Thursday, May 21, 2009

Public Service Announcement

The BBC, in its infinite wisdom, has moved Question Time forward tonight to 9pm. On the panel are William Hague, Vince Cable, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, Marta Andreasen and the political colossus that is Ben Bradshaw. You'd have thought Labour might have put up one of its big guns tonight like Geoff Hoon, James Purnell, Hazel Blears, Alistair Darling or Jack Straw. Ah, I see. I've just realised what they have in common...

36 comments:

Grumpy Old Man said...

It looked like being a noteworthy panel until I saw Jasmin Alibhy Brown......

Man in a Shed said...

So that's the usual loaded panel from the BBC then ....

One Tory ( who will be interrupted by the chairman if they start to make any headway followed by at least 3 versions of left wing politics from Red Vince onwards ). What the Spanish Lady from the EU will make of who knows...

KP said...

bradshaw is strange choice. Alan Johnson? Ed Miliband? not tainted by recent events at all a claim not many members of the cabinet can make unfortunatley.

charles.aptaker said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Plato said...

I do hope that Hague will mash them.

If the best Labour can come with is Ben 'BBC' Bradshaw who has already been named by the DT - then...

*shit storm at prime time forecast*

denverthen said...

Lol.

I'll be watching for the sheer entertainment value. After the delicious roasting of Rosa Klebb last week, Ben Bradshaw will be quaking in his tax deductible brogues.

Top telly.

Wrinkled Weasel said...

I wonder if Bradshaw will reprise his squeal of "homophobia" over his listing in the Daily Telegaph, as reported recently in Pink News. Poor Ben. He had better have a joint before he goes on to calm down.

Yasmin is a national treasure. She should be buried.

Mirtha Tidville said...

packed full of leftie toadies...`alibi for Broon` being the worst....best avoided dont want to make the blood pressure worse.

Anonymous said...

James Purnell doesn't live at his constituency address, per his neighbours. His ACA claim is therefore based on a falsehood.

I've rang the Met about it, wanting to make a complaint against him. I have been told the police will not log complaints on this; a policy decision has simply been made to tell people to contact the Commissioner for Parliamentary standards. But they say they can only look into allegations that a member has breached the Parliamentary code of Conduct.

So there you have it. MP's are above the law. You can't even complain to the police about theft any more.

What kind of country do we live in?

James Burdett said...

So Yasmin and Vince will form with David Dimbleby the Pompously Self Important section of the panel.

orientalsage said...

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown is a complete deal-breaker for me when it comes to QT. Anyone remember the utterly stupid, appeasing nonsense she spouted on the programme just after the 9/11 attacks? Truly unforgiveable.

Hague and Cable have intellect, but not enough to compensate for having to listen to YA-B.

UB41 said...

ooh, just think of those poor folks who haven't heard the change in time.

When they tune in all expectantly they will be met with.....

A party political broadcast by the labour party.

roman said...

I suppose we should feel lucky Stephen Fry hasn't been invited too.

Simon said...

Usual dismal panel. No doubt they'll all agree that "the system" is wrong. I've given up watching QT as it is so boring with a LibLabCon consensus on just about everything. Last one I watched I turned off in disgust, fed up with hearing them all saying "I agree with you."

I'd get Nick Griffin and Anjem Choudray on, at least that would be worth watching.

It doesn't add up... said...

Read their bios... Ex BBC, ex BBC, another left wing journo.

Is the licence fee for the BBC party, or just the champagne after the 1997 election?

Anonymous said...

Naughty - but made me laugh out loud.

Nigel said...

>>Anonymous said...
James Purnell doesn't live at his constituency address, per his neighbours.<<

True.

>>His ACA claim is therefore based on a falsehood.<<

Actually his ACA claim is based on the Green Book definitions, which leave broad latitude in defining which home is which.

There is a lovely get out clause at the beginning of the Green Book:

The Department is expected to bring to the attention of individual Members instances where they may appear to be vulnerable to criticism or accusations of impropriety.Purnell may be an immoral shit, but as far as criminal action is concerned, I think the police are taking a sensible view on this one.

The only MPs likely to face prosecution are those who have claimed mortgage interest on non-existent mortgages. There can be no argument about definitions there.

Oldrightie said...

A dreadful but so typical of Pravda. When the radio programme "Any Questions was scheduled for Ludlow they limited the tickets for BBC "guests". On the night there were many empty seats. Not permissible to have a real audience, the buggers tunneled in last week.

Wrinkled Weasel said...

Man in a shed, it's not just the panel that is loaded. The questionnaire for QT makes sure they get the "right" audience, who will hiss and boo anybody with a non liberal left wing bias.

If you want to know what people really think, take a ride in a black cab.

G.O.T. said...

No Labour MPs, eh.
I wonder if its got anything to do with this?

You scratch my back etc.

Old Holborn said...

I'm selling rope and piano wire outside the Studio.

JMB said...

Can the police refuse to log a complaint?

I can understand they can refuse to investigate a complaint but it should be logged.

Perhaps a complaint should be made to the IPCC of possible police corruption.

jailhouselawyer said...

Hazel Blears a big gun? I am reminded of a gun that backfires...

karltop said...

it's true!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/1858613.stm


Incredible...

cherami said...

Perhaps why Labour have put up whom they have.

From today's Telegraph:

"The Prime Minister insisted there was "no problem" with financial arrangements that meant neither minister paid capital gains tax on second homes," the ministers being Hoon and Purnell.

So much for Brown 'cleaning up politics.'

Teri said...

Cheers Iain. I'd have just tuned in at normal time and been well fucked off at missing it.

So is this a regular thing or what?

Hope it;s a good one:)

Anonymous said...

Constitutional Bradshaw Radical = Twat

Anonymous said...

hague was useless.

Anonymous said...

The new (and I think one off) programme time was trailed 3 days ago, in fact I've never seen as many adverts for QT before this week. I think they were hoping for a humdinger, alas it wasn't to be.

SiTush said...

I missed it, and it will not be subtitled on iPlayer (or at least it wasn't when I last tried iPlayer). I usually PVR the thing and am royally pissed off to have missed tonight. How much notice did the BBC give of this change of schedule, which admittedly did mean that I recorded This Week?

I can understand the schedulers' (predictable) argument for the timeshift - more than usual public interest, so move to a more prominent slot - but to do so in the manner which appears to have happened is simply not acceptable.

Plaudits to you for pointing out the change in the early evening, but of no use for those of us who were out and still working at 10pm & so not able to fidget with the domestic gadgets. Not your fault, obviously, and I'll have to see about turning on the feature to program my PVR via SMS in future - but how many people, other than geeks like me, even know that they can do this, let alone set it up.

The BBC should repeat the programme, with suitable notice, on mainstream broadcasting. Not the edited version which they throw out, but the real thing.

Paul Linford said...

I've never been a huge fan of Bradshaw but I thought he did very well in presenting himself as a reformer without actually being remotely disloyal to the government. Probably worthy of a Cabinet job on that performance - there will be quite a few up for grabs soon.

Oscar Miller said...

A dismal dismal affair. I can't understand the way the myth is perpetuated that Martin Bell was 'independent' years after Alistair Campbell revealed his candidacy in Tatton was all a new Labour scam. It's all in his diaries:

Thurs March 27 1997Sleaze was big again. I had the thought that we should field a single anti-Hamilton, independent, anti-corruption candidate in Tatton. I rang around for a few thoughts and most people were up for it. GB said he had been thinking of the same thing.

Fri March 28 1997... it was mainly about Tatton and the plan, agreed yesterday, to pull out our man and get the Lib Dems to do the same and try to get a single anti-corruption candidate...We would pile the pressure on the Tories, get days of good coverage out of their problems, and if we got the right candidate it would become one of THE stories of the election, run the whole way through and Hamilton would probably lose his seat at the end."

Fri April 4 1997"Martin Bell ... said he would like to be the anti-corruption candidate. It was perfect. ... I spoke to Bell, who said he would love to do it if we would have him".

Saturday March 29 1997"The Hamilton scam was a rare total triumph, the splash I think in all the heavies, and a good show in the tabloids, big on the broadcasts today. Peter M was worried it would unravel at the candidate's press conference, but I had a long chat with him and with David Evans before they did it, then set off with the boys for Burnley."

So much for independence. Campbell was only interested in anti-sleaze as a political gambit and Martin Bell needed to revive his flagging career. It never had anything to do with a sincere desire to clean-up Westminster.

Anonymous said...

Guess what...I switched on the TV at the normal time and ended up watching Brillo and his pals!

strapworld said...

I admire William Hague. He has an excellent brain. Good Humour and talks sense. However last evening on Question Time he was simply awful!

Started off well but would not condemn those tory mp's found with their fingers and toes in the till!

I was quite impressed by the ukip treasurer and EU whistleblower. The few opportunities she had she was good.

Vince Cable looked uncomfortable and, really, it was rather like the politicians were coconuts on that fairground attraction! Especially unfair in relation to Hague and Cable.

Bradshaw was desperate trying to convince the audience and viewer that he was in the vanguard for change. He was constantly trying to allign himself with the man in the white suit!

Now, i am sorry, but that man in the white suit was very poor. I got the impression, probably unfairly, that he had been drinking. His speech sounded slurred to me. What he said did not make much sense either.

I do not like the woman. I groaned when I saw her on the panel but, apart from wanting the general election to be in a year, I thought Jasmin Brown was very good.

I do agree with you iain, in relation to Dimbleby. A chairman is there to facilitate not dominate. He is certainly no Robin Day. Time for a new Chairman.

Perhaps this could be another opportunity for that new star of radio, one Iain Dale Esq ?

Anonymous said...

It is being repeated.

Saturday, I think.

I missed it too. Don't know if I can be bothered watching it now, since nothing exciting seems to have happened....

SiTush said...

@ Anonymous, 22 May 09:35

Yes, but the Saturday 23 May 2030 version on BBC News is the cut-down 30 minute jobby. The version which apparently will be broadcast on Parliament on the same day is a waste of space - a niche channel, which rarely broadcasts subtitles even when the original program was so enhanced, and which certainly in my area (Bury South) seems to be incredibly erratic in reception - and I say this with reference to numerous points of reception, not merely my own domestic situation. I've no idea whether the BBC Parliament version is 30 mins or 60, nor am I likely to check because of the aforesaid.