22 Britain The Economist February 8th 2025

Oratory politics has been shaped by combative de-

bate. Leaders at PMQs stand, it is said, two
Rhetoric and reality swords’ length apart. Their week is defined
by that joust: PMQs lasts for only half an
hour in total but Margaret Thatcher spent
almost eight hours preparing for it. Debate
defines who becomes a politician: a list of
WESTMINSTER former presidents of the Oxford Union is a
The puzzle of Parliament’s shrinking speeches “Who’s Who” of British politics—William
Hague, Mr Gove, Mr Johnson.
HE PROBLEM is the Post-its. Many crit- Arguably Britain has overemphasised
T icisms have been made of prime minis-
ter’s questions (PMQs). It has been called
Speaks volumes argument. Open the first edition, pub-
lished in 1844, of “Erskine May”, the parlia-
Britain, House of Commons speeches,
“boorish”, “childish” and “rude”. Sir Tony average number of words mentary handbook, and between advice on
Blair thought it “unforgiving”; David Cam- 1,000 whether one can hiss in the House of Com-
eron called it “Punch and Judy politics”. It mons (one cannot) or insult the monarch
can be cruel: it was at PMQs that Boris 800 in it (definitely not), you will find 87 men-
Johnson called Sir Keir Starmer “a point- tions of the word “debate” but only five of
less human bollard” and “Captain Crash- 600 the word “constituents”. This is Parliament
eroony Snoozefest”. It can cause shock— less as a democratic tool than a debating
400
and awe. “I count my blessings”, George club with a country inconveniently at-
Twitter adds
H.W. Bush said, that “I don’t have to go video functionality
tached to it.
200
into that pit.” Debate shaped its elite institutions. For
But PMQs is changing. “Captain Crash- 0 centuries, students at Eton, Oxford and
eroony” does not bring insults to PMQs. In- Cambridge stood at despatch boxes to de-
1922 50 75 2000 25
stead he brings a nice, smart A4 file, neatly bate the issues of the day. The titles of
Sources: MySociety; The Economist
flagged with Post-its. Then he opens it and these offer an index of each era’s anxieties:
says things like: “Clean energy is at the in Oxford, students considered such topics
heart of this mission-driven government.” This matters. Britain is in trouble. Its as pacifism (“This House will in no circum-
He is not boorish, childish or rude. Or in- GDP has barely risen in five years. It needs stances fight for its King and its Country”),
teresting. He is unlikely to strike fear into to grow. Yet speak to people in business the rise of socialism (“this House deplores”
foreign presidents. He does have a splen- and few have a sense of how the govern- it) and delicate questions of feminism
did collection of stationery. ment hopes to make this happen. Political (“Woman: Angel or Idiot?”).
And that too is a problem. Listen close- speeches are, says Michael Gove, a former
ly in the corridors of power and you will Conservative minister, more than mere Talking less, tweeting more
hear the usual worries: that Britain’s finest messaging. “Think in ink” was, he says, a Such debates might seem absurd. They are
hour is over; that the cradle-to-grave NHS phrase he lived by when in government. also excellent preparation for Westmin-
is in its grave; that even the white heat of AI Write a speech down and “it has to be log- ster. Points are not awarded for factual
technology won’t save us. But you will hear ical.” People sniff at slogans but words are knowledge or deducted for ignorance. Vic-
another worry too: that politicians can no not witchcraft. They are simply thoughts tory comes, as in politics, with a vote. Thus
longer even articulate our inadequacy. on the page. Sir Keir needs to offer his, the “person with the funniest jokes wins”,
That phrases such as “finest hour” (Win- clearly to the country. A stationary country says Simon Kuper in “Chums”, a book on
ston Churchill) and “white heat of technol- requires more than stationery from its PM. Oxford politicians. This trains you “very
ogy” (Harold Wilson) and even “corridors This matters historically too. British well for survival and success in the House
of power” (C.P. Snow) are no longer being of Commons”. Though not necessarily, as
coined. That, as one MP put it, “the day of Mr Johnson’s eloquent but chequered ca-
oratory is passing.” reer shows, for how to run a country well.
Given that that MP was a young Chur- To understand the state of English ora-
chill it is possible that the death of rhetoric tory, creep into Parliament’s press gallery.
has been exaggerated. Memory is a poor This offers the usual blend of decadence
judge of oratory, since memorable phrases and decay. It has a doorman in bowtie and
are just that: memorable. The sieve of his- tails, magnificent leather seats and frayed
tory will therefore tend to catch the best carpets. Sit here and you are close enough
and lose the rest. But something does seem to hear the PM turn the pages with those
to be changing, quantitatively as well as Post-its. But do not look at him; turn and
qualitatively. Study a century of parliamen- look at the press gallery behind. Except at
tary speeches (excluding interjections of PMQs, it will be almost entirely empty.
under 100 words) and a pattern emerges. The real problem with Parliament is not
In 1938 the average speech was almost just that people cannot speak. It is that no-
1,000 words long. In 1965 James Callaghan body is listening. “Parliament”, says Ben
delivered a budget speech that was almost Griffin, a senior lecturer in history at Cam-
19,000 words: less a speech than a novella. bridge University, “is becoming peripher-
Until 1970 the average was still almost 900. al”. It is notable that Britain’s fastest-grow-
Then they start to shrink—dramatically so ing political party has just five MPs. Parlia-
after 2015, when video functionality ap- ment’s benches are less a place to go to
peared on Twitter (now X). Last year the pose questions than to pose for clips on X.
average was 460: less a novella than a few This House seems to believe old-fashioned
tweets (see chart). A way with words debating is a waste of time. ■

C001