Question Time tonight

[zxspectrum]

Is Giles Fraser really someone we should give a damn about? Seems to me he's about as progressive as the god he worships. He's part of the same media circlejerk that includes Portillo and Mad Mel. He's always on that self indulgent Moral Maze bullshit. Hardly a hotbed of social justice.

 

[weltweit]

Is Giles Fraser really someone we should give a damn about? Seems to me he's about as progressive as the god he worships. He's part of the same media circlejerk that includes Portillo and Mad Mel. He's always on that self indulgent Moral Maze bullshit. Hardly a hotbed of social justice.

I liked some of the things he said about the migrant issue, against the common flow / opinion and I don't often hear it. I do often listen to the moral maze but hadn't recognised him on it.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Did they talk about immigration again this week?

 

[weltweit]

Did they talk about immigration again this week?

Every week, yes .

 

[SpookyFrank]

Lucky there's nothing else going on isn't it? Or they might all start looking like a shower of racist cunts.

 

[belboid]

in Sheffield in a couple of weeks, wonder if I can think of a question that the panel could answer without making me want to kill them all.

 

[youngian]

The evidence for increased sugar content of food causing rising obesity is a serious issue. The response; "boo to nanny for telling us what to eat" bordered on the childish.

 

[Favelado]

Lucky there's nothing else going on isn't it? Or they might all start looking like a shower of racist cunts.

They talk about immigration so much but the simple fact that without future mass immigration the demographics of the country are fucked never seems to crop up. It's not just that they always talk about one thing, it's that they don't even explore the subject fully.

 

[Favelado]

The evidence for increased sugar content of food causing rising obesity is a serious issue. The response; "boo to nanny for telling us what to eat" bordered on the childish.

"Nanny state." A term used by people who had nannies. It doesn't even relate to normal people's experiences.

 

[8ball]

"Nanny state." A term used by people who had nannies. It doesn't even relate to normal people's experiences.

I think it was originally used as a positive term - to make authoritarianism appear benevolent.

<Googles to check...>

edit: hmm - might be something spurious someone told me in a pub...

 

[youngian]

As coined by Thick of It's Peter Manion trying to reach out to new demographics, like people who watch Jools Holland's Hootenanny.

 

[SpookyFrank]

The evidence for increased sugar content of food causing rising obesity is a serious issue. The response; "boo to nanny for telling us what to eat" bordered on the childish.

I explained to Mrs Frank the other day exactly how much sugar there is in a bottle of fizzy pop.

'Shit, so this is basically a bottle of poison?'
'Yup, and there's enough sugar in it to cause what is effectively a narcotic effect.'
'Why the fuck are they allowed to sell this?'
'Because freedom init.'

Hopefully that shit will be banned under Theresa May's wonderfully mental 'legal highs' law. Or if it's not, maybe someone will at least have to explain their reasoning for not banning it.

 

[youngian]

I don't know what goes on in the mind of a small state Tory but they don't seem to have a rational evidence based approach to legal products (due to their liberalism) or illegal ones (due to their authoritarian populism).

 

[8ball]

I explained to Mrs Frank the other day exactly how much sugar there is in a bottle of fizzy pop.

'Shit, so this is basically a bottle of poison?'

Hmmm... well, in the same sense that a bottle of soy sauce is a bottle of poison.

You don't drink a bottle of soy sauce at a time, obviously, but then maybe it's approaches to how much of this stuff people drink that is more important than hyperbole. I guess you could regulate for anything blatantly encouraging excessive use (those 'Big Gulp' sodas are pretty terrifying).

 

[youngian]

The anti sugar argument is a reasonable one and has a convincing basis: The West eats far less fat than 40 years ago due to a consensus to reduce it because it was identified as the main source of obesity. Low fat foods can taste like cardboard but adulterating everything with sugar was not the answer and obesity rates have shot up as a result. Not only because of the increase in consumption but the body's inability to metabolise sugar with ease. All that is being called for is the same cultural shift away from sugar as there was to fat and other issues like smoking.

 

[hash tag]

Sugar is the new tobacco!

 

[DotCommunist]

They talk about immigration so much but the simple fact that without future mass immigration the demographics of the country are fucked never seems to crop up. It's not just that they always talk about one thing, it's that they don't even explore the subject fully.

thing is, a stable population with a low birthrate is not bad imo. If we manage resources properly, tax proggressively etc it should work out. But we won't, we've been given rapacious capital so there has to be a surplus- a lot of surplus- to feed that ever open maw. Madness

 

[ViolentPanda]

Sugar is the new tobacco!

Refined sugars, especially.

 

[Quartz]

They talk about immigration so much but the simple fact that without future mass immigration the demographics of the country are fucked never seems to crop up.

I've got to disagree with that. A gradual decline in population to a lower level will be harder to manage, but it won't mean we're fucked.

 

[Favelado]

I've got to disagree with that. A gradual decline in population to a lower level will be harder to manage, but it won't mean we're fucked.

A smaller tax-base supporting an ever older population would be hugely problematic. The only reason birth-rates are okay now is becuase of mass immigration.

Pensions, social security, health and education spending are too low as it is. Pensions are shit. We need both a better tax system and more taxpayers.

 

[Quartz]

A smaller tax-base supporting an ever older population would be hugely problematic.

But it's not an insuperable problem. For example, consider the state pensionable retirement age being gradually raised to 75, thereby simultaneously increasing the tax base and reducing the number of retired people.

 

[Favelado]

But it's not an insuperable problem. For example, consider the state pensionable retirement age being gradually raised to 75, thereby simultaneously increasing the tax base and reducing the number of retired people.

Work until we're 75! Will you fuck off please?

 

[Quartz]

Work until we're 75! Will you fuck off please?

It's not a policy I advocate, but it's one I can see a future Tory government bringing in.

 

[gimesumtruf]

Danny Alexander was asked on a previous QT whether he would fancy 75yr old surgeon operating on him, he said yes, but I think few from the audience believed him.
He was also asked how he thought a navvy would cope with that sort of retirement age, he gave the impression (to me ) that these were mere nuances.

 

[SpookyFrank]

But it's not an insuperable problem. For example, consider the state pensionable retirement age being gradually raised to 75, thereby simultaneously increasing the tax base and reducing the number of retired people.

This would just create more unemployment among younger people.

 

[panpete]

I haven't read this thread, and I may be off course here, but there never seems to be questions about non-working people who are being hammered, or disabled people who are losing the independent living fund. Do you think David Dimbleby, (being a bbd bod) somehow steers the questions and answers away from these subjects, or do you think that not enough people care?

 

[zxspectrum]

I haven't read this thread, and I may be off course here, but there never seems to be questions about non-working people who are being hammered, or disabled people who are losing the independent living fund. Do you think David Dimbleby, (being a bbd bod) somehow steers the questions and answers away from these subjects, or do you think that not enough people care?

The producers choose the questions and he MC's it. That's all. If anyone in the audience spontaneously kicked off or raised something 'not on the agenda' they'd be escorted out the building and the filming would edit them out and continue from that point.

 

[panpete]

The producers choose the questions and he MC's it. That's all. If anyone in the audience spontaneously kicked off or raised something 'not on the agenda' they'd be escorted out the building and the filming would edit them out and continue from that point.

Thanks, so it is being manipulated then?

 

[CNT36]

Thanks, so it is being manipulated then?

No, I don't think it is. Manipulated suggests that it is somehow unscrupulous. It probably doesn't even occur to the people doing the editing that they are restricting the debate just protecting it from nutters with their extreme views. It is on a par with putting live music events on a 30 second delay to remove the odd swear word.

 

[Quartz]

No, I don't think it is. Manipulated suggests that it is somehow unscrupulous. It probably doesn't even occur to the people doing the editing that they are restricting the debate just protecting it from nutters with their extreme views.

I believe it is transmitted almost live - only a few seconds delay so they can bleep out expletives. The repeats are another matter, of course.