I love the way Dimbleby shrieks like a salted snail when David Starkey mentions the fact that he's a hereditary broadcaster due to daddy's bbc fame in the 1940s and 50s.. more telling than a thousand debates.
Like the time he tried to bowl over Jacob Rees-Mogg by pointing out he went to Eton, The Mogg's response that he was there with Dimbleby's son was hit for 6.
Yeah, he doesn't like the fact that his daddy had more to do with his position than his own merits. Nepotism is a huge problem in politics. Just look at the Kennedy clan in the US
Thomas Fleig - Dan Snow's another one who owes his position to his parents. Not only was his father on TV for decades, but his mother was boss of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's London Bureau, so they had more than enough connections in the industry. There are probably others as well. Broadcasting is just as bad as politics for nepotism.
Question Time in a nutshell - "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate." - Noam Chomsky
it amazes me that Question Time is still around. The same old politics/journalism prostitutes and pimps spewing out meaningless trash for thebenefit of the peasants. And the sheep in the audience inanely clappingtheir hooves together. Pathetic waste of time.
Namaste1001 you give question time way too much credit and take it way too seriously. Its entertainment for people interested in politics. It's not meaningful political debate. Society crafts acceptable opinions and society sneers at outliers. Thats a fact of life, its not indicative that a person or organisation is limiting the spectrum.
'My quarrel with Chomsky goes back to the Balkan wars of the 1990s, where he more or less openly represented the "Serbian Socialist Party" (actually the national-socialist and expansionist dictatorship of Slobodan Milosevic) as the victim. Many of us are proud of having helped organize to prevent the slaughter and deportation of Europe's oldest and largest and most tolerant Muslim minority, in Bosnia-Herzegovina and in Kosovo. But at that time, when they were real, Chomsky wasn't apparently interested in Muslim grievances. He only became a voice for that when the Taliban and Al Qaeda needed to be represented in their turn as the victims of a "silent genocide" in Afghanistan. Let me put it like this, if a supposed scholar takes the Christian-Orthodox side when it is the aggressor, and then switches to taking the "Muslim" side when Muslims commit mass murder, I think that there is something very nasty going on. And yes, I don't think it is exaggerated to describe that nastiness as "anti-American" when the power that stops and punishes both aggressions is the United States … In some awful way, his regard for the underdog has mutated into support for mad dogs. This is not at all like watching the implosion of an obvious huckster and jerk like Michael Moore, who would have made a perfectly good Brownshirt populist. The collapse of Chomsky feels to me more like tragedy.' Christopher Hitchens on Chomsky.
David Starkey. Watching this seven years later and as usual, he is bang on the money. Honest, intelligent and most of all...authentic. Small wonder he's not on the telly anymore.
I guess since back then there were limited disabled access ramps and battery life in mobility scooters isn't what it is today you can be forgiven for doing the gentlemanly thing.
effyleven Have you ever noticed that the places with the best schools have monoracial populations of people from groups with a high IQ? Of course many people make it their business to ensure that you don't. We must copy this particular aspect of the education system in Finland or Taiwan or Japan, the one they approve of, and ignore the inconvenient facts.
Shirley WIlliams and Harriet Harman were elected to public office. Victoria Coren comes from a media family. Dimbleby is on very stony ground. He got a Third at Oxford and was a member of the Bullingdon Club. If his father was not RIchard Dimbleby I doubt he would be a BBC presenter. Dimbleby hated being "outed" by Starkey.
+Geoff Poole To be completely honest, a third from Oxford is still a really good education, which still plays into Starkey's point though. I think John Oliver touched on this in an interview on Marc Maron's podcast; he came from Birmingham and went to Cambridge to find that everyone from public school had learnt Middle English and Modern Philosophy way before university and he just had to struggle to keep up with them.
@@thetessellater9163 Nonsense. He says what he sees. He came from genuine poverty and now in the position he has, he see's the hypocrisy of the middle class political sphere.
"Violent protests aren't wanted, peaceful protests are ignored, protest votes are what it's all about" this seems very relevant in 2020, let's return to this sentiment
Harriet Harman is exactly how David Starkey described her, that's why she protested when her cover was blown. I know someone who lived near ONE of the family's property's ..
He is an arrogant git, always interrupting when someone else speaks, but shouting anyone else down when they try to interrupt him. Arsehole of a man. He should never be on a discussion programme again.
seems like victoria coren was the only woman on the panel with the ability to outwitt david .... you can see it at the end when she quickly makes her point about david and then quickly goes back to answer the question almost to diffuse him .... although i agree with david starkey you still have to admire that ..... but no doubt people like harriet harman will still pretend like sexism is still prevalent
Ouch. Starkey came out of the gate swinging. straight to the neck.He's the kind of political opponent you want/need: genuine, precise and intellectual. Sometimes I feel like I'll disagree with him and then he convinces me. I like people who use reason and intelligence to persuade their opponents. Farrage is the same- he was tarnished as a racist before I heard him speak. Some stuff he says is crazy, at other times he's the only man in the room speaking sense.
But don't you feel that the crazy stuff he says kinda makes the sane stuff irrelevant ? I mean he starts saying something normal we all agree on then segues immediately to brown people are destroying Britain just by the fact that they are brown ( as economic projections say Britain needs more people for continued economic growth ). The guy is an arsehole and the policies he proposes are going to lead to ruin. If plain talk is his greatest asset, his greatest failing is economic reality.
@@seanfaherty When has he ever said 'Brown people are ruining the country'? That is an utter falsehood by typical Left-wing idiots who have no argument so they hurl labels and slanderous names around to do so.
@@Pwwh0711 no, it's because he said "Slavery was not genocide otherwise there wouldn't be so many damn blacks in Africa or Britain would there?" and suggested that a girl was responsible for being raped. Man is a vile little homunculus. Just because someone supports anti-immigration policies doesn't immediately make them a great bloke, Phil, you lump of gammon.
Starkey and Greening are the only ones who know how it really is, I like Victoria Coren but recognise that the upbringing she had with a famous father hs enabled her career, had she been brought up in a council house, and attended a Comprehensive school she would not have made it, her father’s connections at the BBC paved the way for her, fact
starkeys opening statement won the whole arguement as he out of a panel of 6 people 2 got there through their own work and endevours and the other 4 hereditary,they are there to fight and blag the people the old cliquey orders are still good for the working population when they clearly are not and starkeys there to tell you they are no good for you.
+villaparis2 That can also be a good thing seeing patterns. Not much effort needed than lets say being a Biologist. We all need to evolve...and its kind of sad having to come to matters to reason with an Atheist Gay Man about evolution.
Starkey tanned Harmon's bloody backside when he indicated she advocated for "Rich and well connected Women, which is how Female Liberation operates". One can be sure Erin Pizzey would agree and she's a Liberal Democrat, while Starkey is staunch Conservative.
No that's absolutely not the case, surely you can see how much courage it takes to stand up for your principles when you're surrounded by those with the opposite view. I would suggest that pathetic certainly applies more to Dimbleby than Starkey, on the evidence of this clip at least.
Amen to that. She is just brilliant, such a quick wit and confidence and more importantly, patience! No interrupting or shouting over the other panelists. David Mitchell is the luckiest man on Earth!
The women at 7:20 touched on a point which has become even more apparent in these current political climates in 2018. The people do not like the Conservative or Labour party. As Peter Hitchens says "they are two rigor-mortis bodies keeping each other up". There needs to be change.
I love how Harman mentioned to fight for women’s rights so she said she joined the Labour Party rather than the Tories, but then again the Tories are 2-0 in female leaders. Have a lot of problems with the Tories but that is a really interesting comment she made.
If you notice, women only rise in the tory party when the men have been smeared with a big scandal. The 'pure maternal' figure is a mini rebrand to push over an election period.
Looking back at this programme after Brexit has taken place and just months away from the end of the transition period, is fascinating and very telling. Harriet Harman spoke perfect common sense for once - until she started playing the "as a woman" card. However, while David Starkey let off a few distracting exaggerations, it was his analysis that has been proved correct in almost every detail.
David Starkey is right on most issues. He says the uncomfortable truths people in power don’t like to hear. That’s why they got rid of him. First they come for him, next they will come for you....
He was outstanding, I screamed at the telly in delight! About time someone had a go at the cosy club BBC with the same faces Fry, Toynbee et al. Dimbleby shit himself when Starkey had the nerve to train his guns on him. And later when Starkey demolished Coren when she asked why there wasn't child care in these sweatshops (IT'S BANGLA-BLOODY-DESH WOMAN!). Next Coren will be asking why don't the starving Africans just eat Krispy Kremes in the absence of bread.
I've just sat through more of QT than at any time since Nick Griffin,who I'm not a particular fan of,was stitched up in 2009,and I think I need a shower with a scrubbing brush!
Harriet Harperson comments on her struggle to get into parliament as a first women and a pioneer is hilarious when she sits next to Shirley Williams who actually was a pioneer and made great strides for women mp's so Harmon could get into parliament! I love how Harmon hates being reminded shes upper middle class and Dimbelbey and Coren hate being reminded they got where they are through nepotism.
As always David Starkey is bang on the money. You might not agree with what he has to say, but you have to marvel at the strength of his intellect. Harman totally missed the point, it's not a question of how much she's done for working class women, or whether it was difficult at the time for women to break into politics. The point is if she didn't come from such a priviliged background she would have had 0% chance of achieveing the success she has.
My friend lived in the same street as Mick Jagger when they were both children growing up, she had some funny memories of him playing football in the road with her brother, whilst Mick's mother yelled at him to come in 'cos his beans on toast was getting cold.
Yeah I think there is a fair point, and at this stage it's honest of me to say I'm not from the UK so really can't offer much of a view, but that doesn't excuse the the manner of his attack both in it's pre-planned nature and how he made it personal to the other panelist.The issue could've been raised and tested without him doing either of those things and that he did id a discredit to the importance and value of proper discussion. That he did, proved him to be a pompus ass who deserved the lashing he got from Victoria.
