OMG David Starkey is on Question Time again...

[Common as Mook]

Are you serious? Owen Jones has opnions but he is not patronising. And even if he is, he is not even close to the same league as Starky.

As someone who leans to the right, Jones came across appallingly. Evidently, to people who lean to the left Starkey came across appallingly. It's snobism and reverse snobism either way you look at it

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

His manner is the last thing that you should be seeking in our leaders. Just to remind you, Churchill was a leader 70 years ago when Britain was very different and we were at war. Whether he is intelligent or not, he cannot deal with other people with other opinions. He is arrogant about his knowledge of history and thinks it gives him the right to belittle anyone that doesn't agree with him, usually in an offensive manner. He is nothing more than bully. Rather than look down his nose at those audience members would it not be more productive to explain succinctly why we couldn't exert economical pressure on the likes of Russia and China. In that way, people might listened to him more.

This. He could have all the intellect in the world but it is useless as no one really listens or engages with him. If he had wit and a social skills to go with his knowledge he would tie people up in knots. But he doesnt. That, I'm afraid makes him a bit stupid in my opinion.

 

[Common as Mook]

I rather like Will Self.

Me too actually. Regardless of political leanings, I admire intelligence when not shouted above everything else.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

As someone who leans to the right, Jones came across appallingly. Evidently, to people who lean to the left Starkey came across appallingly. It's snobism and reverse snobism either way you look at it

You need to detach the person from their politics.

Starkey was a prick last night, had he been a leftie I would have said the same. Jones is a passionate, energetic, reasonably sharp young lad. I want more youngsters like this, whether Tory or Labour.

 

[Gwylan]

Apart from Starkey being a loathsome individual, what I don't understand about QT is the reluctance to broaden the net of people appearing.

There must be thousands of people more than qualified, across areas of academia, the media, arts, industry etc. It's usually just the same old names every time. Starkey shouldn't be on QT more than once a decade, but it's like he's got a season ticket.

I suppose with the politicians there is more need to use the senior figures, but not outside that.

I think the producers are just lazy, aren't really aware enough of who would be good, and aren't trying hard enough to find out. Just read the papers, it isn't hard, or ask around.

Totally agree. It's the same rent-a-gob crowd. They should have HB&B on - that would be guaranteed entertainment

 

[Simster]

I rather like Will Self.

He does talk some sense, yes, and I love the way he puts down right wing buffoons, but the simple fact is that he is on far too much.

 

[Common as Mook]

You need to detach the person from their politics.

Starkey was a prick last night, had he been a leftie I would have said the same. Jones is a passionate, energetic, reasonably sharp young lad. I want more youngsters like this, whether Tory or Labour.

Jones is a shouty, militant gobby little upstart. I want less people like this, whether Tory or Labour

 

[Common as Mook]

I would love to have seen Will Self on the Nick Griffin episode.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

I... I... I... Corwumph!

agreed - fossilised fish-hooks, whatever next?

 

[ROSM]

I would love to have seen Will Self on the Nick Griffin episode.

I had heard he was invited but chose not to as he felt he couldnt have got his point across without getting agitated

 

[Easy 10]

Whenever Starkey is on, I usually have a mental sweepstake on how long into the programme it'll be before he mentions the fact that he is gay.

It was 29 minutes last night (I was 12 minutes out with 17). Not quite up there with the Oxford episide of winter 2010, when he revealed this fascinating fact in his opening prose 39 seconds in.

 

[Common as Mook]

I had heard he was invited but chose not to as he felt he couldnt have got his point across without getting agitated

Fair play. I disagree with his politics but he is an incredibly lucid and bright individual without being unnecessarily loud and brash. No mean feat for a leftie

 

[looney]

He does talk some sense, yes, and I love the way he puts down right wing buffoons, but the simple fact is that he is on far too much.

Ive yet to see it Richard Littlejohn made mincemeat out of him.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Jones is a shouty, militant gobby little upstart*. I want less people like this, whether Tory or Labour

As I say, you need to detach your political bias from the person. I thought he was fine, and refreshing. Much better than that dinosaur last night.

* maybe he reminds me of when I was young

 

[Simster]

Ive yet to see it Richard Littlejohn made mincemeat out of him.

Yes of course he did.


*cringe*

 

[Common as Mook]

As I say, you need to detach your political bias from the person. I thought he was fine, and refreshing. Much better than that dinosaur last night.

* maybe he reminds me of when I was young

I am detatching. I don't like Starkey, Littlejohn, Gaunt, Mackenzie for the very same reasons.

 

[mona]

This. He could have all the intellect in the world but it is useless as no one really listens or engages with him. If he had wit and a social skills to go with his knowledge he would tie people up in knots. But he doesnt. That, I'm afraid makes him a bit stupid in my opinion.

The danger with this is that you end up with media savvy but insubstantial politicians. Blair is a supreme example but Cameron is from the same mould.

As for the goon who made the comment about Russia and China, I must admit I felt embarrassed for the bloke.

Starkey has one advantage over Clark Carlisle, he has never cheated the Albion out of 3 points at Loftus Road by handling the ball on the line.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

I can see why you like Starkey.

Its analogy that's been used many times and I'm afraid is generally true. If you had money to invest would you give it to someone who would turn that money into profit, employing people giving you more money to perhaps in time give the poorest more money. Or give that money straight to the poor who would have no intention of using it apart from short term betterment.

The state this country is in every penny counts. This government is not doing enough, by putting pressure on banks etc, to help people/companies to invest in their businesses and getting the private sector economy to grow. The whole process will happen through small business growth.

 

[Easy 10]

As for the goon who made the comment about Russia and China, I must admit I felt embarrassed for the bloke.

Was that the one who said Britain should apply pressure on China and Russia through "economic sanctions" ?

Must admit that was a laugh-out-loud comment, and it was hilarious seeing Starkey EXPLODE at it.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Was that the one who said Britain should apply pressure on China and Russia through "economic sanctions" ?

Must admit that was a laugh-out-loud comment, and it was hilarious seeing Starkey EXPLODE at it.

Problem is people believe crap like that. There are very few people in politics that will openly say what is needed. K Clarke is one as is T Benn. You may not agree with them but they speak sense from their own standing. Many of these twobob politicians like the Labour and LIbdem ones last night have no conviction at all in their argument apart from trotting out their own party line all the time. That's what I find irritating. Lets have some proper debates between them and not point scoring. Stand up for your beliefs, your own ideas, not some party animals. Starkey has no allies or even friends but he does have a better understanding on how government should be working than some of these puppets.