"I will ask Congress to grant me the privilege of coming before both houses to take questions," McCain said, "and address criticism, much the same as the prime minister of Great Britain appears regularly before the House of Commons."

Ever seen the way the British do that? It's noisy, irreverent, unfiltered debate. But that's Parliament. And the prime minister is a member of Parliament.

In the United States we have "separation of powers" and Article II, Section III of the Constitution that says the president "shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union."

So we get the State of the Union address, a tightly scripted, choreographed hour or so of no-questions-asked tradition.

McCain's idea could change a lot more than just the atmospherics.

For starters, submitting to spontaneous questions from Congress would be a huge departure from Bush/Cheney, who have worked to get more power for the executive branch and limited congressional access to top officials and information.

It might alter the bully pulpit that's long been the sole domain of the president. Why? Because with Congress asking the questions, Congress sets the agenda. - CNN

My first thoughts are that this is a good idea.

It is an interesting concept. I would like to see it experimented with; the atmosphere might be different because the President is not required to do it.

I is also interesting coming from McCain, whose political hero is Teddy "Bully Pulpit" Roosevelt! Roosevelt's sense of the word "bully" was more that of "superb."

Would it work? PMQs (as we call Prime Minister's Questions) are a lot better than they sound to an outsider.They sound rather riotous They're worthwhile and entertaining, inter alia, for the occasional witty bit of heckling as well as merciless mockery. The PM is guaranteed to be mocked over anything remotely embarrassing. When the President was caught on mike calling Tony Blair over with 'Yo, Blair!' poor old Tony had to endure the House greeting his arrival at PMQs with cries of 'Yo!' and 'Howdy!', among other indignities.

And there's the first problem for you. Americans treat the President almost as though he were a monarch, with 'respect of the office' to the fore.We can't grasp this, but we hear people, including his political opponents, saying apologetically that they meant no disrespect to the President, as though he is distinct from the man.Nobody is inhibited in the press or elsewhere in criticising his policies but behaving like our MPs do towards the PM doesn't seem something that Americans would take to. Nobody here would address the Queen like that

They do have serious value, in spite of the efforts made by the PM of the day to get some friendly questions from their own side and their fearless attempts to recite their good deeds whilst avoiding the thrust of the opponent's question The latter course rarely succeeds.The riposte is likely to be crushing.The leader of the Opposition always comes with some damning enquiry.His supporters are sure to have some questions of their own, often to better effect because their line is less predictable. And the whole process is helped by the media picking out the best bits.Any point scored is certain to be replayed on TV news and written up in the press for next day.The whole, brief, session is broadcast live on local and BBC radio in London and played again in the evening on BBC radio, too.

Here's your second problem (or a President McCain's). The questions asked by the White House Press Corps of the President are so anodyne.Even the supposedly critical ones are couched in apologetic terms .What we see of interviews on American news are as feeble.Does nobody dare ask a dangerous question of a President? The only times the current President looked utterly uncomfortable was when he was asked questions by Nick Robinson of the BBC. He couldn't refuse to pick the BBC's man: the British were on America's side, after all .It was Robinson who got the President to say that Iraq was a disaster.The question was that carefully framed, with references. Ever after that the President would address Robinson as 'Baldy' , something which Robinson and the BBC took great delight in repeating.The question itself was nothing compared to what Tony Blair or Gordon Brown are accustomed to.But those two, and all in government here, have been exposed to this all their parliamentary lives, in the House and from the media, expect it and are good at dealing with it. If they weren't they'd never have made it from the back benches to the front, whether in Opposition or government

Americans love compromise.You have a system of arranging many things by reaching across the aisle.Our system is adversarial.What serious prospect is there of a President being asked the kind of hostile, penetrating questions that our PM gets?

In truth, PMQs are a sideshow compared to what cabinet and junior cabinet ministers get exposed to. Those questions, including those from their own side,in sessions reserved for questions on their Department, are beyond any degree of arranging to favour the minister.In such sessions are their future career prospects determined, quite apart from those of the government. Their leader takes note of how they do. They may succeed only in embarrassing him by an unwise answer or by not being in command of their brief. (Unfortunately for him, they can still make headlines and provide ammunition for the opposition and media alike )