Question Time - How Is This Possible?

[Beefy198]

Jarvis Cocker was the only person on there without an agenda.

edit: don't agree with his viewpoint on allowing Ronnie Biggs out though. We should have never let him back in the country. He "chose" to leave.

[Drewster]

Jarvis Cocker was the only person on there without an agenda.

edit: don't agree with his viewpoint on allowing Ronnie Biggs out though. We should have never let him back in the country. He "chose" to leave.

True but he also didn't seem to have a particulalry good "manner" he mumbled and muttered far too much for my liking!

I am not a great fan of "Celebrities" appearing on this sort of show......
Their opinion on "anything" get cheered and applauded because of who they are not what they actually say....

I have nothing against Mr Cocker (except his delivery) and his opinions didn't seem that bad but in principle I think Celebs should be avoided - unless the Beeb want to take on BigBrother with QT.

[Fred Bloggs]

Harman? It has to be Harperson, surely?

[Beefy198]

True but he also didn't seem to have a particulalry good "manner" he mumbled and muttered far too much for my liking!

I am not a great fan of "Celebrities" appearing on this sort of show......
Their opinion on "anything" get cheered and applauded because of who they are not what they actually say....

I have nothing against Mr Cocker (except his delivery) and his opinions didn't seem that bad but in principle I think Celebs should be avoided - unless the Beeb want to take on BigBrother with QT.

I agree he looked surprised to be asked a question most of the time, but at least his answer wasn't some pre-rehearsed and scripted reply that most of the politicians blatantly give. That's why their answers often seem to go off topic and they end up arguing with David Dimbleby that despite his protestations it "is answering the question" - they're reciting some memorised answer given by the spin doctors.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

I thought it was funny when Cocker gave a brilliant account of why people are put off politics by blind dogmatic party bollockheads spouting crap and trying to defend the indefensible because it's the party line - Ian Duncan cough (one of the offenders but by no means the worst) leapt in to agree with him because he sensed Jarvis was speaking for a signifcant number of us!

[Drewster]

I agree he looked surprised to be asked a question most of the time, but at least his answer wasn't some pre-rehearsed and scripted reply that most of the politicians blatantly give. That's why their answers often seem to go off topic and they end up arguing with David Dimbleby that despite his protestations it "is answering the question" - they're reciting some memorised answer given by the spin doctors.

All true about Jarvis... but I would like to see the Professional BullTulipers stopped by the likes of Dimbleperson (or Paxo) and actually told:
"Either answer the question or Shut Up!"
followed with (once the "answer" has started - but not ended):
"That isn't answering the question - now SHUT UP!..... I am sorry viewers but I am asking Mr/s BullTuliper to leave the panel now and we will have to continue the program without them"

The Beeb and other broadcasters could also publically proclaim that such BullTulip would result in Offenders being publicised!

I would also like a very similar method being employed in Parliament......
Speaker: Would the PrimeTuliper either answer the question or sit down"
Gordo (or any one of them): I am gla....
Speaker: Sit down......

I can but hope!!

[Cyberman]

I thought it was funny when Cocker gave a brilliant account of why people are put off politics by blind dogmatic party bollockheads spouting crap and trying to defend the indefensible because it's the party line - Ian Duncan cough (one of the offenders but by no means the worst) leapt in to agree with him because he sensed Jarvis was speaking for a signifcant number of us!

He spoke as a typical left-winger. No great ideas at all, very slow-thinking and expression but seemed convinced that railways were better under nationalisation. Some of us remember different !!

[Beefy198]

I didn't agree with his point of view about railways or Ronnie Biggs, but it was still refreshing to see someone without an agenda.

[TimberWolf]

He spoke as a typical left-winger. No great ideas at all, very slow-thinking and expression but seemed convinced that railways were better under nationalisation. Some of us remember different !!

The other chap on the panel, whose name I forget, made an interesting observation re the nationalised railway system and its privatisation, I thought. The gist of it being that people banging on about how much better the railways have become since privatisation (i.e. IDS) must take into account the enormous amount of (presumably public) money pumped into them since privatisation. Or something like that.

Thought for the day: If as much money (whether directly from tax payers or from fare increases, and making people stand in carriages like cattle, etc) had been pumped into the railways instead of shareholders pockets, would the nationalised system have equalled or 'bettered' the private one?

[Cyberman]

The other chap on the panel, whose name I forget, made an interesting observation re the nationalised railway system and its privatisation, I thought. The gist of it being that people banging on about how much better the railways have become since privatisation (i.e. IDS) must take into account the enormous amount of (presumably public) money pumped into them since privatisation. Or something like that.

Thought for the day: If as much money (whether directly from tax payers or from fare increases, and making people stand in carriages like cattle, etc) had been pumped into the railways instead of shareholders pockets, would the nationalised system have equalled or 'bettered' the private one?

Railways under nationalisation can work if governments are prepared to pump in the money, but history has shown that consecutive UK governments have always cut resources for railways.
At least privatisation has brought money in, and stations and rolling-stock are much more modern than pre-privatisation because private as well as some government money has been invested.
The other argument for privatisation is reduction of costs, because private companies are always aware of the profit-motive. Unfortunately, railways' restrictive practices and pseudo public sector pensions still exist, which are a massive burden. The next government as a priority really needs to take a axe to these unaffordable and unsustainable pensions.