Volume 7, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2213-1272
  • E-ISSN: 2213-1280
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) in the UK attracts much criticism for the adversarial and occasional aggressive language on display. During his successful campaign for the leadership of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn called for a “new kind of politics” (ITV 2015). One feature of his “new” approach, apparent during his early sessions as Leader of the Opposition, was to include questions to Prime Minister David Cameron sourced from members of the public. Although, subsequently, these “public questions” became less frequent, they provided an opportunity to compare their interactional effects with standard “non-public questions”. Arguably, the aim of this salient feature of corbyn’s approach to questioning Cameron was to redress the moral order of PMQs. We test this proposal via two measures of the PM’s responses: reply rate and personalisation. Results showed that Corbyn’s public questions did not enhance Cameron’s reply rate. However, whereas Cameron used significantly more personal attacks than Corbyn in response to non-public questions, the level of such attacks by the PM for public questions was as low as Corbyn’s, with no significant difference between them. In this latter regard, such an approach showed the potential to mitigate the ritualistic and customary verbal aggression of PMQs.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Allen, Beccy, Ruth Fox, Isla Geis-King, Virginia Gibbons, Matt Korris, Petya Pavlova, and Michael Raftery
    2014Tuned in or Turned Off? Public Attitudes to Prime Minister’s Questions. London: Hansard Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bates, Stephen R., Peter Kerr, Christopher Byrne, and Liam Stanley
    2014 “Questions to the Prime Minister: A Comparative Study of PMQs from Thatcher to Cameron.” Parliamentary Affairs67(2):253–280. 10.1093/pa/gss044
    https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gss044 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bercow, John
    2010 [Online]. Speech to the Centre for Parliamentary Studies. Available at: www.parliament.uk/business/commons/the-speaker/speeches/speeches/speech-to-the-centre-for-parliamentary-studies/. [Accessed07 May 2018].
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Blair, Tony
    2010A Journey. London: Hutchinson.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson
    1978 “Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena.” InQuestions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, edited byEsther N. Goody, 56–289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
    1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bull, Peter
    1994 “On Identifying Questions, Replies, and Non-replies in Political Interviews.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology13(2):115–131. 10.1177/0261927X94132002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X94132002 [Google Scholar]
  8. 2003The Microanalysis of Political Communication: Claptrap and Ambiguity. London: Psychology Press. 10.4324/9780203417843
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203417843 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2008 “‘Slipperiness, Evasion, and Ambiguity’: Equivocation and Facework in Noncommittal Political Discourse.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology27(4):333–344. 10.1177/0261927X08322475
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X08322475 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2009 “Techniques of Political Interview Analysis.” InDiscourse and Politics, edited byGloria Álvarez-Benito, Gabriela Fernández-Díaz, and Isabel Íñigo-Mora, 215–228. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 2016 [Online]. “Theresa May Has a Very Special Technique for Avoiding Questions.” The Conversation. Available at: https://theconversation.com/theresa-may-has-a-very-special-technique-for-avoiding-questions-67424. [Accessed07 May 2018].
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 2017 [Online]. “Who Dodges More Questions, Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn? The Verdict is In.” The Conversation. Available at: https://theconversation.com/who-dodges-more-questions-theresa-may-or-jeremy-corbyn-the-verdict-is-in-78955. [Accessed07 May 2018].
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bull, Peter, Judy Elliott, Derrol Palmer, and Libby Walker
    1996 “Why Politicians are Three-faced: The Face Model of Political Interviews.” British Journal of Social Psychology35(2):267–284. 10.1111/j.2044‑8309.1996.tb01097.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1996.tb01097.x [Google Scholar]
  14. Bull, Peter, and Kate Mayer
    1993 “How Not to Answer Questions in Political Interviews.” Political Psychology14(4):651–666. 10.2307/3791379
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3791379 [Google Scholar]
  15. Bull, Peter, and Pam Wells
    2012 “Adversarial Discourse in Prime Minister’s Questions.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology31(1):30–48. 10.1177/0261927X11425034
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X11425034 [Google Scholar]
  16. Cohen, Jacob
    1960 “A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales.” Educational and Psychological Measurement20(1):37–46. 10.1177/001316446002000104
    https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104 [Google Scholar]
  17. Corbyn, Jeremy
    2016 [Online]. “Today is my 100th PMQs Question as Labour Leader – But I Still Won’t Get a Straight Answer from David Cameron.” The Independent. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/today-is-my-100th-pmqs-question-as-labour-leader-but-i-still-wont-get-a-straight-answer-from-david-a6920681.html. [Accessed07 May 2018].
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Culpeper, Jonathan
    1996 “Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness.” Journal of Pragmatics25(3):349–367. 10.1016/0378‑2166(95)00014‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2011Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511975752
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975752 [Google Scholar]
  20. Domenici, Kathy, and Stephen W. Littlejohn
    2006Facework: Bridging Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Dunleavy, Patrick, G. W. Jones, Jane Burnham, Robert Elgie, and Peter Fysh
    1993 “Leaders, Politics and Institutional Change: The Decline of Prime Ministerial Accountability to the House of Commons, 1868–1990.” British Journal of Political Science23(3):267–298. 10.1017/S0007123400006621
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400006621 [Google Scholar]
  22. Dunleavy, Patrick, G. W. Jones, and Brendan O’Leary
    1990 “Prime Ministers and the Commons: Patterns of Behaviour, 1868 to 1987.” Public Administration68(1):123–140. 10.1111/j.1467‑9299.1990.tb00750.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1990.tb00750.x [Google Scholar]
  23. Fetzer, Anita and Peter Bull
    . (in preparation). “Quoting Ordinary People in Prime Minister’s Questions.” To be submitted toConstructing Ordinariness across Media Genres: Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series edited by Elda Weizman and Anita Fetzer. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Giddings, Philip, and Helen Irwin
    2005 “Objects and Questions.” InThe Future of Parliament, edited byPhilip Giddings, 67–77. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230523142_6
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230523142_6 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gimson, Andrew
    2012 “PMQs: That’s the Way to Do It!” British Journalism Review23(3):11–13. 10.1177/0956474812460465b
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0956474812460465b [Google Scholar]
  26. Goffman, Erving
    1967 “Where the Action Is.” InInteraction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face BehaviorbyErving Goffman, 149–270. Chicago: Aldine.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Harris, Sandra
    1991 “Evasive Action: How Politicians Respond to Questions in Political Interviews.” InBroadcast Talkedited byPaddy Scannell, 76–99. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 2001 “Being Politically Impolite: Extending Politeness Theory to Adversarial Political Discourse.” Discourse & Society12(4):451–472. 10.1177/0957926501012004003
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926501012004003 [Google Scholar]
  29. Heffer, Greg
    2016 [Online]. “Corbyn Claims Cameron is Jealous of His Style as ‘Do Up Your Tie’ Row Rumbles On.” Sunday Express. Available at: https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/647453/Jeremy-Corbyn-David-Cameron-jealous-style-PMQs-video. [Accessed30 December 2018].
    [Google Scholar]
  30. House of Commons Information Office
    House of Commons Information Office 2010a [Online]. Parliamentary Questions (Factsheet P1, Procedure Series). Available at: https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/p01.pdf. [Accessed08 May 2018].
    [Google Scholar]
  31. House of Commons Information Office
    House of Commons Information Office 2010b [Online]. Some Traditions and Customs of the House (Factsheet G7, General Series). Available at: www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/g07.pdf. [Accessed09 May 2018].
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Hughes, Laura
    2016 [Online]. “One Year into Jeremy Corbyn’s Leadership, Labour Suffers Worst Opinion Poll Ratings the Party Has Ever Experienced in Opposition.” The Telegraph. Available at: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/12/jeremy-corbyns-labour-suffers-worst-opinion-poll-ratings-the-par/. [Accessed07 May 2018].
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Irwin, Helen
    1988 “Opportunities for Backbenchers.” InThe Commons under Scrutinyedited byMichael Ryle and Peter G. Richards, 76–98. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Irwin, Helen, Andrew Kennon, David Natzler, and Robert Rogers
    1993 “Evolving Rules.” InParliamentary Questionsedited byMark N. Franklin and Philip Norton, 23–72. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. ITV
    ITV 2015 [Online]. “Jeremy Corbyn Promises ‘New Kind of Politics’ as he Unveils 10-point Policy Plan.” ITV report. Available at: www.itv.com/news/2015-08-14/jeremy-corbyn-promises-new-kind-of-politics-as-he-unveils-10-point-policy-plan/. [Accessed07 May 2018].
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Jucker, Andreas H.
    1986News Interviews: A Pragmalinguistic Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pb.vii.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pb.vii.4 [Google Scholar]
  37. Kádár, Dániel
    2017Politeness, Impoliteness and Ritual: Maintaining the Moral Order in Interpersonal Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781107280465
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107280465 [Google Scholar]
  38. Lees, Charles
    2015 [Online]. “The Saint in the Bear Pit: Reviewing Jeremy Corbyn’s First PMQs.” The Conversation. Available at: https://theconversation.com/the-saint-in-the-bear-pit-reviewing-jeremy-corbyns-first-pmqs-47510. [Accessed07 May 2018].
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Martin, Iain
    2013 [Online]. “After a Dire PMQs, MPs Should Get a Pay Cut.” Available at: journalisted.com/article/5u3hx. [Accessed07 May 2018].
  40. Pearce, W. Barnett, and Stephen W. Littlejohn
    1997Moral Conflict: When Social Worlds Collide. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Pérez de Ayala, Soledad
    2001 “FTAs and Erskine May: Conflicting needs? Politeness in Question Time.” Journal of Pragmatics33(2):143–169. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00002‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00002-3 [Google Scholar]
  42. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik
    1985A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Rasiah, Parameswary
    2010 “A Framework for the Systematic Analysis of Evasion in Parliamentary Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics42(3):664–680. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.07.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.07.010 [Google Scholar]
  44. Sripada, Chandra S., and Stephen Stich
    2006 “A Framework for the Psychology of Norms.” InThe Innate Mind: Volume 2, Culture and Cognition, edited byPeter Carruthers, Stephen Laurence, and Stephen Stich, 285–310. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Thomas, Graham P.
    2006 “United Kingdom: The Prime Minister and Parliament.” InExecutive Leadership and Legislative Assembliesedited byNicholas D. J. Baldwin, 4–37. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Tracy, K.
    2008 “‘Reasonable Hostility’: Situation-appropriate Face-attack.” Journal of Politeness Research4(2):169–191. 10.1515/JPLR.2008.009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/JPLR.2008.009 [Google Scholar]
  47. Waddle, Maurice, and Peter Bull
    2016 “Playing the Man, Not the Ball: Personalisation in Political Interviews.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology35(4):412–434. 10.1177/0261927X15592443
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X15592443 [Google Scholar]
  48. Waddle, Maurice, Peter Bull, and Jan R. Böhnke
    2019 “‘He is Just the Nowhere Man of British Politics’: Personal Attacks in Prime Minister’s Questions.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology38(1):61–84. 10.1177/0261927X18767472
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X18767472 [Google Scholar]
  49. Wintour, Patrick
    2015 [Online]. “Jeremy Corbyn: It’s Time for a New Kind of Politics.” The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/11/jeremy-corbyn-aims-to-throw-out-theatrical-abuse-in-parliament. [Accessed22 October 2018].
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): equivocation; personal attacks; personalisation; PMQs; quotations; reply rate
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error