Question Time & This Week

Raoul said:
Don't you find that a bit underwhelming ? He doesn't have to become a politician as the man in the audience suggested, but he should think out his position with sufficient depth so that he is part of the solution, not just one of the many finger pointers in society who draws attention to themselves by pointing out problems, at which point he may has well been better off in the audience v the panel.
Click to expand...

No, I don't. Frankly I find it heartwarming that there are people in the public eye willing to finally point it out, I'm sure you noticed but he was the only one on the panel who did.

Russell Brand isn't an economist, I don't look to him to come up with a solution to global wealth inequality. I look to him to use his profile to draw attention to the issue so that the people who do have answers aren't completely ignored anymore. If all you're capable of is saying "this isn't ok" in a way that makes people listen then that's fine in my book.
 
I do
Dion said:
But Brand isn't saying "I have all the answers". He's clearly not saying that. Just because you aren't equipped to solve a problem yourself doesn't mean you don't have the right to point it out. I'm not a fitness coach but I can still tell you our current injury situation isn't an acceptable long term situation. Telling me to get a sports science degree and apply to be our fitness coach isn't a logical reply to that. It's childish nonsense and it's a cheap attack on the person because you don't like the person making the statement but can't counter it.

Being a politician isn't something everyone is cut out for and you don't need to be to have the right to say "what the current system is offering isn't good enough, if you want our support you need to do better".

The areas where he is more qualified to take an active hand in the solution he is. Look at all the work he does towards drug addiction, knowing where your strengths are isn't hypocrisy or weakness.
Click to expand...
I don't see what that's got to do with me saying he shouldn't tell people not to vote. If he doesn't have any better answers to what the politicians are saying, fine. But advising people not to vote is crass.
 
Brand on this episode demonstrated why it annoys when people think he's best thing since sliced bread. People may disagree with Farage and think he's completely out of touch, but on every question he's said here's what I/UKIP thinks and here's why. That was the case not just on his favourite topic of immigration but on the NHS and grammar schools as well.

Brand has some good points and is right to point out what is wrong with politics but he offered no solutions. Yeah, he's not a medical professional or an economist, but he's quite happy to sit there calling MPs frauds as Camilla Cavendish pointed out. You can't have it both ways, and when pressed he backed out by saying 'I'm just a comedian'. I'm not saying the guy in the audience was right when he said that Brand should stand as an MP, but saying 'I don't want to become one of them' is a cop out.

Edit: Also, David Dimbleby should have done a much better job moderating. The debate ended up with anyone and everyone from the audience just cutting in and not letting people finish their point.
 
Last edited:
Dion said:
No, I don't. Frankly I find it heartwarming that there are people in the public eye willing to finally point it out, I'm sure you noticed but he was the only one on the panel who did.

Russell Brand isn't an economist, I don't look to him to come up with a solution to global wealth inequality. I look to him to use his profile to draw attention to the issue so that the people who do have answers aren't completely ignored anymore. If all you're capable of is saying "this isn't ok" in a way that makes people listen then that's fine in my book.
Click to expand...

In that case, what makes Brand different than any person in the QT audience who wants to have a rant at everything they consider wrong in society ? The challenge isn't pointing out what's wrong. Most people are already aware of that. The challenge is finding substantive solutions and discussing them. Brand, despite his stream of consciousness prose, comes across as a bit of a light weight when he's pressed on the things he's complaining about.
 
Raoul said:
In that case, what makes Brand different than any person in the QT audience who wants to have a rant at everything they consider wrong in society ? The challenge isn't pointing out what's wrong. Most people are already aware of that. The challenge is finding substantive solutions and discussing them. Brand, despite his stream of consciousness prose, comes across as a bit of a light weight when he's pressed on the things he's complaining about.
Click to expand...

To be fair though most of the people on any question time panel could have that criticism levelled at them and of those who put forward any solutions most won't work, and are ideas that benefit them dressed up to be solutions for everyone.
 
Raoul said:
In that case, what makes Brand different than any person in the QT audience who wants to have a rant at everything they consider wrong in society ? The challenge isn't pointing out what's wrong. Most people are already aware of that. The challenge is finding substantive solutions and discussing them. Brand, despite his stream of consciousness prose, comes across as a bit of a light weight when he's pressed on the things he's complaining about.
Click to expand...

Because he's on the panel.

He was the only one on the panel who was willing to raise the issue and cast aside the nonsense about immigration, that's important and worthy. UKIP poll high enough to suggest that there is a significant number of disaffected people who don't understand what the problem is, if Brand can bring their attention away from UKIP and immigration and go a tiny way to uniting people against the actual problems in society then he's doing a good thing. I don't care if he doesn't have answers, there are people who do who are being ignored and have been for a while. If you're looking for a comedian to provide your answers for you then that says more about you than him.
 
Dion said:
Because he's on the panel.

He was the only one on the panel who was willing to raise the issue and cast aside the nonsense about immigration, that's important and worthy. UKIP poll high enough to suggest that there is a significant number of disaffected people who don't understand what the problem is, if Brand can bring their attention away from UKIP and immigration and go a tiny way to uniting people against the actual problems in society then he's doing a good thing. I don't care if he doesn't have answers, there are people who do who are being ignored and have been for a while. If you're looking for a comedian to provide your answers for you then that says more about you than him.
Click to expand...

He didn't do much of any of that except have a go at Farage, which was neither funny nor substantive. He was basically a panel version of the crazy woman in the top row was screaming racism at everything.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
To be fair though most of the people on any question time panel could have that criticism levelled at them and of those who put forward any solutions most won't work, and are ideas that benefit them dressed up to be solutions for everyone.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I was just a bit underwhelmed at Brand's performance. He seemed to go anonymous for lengthy stretches and had to resort to index cards to remember what he wanted to talk about. A far cry from his YouTube clips where he can edit himself into a more flattering light.
 
Raoul said:
He didn't do much of any of that except have a go at Farage, which was neither funny nor substantive. He was basically a panel version of the crazy woman in the top row was screaming racism at everything.
Click to expand...

He did though didn't he? Just because you don't like the manner he delivered it doesn't mean it didn't happen. He had a few too many personal attacks on Farage, but that doesn't invalidate everything he said. His points about immigration being a smokescreen and Farage's background not being the "working man" he portrays it are important and simple points that need to be made but aren't.
 
Dion said:
Because it strips away the best staff from comprehensive schools and makes an already two tier system universal across the country. It's fine for the people who get into grammar schools, but for the people left behind it's no solution at all and those people still feel completely disconnected for the elite. Simply put you aren't going to solve the disillusionment.

The issue of politicians all coming from a small group of people is a problem, but grammar schools aren't the answer. Our education system is chronically under-funded but we have more top class universities with people from a large range of backgrounds than we ever have. The problem isn't solved by getting a few plebs into Oxbridge, it's solved by recognising the excellence of all the other institutions across the country.
Click to expand...
Absolutely that, selection should not be taking place when a kid's 11.
 
Anyone watching George Galloway here?:lol:
 
Cheesy said:
Anyone watching George Galloway here?:lol:
Click to expand...

Yeah.

It seems the best way to be heard on Question Time these days is to not bother waiting to picked by Dimbleby. Just shout loudly over other audience members and the panelists and the mic will be brought over to you.
 
Jippy said:
Is he banging on about Israel again?
Click to expand...

Yeah. Was quiet for a while, but then it came to the subject and he's went with it. To be fair, he has argued that people who advocate free speech are just trying to shout him down, although he's still reverted to his usual nutter self a bit.
 
Amethyst said:
Yeah.

It seems the best way to be heard on Question Time these days is to not bother waiting to picked by Dimbleby. Just shout loudly over other audience members and the panelists and the mic will be brought over to you.
Click to expand...

Audience members were continuously shouting over him. All a bit of a mess.

The BBC knew what they were doing.
 
Galloway irritates me, but I do think he has some valid points on Israel. The conflation between Zionism and Jewishness is also completely valid. They aren't the same thing, yet to be anti-zionist is often regarded as being anti-Semitic, which is just plain wrong (and slightly slanderous).

Also, it does irritate me that politicians fall over themselves to condemn attacks on Jewish people but rarely seem to care when the it's a Muslim who's being attacked or targeted. I guess it's more politically expedient to support anything remotely related to Israel in this current epoch.
 
Cheesy said:
Yeah. Was quiet for a while, but then it came to the subject and he's went with it. To be fair, he has argued that people who advocate free speech are just trying to shout him down, although he's still reverted to his usual nutter self a bit.
Click to expand...
Only saw the last five mins. That jew at the end was almost defending him.
 
Jippy said:
Only saw the last five mins. That jew at the end was almost defending him.
Click to expand...
There was a group near the front who seemed to have come on the show just to shout constantly at Galloway, "you aren't welcome in London!", "you defend Hezbollah!" over and over. They ended up looking like the dicks themselves to be honest which, when you're arguing with Galloway, is a difficult situation to end up in.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
Galloway irritates me, but I do think he has some valid points on Israel. The conflation between Zionism and Jewishness is also completely valid. They aren't the same thing, yet to be anti-zionist is often regarded as being anti-Semitic, which is just plain wrong (and slightly slanderous).

Also, it does irritate me that politicians fall over themselves to condemn attacks on Jewish people but rarely seem to care when the it's a Muslim who's being attacked or targeted. I guess it's more politically expedient to support anything remotely related to Israel in this current epoch.
Click to expand...
I'm not taking any sides in this argument, but I've seen and heard young Jews and Muslims use this exact same line about the other, so many times.
 
ThierryHenry said:
I'm not taking any sides in this argument, but I've seen and heard young Jews and Muslims use this exact same line about the other, so many times.
Click to expand...

Well, I suppose you're probably right. If you're Jewish, then it will feel like politicians aren't doing enough to protect you, and vice versa for Muslims. I'm neither Jewish nor Muslim, but it just seems like defending Jewish people is a lot more "safe" -- thus more prevalent -- than defending Muslims. Maybe for obvious reasons, but it always makes me more than a little suspicious of those political types who defend one group of people but seem afraid to extend the same courtesy to another.

Also, and I don't want to sound like a member of the tin-foil brigade here, but whenever Israel is in the spotlight for its various acts of inhumanity in the Middle East, stories like these generally seem to surface. I wonder if the intention behind them is to arouse sympathy for the Jewish people and thus deflect from Israel's actions with a "Well, with the rise of anti-semitism lately, who could blame Israel for wanting to protect itself".

Honestly, bigotry is unacceptable in any form, but the media often twist things to serve their own narrative (depending on the outlet).
 
Last edited:
Mciahel Goodman said:
Well, I suppose you're probably right. If you're Jewish, then it will feel like politicians aren't doing enough to protect you, and vice versa for Muslims. I'm neither Jewish nor Muslim, but it just seems like defending Jewish people is a lot more "safe" -- thus more prevalent -- than defending Muslims. Maybe for obvious reasons, but it always makes me more than a little suspicious of those political types who defend one group of people but seem afraid to extend the same courtesy to another.
Click to expand...
I think the difference might be partially an age/ geographical thing too. There's so much antisemetic sentiment among young (often Muslim) people in London, that can be impossible to criticise in certain groups.

Obviously you're right that it's more often the opposite among older generations though.
 
Just watched this there. Those three Jewish lads sat near the front need to take a good look at themselves and the way they presented themselves on television. Wankers.

Embarrassing performance and Question Time is getting ruined on a weekly basis by scumbags in the audience that the BBC can't, or simply won't, control. Dimbleby is well past his best and the programme, which although remains soft political entertainment, only serves to put people off serious politics while highlighting the huge amount of raving crackpots that live in our society. Those young Jews being just three examples.
 
Kag said:
Just watched this there. Those three Jewish lads sat near the front need to take a good look at themselves and the way they presented themselves on television. Wankers.

Embarrassing performance and Question Time is getting ruined on a weekly basis by scumbags in the audience that the BBC can't, or simply won't, control. Dimbleby is well past his best and the programme, which although remains soft political entertainment, only serves to put people off serious politics while highlighting the huge amount of raving crackpots that live in our society. Those young Jews being just three examples.
Click to expand...
What did they do?
 
Good job there was the fracas at the end, otherwise people might have remembered how badly the labour representative had done through out the entire programme.
 
CircusMonkey said:
Good job there was the fracas at the end, otherwise people might have remembered how badly the labour representative had done through out the entire programme.
Click to expand...
Hunt was rubbish but no worse than Morgan and they were both eclipsed by uber-klutz Odone. I really don't know why I bother with it any more since the standard of panellist (like the standard of politicians) has steadily dumbed down.
 
Last edited:
CircusMonkey said:
Good job there was the fracas at the end, otherwise people might have remembered how badly the labour representative had done through out the entire programme.
Click to expand...

Is it just me, or is Tristam (or whatever his name his) an absolute wanker? Labour have really fallen far from their mandate of working class representation. Just a pale shade of blue shite these days.

The brief for Question Time these days appears to be "look as (prime) ministerial as possible, whilst speaking solely in meaningless platitudes designed to court applause from the galley".
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
Well,

Also, and I don't want to sound like a member of the tin-foil brigade here, but whenever Israel is in the spotlight for its various acts of inhumanity in the Middle East, stories like these generally seem to surface. I wonder if the intention behind them is to arouse sympathy for the Jewish people and thus deflect from Israel's actions with a "Well, with the rise of anti-semitism lately, who could blame Israel for wanting to protect itself".
Click to expand...

Why not go one step further (and thats all it is) and accuse Israeli agents of the atrocities in Paris?
 
I can't watch QT much because the audience are such sheep.

Someone says something, they all clap, the next person says the opposite, they all clap that. The Tory says something, some people start to clap, realise that they aren't supposed to be clapping the Tory, and the clapping peters out. The invited comedian says something, (why do they invite a comedian on to a political debate?), everybody claps, no matter what bollocks they spout.

A lot of idiots clapping but not really being sure what they are clapping at or for.
 
But do you not think, in a room full of 200 odd people, it is to be expected that two contradictory opinions could get a round of applause? It may not be the same people clapping each time. When the camera scans the crowd during a round of applause you can always see a few people sitting there not clapping with a scowl on their face.

This reminds me of the criticism people always make of this place. "Everyone said Rooney was shit last week, then he scored a goal and now everyone loves him again." Maybe... or maybe last week all the Rooney haters were posting a load of stuff, and then when he scored all the people who like him cited is as evidence he is still great, and the people who hate him have nothing much to say.

Im not saying there arent people who will clap everything that is said, or who will post bile against a player one week and then praise the same player the next. But Im sure those people are in a minority. I mean, why would someone go to the effort of attending QT if their political opinions were so malleable? Surely on the whole the overwhelming majority of people bothering to apply and then make the journey to a studio to watch QT are politics junkies?
 
Colin129 said:
I can't watch QT much because the audience are such sheep.

Someone says something, they all clap, the next person says the opposite, they all clap that. The Tory says something, some people start to clap, realise that they aren't supposed to be clapping the Tory, and the clapping peters out. The invited comedian says something, (why do they invite a comedian on to a political debate?), everybody claps, no matter what bollocks they spout.

A lot of idiots clapping but not really being sure what they are clapping at or for.
Click to expand...

Fairly accurate, I don't watch it any more. The last one I saw was the one about Scottish Independence with the fruitcake bloke in the audience.
 
Fearless said:
Why not go one step further (and thats all it is) and accuse Israeli agents of the atrocities in Paris?
Click to expand...

I know, it's ridiculous... maybe a thought for a "weird feelings of politics" thread.
 
Colin129 said:
I can't watch QT much because the audience are such sheep.

Someone says something, they all clap, the next person says the opposite, they all clap that. The Tory says something, some people start to clap, realise that they aren't supposed to be clapping the Tory, and the clapping peters out. The invited comedian says something, (why do they invite a comedian on to a political debate?), everybody claps, no matter what bollocks they spout.

A lot of idiots clapping but not really being sure what they are clapping at or for.
Click to expand...

That's a more eloquent summary of everything I meant to say. 100% agree.
 
The programme is coming from Scotland tonight. I would describe proceedings as prickly, with the exception of some amusement at dinner party etiquette.
 
Glad she's picked up on that. I really hate the way the SNP act as if they speak with "Scotland's voice" on every issue.
 
Lord Falconer with the best contribution to this EU debate. Not terribly difficult mind, with the rest of the panel being all over the lace.

This guy from the Spectator is more long-winded than a pregnant cow with a double craving of beans and Brussels sprouts. Blimey.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.