Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I think QT is just symptomatic of a general contempt towards science in public discourse. I have my own theories about why this is, which I won't go into here (yes, it does involve spreaders of Bronze Age twaddle).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the amount of comedians is also interesting. Some of them have been pretty good, but I think the intention to put them on is always, "Yeah, they spoke some sense, but ultimately they're a comedian". They get given their week in the political spotlight before their credibility is further hammered towards that of a piss soaked tramp.

 

Basically if anyone is saying anything that vaguely strays from the status quo they'd much prefer it to be from a comedian than, for e.g, a scientist.

 

I don't reckon that much thinking goes into it. If the last seat on the panel is taken up by Russell Brand or Steve Coogan rather than some scientist from DEFRA who is on to defend the badger cull then more people are going to watch the programme.

 

Controversy and celebrity sells. That's also why the likes of Farage and Galloway are on it more than they should be; people will tune in to see what shit they are coming out with.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Numero Veinticinco

I don't mind Galloway and Farage being on it. They represent the opinions of quite a few people, like them or not. I'm pretty tired of seeing celebrities on there though. Some of them are just fucking clueless. As a program, it's dead. It's pointless. A slanging match. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind Galloway and Farage being on it. They represent the opinions of quite a few people, like them or not. I'm pretty tired of seeing celebrities on there though. Some of them are just fucking clueless. As a program, it's dead. It's pointless. A slanging match. 

 

Aye, but then we live in a society where the governor of the Bank of England is touted as 'good looking and charismatic'.

 

Miliband best get his teeth whitened and I mean soon or he's not getting my vote.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tonight it's from Falkirk. I wonder if they'll be discussing Scottish independence. I do hope so.

Reckon they might squeeze something in

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its so fucking weird, yeah there's a singer on the panel and she seems to be pontificating on shit she knows very little about but I kind of accept her unsure idealism over the others speaking utter bollocks with authority. You get seven people sat round all arguing different views on the same point as someone said earlier there needs to be another show called answer time except this one I would just have experts on economists, scientists whatever and tell us the facts the causes and consequences of decisions. Right to buy I don't want to hear well under labour even less houses blah blah blah I want to hear the right to buy will give person A, this opportunity but the consequence of the scheme could be this. No agenda cold hard fact no need to deflect questions due to it being against the propaganda give people the chance to ask about political decisions and break down on what they mean the benefits and side effects. These MPs have been briefed on a subject matter they know very little about and then they have to defend this opinion that was given to them that they now believe in and accept as fact, soon as you give them a question they haven't been briefed on the tits fall off.

 

Having a celebrity on doesn't seem like the odd one out when really it should they should be out of their depth amongst people whose job it is to create and implement these policies.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right to buy I don't want to hear well under labour even less houses blah blah blah I want to hear the right to buy will give person A, this opportunity but the consequence of the scheme could be this. No agenda cold hard fact no need to deflect questions due to it being against the propaganda give people the chance to ask about political decisions and break down on what they mean the benefits and side effects.

Politicians never want to admit that their policies have losers as well as winners, mainly because of the abuse they catch for it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think QT is just symptomatic of a general contempt towards science in public discourse. I have my own theories about why this is, which I won't go into here (yes, it does involve spreaders of Bronze Age twaddle).

It's a weird one, because there are quite a few "telegenic" scientists - Robert Winstone, Jim Al-Khalili, Alice Roberts, Professor Brian Lovelyhair, etc - who make high-profile, intelligent, informative programmes.  But science is kept in a box marked "education" and is not allowed to intrude on public policy discussions, where it really belongs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I know that but accountability comes with the job actually it doesn't but it should do. Face it they are getting abuse no matter what these days. The most annoying thing is most of these policy's come from some political ideal with no thought to just the practicality of it. We are just on about a tv show here though, in reality my biggest annoyance comes from prime ministers questions the lack of opposition no matter what party it is and holding those in power accountable instead they jump on the political flavour of the day waste half an hour repeating the same point instead of genuinely holding people responsible for bad decisions but worse still persisting with bad decisions because it looks bad politically to hold your up hand up and say this is having a negative impact. We get that 10 years down the line when they are out of power... With hindsight that was a mistake.. No shit.

 

Prime ministers questions seems like a genuine opportunity to lay bare democracy instead we get a pantomime. These fucking back benches grunting and hollering this isn't Aladdin with cilla black and lenny henry you fucks these policies you try to score points with effect millions of lives. That marriage tax thing whatever the fuck it is, Here is a 600 million pound we will give married couples 200 quid.. I'm sorry they won't even notice that a year but imagine what 600 million quid could do to a hospital or facilities for kids or the fire brigade or a million other things 600 million could be spent on in one sum or a few sums that could transform an area and lives. To break it down and spread it out so its worth becomes negligible just for a political ideal is fucking bananas. I've no idea what the fuck what I've just said had to do with anything I waffle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science and politics are poor bedfellows. One is based upon facts whilst the other generally likes to avoid them.

 

Politicians don't want to be in situations where an informed and educated person categorically calls them out as being dim or mendacious when they peddle their bullshit.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science and politics are poor bedfellows. 

 

 

Do you think that is a recent or has always been the case?  I tend to think the former, but then I tend to spend most of my time thinking we are all doomed and expect the next PM to be either David fucking Beckham or Elton quite good at playing the piano but voice is up there with Malc from the local WMC John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science should play a much bigger role in politics - in the Geek Manifesto Mark Henderson proposes the introduction of an independent Office for Science Responsibility to assess the scientific credentials of government policy, much as the Office for Budget Responsibility analyses financial impact - but I think it's naive to suppose that politicians should consider science over and above all other considerations.

 

The badger cull is an excellent recent example; the science around it is sketchy at best, but the farmers really believe in it. And with the greatest respect to the scientists, it's not their necks on the line if the farmers get pissed off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Up to about thirty years ago I always had a sense that politicians, of all flavours, took advice from experts in various fields before formulating policy and enacting laws. Most of the time it was the right thing to do but on occasions they got it wrong.

 

Ever since I have the sense that politicians only take advice from people whose role is to get them re-elected - at any cost. Occasionally they get something nearly right but for the wrong reasons. Normally they get it completely wrong. This was the point were I lost ALL faith in all flavours of party politics UK.

 

Anyway

 

Any Questions R4 tonight - last five minutes - damn good ding dong between Stella Creasey and Norman Lamont - got very personal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Up to about thirty years ago I always had a sense that politicians, of all flavours, took advice from experts in various fields before formulating policy and enacting laws. Most of the time it was the right thing to do but on occasions they got it wrong.

 

Ever since I have the sense that politicians only take advice from people whose role is to get them re-elected - at any cost. Occasionally they get something nearly right but for the wrong reasons. Normally they get it completely wrong. This was the point were I lost ALL faith in all flavours of party politics UK.

 

Pretty much the same here.  There are so many issues on public health, drugs & crime, climate change - even badgers - where the intended outcome is, surely, unanimously agreed on.  The only real debate has to be on the best way of achieving that outcome or on priorities.  That's where scientific method and expertise is desperately needed.

 

Instead, grown men and women bicker over trifles and hurl petty insults at each other, while the media lap it up, because reporting celebrity spats is easier than reporting real politics.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Up to about thirty years ago I always had a sense that politicians, of all flavours, took advice from experts in various fields before formulating policy and enacting laws. Most of the time it was the right thing to do but on occasions they got it wrong. Ever since I have the sense that politicians only take advice from people whose role is to get them re-elected - at any cost. Occasionally they get something nearly right but for the wrong reasons. Normally they get it completely wrong. This was the point were I lost ALL faith in all flavours of party politics UK. Anyway Any Questions R4 tonight - last five minutes - damn good ding dong between Stella Creasey and Norman Lamont - got very personal.

Shown recently by the flip flopping on the ciggy packets and them begging the energy companies not to raise prices until .... After the election and another 5 year lock in, worse case scenario Labour get in and the energy companies are chomping at the bit for a huge increase due to being stalled for 18 months, I don't think I've ever heard a more obvious con or deliberate attempt to con voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it looks a fun packed show tonight. i think 100% i will give this a miss.
 

 

David Dimbleby presents the topical debate from east London. On the panel are chief secretary to the treasury Danny Alexander, Labour's shadow secretary for work and pensions Rachel Reeves, former shadow home secretary David Davis, professor of classics at Cambridge University Dr Mary Beard and Nick Ferrari, LBC radio presenter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going to be some competition for the coveted "Mega cunt of the panel" award.

 

Ferrari to stop Davis late on.

It really shows what a bunch of cunts this government are when you start to forget how bad Davis is.

 

He's a hell of a lot more personable than dumb and dumber too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What sort of name is Ferrari actually? Who's on next week Henry Honda? Joe Jaguar? Ian Skoda? Mike Maserati?

 

He really is one smug fat cunt....a sort of bloated Littlejohn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Norman Baker, Chuka Umunna, Nadine Dories, Paul Nuttal and Susie Boniface.

All star cast. Enjoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×