Active discussions

Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

Question Time last night

35 replies

SambuccaKelly · 28/05/2010 07:49

Apologies if there is already a thread about this - I couldn't find it.

Did you watch it last night?

Government refused to have anyone appear on the show because Alistair Campbell was on the panel.

A new, inclusive politics, not based on the old, bitter feuds, eh? Well that lasted a long time, didn't it?

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
fifitot · 30/05/2010 11:18

I don't think Campbell was represeting the LP on question time. The fact the govt wouldn't send a rep on is frankly pathetic, whether you love or loathe AC.

longfingernailspaintedblue · 28/05/2010 14:36

Is Alastair Campbell an official Labour spokesman?

Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet are bound by collective responsibility. Elected MPs are bound by their manifesto commitments, even if they are backbenchers.

Journalists like Piers Morgan and Max Hastings - however distasteful you might find them - are obviously commentators. They come with their own prejudices, usually further from the centre ground than the political debate itself, but they do not speak for any party.

"Party grandees" are the worst type of QT panellist.

But Question Time itself is well past its sell-by date. Krishnan Gurumurthy did a brilliant job moderating the first Chancellors' debate on Channel 4 - and Andrew Neil was superb for the Daily Politics debates for the BBC. Both were far better formats, in my opinion.

Original poster
SambuccaKelly · 28/05/2010 14:08

I don't understand your 'point', smallwhitecat. You don't like Campbell. OK. That's clear. He's not elected. Right. And?

FFS indeed.

Cammelia - I don't think the Labour party put Campbell on either. He likes to keep himself centre stage of whatever is going on and , let's face it, he doesn't know which way the wind will blow and whether or not he will keep hold of the power he has enjoyed hitherto.

OP posts:
smallwhitecat · 28/05/2010 14:04

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Cammelia · 28/05/2010 14:01

I think Labour didn't want to put anyone serious on while they're going through the leadership selection process.

I don't even believe Campbell was put on by the Labour party, I think he was just representing himself, as usual.

Original poster
SambuccaKelly · 28/05/2010 14:00

smallwhitecat - do you seriously think that there are no 'unelected' counterparts working behind the scenes for the Tories?

OP posts:
smallwhitecat · 28/05/2010 13:59

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Original poster
SambuccaKelly · 28/05/2010 13:56

In all honesty, I'm not sure why that is either@Ribena.

OP posts:
RibenaBerry · 28/05/2010 13:55

Sambucca - going back a bit...

Sorry, by 'send', I meant, whilst QT obviously asked Campbell (not Cameron, Duh), I'd have been surprised if they'd turned down a shadow cabinet member if offered (maybe they did for the entertainment value, as you say). It still seems odd to me that, when Labour want to put on a new shiny face, they didn't offer up a shadow minister, but someone to indelibly linked with spin. But then I'm an old cynic about all parties...

Original poster
SambuccaKelly · 28/05/2010 13:40

He may be all of those things in your opinion, Cammelia, but Campbell 'deserves air time' because he has been extraordinarily influential in successive governments since the early 90s, and remains a huge influence within the main opposition party in our country.

I always thought Dimbleby was a Tory, too.

OP posts:
Cammelia · 28/05/2010 13:36

Campbell is a lying odious narcissistic ponce who seriously does not deserve air time. Is anyone really still listening to him bleating on that he didn't do anything wrong and TB didn't do anything wrong etc etc and

As an aside, Dimbleby always come across to me as though he's a Tory.

Original poster
SambuccaKelly · 28/05/2010 13:25

We obviously have very different opinions, snowlady.

My view of Kramer last night was as a woman who disagrees with most of what he'government' are doing, but who had to bite her tongue.

I also didn't see much intelligent discussion from Redwood, He made very few decent points. Again, he must tow the line and keep his real opinions to himself (he is one of many senior Tories who do not really support Cameron's vision, as I am sure you are aware). I am always very interested, for example, to hear what the Tories think about education, as I work in this field - but it seemed as though he had barely grasped the policies of his own party. Very poor performance.

Yes, i do agree - Dimbleby has a very brash style and does interupt all panelists on QT, which can be infuriating and inhibit those with a less vigourous debating style.
Morgan and Campbell are both bulldog-ish in political debates, and I think last night their rugged style just bamboozled one dimwit (Hastings) and a couple of much less vocal politicians.

As for Campbells convictions - is that a rhetorical question? He practically masterminded New Labour, so love or hate him, I think we all know what his vision for this country is.

OP posts:
snowlady · 28/05/2010 13:19

sambucca - millions of people voted for the lib dems actually.
They are not ineffectual at getting their point across. They are not given the chance as they are interrupted. What susan kramer was trying to say last night was that if you want to raise the threshold for paying tax to £10,000 you will have to increase taxes elsewhere..this was in response to Redwood on CGT. I think both Kramer and Redwood were trying to have an intelligent discussion about the issue but Dimbleby just talked over the top and allowed Piers and Campbell to rant on.

What convictions does Campbell have exactly?

Original poster
SambuccaKelly · 28/05/2010 13:08

excuse typos

OP posts:
Original poster
SambuccaKelly · 28/05/2010 13:07

I cannot agree with you on the LDs getting a raw deal from the BBC.

The BBC whipped up a complete frenzy about Clegg before the election, that 9we now know) did not even nearly reflect what the public really thought (ie. very few people voted for them).

They often get shouted down because, witht he exception of a few fabulous speakers (Cable springs to mind), the LDs are so bloody ineffectual at getting their point across 9when they actually have a valid point to make, which seems to be so rare). Kramer was appaling last night. No substance or convicition whatsoever. At least I actually ^believed that Campbell 9and even Redwoodm to a lesser extent) had convictions and were standing by them.

OP posts:
snowlady · 28/05/2010 13:03

coolfonz - you cannot possibly think dimbleby is impartial - if he is why did he let morgan/campbell rant on and on about stuff that was not even asked about but interupt susan kramer before she had finished her answer to the question. This was not a one off he always interupts the lib dems.

When I listen to radio 4 I feel there is often balanced debate. The same can not be said of question time. Nothing is discussed properly, the audience is not normally representative of the place where the debate is being held, and the choice of panel is often poor.

It appears the BBC is very new labour and Sky is overtly right wing. It would be good if our broadcasters could try and be more impartial in particular the BBC which we are all paying for irrespective of our political leanings.

Original poster
SambuccaKelly · 28/05/2010 12:59

They didn't send in Campbell, the BBC invited him on. Probably because he is good value - razor sharp, takes no prisoners, always entertaining.

I'm sure QT would have snapped up one of the Labour leadership candidates if they could have.

OP posts:
RibenaBerry · 28/05/2010 12:53

Yes, Smabucca I can see that argument, but didn't Labour come in with a similar positive message in 1997

Also, random thought, why did Labour send Cameron. Are the big guns too busy with the leadership race. I'd have wanted a shadow minister.

Original poster
SambuccaKelly · 28/05/2010 12:49

Ribena, I think they publicised this incident because the government's behaviour so directly contradicts what this this coalition has sold to us - 'the new politics', a time to leave behind all the old party political hatred and concentrate on moving forward and doing what's best for this country.

OP posts:
Original poster
SambuccaKelly · 28/05/2010 12:47

Oh FGS, all politicians spin the truth.

In fact, that was the only decent point that Kramer made last night - that all the parties lied to the public when they underplayed how bad the economic situation in this country is.

To paint Labour as deceitful con artists and the Tories as lily white champions of truth is complete bollocks.

Re: Redwood. Christ, if that is the best the Tories can come up with - someone who, behind the scenes, would happily gouge Cameron's eyes out for what he is doing to the good old true blues - I am not surprised they are running scared from Campbell.

OP posts:
RibenaBerry · 28/05/2010 12:46

I think it was interesting.

I think that the BBC should totally stand up to attempts to influence their panel, but I don't for one second believe that this is the first time this has happened or that Labour didn't do the same. That makes me question slightly why they publicised this incident.

I also question why (and sorry if this isn't right, I am goign on the news reports, didn't see the show) Dimblbey said he would have expected a cabinet member but didn't flag that you'd also expect the opposition to send a member of the shadow cabinet (entertaining as Campbell can be).

So overall, I think I feel a bit 'a plague on both (or should that be 'all') your houses' about the whole thing.

Callisto · 28/05/2010 12:43

That's quite a leap Coolfonz. But when the BBC is paid for by tax payers, who have no say in programming content, one expects it to be impartial with no political slant. As a true blue post-fascist I would far rather see proper debate, even if it put 'my' party in a bad light. How else can we get to the truth? Of course NuLab have always had a interesting attitude to telling the truth.

Original poster
SambuccaKelly · 28/05/2010 12:43

I agree, too much time spent on the war last night.

However, it certainly wasn't Dimbleby who allowed Campbell and Morgan to dominate. Hastings is a complete dimwit. He had nothing of any substance to add to the debate. No idea wehy he was even there in the first place.

Kramer,also, was completely lightweight. Unfortunately for her, she now has to agree with everything the 'government' do, so cannot say what she really thinks. Therefore, she was effectively mute by her own doing.

Also, I cannot believe, after the incredible BBC-led pro-Clegg hype - and substantial support given to Cameron, the so-called 'man of the people' - on BBC News during the election, that people are still bleating on about the BBC being pro-Labour. Add to which practically the entire press in this country supported the Cons or Lib Dems in the run up to the election.

The 'government' should be laying out in no uncertain terms how they propose to run our country for the next five years, not playing silly games with Campbell and Mandelson et al. Pathetic.

OP posts:
longfingernailspaintedblue · 28/05/2010 12:38

As far as I was aware, the Guardian, Independent and Mirror were all still being published daily. Left-wingers hate choice and non-state broadcasters, but they still do have options.

But unfortunately it seems no-one wants to read these. Of course all newspapers are dying - but especially these. Perhaps you would care to speculate as to the reason why their circulation figures are so dire?

Coolfonz · 28/05/2010 12:25

Yeah the media should only be owned by explicitly right wing interests. Even the centre right-ness of the BBC is too far left for the post-fascists amongst us.

Swipe left for the next trending thread