Question Time last night

[SambuccaKelly]

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?

I can see why they didn't bother sending anyone from the front bench. Dimbleby is so obviously pro labour and gave endless time to campbell and piers morgan and interupted susan kramer after a much shorter time- he always interupts the lib dems. They need someone less biaised in the chair.

As far as I'm aware Alastair campbell has never been an elected MP so there was no reason for him to be there representing the labour party.

They should cut down the number of journalists and have a few people from the professions instead..eg a Head teacher would have been good last night or a senior person from the armed forces.

That's a preposterous argument.

Almost every week there are people who aren't elected MPs. I do agree that people from the professions and from industry would be a good idea. I'm not against journalists, however - Piers Morgan has edited some of the kost widely read newspapers of our time. I am intereste din his take on things.

As for Campbell - love him or hate him, he is one of the masterminds of New Labour. He is a significant political player and as such, it is totally appropiate for him to be on the panel.

I think it is a great sign of weakness that the coalition government were either so hateful towards him, or so frighetened of him, that they wouldn't appear.

They should also respect the fact that the BBC makes decisions on who appears on QT - not the government.

It is terrible that Downing Strret tried to dictate who appeared on a BBC show for the Opposition. The editorial independence of the BBC is of fundamental importance.

Did this government not watch the row over how Labour treated the BBC over Andrew Gilligan/Today prog/David Kelly saga? Actually yes they did and they talked about how outragous it was to try and influence the independence of the BBC. And now they are in power...

I'm not at all suprised they won't give Cambell the time of day. He is one of the masterminds of spin and untruth, which is all NuLab will be remembered for in years to come.

Bernard Ingham anyone?

So were the Labour party happy to have AC represent them? Didn't they have anyone else available? It was quite an important week (Queen's speech an all).

Having said that AC is always entertaining .

What is preposterous is that campbell and morgan were given far more air time than the rest of the panel and week in week out dimbleby interupts/cuts short/allows people to talk over the lib dem representative and allowed campbell/morgan to waffle on completely wasting debating time. Each member of the panel should have a similar amount of time to speak.

Too much time was wasted last night on new labour's decision to go into Iraq several years ago rather than discussing the Queen's speech or more topical foreign issues - which might have been Korea, BP oil spill, Afghanistan. The education debate could have gone on longer.

Also none of the panel corrected the young chap in the audience who praised labour's education policy on the basis more people go to university so education must be better.. I don't think so. More people go on to higher education because there are more places and A levels are easier than they were 25 yrs ago. One lady started trying to make a good point about differences between exam boards but Dimbleby interupted her and moved on to something else.

The tories sent a current MP - I don't see what was wrong with Redwood being on. Maybe they shouldn't have complained about Campbell but maybe they knew that there would be no proper debate with campbell there and that is what turned out to be the case. It is the labour party who should be criticised for not sending some one to add some substance to the debate. Question time is supposed to be a debate not a spin machine.

Campbell should be in prison for what he did to Dr David Kelly, let alone on Question Time.

The audience of Question Time is full of political obsessives (usually councillors and even PPCs), not ordinary people - of course, all carefully "weighted" by the BBC for "balance".

Question Time is now just a bearpit aiming for cheap sensationalism over any policy discussion - far worse than the Commons at its very worst.

In general, the BBC needs to be cut down to size. They are not the story, however much they want to be.

They can make a good start by firing Dimbleby.

The Tories didn't put anyone forward because they said that they wanted a member of the shadow cabinet rather than Campbell, partic in the week of the Queen's speech, according to R4 news earlier today.

Also according to Lance Price on Radio 5 earlier (Tony Blair's spin doctor) Labour also tried to influence the QT panel when they were in office.

Funny how the BBC didn't report that at the time, but suddenly develop a zeal for discussing behind-the-scenes negotiations as soon as Labour are out of power.

Anyway, I am glad this has happened. Freezing the BBC licence fee for the next few years would be excellent (cutting it would be even better). Those outcomes are far more likely after yesterday's shenanigans.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

excuse typos

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?

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.

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.