BBC Television programmes  permalink

Question time

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 50 of 54
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by George H Bleasby (U15839990) on Saturday, 14th September 2013

    I think the idea of this programme is excellent, except the panel members generally argue amongst themselves and do not respect opposing views.
    This occurs fairly regularly and to such an extent that I generally switch off. It follows that I rarely see a complete programme. May I respectfully suggest a bit more chairmanship control.

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by William Blessing (U14578406) on Saturday, 14th September 2013

    I agree. Perhaps each contributor could have to begin with 60 seconds of uninterrupted speech and then a green goes red.

    Also the chairman should not have a view. He should simple ensure panellists do not interrupt each other. No more. No less.

    At the moment it's like a row in a playground. I can't watch it for more than 30 seconds as everyone is spouting party lines endlessly.

    And political correctness rules like the invisible man.

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by st3ph3n (U13643748) on Sunday, 15th September 2013

    Dimbleby has the annoying habit of going to the audience after just one, or two, speakers have spoken which is rude to those yet to speak.
    The audience should not be included until all panellists have spoken on any question.
    Why they have five on the panel now is puzzling - Four is quite enough for a discussion or conflicting opinions

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by Lighten Up (U15801316) on Monday, 16th September 2013

    I sometimes think the politicians on the panel have been specifically instructed by their parties to interrupt and shout down their opponents. This tactic would make sense because it a) deprives the viewers of hearing their opponents' policies explained in full and b) unnerves their opponents and makes them appear feeble and confused.

    Much firmer chairmanship is required from David Dimbleby.

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by zencat (U14877400) on Monday, 16th September 2013

    And political correctness rules like the invisible man. 
    Except when Nigel Farage is on... smiley - winkeye

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by pennyork (U13858151) on Tuesday, 17th September 2013

    QT was a much better programmes years ago when Robin Day chaired a panel of three. No PC crap, good plain honest cut and thrust. The present QT has two many panellists, same old faces, too much PC, all frightened to go against their Party line in case it impacts on their career. It is so so boring. And just who picks the audiences as most of their views do not reflect the views of the general public at large. I feel between the panellists and the chosen audiences I must be living in another country!!

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by Bonny (U14396592) on Tuesday, 17th September 2013

    QT was a much better programmes years ago when Robin Day chaired a panel of three. No PC crap, good plain honest cut and thrust. The present QT has two many panellists, same old faces, too much PC, all frightened to go against their Party line in case it impacts on their career. It is so so boring. And just who picks the audiences as most of their views do not reflect the views of the general public at large. I feel between the panellists and the chosen audiences I must be living in another country!!  Totally agree. smiley - ok

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by mcharding (U14347839) on Wednesday, 18th September 2013

    QT was a much better programmes years ago when Robin Day chaired a panel of three. No PC crap, good plain honest cut and thrust. The present QT has two many panellists, same old faces, too much PC, all frightened to go against their Party line in case it impacts on their career. It is so so boring. And just who picks the audiences as most of their views do not reflect the views of the general public at large. I feel between the panellists and the chosen audiences I must be living in another country!!  Totally agree. smiley - ok  Ditto- fully agree with all the points you made- I am even more disenchanted that it is edited before it goes out on screen so any one saying something that does not line up with bbc/labour /lefty agenda can be edited out /cut or edited to make them foolish! And the audiences are carefully edited too....

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by briggsy2 (U1288489) on Thursday, 19th September 2013

    Perhaps it should go out live.

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by beerhead (U15819967) on Saturday, 5th October 2013

    I'm really into politics but haven't watched QT for yonks. It's too dull. For LIVELY debate where people aren't afraid to express themselves fully (and in plain language) I watch Al Jazera and RT... Admittedly the presenter sometimes jumps on them if they don't say the "right thing" but at least it's not dull.

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by FireChief (U14317872) on Saturday, 5th October 2013

    Even in the day's of Robin he had four guests not three. The programme is still an hour long with the fifth member. I think to accommodate this extra mouth they should extend the programme by fifteen minutes. And the audience has shrunk since its inception.

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by susiesar (U10941938) on Saturday, 5th October 2013

    QT was a much better programmes years ago when Robin Day chaired a panel of three. No PC crap, good plain honest cut and thrust. The present QT has two many panellists, same old faces, too much PC, all frightened to go against their Party line in case it impacts on their career. It is so so boring. And just who picks the audiences as most of their views do not reflect the views of the general public at large. I feel between the panellists and the chosen audiences I must be living in another country!!  Totally agree. smiley - ok  Ditto- fully agree with all the points you made- I am even more disenchanted that it is edited before it goes out on screen so any one saying something that does not line up with bbc/labour /lefty agenda can be edited out /cut or edited to make them foolish! And the audiences are carefully edited too....  Do you have proof of the BBC/lefty agenda or are you just quoting the right wing press,.

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by FlavaDave (U15695058) on Saturday, 5th October 2013

    I have read some of these points of view about Question Time.

    My point of view is 'why not freshen up the format?' and because it is now 2013 - the show has been on for 50 years now - 'let's really freshen up the format but keep the title because it's well known and use the title to focus our new format on with it'.

    Each question should be given exactly two minutes each question. Two minutes for each question. The answerer or answereress is picked at random and they have two minutes to answer it. Once the two minutes is up, their microphone is cut and the graphics department must pixelate them immediately. Then onto the next question and so on.

    The whole show needs to be jazzed up with graphics so I think you would use a clock obviously for the two or three minutes but I thought an hourglass because its a nod to the 50th episode where they were all presented with an hourglass for getting the questions right. Once the time is up you could have the glass smash up and overlay that graphic on the answering party so it looked like the glass had smashed over their face and they had to stop talking. This would mean future panelists would take it more seriously if they saw that on screen at home or in the office.

    This would stop the interupts and let us all hear the answers to more questions. You would not even need a chairman but you probably would keep one as a nod to the 50 years heritage. But what about PC. I think that PC is good because no one is offended and you still keep what the question is about but use nice language to ask it and do not slur anyone.

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by aquarius (U8185439) on Saturday, 5th October 2013

    Do you like watching American television, I wonder !!!

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by Tom Adustus (U9467814) on Saturday, 5th October 2013

    And political correctness rules like the invisible man. 
    Except when Nigel Farage is on... smiley - winkeye 


    One of the best Question Time panellists of recent years. He is always good value.

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by Tom Adustus (U9467814) on Saturday, 5th October 2013

    QT was a much better programmes years ago when Robin Day chaired a panel of three. No PC crap, good plain honest cut and thrust. The present QT has two many panellists, same old faces, too much PC, all frightened to go against their Party line in case it impacts on their career. It is so so boring. And just who picks the audiences as most of their views do not reflect the views of the general public at large. I feel between the panellists and the chosen audiences I must be living in another country!!  Totally agree. smiley - ok  Ditto- fully agree with all the points you made- I am even more disenchanted that it is edited before it goes out on screen so any one saying something that does not line up with bbc/labour /lefty agenda can be edited out /cut or edited to make them foolish! And the audiences are carefully edited too....  Do you have proof of the BBC/lefty agenda or are you just quoting the right wing press,. 

    It is very difficult for the programme to avoid a left wing audience.

    You can apply for tickets, but most tickets are given out by the BBC directly to organisations like political parties, Trade Unions, Local Authorities, schools, colleges and Charities. Most of the people in the audience have, therefore, a vested interest in the public sector and not the wealth producing private sector.

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by germinator (U13411914) on Saturday, 5th October 2013

    Great idea FlavaDave, but have you given no thought to the music/sound effects potential and the questioners and questioneresses?

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by FireChief (U14317872) on Saturday, 5th October 2013

    I take it you're having a laugh Flava?

    But your maths is a bit off. QT started in 1979, not exactly 50 years.

    I sense you are a connoisseur of the quiz genre and lack the necessary to appreciate QT in its usual form.

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by William Blessing (U14578406) on Saturday, 5th October 2013

    The idea of "free speech" is a complete myth. We all know even from the editing out of our discussions here, anything that departs from the "party line".

    And the name of the party is? The BBC Party. And what a swell party it is.

    Cue referral to a "moderator! and editing out.

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by banjax (U14499510) on Saturday, 5th October 2013

    "It is very difficult for the programme to avoid a left wing audience.

    You can apply for tickets, but most tickets are given out by the BBC directly to organisations like political parties, Trade Unions, Local Authorities, schools, colleges and Charities. Most of the people in the audience have, therefore, a vested interest in the public sector and not the wealth producing private sector."


    Can you provide evidence of this please Tom Adustus.

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by Tom Adustus (U9467814) on Tuesday, 8th October 2013

    "It is very difficult for the programme to avoid a left wing audience.

    You can apply for tickets, but most tickets are given out by the BBC directly to organisations like political parties, Trade Unions, Local Authorities, schools, colleges and Charities. Most of the people in the audience have, therefore, a vested interest in the public sector and not the wealth producing private sector."


    Can you provide evidence of this please Tom Adustus. 


    The same approach is used for Radio 4 "Any Questions".

    The good wife and myself have been to a couple of Question Time programmes and She Who Must Be Obeyed got the chance to ask a question once.

    By the way, at all the programmes we attended, the whole audience had to submit questions in advance, you had no option, and just before the programme was recorded the Producer would come out and tell the audience who was selected so that the camera operators knew where to look. Also, the the programmes themselves were recorded a couple of hours before transmission and we were able to get home to watch.

    We got our tickets from the school where my wife teaches. The school had a letter from the BBC offering a dozen or so tickets.

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by MAY-DAY (U14316705) on Tuesday, 8th October 2013

    You didn't say when this was, Tom.

    My hunch (which I admit IS just a hunch; I've never applied myself) is that, precisely to stave off accusations of bias, the BBC would NOT offer block tickets to ANY organisation or body - however benign or politically neutral.

    I tend to agree with the others on all four current QT threads (count 'em!) who say it is done on a fairly random, first come first served, basis.

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by Tom Adustus (U9467814) on Tuesday, 8th October 2013

    You didn't say when this was, Tom.

    My hunch (which I admit IS just a hunch; I've never applied myself) is that, precisely to stave off accusations of bias, the BBC would NOT offer block tickets to ANY organisation or body - however benign or politically neutral.

    I tend to agree with the others on all four current QT threads (count 'em!) who say it is done on a fairly random, first come first served, basis. 
    That's the way it works. If they only gave tickets to those that applied individually they may not be able to fill the studio.

    Back in the 90s when I worked as a computer programmer at the South Bank tv Centre for Granada TV we were always getting emails saying that there was an urgent demand for an audience in Studio x for some moronic daytime chat programme and our managers were expected to release us at 30 minutes notice to sit at the back and look interested. Of course, we were not allowed to ask questions or take active part apart from clapping or pretending to laugh.

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by Bananas are the best (U15650112) on Tuesday, 8th October 2013

    That's the way it works. If they only gave tickets to those that applied individually they may not be able to fill the studio. 
    But that is VERY different from your original claim.

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 24.

    Posted by William Blessing (U14578406) on Tuesday, 8th October 2013

    Guess what. Nobody is interested any more in BBC controlled Propaganda. We've heard it all before.

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by Lighten Up (U15801316) on Wednesday, 9th October 2013

    I accept that it's first come first served. I also accept that the audience will tend to be more left wing because most people nowadays (especially the people who can be bothered going out in the evenings) are left wing.

    Many people on the right (like me) tend to feel that the main culture wars have been lost - abortion, capital punishment, homosexuality, etc. - and that expressing your actual views just invites trouble and usually the epithet "rabid".

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by Bananas are the best (U15650112) on Wednesday, 9th October 2013

    Sorry, I really don't understand that remark; there is no such thing as BBC controlled propaganda.

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by William Blessing (U14578406) on Wednesday, 9th October 2013

    Good propaganda disguises itself so that it is not apparent.

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by maestaf (U14145694) on Wednesday, 9th October 2013

    Wow. Most of us are too stupid to recognise "the BBC controlled propaganda", but you can. You are quite something.

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by Bananas are the best (U15650112) on Wednesday, 9th October 2013

    I still don't understand, what is the propaganda?

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 30.

    Posted by William Blessing (U14578406) on Wednesday, 9th October 2013

    Most of the people most of the time?

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 31.

    Posted by Johnnymol (U14690244) on Wednesday, 9th October 2013

    Most of the people most of the time?  Well that's cleared that up then smiley - laugh

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 32.

    Posted by Bananas are the best (U15650112) on Wednesday, 9th October 2013

    I see a couple of issues that need to be clarified.

    The first is with the notion of 'left wing'. When I was growing up, this normally meant people who might loosely be termed 'Marxist', 'Anarchist' and all points far left; but generally, NOT including Socialists. However, it seems to have become a term which is used to label, often pejoratively or inappropriately, anything to the left of centre in broad terms. SO suddenly audiences for Question Time become 'left wing' when in fact they might actually be ordinary people who have no idea what it means to be left of anything, politically, let alone left wing, but whose views are 'ordinary' within the framework of their lives. I think this discussion needs to clarify what they are saying about Question Time audiences.

    My second problem is with the notion that this board does not allow free speech. It is a board with a very specific and narrow remit; the assertion that it does not allow free speech is a bit like sitting a Chemistry exam, and writing down that the examiners are unfair for only allowing answers that have something to do with Chemistry.

    It is a board run for and by the Points of View program, with the purpose of getting feedback about the BBC's own programming. It is not a place for discussing, politics, news, sport, religion, etc., in general terms, and anything that goes seroiusly off topic is moderated, except in a couple of areas. It is not a curtailment of free speech. It is simply saying that what you have said is not relevant to the the purpose of the board which is stated at the top in bold lettering. You can make your comments elsewhere, without fear of reprisal. A real curtailment of free speech would not be being told you cannot post something to the board, it would be being told that you cannot make your comment at all. That is NOT what happens on this board, it is not what happens at the BBC.

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 32.

    Posted by Johnbee (U542312) on Wednesday, 9th October 2013

    It is always enjoyable visiting these pages and reading the quaint old views.

    Such as the fact that David Dimbleby is a politically correct lefty. There are not many of them who, as did Dimbleby, went to Charterhouse public school, and joined the Bullingdon club. Isn't he married to the daughter of a Royal, or Earl or something?

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by poshHebeJeebie (U9319867) on Wednesday, 9th October 2013

    QT was a much better programmes years ago when Robin Day chaired a panel of three. No PC crap, good plain honest cut and thrust. The present QT has two many panellists, same old faces, too much PC, all frightened to go against their Party line in case it impacts on their career. It is so so boring. And just who picks the audiences as most of their views do not reflect the views of the general public at large. I feel between the panellists and the chosen audiences I must be living in another country!!  Totally agree. smiley - ok  Ditto- fully agree with all the points you made- I am even more disenchanted that it is edited before it goes out on screen so any one saying something that does not line up with bbc/labour /lefty agenda can be edited out /cut or edited to make them foolish! And the audiences are carefully edited too....  Do you have proof of the BBC/lefty agenda or are you just quoting the right wing press,.  I have always watched QT, and I have to say that it is far less interesting that it used to be.

    Now, that could be because I've become older and more cynical - or there could be a genuine deterioration in the quality of the political discourse. (Or a bit of both?)

    I cannot remember a time when the audience was perceptibly "right wing" - cheering a Tory or right wing press panel member to drown out all opposition - but it does seem to happen more often than not when there is a Labour/left wing panellist. (This is just a perception, and I can't back this up empirically).

    There is also evidence (and this really is more obvious with the Labour representatives) of some form of extreme media training - the ability to ignore all interruptions, to plough on regardless (often ignoring the original question, but simply giving out the party line) and "talking down" all opposition.

    Much as I deplore the poor IMO chairmanship of David Dimbleby, I suspect that his interruptions are a reflection of this dogmatic, almost aggressive speech-making by panellists.

    At party conferences, speeches are time-limited; it would not be inappropriate to adopt something similar on QT. And perhaps some fresh blood on the panel would be good. Suggestion: when the Green Party is on the panel, why not have a balanced panellist such as David Bellamy (remember him?) or Robin Page - countryman extraordinaire.

    Just a thought.

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by michie_19 (U14470261) on Wednesday, 9th October 2013

    I see a couple of issues that need to be clarified.

    The first is with the notion of 'left wing'. When I was growing up, this normally meant people who might loosely be termed 'Marxist', 'Anarchist' and all points far left; but generally, NOT including Socialists. However, it seems to have become a term which is used to label, often pejoratively or inappropriately, anything to the left of centre in broad terms. SO suddenly audiences for Question Time become 'left wing' when in fact they might actually be ordinary people who have no idea what it means to be left of anything, politically, let alone left wing, but whose views are 'ordinary' within the framework of their lives. I think this discussion needs to clarify what they are saying about Question Time audiences.

    My second problem is with the notion that this board does not allow free speech. It is a board with a very specific and narrow remit; the assertion that it does not allow free speech is a bit like sitting a Chemistry exam, and writing down that the examiners are unfair for only allowing answers that have something to do with Chemistry.

    It is a board run for and by the Points of View program, with the purpose of getting feedback about the BBC's own programming. It is not a place for discussing, politics, news, sport, religion, etc., in general terms, and anything that goes seroiusly off topic is moderated, except in a couple of areas. It is not a curtailment of free speech. It is simply saying that what you have said is not relevant to the the purpose of the board which is stated at the top in bold lettering. You can make your comments elsewhere, without fear of reprisal. A real curtailment of free speech would not be being told you cannot post something to the board, it would be being told that you cannot make your comment at all. That is NOT what happens on this board, it is not what happens at the BBC. 
    Well argued, HTMF. There seem to be a number of people on this thread and elsewhere accusing the 'Question Time' audience of left-wing bias. Who knows? Perhaps the Great British Public is naturally left of centre?

    The Beeb as an institution, though, is often accused of being a leftist organization. That great man of the people, Rupert Murdoch, recently tweeted that the Beeb was a 'massive taxpayer-funded mouthpiece of the tiny circulation leftist Guardian'.

    How do the rightists explain the conservative Andrew Neil, Nick Robinson, Michael Portillo and others on the BBC payroll? And the Beeb certainly seems to lean over backwards to feature right-wing panellists on QT. There was a time not so long ago when Kelvin Mackenzie seemed to be a regular fixture...

    And speaking of the Guardian, it's amazing how many Comment Is Free commentators think that David Dimbleby is a conservative and always favours right-wing views. He must be getting it just about right.

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by William Blessing (U14578406) on Wednesday, 9th October 2013

    Right all the way to the Bank.

    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by maestaf (U14145694) on Thursday, 10th October 2013

    And speaking of the Guardian, it's amazing how many Comment Is Free commentators think that David Dimbleby is a conservative and always favours right-wing views. He must be getting it just about right.  The argument that complaints from right and left indicate no bias is frequently made by, or on behalf of, the BBC and it's so silly and complacent. Where is the logic in assuming that complaints mean getting it right? Maybe Dimbleby is getting it wrong for everyone. And if two thirds of the complaints are from the right and a third from the left, does that mean he's twice as biased to the left?

    I have no idea what his role is meant to be. Is he supposed to be an advocate for the audience or a political interviewer a la Paxman et al? I suspect that's what is behind many accusations of bias.

    Report message38

  • Message 39

    , in reply to message 38.

    Posted by michie_19 (U14470261) on Thursday, 10th October 2013

    And speaking of the Guardian, it's amazing how many Comment Is Free commentators think that David Dimbleby is a conservative and always favours right-wing views. He must be getting it just about right.  The argument that complaints from right and left indicate no bias is frequently made by, or on behalf of, the BBC and it's so silly and complacent. Where is the logic in assuming that complaints mean getting it right? Maybe Dimbleby is getting it wrong for everyone. And if two thirds of the complaints are from the right and a third from the left, does that mean he's twice as biased to the left?

    I have no idea what his role is meant to be. Is he supposed to be an advocate for the audience or a political interviewer a la Paxman et al? I suspect that's what is behind many accusations of bias. 
    His role is surely meant to be as the impartial referee in a political slugging match. Maybe he doesn't get it right all the time, but the only way the Beeb would get someone completely un-biased would be to get someone entirely apolitical chairing the discussions. Would that work? I doubt it.

    And I am not saying that the BBC as an institution is infallible. I hold no brief for the Beeb and for all I know, Jennifer Saunders is right in her criticisms of the corporation, but I think there is every reason to suppose that complaints from both sides mean they are at least trying to occupy the middle ground.

    As someone famous ( I forget who) said: "You can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time," etc. etc.

    Report message39

  • Message 40

    , in reply to message 39.

    Posted by michie_19 (U14470261) on Thursday, 10th October 2013

    "Hold no brief" is the wrong phrase. What I mean to say is that I am not an uncritical supporter of everything the BBC does, but the institution, after all, is answerable to all of us as licence payers and we can make our opinions count - as on this messageboard, for example.

    Report message40

  • Message 41

    , in reply to message 40.

    Posted by maestaf (U14145694) on Thursday, 10th October 2013

    "Hold no brief" is the wrong phrase. What I mean to say is that I am not an uncritical supporter of everything the BBC does, but the institution, after all, is answerable to all of us as licence payers and we can make our opinions count - as on this messageboard, for example.  The BBC is not answerable to licence fee payers, but to the BBC Trust, which is meant to represent us. If you're ever bored, have a look at the Trust's website and the biographies of the trustees and you will see how representative it is. If you think the opinions of ordinary viewers count then you have not been using this messageboard long and can't have ever made a complaint to the BBC.

    Report message41

  • Message 42

    , in reply to message 41.

    Posted by Sploink (U9993613) on Thursday, 10th October 2013

    Who's on tonight?

    Report message42

  • Message 43

    , in reply to message 42.

    Posted by Guv-nor (U7476305) on Thursday, 10th October 2013

    On the panel are business minister and Liberal Democrat, Jo Swinson MP; Labour MP, Diane Abbott; Conservative MP, Adam Afriyie; Sarah Churchwell, professor of American literature at the University of East Anglia; and The Times columnist, Matthew Parris.
    www.bbc.co.uk/progra...

    Report message43

  • Message 44

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by gina57 (U15888234) on Thursday, 10th October 2013

    I am inclined to agree In general I enjoy this programme but fading fast everyone sat quietly while the labour panellist spoke after that when others especially the conservative was continually interrupted and David Dimbleby was just as interruptive and lost control of the panel, perhaps its time for a change of control. to Andrew Neil if he would cut back a bit of his own comedy.

    Report message44

  • Message 45

    , in reply to message 43.

    Posted by Sploink (U9993613) on Thursday, 10th October 2013

    Hmm, I see we have the makings of liveliness there......Can the newly-axed DA be lured into indiscretion? We shall see.....

    Report message45

  • Message 46

    , in reply to message 45.

    Posted by susiesar (U10941938) on Friday, 11th October 2013

    Will someone please tell the young women on QT to stop waving their arms around like demented windmills they are not in an episode of sex in the city. I had to switch of last night it was driving me mad

    Report message46

  • Message 47

    , in reply to message 46.

    Posted by William Blessing (U14578406) on Friday, 11th October 2013

    Bring back Brillo Pad and his orange rug.

    Report message47

  • Message 48

    , in reply to message 47.

    Posted by Portly (U1381981) on Friday, 11th October 2013

    I thought that last night's "Question Time" was a bit more sensible than the average edition. Maybe it was because the programme was recorded in the ancient university city of Cambridge, but the audience made sensible points and there wasn't much of the usual shroud-waving.

    It was perhaps a clever decision to choose a Labour and Conservative MP who are both inclined to be off-message.

    Report message48

  • Message 49

    , in reply to message 48.

    Posted by maestaf (U14145694) on Friday, 11th October 2013

    The question about the reshuffle illustrated the problems with this programme. Why was this question even selected? I doubt many viewers are interested in who is Minister for Paperclips in the Home Office.

    Dimbleby was clearly too busy musing on Diane Abbot describing herself as curtains to notice that she was banging on about Syria at length and completely off the point.

    Then Dimbleby was taxing Jo Swinson about Norman Lamb, hardly a household name, because his appointment has apparently riled Theresa May. I'm sure viewers worried about whether to switch on the heating weren't bothered in the least. This stuff is just so dull.

    It was left to the audience to inject a modicum of interest via the man who suggested that inexperienced ministers allow vested interests to take control and Sarah Churchwell, who was rather good throughout, to make the point that the skills and experience seem to be irrelevant when it comes to Government appointments.

    Diane Abbot appeared to have no idea why she had been sacked. Don't these people even have the basic courtesy to explain why someone's services are no longer required? If we had a Chairman who was more in touch with ordinary viewers, then it might actually be possible for Question Time to include some interesting questions.

    Report message49

  • Message 50

    , in reply to message 49.

    Posted by Thuban (U8349152) on Friday, 11th October 2013

    What a crashing bore of a programme.

    It's back to cosy-chat politics, with Diane Abbot talking about Diane Abbot, with an occasional bout of petulance, and wondering why she has been dropped from the Labour front bench.

    Jo Swinson talked and talked and talked but I'm still none the wiser.

    Nobody has explained yet to the chairman that he isn't one of the guest speakers, and an audience that claps its hands at just about anything doesn't really inspire much confidence.

    Report message50

Back to top

About this Board

The Points of View team invite you to discuss BBC Television programmes.

Add basic Smileys or extra Smileys to your posts.

Questions? Check the BBC FAQ for answers first!

Go to: BBC News Have your say to discuss topics in the news

Make a complaint? Go to the BBC complaints website.

BBC News: Off-topic for this board, so contact them directly with your feedback: Contact BBC News

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.


Mon-Sat: 0900-2300
Sun: 1000-2300

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Recent Discussions

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.