I don’t know how many of you came along to the Question Time Liveblog last evening but I just wanted to say that apart from the infamous post 9/11 QT, this programme was an utter disgrace. It became the Alistair Campbell/Piers Morgan roadshow, with Dimbleby constantly deferring to Campbell. I think it was right that the Coalition did not put forward a candidate and perhaps a boycott of QT by the new government would be a welcome development? The BBC has been leading news this morning on this subject, all part of it’s zeal to see the Coalition divided.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone
Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Grant says:

    Well, as I have said before they should boycott the BBC altogether, but definitely boycott QT.  The Lib Dems might agree now they will be getting a rough ride from Dimblebore.
    Having said that, I gave up watching months ago.


  2. Norton Folgate says:

    There are two coalitions at work in this country, one is the Govt, the other is a teaming up of labour and the BBC.

    The latter is dedicated to bringing down the former and the pretence of impartiality at the BBC is all but gone.


  3. Guest Who says:

    The ‘row’ seemingly, again, mostly manufactured between the BBC and that bastion of balance, The Guardian, where one quotes the other’s opinion and it becomes ‘fact’.

    The result of the latest (final) election result, seen as an early indicator of the public’s (ie: voters, not a QT producers guest and audience pick) views of the coalition not seen as helpful, narrative wise, I guess

    Can’t speak, as the BBC seems to think it does, for others, but I consider it as much an establishment figure as most others, only I seem to have no way to not pay, opt out or vote them away as I do all others.

    They are just a bunch of broadcast only twerps with way too much money to piss away on their pet agendas.

    That I often read tweets with some show numptie crowing they have dropped this person or that one in favour off another, shows just how powerful they think they deserve to be, and how hypocritical.

    QT is a TV programme. You invite. You get acceptances. You get rejections. It is not a national institution. And it has been totally compromised over the years into becoming of zero value for anything bar heat over light.

    If the producers, and the BBC, cannot grasp where the blame for that falls, then they are not talents market rates could be low enough to support.


  4. Disdain says:

    As far as I remember, QT has no explicit place in our constitutional or political set-up.  If the Cons don’t want to appear on it, then there’s no requirement for them to. I can’t see how the BBC can possibly be whipping itself up into an indignant frenzy about it.  No political party has any obligations to talk to the BBC at all, let alone be obliged to provide a Minister for a specified programme. Quite remarkable arrogance on the BBC’s part to think/expect otherwise.  

    Anyway, for what it’s worth, I’m not sure who watches this stuff anyway. I don’t. 


  5. Beware of Geeks Bearing GIFs says:

    I have to admit after not watching QT for several months I was quite frankly appalled at seeing just how blatantly biased it was towards Moron and Liar Campbell.
    What struck me once again was every time Redwood spoke, Ali interrupted constantly and shook his head, which the director cut to in the same way the BBC did to Brown whenever Cameron spoke at the “presidential” debates.
    Also Dimbers constantly interrupted Redwood and Hastings but allowed Campbell free reign.  Craig’s interrupt coefficients would have been useful here


    The audience were filled to the brim with leftie clapping seals.  Gravesend has voted in line with the rest of the country in every election except 2005 when it became Conservative.  The 2010 election was won by the Conservatives with a slender 1.5% majority.
    However, the Moron vs Campbell rift over the legality of the war was a welcome distraction but Campbell refused to apologise.
    Absolutely appalling, and as I said last night, I cancelled by TV licence ages ago and I strongly suggest you all do the same.  Here’s one site to start you going with.



  6. NRG says:

    In the week of the Queen’s Speech with important policies developing think that a member of the formal opposition who can debate policy is unnecessary. They want to put a Minister, who will need to tread cautiously against two lefty attack dogs with dodgy relations with the truth, who will never have to take responsibility for waht they say. Disgusting bias at its very worse. The event took place in a Conservative constituency yet the audience was Labour yoff activists. Strange that.

    http://waugh.standard.co.uk/2010/05/no-10-hits-back-at-bbcqt-re-ali-c.htmlNo. 10 hits back at BBCQT. Re Ali C.

    I know that’s a lot of alliterative abbreviations, but you’ll get the point.
    Officially, a Downing Street spokeswoman said last night:
    “In the week of the Queen’s Speech the BBC booked Alastair Campbell in the place of an Opposition frontbencher to appear on Question Time – which we questioned. Before a final decision was made on who might appear on behalf of the Government, the BBC directly booked John Redwood MP to appear.”
    But unofficially, the response is much stronger. A No. 10 source tells me:
    “Campbell seemed to be on because he’s flogging a book next week, so the BBC haven’t behaved entirely properly here. There’s a lot of bluster from them, but Campbell’s not an elected official, not a member of the Shadow Cabinet.

    “They’re being a bit tricksy because we were in discussions and then they just decided to put John Redwood on. A lot of this is just the BBC talking about the BBC.”


  7. NRG says:

    Memo DG to producer Question Time

    Protect Labour ex-Ministers from scrutiny.
    Don’t mention the deficit
    Disputes within the coalition govt are damaging splits to be exposed
    Disputes within Labour are progressive dialouge to be smoothed over
    Tories are nasty


  8. Umbongo says:

    Luckily on Wednesday night BBC1 London News had an “exclusive” interview with the ex-Sports Minister Tessa Jowell to tell us how government cuts will endanger London 2012 and, BTW, what a wonderful job Labour did for London and sportspeople everywhere.


  9. Roland Deschain says:

    There’s a Have Your Say on this now.  Do let them know what you think.


  10. George R says:

    In its political desperation, the BBC’s political subservience to  Alastair Campbell continues,  even with defeated  Labour in opposition.

      ‘QuestionTime’ is one of the the BBC’s flagship programmes in terms of its pro-Labour, pro-EU, pro-‘greenies’, pro-Obama, anti-Tory propaganda.

     And BBC ‘QT’ audiences are politically biased in their composition, not excluding last night’s. Habitually, the BBC under-represents the political right in its audiences, and under-represents, demographically, older people.
    As ‘B-BBC’, and commenters here point out, Gravesend is a Tory constituency, but this was not reflected in the political attitudes of the audience which the Labour-supporting ‘QT’ had hand-picked.


    • George R says:

      It seems as though the first  panellist’s name on the BBC’s ‘QT’ confirmed list was the BBC’s political favourite: Labour’s non-elected Alastair Campbell; and that the BBC tried to get the rest of its panel to fit around this BBC ‘QT’ unelected political leader.


  11. John Anderson says:

    Meanwhile David Dimbleby says that one end of the BBC does not know what the other end is doing :



  12. fred bloggs says:

    5dead is now revelling in the self importance of ‘own goal by coalition’.    Nolan had a previous QT editor who stated how AC would dictate on Bliar’s behalf what will and will not happen.  Does Nolan ask the obvious question, well how much did you give way?  Maybe he was afraid he might have got an honest answer for once, so he stayed off the subject and then go on Labour supporter Max Clifford to give his unbiased opinion.  What a pantomime!


  13. kitty shaw says:

    Utterly preposterous article and posts.

    You rightly complained about bias in the BBC towards the government when Labour was in power.

    Now when the Conservatives take power and try to abuse state power to the state broadcaster by insisting on the makeup of the QT panel, something Labour even at their most power crazed would not do you ALL jump and down that the Conservatives were right to try and insist on them being biased.

    Where are your condemnations of the new government for not taking measures to curb the BBC, in fact they are being their new best friend. Why aren’t they moving to get rid of a state broadcaster? Why aren’t they abolishing the license fee?

    The wool has now been pulled from my eyes.

    I can see you are all not interested in the BBC being biased, you just want it to be biased for your political views, which is mostly though not wholly right wing and mostly though not wholly favouring the Conservatves.

    Just changing from one bias to another isn’t what I signed up for.

    I feel used.

    Goodbye, I resign from the blog!


    • George R says:

      The BBC is biased in favour of the Labour Party, in government and now in opposition.


    • matthew rowe says:

      “RESIGN”????? ok then bye! mind you prob don’t have much time on here or you would have seen in numerious threads, posts questioning coilition policy towards the beebs  so if you cannot be bothered why join ? “used”??? why ? you didn’t have to pay did you ?.


    • Millie Tant says:

      Come back! Come back! We didn’t mean it. :'(


    • NRG says:

      Kitty, that was my first thought too, but having seen the programme it was clear that BBC was lining up an ambush and govt. decided agianst walking into it.

      At this early stage of the govt., not putting an official elected oposition spokesperson up and instead putting up an irresponsible attack dog was clearly provocative.


    • Jack Bauer says:

      Kitty throws out her tray!


      • sue says:

        I sometimes spot comments that imply we want our own bias, not impartiality. That’s a common criticism of this blog. I don’t think flouncing off is much help.  I’m not a great fan of flouncing.  I’d rather argue things out.  


    • AndyUk06 says:

      Where did they “insist” on the makeup of the show? They decided they did not want to appear on Dimbleby’s poxy show, as is their perfect entitlement. 

      I agree with the others in that this was actually a smart move – they knew the BBC had something up their sleeve and wisely avoided it.

      What right thinking person would want to go within an inch of undisputed trash like Campbell anyway? 


  14. Nick Name says:

    I’ve only returned to QT recently. Dimbleby is as ineffectual as he’s ever been, but the audience in the last two episodes were less maddingly <del>left wing</del> ‘liberal left’ than I remember. And also, last night’s episode had a surprisingly non left wing panel. Even Shami Chakrabarti appeared to restrict herself to issues of liberty – at least more so than in the past. It seemed that Campbell was a more vocal Labour mouthpiece than MP Caroline Flint!

    As far as the Tories boycotting QT is concerned, IMO that would be a very bad mistake. QT may not be an institution, but it is a heavily promoted part of the BBC’s news output. If the Tories don’t challenge/rebutt/counter EVERY Labour spinner then the BBC (& C4) will run with the lies/spin until they do. This is, after all, precisely what they did in 1995-1996, when the Tories didn’t appreciate the necessity of confronting every New Labour spin doctor.


  15. davejanfitz says:

    kitty..In 13 years we never got  Dimblebore saying’we asked the government to come on the show but declined’at the start of the show..


  16. Lloyd says:

    The BBC and Cambell have stiched the conservatives up like a good ‘un, 5live going big on the story today.

    So long as the conservatives fail to deal with the BBC problem there will continue to be episodes such as this – and to be honest the spineless  conservatives deserve it.


    • Scrappydoo says:

      Lloyd – exactly right, the spineless conservatives only have themselves to blame, they have allowed the BBC to get away with it for decades . It is only a matter of time before the BBC and labour sabotage the coalition and then go in to finish off the conservatives.


  17. MarkE says:

    I can understand it, but I also think it was a tactical error; by all means state publicly and in advance that the Conswervative party sees no reason to provide talking heads for a Labour party propaganda release; state that <i>in future</i> the Conservative party will only match like with like, and it is a biot short on failed former spin doctors for the moment; best of all, state that the BBC is about to be given teh opportunity to prove it is as good as it claims to be by being privatised and ministers are legally required to observe a period of purdah, as the directors of a company would before an IPO.  Do not, however play into the hands of the BBC and the Labour party be allowing yourselves to be presented as trying to put the same pressures onto teh BBC that Cambell used to do as they won’t be as discrete as they used to be while trotting at Cambell’s heel.

    Wasn’t the heir to <del>Blair</del> Heath chosen because he was supposed to be “media savvy”?


    • hippiepooter says:

      Then the ConDem Coalition needs to point out the BBC’s hypocrisy in being very vocal about them but having stated mum about what Campbell said and did behind the scences.


  18. MarkE says:

    Whoops, just ignore teh HTML stuff please.


  19. Grant says:

    So the only elected politician on the panel was John Redwood. What on earth was the justification for Susan Kramer ?
    Similarly, Moron and Campbell ?
    Just when you think the BBC can sink no lower , they prove you wrong.


  20. George R says:

    I’ve added a few correctives to conclusion of statement by BBC’s ‘QT’ boss, Mr Allen:

    “It is for Question Time, not for political parties, to make judgements about impartiality” [and bias] “and to determine who is invited to appear in the interests of the audience” [which is hand-picked to serve the political interests of the BBC and Labour Party].

    “Parties are free of course to accept or reject those invitations”, [after the BBC has given its priority to Alastair Campbell] “but they do not have a right of veto over other panellists. Licence fee payers rightly insist that the BBC must be free from political interference.” [But the BBC  ignores them.]



  21. ap-w says:

    This is ridculous. I thought Dimbleby’s little speech at the beginning was pompous and showed the tendency for QT to take itself far too seriously. What exactly is the big deal here? The BBC host what is intended in their eyes to be a serious political programme, and in the week of the Queen’s Speech invite on an unelected former spokesman/political adviser (what exactly is his job?) to represent the Labour Party. And then the BBC get in a huff when the Government does not see that it is appropriate to match Labour’s offering with a Government minister – would they be in less of a huff if the Tories had put up Andy Coulson or Steve Hilton, as Campbell’s equal? Just because the BBC regard Campbell as a political God deserving the highest level of respect it does not mean that his opponents see him that way.


    • matthew rowe says:

      My idea would be to have put up some one who has helped the coilition goverment with advice and support er say ?Sir Michael Caine! go on campbull pick a fight with him !


  22. Millie Tant says:

    I remarked before during the election that Alastair Campbell, the unelected, discredited PR who was sacked in 2003, seems suddenly to have a full-time job going around the BBC studios.

    Why the BBC sees fit to have him on in preference to an elected MP and shadow Minister, is strange to say the least. How many of those licence payers they are so quick to cite, would want or approve of that?


  23. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Sorry I was unable to see last night’s show, but it’s clearly a political victory for the BBC.  They chose Campbell knowing full well it would cause a problem at No. 10.  This was a deliberate tactic to shame the Tories.  The Beeboids knew what they were doing, and it was a complete success, judging from the fuss going on about it today.

    The government trying to tell the BBC who they wanted instead was the ultimate own goal, only giving the BBC more of a public victory.  Kitty Shaw’s comments above, as well as most of the comments on HYS prove this.  The BBC set this up, saw it through, and won a political victory in the first month of the new government.

    Well played, Beeboids.  Well played.


    • sue says:

      But the BBC is the one that’s making the fuss. They created the situation and then made it into news. That’s no more a political victory than any of their other news creation exploits. It’s a spin victory, maybe.
      Why should anybody who thinks the BBC has become agenda-driven and manipulative just accept the BBC’s particular spin on the story?

      The Guardian, Gavin Allen’s blog, the BBC website etc., state indignantly that the government is trying to control the BBC.

      The government’s angle may be that they didn’t jump at the chance to join a hostile panel before a  hostile audience and a biased chairman alongside the most manipulative individual known to man.

      Is it compulsory to appear on Question Time? All sorts of people boasted that they wouldn’t deign to appear on the same panel as Nick Griffin. In that case their hypothetical refusals were regarded as courageous acts of defiance.

      Gavin Allen quotes Mark Thompson arguing for “transparency”:

      ”When A refuses to debate with B or sets other conditions before an interview or debate, there’s often a case for letting the public know – for example, via the Editors’ Blog…”.

      For transparency, the whole story must be presented.
      Why should Gavin Allen’s version of “letting the public know”  be taken at face value when he doesn’t even mention the BBC’s devious behaviour?

      “Before a final decision was made on who might appear on behalf of the government the BBC directly booked John Redwood MP.”

      This is a case of the BBC seeking not to gather news, but to create it.

      If participation by a Tory is suddenly considered indispensable by the BBC,  boycotting it altogether might be effective. If they’d tried that before the election, who would have noticed?


      • ap-w says:

        But the BBC is the one that’s making the fuss.

        Exactly. I have read Gavin Allen’s comments where he says the government has no right to “veto” members of the panel but he then also says that everyone the right to accept an invitation or not. Well then it’s entirely open to the Government to look at who else is invited in any particular week and decide that as no member of HM Opposition is on the panel this week then there is no need for HM Government to appear. Commenting that you may choose to appear if the panellists were at a higher level is not a veto. Downing Street are not up in arms about this, it is the BBC which is acting as if it has a divine right to a Government minister on its programme. If you read Gavin Allen’s comments I think he lets his sympathies show when he sticks up for Labour, saying that they often fielded minsters when the Tories did not put up a shadow minister. Well that’s lovely Gavin, but as you keep saying, everyone has the right to appear or not. And if the Tories wish to depart from the cosy Labour/BBC precedent that you seem to be defending then you’ll just have to get over yourself.      


    • hippiepooter says:

      If they’ve won a victory its because the ConDems let them.


      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        I agree that it was an own goal.  But having Campbell on was a deliberate provocation by the BBC.  Why should the Government want to send a minister to slaughter like that?  It would have been a totally unfair fight, especially with Dimbleby’s ability to manipulate the discussion with his foreknowledge of questions.


  24. Millie Tant says:

    Oh, another thing…how come the Campbell just happened to have a framed photograph of David Laws to flaunt at the end of the programme in the manner of a taunting playground bully? How crass and nasty was that from the thuggish Campbell. Was it something that he and Question Time planned between them? I didn’t hear Dimbleby utter his disapproval of the use of the platform of QT for such juvenile, low behaviour.


    • Lloyd says:

      Seek out, and find, the Nick(i) Canpbell show from this morning’s (28/05-2010) 5live output, around 7:45 if I recall (just in time for the sound bites to be captured for every news headline which was to follow). There you will discover AC’s lame excuse for his use of the Laws photo.


  25. Martin says:

    I’ve long given up with QT I’m afraid, but I just wondered that two effing morons like Morgan and Campbell both tried in their own ways to get British soldiers killed.

    I know I’m at odds with most here, I believe the Iraq war was wrong, based on a lie and that Bliar, Campbell, Brown etc SHOULD be in a prison on war crimes.

    I have never given a shit about Muslims and don’t now, but that war did nothing for us in terms of safety.

    The fact that Campbell (who attacked the BBC continuously) is never off the BBC shows either the BBC fancy his bottom or they are using it to cosy up to Nu Liebour.

    I agree that the Tories should now move on the BBC, Jeremy Hunt should announce the scrapping of the BBC trust, the appointment of Norman Tebbitt as overseerer of the breaking up and selling off of the BBC at the same time ending the Guardian’s monopoly of Government jobs (and advertising money)


  26. Martin says:

    I shall be writing to my MP and Jeremy Hunt today demanding that the BBC now be sold off, the TV tax scrapped and that if they don’t they won’t be getting my vote next time around.


  27. David vance says:


    I am sorry you react in the way you have chosen. Of course, with Biased BBC you have the choice to walk away, with the BBC like it or not, you keep paying. You also seem to think I am a Conservative supporter, I am not but I can see how the BBC seem to now firmly locked in a guerilla war with the new government – in BREACH of their special position. I hope you may reconsider and stay.


    • Guest Who says:

      I am sure all frequent, constructive critiques by any regular BBBC contributors (save the trolls) will be sorely missed. 

      However, toys out of pram flounces seem hardly worthy of note.

      The term ‘bias’ has, i have always felt, limited the scope of this blog and provided semantic Achilles Heels to those who seem to think there is some charter here that needs to be followed as much as the BBC breaks its own.

      It’s a blog, for heaven’s sake! Live.. and deal with it. There will always be the odd OT, or rant, or agenda. They are all, ultimately, self-destructively damning through the posters’ own words. So when I see ‘you all..’ here, I read ‘us vs. them’ and dismiss accordingly.

      The agenda of this one being pretty clear. And the self-detonating ‘I have always been’ / ‘now I’m off’ Trojan horse is pretty daft. Who cares?

      The new gov/coalition has been politically inept, yes. Big woop. The reactive, back door manner of making their point was clearly yet another howler.

      But the real issue is that as far as the BBC, and its groupies, are concerned, they should be allowed to dick about as they please, rigging everything from guests to audiences to questions to edits… and nobody dare question this. For that last several decades, and in perpetuity.

      What next, Saturday Kitchen gets turned down by Daniel Hannan for his souffle recipe and its Night of the Long Knives?

      Remind me, not that it makes it right, but does the White House not pick and choose who gets access and when? In fact, when was the last time Pres. O actually fielded a question? And this is in press conferences, not some political version of Jerry Springer set up by the luvvies at Aunty.

      And other than them, and their MSM and online supporters, no one seems to think they are purer than the driven snow in this, making the howls of outrage currently pretty self centred. So Mdm Flounce seems to have detonated in the middle of the desert.

      All this ‘not signing up for’/’used’/’resign’ hyperbole has already, rightly, been mocked for the the classic hissy fit techniques one sees all the time on BBC blogs or CiF. I am apolitical and only concern myself with what I can see or hear, so this tribal BS means sod all.

      Shame she will now miss the derision it garnered… though also the odd ‘defence’. Can’t say any aspect of what I read deserved it.



      • Millie Tant says:

        So Mdm Flounce seems to have detonated in the middle of the desert.  
        Very funny.  😀


  28. NRG says:

    From the Guardian – proof that the Beeboids do everything they can to faciliate Campbell.

    Campbell said: “Question Time have been trying to get me on for ever. I’ve just never done it for various reasons. I thought in a sense it would be easier [if the Labour party was] out of power. I said to them: ‘If we were to lose I’d come on at some point.’ They wanted me to do next week and I said that would be a bit tacky.”The producers of the programme, the independent producer Mentorn, offered Campbell a series of alternative dates. “The only one I could do was last night,” he said.


  29. davejanfitz says:

    martin..said that to my MP,he just walked away unable to say anything constructive about keeping the beeb,told him he’ll lose my vote.Saw him again after the election when he lost and said are you going to do anything about the beeb now….went red in the face and walked away…so they wont learn untill they are in opposition again


  30. hippiepooter says:

    I guess the Coalition’s conditions for fielding a Cabinet Minister after the Queen’s Speech is open to argument.  I guess it depends on whether or not there is a precedent for a Govt Minister and his Shadow always appearing on QT post QS.  Does anyone have this information?  If a Tory spokesman is to be believed while they were in negotiations with the BBC the BBC unilaterally booked John Redwood instead.  Cam & Clegg are so devious that I wouldn’t take their word for it, even against the BBC.

    The fact is though is that the Editor of QT is claiming the Coalition were trying to ‘dictate’ to the them who they had on, as if they have no right to negotiate the conditions upon which a Govt Minister appears.  This coupled with the deliberate attempt by Mr Dimbleby to embarrass HMG and that Campbell was pre-primed by them to pull his own stunts shows how partisan against the Govt the BBC is.  It seems very unprofessional of Mr Dimbleby to make the announcement he did before the beginning of the show.

    Recently former BBC journalist (and Labour spin doctor) Lance Price admitted that Lord Mandelson fed him an outrageous smear against Chris Patten to get, I think it was, Robin Cook of the headlines.  When he discovered it was a deliberate lie the BBC kept mum about it.  Yet they are champing at the bit to big this non-event up.  It shows what moral monstrosities run the BBC.


  31. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Newswatch just did a segment on complaints about BBC political bias with the new government.  It seems that people have complained that the BBC is “ganging up on the opposition” by having both a Tory and a LibDem on at the same time, against one Labour rep.  Last week’s QT was held up as an example of such anti-Labour, pro-Government bias on the BBC.

    Noddy had on some political advisor who said that it is bias because when they had coalition governments in Australia the ABC had only one government rep. on at a time.

    So there you have it:  the BBC is favoring the Government now and is biased against Labour, and they just have to get used to reporting on this crazy new situation.


  32. cjhartnett says:

    Come on people!
    The ludicrous BBC consider QT to be their “current affairs” flagship and we seem silly to salute the clapped out gargoyle that is Dimblebore.
    Let them continue to bring on their unelected movers and shakers as they drag them from Annies Bar…believe there`s a Lord Prescott rolling off the production line soon…none of us give a hoot and indeed we hope that Cameron will eviscerate the BBC kindly now before we do it with more anger later.
    Adonis,Mandelson,Campbell,Morgan…great!…let the Government take stock of the liberal boobies and look into their tax status and mental capacity for welfare to work. The rest of us can spend those wasted evenings and mornings doing something other that raging at a Cooper or a Balls…utterly irrelevant and the Hague awaits.
    Note that the Beeb has managed to find Blunkett,Johnson and that female muppet on P.M to lament the end of ID cards…as three of the 15,000 who were mug enough to stump up and register…can the BBC find us the other 14,997 and do us a special on the tragedy that is the end of the States “concern” for us all!
    Maybe THEY should be tested for being a bit thick and trusting…along with Prescott, the toffs gene pool is looking a bit thin!


  33. Millie Tant says:

    Guess who is the editor of the Politics Show.

    Yes, folks, it is one Gavin Allen.

    No wonder I have been noticing lately the recycling of the same people around BBC studios. Campbell and that Lib Dem Simon Hughes are prime examples of this. Hughes was on the Daily Politics, Question Time and Any Questions last week if I remember right. He may have been on the radio as well, for all I know.


    • Millie Tant says:

      I mean on other radio programmes as well – ones I don’t listen to, such as Today, PM, World at One etc.


  34. Erik Morales says:

    The Coalition tried to dictate who should appear on the QT panel. That’s a decision for QT and the BBC. The BBC was absolutley right to protect its independence from political influence, again demonstrating its impartiality.

    The attempts here to defence the government only go to demonstrate the bias of posters, in trying to defend the indefensible.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      It can be both.  The QT producers are right for standing up for themselves, and the Government was wrong to try and dictate terms.  If they don’t want to go up against Campbell, they’re not obligated to appear by any means.  However, the BBC is also wrong for putting up their old friend and former Beeboid and current troublemaker against a Cabinet minister, when they should have invited a Labour shadow minister instead.  This was a deliberate set-up by the BBC.

      Both sides did wrong, in my view.