QT - King fails to stand up for himself

Question Time was in Bath this week with a panel consisting of the likes of Chris Huhne, the Energy Secretary, and Jimmy Wales, the co founder of Wikipedia. As well as the topic of public sector worker strikes on the agenda, what really interested me as a First Time Voter, was the discussion over whether executive’s salaries were getting out of control.

This debate was largely focused around Justin King, the CEO of Sainsbury’s, who revealed that his salary was 900,000 pounds and due to this he received quite a battering from both fellow panellists and the audience. One audience member asked King whether he was really worth 40 times per year more than an average person, as well as if he was 40 times more productive. David Dimbleby followed on from this with the question ‘ What is it you do which is so special?’

As a first time voter, I was particularly disappointed in Justin King’s response as he lacked much character and a will to stand up for himself or any of his business achievements. Instead, he produced what I understood to be waffle, and argued that the question over his productiveness was ‘impossible to answer’, and that ‘only the shareholders could give a legitimate answer’. Even more irrelevant was when he continued by saying all he could do was to try and ‘deliver a successful business’ as well as praising the way his company put the salary figures of their executives into the public domain.

I would have much preferred to see a fighting and ‘ballsy’ Justin King, who could have stood up for himself and defended his success’s and experiences, such as the senior positions he has held at Marks and Spencer and Asda. Instead, the debate turned into a somewhat free for all against him. It got so embarrassing, that at one stage an audience member asked if he thought he could do a good job at carrying bricks up onto a roof!

Baroness Williams speaks from the heart on Question Time

This week, for the first time in it’s history, Question Time was held in the Houses of Parliament, a rather fitting location for Guy Fawkes week. Inevitably, there was constant bickering between the right and left over issues such as public sector pensions, the eurozone, and the protestors at St Pauls Cathedral. The panel included parliamentary representatives such as Theresa May and Ed Balls as well as the poet and author Benjamin Zephaniah.

As a first time voter, what I found most refreshing was the honesty and frankness of Baroness Shirley Williams. With her experience and evident knowledge, she provided alternative viewpoints from the somewhat restricted politicians. No longer a member of parliament, Williams proceeded with an attractive openness in her answers, articulating what many MP’s may well believe, but can’t afford to say. This was best illustrated in her call for Silvio Berlusconi to stand down as prime minister of Italy provoking a surprised response from David Dimbleby, questioning whether it was ‘parliamentary etiquette’ to say that. Williams smartly replied that ‘some people don’t deserve etiquette’.

It is a good and necessary thing to have a broad cross section of people on the panel, and I am growing to like and respect these ‘old timers’ more and more. 

QT's NHS debate gets lost in the detail

With the resignation of Liam Fox on Friday, it was the debate on the NHS which I focused upon on this week’s Question Time. Arguably, it was a fitting panel to have discussing the NHS, with the health secretary Andrew Lansley as well as the media savvy doctor, Phil Hammond. Eagerly anticipating a balanced and level debate, I was disappointed to witness a rather heated discussion which did not prove to be nearly as insightful as I had imagined.

Clearly here were two men who were incredibly knowledgeable and indeed passionate about the NHS. For a spectator however, it meant a far less open and informative debate. Hammond was continuously grilling Lansley about his reforms even stating that they were ‘incomprehensible’ as well as pointing out that the word ‘competition’ appeared 85 times, within his reforms. In short, the real problem was simply that they knew too much about the topic, and got bogged down in minute detail, whereas what we needed as viewers was a broader brush approach.

At times the debate got overly heated, with David Dimbleby appearing to almost lose control. However he did show good chairmanship eventually by cooling the mood down with a more light hearted question on MP’s tweeting in parliament, brining the debate back on track. 

QT sees Cable tongue tied as Hislop shows benefits of freedom of speech

It was Birmingham for this week’s Question Time with a fairly high profile panel, (certainly compared to last week) with the likes of Vince Cable and Harriet Harman accompanying Dimbleby. For much of the programme, we were ‘treated’ to continuous bickering back and forth between Harman and Cable, over the issue of the economy and growth, after figures from the past week showed a decline. The discussion was spiced up however, when the contentious topic of capital punishment was raised. It was here where Ian Hislop (like him or loathe him) impressed with a clear understanding and knowledge of the matter, as well as maintaining his witty charm. Celebrating his 25 years at the top of Private Eye, he focused on the issue of ensuring that accused murderers are sentenced correctly. He backed this up with evidence of incorrect sentences he had investigated as editor of the magazine. Of all the panellists Hislop shone with an uncanny knack of cutting straight through to the core of the issues raised. In fact, David Dimbleby rounded off the programme by saying there have been a lot of comments along the lines of ‘I agree with Ian’.

It's at times like this, as a First Time Voter I rather wish that some of the most talented non politicians we see on Question Time were the ones in Parliament. That said, Hislop is probably able to do a much more effective job as a journalist, not least because he is free of the constrictions of Parliament and not needing to toe a party line.

This is all too evident when you look at poor old Vince Cable, whose reputation has slid further and further on a downward spiral since he joined the government. During the banking crisis he was the much admired ‘must have’ commentator and many were seeing him as a much better candidate for chancellor. His final downfall and demotion came earlier this year when he was caught making inappropriate remarks about ‘declaring war’ on Rupert Murdoch, to undercover journalists. Murdoch has since been found out in a much bigger way than we could have ever imagined, but nobody has said that perhaps Cable was right all along!