BBC Question Time: open thread
Written by Stephen Tall on 6th March 2008 – 9:45 pmShirley Williams, veteran Liberal Democrat peer, is one of the panellists on tonight’s Question Time (broadcast on BBC1 and online from 10.35 pm GMT).
The panel will also include the Cabinet Office Minister Ed Miliband, the shadow home secretary David Davis, the leader of the UK Independence Party Nigel Farage, and comedian and broadcaster Marcus Brigstocke.
If you’re watching, and want to sound-off, please feel free to use the comments thread.
PS: I’ll be on Question Time Extra (on BBC News 24 immediately after the main show finishes) alongside Tim Montgomerie… What do you mean, you’ll be tuning into BBC1’s This Week instead?
Posted in Lib Dem TV
6th March 2008 at 10:13 pm
Oh dear. Can’t help but suspect this one might be painful, and I’m not sure that Shirley is the best person to be fielding this one.
6th March 2008 at 10:17 pm
Oooh! Haven’t you hit the big time? Of course I shall be watching - mind you don’t say anything stupid now!
6th March 2008 at 10:18 pm
Yes, time to retire Shirley I think. Marcus Brigstocke should be a laugh though.
6th March 2008 at 10:25 pm
Forget Marcus, the mighty Farage is going to be there! Yep he is a t*t but he is an entertaining t*t.
6th March 2008 at 10:37 pm
Sorry, I don’t understand. What has Shirley Williams done wrong? Apart from be over 50 that is…
6th March 2008 at 10:39 pm
DD’s tie is awful.
Farage pronounces his name Fararge. Sounds a bit continental to me. What’s wrong with Farridge?
6th March 2008 at 10:42 pm
Rosie, the last time Shirley appeared on Question Time, she said that it was a “mistake” to confer a Knighthood upon Salman Rushdie because it might be offensive to Muslims. Some of us have never forgiven her.
6th March 2008 at 10:45 pm
I have not read the Lisbon Treaty, am not going to read the Lisbon treaty, would probably not understand the Lisbon treaty even if I did read it, and do not want a referendum on the Lisbon treaty.
Is that clear?
6th March 2008 at 10:47 pm
I take it back. Stonking response from Shirley.
6th March 2008 at 10:48 pm
Shirley rather good in fact. Came out fighting with a great attack on the Tories and a good sign-off on square carrots. Brigstocke also good.
6th March 2008 at 10:49 pm
Bang on Marcus. It’s not our job to read the treaty. A referendum is just a cop out.
6th March 2008 at 10:50 pm
Shirley now demonstrating she has read the Treaty just after David Davis admits he has not.
6th March 2008 at 10:55 pm
No, David Davis, it’s not irreversible - we can leave the EU.
6th March 2008 at 10:58 pm
This could be interesting…
6th March 2008 at 10:58 pm
I can’t really understand these Lib Dem rebels. Sounds all a bit self-indulgent to me.
6th March 2008 at 10:59 pm
Shirl is not proving good, she is barnstorming! We have a good parliamentry team but none of them could come close to her performance this evening. She is sweeping all before her.
This is after all her forte as she ued to lecture in European politics.
Magnificent.
6th March 2008 at 11:00 pm
Gosh isn’t Shirley frightening? :@) Remember feeling very scared the night of Ming’s resignation when she fought with Hancock on the radio! Crikey!
6th March 2008 at 11:01 pm
Pity she didn’t make the point that the Tories also had a quarter of their MPs rebelling - perhaps they should be looking for a new leader.
6th March 2008 at 11:03 pm
Shirley has been pretty good again. A shame that she didn’t make the point that the issue of party loyalty is the crucial factor.
6th March 2008 at 11:04 pm
Could someone please explain why Nigel Farage who wants to be out of the europe Union, is a MEP?
Isn’t that a bit hypocritical?
6th March 2008 at 11:05 pm
Farage gets not one clap for his anti EU pitch. Ho ho.
Brigstocke is very supportive. Sign that man up!
6th March 2008 at 11:05 pm
Interesting that apart from Farage, neither of the other parties’ MPs really laid into us like they might have done.
6th March 2008 at 11:06 pm
Bridget: I can’t help but suspect that Brigstocke is something of a closet supporter anyway. Just a suspicion…
6th March 2008 at 11:06 pm
Yes, the lack of support for Farage’s clarion call to leave the EU was very striking.
6th March 2008 at 11:07 pm
David Davis gives a very good answer on ID cards. The card was never the big problem; it’s the scheme’s cost, vulnerability and over-reach.
6th March 2008 at 11:11 pm
ID cards arent going to work, for whatever reason the government is using this time. They’ve lost millions of people’s personal data, so why would anyone want to give more info over to the government.
And as for stopping terrorism they didnt stop the Madrid Train bombs, so what exactly is the point of having a worthless peice of card?
6th March 2008 at 11:13 pm
Ultimately, the response to Miliband’s answer is simply “So why couldn’t we all just use our passports?”
6th March 2008 at 11:15 pm
Ed Miliband ays we won’t have to carry ID ars and we won’t have to produce them in the street. Which leads to the perhaps somewhat intemperate question, what the ****do we need them for then???
6th March 2008 at 11:15 pm
Andy - that’s cos they’re avoiding Shirley!!!
6th March 2008 at 11:20 pm
For once, here, we have a balanced panel. That’s something to be thankful for, I think.
6th March 2008 at 11:22 pm
It’s one against four and Shirley’s winning!
6th March 2008 at 11:25 pm
Interesting blogging comments!…
I have to say, I find all flag-waving kinda distasteful, but I’m not about to object to others doing it.
6th March 2008 at 11:25 pm
“It’s a very dangerous thing having a blog up you’ve got to really watch what you say”
Yes Shirley, will do!!
6th March 2008 at 11:29 pm
3-6 am? Is that supposed to be all people coming out of pubs?! What planet is David Davis on?
6th March 2008 at 11:29 pm
It’s 3-6pm for me these days!!
6th March 2008 at 11:32 pm
And another stormer from Shirley to round off the evening.
6th March 2008 at 11:33 pm
why dont we have zero tolerence for underage drinking?
6th March 2008 at 11:34 pm
Flag waving is not distasteful. As Shirl said, the fact is that the last night of the proms actually allows us to disrespect our flag as well as celebrating it. We’re lucky we don’t do nationalism in this country too much but we still need to have the odd celebration.
6th March 2008 at 11:35 pm
The honours clearly go to Shirl, with Marcus Brigstocke mentioned in dispatches.
6th March 2008 at 11:35 pm
Switch over to News 24 for Stephen…:@)
6th March 2008 at 11:36 pm
Distasteful probably the wrong word. Tacky, perhaps? I dunno, it’s just not something I would do.
Also: Nigel Farage just learned one of the cardinal rules of getting applause - trashing the young doesn’t work!
6th March 2008 at 11:36 pm
I’m not Shirley’s biggest fan and admit I was wary when she was to be on the panel, but blimey, when she gets it right she’s stunning, isn’t she?
She’s even finished the programme with an anti-ID card gag that got mass applause and wolf-whistles!
6th March 2008 at 11:36 pm
Surely 16 year olds should be able to drink as well as vote, pay tax and die for their country - or am I being too Liberal?
6th March 2008 at 11:38 pm
I would feel quite safe walking the streets of Liverpool late at night with Shirl at my side!!!
6th March 2008 at 11:41 pm
Will this be a better performance for Stephen, then the last time he was on the BBC - which as i recall was out take tv
lol
6th March 2008 at 11:42 pm
Oh no what happened?
6th March 2008 at 11:42 pm
Shirley flattening everyone in sight on the Europe question was great, but I loved her putting the fear of God into Mr Dimbleby when he thought he had soemthing to hit her with and she practically ripped his lungs out for saying she blackmailed Ming. I guess that’s that rumour put to bed…
Still, she doesn’t like blogs: what do you think, a suitable target for the bloggers’ interviews? I bet Laurence would be first to volunteer when Millennium advertises on here!
6th March 2008 at 11:43 pm
Would we interview her or vice versa?!!!
6th March 2008 at 11:44 pm
And as for underage drinking, i’m going New York on sunday, with some other students form uni, and we’ve been told quite clearly that there is no tolerence at all for anyone under the age of 21 to be consuming alcohol.
Im not suggesting that the minimum age is raised to 21, but there should be tougher penalties for underage drinkers and the people who are serving them the alcohol
6th March 2008 at 11:46 pm
OK - I haven’t been on here long so don’t shout me down if I make a faux pas - does Stephen want to be an MP?
6th March 2008 at 11:50 pm
OK - everyone’s left the living room to go to bed - although not the same one I hope - I’ll assume he does :@))
6th March 2008 at 11:53 pm
nice quick plug for lib dem voice from stephen there. I was wondering how he would shoe one in
6th March 2008 at 11:59 pm
Well done, Stephen!
7th March 2008 at 12:02 am
Yes very well done to Stephen :@P
7th March 2008 at 12:04 am
Indeed!
7th March 2008 at 1:28 am
Stephen, the legal minimum age for alcohol consumption is five - that’s why parents are able to give alcohol to their children at home. “Underage” drinking is NuLabour speak for “kids we don’t like hanging around in the street”. We need to be careful as liberals before adopting a zero tolerance policy on anything that is not actually illegal.
7th March 2008 at 1:46 am
Jo - the reference to my previous out-take TV is this (which I blogged about here).
As for being an MP? - no thanks.
7th March 2008 at 5:18 am
Damn, I fell asleep. I blame the Lancaster Bomber. I have every sympathy with that fainting incident Stephen. Whenever somebody faints next to me, people come tearing in from all directions while I’m just stood there scratching my head. Perhaps they’re all Christians or something. I’m not sure I really want to interview Shirley, Alex. I wouldn’t have much to say except to be rude to her over that incident, and then she’d like bloggers even less . . .
7th March 2008 at 8:36 am
How crass of Laurence Boyce to trust politicians to read and understand the Lisbon Treaty, and how ill-informed of him to think EU Treaties actually spell out the law. Wrong on both counts.
In 1972, our political leaders were wholly unaware of the doctrines of Supremacy and Direct Effect. Civil servants had handed Ministers briefing papers on the subject, but Ministers didn’t read them.
So when Sir Alec Douglas-Home assured the Commons that Britain’s membership of the then EEC would entail no loss of national sovereignty, he was talking out of the back of his neck - from a position of ignorance, not mendacity.
Note that Supremacy and Direct Effect were nowhere to be found in the Treaty of Rome. Both were concocted by Napoleonic judges in the European Court of Justice.
EU Treaties are basically invitations to judges to dispense palm tree justice and make it up as they go along - because that is how the Napoleonic legal system works.
Shirley Williams clearly has a down on young people. A few months ago, on “Question Time”, she said she is in favour of school uniforms (like Hitler and Mao), and in the days of the SDP she once called for the age of sexual consent to be raised to 18. And I can even remember her advocating conscription on one occasion (a watered down variant that Owen’s acolytes were pushing at the time).
If 40% of publicans don’t ask young people their age, that’s great news for human freedom. If 100% didn’t, that would be wonderful news.
7th March 2008 at 8:54 am
I think you are all trying very hard to convince yourselves that we are not in the brown stuff.
David Davis put Shirley on the ropes with the stuff about whether the treaty was important or not.
Time to take off those yellow tinted glasses.
7th March 2008 at 9:15 am
“and in the days of the SDP she once called for the age of sexual consent to be raised to 18.”
If it was on an equal basis (ie hetero and homo) then that’s not unsustainable as a Liberal position. The issue is equality IMO.
Mind you given that your conjecture is to equate Shirley with Hitler and Mao, I may be given your arguments credence they don’t merit
7th March 2008 at 9:42 am
@Sesenco “[Shirley Williams] she said she is in favour of school uniforms (like Hitler and Mao),”
It’s a while since I’ve seen someone foolish enough to seriously push the argument “Person X believes in this, Mao/Hitler/Stalin had the same opinion, therefore person X is like them”.
Next you’ll be telling us that all atheists are like Mao and Stalin, with all Catholics being like Hitler.
Thanks for brightening up my morning.
7th March 2008 at 9:57 am
It’s good to know that Iain Roberts is ignorant enough to believe Hitler was a Catholic. He was an atheist and a materialist (like Laurence Boyce, in fact). Read Alan Bullock’s “Hitler: A Study in Tyrrany”. It’s all there.
The point I was making is that Hitler and Mao were in favour of putting people into uniform for the same reasons as alleged “liberals” like Williams (in Williams’ case, to impose a feeling of belonging to a particular institution).
If Roberts would take the trouble to examine the attitudes of Hitler and Mao, he will find that most of them are shared by most people.
That doesn’t make Williams a Nazi or a Communist, obviously. What it does is point to the illiberality of parts of her thinking.
Shirley Williams did favour an equal age of consent. But the issue is freedom, not equality. Isn’t it?
7th March 2008 at 9:58 am
Stephen - Oh! :@))
7th March 2008 at 9:59 am
By the way, Iain Roberts, where did I say Shirley Williams is like Hitler and Mao?
You should get a job with Rupert Murdoch if you don’t have one already.
7th March 2008 at 10:00 am
You could have caught her in your arms Stephen I’m not impressed!!! :@P
7th March 2008 at 10:40 am
Sesenco “It’s good to know that Iain Roberts is ignorant enough to believe Hitler was a Catholic. He was an atheist and a materialist.”
I find checking your facts before making comments like this can be helpful - then you don’t look quite so foolish by getting it wrong
7th March 2008 at 10:46 am
Sesenco: “By the way, Iain Roberts, where did I say Shirley Williams is like Hitler and Mao?”
So, to be clear, you thought you’d make a comparison between the opinions of Shirley Williams, Stalin and Mao saying how similar they were, but you in no way intended to imply that they were like each other in any way.
Right, that makes complete sense.
7th March 2008 at 10:54 am
Iain Roberts clearly doesn’t like owning up when he gets things wrong.
He says I claimed that Shirley Williams is like Hitler and Mao.
I didn’t. End of story on that point.
Shirley Williams does however share a number of political opinions with Hitler and Mao (most of them concerning young people). And that is a matter of record.
7th March 2008 at 2:01 pm
How crass of Laurence Boyce to trust politicians to read and understand the Lisbon Treaty, and how ill-informed of him to think EU Treaties actually spell out the law. Wrong on both counts.
Not sure I said either of those things but never mind . . .
7th March 2008 at 2:03 pm
It’s good to know that Iain Roberts is ignorant enough to believe Hitler was a Catholic. He was an atheist and a materialist (like Laurence Boyce, in fact).
Hitler was a Catholic. This from the Munich speech, April 12, 1922:
“I say: my feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to the fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as sufferer but as fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and of adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognise more profoundly than ever before - the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilisation of the ancient world some two thousand years ago - a civilisation which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people.”
Of course you may insist that he was just saying that for political reasons, or that he couldn’t possibly be a Catholic seeing as he was so nasty - but then we’re just into the “religion is whatever meaningless tautology you choose to make of it” game again.
7th March 2008 at 3:22 pm
What Hitler said in private was entirely different. His comments on this and many other subjects were recorded in great detail by Martin Bormann and appear in “Hitler’s Table Talk”, from which Bullock was quoting.
He was an atheist and materialist on the basis of what he said in private, not his public utterances. Hitler (under Bormann’s influence) may have been planning to outlaw Christianity once the war was over. Or he might just have been mouthing off to his intimates. We will never know.
Once again, Laurence shows off his mean skills as a propagandist. Truth is a different matter.
There are plenty of legitimate grounds for attacking the RC Church. You don’t need to make them up, Laurence.
7th March 2008 at 4:54 pm
Shirley was superb. Like some other contributors I had worried a bit at first as to whether she was the right choice - but she gave a star performance. Don’t let’s forget she comes from the generation when political debate and rhetoric still meant something and the audience appreciated her. I’m glad most doubtersin these columns were won over, even though some later comments were carping and silly.
Unwillingness to worship constantly at the court of yoof isn’t a crime or necessarily illiberal. Given the amount of bullying and persecution that takes place amongst young people about fashion, school uniform doesn’t seem such a bad idea. And though we can’t go back to it, neither is national service. At least it created a kind of social cohesion and equality, as well as discouraging military adventures by governments (and I speak from the experience of having done national service).
7th March 2008 at 5:07 pm
You dare mention rhetoric? Any attempt to justify the broken promise on the referendum is nothing but rhetoric!
7th March 2008 at 6:14 pm
What Hitler said in private was entirely different.
Ah, well I wasn’t in on those conversations, so I’ll just have to go by the published material.
He was an atheist and materialist on the basis of what he said in private, not his public utterances.
Rather than argue whether Hitler was an atheist or a religionist, why don’t we just settle for saying he was completely mad? As I understand it, the Reich advocated some totally bizarre mix of Christian and Norse legend termed Positive Christianity. I think it’s really stretching things to describe this as a materialist outlook. It was certainly deeply irrational.
Once again, Laurence shows off his mean skills as a propagandist . . .
On the subject of mean skills, may I offer you some genuine advice “Senesco.” It would be to obtain for yourself a real name and profile so we may see who you are. Anonymous commenting does have a place on the internet, but only up to a point. After a while, it just looks a little cowardly.
There are plenty of legitimate grounds for attacking the RC Church. You don’t need to make them up, Laurence.
Ah, but that is precisely what I was not doing. Because my argument on religion is simply this: that the claims of religion are false. Nothing that Hitler, Stalin, Mother Teresa, or Batman did in the 20th century can have any possible bearing upon the alleged events of first century Palestine. That is why the Hitler/Stalin argument against atheism, so often and glibly trotted out, merely betrays a total lack of commitment to the truth.
No, my point in saying that Hitler was a Catholic is merely to point out that Hitler was raised a Catholic, that (while going through some bizarre twists and turns) he never publicly renounced his Catholicism, that he doubtless felt he was fulfilling the biblical prophecy of the final destruction of the Jews, and finally (and most crucially) that modern Christians, who believe plenty of strange things themselves, are in no position whatsoever to say that Hitler had any of this wrong.
7th March 2008 at 9:14 pm
Shall we have a look at what Hitler actually did say?
“Gradually the myths crumble. All that is left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.”
And:
“The evil that is gnawing our vitals, is our priests, of both creeds. I can’t at present give them the answer they’ve been asking for but it’s all written down in my big book. The time will come when I’ll settle my account with them. They’ll hear from me all right. I shan’t let myself me hampered with judicial samples.”
And he was just as rude about Paganism:
“Nothing would be more foolish than to reestablish the worship of Wotan. Our old mythology had ceased to be viable when Christianity implanted itself. I especially wouldn’t want our movement to acquire a religious character and institute a form of worship. It would be appalling for me, if I were to end up in the skin of a Buddha.”
I can’t guarantee that Bormann got it all down correctly, of course.
My answer to Laurence’s “advice” is as follows: Some people don’t sit around the house all day, but go out and earn a living. That often means one is restricted as to what one can say in a public forum. I wish it were not so.
And my answer to the gentleman who defended school uniform and conscription. Both are evil. Neither has a legitimate function. Presumably the military adventures the latter discouraged would include Korea, Malaya, Cyprus, Vietnam, Algeria? And the social cohesion would be found in the officers’ mess?
10th March 2008 at 1:09 pm
Sources please Sesenco.
Hitler’s anti-Christian comments are usually credited to the “table talk” source. Skeptics of that source will point out that it is hearsay.
His pro-Christian comments can be found in Mein Kampf, and speeches.
It is quite possible of course that he lost his faith after writing Mein Kampf.
10th March 2008 at 1:39 pm
I have already provided the source: “Hitler, a Study in Tyrrany” by Professor Alan Bullock.
Mein Kampf is actually replete with criticisms of the Church, but recall that Mein Kampf was intended for publication and circulation to the electorate at a period when the Nazi Party was weak.
The evidence indicates that Hitler was an atheist and materialist who was hostile to the Church in private and lukewarm in public.
The Nazi regime did not encourage the practice of religion and denied Christian leaders access to government. Priests were not allowed to officiate at SS funerals.
Bormann wanted Christianity outlawed altogether, while Rosenberg would have replaced it with the worship of Wotan. Goering seems to have been a semi-practicing Christian all his life while Hess reverted to Lutheranism at Nurnberg.
The atheist tendency clearly has a dislike of people pointing out that Hitler was one of theirs. But one of theirs he was, like it or not.
10th March 2008 at 3:14 pm
I mean primary sources please.
Criticisms of the church, yes. Some Christians seemed to believe that Jesus was Jewish and Hitler was quite appalled by that.
And even today we can see in religious art many very non-Jewish, er I mean non-Semitic looking Jesuses. In Passion of the Christ too. Why? Because all this art (including the story adapted for Passion of the Christ) originated when christian culture was highly anti-Semitic. (I’m not seeking to absolve atheists here either, many of whom were also anti-semitic - Barn d’Holbach for example - and many others including communists.)
Yes a few Nazis were attracted to other gods, but this does not make them atheists!
10th March 2008 at 3:57 pm
Joe Otten:
Three questions:-
(1) How often did Hitler attend Roman Catholic Services (most Roman Catholics at the time did, and almost all living in rural areas)?
(2) How many senior Nazis attended church services of either denomination on a regular basis?
(3) How many Christian priests officiated at SS funerals?
If you want Alan Bullock’s primary sources, I suggest you check the references he gives.
I smell some rewriting of history going on here. I’m not defending the Church (far from it), just the truth.
10th March 2008 at 5:18 pm
Sesenco, I have no idea what the answers to your question are, nor do I have access to your book. You do, so give us the primary source which it cites.
And please admit that believers in Wotan are not atheists!
I don’t go round making categorical assertions regarding what other people really believe in (sometimes despite what they say) because I can’t see inside their heads - and nor can anyone else. And so I am suspicious of all such categorical assertions. Machiavellian piety is always a possibility and never provable.
I agree there is probably revisionism going on, quite possibly from both sides; nobody likes to be lumped with the bad guys.
Does this leave us with no lessons to learn? Not at all. Whatever his beliefs were, it is clear that his politics were not secularist. He demanded religion in education, signed concordats guaranteeing tax money to the churches, proclaimed that atheism would be stamped out. Lets be lumped apart, whatever our religious beliefs, by keeping the state out of the religion business.