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

News / Former Prime Ministers: The role of Parliament in life after No 10 - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 109

In this episode, we speak with Peter Just, author of a new book, Margaret Thatcher: Life After Downing Street. Peter explores how Thatcher reinvented herself after her departure to maintain her status as an international figure, and how she remained a parliamentary thorn in John Major’s side. We also compare her parliamentary afterlife with that of other Prime Ministers, and consider the value that former leaders can bring to the institution of Parliament. Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

News / What are the Usual Channels? A short history of Westminster whipping - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 108

In this episode, we talk to political journalist Seb Whale about his new book, The Usual Channels, which reveals the hidden world of Westminster’s whips. Seb charts how party discipline has evolved – from the stormy politics of the 1970s and the Maastricht battles of the 1990s to the legendary “black book,” the Brexit showdowns and the short-lived Liz Truss premiership. He explains how the whips’ office has adapted to a modern Parliament – especially with the influx of women MPs – and why, even today, whips still wield decisive influence over MPs’ careers and remain indispensable despite the pressures of contemporary politics. Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

Blog / Treaty scrutiny: addressing the accountability gap

In this guest blog, Lord Goldsmith KC, Chair of the House of Lords International Agreements Committee (IAC), sets out the findings of the Committee’s latest report urging reform of Parliament's outdated system for scrutinising treaties. The report warns that Westminster lags behind other legislatures in overseeing these vital policy instruments. Rejecting successive governments' defence of the status quo, it argues that government objections to reform are unconvincing and meaningful accountability is overdue.

News / Assisted dying bill - special series #17: Peers give the Bill a Second Reading, but progress is paused for committee evidence - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 107

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has cleared another key hurdle: it was given a Second Reading in the House of Lords without a formal vote. But Peers have agreed to set up a special select committee to hear evidence from Ministers, professional bodies and legal experts before the Bill goes any further. That decision pushes the detailed clause-by-clause scrutiny back to mid-November and could shape the Bill’s prospects in unexpected ways. In this episode we explore the procedural twists and political manoeuvring behind that decision. Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

Briefings / The assisted dying bill: A guide to the legislative process in the House of Lords

Having passed through the House of Commons, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill - the Bill to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales - must now go through its legislative stages in the House of Lords. This guide explains the special procedures for legislation in the House of Lords, and for Private Members’ Bills in particular. It answers some frequently asked questions, including how Peers might block the Bill, and gives an explanation of each stage of the process, from Second to Third Reading.