Prime Minister's Questions: Westminster's weekly gladiatorial combat

News

Prime Minister's Questions: Westminster's weekly gladiatorial combat - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 104

29 Aug 2025

Every Wednesday at noon, the House of Commons chamber comes alive with Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs), the loudest, most theatrical half-hour in British politics. To some it’s democratic accountability; to others, a raucous playground of yah-boo antics. Loved and loathed in equal measure, PMQs is Parliament’s weekly shop window, offering a revealing glimpse of how Britain does politics. In this episode, we explore its history, purpose, and international impact, including why France briefly trialled it last year only to drop the idea.

Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

LISTEN

Each week, Prime Minister’s Questions turns Westminster into a spectacle of jeers, cheers, and gladiatorial verbal combat. Is it serious accountability, or just political theatre?

Joining us this week is Dr Ruxandra Serban, Lecturer in Comparative Politics at UCL, whose research compares PMQs with questioning sessions around the world. Together, we explore:

why it matters that the Prime Minister faces MPs each week;
how PMQs evolved from dry “engagements questions” into today’s noisy clash;
what the public really thinks of when they watch MPs jeering, cheering and point-scoring; and
whether PMQs could ever change, or if the ritual is too entrenched.

Dr Serban also explains how other countries view Westminster’s weekly spectacle – sometimes as a model of democratic accountability, sometimes as a cautionary tale.

She compares PMQs with similar sessions in Canada, Australia, and Ireland, and reflects on why France’s National Assembly briefly adopted its own PMQs-style experiment in 2024, before quietly abandoning it months later.

← Back to Parliament Matters homepage

Listen on our YouTube channel (captioned)

Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Our guest

Dr Ruxandra Serban

Ruxandra Serban is Lecturer in Comparative Politics in the Department of Political Science and School of Public Policy at University College London, researching how things work in different parliaments. She earned her doctorate in Political Science from UCL, on “Questioning Prime Ministers: Procedures and Practices in Parliamentary Democracies”. Previously she obtained a Master’s degree at UCL in Democracy and Comparative Politics, having graduated from the University of Bucharest with a BA in Political Science. She is a Co-convener of the Political Studies Association’s Specialist Group on Parliaments.

Resources

Hansard Society

Parliament Matters podcast – Gaffes and grace at PMQs (Episode 19)

UCL Constitution Unit

Transcript

Please note, this transcript is automatically generated. There may consequently be minor errors and the text is not formatted according to our style guide. If you wish to reference or cite the transcript copy below, please first check against the audio version above.

Intro: [00:00:00] You are listening to Parliament Matters, a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Learn more at hansardsociety.org.uk/pm.

Ruth Fox: Welcome to Parliament Matters, the podcast about the institution at the heart of our democracy, Parliament itself. I'm Ruth Fox.

Mark D’Arcy: And I'm Mark D’Arcy. And welcome to another of our special summer recess editions where we're taking a look at Parliament's biggest weekly event, the Wednesday bun fight that is Prime Minister's Question Time.

Ruth Fox: Yes, the half hour when 15 randomly selected MPs get the chance to ask our head of government about any issue they choose and the Leader of the Opposition gets to put six questions to the Prime Minister.

Mark D’Arcy: One of the leading academic PMQ watchers is Ruxandra Serban, Lecturer of Comparative Politics at UCL, who's compared the way [00:01:00] Westminster interrogates its PM to the practice in other parliaments.

Ruth Fox: So we began by asking her what she thought the public made of Westminster's weekly gladiatorial combat.

Ruxandra Serban: Well, it seems that by many measures it's not an ideal view of Parliament. You see politicians arguing with each other, clashing over things, having this sort of very confrontational dialogue in many ways, and there's...

Full transcript →

Use the links below to subscribe to the Hansard Society's Parliament Matters podcast on your preferred app, or search for 'Parliament Matters' on whichever podcasting service you use. If you are unable to find our podcast, please email us here.

Apple

YouTube Podcasts

Spotify

More ways to subscribe

Parliament Matters homepage

Latest / Highlights

Blog / Once again, there is still no alternative: the costed proposals for Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster

The Restoration and Renewal Client Board’s latest report once again confirms what Parliament has known for nearly a decade: the cheapest, quickest and safest way to restore the Palace of Westminster is for MPs and Peers to move out during the works. The “full decant” option was endorsed in 2018 and reaffirmed repeatedly since. Remaining in the building could more than double costs, extend works into the 2080s, and increase risks to safety, accessibility and security. With the Palace already deteriorating and millions spent each year on patchwork repairs, further delay would itself be an expensive course of action, one that defers decisions without offering a viable alternative.

News / A Humble Address: How MPs confronted the Mandelson scandal - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 130

It has been a bruising week for the Prime Minister after the House of Commons backed a Conservative “Humble Address” demanding documents on Sir Keir Starmer’s vetting of Lord Mandelson for the Washington Ambassadorship. We explain how the procedure works, what role the Intelligence and Security Committee may play in decisions on disclosure, and how legislation to strip a peerage could be introduced. Plus, the latest on the Restoration and Renewal of Parliament as yet another report lands with a new set of costings. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

News / Why MPs can’t just quit: The curious case of the Chiltern Hundreds - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 129

Why can’t MPs simply resign, and why does leaving the House of Commons still involve a medieval-sounding detour via the Chiltern Hundreds or its less glamorous cousin the Manor of Northstead? This week we unravel the history, constitutional logic and legal fudges behind this curious workaround, with some memorable resignations from the past along the way. We also assess the Government’s legislative programme as the Session heads toward its expected May close, including the striking lack of bills published for pre-legislative scrutiny. Finally, as Parliament begins the five-yearly process of renewing consent for the UK’s armed forces, we examine why an Armed Forces Bill is required and hear from Jayne Kirkham MP on how her Ten Minute Rule Bill helped extend the new Armed Forces Commissioner’s oversight to the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

News / Assisted dying bill: How could the Parliament Act be used? - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 128

As the assisted dying bill grinds through the House of Lords under the weight of more than a thousand amendments, Lord Falconer has signalled that time is running out. With the Bill unlikely to complete its Lords stages this Session, he has openly raised the possibility of using the Parliament Act to override the upper House in the next Session. In this episode we explore what that would mean, how it could work in practice, and the political choices now facing ministers and Parliament. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

News / Who really sets MPs’ pay – And why you might be wrong about it. A conversation with Richard Lloyd, chair of IPSA - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 126

What are MPs actually paid and what does the public fund to help them do their job? In this conversation with Richard Lloyd, chair of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) we explore the delicate balance between supporting MPs to do their jobs effectively and enforcing strict standards on the use of public money. We discuss how IPSA has shifted from a rule-heavy “traffic cop” to a principles-based regulator, why compliance is now very high, and the security risks and pressures facing MPs‘ offices as workloads rise and abuse becomes more common. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | ACAST | YouTube | Other apps | RSS