Balanced Question Time panel tonight - of course not!

[pointedstarman]

[redacted]

[Scuffers]

[redacted]

[Einion Yrth]

I love all the "PR would do this" statements. There are quite a large number of possible electoral systems, many of which could be termed "PR", and only some of which demonstrate the issues raised. Of course all systems except sortition have some calculable inequalities, but it is the height of ignorance to type "PR" when quite plainly the posters are only referring to a list system.

[Scuffers]

Einion Yrth said:

I love all the "PR would do this" statements. There are quite a large number of possible electoral systems, many of which could be termed "PR", and only some of which demonstrate the issues raised. Of course all systems except sortition have some calculable inequalities, but it is the height of ignorance to type "PR" when quite plainly the posters are only referring to a list system.

that was demonstrated in QT by the point about what we voted on in 2011, people assume it was PR but was actually AV.

[irocfan]

Scuffers said:

2) Mhairi Black - the 20 year old SNP MP

how can anybody at that age have a clue about how to represent their constituency in a fair and balanced way? (remembering that she represents a constituency of 61300 voters not just the 23,500 that voted for the SNP badge)

on the one hand hats off to the girl - aged 20 she's clearly got a passion for politics. However, as has been mentioned above what does she know about life (albeit you could argue the same about people joining the armed forces aged 17/18, which these days has got some serious consequences)? Is she going to be a career politician with no idea of what the real world is like (I suspect we all know the answer to that one!!)

[Scuffers]

irocfan said:

on the one hand hats off to the girl - aged 20 she's clearly got a passion for politics. However, as has been mentioned above what does she know about life (albeit you could argue the same about people joining the armed forces aged 17/18, which these days has got some serious consequences)? Is she going to be a career politician with no idea of what the real world is like (I suspect we all know the answer to that one!!)

Joining the army at 17 only affects you, not the country.

Hell, she has not even finnish her politics degree yet!

[MGJohn]

Northern Munkee said:

I think that was one of the better QTs I've seen in a long time. Sensible audience, balanced panel and a lot less partisan than for a long time.

Exactly how I saw it. Made a refreshing change. Even Chairperson Dimbleby performed a shade better which on reflection, would not be too difficult to do based on previous form.

[jonby]

When May starts talking about how Labour should represent 'the working people' in a way which infers he is only talking about people on lower to average incomes, as if those who earn more don't work hard and then he goes on to talk about the conservatives representing 'the undeserving rich' he
a) comes across as a complete knob
b) exemplifies all the reasons that labour lost this election.

Meanwhile Hunt demonstrated labour's problem if they go the other way, as the tory chap highlighted by repeating that nonsense phrase that Hunt had used

[Scuffers]

MGJohn said:

Northern Munkee said:

I think that was one of the better QTs I've seen in a long time. Sensible audience, balanced panel and a lot less partisan than for a long time.

Exactly how I saw it. Made a refreshing change. Even Chairperson Dimbleby performed a shade better which on reflection, would not be too difficult to do based on previous form.

Agreed, actually got some good discussions going without the constant sniping.

[Jinx]

Scuffers said:

MGJohn said:

Northern Munkee said:

I think that was one of the better QTs I've seen in a long time. Sensible audience, balanced panel and a lot less partisan than for a long time.

Exactly how I saw it. Made a refreshing change. Even Chairperson Dimbleby performed a shade better which on reflection, would not be too difficult to do based on previous form.

Agreed, actually got some good discussions going without the constant sniping.

BBC in attempt to deflect accusations of Bias with a balanced QT?

[heebeegeetee]

Scuffers said:

irocfan said:

on the one hand hats off to the girl - aged 20 she's clearly got a passion for politics. However, as has been mentioned above what does she know about life (albeit you could argue the same about people joining the armed forces aged 17/18, which these days has got some serious consequences)? Is she going to be a career politician with no idea of what the real world is like (I suspect we all know the answer to that one!!)

Joining the army at 17 only affects you, not the country.

Hell, she has not even finnish her politics degree yet!

Given the fk ups in recent times, the real, real fk ups, I don't think a 20 year old could possibly make a worse job of it.

But I do dislike career politicians.

[RichB]

jonby said:

When May starts talking about how Labour should represent 'the working people' in a way which infers he is only talking about people on lower to average incomes, as if those who earn more don't work hard and then he goes on to talk about the conservatives representing 'the undeserving rich' he
a) comes across as a complete knob
b) exemplifies all the reasons that labour lost this election.

Exactly. It makes my blood boil when some Labour supporters bandy remarks like this around without thought. I have worked all my life and feel I deserve what wealth I have. Comments like that only serve to drive me even further towards the conservatives.

[MGJohn]

Jinx said:

Scuffers said:

MGJohn said:

Northern Munkee said:

I think that was one of the better QTs I've seen in a long time. Sensible audience, balanced panel and a lot less partisan than for a long time.

Exactly how I saw it. Made a refreshing change. Even Chairperson Dimbleby performed a shade better which on reflection, would not be too difficult to do based on previous form.

Agreed, actually got some good discussions going without the constant sniping.

BBC in attempt to deflect accusations of Bias with a balanced QT?

Could be. That makes a refreshing change ...

[Northern Munkee]

MGJohn said:

Jinx said:

Scuffers said:

MGJohn said:

Northern Munkee said:

I think that was one of the better QTs I've seen in a long time. Sensible audience, balanced panel and a lot less partisan than for a long time.

Exactly how I saw it. Made a refreshing change. Even Chairperson Dimbleby performed a shade better which on reflection, would not be too difficult to do based on previous form.

Agreed, actually got some good discussions going without the constant sniping.

BBC in attempt to deflect accusations of Bias with a balanced QT?

Could be. That makes a refreshing change ...

Oddly I think that was down to Brian May, as the wild card on the panel (i.e. not just another partisan or a more extreme version of party rep like a Starkey or Owen Jones, etc) actually tried to agree or take issue with every party rep. Not sure BBC expected to hear him agreeing with Farage or taking up the issue of a "fair" and honest referendum campaign.

Which is what that unelected member of the panel should be, and so frequently isn't. A different perspective on any given issue.

Edited by Northern Munkee on Friday 15th May 13:27

[98elise]

RichB said:

jonby said:

When May starts talking about how Labour should represent 'the working people' in a way which infers he is only talking about people on lower to average incomes, as if those who earn more don't work hard and then he goes on to talk about the conservatives representing 'the undeserving rich' he
a) comes across as a complete knob
b) exemplifies all the reasons that labour lost this election.

Exactly. It makes my blood boil when some Labour supporters bandy remarks like this around without thought. I have worked all my life and feel I deserve what wealth I have. Comments like that only serve to drive me even further towards the conservatives.

Same here. I've has some crap jobs and some good jobs. I've had some low paid jobs and some well paid jobs.

The one thing that's common is I've been a "hard working person" through all that. The majority of my success has been through hard work (I'm not talented enough to get away with brains alone)


I came from a broken home in a crap area. I left school with a few o'levels and made my own way in life. I'm now in the very well paid bracket (but not rich by any means) but its taken me about 30 years of working to get there. I have aspired to do well, and I've worked for that. At no point during that time have I wanted or felt that I needed to have other people money.

Labour seem to consider me undeserving, when my only crime is to have been reasonably successful. That's pretty rich (see what I did there) from a bunch of Oxbridge educated career politicians.

[Scuffers]

98elise said:

Labour seem to consider me undeserving, when my only crime is to have been reasonably successful. That's pretty rich (see what I did there) from a bunch of Oxbridge educated career politicians.

exactly..

just how many of the Labour front bench have actually had a real job?

I am utterly sick of the phrase "hard working people" used like some badge, it's total patronising bull

[jonby]

98elise said:

RichB said:

jonby said:

When May starts talking about how Labour should represent 'the working people' in a way which infers he is only talking about people on lower to average incomes, as if those who earn more don't work hard and then he goes on to talk about the conservatives representing 'the undeserving rich' he
a) comes across as a complete knob
b) exemplifies all the reasons that labour lost this election.

Exactly. It makes my blood boil when some Labour supporters bandy remarks like this around without thought. I have worked all my life and feel I deserve what wealth I have. Comments like that only serve to drive me even further towards the conservatives.

Same here. I've has some crap jobs and some good jobs. I've had some low paid jobs and some well paid jobs.

The one thing that's common is I've been a "hard working person" through all that. The majority of my success has been through hard work (I'm not talented enough to get away with brains alone)


I came from a broken home in a crap area. I left school with a few o'levels and made my own way in life. I'm now in the very well paid bracket (but not rich by any means) but its taken me about 30 years of working to get there. I have aspired to do well, and I've worked for that. At no point during that time have I wanted or felt that I needed to have other people money.

Labour seem to consider me undeserving, when my only crime is to have been reasonably successful. That's pretty rich (see what I did there) from a bunch of Oxbridge educated career politicians.

It's in line with the constant rhetoric about a '£43k tory tax cut for millionaires'. By definition, that applies only to people who both earn £1M per annum and crucially, declare it in full to pay tax on. Which in turn means they are still paying over £400,000 p.a. in tax. Yet those people are somehow accused of 'not paying their way' whilst people paying just a few thousand pounds a year in tax, representing a much lower %age of their income, are the 'victims being fleeced by the rich parasites'. It's the language of Kinnock & Foot and will never get a party elected again. Certainly not in England.

[jonby]

Scuffers said:

98elise said:

Labour seem to consider me undeserving, when my only crime is to have been reasonably successful. That's pretty rich (see what I did there) from a bunch of Oxbridge educated career politicians.

exactly..

just how many of the Labour front bench have actually had a real job?

I am utterly sick of the phrase "hard working people" used like some badge, it's total patronising bull

The one thing that most successful people have in common, beyond intelligence, education, privilege, wealth, connections, geographic location, etc is that they have worked bloody hard - that's why the comments are so insulting

[Challo]

[redacted]

[hidetheelephants]

MGJohn said:

Northern Munkee said:

I think that was one of the better QTs I've seen in a long time. Sensible audience, balanced panel and a lot less partisan than for a long time.

Exactly how I saw it. Made a refreshing change. Even Chairperson Dimbleby performed a shade better which on reflection, would not be too difficult to do based on previous form.

I liked it when he hauled up the panel for wandering off the question, especially at the beginning when Tristram started waffling about something completely different; all too often he's allowed speakers to do that recently and get away with not answering the question. Perhaps people have complained.