Labour ?

Norton posted:

Eloise posted:

Norton posted:

It's entirely possible that there are equivalents on the right, but I have never noticed any and I have never heard of any apologies from the BBC concerning right of centre "schils", although there have been such apologies regarding interviewees with undisclosed left wing allegiances.  I suspect the Tories are way behind the left at this particular game.

 

So you didn't hear about Tory Councillers appearing in the audience of Question Time as so called "neutral" people? http://www.huffingtonpost.co.u...562ce4b00f308cf43291

I didn't think the QT audience was even supposed to be neutral, but now you mention it last night's episode was a pretty unedifying ( if comically inept)  example of BBC airtime being given over to sloganeering from covert  activists.

Sorry you missed the point... overall the audience is meant to be balanced and to do that they BBC (I understand) require audience members to complete a questionnaire.  As I understand it a Tory councillor lied on that survey to present themselves as non-partisan when they represented a particular party.

You said only the left wing send "schills" and you were unaware of the right wing doing similar.  Well there is a case where the right wing sent a schil.

PS. I'm not accusing the BBC of bias I'm simply pointing out a case where a right wing politician has misrepresented themselves in the way Norton was claiming they don't.

Kevin-W posted:

The BBC has a duty to ensure that panellists on shows like Question Time are balanced, but they have no control over the audience - nor should they.

It would be undesirable for all kinds of reasons - not to mention time consuming and thoroughly impractical - to start vetting audience members for their political vews.

As I understand it the audience is "vetted" to present a representative mix.  In some cases the audience (presumably both left and right wing) lie though to present themselves as non-partisan.  Norton claimed only left wing people did such things ... my example was of the right wing doing what he accused.

PS. I'm not accusing the BBC of bias I'm simply pointing out a case where a right wing politician has misrepresented themselves in the way Norton was claiming they don't.

Just watched the show in question. Dimbleby handled the situation very well I thought. The guy was hugely irritating (and I'm not talking about his shirt - which was louder than his voice - either) and extremely ill-mannered. The audience seemed  very happy to see him leave.

Another observation: Gina Miller seems absolutely ghastly, doesn't she? Not a good ambassador for the Remain cause, just like Farron.

Mike-B posted:

I've always thought that overall BBC achieve a good balance of political representatives together with & an interesting mix of various media & academic over the weeks of QT.    Last night however I did wonder about the need or point in having an SNP representative when in Plymouth,  OK he did make some relevant points,  maybe too much soundbites (again) of the SNP's version of scotxit.  

Why not have an SNP MP? They are after all the third biggest party in Parliament. Plenty of Scots watch QT.

Kevin-W posted:

Just watched the show in question. Dimbleby handled the situation very well I thought. The guy was hugely irritating (and I'm not talking about his shirt - which was louder than his voice - either) and extremely ill-mannered. The audience seemed  very happy to see him leave.

Another observation: Gina Miller seems absolutely ghastly, doesn't she? Not a good ambassador for the Remain cause, just like Farron.

Kevin... not sure if you were responding to me, but the show I was referring to was back in May.

As for this week's Question Time (which I haven't seen)... I'm not saying people on the left don't misrepresent themselves, I was countering the claim (by Norton) that ONLY people on the left misrepresent themselves and those on the right never do.

Eloise posted

Kevin... not sure if you were responding to me, but the show I was referring to was back in May.

As for this week's Question Time (which I haven't seen)... I'm not saying people on the left don't misrepresent themselves, I was countering the claim (by Norton) that ONLY people on the left misrepresent themselves and those on the right never do.

No, I was responding to nobody in particular, and I was referring to last night's show. Remember that I am on the Left (libertarian wing) and I think Norton is spouting unsubstantiated rubbish, so his/her claims of BBC audiences being infiltrated by covert (the gent who was expelled from QT last night is a well-known TUSC member named Steve German, so he's hardly covert) lefty activists can be safely dismissed.

Kevin-W posted:

Mike-B posted:

  .............     Last night however I did wonder about the need or point in having an SNP representative when in Plymouth,  OK he did make some relevant points,  maybe too much soundbites (again) of the SNP's version of scotxit.  

Why not have an SNP MP? They are after all the third biggest party in Parliament. Plenty of Scots watch QT.

Indeed why not have SNP for the reasons you say,  but thats missing my point; Plymouth, (the South West) used to be (still is) a LibDem stronghold & as such a LibDem as the 'third' party politician would have bought a more local political mix & in line with the traditional QT panel members selection.  Maybe no LibDems were available.  

Eloise posted:

Kevin-W posted:

Just watched the show in question. Dimbleby handled the situation very well I thought. The guy was hugely irritating (and I'm not talking about his shirt - which was louder than his voice - either) and extremely ill-mannered. The audience seemed  very happy to see him leave.

Another observation: Gina Miller seems absolutely ghastly, doesn't she? Not a good ambassador for the Remain cause, just like Farron.

Kevin... not sure if you were responding to me, but the show I was referring to was back in May.

As for this week's Question Time (which I haven't seen)... I'm not saying people on the left don't misrepresent themselves, I was countering the claim (by Norton) that ONLY people on the left misrepresent themselves and those on the right never do.

Eloise , you  are misrepresenting what I said. If you look back you'll note that  I accepted it was possible that this happened from the right too, just that I wasn't  aware of it.  

IIRC when you apply to be in the audience for QT (I went to a recording a few years ago), they call you to check that you're politically engaged - ie they ask what issues you think are most pressing/what question you have in mind to ask, and expect you to have a decent answer. They may also ask your voting intentions or habits. Only after this phonecall are tickets granted.

But I don't recall any vetting past that, at least for a normal edition of the programme. Thus I believe they'll broadly aim for balance, but they don't bust a proverbial gut to guarantee it - they don't claim to, and pretty much every time they ask for a show of hands, it's with the disclaimer that the audience isn't scientifically selected. The panel is notionally balanced, but the audience doesn't have to be, beyond a broad aspiration.

The radio incarnation, which I've also been to a couple of times, is more a case of first come, first served.

I do think things reached a low ebb on the edition of Any Answers immediately before the GE when various callers were quite obviously party line mouthpieces, whether put up to it or otherwise. But the majority of the time that isn't the case with QT or AQ audiences IMO.

I have just been reading about Corbyn's visit to Glastonbury, the report suggests he was able to engage with the audience.

Many apparently were waving banners with the word 'Hope' written on them.

I am completely surprised by his new found popularity...... all of a sudden the man can do no wrong... 

Whatever next.......maybe 'turn water into wine'?

I did not realise he was at Glasto until afterwards.  some people were angry that he made an appearance believing the festival should be non-political (which it is not & never will be,  especially with Michael Eavis organising)  But yes it has to be said a lot of people were enthusiastic,  however that needs to be put in context in that a hell of a lot more (the vast majority) did not GAF.  I watched the stage appearance & speech today & thought this guy is obviously riding high,  but I was angered/offended by his attempt at appearing to be some sort of messiah.      

Mike-B posted:

 but I was angered/offended by his attempt at appearing to be some sort of messiah.      

I think he needs to reign it in somewhat, I was warming to him a little whilst he was so unpopular but he is now in danger of becoming completely carried away with his recent resurrection, I seem to recall it ended rather badly for another fella with the same initials....

I seem to recall it ended rather badly for another fella from the same party who believed he could walk on water.    

Interesting. Comparing him to an ancient historical figure.

I’d say you’ve chosen the wrong historical figure, his election gamble, popularity and relative success is analogous to Julius Caesars march on Rome.

I thought you were referring to the JC of Top Gear....................

wenger2015 posted:

I have just been reading about Corbyn's visit to Glastonbury, the report suggests he was able to engage with the audience.

Many apparently were waving banners with the word 'Hope' written on them.

I am completely surprised by his new found popularity...... all of a sudden the man can do no wrong... 

Whatever next.......maybe 'turn water into wine'?

Perhaps it's finally sinking in that decent housing and good public services have more appeal than tax cuts, a hard Brexit and bribes for bigots. 

Hungryhalibut posted:

wenger2015 posted:

I have just been reading about Corbyn's visit to Glastonbury, the report suggests he was able to engage with the audience.

Many apparently were waving banners with the word 'Hope' written on them.

I am completely surprised by his new found popularity...... all of a sudden the man can do no wrong... 

Whatever next.......maybe 'turn water into wine'?

Perhaps it's finally sinking in that decent housing and good public services have more appeal than tax cuts, a hard Brexit and bribes for bigots. 

Whilst I agree and abhor bribes in any disguise, £1bn is less than three week's additional  funding that will soon be going into the NHS...............

(3x£350m for those who voted to Leave and might have forgotten)

modern politics seems to have reduced protecting/promoting what i can only call 'tribal' vested interests rather than based on any real "leadership". this has led to inevitable polarization that we see played out every day, in a lot of governments. seems we are lacking some fundamental government "principle" beyond "we promise x and y if you vote for us". (or if you vote with us, we will give you £1.3bn!!)

on the other hand, perhaps to some extent its always been so? and that to expect otherwise is perhaps naive?

i have to say i don't see any real "leader" in any of our current crop of politicians.

enjoy

ken

Can you drop the "enjoy" thing on this thread Ken? 

Seems JC has a dastardly plan for the manifesto's missings  millions; at a Glasto local press conference Michael Eavis said JC told him that he would be in in number 10 before christmas & would scarp Trident as soon as possible - all since denied by JC (false news) - is this the mysterious labour money tree.      

ken c posted:

modern politics seems to have reduced protecting/promoting what i can only call 'tribal' vested interests rather than based on any real "leadership". this has led to inevitable polarization that we see played out every day, in a lot of governments. seems we are lacking some fundamental government "principle" beyond "we promise x and y if you vote for us". (or if you vote with us, we will give you £1.3bn!!)

on the other hand, perhaps to some extent its always been so? and that to expect otherwise is perhaps naive?

i have to say i don't see any real "leader" in any of our current crop of politicians.

enjoy

ken

Quite ! And to find an inspirational  leader.................. ?

Last year I asked if there were any Statesmen in British politics. The forum was hard pushed to suggest any. OK, one or two names were put forward, but the general outlook was fairly bleak !

Don Atkinson posted:

ken c posted:

i have to say i don't see any real "leader" in any of our current crop of politicians.

Quite ! And to find an inspirational  leader.................. ?

100% for sure in the major UK party's ...  but is that not the same in most countries,  USA is maybe a bad example,  he is neither a politician or conventional,  maybe a maverick but certainly will never be a statesman.  Macron seems to be a new bright hope for France but will probably get pulled down after the honeymoon.  The rest of Europe are just mundane conformists with no obvious charismatic tendencies.    Then we are into tyrants, dictators & despots

Drewy posted:

Can you drop the "enjoy" thing on this thread Ken? 

please don't deny me my only remaining pleasure in life ... 

it doesn't seem right to sign off with 'detest' or 'be miserable' does it??

enjoy (ooops!!)

ken

Don, Mike-B -- 

yes, i sense "real leadership" is sorely missing. how did the world get into such a leaderless (and dangerous) state?

anyone here ever considered a career in politics ?

enjoy

ken

The "hanging out at Glasto" thing amuses me.  Glasto great event that it is is nonetheless a big money making enterprise although the way the good Mr Eavis and his team control it is probably more feudal than free-market.  Still it gave Jeremy Corbyn a good opportunity to address his disciples.