Jennifer is CEO of the UK based cross-party think tank, Compassion in Politics which has led the campaign for a law against political deception. She’s also Director of Compassionate Politics at Stanford University. A non-practicing barrister, author, strategist, keynote speaker and award-winning television journalist (ex BBC, Channel Four News and ITN), her books include: Sunday Times bestseller, WE: A Manifesto for Women Everywhere (written with Gillian Anderson) and How Compassion can Transform our Politics, Economy and Society. Her father fled to the UK as a child refugee on the Kindertransport which has shaped her political outlook including her focus on preventing the rise of the far right.
She has worked in and around Westminster for over three decades and has advised numerous campaigns and individual politicians on messaging. Her Radio 4 doc, Broken Politics. Broken Politicians explored the mental health crisis in UK politics. She is a frequent media commentator and speaks globally on democracy, women’s rights and compassion as well as leading Resilience, Compassionate Leadership and Civility in Politics workshops.
People Over Performances: End Bear‑Pit PMQs
If we want to rebuild public trust in politics, there is one immediate step we could take: abolish the ritualised pantomime that is Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) and replace it with a modern, functional system of accountability.
Right now, PMQs is a national embarrassment — a shouting match of jeers, boos, and soundbites. It normalises aggression and models the very worst of political behaviour. And at a time when democracy is under threat and violence against politicians is rising, this outdated spectacle sends the worst possible message to the public: that in politics, anything goes.
It doesn’t just look bad — it doesn’t work. PMQs is supposed to hold ministers to account, but it rarely delivers answers. A “successful” PMQs is one where a minister deflects, avoids, or belittles. Accountability has become theatre.
The truth is, much of Parliament’s work relies on cross-party collaboration, respect, and compromise. But if PMQs is your only window into politics, you’d be forgiven for thinking you’d stumbled into a school playground. Like it or not, PMQs sets the tone for how the public sees all politicians.
Compassion in Politics’ polling by Opinium shows the public knows this too:
Amajoritythink this behaviour has no place in Parliament.
Just1 in 5believe PMQs is worth keeping.
And yet, Parliament clings to this tradition.
Some MPs argue it must stay because it’s the only way to capture public attention. “Nobody would watch Parliament without it,” one former minister told me. Others insist it’s the envy of democracies around the world.
Yet, when I I speak internationally about democratic reform, I often share clips of PMQs and the reaction is always the same: laughter. Audiences can’t believ— not the serious work of government.
Supporters of Compassion in Politics’ campaign, like MP Kim Leadbeater point out that Parliament’s job is not to entertain. That’s what Netflix, Amazon, and the BBC are for. Parliament’s job is to serve the people with dignity, clarity, and purpose.
It’s time to evolve. We need a Parliament fit for the 21st century. A politics that models civility, not conflict. Punch-and-Judy politics might draw headlines, but it doesn’t produce solutions and it certainly doesn’t restore faith in politics.
At a time when division and distrust are growing, we cannot afford to fuel tribalism.PMQs escalates it.
You can support Compassion in Politics’ call for reform by signing our open letter to the Speaker of the House, calling for an end to bullying, abuse and theatrical confrontation in Parliament. And then sharing the link with others who might support. Every signature strengthens the call for a more compassionate, civil and respectful politics.
