When Politics Becomes Performance: The Curious Case of Douglas McAllister
There’s something deeply unsettling about watching a politician stand up in Parliament, given a rare opportunity to hold the government to account, and instead use that time to deliver what amounts to a campaign speech. That’s exactly what happened when Scottish Labour MP Douglas McAllister took the floor at Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) recently. Personally, I think this incident is more than just a procedural misstep—it’s a symptom of a broader issue in modern politics, where performance often overshadows substance.
McAllister, representing West Dunbartonshire, had a golden chance to raise the concerns of his constituents. Instead, he chose to list a series of UK Government achievements, from minimum wage increases to shipbuilding deals. The Speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, had to intervene, cutting him off mid-speech. What makes this particularly fascinating is the disconnect between the MP’s actions and the purpose of PMQs. This isn’t a platform for self-congratulation; it’s a forum for scrutiny and accountability.
The Art of Missing the Point
One thing that immediately stands out is how McAllister’s approach reflects a growing trend in politics: the prioritization of party messaging over constituent needs. In my opinion, this isn’t just a tactical error—it’s a strategic miscalculation. By failing to ask a question, McAllister not only wasted his opportunity but also undermined the very institution he’s part of. What many people don’t realize is that moments like these erode public trust in politics. If MPs aren’t using their time to challenge the government or advocate for their voters, what exactly are they there for?
David Lammy, standing in for Keir Starmer, responded with a commendatory tone, praising McAllister’s “amazing record.” But if you take a step back and think about it, this exchange feels more like a choreographed performance than a genuine political dialogue. It raises a deeper question: Are MPs becoming more concerned with scoring points within their party than with representing the people who elected them?
The Broader Pattern: Scottish Labour’s Identity Crisis
This isn’t an isolated incident. Last year, analysis by The National revealed that Scottish Labour MPs had used PMQs to focus more on devolved policy areas than on issues controlled by Westminster. The SNP’s Pete Wishart called them “nodding dogs,” more interested in winning favor with London whips than standing up for Scotland. From my perspective, this highlights a fundamental identity crisis within Scottish Labour. Are they a party of Scotland, or are they a branch office of UK Labour?
What this really suggests is that Scottish Labour MPs are caught between two worlds, struggling to find their voice. On one hand, they need to appeal to their Scottish constituents; on the other, they’re under pressure to toe the UK Labour line. This tension often results in awkward, ineffective politics—like McAllister’s speech, which neither challenged the government nor resonated with voters.
The Psychology of Political Performance
A detail that I find especially interesting is the psychological dimension of this behavior. Why would an MP choose to deliver a monologue instead of asking a question? In my view, it’s about visibility. In a crowded political landscape, MPs feel the need to stand out, even if it means sacrificing substance for style. This isn’t unique to McAllister or Scottish Labour—it’s a trend across the political spectrum.
But here’s the problem: politics isn’t a reality show. It’s about governance, accountability, and representation. When MPs prioritize performance over purpose, they risk alienating the very people they’re meant to serve. If you take a step back and think about it, this is a reflection of how modern politics has become more about branding than policy.
Looking Ahead: What Does This Mean for Democracy?
This incident raises a broader question about the health of our democratic institutions. If MPs are using platforms like PMQs for self-promotion, what does that say about the state of political discourse? Personally, I think we’re at a crossroads. Either we reclaim these spaces for meaningful debate, or we risk turning them into theaters of the absurd.
One possible future is a Parliament where questions are sharp, answers are honest, and constituents’ concerns are front and center. But to get there, MPs need to stop treating politics as a performance art. They need to remember that their job isn’t to impress their party leaders—it’s to represent the people who elected them.
Final Thoughts
Douglas McAllister’s PMQs moment is more than just a footnote in political history. It’s a cautionary tale about the dangers of prioritizing performance over substance. In my opinion, this incident should serve as a wake-up call for all politicians: stop performing, start governing. Because at the end of the day, it’s not about how well you deliver a speech—it’s about how well you serve the people you represent.
What this really suggests is that we need a fundamental shift in how we approach politics. Less theater, more accountability. Less branding, more substance. Because if we don’t, moments like McAllister’s will become the norm, not the exception. And that’s a future none of us can afford.
