Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP

[alastair]

Hasan is a complete idiot, as highlighted by the catastrophe that is his current career. I just hate people who play to an audience.

What is intelligence? Letts, who speaks quietly and sensibly, or Hasan who just shouts at already sympathetic people, whipping them up?

 

[alastair]

This is really poor stuff - no neutrality at all on show here. Root and branch inquiry needed here.

 

[Drifter]

Hasan as been brilliant ,they should have sent up someone else from the Mail , he looks a bag of nerves.

 

[rednev]

Some right weirdos in tonight's audience.

 

[rednev]

Quentin Letts: 'UKIP more in the centre ground than Labour on the economy'

Ha!

 

[alastair]

This university fee thing has to stop. It's like no-one has actually understood the policy.

 

[alastair]

'Are you going to try the policy?'

'No, no I'm not.'

Some people are just brainwashed by Labour to the point of hilarity.

 

[peterstorey]

This is really poor stuff - no neutrality at all on show here. Root and branch inquiry needed here.

The show only looks one-sided because Shaps and Letts are tools. Why do the Tories front up a lightweight? How bitchy is Letts in print but how unprepossessing in person?

 

[alastair]

The show only looks one-sided because Shaps and Letts are tools. Why do the Tories front up a lightweight? How bitchy is Letts in print but how unprepossessing in person?

Agree on Shapps. The Tories have plenty of good speakers, so why him?

But the show is one-sided because of the audience. It's undeniable. They're applauding Hasan and Cooper before they've even finished their first sentence. These people just fall for Labour every time. Sad to watch.

 

[peterstorey]

Who's gonna applaud a professional Daily Mail apologist (the cowardly Dacre is conspicuous by his absence)?

 

[Grinner]

I always enjoyed Letts when he wrote for the Torygraph. I can see that he'd be a shitbag on telly though.

 

[Mockney]

Mehdi Hasan straight out of the blocks with his inverted snobbery. The BBC get in a left wing audience as usual.

Oh good God, these lefties are cringe-worthy. Mehdi just playing to one of the dimmest audiences I've ever seen.

Quentin Letts is very articulate and interesting..

FFS

 

[alastair]

Who's gonna applaud a professional Daily Mail apologist (the cowardly Dacre is conspicuous by his absence)?

Why would Dacre bother with QT?

Letts didn't even defend the Mail really. He just made a fair point that the article had every right to be in the paper, which it did, no matter how bad it was.

 

[rednev]

Agree on Shapps. The Tories have plenty of good speakers, so why him?

But the show is one-sided because of the audience. It's undeniable. They're applauding Hasan and Cooper before they've even finished their first sentence. These people just fall for Labour every time. Sad to watch.

I've applied to be in the audience of QT before, and from what I recall I was asked to state which party I supported. All applications and the data provided would surely be made available for FOI requests, so because of this, it would be incredibly difficult for the BBC to deliberately fix the slanting of a QT audience. I think what's happening is that you're underestimating the sympathies of Tory supporters (or anyone else who attaches themselves to the right) to issues that you consider to be left wing.

If there is actually a bias in the audience, it is probably down to there being a difficulty in actually finding enough right wing people who want to attend. Generally, as political interest increases, so too does left wing thinking. Students, trade unionists, educators etc. are just some of the groups that I suspect are more likely to apply, and these groups tend to be left wing.

 

[alastair]

I've applied to be in the audience of QT before, and from what I recall I was asked to state which party I supported. All applications and the data provided would surely be made available for FOI requests, so because of this, it would be incredibly difficult for the BBC to deliberately fix the slanting of a QT audience. I think what's happening is that you're underestimating the sympathies of Tory supporters (or anyone else who attaches themselves to the right) to issues you that you consider to be left wing.

If there is actually a bias in the audience, it is probably down to there being a difficulty in actually finding enough right wing people who want to attend. Generally, as political interest increases, so too does left wing thinking. Students, trade unionists, educators etc. are just some of the groups whom I suspect are more likely to apply, and these groups tend to be left wing.

I'm aware of the pains the BBC go to in order to get a split in audiences. They just seem to have given up a little recently. It doesn't help that they never go to very Conservative places. I can't even recall the last QT from somewhere like Oxfordshire, or West London, or somewhere like that.

It's one of these self-fulfilling prophecies though, I think. The right tend to think QT is rabidly left-wing, so they don't want to go, which ensures that the left are over-represented.

 

[Grinner]

I don't recall listing party affiliation when I was in the audience. But it was about 20 years ago.

 

[Mockney]

Look, if we've learnt anything over the years, it's that alastair knows what the people want. He's got his finger right on the pulse of the common man does al. Even if they don't know it themselves, he knows it for them. He stakes his very reputation on it. Or at least several arguments. So if the people don't seem to be agreeing with him, I think it's eminently reasonable to conclude it's down to some kind of insidious left wing conspiracy. It just must be. Possibly engineered by The Guardian, in conjunction with Owen Jones, and the ghost of Johann Hari.

 

[Ubik]

If you've watched Question Time for any length of time you'd realise the audience tends to applaud the opposition more than the government, and lately to be honest will tend to applaud nearly anything that sounds convincing, even if it doesn't cohere with whatever else they've clapped.

But anyway, top showing by Hasan as ever, Shapps as smug as ever. I saw him in town the other day, he really is a very smug looking bloke.

Letts didn't even defend the Mail really. He just made a fair point that the article had every right to be in the paper, which it did, no matter how bad it was.

Except for the part where he did defend it ("I will try to defend the defensible") and said that Miliband hated Britain because he didn't agree with the Falklands War (?!?!) And was a Commie, of course.

 

[alastair]

Yeh, but they had every right to print it. The article was basically a really pathetic smear but that isn't really relevant.

Of course it's the liberal left who love free speech who are doing their utmost to have alternative opinion shut down.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Yeh, but they had every right to print it. The article was basically a really pathetic smear but that isn't really relevant.

Of course it's the liberal left who love free speech who are doing their utmost to have alternative opinion shut down.

Who's shutting anything down?

 

[FlawlessThaw]

Everyone defending the Mail are confusing the difference between the right to print something and the justification to do so.

By accusing Miliband of being Anti-British because they he was against the Church, Queen and Army they essentially called out a large number of citizens as people who hate this country. It's absurd and the reaction to ask them to justify this claim is completely right.

 

[Mockney]

Is it better or worse to print smears about a deceased war hero than leave juvenile messages on the phone of an elderly comedian?

Because The Mail managed to force the resignation of the controller of Radio 2 for that. What if they'd relayed the accusations down the phone to Miliband in the form of a silly song?

I think the least we can hope for is Paul Dacre's head on a spike at the Tower of London.

[evilleftistlaugh]Mwa ha ha ha ha ha[/evilleftistlaugh]

 

[SteveJ]

They might as well have used the catch-all headline of 'Don't vote for potential traitor Miliband'. In spirit at the very least, it's pretty near to libel.

 

[alastair]

Everyone defending the Mail are confusing the difference between the right to print something and the justification to do so.

By accusing Miliband of being Anti-British because they he was against the Church, Queen and Army they essentially called out a large number of citizens as people who hate this country. It's absurd and the reaction to ask them to justify this claim is completely right.

This comes down to the right to offend. It was an offensive article, based on a rather special interpretation of certain facts, but it's perfectly allowed.

Destroying the article's argument is fine. Saying it should never have been printed in the first place is wrong.

 

[FlawlessThaw]

This comes down to the right to offend. It was an offensive article, based on a rather special interpretation of certain facts, but it's perfectly allowed.

Destroying the article's argument is fine. Saying it should never have been printed in the first place is wrong.

Most are saying it shouldn't have been printed in the first place not because it offends but because it's wrong.

Also where was the Mail when it came to the right to offend whenever it gets into a hurrah about the last old white person who got offended? Normally leading the witchhunt.

 

[alastair]

Most are saying it shouldn't have been printed in the first place not because it offends but because it's wrong.

Also where was the Mail when it came to the right to offend whenever it gets into a hurrah about the last old white person who got offended? Normally leading the witchhunt.

I'm not defending the Mail here.

The article isn't 'wrong.' It's picking and choosing certain facts and building a narrative around them. Why do you not want it printed? On what basis? Because it's wrong? Someone like Owen Jones in every article manipulates statistics to suit his political agenda. It's less offensive, but it's still wrong.

Why do you want to repress free speech?

 

[Silva]

If the BBC ran a story about David Cameron's father being a traitor and a Britain hater for not paying his taxes here, what do you think the Mail's reaction would be? Adulation? Because I suspect the mail would be frothing at the mouth and would probably call for the BBC buildings to be thrown into the sea for being full of commie cnuts.

This whole thing is should be very embarrassing for the mail, but they thrive off this stupid idea that criticism of their long list of terrible ill-informed articles means people are against free speech. Which is incorrect, the only issue really is that the daily mail is a terrible newspaper and it's articles warrant a lot of criticism.

 

[alastair]

If the BBC ran a story about David Cameron's father being a traitor and a Britain hater for not paying his taxes here, what do you think the Mail's reaction would be? Adulation? Because I suspect the mail would be frothing at the mouth and would probably call for the BBC buildings to be thrown into the sea for being full of commie cnuts.

This whole thing is should be very embarrassing for the mail, but they thrive off this stupid idea that criticism of their long list of terrible ill-informed articles means people are against free speech. Which is incorrect, the only issue really is that the daily mail is a terrible newspaper and it's articles warrant a lot of criticism.

Jesus. The BBC are supposed to be neutral. The Daily Mail aren't.

You are allowed to criticise the article. I myself have criticised the article. It's a load of rubbish. It should have been printed though.

 

[SteveJ]

IDS routinely lies about statistics & uses laughable 'studies' & surveys to justify government policy; if that's not agenda-driven, I don't know what is. Of course, his untruths and convenient 'facts' have more impact on our lives than anything Owen Jones writes.

 

[FlawlessThaw]

I'm not defending the Mail here.

The article isn't 'wrong.' It's picking and choosing certain facts and building a narrative around them. Why do you not want it printed? On what basis? Because it's wrong? Someone like Owen Jones in every article manipulates statistics to suit his political agenda. It's less offensive, but it's still wrong.

Why do you want to repress free speech?

It is 'wrong' in my view because essentially it twists a number of things the wrong way. As I put it myself a large proportion of the country do not like Monarchy, Army and the Church. It would be exactly wrong to call them traitors to Britain as well.

 

[alastair]

It is 'wrong' in my view because essentially it twists a number of things the wrong way. As I put it myself a large proportion of the country do not like Monarchy, Army and the Church. It would be exactly wrong to call them traitors to Britain as well.

Yes, it's wrong. So any article which is wrong should be taken out of the newspaper then?

 

[Silva]

Jesus. The BBC are supposed to be neutral. The Daily Mail aren't.

You are allowed to criticise the article. I myself have criticised the article. It's a load of rubbish. It should have been printed though.

Neutral doesn't mean criticizing both sides of an argument equally, when one side warrants more criticism than the other it should get more criticism than the other.

In this particular case, when it transpired that the mail was talking shite - they should have apologized and withdrawn the initial claims - not cried fould that people are infringing their right to free speech - in fact the opposite has happened - they've been invited to lots of Radio shows and TV shows to defend their initial claims. And they've done a fecking terrible job of it, embarrassing themselves more and more in the process.

 

[FlawlessThaw]

Yes, it's wrong. So any article which is wrong should be taken out of the newspaper then?

I never said it should be taken out of the newspaper. Bit difficult to do so since it's already printed.

Just think they should be called on their horrid journalism which they are.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

Just seen this headline:

The Guardian and the Sunday Mirror newspapers have been embroiled in the row over press standards after being accused by a Conservative minister of invading David Cameron's privacy.



Whilst i didn't follow the various party conferences as closely as in other years my impression is that they were uniformly uninspiring events. Both Labour and the Tories trying to buy off the electorate with gimmicks or a cheap throw away policy here and there.

Recent economic will be a boost to Osborne and concern to Labour though, the best retail figures in sixteen years was what i saw in one article yesterday. Just in time for Xmas too.

 

[Ubik]

Jesus. The BBC are supposed to be neutral. The Daily Mail aren't.

You are allowed to criticise the article. I myself have criticised the article. It's a load of rubbish. It should have been printed though.

You're confusing "should have been printed" with "shouldn't have been prevented from being printed by authorities". It absolutely shouldn't have been printed because the editors and journalists involved should have realised they were talking shite and not put it in the paper. It adds nothing of worth to anything, is intellectually bankrupt and they should apologise for it. A free press is meant to inform, the Daily Mail does the opposite, frequently.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

You are allowed to criticise the article. I myself have criticised the article. It's a load of rubbish. It should have been printed though.

It shouldn't have been banned from being printed, obviously, but it's not the kind of article a self-respecting newspaper should be running. I suspect they regret it now, as the public seems to have generally sided with Miliband on this one.

 

[Brophs]

If you believe in freedom of the press then of course you have to believe that they were entitled to print it. But if you also believe in the press adhering to some sort of editorial standards, you should believe that they should have chosen not to. In an ideal world, it's the sort of area you would like to see the Press Complaints Commission have some real power.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

In an ideal world, it's the sort of area you would like to see the Press Complaints Commission have some real power.

I don't want any regulator involved in instances such as this. What has happened following the article is exactly what I want to happen in such instances - public debate and criticism.

 

[Nogbadthebad]

I don't want any regulator involved in instances such as this. What has happened following the article is exactly what I want to happen in such instances - public debate and criticism.

That only works when you are leader of the opposition and have a voice loud enough to generate debate.

For the poor and disabled the mail does similar smears on more or less daily, unless we have a complaint procedure that can actually deal with dacre's sociopathic vendetta on everything that isnt in his image, they have nothing.

 

[Brophs]

I don't want any regulator involved in instances such as this. What has happened following the article is exactly what I want to happen in such instances - public debate and criticism.

I think both can co-exist. I don't think publications like the Mail are that bothered about public criticism, they just have to be seen to act. If people genuinely stop buying it then I think that might change, but I don't necessarily see that happening. Or at least not in the numbers required for them to change their editorial direction.