It's official, I'm bored of PMQs. I am now going to join the ranks of people that condemn it to being pointless theatrics, the PM doesn't answer enough questions, there is too much emphasis on back biting, real issues of the day don't get light because of the format and time limit and constituency MPs asking their questions are seemingly unable to find the middle ground between "congratulate us" questions and "condemn them" questions.

Today saw questions from the Tories about the EU referendum again, and Cameron himself attacked Brown on the number of reviews he is making. It is definitely the Tory tactic du jour to paint Brown as someone unable to make decisions, obviously patently wrong as he's more than happy to make decisions or let his cabinet make decisions that gain his government more powers. Lib Dems were lead by Clegg on the other hand and picked a much better subject for people to hear about, surveillance and just how prevalent it is today. Unfortunately Brown obviously doesn't need to answer questions and instead answered by asking Clegg what he thought about a range of "security measures". It is this kind of lack of progress that infuriates us all.

It's time to change the format, and it's time for Gordon Brown to split the PMQs back in half. He could do this quite easily without being accused of changing the system to suit his own personal needs if handled right, the main barrier in the way of changing the format as it stands. But how should the new two sessions operate?

The first session should be moved to the Tuesday and remain with the title PMQs, at 15 minutes long it will be a chance for MPs to ask questions relating to their constituencies to their prime minister. Forget the leader vs leader mega battles in the commons, return the concept to that of actually allowing MPs face time with the PM to answer the major issues that rise locally across the nation. I would love it if the speaker had more power to judge whether or not a PM had answered a question or not but I think that may be dreaming too far.

The second session, at around 20-30 minutes, should solely be for the party leaders and not held in the house of commons but at a neutral location where a frank debate can be had. Of course, strictly, this isn't exactly a parliamentary session but then I don't think it needs to be. This session should be a weekly event that allows the public to see what the leaders of the main parties (and I wouldn't be adverse to proportional face time being given to leaders of lesser parties actually represented in parliament) think on various issues that are decided upon by the public. Cameron and his Tories may wish to talk about dithering and A-Levels, but what if the majority of the interested public want to know what the hell is going on with schools, or the NHS?

This format of session would benefit the parliament in two ways. Firstly it should allow MPs to get back to the task of actually having some accountability, and secondly it gives the public some power to shape the politics of the day rather than individual party leaders. Assuming it was manufactured correctly, this could really engage the public in making them feel they are actually holding their political leaders to account, isn't this what Gordon Brown ultimately wants? If it is then it is the perfect way to get away from the style of events he clearly struggles with and do something he supposedly would be more inclined to support. If he really feels daring it could even be a rolling road show that visits differing counties every week, or at least somewhere other than London once a month.

Go on Gordon, what have you got to lose?!