Ed Miliband had a good PMQs this week, so his latest announcement comes at rather an odd time.
Speaking at a Young Norwood charity event last night, he said that he would change the Wednesday jostle if Labour was to win power at the next election.
He described PMQs as a "terrible advert for politics", where politicians acted like a "bunch of school kids who want to shout at each other".
He admitted that he did not know how he would reform the weekly session, only adding that he would "definitely" do so.
"I don't know how to change it so I'm not going to make false promises about changing it but I would love to change it if I could," he said.
It's his strongest indication yet that he would alter the way PMQs works. In an interview with TP last year, Miliband said: "We really have to change the tone of PMQs… The format can be quite restrictive. The opposition leader gets six questions, and they really have to be quite pithy, because backbenchers also need time to ask questions."
Separately last night, Miliband attacked the prime minister for being too focused on the "next day's headlines" and what they say about him.
The Labour leader described this way of working as "really dangerous".
Just as well then. Miliband admitted in a recent interview that he doesn't really read the papers. So that's one danger he can avoid, at least.
Comments
Lee Butcher / February 09 2012 12:00pm
If you assume the timing is significant (not necessarily the case, since you mention he has bought this up before), then now is an ideal time.
If he was calling for PMQs to be scrapped immediately after doing badly, he would be castigated for only saying that because he wasn't doing well at them. Changing them would be in his interest.
Since he has done well, it may demonstrate he actually means what he says on reforming it. If he does well at PMQs, and still wants to change it, then perhaps he means it.
Kevin R Lohse / February 09 2012 7:59pm
"He admitted that he did not know how he would reform the weekly session, only adding that he would "definitely" do so."
Still not past the blank piece of paper stage, Ed?