Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
#1
But Question time was utterly brilliant tonight made so only by the presence of Peter Hitchens. The rest were the usual disappointment, to say the least and to be very kind, but Hitchens takes no prisoners. Reminded me of Norman Tebbit many years ago when He appeared on the programme and actually made the mainly partisan (pro labour) audience sit up and think.
As for the non-entities which included Will Self (the clue is in the surname), Justin (No don't build a third runway I'll lose my constituency job) Greening and some complete twerp shadow pleb for some useless portfolio or another I really can't be bothered finding out her name. The noble beer Lord has some interesting things to say and seemed reasonable enough. Still, early days and they've still to show their true colours during the other half of the programme.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#2
I missed the early part of the programme, so I did not catch all the names. Hitchens is Hitchens, but he does add something to the debate.
Gay marriage was probably already begun, as a subject, before I tuned in. Perhaps it would be best to disestablish the CoE. [on a rather contrary note, as I recall from childhood the word 'antidisestablishmentarianism' had it's place, it being the longest word in the dictionary back then]
The gentleman from the audience "in the spectacles", made the most sense on the phoney war on drugs.
Apparently we are advised not to give aid to the starving & homeless face to face, but instead find a 'good charity' to give to. Is there no area where Parliament is unblessed with high wisdom?
Did I miss something Philip?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
#3
Nah Tom, You didn't miss much. I thought the second half ended up as a damp squib and they should have substituted some of the panel with others on the bench. It's a game of two halves you know.The audience performed to type which is par for the course as you have to fill in a form giving your political preferences before you can apply to be a member of the audience so ithey try to balance the figures with 80% labour supporters and 20% the mad, lunatic right as they see it.
Don't know about the chap in the spectacles but was amazed by the sight of a gentleman who looked as if he was an extra from the film Those magnificent men in their flying machines. He was the one sporting the fashionably unfashionable Victorian moustache. He was the star of the night as far as I'm concerned.
As far as the homeless are concerned some might say that by giving public funds to these poor unfortunates only encourages the trend in the way that state handouts have helped fecklessness and mass deliberate unemployment - but that's another debate for another day.