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 / Parliament Matters Bulletin: What’s coming up in Parliament this week? 23-27 March 2026

The Prime Minister will face questions from the Liaison Committee, comprising Select Committee chairs. The Conservatives will choose the topic for Tuesday’s Opposition Day debate, while the Home Secretary and the Energy and Transport Secretaries will take oral questions from MPs. The Commons will consider Lords amendments to the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, National Insurance Bill, and Victims and Courts Bill, and will continue Committee Stage scrutiny of elections legislation. In the Lords, the Pension Schemes and the Crime and Policing Bills will complete their final stages, while Peers continue scrutiny of the English Devolution Bill. MPs will also debate an e-petition on the puberty blockers trial. Select Committees will focus on child poverty, dynamic alignment, the Defence Investment Plan, energy resilience, national resilience, and Royal Mail service delivery.

News / Who really decides Immigration Rules: Parliament or the Home Secretary? - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 137

Who really controls immigration law when Ministers can rewrite key rules with minimal parliamentary scrutiny? Jonathan Featonby of the Refugee Council explains the Home Secretary’s far-reaching powers over Immigration Rules. We also discuss the Crime and Policing Bill, where amendments on AI and abortion highlight the challenges posed by rushed law-making and executive overreach. And we look ahead to the next phase of the assisted dying debate, as supporters in the House of Commons prepare for a renewed legislative push in the next parliamentary Session. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

News / Jury trials under threat? The Courts and Tribunals Bill explained - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 136

Plans to restrict the right to a jury trial have cleared their Second Reading in the Commons, but the proposals in the Courts and Tribunals Bill face growing resistance, including from Labour rebels. We discuss the legal and constitutional implications with barrister Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, examining what the reforms could mean for defendants’ rights and the criminal courts system. We also assess the passage of legislation removing hereditary Peers from Parliament, and the late compromise that eased opposition in the House of Lords. Meanwhile Sir Lindsay Hoyle clashes with the Chief Whip over delays in the division lobby, and newly released papers on Peter Mandelson’s Washington appointment raise fresh political questions. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

Briefings / Last-minute powers and limited scrutiny: Parliament and the risks of consigning online safety law to delegated legislation

Two late-stage government amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill and the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill would grant Ministers significant powers to reshape key parts of the Online Safety Act through delegated legislation. While the policy goals may attract support, the method raises serious constitutional concerns about parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. Using these amendments as a case study, this briefing explores the risks of relying on regulations to make policy and explains how the Hansard Society’s proposed reforms to the delegated legislation scrutiny system could better balance governmental flexibility with democratic oversight.

News / Is the assisted dying bill being filibustered? - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 135

Debate over the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has been so slow in the House of Lords that opponents of the Bill are accused of deliberately running down the clock. Conservative Peer Lord Harper rejects claims of filibustering, arguing that Peers are undertaking necessary scrutiny of a flawed and complex bill. He contends the legislation lacks adequate safeguards and was unsuited to the Private Member’s Bill process and discusses whether MPs might attempt to revive it in a future parliamentary Session. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS