BBC Television programmes  permalink

Question Time 21/11/13

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 46 of 46
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by Rumbaba (U13744896) on Thursday, 21st November 2013

    David Dimbleby presents the topical debate from Salford, with an audience who are all either under 30 or over 60 years old. With panelists:

    Jeremy Hunt
    Sadiq Khan
    Olly Grender
    Joan Bakewell
    Tim Stanley

    It's been very dull of late. I don't think the age range gimmick will make any difference, it's not the questions that are the problem, it's the panel and the chairman.

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by bootjangler (U880875) ** on Thursday, 21st November 2013

    Timmy !

    Groan.

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by MAY-DAY (U14316705) on Thursday, 21st November 2013

    I'm 52 - so that's me out!

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by majorcooltimberland (U1910963) on Thursday, 21st November 2013

    I think one of the troubles with QT of late is Mr D is spending too much time on one question...it can get very boring.

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by st3ph3n (U13643748) on Thursday, 21st November 2013

    I think one of the troubles with QT of late is Mr D is spending too much time on one question...it can get very boring.  The reason they spend too much time on any one question is obvious .... because they have FIVE panellists instead of the FOUR they used to have.
    I've said before that Dimbleby goes to the audience before ALL panellists have spoken, which is rude, and so other side-issues get raised when 1 or 2 panellists have yet to speak . It can be near to 12 -15 minutes before the 5th panellist gets to speak.
    Stop including the extra token comedian / celeb please.

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by deliacooks (U15907597) on Thursday, 21st November 2013

    The latest series has been boring indeed - the oomph seems to have gone out of this show. Not particularly entertaining, which it was in the past, and a lot of politicians who are trying to score points over each other, without enough panellists from other walks of life.
    Find I'm turning it off long before the end, these days smiley - sigh.....

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by beatxt (U14042175) on Thursday, 21st November 2013

    Oh God - Dimblebore and the three bores.

    Why couldn't he have been stuck with say Ian Hislop, Nigel Farage and Will Self .
    smiley - winkeye

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by The Man Who Watched Television (U15436784) on Thursday, 21st November 2013

    Do you have to be a resident of London to appear on the qt panel?
    Are there no people in the North West suitable?

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by bootjangler (U880875) ** on Thursday, 21st November 2013

    Is it Joan and Timmy who are missing?

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Rumbaba (U13744896) on Friday, 22nd November 2013

    T'was very dull indeed smiley - sadface

    Time to either stop it altogether or give it a radical overhaul. A different chair for sure and maybe a smaller more interactive audience. Maybe dispense with politicians altogether, in favour of journalists.

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by Thuban (U8349152) on Friday, 22nd November 2013

    If this under-thirty, over-sixty audience was an attempt to pep things up a bit, then it didn't work. That was the least disgruntled group of baby-boomers I've ever seen.

    Where were the criticisms of 'Funding for Lending' and 'Help to Buy' that have allowed the banks to depress interest rates and annuity returns to their lowest levels for more than 300 years, and encouraged thousands of people to buy houses they can't afford?

    Sadiq Khan threatening to force employers to take on workers was plain silly, and Jermemy Hunt claiming his comments about the Flowers fiasco were 'not political' was equally incredible. Where Olly Grender stood, I don't know, for half the time I could fathom what point she was making.

    Dire stuff indeed.


    Jeremy Hunt
    Sadiq Khan
    Olly Grender
    Joan Bakewell
    Tim Stanley

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by BrightYangThing (U14627705) on Friday, 22nd November 2013

    Maybe dispense with politicians altogether, in favour of journalists. 

    Personally I can't think of anything worse. Generally less honest. more self interested/protective, sanctimonious and odious than politicians. I understand when the adversarial system of the commons just rears it's ugly head. Ditch the 'celeb' appearance unless they have a major link to topics.

    I think it needs a different chairperson (Dame Bakewell? )
    A smaller panel
    In a more informal set
    With a small audience (<20) who have been selected for breadth of expertise or experience in the fields of debate with a variety of opinions.
    Civilised debate not point scoring.
    And a different title.
    perhaps 'Devil's Advocate' or 'Moral Maze'
    And split the time between three big issues of the week/month (it can't be topical without being too emotive) debated with integrity - and not just about sound bites.

    But then I know that TV programmes are not made just for me.
    I can still dream...

    That's my pitch anyway. I seldom watch unless there is someone fiery and off piste on.

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by Essential Rabbit (U3613943) on Friday, 22nd November 2013

    Dreadfully boring, both audience and panel.
    Jeremy Hunt seemed afraid of saying anything even vaguely controversial. Rather than denying the accusation of making political hay out of the Flowers affair, he would have been better to gleefully remind everyone that scoring political points about bankers is exactly what the Labour party has been doing for more than three years.

    I have great problems understanding Sadiq Khan, his diction is appalling and every third or forth word is slurred, rushed and almost unpronounced.
    His sole aim seemed to be to get in the slogan of the day "Cheap political points" (as used by his leader earlier) as often as possible.

    I....err..... have no.....um....err....idea what Olly....umm....Grender was....errr...on about, and she didn't appear to either.

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by bootjangler (U880875) ** on Friday, 22nd November 2013

    I....err..... have no.....um....err....idea what Olly....umm....Grender was....errr...on about, and she didn't appear to either. 

    I clearly remember this was the moment the TV was shouted at:

    "Shut her up, and get on with it!"

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by designengineer (U11181100) on Friday, 22nd November 2013

    Maybe dispense with politicians altogether, in favour of journalists. 

    Personally I can't think of anything worse. Generally less honest. more self interested/protective, sanctimonious and odious than politicians. I understand when the adversarial system of the commons just rears it's ugly head. Ditch the 'celeb' appearance unless they have a major link to topics.

    I think it needs a different chairperson (Dame Bakewell? )
    A smaller panel
    In a more informal set
    With a small audience (<20) who have been selected for breadth of expertise or experience in the fields of debate with a variety of opinions.
    Civilised debate not point scoring.
    And a different title.
    perhaps 'Devil's Advocate' or 'Moral Maze'
    And split the time between three big issues of the week/month (it can't be topical without being too emotive) debated with integrity - and not just about sound bites.

    But then I know that TV programmes are not made just for me.
    I can still dream...

    That's my pitch anyway. I seldom watch unless there is someone fiery and off piste on. 
    It's the sheer ignorance of some of the panelists that amazes me. For example: Planning Permission is granted to places, not people. So all this waffle about taking back planning permission from owners is nonsense, and in this case would be particularly stupid, as if planning permission was withdrawn it would drastically reduce the value of the plot. Even when/if sold on, the new owners would have to apply for planning permission all over again - yet more delays.
    I was surprised to find out recently when in Italy that they DO give planning permission to people, with the result that it is highly dependant on the standing of the applicant rather than the merits of the application, and this can usually be tweaked with the usual (Italian) bribes in the appropriate cases. I've found our local planning authorites, even if I don't agree with their opinions, remarkably resistant to corruption.
    And there is no cost incurred when "issuing" bus passes to rich people - costs are only incurred when the person concerned actually travels (and uses his pass) on a bus. Rich people usually travel by car or taxi. I've never noticed lots of obviously rich people travelling on our local buses, and we've got some VERY rich people of the appropriate age living near us.

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by Essential Rabbit (U3613943) on Friday, 22nd November 2013

    Forgot to mention the oft repeated claim, "We will guarantee a job for everyone".

    How? - no answer
    Where will those jobs come from? - no answer

    Didn't they try this in the USSR, resulting in huge numbers of people standing round doing very little and a massive loss of productivity?

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by AmosBurke (U8229185) on Friday, 22nd November 2013

    Didn't they try this in the USSR, resulting in huge numbers of people standing round doing very little and a massive loss of productivity?  An excellent description of most local council road repair crews. smiley - laugh

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by Portly (U1381981) on Friday, 22nd November 2013

    Didn't they try this in the USSR, resulting in huge numbers of people standing round doing very little and a massive loss of productivity?  

    Yes you saw many artificially-created non-jobs behind the iron curtain. For example, to buy an ice cream you would have to purchase a token from one assistant and then hand the token over to another assistant to procure the ice cream. To go on the lift to the top of the Palace of Culture in Warsaw, you would have to join a queue to purchase a ticket for the lift, then join another queue to have the date stamped on your ticket, then a third queue to have the time of day added to the ticket. Then there would be someone at the lift collecting the tickets and another person to operate the lift! smiley - biggrin

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by Lighten Up (U15801316) on Friday, 22nd November 2013

    I've always liked the Dimblebys (David and Jonathan) but I think both should now be put out to grass. David Dimbleby's constant interruptions of Jeremy Hunt last night was disgraceful. The panellist must be allowed to make his point in his own way. Most political positions require complex arguments and a structured reasoning. You can't badger politicians into responding with one-word answers or simplistic soundbites. Poor Jeremy couldn't get a sentence out without Dimbleby snapping at his heels like a terrier. The viewer, Mr Dimbleby, is actually intelligent enough to know if a politician has nimbly avoided answering the question and to judge him accordingly.

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by minnie3 (U7451737) on Friday, 22nd November 2013

    The housing prices and shortages debate is frustrating. Not convinced that building more houses wil be the answer.

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by maestaf (U14145694) on Friday, 22nd November 2013

    After nearly thirty five years, the BBC manages to come up with an innovation: half the audience was over 60; half under 30. Throw in questions about redirecting the elderly's benefits to young people and another about housing, light the fuse and.... nothing. The producers must have been devastated that the Great British Public is not as stupid as they thought and the two groups did not turn on each other.

    I was more hopeful about the unexpected innovation of having just three panel members, but sadly disappointed. Even with a smaller panel, when the trainee doctor asked why the mistakes of medical professionals should be punished by imprisonment, he was ignored and when he tried to come back, he was just talked over. I would like to have known why there aren't plans to introduce similar laws for bankers, railway managers and politicians, but this is not a programme for answers. If a question from a trainee doctor in a discussion about the NHS is just brushed aside, what is the point of the audience?

    As usual, the chairing was appalling. "Is the Co-op bank safe?" asked DD of Sadiq Khan. "How should I know?" came the response and it must have been difficult not to have added: "What a stupid question." From the rambling explanation for the absence of two panellists which first seemed to suggest they would make an appearance, then backtracked, through the irrelevant muttering about Sadiq Khan including DD as a beneficiary of a university education to the failure to stop people being shouted down, DD is an irrelevant distraction.

    As has already been said, was there no-one in the whole of Greater Manchester suitable to join the QT panel? Frankly, a random passer by would have been more interesting and coherent than Olly Grender. What's the point of hauling the programme around the country if the panellists always live in London and the audience is ignored?

    That this is the BBC's flagship current affairs programme says a lot about the BBC's complacency and lack of ambition in its political coverage.

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by Rumbaba (U13744896) on Friday, 22nd November 2013

    It seems everyone was bemused by Olly Grender. I read she used to be a speech writer for Paddy Ashdown, which I find very difficult to believe: maybe she was just having a bad night. The structuring of the audience was a crass contrivance, God know's who's idea that was but they should be fired (hopefully it was DD's idea, two birds with one stone smiley - smiley )

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by Essential Rabbit (U3613943) on Friday, 22nd November 2013

    Even with a smaller panel, when the trainee doctor asked why the mistakes of medical professionals should be punished by imprisonment, he was ignored and when he tried to come back, he was just talked over. 
    Possibly because his question was mistaken.
    It isn't *mistakes* that will become a criminal offence, but wilful mistreatment. Not at all the same thing.

    Still, I suppose if people repeat the misrepresentation often enough the sheep will begin to believe it.

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by David Barker (U15934004) on Friday, 22nd November 2013

    There has been a recent suggestion that not enough scientists have been guesting on Question Time. It is 40 years since Kenneth Allsop died I just wonder if we are likely to see another environmentalist TV series like "Down to Earth" or scientists or environmentalists given a platform on Question Time.

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 24.

    Posted by Twinkles (U14947618) on Friday, 22nd November 2013

    Three words for Question Time last night....

    Boring, boring, boring.

    The producers desperately need to re-vamp the formula of this programme, and the calibre of the guests.
    I agree that a new presenter would help - it can't really get much worse than last evening's effort.

    Three good guests maximum, better questions from the audience, less interference from the presenter and an insistence that the guests keep on topic and answer the questions asked of them, not to waffle on indiscriminately might help.

    Question Time comes from Scotland next week so it will hopefully address some Scottish issues, not just Independence.
    How about a debate on purely the NHS in Scotland, and Scottish Education, which is also undergoing change, although I expect howls of indignation from other viewers if that were the case, saying that 'Scotttish matters' don't interest them.

    Join the club, as sometimes the majority of QT is almost irrelevant to Scottish viewers as it deals with the English NHS and English Education, and on a very regular basis too.

    It's a difficult quandary to try and give relevant topics for everyone, and I understand that, but as QT is transmitted nationally, it ought to represent everyone in the UK or at least try to, on a more regular basis.
    Perhaps leaving out those two areas might help to redress some balance for everyone, as I'm sure they could be debated in the respective country's local BBC news.
    Just an idea....

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by z4mster (U14864348) on Friday, 22nd November 2013

    Question Time, as a once per week TV programme, started to become irrelevant when 24 hour rolling news came about and then finally became so with the growing and greater reach of blogs and things like twitter.

    By the time the programme starts, the "issues" on the table have already been discussed to death, the questions are more refined, and loaded, and the responses are well rehearsed and so devoid of any kind of originality or substance so as to render them little more than extended soundbites.

    It doesn't need a revamp. It needs putting down.

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 26.

    Posted by Sploink (U9993613) ** on Friday, 22nd November 2013

    I thought the idea last night was to divide folk into over 60 and under - what? -25? So if they found themselves short of 2 people, why didn't they get one old and one young person from the audience. Actually, I thought the panellists would split along those lines, too, but I was obviously wrong. I've seen Olly G on other things and she's been perfectly OK. Maybe she was thrown by the fact that the other 2 didn't turn up.

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by GRAHAM (U15934076) on Friday, 22nd November 2013

    Do you have to be a resident of London to appear on the qt panel?
    Are there no people in the North West suitable? 
    No but it helps if you do not come from Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. These people are only allowed out, in? on special occasions and then usually only at home.
    Same with the questions, do we really have to go to Falkirk to talk about scotland. What is happening there affects the whole UK, same with more powers for Wales.
    This program needs a new chair, fewer politicians and time limits on speaking for all, including the chair.

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Roberttrebor (U2337319) on Friday, 22nd November 2013

    I think one of the troubles with QT of late is Mr D is spending too much time on one question...it can get very boring.  Perhaps because they usually have five panelist to give an answer, with Mr D asking questions half way through their answer to stop the flow..

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by Sploink (U9993613) ** on Friday, 22nd November 2013

    Do you have to be a resident of London to appear on the qt panel?
    Are there no people in the North West suitable? 
    No but it helps if you do not come from Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. These people are only allowed out, in? on special occasions and then usually only at home.
    Same with the questions, do we really have to go to Falkirk to talk about scotland. What is happening there affects the whole UK, same with more powers for Wales.
    This program needs a new chair, fewer politicians and time limits on speaking for all, including the chair. 
    It also needs a thing like a long shepherd's crook to drag a tedious speaker (or chairman) off the stage. Then standby panellists - volunteers from the audience or the texting community, who are often so much more entertaining than the panel itself - can be put on, but dragged off if they fail to amuse....

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by Nick Brighton (U4274084) on Friday, 22nd November 2013

    I....err..... have no.....um....err....idea what Olly....umm....Grender was....errr...on about, and she didn't appear to either. 

    I clearly remember this was the moment the TV was shouted at:

    "Shut her up, and get on with it!" 
    God she was irritating

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 31.

    Posted by aquarius (U8185439) on Friday, 22nd November 2013

    I....err..... have no.....um....err....idea what Olly....umm....Grender was....errr...on about, and she didn't appear to either. 

    I clearly remember this was the moment the TV was shouted at:

    "Shut her up, and get on with it!" 
    God she was irritating 
    agreed !!!!

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 32.

    Posted by Johnbee (U542312) on Friday, 22nd November 2013

    Good point about scientists not getting a word in. Apparently Katie Price has been on QT more often in the last 5 years than all the scientists put together.

    I'd like to see a QT programme where every panellist is an expert on the subject to be discussed.

    My reason for that is that I'd like questions to be put where the questioner and the audience want to know the answer. Not questions which are just the usual trash arguing points where the answer is obvious.

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by maestaf (U14145694) on Friday, 22nd November 2013

    Even with a smaller panel, when the trainee doctor asked why the mistakes of medical professionals should be punished by imprisonment, he was ignored and when he tried to come back, he was just talked over.  Possibly because his question was mistaken.
    It isn't *mistakes* that will become a criminal offence, but wilful mistreatment. Not at all the same thing.
    Still, I suppose if people repeat the misrepresentation often enough the sheep will begin to believe it. 
    The reference to "mistakes" rather than "wilful neglect" wasn't the reason for brushing it aside. Politicians want to argue with each other or answer DD's pointless questions, not take on members of the public, especially those who have expertise. The audience are just there to ask the questions the producers want asked, make some random noise and react, like ...errr... sheep.

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Permtong (U15934379) on Saturday, 23rd November 2013

    As only three panellists turned up the formulaic bickering between politicians tended to dominate the programme and it was a bit childish at times. Oh for an end to the party system in politics, and to have debate rather than polemic.

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 35.

    Posted by sowhatsinaname (U13922452) on Saturday, 23rd November 2013

    There's usually much more intelligent debate plus a level of entertainment on This Week. Many here are calling for QT to be scrapped. This Week would be a fine replacement in my view. AND I could then get to bed at a decent time on Thursdays.

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by Portly (U1381981) on Saturday, 23rd November 2013

    There's usually much more intelligent debate plus a level of entertainment on This Week. Many here are calling for QT to be scrapped. This Week would be a fine replacement in my view. AND I could then get to bed at a decent time on Thursdays.  The advantage of "This Week" is that it encourages politicians to climb out from behind the barricades (admittedly this is only a partial success) and discuss political and social issues in an intelligent and constructive way.

    "Question Time" has an honourable ancestry in that it is based on the confrontational style of the British parliament, but this point-scoring doesn't result in anything constructive and doesn't make for good TV, particularly now that the big political beasts steer clear of the programme and we get bit-part players.

    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by st3ph3n (U13643748) on Thursday, 28th November 2013

    --I think one of the troubles with QT of late is Mr D is spending too much time on one question...it can get very boring.  

    The reason they spend too much time on any one question is obvious .... because they have FIVE panellists instead of the FOUR they used to have.  

    It gets worse .... tonight's programme ( 28 Nov. ) is shown to have SIX panellists. The number of questions will therefore be reduced even further.
    Dimbleby's interruption facility will therefore be proportionately increased by 20% and shouting matches between panellists will also be more likely.

    The BBC is ruining this programme.

    Report message38

  • Message 39

    , in reply to message 38.

    Posted by Sploink (U9993613) ** on Thursday, 28th November 2013

    Who's on tonight?

    Report message39

  • Message 40

    , in reply to message 39.

    Posted by Dover Soul (U14934992) on Thursday, 28th November 2013

    www.bbc.co.uk/progra...

    Report message40

  • Message 41

    , in reply to message 40.

    Posted by Sploink (U9993613) ** on Thursday, 28th November 2013

    I'm not sure I could last the hour with that panel. I just hope the texters are sparkling tonight, or it's an early night for me....

    Report message41

  • Message 42

    , in reply to message 41.

    Posted by meddaboy (U15031418) on Friday, 29th November 2013

    eddi reader ...what a pain. i would like to ask the the scottish goverment if capitol punishment would be on the agenda if they got independece

    Report message42

  • Message 43

    , in reply to message 42.

    Posted by zelda (U2012536) on Friday, 29th November 2013

    I listened on the radio. I had no idea half the time which woman was speaking... they all sounded so similar. The debate turned into a bun fight anyway. I wasn't quite sure what Eadie (sp) Reader brought to the table apart from trying to shout louder than the other women.

    Report message43

  • Message 44

    , in reply to message 43.

    Posted by patrm14 (U15020995) on Friday, 29th November 2013

    This was appalling...there was the Falkirk audience, some of whom were clearly hoping to be formed by sound comment and reasoned debate..and what were they treated to? A rabble of harridens, without a single intervention from David Dimbleby.

    He is 100% ineffective in this role and a programme which should be an 'institution' is turning into a joke with Dimbleby appearing more and more like a benign, doddery observer, with no clout whatever.

    Report message44

  • Message 45

    , in reply to message 44.

    Posted by Portly (U1381981) on Friday, 29th November 2013

    Awful. I watched Jim al Khalili trying to explain Dark Matter and Dark Energy instead. Considering nobody knows what they are, he did a pretty good job! smiley - smiley

    Report message45

  • Message 46

    , in reply to message 45.

    Posted by Dee (U15846799) on Friday, 29th November 2013

    Hi guys,

    Sorry, I'm going to close this thread now.

    There's a separate thread about last night's Falkirk programme here www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

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.



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.