Give me better ammunition!

The Sunday Times (apologies to readers who have read this for themselves) today refers to a memo sent by Sir Gus O'Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary on behalf of the Prime Minister, early in October. The document has been leaked.

It concerns the disappointing performance by the Prime Minister, at Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs), and instructs civil servants to improve on the quality of briefings, particularly in finding good third party endorsements of government policies, including quotations from members of the opposition. It even details form and font of submissions, and "They should be pithy, punchy and immediately to the point." They should be also 'just in time', right up to the minute.

The writers should begin preparing virtually a week ahead, on Thursdays before next week's PMQs on Wednesday. On Mondays there is to be a sifting, in the light of what appeared in the media over the week-end, and forwarding what are to be expected as the likely issues.

Leaving aside the question of whether the material is fairly obviously party political, and shows further politicisation of the civil service, there is a further question.

Since a team of civil servants, covering all departments, are spending a large part of their working week in assembling information, and (rather less) private resources are devoted to preparing the questions by the opposition, there is the question of cost.

Are PMQs worth this expenditure of resources? Has it become a game, some journalists actually giving score assessments out of ten, a knockabout, a bear-pit for personal abuse? Little light is thrown on any topic - Tony Blair failed regularly to answer a single question, often quoting or misquoting something about the Conservative Government 15 years before, as if this was an answer.

There is need for the Government to be put on the spot, and made to defend themselves. Will they always answer with abuse when they are in difficulty, and answer rationally only anodyne questions from their own supporters?

What emerges from PMQs is a verdict on a leader - Blair wiped the floor with Ian Duncan Smith, but met his match in William Hague, and perhaps drew with Michael Howard. So far Brown has not "performed" well against Cameron.

It may be partly temperament. Blair could get away with his charm and charisma, but Brown seems to lack both. Does this mean of itself that Blair is a better prime minister? There must be better ways, perhaps time, to decide who is a good prime minister.