I Used To Love BBC Question Time – But Not Anymore

Anyone who has followed me on Twitter for some time will have noticed that I've stopped watching BBC Question Time on a Thursday night; my tweets throughout the programme are now virtually nil. I’m sure some people miss my irreverent comments – but I don’t!

I've watched the programme since the 80s when Sir Robin Day was the host and must admit its decline has been very gradual but mirrors the changes in the political world from ‘real’ politicians who actually had their own opinions to today’s career politicians who constantly trot out the party line and nothing else. It was always a good, fairly honest political debate. Nowadays if you think Question Time is excellent then I’d say you've got pretty low standards.

I stopped watching Question Time a while ago when I realised one depressing night that I was only really watching it for entertainment and tweeting purposes having once believed that I was watching a bit of political debate and maybe actually being informed. To be fair, I did always look on Question Time as a bit of a luvvie-lefty kangaroo court where anyone who doesn't go along with the twee view of the world the BBC embraces is set up to be booed and jeered, and generally presented as ‘Beyond The Pale’ before being summarily dismissed.

When Did It Start Going Wrong?

For me there are a number of things that has lead to its decline, Dimbleby being one, five panel members instead of four, comedians and journo’s on the panel, that audience, I could go on – and will.

The problem with Dimbleby is his hijacking the format to put endless sub-questions of his own which he thinks are smarter than the ones asked by the audience. He hasn’t got it into his head that it’s about the audience’s questions and the panel’s answers – not his.

I always used to find myself shouting at the telly when I watched Question Time, more often than not at the audience than the panel. There is no way on earth the audience is representative of people in the UK, nobody I talk to about politics has the same views as these people. It makes Question Time unwatchable because rational arguments by the panel are drowned out by indignant, reason-free protests on behalf of this or that disadvantaged group.

The quality of politicians has gone down too. During the Robin Day years senior politicians and cabinet members often appeared on the panel. Party leaders, Home Secretary, Chancellor, they all appeared regularly, not anymore though. Labour still put up the odd senior politician like Mr and Mrs Balls or the odious Harriet Harmen but the most senior Tory you see is Grant Shapps who’s only the party chairman. So you end up listening to junior ministers who just trot out the party line and seem incapable of holding an opinion of their own.

Another thing I've noticed is the number of questions taken from the audience which now appear to be ridiculously low, it’s not unusual for only 3 or 4 questions to be answered – it used to be a lot more and made for better viewing.

I think the biggest indictment of today’s Question Time is that you can get far more insightful political commentary from watching Have I Got News For You, despite there being near total overlap in the guests on each show.

That Audience

Today’s Question Time audience is mostly quite mad, a law unto itself! I'm pretty sure that if the Question Time audience was representative of the UK electorate then Neil Kinnock would currently be serving his sixth term as Prime Minister! The modern day audience seems to be entirely composed of weirdos and party activists posing as disinterested voters.

I applied a few years ago when the programme was coming from Warrington and didn't get a look in. I often wonder what qualifications are required to be in the audience of Question Time. Apart from having undergone a full frontal lobotomy, eating your chips out of The Daily Worker or have completed twenty uninterrupted years on benefits.

One thing is certain: if you find yourself disagreeing with the yelping, hooting, maniacally applauding audience, you are probably an astute intellectual who long ago left behind the unrealistic, mushy, pious world of sixth form enthusiasm.

Panel

A good honest debating chamber is how Question Time has been billed. In fact it’s an unseemly gold-rush for applause. The panellists these days are a set of needy egos with semi-fictionalised hairdos. You get political activist in the audience asking leary questions to clueless panellists who then use the old staple of having a go at bankers to rousing applause as they have nothing better to say.

Unfortunately Question Time is based too much on politicians who toe the party line and usually contribute little in terms of information value or novel perspective to the debate. The same can be said for newspaper editors and journalists who also toe the party line determined by their owners. Scientists and representatives of charities often enrich the debate by their ability to be honest.

And as for those politicians, most are lightweight and carry no weight in Parliament, they never answer the question that’s being asked, choosing instead to answer the question that they wanted to be asked. Most are proven liars who cannot speak directly or honestly with integrity, so it stands to reason that most of them shouldn't be given such a prominent position on our national broadcasters flagship debating show.

Question Time is, in short, a pretty miserable failure when it comes to informed debate. The bulk of panellists are drawn from the same upper-middle-class, upper-middle-aged pot of journalists, lawyers and politicians, and are often profoundly ignorant on topics outside of that narrow culture. Science, sex, the internet … attempts to tackle anything outside their world result in bewildering exchanges that confuse more often than they inform. 

Back To Basics

Question-Time probably still has much to offer in its current format, but only if you are not expecting politicians to be held to account. None will hold their hands up, most know little about the public's feeling and few will have a sleepless night after their stint on the panel. The added-value guests, even if you think it dumbs down the content are the meat and potatoes of the show, chunkier even than the audience who seem to have something slipped in their pre-recording drinks. It may not be your idea of democracy in action, but at least having over-privileged, over-exposed rent-a-gobs on the show leads to some squirming on the seats of the political panellists, and that alone can be worth the price of admission.

There is, I think, a simple test for evaluating any platform for debate: has anyone ever changed their mind on a serious issue? The purpose of a genuine discussion ought to be to utilise facts and evidence to reach some mutually agreed upon rational conclusion, and though it may take months rather than hours, this should involve people altering their opinions. Question Time, on the contrary, is a megaphone for publicising party political views and uninformed ideology. It has the potential to achieve a lot more, but it consistently aims low.

So when was Question Time an honest debating chamber? I think you have to go back to Robin Day's time, don't you? And that’s where it needs to go back to now. Take it back to four panellists, stop vetting the audience, get audience members to ask more questions, insist that if political parties want to be represented they need to put up senior politicians who have some gravitas. Sack David Dimbleby - After sixteen years chairing the panel Dimbleby has become past his prime in both the political and fashion stakes (have you seen those ties?)

Why not have people on the panel who actually know about things? With the current range of guests it doesn't make any sense, it's pointless watching really. You can read who's on the panel and pretty much predict what they will all say. I never learn anything interesting or worthwhile anymore.

A couple of minor things too, Dimbleby’s chair - there seems no need for it to be larger than the other chairs position close to the panel desk? Lastly the constant reiteration of the twitter address - we know the show is on twitter, it stains the shows delicate fabric when it’s constantly uttered every week.

So there we have it, refresh the show and maybe just maybe the telly audience may start to grow.