A longstanding and important debate concerning Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) focuses on whether this parliamentary mechanism for scrutinising the Prime Minister and government is a waste of time. Many political commentators have argued that PMQs are not fit for purpose because they too often descend into unseemly exhibitions of party-political point-scoring and partisan posturing that generate more heat than light. Others have defended PMQs on the grounds that the Prime Minister has to go to the Commons on a regular basis to be questioned by MPs on the key political issues of the day. Some of the main arguments in favour and against PMQs are set out below.

Arguments in defence of PMQs include:

1. The PM is obliged to appear before the Commons on a weekly basis

Some academics and political journalists argue that the main advantage of PMQs is that the Prime Minister has to appear before the Commons to answer questions at least once a week during the two-thirds of the year when Parliament is in session. This constitutes a form of direct accountability which does not exist in presidential systems, such as France and the United States, where the head of the executive/state is not directly accountable to the lawmaking body. Moreover, weekly scrutiny of the prime minister is not common in other democratic systems. According to a 2020 comparative study of 31 parliamentary democracies, 16 (including Australia, New Zealand and Canada) question the prime minster and other ministers together under collective arrangements and 10 (including Denmark, Norway and Sweden) have procedures similar the UK to question the prime minister on their own, but these are usually scheduled take place on a monthly basis.

2. PMQs: a test of the Prime Minister’s mettle

In our media-driven political age, PMQs have increasingly become a test of the Prime Minister’s mettle and this is one reason why he or she spends a significant amount of time preparing for each Wednesday session before the Commons. In his memoirs, Tony Blair, Labour Prime Minister from 1997 to 2007, recalled that PMQs were the ‘most nerve-racking, discombobulating, nail-biting, bowel-moving, terror-inspiring, courage-draining experience in my prime ministerial life without question.’ In modern politics, appearance and tone count, so it is important for the government’s prospects that the Prime Minister delivers a confident performance at PMQs to (1) successfully defend the administration’s record and proposals across a range of policy areas before the House (2) be perceived as a more credible national leader than their chief rival, the Leader of the Opposition (3) boost the morale and maintain the support of government backbench MPs.

3. PMQs can move the political dial

In the past, PMQs have provided defining moments that point to significant shifts in party and prime ministerial fortunes, thereby helping to move the political dial and shape public perceptions. In 1995, for example, Tony Blair, then Leader of the Opposition, delivered his famous PMQs put-down of beleaguered Prime Minister John Major by stating ‘I lead my party, he follows his.’ Blair’s jibe referred to Major’s inability to control Tory anti-European backbench MPs and Major later conceded that this was ‘the best one-liner he ever used against me.’ The Labour leader’s caustic remark proved so effective in influencing public attitudes towards the Prime Minister precisely because Major’s leadership was being undermined by a divided and restless parliamentary party. More recently, Boris Johnson’s increasingly unconvincing and evasive performances at PMQs in 2021-22, as a series of government scandals emerged (such as Partygate and Pinchergate), helped to drain his premiership of authority and contributed to an extraordinary mass resignation of ministers in July 2022, which forced him to resign.

Arguments criticizing PMQs include:

1. PMQs: a case of ‘Punch and Judy’ politics

The most common criticism made of PMQs is that it often descends into a point-scoring political slanging match where little or no attempt is made to answer questions directly. To a significant extent, this highly partisan approach to PMQs has been influenced by the growing importance of the media in politics. Advisers to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition prepare short, memorable sound bites and questions for use in PMQs in the hope that they are clipped out and used by the main evening news programmes and appear on the front pages of the national press, thereby shaping the political narrative. In a May 2025 PMQs, for instance, Prime Minister Keir Starmer branded Kemi Badenoch’s Tories as the ‘dead party walking’, which was picked up by various media outlets. Similarly, both sides introduce quips, jokes and insults, such as Johnson’s frequent dismissal of Starmer, then Leader of the Opposition, as ‘Captain Hindsight’, that can be easily shared on social media platforms.

2. PMQs are only important to the ‘Westminster bubble’

Another limitation, according to detractors, is that PMQs are only deemed important by the so-called ‘Westminster bubble’ (the politicians, journalists and advisers who work in and around Parliament) and barely register with the wider public. For example, William Hague, as Conservative Leader of the Opposition (1997-2001), often outperformed Blair at PMQs but he later stated that this did not translate into higher polling figures or better electoral results for the Tories. Hague’s observation is supported by a 2014 Hansard Society report Tuned in or Turned off? Public Attitudes towards Prime Minister’s Questions which found that almost half (46 per cent) of those surveyed had not seen or heard PMQs in some form over the previous year. Furthermore, the Institute for Government has backed up this criticism, stating ‘Robust and aggressive performances at PM’s Questions boost the morale of backbenchers sitting behind you and party supporters in the country and can affect media assessments of a prime minister’s image, but they seldom make any impact outside.’

3. PMQs and ‘softball’ questions

The current PMQs procedures make it difficult to filter out ‘softball’ questions in advance. These are ‘friendly’ questions from governing party MPs and ministers, which are inserted into every PMQs and designed to give the Prime Minister some respite from the opposition parties’ more hostile and substantive questioning. At PMQs on 7 February 2024, for example, Conservative MP Alun Cairns asked Tory Prime Minister Rishi Sunak the following ‘softball’ question: ‘Does my Right Honourable Friend agree that Aneurin Bevan will be turning in his grave over the fact that we cannot trust Labour with the NHS?’ Cairns’s question was motivated by a desire to bolster Sunak and attack the Opposition but critics argue that such softball tactics by the Prime Minister’s parliamentary allies defeat the real purpose of PMQs and use up valuable time that should be devoted to proper scrutiny of the head of the executive.