Charming... I've been very impressed by Ruth tonight.
Both labour and cons came across quite well on this tonight. SNP in the shape of Swinney was OK, if a bit hesitant and Jim Sillars, although he said a couple of interesting things is well past his prime.
I wish that the leaked memo had been pressed a bit more, that was about the only interesting thing apart from the woman who asked why the unemployed were getting free child care to remain unemployed.
It seemed a strange decision to have no Westminster MPs on the show then spend more than half the programme discussing UK politics.
Then they had two Independence supporters and no Libdem on the panel. For what reason?
Because it was in Scotland, and all you need up there is an audience and panel(Sillars a prime example) made up of shouty aggressive finger pointing belligerents.
It would have been obvious if the programme was devoted to Independence, but it wasn't.
No, but the fact there were questions on independence meant they needed to be balanced.
The absence of a Libdem on a Scottish political platform is a rare occasion I would have thought.
They have only 5/129 MSPs; even the Tories have 15. Since 2010, the Lib Dems have become very much a minority party in Scotland.
Under normal circumstances, we probably would have seen a Lib Dem instead of Jim Sillars, plus a journalist, actor etc. But these aren't normal circumstances, and the BBC's impartiality commitments in Scotland are currently drawn along more than just party lines.
Both labour and cons came across quite well on this tonight. SNP in the shape of Swinney was OK, if a bit hesitant and Jim Sillars, although he said a couple of interesting things is well past his prime.
I wish that the leaked memo had been pressed a bit more, that was about the only interesting thing apart from the woman who asked why the unemployed were getting free child care to remain unemployed.
Overall, another poor question time.
it is mentioned everytime he appears on one of these debates but he does the usual tories are bad and they steal your milk routine.
They have only 5/129 MSPs; even the Tories have 15. Since 2010, the Lib Dems have become very much a minority party in Scotland.
Under normal circumstances, we probably would have seen a Lib Dem instead of Jim Sillars, plus a journalist, actor etc. But these aren't normal circumstances, and the BBC's impartiality commitments in Scotland are currently drawn along more than just party lines.
There are 59 MPs at Westminster representing Scottish constituencies. Lab: 41, LD: 11, SNP: 6, Con: 1.
That doesn't sound like the Libdems being very much a minority Party in Scotland.
Because they had two anti-independence representatives. I'd have thought that obvious.
The only way they could have had a Lib Dem would have been with a 6-person panel.
Well in that case they could have had; one SNP, one Tory, one Labour, one Lib Dem, one Scottish Green, and Margo MacDonald MSP. That way we would have had balance between pro and anti independence, and balance in party political representation.
Well in that case they could have had; one SNP, one Tory, one Labour, one Lib Dem, one Scottish Green, and Margo MacDonald MSP. That way we would have had balance between pro and anti independence, and balance in party political representation.
If you'd been watching, David Dimbleby said at the start that a 6-person panel doesn't work because it doesn't give each panelist enough time to respond.
They needed a pro/anti-independence balance but have established that, editorially, a 6-person panel doesn't work.
If the show had been simply about Independence that might have had some validity.
It could equally be argued that there should have been a broader representation because more than half the discussion was about wider political issues.
Its not of earth shattering importance, but its interesting to note how QT sets itself up as the great (UK) public debating forum where everyone has an opportunity to have their say, then proceeds to mess around with the format from time to time, seemingly on a whim.
Being a cynic I prefer to believe that either the Libdems or QT, or both, decided to chicken out of Libdem representation due to the Rennard/Hancock scandals of the past week.
Comments
Both labour and cons came across quite well on this tonight. SNP in the shape of Swinney was OK, if a bit hesitant and Jim Sillars, although he said a couple of interesting things is well past his prime.
I wish that the leaked memo had been pressed a bit more, that was about the only interesting thing apart from the woman who asked why the unemployed were getting free child care to remain unemployed.
Overall, another poor question time.
Then they had two Independence supporters and no Libdem on the panel. For what reason?
Because it was in Scotland, and all you need up there is an audience and panel(Sillars a prime example) made up of shouty aggressive finger pointing belligerents.
The only way they could have had a Lib Dem would have been with a 6-person panel.
It would have been obvious if the programme was devoted to Independence, but it wasn't.
The absence of a Libdem on a Scottish political platform is a rare occasion I would have thought.
They have only 5/129 MSPs; even the Tories have 15. Since 2010, the Lib Dems have become very much a minority party in Scotland.
Under normal circumstances, we probably would have seen a Lib Dem instead of Jim Sillars, plus a journalist, actor etc. But these aren't normal circumstances, and the BBC's impartiality commitments in Scotland are currently drawn along more than just party lines.
it is mentioned everytime he appears on one of these debates but he does the usual tories are bad and they steal your milk routine.
There are 59 MPs at Westminster representing Scottish constituencies. Lab: 41, LD: 11, SNP: 6, Con: 1.
That doesn't sound like the Libdems being very much a minority Party in Scotland.
Well in that case they could have had; one SNP, one Tory, one Labour, one Lib Dem, one Scottish Green, and Margo MacDonald MSP. That way we would have had balance between pro and anti independence, and balance in party political representation.
Nevertheless that is the state of the parties at Westminster and will continue to be so until 2015.
Whatever you might think about the Libdems the BBC has to recognise the status quo when it invites political representatives on to its programmes.
They needed a pro/anti-independence balance but have established that, editorially, a 6-person panel doesn't work.
If the show had been simply about Independence that might have had some validity.
It could equally be argued that there should have been a broader representation because more than half the discussion was about wider political issues.
Its not of earth shattering importance, but its interesting to note how QT sets itself up as the great (UK) public debating forum where everyone has an opportunity to have their say, then proceeds to mess around with the format from time to time, seemingly on a whim.
Being a cynic I prefer to believe that either the Libdems or QT, or both, decided to chicken out of Libdem representation due to the Rennard/Hancock scandals of the past week.
Oh the irony. When possessed of a bankrupt argument, revert to weak cliches.
Russell Kane was very good on This Week talking about social mobility and the need for selection.