According to the BBC, Burnham averages 51 seconds per answer, compared with Sunak's 39, Starmer's 38, Johnson's 35 and Truss's 33.

But GB2GB has some questions of its own.

1. WHY ONLY THESE PRIME MINISTERS?

Why not compare the last 10, including Theresa May, David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, John Major and, of course, Margaret Thatcher — handbag and all?

Would Burnham still look so exceptional?

We don't know. The BBC hasn't supplied those figures!!!!!!!!!.

2. WHY ONLY THREE PMQs SESSIONS EACH?

How were those sessions selected? Would a comparison covering ten sessions, or a much longer period, produce the same results?

A journalist's choice of comparison group can influence the impression readers receive.

3. WHAT ABOUT THE QUESTIONS?

The BBC measures how long Burnham answers but provides no equivalent analysis of how long opposition MPs take to ask their questions.

Surely both matter when considering why PMQs overruns?

4. IS AN EXTRA 12 SECONDS REALLY A PROBLEM?

Burnham averages just 12 seconds longer than Sunak.

Could those additional seconds mean more complete answers and better parliamentary scrutiny?

The Speaker himself acknowledged the week before: "At least he's answering detailed questions."

That hardly sounds like a Prime Minister simply wasting everyone's time!

5. WHAT PARLIAMENTARY RULE HAS BEEN BROKEN?

There is no fixed 39-second limit on a Prime Minister's answer - or did Sunak define the correct time?.

The Speaker has every right to encourage brevity so more MPs can participate. But that doesn't establish that Burnham's longer answers are unreasonable - and is reducing any PM's rime line reducing democracy and accountability.

Would reducing them to, say, 44 seconds suddenly make everything acceptable?

HERE'S THE REAL ISSUE.

The right wing leaning BBC has measured the QUANTITY of Burnham's answers, but not their QUALITY?.

Its headline suggests political trouble, but the evidence doesn't establish that the extra time is wasted.

GB2GB's CHALLENGE TO THE BBC:

Explain why this article is relevant at such a critical time for generating more civilised politics - in the interests of the public, not by increasing even more petty division.

Because when journalism invites readers to question a politician's performance, the journalist's own methods should withstand scrutiny first - and as GB2GB does daily, the BBC, and its self motivated journalists, is failing to meet its Royal Charter commitments at the expense of the British Nation's cohesion .

GB2GB — HOLDING 'ALL' MEDIA TO ACCOUNT - EVEN ITS PUBLICLY FUNDED MEDIA?.

Source: BBC News, Matt Chorley, 20 October 2026.

BBC PMQs Report Questioned by GB2GB Over Selective Prime Minister Comparisons