PMQs: Punch & Judy politics

A common criticism of British politics regards its adversarial nature. The ethos of the House of Commons Chamber is often derided as being more suited to a schoolroom of boys from St Custard's than the birthplace of modern Western democracy.

Described by the Economist as a 'gladiatorial spectacle' that 'reeks of conflict', the epitome of this exchange is Prime Minister's Questions. As each side cheers on its champion and jeers at his opponent, the cries of 'Order, Order!' from the Speaker are the only thing that can return the Chamber to, well, order. 

Last Wednesday's PMQs special of the Daily Politics saw Nick Robinson stress just how loud the roar of noise can get. Labour MP Chuka Umunna agreed, identifying it as a major source of disquiet amongst the public at a time of such economic uncertainty. Presumably he would prefer PMQs to be conducted more along the lines of America's Congress. Debates would be carried out with the genteel decorum that proper political discourse deserves.

Yet this is a system so prone to deadlock that it routinely hurts America's interests. Congress's inability to reach an agreement caused the Word's largest economy to lose its triple A credit rating earlier this year. Failure to deal with this intransigence means US politicians still can't agree how to deal with the America's deficit.

The British system might be unseemly but it works. When David Cameron first became Conservative Party leader he vowed to end Punch & Judy politics. He failed. I for one won't judge him too harshly for that.

America: no longer making the grade

Yesterday, Standard & Poor's downgraded the US's credit rating from AAA to AA+. The world's largest economy was humiliated leading to fears of further market turmoil. One can blame a whole range of issues but deadlock on Capitol Hill has to be one of the frontrunners. Held hostage by the radical Tea Party, Republicans found themselves unable to compromise with Democrats on a coherent approach to deal with the nation's rising debt burden. With no credible plan,  S&P felt unable to award the AAA grade.

As this sorry episode has shown, an increasingly polarised Congress coupled with America's famed system of checks and balances threatens to bring the US to a standstill. If the US is once again to be governable then this partisan deadlock must be broken. Change will undoubtedly be difficult, but there is one reform that with little controversy could put America back on the path to a functioning political system.

Throughout the USA, state legislators draw up the districts that elect their representatives to Congress. Imagine if in Britain it were the responsibility of local councils to draw up MPs' constituencies. The conflict of interest, wanting to select electoral boundaries that would favour candidates from one's own party, would cause outrage. A Tory run council would draw up constituencies that elected Tory MPs, whilst Labour and Lib Dem councils would do exactly the same thing. It's called gerrymandering.

Unsurprisingly, we don't allow this to happen in Britain. We leave it to an impartial body, the Boundary Commission, to draw up constituencies. So do most other developed democracies. It is America that stands out as the exception. The consequence is electoral districts of incredible shapes that cannot possibly best serve the interests of their constituents.

When it comes to an election, the candidate whose party drew up the district will win by a landslide. It's comparable to the problem of safe constituencies in the UK, except worse. The only contest is when each party chooses its candidate. Since only party members can vote in primaries, ideological purists push out more moderate candidates. 

To break its partisan deadlock, America needs to bring back real competition to its elections. Putting a stop to gerrymandering would be a good start.