Francis Maude gets booed on QT

Just watched an interesting moment on BBC Question Time. On a question about "The Big Society", Francis Maude went into the usual spiel about how Labour left all that bebt...

....hardly were the words out of his mouth when a huge BOO! went up from the audience!

It's here ......and it's astonishing.

It's not so long since the same sentence would have got a cheer or at least a clap.

Are people getting sick of it already....?

Bad news for the coalition. Good news for those of us that want the government to have a sensible economic strategy based on the facts and not on blaming someone else for their own decisions....

Can Glasgow Host Question Time?

The Herald reports that Ed Havard, the editor of the BBC's Question Time programme, has quit over the proposal to move the production of the show to Glasgow.

The show's host, David Dimbleby has been reported in the past as being unhappy with the move. Today the Guardian says he is "furious" at losing the "brilliant" editor, who was apparently hand-picked by Dimbleby to do the job.

Mr Havard is free to work in any city that he wants and which will have him, but TBH, I have not been over-impressed by QT in recent years. It seems that the reppeated appearence of "controversial" contributors such as the historian David Starkey (the so-called rudest man in England) has been programme policy. The result is more controversy and more attention given to the programme at the cost (IMO) of a higher level of debate.Since the editor makes the choice of contributor, I would doubt his acclaimed "brilliance".

In any case, I can see no reson why Glasgow cannot produce the show as well as London: the programme travels all over the UK, the production centre is, or at least should be, irrelevant.

Tories Attack the BBC (via the Sun)

Today's Sun has an online article  (no idea if it is in the printed paper) claiming that the BBC is biased against the Tories. Among the many accusations were claims that;

"The Sun's analysis" showed Labour politicians on Question Time were allowed to speak for a full minute longer than Tory counterparts.

On March 11 ex-Labour minister Caroline Flint got SIX minutes more than Tory Justine Greenings.

And on February 18 Labour veteran Roy Hattersley spoke for nearly three minutes longer than Tory Rory Stewart.

Last week bosses tried to make Mr Cameron look a laughing stock by putting out footage of him checking his hair in the wind before making a serious statement on Northern Ireland. Party chiefs complained.

A POLL on The One Show ignored issues with Gordon Brown to ask only, Is David Cameron too much of a toff to be PM? (the BBC later apologised).

Then last Sunday BBC2's Basil Brush Show featured nasty "Dave" - complete with blue rosette. He beat nice Rosie, with a purple rosette, by promising free ice cream but was arrested because it was out of date.

Last night the BBC admitted the One Show slot was "not as good as it should have been".

But a spokeswoman insisted: "The notion that the BBC is biased in is palpably not true. Our news coverage scrutinises all parties with rigour and impartiality."

So is it true?

Even allowing that the "Sun's analysis" on Question Time speaking allowances is accurate, it would not be surprising if Government spokesmen took longer to respond. They are usually defending attacks from at least two hostile guests (a Tory and a Lib Dem), plus the "celebrity guest" could be a Tory as well (two weeks ago Carol Voderman was openly Tory). So it is not unreasonable that a Labour representative would get time to address the various attacks, from two or three other guests, on their position.

It could be also that the Labour representative has more to say, and is a better speaker, that is certainly the case with Caroline Flint/Justine Greenings.

As for Roy Hattersley speaking for three minutes longer than Rory Stewart: well, I've heard of Roy Hattersley....

The other claims may or may not be trivial, but I'm grateful to the Sun for bringing the Basil Brush story to my notice: I think it's priceless, if  a little naughty. But does it outweigh the Sun's relentless daily attacks on Labour and its corresponding and unstinting support for the Tories? I think not...

The truth is the Sun has pledged its support to the Tories for this election and in return the Tories have promised, if elected, to weaken the BBC and let Murdoch take large chunks of the corporation's TV and online business.

It's not a secret, the Tories have already said they would abolish the BBC Trust, they have threatened the licence fee and have made other veiled threats against the BBC.

I find it interesting that the Conservatives oppose the BBC, the NHS and the Trades Unions: all the organisations that ordinary Britons love and support and depend upon. They pretend to be patriotic but they attack those institutions which make Britain the country it is and which serve the majority of UK citizens.
 
As for the Sun: if it wasn't for the effect of its poisonous influence on public life in the UK nothing would be more pleasurable than to ignore it completely. But if the Tories win the upcoming election, the Sun will  want to extract its pound of flesh. Heaven help social cohesion and public discourse then.

Question Time and What to Make of it

It's Make Up Your Mind Time....

In recent years I have not been a great fan of Question Time.

For a start, I frequently go for a pint with some old friends on a Thursday, so I miss it a lot of the time. But when I have seen it, there's been a sort of pent up hatred of politics and politicians, a knee jerk cynicism and  urge to blame that cuts across any reasoned position that the panel might want to take. Perhaps understandable given the events of the last few years with expenses scandals and unpopular wars and recessions. And of course, this emotional-spasm-personal-grudge approach to the issues favours the likes of the Tories and UKIP. It suits them to whip up fear and loathing and keep the focus off their policies, such as they are.

But my wife loves it and when I'm at home it is usually on. So last night I sat down to watch it, but with no real enthusiasm. I was pleasantly surprised. The programme was broadcast from London, and it was actually quite balanced. 

The panel was Boris Johnson (Tory), Carol Voderman (who is quite openly Tory too), Will Self (novelist), Shirley Williams and Andrew Adonis. Even with two Tories and Will Self, who is quite a contrarian and entertaining with it, the audience wasn't led astray, they stuck to the real politics. In fact I would say that the audience was the star of the show.

Boris was trying his old charmimg fool schtick, but it's running a bit thin, and the fool noticeably outweighed the charmer. As for Carol Voderman, not a lot you can say with the libel laws as they are.


Andrew Adonis and Shirley Williams were measured and sensible, and David Dimbleby was revealed as a Buller! Just like Bo and Dave, waddyaknow....?

And there were no knee-jerk anti-government or anti-politics cheers. The audience seemed thoughtful and were certainly not baying for blood. On the Aschroft affair and the Bulger case they were, if anything, more measured than the panel, certainly more measured and intelligent than Carol Voderman.

As I say, the audience was the star: they asked good questions and made good comments and responses, without showing too clearly thieir own political inclinations. The over-all impresion I got was of the public weighing the options and making up its collective mind.

Ten weeks to go and all to play for.... Looking at the polls even three months ago, whodda thunk it?