Question Time

[Sooky]

Just back. I never said anything tonight, I did have my hand up at one point but unfortunately those who were either a) trying to be funny to get their 30 seconds of fame on TV (aliens) and b) people just trying to look knowledgeable on TV (UN guy) were picked. I thought the audience were pretty good tonight considering we've had to put up with this '16/17 year olds don't have a clue what they're talking about' patter. A couple let the side down, but on the whole I thought there was some good points made and intelligent debate.

I saw Sooky beforehand but shat out of going up to him and saying "I know you from P&B!"

I had my hand up for a good 5-10 minutes at one point and the great Dimbleby himself caught my eye but, alas, I wasn't picked. I really enjoyed it actually and would be very happy to go on it again.

[Albino Rover]

I found this interesting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2013/jun/14/bbc-question-time

Interesting but nonsensical: scientists don't really belong on politics programmes, do they? I'm not saying Dragons or Apprentice candidates are entirely relevant but the fact that satirists and Nigel Farage appear on the programme more than Cambridge physicists is hardly worthy of an article, is it?

[NorthAyrshireKillie]

Interesting but nonsensical: scientists don't really belong on politics programmes, do they? I'm not saying Dragons or Apprentice candidates are entirely relevant but the fact that satirists and Nigel Farage appear on the programme more than Cambridge physicists is hardly worthy of an article, is it?

I would say scientists and academics have as much a right to a place on the panel than someone off Dragons Den yes.

Academics who though politics may not be there chosen field, would have better views on politics and social affairs than most journalists they have on.

As for "hardly worthy of an article" Well it is The Guardian

[taurus]

1 in 29 Londoners are $ millionaires ? WTF . She's a nutter .

[Sooky]

That "England, glorious England" guy!

[wirez]

1 in 29 Londoners are $ millionaires ? WTF . She's a nutter .

Its true if the figures in this article are correct...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/12/two-speed-britain-london-soars

[T_S_A_R]

1 in 29 Londoners are $ millionaires ? WTF . She's a nutter .

there are something like a quarter of a million homes in london which are worth a million dollars.

that stat will be extrapolated from that info.

Edited June 15, 2013 by T_S_A_R

[H_B]

I would say scientists and academics have as much a right to a place on the panel than someone off Dragons Den yes.

Who wants to listen to scientists views on, well, anything other than science?

What exactly are scientists going to bring to the party? Why not invite cleaners or taxi drivers. They have as much right to be there as some random scientist.

[Mark Connolly]

Who wants to listen to scientists views on, well, anything other than science?

What exactly are scientists going to bring to the party? Why not invite cleaners or taxi drivers. They have as much right to be there as some random scientist.

They'd bring as much as historians like Starkey or Sharma, or twats like Russell Brand, who will be on this week.

[NorthAyrshireKillie]

Who wants to listen to scientists views on, well, anything other than science?

What exactly are scientists going to bring to the party? Why not invite cleaners or taxi drivers. They have as much right to be there as some random scientist.

Well, I answered that in the second part of the post you quoted, yet you ask again.

Simply because politics is not someone's chosen field, does not mean their views are any less appreciated. A highly educated scientist or academic would have more interesting views than most of the beige c***s they have on every week.

[H_B]

Well, I answered that in the second part of the post you quoted, yet you ask again.

Simply because politics is not someone's chosen field, does not mean their views are any less appreciated. A highly educated scientist or academic would have more interesting views than most of the beige c***s they have on every week.

Really? Based on what?

Why have you differentiated scientists from other academics? Given that it is a political discussion, what on earth is a scientist bringing to the table?

And why would we want to listen to academics in preference to people employed in real industries? i.e. why an academic and not a lawyer? Or an IT consultant? Or an accountant?

Edited June 15, 2013 by H_B

[NorthAyrshireKillie]

Really? Based on what?

Why have you differentiated scientists from other academics? Given that it is a political discussion, what on earth is a scientist bringing to the table?

So simply because one is a scientist, it means they cant have thought out sensible and interesting political/world views that they can add to the debate?

Of course they can bring something to the discussion, I'm struggling to understand why you have a problem with it tbh.

[H_B]

So simply because one is a scientist, it means they cant have thought out sensible and interesting political/world views that they can add to the debate?

Of course they can bring something to the discussion, I'm struggling to understand why you have a problem with it tbh.

I'm just bemused as to why you have singled out a random profession as having anything to add to the programme.

I have no problems with interesting people with something to add being on Question Time. There are a lot of them in this country I imagine - from all different walks of life.

But a "scientist" or an academic is no more likely to be one of these people than anyone from any other profession.

In short, I don't want to see an academic on the panel by virtue of them being an academic. That would just be stupidity.

[dorlomin]

Interesting but nonsensical: scientists don't really belong on politics programmes, do they?

And comedians do?

Or a program where drug legislation will feature has no business getting an expert on addiction?

Or one where climate will feature will suffer from having an actual climate scientist.

Or perhaps the badger cull, how the hell could a scientist who is an expert in the relavent field be more entertaining than some knob from Big Brother or something.

[JockMacAbre]

There are so many fields of science, and I am willing to bet a large abundance of scientist would have a much better idea of how to sort out the problems of a nation more than your average politician.
It's a shame that more don't get actively involved in politics, but it would likely impede on their ability to study and research, which is what they love doing, rather than spending most of their time lying, and trying to manipulate the populace.

[welshbairn]

A statistician would be interesting as Prime Minister with an obedient majority. Drugs would be legalised straight away of course, but might he start gaoling all victims of child abuse as most paedos were themselves abused, and children in care because a higher than average number commit crimes? Transplants could be more readily available by only being eligible for one if you sign up for a lottery where you've a tiny chance of being called up to donate all your organs, thereby saving several lives. Think I'd rather have the daftie politicians we have now, come to think of it.

[H_B]

There are so many fields of science, and I am willing to bet a large abundance of scientist would have a much better idea of how to sort out the problems of a nation more than your average politician.

lolwut?

What possible qualification does a scientist have to "sort out the problems" of a nation, that any other professional doesn't have?

[Gordon EF]

That was the first I saw of the Scottish Labour deputy leader and I thought, although a bit quiet, he was a great speaker. He probably got through to the young audience more than any other panel member.

Really? I thought he was pretty poor. He can drag out the party lines and avoid making himself like a bufoon but I can't remember him coming out with anything particulalry memorable.

I thought it was a decent program. The young audience were at least pretty passionate and didn't seem any more ill-informed or ignorant than many regular, older audiences.

The 'Anti-Scottishness in England' guy was a bit of a plank but hopefully he's young enough to realise what a stupid thing to say that was.

Farage was a bit lacking in his usual bluster I thought. Galloway was a fucking idiot as usual. How he went from Robertson raising a legitimate point about the make up of the panel to Scotland becmong a highly censored and totalitarian state post independence, f**k knows. Thought Ruth and Anas were fairly quiet although all in all did OK. I have to say I like Angus Robertson and he should be next leader after Salmond. I liked Lesley Riddoch and that was the overwhelming consensus among the 4 people I watched it with - only one of whom is a confirmed Yes voter.

[T_S_A_R]

lolwut?

What possible qualification does a scientist have to "sort out the problems" of a nation, that any other professional doesn't have?

science is one of the few areas where the uk still holds an economic advantage internationally.

[Christophe]

Just happened across tonight's Question Time panel. Oh the horror, the horror.