Isabel Oakeshott for Prime Minister

On the subject of QT and the choice of panelists I remember the complaints over the Brexit period about the frequent appearances of Mark Francois (who he?) and also Farage. The answer was that the programmes needed balance and those were often the only people who would accept the invitation - others being too busy.

Coincidentally, today is International Cat Day!

DD's cat would sort the lot of them out.
He had that glint in his eye even when he was a kitten.

Top Cat.

Whitewavemark2

JohnGeoffreyCharles73

I hope you're being facetious.

Of course she isn’t.

My neighbours cat known as Tofu is applying for the post of chief of intelligence. I’m not sure about his credentials though.

Oh, I reckon Tofu is probably far more intelligent than some of our politicians these days, anyway!

JohnGeoffreyCharles73

I hope you're being facetious.

Of course she isn’t.

My neighbours cat known as Tofu is applying for the post of chief of intelligence. I’m not sure about his credentials though.

I hope you're being facetious.

My cat is appalled at the idea IO could be Prime Minister. She's having a word with the Chief Mouser about it...

MissInterpreted

Still waiting for some examples of this 'sense' which IO supposedly talks?

Might be a long wait.

If you read the analysis you will see that is factually incorrect chestnut

MayBee70

Chestnut

varian

"Question Time has long been accused of bias towards both the left and right – usually a good indication of balance.

But the overuse of rightwing guests, as identified in our analysis, supports some of these claims of a lack of impartiality. The regular appearances of panellists such as Isabel Oakeshott and Julia Hartley-Brewer – the two most frequent non-politician guests in our analysis – raise questions about how producers choose guests.

It is worth pointing out that there is nothing wrong with the BBC inviting guests from these organisations, nor is there anything wrong with political writers from The Spectator discussing the political issues of the day. However, the lack of counterbalancing narratives from leftwing publications is notable."

theconversation.com/bbc-question-time-analysis-of-guests-over-nine-years-suggests-an-overuse-of-rightwing-voices-232315

I would suggest the reason there are more right wing panellists who are not politicians is because the majority of politicians are left wing, therefore we have a balanced debate.

Methinks that has only been the case for the past four weeks. Just remind me of the size of the Conservative majority prior to that. Also the majority of newspapers have a right wing bias.

On Question Time there is always one of each main party plus one or more of the left leaning parties. It's not relevant who holds the majority in Parliament.

nanna8

Ohh, classy language there. Typical.

That’s what I thought too 😀

Chestnut

varian

"Question Time has long been accused of bias towards both the left and right – usually a good indication of balance.

But the overuse of rightwing guests, as identified in our analysis, supports some of these claims of a lack of impartiality. The regular appearances of panellists such as Isabel Oakeshott and Julia Hartley-Brewer – the two most frequent non-politician guests in our analysis – raise questions about how producers choose guests.

It is worth pointing out that there is nothing wrong with the BBC inviting guests from these organisations, nor is there anything wrong with political writers from The Spectator discussing the political issues of the day. However, the lack of counterbalancing narratives from leftwing publications is notable."

theconversation.com/bbc-question-time-analysis-of-guests-over-nine-years-suggests-an-overuse-of-rightwing-voices-232315

I would suggest the reason there are more right wing panellists who are not politicians is because the majority of politicians are left wing, therefore we have a balanced debate.

Methinks that has only been the case for the past four weeks. Just remind me of the size of the Conservative majority prior to that. Also the majority of newspapers have a right wing bias.

varian

"Question Time has long been accused of bias towards both the left and right – usually a good indication of balance.

But the overuse of rightwing guests, as identified in our analysis, supports some of these claims of a lack of impartiality. The regular appearances of panellists such as Isabel Oakeshott and Julia Hartley-Brewer – the two most frequent non-politician guests in our analysis – raise questions about how producers choose guests.

It is worth pointing out that there is nothing wrong with the BBC inviting guests from these organisations, nor is there anything wrong with political writers from The Spectator discussing the political issues of the day. However, the lack of counterbalancing narratives from leftwing publications is notable."

theconversation.com/bbc-question-time-analysis-of-guests-over-nine-years-suggests-an-overuse-of-rightwing-voices-232315

I would suggest the reason there are more right wing panellists who are not politicians is because the majority of politicians are left wing, therefore we have a balanced debate.

Ohh, classy language there. Typical.

Boz

Although I had never heard of her, I imagine she one of those who live in the past wanting 'my country back', whatever that means as no one person owns a Country. They fear immigration and stir up any discord they can dredge up.

No thanks, she has hideous points of view as does her fuckbuddy Tice & his pal Farage. They're the modern day National Front

You're quite right, she does 'want my country back'. I never know whether they mean stop the boats or get rid of anyone of colour. I love having people from all over the world around me, though I accept we only should accept real refugees now because some communities are feeling overwhelmed

I haven’t read her books ( keep meaning to buy them) but I always look forward to seeing her on the Sky News news review.

MayBee, I enjoy reading Christina Patterson, too.

Still waiting for some examples of this 'sense' which IO supposedly talks?

QT s format is the problem in my view, there is no chance to explore complex issues because of its length. If you look at the longform podcasts which are becoming popular, they sornd up to two hours on one issue.

QT never invited people from the New Statesman that I recall whereas its open house for the Spectator.

Well, if we’re talking about people who talk sense can I put forward Christina Patterson who, if I had my way would be ruler of the world.

JudyBloom

Hear hear! I totally agree with you Liz46, Isabel Oakeshott always speaks sense.

Any examples at all please?

Let's be fair about this, and remain civil.

Please could you give a few exemples of her 'speaking sense'. Thank you.

Hear hear! I totally agree with you Liz46, Isabel Oakeshott always speaks sense.

"Question Time has long been accused of bias towards both the left and right – usually a good indication of balance.

But the overuse of rightwing guests, as identified in our analysis, supports some of these claims of a lack of impartiality. The regular appearances of panellists such as Isabel Oakeshott and Julia Hartley-Brewer – the two most frequent non-politician guests in our analysis – raise questions about how producers choose guests.

It is worth pointing out that there is nothing wrong with the BBC inviting guests from these organisations, nor is there anything wrong with political writers from The Spectator discussing the political issues of the day. However, the lack of counterbalancing narratives from leftwing publications is notable."

theconversation.com/bbc-question-time-analysis-of-guests-over-nine-years-suggests-an-overuse-of-rightwing-voices-232315