A guest post today from superstar anonymous blogger Red Fox. No, you will find out no more.. but it ain’t Colin Fox, that much I guarantee.
A few years ago, I attended a football match that put me off the live game forever. The thuggish atmosphere, pathetic name calling and aggression of everyone around me were more than I could be bothered with.
For a while now I’ve felt the same about FMQs – the weekly showdown where, in theory, MSPs are given the opportunity openly to call the First Minister to account on matters of policy and legislation. In reality it’s nothing of the kind. I’m not going to claim that there was ever a golden age of FMQs – but recently it has degenerated into an ugly mash-up of every dodgy leaflet the LibDems ever produced, every ‘blame London’ line the SNP has ever taken and every bitter resentment ever uttered by a Labour Party that still hasn’t learned the lessons of the last Scottish Parliament or Westminster elections. The Greens rarely even get a question and most of the 30 minutes is eaten up by the four main party leaders having a squabble.
Things feel like they’ve gotten worse in the past five years, based partly on Alex Salmond’s return to the front bench at Holyrood. He didn’t arrive alone, but brought with him a Westminster culture of jeering and finger jabbing that some of us all hoped we’d be freed from when we imagined our Scottish Parliament with its founding principles of openness, accountability, power sharing and equal opportunities. Instead we’ve created a weak replica of the Commons, without any of the good bits. I can only wonder if an independent Scotland would similarly adopt all the worst aspects of the union and forget to do anything worthwhile.
It can’t all be placed at Alex Salmond’s door though. The Labour Party’s horror at it’s rejection from its “rightful place” at the heart of Scottish politics has fostered an embittered, accusatory attitude among many of their MSPs, rather than a calling-to-account questioning one. We’re seeing the kind of tribalism between the SNP and the Labour Party that’s traditionally been reserved for their dealings with the Tories.
It’s often said that you can’t – or shouldn’t – have a Parliament where members don’t have the right to question the leader of the government. However, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of point in having the right to ask a question if you don’t have the right to get an answer to that question. Or, if instead of asking a question, you choose instead to sling accusations and soundbites.
In 2003 FMQs was moved from its 3.10pm slot to its current timing at noon. One of the reasons cited was that it would allow school parties to watch FMQs. I’d rather that school children were actually able to see a real debate taking place about substantive points on policy. Not the lowest form of politics, which recently saw the First Minister describe Labour leader Iain Gray of being “schizophrenic.” That’s not the kind of scene I’d want my kid subjected to during their school day. How long is it going to be before we witness the same kind of behaviour at Holyrood as we do at Westminster; women routinely harassed and, just last week, a Tory MP who has cerebral palsy complaining that Labour MPs had mocked his condition during his speech with exaggerated facial gestures.
For now I’ll watch the weekly bunfight the same way that I watch any football that I see – on a screen, at a distance from any live action. But at least sometimes football can be impressive. I can’t remember the last time I saw anything to be impressed by at FMQs.
#1 by Mr. Mxyzptlk on February 8, 2011 - 7:44 pm
I agree having watched a few times i no longer bother it is an embarrassment………none of them come out with deserving the peoples respect.
No wonder most people can take the time out to vote!
#2 by Steve on February 8, 2011 - 8:03 pm
Agree, but how do we make it better?
I think there’s a similar problem with the way the media handle politics too, any change of mind is a u turn, everything gets defined in terms of political victory or defeat, making it hard to compromise wuthout appearing weak.
Maybe places like this blog can help provide space for a more grown up approach?
#3 by fitalass on February 8, 2011 - 8:36 pm
Steve, I think that the way the media handle and report the political weather these days is in fact the biggest problem here. Whether its FM’s questions or PMQ’s, its all about that ever important ‘soundbite’ that will make the teatime news on the day rather than the more substantive aim of holding the government of the day to account.
Just look at how we conduct our political interviews, only Andrew Neil seems to be able to not only grasp the mantle of a combative and robust interviewer while actually asking and getting some real answers to his probing questions. His five min question and answer style on the Daily Politics is balanced by his other programmes such as This Week and those more in-depth one on one interviews on News 24. In all three formats, you tend to be more informed at the end which is the aim.
But whether its Salmond or Cameron facing their opposition leaders or a BBC News 24/Newsnight interviewer, how often does the end result leave us as uninformed as when we started, but clear about who won the bout? QuestionTime is now going the same way. As someone who loves political debate, I can often see past the partisan crap and mourn the fact that I am less well served these days with what is on offer whether my ‘team’ wins or loses.
#4 by Jeff on February 8, 2011 - 8:48 pm
FIne post whoever you are but, to be totally honest, it doesn’t really bother me that FMQ has sunk so low. I can’t imagine it is a problem that is unique to Scotland. Infact, I don’t even think it is the politicians’ problem but rather the public’s. You get out what you put in and if FMQ is rotten it’s because we are not putting enough into the process, even taking the time to watch the blinking thing for example.
Political party members go out and knock doors, deliver leaflets and try their best to engage a cynical, hard-headed public with the dwindling free time that they have available; those activists are the glue that holds democracy together and they are a very small valuable number. What percentage of the public is even a member of a party? 1%? 0.1% I don’t know but it must be tiny.
If people won’t engage wiith politics and get involved through the front door then no wonder leaders of parties feel they have no option but to get some attention through the backdoor, and that I’m afraid is tabloid headlines and general sensationalism.
#5 by Malc on February 8, 2011 - 9:01 pm
“I can’t imagine it is a problem that is unique to Scotland. ”
Why does that matter? Just because other systems are as bad doesn’t mean we can’t improve ours.
I’m a PhD student in politics, and I’ve run a politics blog for about 3 years, which makes me, I think, quite engaged with politics. And I stopped watching FMQs about a year ago because it was so bad. So if politicians can’t make someone like me – who IS interested – listen to what they are saying, what chance do they have with the disengaged?
Activists have a tough job engaging the electorate when the public face of politics is FMQs, and I don’t envy them.
#6 by Jeff on February 8, 2011 - 10:11 pm
Well, it matters because if it’s just Scotland that has this parliamentary morass then we are doing something seriously wrong and if every country in the world has this Punch and Judy show then perhaps Red Fox is getting his/her knickers in a twist over something that is unavoidable and/or there for a good reason. If the system is “bad” (as you have it) why is it replicated country after country, nation after nation?
You’re engaged in Politics and you’re not listening to what is being said or getting involved at a party level to make it better. What chance do Salmond and Gray have with the disengaged? Good question. You speak as if the ball is in the MSPs’ court, I’d challenge you and say that it is in yours if you really do want better.
#7 by Malc on February 8, 2011 - 10:30 pm
In what way is it up to me? I’ve worked for MSPs, I’ve been on doorsteps, I’ve watched Question Time, PMQs, FMQs, Newsnight, I’ve read hundreds of books, articles, newspapers on the subject and I can sympathise entirely with why the public are disengaged with politics. Not listening to what is being said? I’ve heard what is being said – and I’m fed up with it. Its not just the system – though FMQs is not the answer is abysmal – its WHAT they are saying as well.
Its up to me to make it better? Aye, right. Good one Jeff.
#8 by Jeff on February 8, 2011 - 10:34 pm
I just think that too many people believe ‘it is up to them to make things better for me’ rather than think ‘it is up to me to make them better’ when it comes to Politics, that was all the point I was trying to make.
On ‘not listening to what is being said’, I just meant on FMQ. I think we can both agree you listen to more than the average!
#9 by Malc on February 8, 2011 - 10:42 pm
The thing about FMQs is that it doesn’t actually add anything to anyone’s understanding of politics – we should get rid of it. It leaves people with a view that politics is about petty partisan point-scoring, when actually they can work together at times to make things better (or at least try to).
Of course I don’t believe politics is just for politicians. But they could set a better example when they are seen – on occasions like FMQs – and lead from the front better.
#10 by James on February 8, 2011 - 10:50 pm
It would be nice to have a time when the First Minister can have properly awkward questions put to him or her, surely?
#11 by Malc on February 9, 2011 - 8:15 am
Wouldn’t that be better done in committees, where the depth of questioning tends to be (albeit with some exceptions) a lot better?
#12 by Una on February 8, 2011 - 10:25 pm
Funnily enough when I saw the use of the American past principle ‘gotten’ I thought maybe you’d written this – but why would you be anonymous and even more so ‘red’ (unless James has been a major influence) 😉
#13 by Malc on February 8, 2011 - 10:34 pm
Nothing to do with me, though it captures my feelings on the matter entirely. You will note that I’ve written nothing for the past couple of weeks though – that is an indictment of how much interest I have in the process at the moment.
And American? Not I. I’ve been burned too many times before.
#14 by Una on February 8, 2011 - 11:11 pm
sorry Malc I’ve just noticed you use ‘gotten’ in your writing and knowing how disillusioned you are/were, if it weren’t your own blog I’d have guessed you (my second guess being a certain Labour candidate). Not in any way intended as a criticism. Actually I miss your involvement on here as I think your views would add a different dimension – if only you’d share them with less caution.
#15 by cynicalHighlander on February 8, 2011 - 8:59 pm
As fitalass said the interviewer is part of the problem as they are generally not party impartial but also what we have got are political careerists who have learnt how to wind a gathering up without a real life experience on how the majority have to live day to day.
#16 by Marad103 on February 8, 2011 - 9:03 pm
A very naive post for a “superstar” blogger if red fox believed that anything constructive was ever going to come from FMQs. The FMQs format was never going to give anything different from Westminster PMQs. It was always going to be about soundbites and point scoring.
It’s part of the political media circus and unfortunately is given more weight and attention than it deserves.
Part of the problem may be that the opposition party leaders are given multiple question opportunities. Their minds might be better focused if they only had one question to ask.
The remaining questions asked by the back bench MSP are usually pertinent and are answered accordingly.
The same can be said of ministers questions which precedes FMQ.
#17 by Una on February 8, 2011 - 9:30 pm
It can often be too ill-tempered, predictable and/or dull, but FMQs has always been about adding a wee bit of theatre. Perhaps it’s a weakness but I have no problem with that. Nobody has ever seen it as an effective way to scrutinise the government’s actions. It’s just a chance to grab some media attention, raise the profile of an issue and build the confidence of your troops.
I worked for the SNP’s research team in 2003 and remember how frustrated I was at Jack McConnell’s evasive answers – when people suggest the standard has worsened I disagree.
Besides, there is plenty of good stuff going on at Holyrood in an amicable cross-party fashion and plenty of ways to scrutinise without FMQs. As Jeff says, there is a wider issue of lack of public engagement in politics that is the real problem.
Politicians are simply unable to garner public support or grab media attention by talking about the complexities of issues in a balanced, rational way. Everything is reduced to simple one-dimensional solutions and bland soundbites. Nobody can admit to seeing both sides or they’d be slated for being weak and indecisive. Nobody can suggest any sort of real evidence-based change or it’s hysteria from the opposite benches. A truce is needed all round if we want better government – including the press and the public. Cut them some slack.
#18 by fitalass on February 8, 2011 - 10:06 pm
“If people won’t engage wiith politics and get involved through the front door then no wonder leaders of parties feel they have no option but to get some attention through the backdoor, and that I’m afraid is tabloid headlines and general sensationalism.”
Yes, I would agree with that.
#19 by Stuart Winton on February 9, 2011 - 12:41 am
Malc said:
“It leaves people with a view that politics is about petty partisan point-scoring, when actually they can work together at times to make things better (or at least try to).”
Not so sure about that Malc, at least when it’s the big ticket issues in question – alcohol, local taxation, Calman/fiscal autonomy etc.
Where they do “work together” it’s presumably over matters of little consequence.
That’s why Holyrood seems unlikely to ever achieve very much, in the near future at least.
#20 by Malc on February 9, 2011 - 8:19 am
But Stuart – just because they haven’t agreed with the government doesn’t mean they are not working together! The opposition parties worked together to defeat alcohol & LIT. Granted those are negative examples – but they worked together positively to produce Calman, whatever you think of it. And when they do agree with the government (tuition fees, police numbers, apprenticeships) they work together.
Also – today’s budget is likely to be passed. Parties have to work together for it. Is it a matter of “little consequence”?
#21 by Stuart Winton on February 9, 2011 - 12:45 am
Jeff said:
“You’re [Malc] engaged in Politics and you’re not listening to what is being said or getting involved at a party level to make it better.”
It’s the parties that are the problem Jeff, surely, and the problem is breaking the oligarchy’s stranglehold, which entails taking on the media et al as well.
Short of doing an Egypt that ain’t gonna happen.
#22 by Douglas McLellan on February 9, 2011 - 9:15 am
Thing is are politicians supposed to lead or reflect what the public want, feel and think about politicians?
It the tweetosphere and blogosphere refer to leading politicans as the Chieftain of the Pudding Race or the The Swine Pursuivant then does that not feed in some small way into how they behave?
Una raises the good point about how the media react to what politicians say – especially if the say things and behave in a non-partisan way.
We have the FMQ that the public and the media demand. And until we change, they wont.
#23 by Malc on February 9, 2011 - 9:25 am
Well yes, I agree – with both you & Una – on this. The media has to take its share of the blame on this. But if our politicians were brave enough to play a new, more positive game, then surely the media would eventually follow? Instead of hitting each response with soundbite after soundbite, what about killing the opposition with kindness?
#24 by Douglas McLellan on February 9, 2011 - 9:40 am
“what about killing the opposition with kindness?”
I wish that could be done but that would just result in media contempt and irrelevance by the public. A political party can only suffer that for so long (it would take longer than an election cycle for it to reap results) before adopting a different approach.
Its also not just politicians that need to change but activists as well. In the 90s I was a very young labour activist but I could not understand the hatred that local Labour activists had for the SNP. These days we have the cybergnats who react in a swarm of fury when the SNP are facing legitimate criticism. It is from these ranks that our politicians come from.
#25 by Indy on February 9, 2011 - 2:18 pm
Lol if there is one thing you can guarantee about a cybernat – if by that you mean the kind of people who post comments on the Scotsman etc – it is that they are NOT SNP activists.
And they would certainly never get to be a candidate. Wouldn’t pass vetting.
#26 by Douglas McLellan on February 9, 2011 - 5:10 pm
Lol. I shall take your word for that.
#27 by James on February 9, 2011 - 5:25 pm
Yeah, and when I encountered one of them at the Political Innovation conference he said he used to get daily emails from SNP head office with articles they wanted him to comment on. And still gets suggestions for blog topics.
#28 by cynicalHighlander on February 9, 2011 - 9:08 pm
Proud to be a ‘cybernat’ and just for your info I have come into conflict with the said gentleman over Trump’s development. We are individuals with independent logical minds and don’t follow orders from upon high in what or who we criticise/support like some.
#29 by Indy on February 9, 2011 - 10:06 am
I agree FMQs is a waste of time. The underlying issue for me is that the questions are rubbish. Iain Gray has asked a whole series of questions which have turned out to be factually inaccurate as well as pointless. For example I recall some spat about an agency that was supposedly spending x amount of money on changing its name – only it turned out that it wasn’t. FMQs is pretty much the equivalent of putting Alex Salmond in the stocks, giving the opposition leaders a handful of rotten tomatoes and saying take your best shot. The fact that it usually ends up with Alex Salmond jeering ” ha ha ya missed!” just shows that the opposition need to get a bit more target practice. Some level of interest on their part in the actual governance of Scotland might help matters.
#30 by Stuart Winton on February 9, 2011 - 2:56 pm
Malc
I partially agree about “working together”; what I thought you were alluding to was a more consensual approach across the whole political spectrum rather than what might be cynically characterised as opportunistic ad hoc stitch-ups.
For example, as I recall it only the Tories prioritised the police numbers issue, the SNP’s hand was force on this to get the budget through and since then the latter have done their level best to take the credit.
The “working together” over the Budget is perhaps also making a virtue of necessity – the opposition parties have simply never wanted to precipitate an election.
Thus while I partially agree with you it wouldn’t do for me not to look at things more cynically ;0)
#31 by somepapfaedundee on February 9, 2011 - 10:03 pm
So Red Fox, Libedems are pamphleteering naifs, the tribalism of Labour and the SNP is bad and the poor wee Greens don’t get to speak. Did I (or you) miss anyone?
I’ll not mention Salmond since you have already been so generous in doing so.
I could raise the point that the role of the FM at questions (regardless of tribe) is primarily reactive (however prepared they may be), and that the tone of proceedings is most likely to be driven by the questioners. I won’t though (oops), I wouldn’t to be branded a ‘cybernat’ (really James, I’m starting to think you have a thing about Mr Curran). I wouldn’t want to get all punch&judy given the context of the post,eh?
So, without casting partisan stones –
IMO part of the problem is that FMQ’s doesn’t fit the ethos we half-expected of the proportional system from which the makeup of the chamber is derived, but FMQ’s of this style are still too strongly ‘in the blood’ of UK parliamentary systems and crucially – those who operate in them. Compounded too, i think, by the fact that it’s a very handy hook by which the media can regularly hang their coverage.
#32 by Malc on February 10, 2011 - 8:21 am
Your latter point is how I feel about it. It doesn’t fit the system, the PR & consensus style that was supposed to be a break from the Westminster system. And, of course, the media need conflict to write about.
#33 by somepapfaedundee on February 10, 2011 - 9:44 am
The problem then is, should it change? and if so how?
Can a parliamentary system be engineered to better reflect the intent with which it was formed – it seems to me that any well designed system ought to reflect its intent. Or is down to the slow and uncertain path of the system evolving?
Perhaps parliament should have a much stronger and more explicit reflective role, with properly stated goals and intent of the parliamentary system guiding some serious, detailed and recurring scrutiny of how the real matches the ideal; leading, one would hope to concrete proposals for change.
#34 by Malc on February 10, 2011 - 9:52 am
I agree with most of what you say. I forgot to point out before that FMQs was not in the original draft of the Scotland Bill (indeed I’m not sure it was in the final act either) and was added to give Holyrood a “set-piece” event like PMQs – probably to give the media their weekly pound of flesh.
Thus, we wouldn’t necessarily need to change the parliamentary system’s establishing principles, perhaps simply its procedures (standing orders or something). Of course, I could be speaking rubbish, and one of our legal-bird friends (Lallands or Love & Garbage) might be able to put me right, but I don’t think FMQs is mandatory, just established by convention through SOs – and thus could be punted should it be deemed to be the utterly useless spectacle that it is.
#35 by somepapfaedundee on February 10, 2011 - 10:37 am
I didn’t know that FMQ’s wasn’t built in, thanks.
From my perspective though, it doesn’t really matter. Indeed it only makes more markedly the point that it is what it is because of the actors and pressures involved – the way in which parliamentary business is to be done is clearly not fully specified (that’s not necessarily a bad thing).
I think it would be wrong to modify the way parliament works by completely binding all the procedures – it needs to have some slack to find the best ways of operating, some may not like FMQ’s but many do.
Moreover, the simple truth is that, regardless of what may be stated and what ought to be, in a representative parliamentary system the parliament is a construct of and for politicians rather than people. The only way to change that is for people to move closer to the heart of their political systems, then they will naturally ‘own’ the parliament more than they do now.
The actors involved (mostly politicians) for now will change over time and if any pressure can be brought to bear on new ones to pay closer heed to the intent of having a more consensual parliament then perhaps things will change.
The media won’t lead on this, as you suggest; conflict is the ready meal of the political journo.
So how does the public apply the right pressure? It’s as hard a question as asking how to get the majority of people to actively engage with politics 😉
#36 by CassiusClaymore on February 10, 2011 - 12:48 pm
Just watched FMQs. The problem, in my opinion, is that the opposition leaders are completely hopeless. Grey, especially. Salmond crushes them every week. Their uselessness breeds frustration and negativity, which is now fully evident on the Labour benches. Nothing the SNP do will ever be anything other than terrible in their opinion. It’s just opposition for opposition’s sake, with the classic example being minimum pricing on alcohol.
Labour know perfectly well that this policy would have – literally – saved lives, but they’d rather people drank themselves to death, murdered each other after one too many and drunkenly beat their wives than have the SNP get credit for the policy. That’s why people are turned off politics.
On a much more mundane note, they could get an extra backbench question or two in if only they dropped the pointless introductory questions from each leader. We already know that he will meet the SoSfS sometime soon and that the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to Scotland etc.
CC
#37 by Indy on February 10, 2011 - 1:16 pm
We have another example from this FMQs with Iain Gray waving about a letter claiming that the SNP Group on North Ayrshire Council had pushed for the 4 day week proposals.
Absolutely untrue. Not even one of these debatable points or loaded questions. Just not true.
Annabelle Goldie was almost as bad. Apparently everyone knows that the SNP tried to do a deal with slopping out and Megrahi despite the fact that the SG has denied it absolutely and that there is no evidence at all to suggest any substance to the accusation. This is like someone down the pub saying well you know their third kid isn’t his don’t you? Of course she denies it but she would, wouldn’t she?
Sometimes I think Alex Salmond should treat these kinds of questions with all the respect they deserve and reply “i’ve heard you sleep upside down hanging from the rafters like a bat. Is that true?” It would be just as useful.