So, did you see last evening’s edition of Question Time? Universal Shami was on the panel again, naturally. In fact the panel was once again heavily weighted leftwards. Mr Bean look-a-like David Miliband was there is his position as heir apparent to Mr Broon (and didn’t he perform poorly?), Vince Cable was there to represent the uberLiberals, Douglas Hurd that soaking wet conservative was there, doe-eyed Shami- naturally and finally Peter Hitchens. Now I like Peter and he mostly on the side of the angels BUT he is an avid opponent of the Iraq war and so his constant carping on that issue fits in nicely with the BBC narrative. I don’t think the opening debate on Zimbabwe got more than a few minutes before some left wing moonbat in the audience chirped up that had their been oil in Zimbabwe then we would have invaded – to cheers from the assembled masses. The imagined wrongness of the Iraq war kept coming up in entirely unrelated questions. The only two good moments were when Hitchens pointed out that if the nation keeps voting for Labour then raised taxation is all it can expect – to the evident irritation of Mr Dimbleby and when a man in the audience rightly eviscerated the serial incompetence of the Labour government. It all finished with the predictable panel love-in for Obama – no bias there folks. I thought Shami was pathetic, Hurd was smug and forgetful, Miliband ill-informed, Cable irrelevant and only Hitchens had the guts to opine at least some uncomfortable issues. But a ratio of 4:1 seems the going rate on a BBC panel for left/right expression of opinion. It’s not balanced, it’s not reasonable and it’s a weekly disgrace.

Bookmark the permalink.

58 Responses to QUESTION TIME WATCH.

  1. Martin says:

    It was a typical example of BBC bias.

    What really annoys me though is Dimbleby, who is CLEARLY very pro the Government. The way he protected Millipede laast night was a disgrace. I can only assume the BBC have been told that if you don’t protect Government ministers, we won’t appear.

    Dimbleby clearly dislikes Hitchen’s attacks on Nu Labour and kept cutting across him.

    Interesting that when the subject of car tax came out, the audience was largely silent. So I can assume from that, that come next year where people’s car tax doubles, no one will be complaining?

    As for the Zimbabwe thing. The left really annoy me. They object to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but seem to think we should be invading Zimbabwe?

    And where’s the oil in Afghanistan, Kosovo or Bosnia?

    This Week just afterwards wa yet another pile of steaming poo.


  2. Barry says:

    I thought Little Shami got a much harder time than usual.

    I had watched the mayoral election “debate” through a fog of bile as Dimbleby licked up to Kenny Boy, but last night he didn’t let Shami fob off the detention questions half as easily. Almost reluctantly, admittedly, but it seemed like someone had had a word with him. Usually Shami just flutters her eyelids and swoons a bit when someone suggests holding anyone for any length of time without charge, but last night she looked decidedly uncomfortable under questioning. I was almost impressed.

    Agree with the rest of your comments, though. Especially the Obama stuff. In fact, virtually every news agency bar Fox is licking their lips at the prospect, but the BBC is barely trying to hide it. Perhaps they are over-confident about the final result.


  3. Barry says:

    The This Week programme lasted ten minutes in my house.

    When the line (and I’m paraphrasing), “Obviously we’d prefer if Obama won [the presidency]…” came out of my speakers I turned it off and went to bed.


  4. Brian Williamson says:

    As it happens I agreed with Hitchens on his points including Iraq. We were lied to in the most blatant fashion so that ‘the Messiah’ could get his war. That suffices to condemn Labour and Blair for eternity. But expecting fairness from El Beeb is fruitless. They are so steeped in fashionable leftist dogma that any other stance is unthinkable. But back to Labour. What posturing over 42 days! They are the ones whose social engineering has created the problem in the first place. Now in a desperate attempt to look tough they go for the annihilation of all we hold dear. Freedom. When two Christian Evangelists can be threatened by a Muslim police officer in Birmingham and told that their mission work was a ‘hate crime’ we have to think outside a terror/42 days box and examine the whole picture of how we are loosing grip on our country and how shariah is on a frightening ascendency. The soft jihad is much more insidious and pernicious than any talk of how many days we can bang up suspects. But of course on Al Beeb Muslims can do no wrong and our news is skewed time after time in an Orwellian Muslims Good/White Working Class Bad way with little examination of facts on the ground.


  5. Martin says:

    The reason Shami got a hard time was she is on the side of the Tories over the 42 day thing. Dimbleby was defending Milliband, anyone who watched that it was like a father defending a son.

    I thought at one point Dimblebum might put his arm aruond Millipede.

    Any attack on Millipede from the audience or Hitchens (forget Hurd, he’s an arsehole) was cut very very short (as was Shami)

    Dimblebum made NO attempt to hid the fact he was protecting the Government minister last night. It was been in the papers that they’ve been getting hard time, even from a very left wing audience.


  6. Heron says:

    Can’t agree with you on this one. One member from each major political party, one guest undoubtedly on the political left, another undoubtedly on the political right. Don’t see the problem. If you’re talking about Douglas Hurd coming from the left of the conservative party, surely it’s more the conservative party than the BBC who decides who to put forward for Question Time.

    It’s a weak argument that does you no favours at all. Yes, Hitchens is against Iraq, but is right-wing on just about everything else. Besides, can’t see Iraq being a top talking point this week (though I missed the programme).

    Question Time panels can often be biased, and I certainly suspect that audiences are rigged.

    This panel was not.


  7. Martin says:

    Brian Williams: As those here know I don’t give a s**t about Muslims and would happily let them tear each other paprt (I just don’t want it on my streets).

    However, when people trot out the you only invaded Iraq because of oil I’m with Nearly Oxfordian here.

    Most people thought Saddam still had WMD. There is no oil in Afghanistan and no oil in Bosnia or Kosovo.

    So why did we invade those Countries?


  8. Martin says:

    Heron: Sorry but you’re wrong. The QT panel USED to be 4 guests. Why have 5? It doesn’t add anything.

    The fourth spot should be for one of the minority parties (and it should be done in turn, including the BNP and UKIP, the Englsih nationalists etc.)

    The only reason the BBC added another slot was to ensure that there will always be a liberal left bias on the panel.

    For example with four guests, you could have a Labour, Lib Dem, tory and say UKIP. That would be a balanced table. The BBC would NEVER stand for that.


  9. Jonathan M. Scott says:

    I’ve given up on Question Time. They keep having throwbacks to the 90s such as Hurd and Heseltine – if David Dumbleby isn’t a throwback I don’t know what is…

    Can we not have some decent political debate from the BBC, decent panels, and audiences that are not stuffed with members of Political Parties!!!


  10. Llew says:

    It was good to see Shami squirm when asked how long would she like to see detention.

    Deep down I’m sure she wanted to say zero days but in the end she managed to mumble out a “about a week” answer.


  11. Martin says:

    JMS: Good idea. Have a panel made up of the public (not selected by the BBC) and an audience of MP’s


  12. Martin says:

    Llew: Yes, intersting that her reaction wasn’t very good when she was attacked. But look at how many times she’s been on the BBC and never been put on the spot.


  13. Brian Williamson says:

    Martin, I wasn’t talking about oil I was talking about the 45 minute WMD claim which was Blair’s lie. As for Afghanistan I have no problem. The Taliban allowed fellow traveller, Bin Laden to reside there and conduct his war on the west from his camps. They were as guilty as he was for Nairobi, Dar es Salaam and the Twin Towers attacks and so were an enemy. Trouble is now we’re there what do we do? Fight a hands tied PC war, offering them all the advantages or see the truth of Pakistani support and stop aid to that nation? It is reported that a high percentage (90%, even) of suicide bombers are from there. As long as these indoctrinated nutters can pass freely between the two countries we are in stalemate.


  14. mailman says:


    Unfortunately you, yourself, are a victim of a lie…but its not the one you think it is.

    The 45 minutes is a lie that has been spread with zeal by the MSM. When you look at the original papers the 45 minute deployment came from, it was only mentioned in the foot notes.

    Secondly, the original statement was that it would take Saddam 45 minutes to DEPLOY the weapon, that is all.

    Everything else you believe about the 45 minute claim is a myth created by the MSM to bolster their claim everyone was lied to by the big mean evil Uncle GW!



  15. Martin says:

    Brian: The rgument put up by the left is that Iraq was invaded for oil based on a lie.

    Now I agree that the Government did sex things up a little and that much of the evidence was rather weak (and some very out of date)

    However, the left keep saying (like on QT last night) if there was oil in Zimbabwe we’d be in there. So where is the oil in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Kosovo?

    If Iraq had been about securing the oil supply, then it would have been easy to simply say to Saddam “look be a good boy, if you want to do a litlte bit or torture here and there, fine, just keep the cheap oil coming”

    Then Saddam would have been back on side and we’d have our oil. No one killed and we’d still have an attack dog for use against Iran.


  16. Michael Taylor says:

    I’m with Jonathan Scott on this one. Why watch it? You know what’s the panel will be like, what the moderation will be like, what the selected audience will be like, and even what the questions will be.

    As an expression of the BBC-world it’s attained a near-Platonic perfection. But it just doesn’t have any connection with the world I live in.

    Like the rest of the BBC, it cannot be reformed, only abolished.


  17. aviv says:

    Martin- spot on. The worst way to secure cheap oil is to start a war. If Iraq was really about oil, the US et al would have just sat back and sucked up cheap Iraqi oil. As it happens, it was the US that was the most vocal proponent of the sanctions that among other things limited the amount of Iraqi oil flowing through global markets. Of course the mouth breathing morons of the left never let logic get in the way of their highly “nuanced” anlysis of world affairs.


  18. Nearly Oxfordian says:

    Spot on, mailman.


  19. David Vance says:


    Yea, you’re right, reform is impossible, abolition is the responsible route to follow.


    I agree with what you say. The lies about Iraq come from the rancid MSM.


  20. Pot-Kettle-Black says:

    Where is the oil in Afghanistan, Kosovo or Bosnia?

    Why aren’t we in Venezuela, Nigeria, Iran or Sudan? (In fact I could make cases we should be, but not for the oil)

    Wars disrupt oil supply and force up prices, to fight for oil is commercial madness.

    The in Iraq for the oil argument is entirely specious.


  21. Ron Todd says:

    At one point when the camera was centred on one of the other guests I thought Milliband and Dimbilby wre confering together.


  22. Martin says:

    Agreed: Iraq was never about oil. it’s just one of those “facts” pumped out by the BBC that is repeated by idiots that think the BBC tell the truth.

    Like the BBC “fact” that Obama voted againt the war in Iraq.


  23. Andrew Cramb says:

    Ron Todd

    I spotted that 2 or 3 times. Dimbleby and Miliband were clearly in cahoots. Joined like Siamese twins, it was sickening.


  24. Rob says:

    When I read that that unspeakable shit Hurd was on the programme I decided my time would be much better spent down the pub. Does four pints of bitter count as binge drinking? I do hope I haven’t broken any government guidelines.


  25. AnyonebutBrown says:

    I tire of QT and it’s blatant leftist bias. Even Hitchens was getting annoyed at Dimbelby’s blatant attempts to cut off his anti-NuLab vitriol. Milliband was weak. I still don’t understand why he is seen as the next Labour leader when he’s er weird.

    This Week is even worse, it could be an interesting programme of good political discussion and analysis instead it’s superficial. Was I the only one who through that June Sarpong was the world’s worst political guest – she agreed with everything, had no independent opinions and wouldn’t shut up! And, does every guest have to plug their book????


  26. Joel says:

    I agree that the 45 minutes claim is hugely exaggerated as one of the reasons for the war. I don’t think anyone seriously believed Saddam was about to attack Britian or British bases in Cyprus.

    But I don’t agree that it’s a lie spread by the media. It’s something which is spread by opponents of the invasion. Just as is the talk about the ‘illgeal’ war which I think is a meaningless term.


  27. Nearly Oxfordian says:

    Joel, it was spread by ignorant opponents of the war, but also pushed by certain media.

    I agree that the whole ‘illegal’ war stuff is just meaningless white noise.


  28. Martin says:

    Sarpong was on This Week coz she iz black.


  29. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Joel | Homepage | 06.06.08 – 2:52 pm |

    But I don’t agree that it’s a lie spread by the media. It’s something which is spread by opponents of the invasion. Just as is the talk about the ‘illegal’ war which I think is a meaningless term.

    The media – especially the BBC – are opponents of the invasion, in many cases as angry and hate-filled as the most frenzied QT audience member.

    They are largely responsible for the general public’s “knowledge” of the entire issue. Which explains quite a lot, really.


  30. David Vance says:

    David Preiser,

    That’s right. The BBC has spent YEARS now pushing the anti-Iraq war narrative and uses its position to influence public opinion. Trust me, when I am in a BBC studio and express my total support for the toppling of Saddam and the US/UK liberation, their eyes swivel.


  31. Martin says:

    David Preiser: Spot on. The BBC totally hid the whole John Kerry Swift Boat thing in the last election. When people expressed surprise that Kerry lost they just couldn’t understand why.

    The BBC had been painting Kerry as a saint and Bush as a moron. Simon May of the BBC (Radio 5) had an endless list of people who’d written books about Bush (all negative) yet not once did Mayo interview the author of “Unfit for Command”

    The same will happen again. The BBC will wheel out total wankers like Al Frankin, Michael Moore and Greg Palast to spout bollocks and lies (although Frankin has his own problems at the moment) to convince people that McCain is just another “Boosh”


  32. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Martin | 06.06.08 – 4:24 pm |

    The same will happen again. The BBC will wheel out total wankers like Al Frankin, Michael Moore and Greg Palast to spout bollocks and lies (although Frankin has his own problems at the moment) to convince people that McCain is just another “Boosh”.

    Hell, they needn’t bother bringing in all those slobs when the BBC on-air talent can do enough of that themselves.


  33. TPO says:

    Martin | 06.06.08 – 4:24 pm |

    Not so long ago someone posted a comparison here with the election of Nixon.
    Apparently some well known trendy shirtlifting celebrity in New York was aghast and said, “I can’t believe it. Nobody I know voted for him”


  34. Philip Jackson says:

    Slightly o/t but pro-govt Dimbleby happens to be an ex-Bullingdon.

    Labour’s toffophobia can be a bit selective.


  35. Martin says:

    There are plenty of Nu Labour toffs. Harriet Harpie being one example.


  36. Nearly Oxfordian says:

    And the Minister for Wasting our Money on the Dumb Olympics.


  37. Nearly Oxfordian says:

    And the Fat Controller.


  38. Martin says:

    Yep but the BBC only thinks of Tory toffs


  39. Nearly Oxfordian says:

    No! Really! Well, I never!!! 😉
    I was following your own lead of 5:25.


  40. WoAD says:

    The Iraq War was a liberal war motivated by an internationalist Universalist ideology that has everything in common with Bolshevism and no certainly no relation to fascism. Many of the Neocons are former Communists. ‘Regime Change’ is sociological structuralism – Marxism. That’s why Peter Hitchens, a consistent right winger, opposes the Iraq war and other Millennial charlatanry and presumption.

    They even tried to start a multicultural government in Iraq for Sunnis, Shias, Kurds and Christians.. All at ‘the table of universal brotherhood’ just like Martin Luther King advocated. It wasn’t an oil war – Saudi Arabia sells all that is needed. The Iraq war was caused by the values many hold dearer than life itself. That’s why no one can see the wood for the trees.

    Egyptian film star Omar Sharif comments on the American foreign policy. What is highly instructive about Sharif’s comments is that he posits the Arab way of doing things which are quite undemocratic. To George Bush to permit the lack of democracy anywhere is to make you complicit in it. Which is quite distressing for a “universalist”.


  41. Nearly Oxfordian says:

    “‘Regime Change’ is sociological structuralism – Marxism”.

    Oh, dear. Can I have some of that stuff you are on?


  42. chloe verger says:

    If the performance of Shami last night is her normal approach, than I would suggest that she is made a permanent member of the panel.

    Never have I watched such a egotistical, arrogant and dictatorial performance from someone who claims to represent the oppressed, this woman must cause more harm than good to her left-wing causes.


  43. David Vance says:


    I think she is pretty much a permanent fixture on Al Beeb, though she is exactly as you point out.


  44. WoAD says:

    “”‘Regime Change’ is sociological structuralism – Marxism”.

    Oh, dear. Can I have some of that stuff you are on?”

    A “good state” will create a “good society.” Sound familiar?

    $750 million of welfare to deal with the ’causes’ of terrorism – i.e. Poverty.

    Comrade Bush says: Tough on Terrorism, Tough on the Causes of Terrorism.


  45. archduke says:

    just like to point out that not only are the bbc spinning the anti-iraq war narrative – the conservatives havent been exactly stellar in their support of the Bush doctrine either.

    but that doesnt really bother the Yanks – we’re still “redcoats” to them anyway, so they’ll just get on with the job, while we walk away.

    i honestly dont think that the “special relationship” is going to last much longer.


  46. archduke says:

    “chloe verger | 06.06.08 – 9:43 pm ”

    i’d honestly like to know how the hell such a person, who is completely unelected, can get a free pass to appear again and again on the BBC.

    note how the true proponents of liberty are never invited on… such as the Samizdata or Libertarian crowd. the BBC certainly knows who they are.


  47. Nearly Oxfordian says:

    WoaD, are you really quite as ignorant as you appear to be about what Marxism actually is?


  48. David Preiser (USA) says:

    archduke | 06.06.08 – 11:10 pm |

    The Tory attitude towards Iraq is merely a reflection of their attitude towards Blair. Just like the Speccie when Boris was in charge, Blair Derangement Syndrome translates into anti-this-war in Iraq, along with any other related policies. It’s probably too late to fix that now, but in another year or so, the general malaise will pass.

    If not in the governments, I think there will still be some “special relationship” between the citizens of both countries. Until Shariah is implemented in the UK, anyway.

    If Obama becomes President, though, the “special relationship” will be mainly between his ass and various BBC tongues. Oh, wait. That’s happened already.


  49. GCooper says:

    That’s not the first time that David Preiser, commenting from the USA, has got impressively close to the mark concerning UK politics.

    It’s hard to believe that any true Conservative wouldn’t have done exactly the same as Blair over Iraq.

    I loathe Blair with a passion. I hold him in the highest contempt. But not because of Iraq.


  50. WoAD says:

    “WoaD, are you really quite as ignorant as you appear to be about what Marxism actually is?”

    Marxism is the name given to a body of ideas first worked out by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. These ideas provide a theoretical basis for the basis of the working class to a higher form of human society – socialism.

    The working class, or proletariat in Marxism, is the motor of Historical Change. The proletariat is the propertyless class who survive by selling their labour power – the perfect factory fodder. Owing to the Division of Labour and factory production a huge amount of technological productive power is released, and for the first time in human history it is materially possible for all people to be fed and clothed.

    But as was plain to anybody in the 19th century and today this isn’t actually the case.

    Marx identified that the dynamics of capitalism lead to the creation of mutually opposing classes who rely on screwing each other over to try and live. The capitalist has to keep the workers wages as low as possible to turn a profit or go out of business. The workers must keep their wages as high as possible to live anything above bare miserable existence.

    This contradiction, it was said, is a barrier to progress. Moreover, all of capitalist society is based on placating this contradiction.

    The capitalist, reacting against the workers, produces a ‘false consciousness’ with the media, buys up political parties, and utilises the power of the state, such as the police, to keep the workers down etc.

    The revolutionary worker, through the revolutionary party armed with the ideas of Marxism seizes power and the means of production and takes the running of society into its own hands and re-orders society on a progressive basis to create a new and better society of material super-abundance thus eliminating war, poverty, want, ignorance, criminality, oppression.

    How does this relate to the Iraq war?

    With the Neo-cons (former Communists) the Communist millennium has been disavowed though its ultimate aims are not disbelieved. The architects of Universal Americanism and Neo-Conservatism retain a fond idealising of the ‘common man’ and the ‘ordinary people’ languishing under oppression with their true creative potential held back, not by the machinations of wicked capitalists and their false society of class rule, but by the wicked dictator and his oppressive regime.

    (It is highly instructive that in Baghdad a statue of an “Iraqi Family” now stands where a Saddam statue once gestured. Now The People are lionised, not the bourgeois individual and tyrant)

    It is believed that if society is re-ordered (regime change) into a political order like that of America–the most materially wealthy country and successful country in the world–then peace, prosperity and freedom, will prevail.

    That’s also why Bush throws away $750 million dollars on rural Pakistan.

    And that’s what I mean by “Marxist sociological structuralism”. Marxism tinged at least.