet, created the petition after a survey of 1,200 members of the online forum revealed the level of disaffection British mothers feel with politics.

In a damning indictment of Westminster culture, when asked which characteristics would be advantageous in politics, 94 per cent of respondents said ambition, 92 per cent cited social connections, 86 per cent said ruthlessness, 84 per cent said being well-off, and 78 per cent said being male.

Nine out of ten Mumsnetters said they feel that the political culture in SW1 is sexist, while two thirds believe success in politics is all down to what school or university you went to and the "old boys' network".

Nearly two-thirds of respondents on the parenting site, which is 97 per cent female, thought that more women in top political jobs would mean politicians had a great understanding of their concerns.

Eight out of 10 do not believe that MPs conduct themselves well or that PMQs is effective. More than three quarters think it is “unprofessional and outdated”, while half think the weekly 30-minute session damages the reputation of Parliament.

The online petition at change.org describes PMQs as “one of the biggest turn-offs”. The petition states:

The Hansard Society have proposed a new kind of politics: a new, engaging way to conduct PMQs which can help rebuild trust in politics and politicians. This could include introducing rapid-fire Q&As, more open questions, taking questions directly from voters via social media, and penalties for MPs who behave badly... Join me in calling on David Cameron to pilot changes to PMQs along the lines proposed by the Hansard Society - before the next election.

It has received more than 46,000 signatures in less than a week, almost half the 100,000 needed for a petition to be formally considered for debate in the House of Commons.

Lucy Fisher writes about politics and is the winner of the Anthony Howard Award 2013. She tweets @LOS_Fisher.

 

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

What Jeremy Corbyn gets right about the single market

Technically, you can be outside the EU but inside the single market. Philosophically, you're still in the EU. 

I’ve been trying to work out what bothers me about the response to Jeremy Corbyn’s interview on the Andrew Marr programme.

What bothers me about Corbyn’s interview is obvious: the use of the phrase “wholesale importation” to describe people coming from Eastern Europe to the United Kingdom makes them sound like boxes of sugar rather than people. Adding to that, by suggesting that this “importation” had “destroy[ed] conditions”, rather than laying the blame on Britain’s under-enforced and under-regulated labour market, his words were more appropriate to a politician who believes that immigrants are objects to be scapegoated, not people to be served. (Though perhaps that is appropriate for the leader of the Labour Party if recent history is any guide.)

But I’m bothered, too, by the reaction to another part of his interview, in which the Labour leader said that Britain must leave the single market as it leaves the European Union. The response to this, which is technically correct, has been to attack Corbyn as Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are members of the single market but not the European Union.

In my view, leaving the single market will make Britain poorer in the short and long term, will immediately render much of Labour’s 2017 manifesto moot and will, in the long run, be a far bigger victory for right-wing politics than any mere election. Corbyn’s view, that the benefits of freeing a British government from the rules of the single market will outweigh the costs, doesn’t seem very likely to me. So why do I feel so uneasy about the claim that you can be a member of the single market and not the European Union?

I think it’s because the difficult truth is that these countries are, de facto, in the European Union in any meaningful sense. By any estimation, the three pillars of Britain’s “Out” vote were, firstly, control over Britain’s borders, aka the end of the free movement of people, secondly, more money for the public realm aka £350m a week for the NHS, and thirdly control over Britain’s own laws. It’s hard to see how, if the United Kingdom continues to be subject to the free movement of people, continues to pay large sums towards the European Union, and continues to have its laws set elsewhere, we have “honoured the referendum result”.

None of which changes my view that leaving the single market would be a catastrophe for the United Kingdom. But retaining Britain’s single market membership starts with making the argument for single market membership, not hiding behind rhetorical tricks about whether or not single market membership was on the ballot last June, when it quite clearly was. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.