Questioning scrutiny: the effect of Prime Minister’s Questions on citizen efficacy and trust in parliament

Convery, Alan; Haines, Pavielle; Mitchell, James; Parker, David

doi:10.1080/13572334.2020.1850010

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 41 publications

(34 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…But in a study of oral questions in 22 countries, Salmond (2014) found that parliamentary questioning mechanisms that allow open, spontaneous and adversarial exchanges increase engagement with and attention to politics. In a recent survey experiment, Convery et al (2021) found that exposure to PMQs does not decrease trust in parliament and has the positive effect of making citizens feel better equipped to understand politics. In Germany, the weekly Question Time was regarded as ‘boring’ ( The Economist , 2014), with a more animated PMQs-style mechanism considered desirable.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conflictual behaviour in legislatures: Exploring and explaining adversarial remarks in oral questions to prime ministers

Serban

2023

The British Journal of Politics and International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Questioning mechanisms such as Prime Minister’s Questions in the United Kingdom and Question Time in Australia are notoriously adversarial. Much less is known about whether and how questioning facilitates conflict in other legislatures. This question is particularly important given the criticism that excessive adversarialism may hinder the performance of accountability, and hence may be detrimental to the work of legislatures. Building on legislative studies literature, this article presents the first comparative study of conflict in oral parliamentary questions; in so doing, it explores patterns of conflictual remarks in questions addressed to prime ministers in Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom and Ireland. It posits that institutional culture, party discipline, government and opposition status and the authority of the Speaker are key factors in explaining the performance of conflict, and that rules of procedure alone are not enough to curb the manifestation of conflict in legislatures where questioning is a known opportunity for criticism.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%