PMQs should give more space to Nigel Farage
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage speaking during Prime Minister's Questions, July 2025 (PA Images / House of Commons / Alamy)
4 min read
In a recent survey of young people by Onward, six out of 10 felt that “too many people are ignored” by democracy or, worse still, that “democracy in the UK is completely broken”.
For most of the last century, the government and the official opposition have between them commanded 70 to 80 percent of the public vote, and so the fact that the parliamentary system is focused almost entirely on those two parties has not felt as ill-fitting as it does today. With fewer than four in 10 voters supporting either Labour or the Tories in the latest polls, it should be no surprise that six out of 10 feel unrepresented.
Prime Minister’s Questions resumes today. Love it or hate it, PMQs is the window on our democracy. According to YouGov, 81 per cent of people say they have seen or heard of PMQs, which puts it slightly ahead of The Repair Shop but slightly behind Bridgerton. Another survey found that nearly half of people say they watch some part of PMQs regularly.
Badenoch has 33 times more questions than Farage because of parliamentary process, when Farage should have twice as many questions as Badenoch if PMQs reflected current opinion polls
The way that PMQs is structured skews heavily towards the government and official opposition. Kemi Badenoch can ask six questions at every PMQs and, in addition, Conservative backbenchers usually get another two questions, as part of the ballot to ask the PM questions. Apart from two questions for the Liberal Democrats, the other opposition parties have no guaranteed questions and instead must hope to be chosen in the ballot. Given that there are 650 MPs, the chances of a Reform or Green MP being selected could be as remote as one in 100.
Over the last year, Badenoch has asked around 200 questions, Ed Davey around 70, Green MPs nine, and Nigel Farage just six. If those questions had been distributed according to their share of the opinion polls, rather than the number of MPs, Farage would have asked 120 questions, and the others between 40 and 60 each. In other words, Badenoch has 33 times more questions than Farage because of parliamentary process, when Farage should have twice as many questions as Badenoch if PMQs reflected current opinion polls.
Some might argue that this shows the need for proportional representation or an immediate general election. But with neither likely in the next four years, it is up to the Speaker to try to rectify this democratic deficit in Parliament. Whether or not you support Reform, and whether or not they form the next government, it is necessary for Parliament to subject Reform to the scrutiny that is usually afforded to the official opposition.
It is a myth that PMQs is set in stone. It is largely governed by convention and its structure has been repeatedly revised. A dedicated process for allowing backbenchers to ask on-the-spot questions to the Prime Minister was only introduced in 1961 and the format has changed in some way every five to 10 years ever since.
A parliamentary committee could be formed to review the operation of PMQs, as it has done in the past. Instead of allocating six questions to the Tory leader and two to the Liberal Democrats, opposition leaders could be granted an allocation based on vote share rather than seats held. Public input, such as an online vote, could also be used to determine which backbench MPs get to ask questions, rather than simply drawing the names at random from a ballot. Such a process would likely result in Reform being called more often. It could also mean that, instead of backbenchers asking toadying questions or simply scoring political points, they ask questions that directly reflect public concern.
Such a formal review is likely to take years, however, and would likely be thwarted or delayed by those who benefit from the status quo, during which time public frustration will only grow. To resolve the issue more speedily, the Speaker could use the discretion he has within the existing structure to call Farage routinely. In addition to the questions from Badenoch, Davey and the MPs who succeed in the ballot, the Speaker also calls MPs who ‘bob’ in the Chamber. The Speaker could use that opportunity to call Farage.
To those who protest that such a step would give Farage legitimacy and an unmerited platform to air his views or set the media agenda, I would encourage them to face up to the reality of his current standing in the polls and level of attention that the media give him. It would also provide the Prime Minister with a weekly opportunity to respond to Farage but also to hold him to account.
By contrast, if Parliament continues to fail to provide scrutiny of Reform out of a misguided sense of etiquette, it is letting down the country – regardless of whether Reform wins the next election.
Theo Bertram is director of the Social Market Foundation
