3 years ago as Republican Presidential candidate, John McCain stated that if elected, he would submit himself to regular question times from both houses of Congress similar to the UK Parliament's Prime Minister's question time held every Wednesday afternoon. For those who don't know PMQ's is a 30 minute showdown in which the Prime Minister subjects himself to questions from opposition part and MPs. Where it is very heated with insults traded at regular intervals (and very entertaining - look at the video below) it does keep many voters in Britain happy at domestic matters being answered to and keeps a more direct relationship to the Prime Minister.

 

Is the President of the USA subject to enough scrutinizing or should they commit themselves to the idea of a Presidential questions session.

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xUy2inkGHQ&feature=related]YouTube - Cameron shred Brown into Pieces[/ame]

*its

I don't see why it matters, and Obama's had one or two Q&A sort of things with citizens where we could submit questions and he'd answer as many as possible.

 

Although yeah sure, we can have the equivalent of Prime Minister's Questions.

Love British politics.

 

lol Obama without readings a script=fail

*its

I don't see why it matters, and Obama's had one or two Q&A sort of things with citizens where we could submit questions and he'd answer as many as possible.

 

Although yeah sure, we can have the equivalent of Prime Minister's Questions.

 

Just realised that! It's been a long day! :laugh3:

 

Is one or two Q&A sessions good enough? You're a much better judge than me but the way I see it is that the relationship between the man at the top and the voters is much more distant than in the UK.

It's a positive move for any government to scrutinise top-end decisions, but not in the same un-professional form personally berating people and mindless hollering (WTF is that anyway it's not a fucking football match).

Oh and that thing Obama did recently could hardly be compared to it, someone asked what he was getting his wife for Valentines day for fucks sake.

Just realised that! It's been a long day! :laugh3:

 

Is one or two Q&A sessions good enough? You're a much better judge than me but the way I see it is that the relationship between the man at the top and the voters is much more distant than in the UK.

 

To be honest it doesn't really bother me. I mean, what exactly would I ask Mr. Obama?

Yeah, it's a bit distant of a relationship, but I've never heard anyone complain about it. I feel like there's so much hatred in our country that any direct Q&A sort of thing would just be an argument/shouting match.

 

It's a positive move for any government to scrutinise top-end decisions, but not in the same un-professional form personally berating people and mindless hollering (WTF is that anyway it's not a fucking football match).

 

Yeah this.

Oh and that thing Obama did recently could hardly be compared to it, someone asked what he was getting his wife for Valentines day for fucks sake.

 

I never watched it. :P

No. Can you imagine a room full of republican voters and Obama at the front?

No. Can you imagine a room full of republican voters and Obama at the front?

 

 

Even with Republican politicians I don't think it would come anywhere near as tribal as the House of Commons in Westminster. Even the layout of the seats in Congress with it's semi circle layout dictates a more consensual debate than the face to face battles in the House of Commons.

Oh and that thing Obama did recently could hardly be compared to it, someone asked what he was getting his wife for Valentines day for fucks sake.

 

I agree... you know that they picked specific questions to ask him.

 

 

I think something like this would be good. I think it'd make the public more informed on the issues and also get to help see where people stand on issues.

Even with Republican politicians I don't think it would come anywhere near as tribal as the House of Commons in Westminster. Even the layout of the seats in Congress with it's semi circle layout dictates a more consensual debate than the face to face battles in the House of Commons.

 

Oh, I thought you meant actually bring in voters like in a town hall meeting.

I had forgotten how much of a retard Gordon Brown was.

It's a positive move for any government to scrutinise top-end decisions, but not in the same un-professional form personally berating people and mindless hollering (WTF is that anyway it's not a fucking football match).

heh, I was in england during the whole parliamentary expenses scandal, and thought it was hysterical how frank and informal the politicians were with their criticism of each other.

I had forgotten how much of a retard Gordon Brown was.

 

He was a bit incompetent wasn't he. Tony Blair for all his faults was a fine leader of the Labour Party. Gordon Brown was poor but the current leader Ed Miliband is shockingly out of his depth. Labour have an open goal right now with this government's unpopularity at the moment but with Ed Miliband they will not be able to take that chance. Week in week out he is ripped apart by David Cameron at PMQs. I think it was before Christmas when Cameron replied to Miliband 'Rather a child of Thatcher than a son of Brown' which capped off the most disastrous performance by any party leader at PMQs I had seen. Blair handled Cameron really well though, and Gordon Brown had his moments as well but that was irrelevant as for most of his time as PM he was a dead man walking.

He was a bit incompetent wasn't he. Tony Blair for all his faults was a fine leader of the Labour Party. Gordon Brown was poor but the current leader Ed Miliband is shockingly out of his depth. Labour have an open goal right now with this government's unpopularity at the moment but with Ed Miliband they will not be able to take that chance. Week in week out he is ripped apart by David Cameron at PMQs. I think it was before Christmas when Cameron replied to Miliband 'Rather a child of Thatcher than a son of Brown' which capped off the most disastrous performance by any party leader at PMQs I had seen. Blair handled Cameron really well though, and Gordon Brown had his moments as well but that was irrelevant as for most of his time as PM he was a dead man walking.

 

While I didn't agree with alot of what Blair did there is no doubt overall he was a good leader of his Party and I think history will look back on him as a decent PM in years to come too, Gordon Brown seemed to come across as completly inept and I don't think Ed Milliband does much better, in nearly every speech or comment of his I've seen he comes across as clueless, if Cameron can get through these cuts and get decent growth and a feel good factor back in the Country before 2015 I can see him staying in office another term, what I've found interesting is people seem to hold the cuts more against the Lib Dems than the Tories which is strange.

While I didn't agree with alot of what Blair did there is no doubt overall he was a good leader of his Party and I think history will look back on him as a decent PM in years to come too, Gordon Brown seemed to come across as completly inept and I don't think Ed Milliband does much better, in nearly every speech or comment of his I've seen he comes across as clueless, if Cameron can get through these cuts and get decent growth and a feel good factor back in the Country before 2015 I can see him staying in office another term, what I've found interesting is people seem to hold the cuts more against the Lib Dems than the Tories which is strange.

 

That is what I'm noticing as well. I guess it's because with the Conservatives we knew what we were going to get. They did say before the election to brace yourself for quite heavy cuts if they got in but Labour and the Lib Dems didn't really talk much about it.

 

But true like you said if this government gets the economy well on it's way to recovery by 2015 then I can see a Conservative majority at the next election. The Lib Dems are in a lose lose situation. As long as Ed Miliband is Labour leader I just don't see any hope for Labour. The British people have shown that they don't elect parties that have poor leaders as shown throughout the 80s and early 90s with the Labour party. Miliband's got the lowest rating for a party leader since Iain Duncan Smith 8 years ago. Not good. The mind boggles why Labour didn't elect David Miliband as party leader. A decision which could cost Labour badly.

I agree that David Milliband would have been a better choice although I still think he would have failed to perform against Cameron at PMQs, Ed Milliband comes across as clueless and out of his depth but in my opinion he was a slightly better candidate than Balls.

I agree that David Milliband would have been a better choice although I still think he would have failed to perform against Cameron at PMQs, Ed Milliband comes across as clueless and out of his depth but in my opinion he was a slightly better candidate than Balls.

 

Ed Balls is a sad bully and a deficit denier. The Labour party are utterly directionless. They don't want to be Blair's New Labour, and they clearly can't go back to their pre 1994 pro nationalization/pro trade union standing. They don't know where they are going. Ed Miliband doesn't know what he's doing.

My favourite PM Qs :laugh3:

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBeOafTBoVs]YouTube - John Prescott v William Hague[/ame]

My favourite PM Qs :laugh3:

 

 

:laugh3: That was brilliant! Two men who can give classic justice to PMQs! I admit that I don't watch PMQs because of what the government is up to. It's all about the slanging match between the two main party leaders!