NationStates Jolt Archive

It was on BBC1 at 8:30pm. I saw it tonight. I thought that Howard got totally ripped to shreds by the audience! ("evil racist...") Tony did to a lesser extent and he freaked out as I expected him to do when pressed about Iraq. (He's been angry for the past week about people asking him questions about that.) Charles Kennedy was very warmly received I think, but this is nnot surprising given the mostly young adult audience.

Who else has opinions?

It was on BBC1 at 8:30pm. I saw it tonight. I thought that Howard got totally ripped to shreds by the audience! ("evil racist...") Tony did to a lesser extent and he freaked out as I expected him to do when pressed about Iraq. (He's been angry for the past week about people asking him questions about that.) Charles Kennedy was very warmly received I think, but this is nnot surprising given the mostly young adult audience.

Who else has opinions?


Well of course Howard got ripped to shreds. It was a BBC production (an official organ of the Labour party.)

Kennedy > Blair > Howard

thats how it came out

Well of course Howard got ripped to shreds. It was a BBC production (an official organ of the Labour party.)
Actually it was the audience. I thought the host was fairly easy on him. The audience was young and largely foreign, thus anti-Conservative.

It was very interesting, IMO.
I would agree that Kennedy came out the best at the end (no boo's!), though I would have to say that Blair did ok, apart from starting to lose his temper with the student, though to be fair he wasn't really listening... :rolleyes:

Howard was just funny though. "I'll tell the truth". Uh-huh...ok...we believe you!
Still, it was interesting to see how all the party leaders reacted to direct questions from the public, and Howard definately came across the worst!

Well of course Howard got ripped to shreds. It was a BBC production (an official organ of the Labour party.)
Heh. You're funny.

First i'll say I'm an American.

I thought it was great. I like to see the heads of parties asked some good questions. I thought Kennedy did a good job and was the most likable. But i don't think Howard did that bad he did a good job with a hostile crowd. And i thought Blair came of as very cross about the whole Iraq war questions i think he would like to move on in the few days left in the election, but he should have expected the questions to be on that issue.

Howard was just funny though. "I'll tell the truth". Uh-huh...ok...we believe you!
Yeah Howard really treated the audience like morons. He used all the cliche political bullshit, and was vague about his plans.

And i thought Blair came of as very cross about the whole Iraq war questions i think he would like to move on in the few days left in the election, but he should have expected the questions to be on that issue.
Blair has been getting very frustrated over questioning about Iraq.

If you've seen him being intervied on TV over the past week, he has gotten all worked up about it every time.

I would've seen this, had I known it was on. Sounds like it was a riot!

:D

fuck i missed it :mad:

oh well, glad to hear Howard came off worst :p

Actually it was the audience. I thought the host was fairly easy on him. The audience was young and largely foreign, thus anti-Conservative.


And who invited them. The BBC of course.

Case closed.

And who invited them. The BBC of course.

Case closed.
Good lord! I've never seen such a remarkable legal mind in action!

Dude, lighten up. The facts are there that the BBC is pro-Labour. Open your eyes man, it's blatantly obvious.

Dude, lighten up. The facts are there that the BBC is pro-Labour. Open your eyes man, it's blatantly obvious.
Which is why the BBC was so easy on Blair over Iraq, right? :rolleyes:

*hates the BBC*
My brother (uni student) was supposed to have a debate with a pro-palestinian uni student. "unfortunately" the palestinian student couldn't make it, so they brought in a Palestinian professor, with a PhD in Israel-Palestinian relations, who's been studying the Israel situation for well over a decade. :rolleyes:
BBC are anti-semitic, racist, bigoted morons.

*hates the BBC*
My brother (uni student) was supposed to have a debate with a pro-palestinian uni student. "unfortunately" the palestinian student couldn't make it, so they brought in a Palestinian professor, with a PhD in Israel-Palestinian relations, who's been studying the Israel situation for well over a decade. :rolleyes:
BBC are anti-semitic, racist, bigoted morons.

none of the people I know from the BBC are any of those things.

Conceited maybe. Arrogant perhaps. But not those.

Don't forget the way the BBC looks down its nose at anyone from the north of england. Patronizing bastards. I hope Jeremy Paxman gets colo-rectal cancer the smug shite.

And Terry Wogan can go fuck himself too.

Well, its enough that the main board of directors are racist for it to rub off on the whole corporation.

Well, its enough that the main board of directors are racist for it to rub off on the whole corporation.

Got any evidence to back that up?

People's concerns over the israelis / palestinian conflict aren't anti-semitism, israel isn't the onlt place where jews live. It's about land grabbing, oppression and aggression. Just look at the recent deal for the US to sell Israel bunker busting bombs. That is not a defensive weapon.

Dude, lighten up. The facts are there that the BBC is pro-Labour. Open your eyes man, it's blatantly obvious.

Or, just maybe, it's much harder to be "nice" about the conservatives.

The simple fact is they *aren't* very nice. Especially given their current campaign, which seems to be "We hate it/them too".

And who invited them. The BBC of course.

Case closed.
Surely this would mean that the BBC is controlled by the Lib Dems, considering that Kennedy was clearly the most popular.

*hates the BBC*
My brother (uni student) was supposed to have a debate with a pro-palestinian uni student. "unfortunately" the palestinian student couldn't make it, so they brought in a Palestinian professor, with a PhD in Israel-Palestinian relations, who's been studying the Israel situation for well over a decade. :rolleyes:
BBC are anti-semitic, racist, bigoted morons.

Eh? Would you regard it as racist of them if they had brought in some random replacement off the street as opposed to an educated, literate person?

I would have thought that a person with a PhD in Israel-Palestinian relations would be an *ideal* commentator. But then I don't have a vested interest.

Surely this would mean that the BBC is controlled by the Lib Dems, considering that Kennedy was clearly the most popular.

Why, bollicks. They were always up David Owen's arse too. It didn't mean anything because they knew he had bugger all chance of winning. At the end of the day Kinnock was their man.

The BBC just does this shit to try and fool people into thinking that it isn't an official organ of the labour party. It still is though. And there is no getting out of it.

Eh? Would you regard it as racist of them if they had brought in some random replacement off the street as opposed to an educated, literate person?

I would have thought that a person with a PhD in Israel-Palestinian relations would be an *ideal* commentator. But then I don't have a vested interest.
It was meant to be a debate between two uni students, they then claimed that the Pro-Palestinian couldn't make it, then made the replacement the top pro-palestinian authority. Surely if the uni student couldn't make it, bring in another one? It was just an attempt by the BBC to make the Israeli side look bad.

It was meant to be a debate between two uni students, they then claimed that the Pro-Palestinian couldn't make it, then made the replacement the top pro-palestinian authority. Surely if the uni student couldn't make it, bring in another one? It was just an attempt by the BBC to make the Israeli side look bad.


Israel does a good enough job of that all on its own. You could have had an army of supporters and still looked like the bad guys. That isn't the fault of the BBC but of the Israeli authorities. Don't like that? Then complain to the Israeli government, not the BBC.

Israel does a good enough job of that all on its own. You could have had an army of supporters and still looked like the bad guys. That isn't the fault of the BBC but of the Israeli authorities. Don't like that? Then complain to the Israeli government, not the BBC.
Seriously, if you have no idea what you're talking about, just don't talk. You ever been here? Clearly not judging by that statement. I live here, and its because of the BBC that Israel look like the bad guys, when it really isn't like that. But you keep on thinking that Israel is "t3h ub3r 3vi1" I won't try and change your mind.

Actually, I know people who have been there. They stayed with a palestinian family, and they all nearly got sniped out because they were out after curfew, or something.

but that's not what this thread is about.

Surely this would mean that the BBC is controlled by the Lib Dems, considering that Kennedy was clearly the most popular.

no it means that even labour supporters cant ignore how much of a liar Blair is.

It was on BBC1 at 8:30pm. I saw it tonight. I thought that Howard got totally ripped to shreds by the audience! ("evil racist...") Tony did to a lesser extent and he freaked out as I expected him to do when pressed about Iraq. (He's been angry for the past week about people asking him questions about that.) Charles Kennedy was very warmly received I think, but this is nnot surprising given the mostly young adult audience.

Who else has opinions?

Howard did well. Most of the audience didn't boo him whereas they did to Tony Blair. Howard answers the questions well and consisely which is more than can be said for the Bliar. There was that simple minded idiot who called Howard "an evil racist" but notice that none of the audience applauded or cheered that man - in fact they applauded and cheered at Howard's dignified response. That guy really was a moron - he was the one that David Frost had to tell to shut up at the end of the programme. If he thinks introducing immigration quotas are on a par with Nazism he has really lost his grip on reality.

In comparison to Howard, Blair got no cheers or applause for his responses and was reduced by the end to a quivering, sweating fool who had been proved to be a liar.

I didn't see the Kennedy interview but I can guess that it was popular considering that the audience was about 85% students.

I just saw the highlights on the ABC and they played the bit where Blair got a bit shirty at the audience. They really downplayed any animosity to Howard, and Kennedy didn't even get a mention. So which one is Kennedy?

Howard did well. Most of the audience didn't boo him whereas they did to Tony Blair. Howard answers the questions well and consisely which is more than can be said for the Bliar. There was that simple minded idiot who called Howard "an evil racist" but notice that none of the audience applauded or cheered that man - in fact they applauded and cheered at Howard's dignified response. That guy really was a moron - he was the one that David Frost had to tell to shut up at the end of the programme. If he thinks introducing immigration quotas are on a par with Nazism he has really lost his grip on reality.

In comparison to Howard, Blair got no cheers or applause for his responses and was reduced by the end to a quivering, sweating fool who had been proved to be a liar.

I didn't see the Kennedy interview but I can guess that it was popular considering that the audience was about 85% students.
wow you must have a slightly warped sense of reality, cos thats not what anyone else has been saying (i didn't see it myself :mad: ). most people seem to think howard got pwned, bliar came off pretty bad, and kennedy was ok :confused:

wow you must have a slightly warped sense of reality, cos thats not what anyone else has been saying (i didn't see it myself :mad: ). most people seem to think howard got pwned, bliar came off pretty bad, and kennedy was ok :confused:

Well if you watch the show, Howard actually gets way more cheering and applause than Blair did. Also Howard did not get booed when he came on like Blair did.

I just saw the highlights on the ABC and they played the bit where Blair got a bit shirty at the audience. They really downplayed any animosity to Howard, and Kennedy didn't even get a mention. So which one is Kennedy?
Kennedy is the Liberal Democrat leader: Scottish, ginger, portly, just had a kid. Even people who are anti the Lib Dems rarely have a bad word for him. He's clearly a nice guy, but a leader...? Hmm.

Lacadaemon, I really thought you were joking at first. I didn't realise you were a fantasist.

One thing I think the UK gets right is the questioning of its pols.

Here in the US, watching any "Presidential debate" is an exercise in trying to keep from vomiting from the sweet syrupy softballs that are gently lobbed to each candidate.

One thing I think the UK gets right is the questioning of its pols.

Here in the US, watching any "Presidential debate" is an exercise in trying to keep from vomiting from the sweet syrupy softballs that are gently lobbed to each candidate.
Oh, yeah. We love to bash our would-be leaders, especially if they represent our party.

There's a point - is it common for Republicans to loudly object to Bush? Ditto Democrats - Kerry/whomever?

Oh, yeah. We love to bash our would-be leaders, especially if they represent our party.

There's a point - is it common for Republicans to loudly object to Bush? Ditto Democrats - Kerry/whomever?

No. Perhaps a bit in the past, but now the whole "unified party behind their candidate" is scripted from beginning to end.

Even the whole selection process at the National Conventions for each party is completely, totally, and utterly scripted. The outcome is never in doubt - what's essential is showing that unified face.

I think what's really strange is the perception that "if the other party wins, it's the end of the world".

Both of them cast a potential victory by the other party in such language.

Yeesh, that ain't good. Scary thing is that British politics is apeing the US's, to a degree.

On the question of party unity, we have our own comedy love-in between Blair and Gordon Brown (current Chancellor, PM-in-waiting). Labour's entire campaign has basically been the two of them displaying their mutual affection and respect, when everyone knows that the only thing they actually share is their hatred for each other. It's painfully, cringingly, horribly compelling viewing.

Mind you, just wait for the post-election implosion of the Tories. Definitely a popcorn moment.

Well if you watch the show, Howard actually gets way more cheering and applause than Blair did. Also Howard did not get booed when he came on like Blair did.

Which show were you watching? There were plenty of boos for Howard. I guess you chose not to hear them.

And I forgot how the boos and cheers from the Question Time audience was the most important part of the programme, and indeed the election and, indeed anything ever. Thanks for the enlightenment.

It was meant to be a debate between two uni students, they then claimed that the Pro-Palestinian couldn't make it, then made the replacement the top pro-palestinian authority. Surely if the uni student couldn't make it, bring in another one? It was just an attempt by the BBC to make the Israeli side look bad.

that's not anti-semitism, at worst it is anti-israeli.

Guess what? Not all jews live in israel, and not all support israel being there at all.

Well if you watch the show, Howard actually gets way more cheering and applause than Blair did. Also Howard did not get booed when he came on like Blair did.

Howard did actually get booed as he came on last night, though it was as bad as when Bliar came out and anyway Howard gave so many typical politician type answers as he waffled on for ages and rarely actually answered the questions put to him.

Out of the three Kennedy gave the best performance as he was concise and answered the questions put to him, Howard just waffled on and was on the back foot quite alot and Blair though quite bullish was rattled by some of the questions thrown at him

Howard did actually get booed as he came on last night, though it was as bad as when Bliar came out and anyway Howard gave so many typical politician type answers as he waffled on for ages and rarely actually answered the questions put to him.

Out of the three Kennedy gave the best performance as he was concise and answered the questions put to him, Howard just waffled on and was on the back foot quite alot and Blair though quite bullish was rattled by some of the questions thrown at him

And once again the left wing majority on NS storm through the truth to give their interpretation of events.

IMO Charles Kennedy got the best reception from the audience, and from myslef, and both Blair and Howard got pretty much grilled.
Anyone remember that part when that drunk looking guy blew one off at Howard accusing him of treating immigrants like dirt? Hah, that was funny.
But still, I think the Liberal Democrats will never get in. Unfortuneatly, I think it'll be Labour again...

*hates the BBC*
My brother (uni student) was supposed to have a debate with a pro-palestinian uni student. "unfortunately" the palestinian student couldn't make it, so they brought in a Palestinian professor, with a PhD in Israel-Palestinian relations, who's been studying the Israel situation for well over a decade. :rolleyes:
BBC are anti-semitic, racist, bigoted morons.

Well at least they're different and not anti-Islam like most other television organisations. And anti-Israel is not anti-Semitic, anti-Israel has a perfectly justifiable basis :D

Vote Conservative. If you want to argue, go ahead. But you'll lose. :)

I think that the fact that none of the leaders wanted to participate in the traditional forum of all the speakers being together and expressing and challenging each others views. This shows just how shallow and manipulative they are. None of them have the courage to state unequivocally what their parties actually believe in, in the face of other points of view from the other speakers.

The whole evening was a waste of time, with that idiot Dimbleby, constantly interupting speaker and audience alike, with his own inane views. I'm sorry I wasted an hour watching it.

And once again the left wing majority on NS storm through the truth to give their interpretation of events.

Majority rule, dear. Which, I'm sorry to say, is how it works in the UK. So you won't be seeing Howard in Power, even with his legions of grannies.

Oh and without disputing the assertion that the BBC is the official propaganda dispenser of the Labour Party, I don't think they're Blair's beast. If they themselves want to push any candidate, I think it's Brown.

Howard did well. Most of the audience didn't boo him whereas they did to Tony Blair. Howard answers the questions well and consisely which is more than can be said for the Bliar. There was that simple minded idiot who called Howard "an evil racist" but notice that none of the audience applauded or cheered that man - in fact they applauded and cheered at Howard's dignified response. That guy really was a moron - he was the one that David Frost had to tell to shut up at the end of the programme.I think we must have watched different shows that night. Howard received the loudest and longest boo's and jeers. When the young immigrant branded Howard a racist....Howard could'nt even answer him....he was like a rabbit caught in headlights....just one simple accusation floored him and all he could resort to was bluster, the young guy certainly received much applause for his accusation.

As to the fact that your host was David Frost, wheras the show I saw had David Dimbleby hosting only suggests you were watching a completely different show.

I think that the fact that none of the leaders wanted to participate in the traditional forum of all the speakers being together and expressing and challenging each others views. This shows just how shallow and manipulative they are. None of them have the courage to state unequivocally what their parties actually believe in, in the face of other points of view from the other speakers.

The whole evening was a waste of time, with that idiot Dimbleby, constantly interupting speaker and audience alike, with his own inane views. I'm sorry I wasted an hour watching it.

Actually the reason they don't have a US style debate is because Blair refuses to. The other two have actually agreed repeatedly to such a deal but Blair has consistently refused.