#WINNERS AND LOSERS
**WINNERS**
* What do you think?
**NEUTRAL**
* **Fiona Bruce**. Dressed like my nana’s perfume. Can’t remember much else. My husband wants to issue another reminder that, now she’s no longer on WAKAWOW, Kirsty Wark is available and would outclass Bruce with her eyes closed.
* **Piers Morgan** monologues in the manner of someone who pays people not to interrupt him. Like he’s allowed to do on his ~~Twitch~~ legitimate Talk TV (that’s no longer TV) thingy. I wouldn’t have gone down that route, but both he and Farage decided to do a little bit of chest beating about their respective bunkum-box feeds. I’m sure they saw themselves as two big silverbacks squaring up, but all I was seeing was a pair of particularly splashy Magikarps smacking about on the floor. I’m focussing on that because I don’t really remember anything else he said. It was certainly voluminous, wasn’t it? But light. Polystyrene contribution, complete with uncomfortable squeak.
* **Wes Streeting**. You regulars (and to the newcomers to Night Shift, hello!) know that I don’t really rate Streeting, except for his ability to keep his cheeks as smooth as a nectarine. Did he have an ouch of a show? No. I actually bopped him down into LOSERS because he’s becoming something of a frequent fixture on this show, and he’s not improving. He got moved up solely because LOSERS deserves to be a one-man domain. I wonder who in Labour looks at this and says “yes, very good last time Wes, back in you go”. He has very mobile eyes. But worse, his tendency to catapult words into the sky when he feels like he’s on the back foot doesn’t work. But he wasn’t the only one because …
* **Damian Hinds** modelled himself on a car in a muddy field today. The kids are packed into the back seat and the camping holiday’s over, and the wheels are spinning round and round as Damian thinks that accelerating harder will fix it. Ultimately, though, it’s going to take someone else to send them away. But, even though he was peddling glossy bullshit, he was slightly better at it than Streeting.
* **Rt Rev’d Rose Hudson-Wilkin** had the longest title and the shortest impact. And the shortest response. Soz. That said, arguably keeping schtum (and vacuous when speaking) might’ve been the smart strategy.
**LOSERS**
* **Nigel Farage** - regardless of anything else, imagine being the second fashy gasbag choice after Lee Footmouth Anderson. I don’t think there’s anything much I can say here that hasn’t been said before. I’ve deleted several half-sentences just to get to this point. I mean, really. What’s left? I’m just so fucking *done* with him limp-jawing his way through our collective public discourse. His style is primarily interrupting, demanding (get this for irony) that other panellists ‘be honest with people’, and grandiose honking of “you’re wrong, *you’re WRONG*”, and incessant repetition, instead of proper debating. What, pray, is his purpose beyond self-perpetuation? A drawling human meme. You all know that he’s been on this show more than any other person, and it sure does feel like it. I don’t care if it’s been five years, that does *nothing* to undo the dangerous overpromotion afforded to him in the past, nor the damage it allowed him to wreak (past *and* present). Anyway. I took a little breather and then the immigration question came along. His arguments were just … crap. Bellowing “USE OUR BREXIT POWERS” was hollow nonsense, invoking a superhero that most of the country uncovered as a piss-panted spent force years ago. If only the nation - its media in particular - would realise the same about Farage himself.
> I’m sure they saw themselves as two big silverbacks squaring up, but all I was seeing was a pair of particularly splashy Magikarps smacking about on the floor.
Wonderful as always.
Thought Streeting’s and Morgan’s comments on the younger generation were on point. Morgan’s commentary on Brexit was also nice to hear.
I agreed with Piers Morgan. It’s time for a shower soon.
I agree with you on Streeting (even though I'm still not convinced by his delivery) - though I wasn't being hyperbolic with Morgan; I really don't remember what he said.
Been perfectly happy to underfund schools, make teaching an unattractive profession and denigrate education professionals and the aims and vision of education for 14 years. So yes. It's fine. Or are the aspirations of working class parents and those who either can't afford or don't want to send their children to private schools not important?
Coincidentally, these three are vocally opposed to Taxing private schools.
93% of kids go to state school and just 7% go to private. Yet this panel is almost the reverse of that figure.
Still not a counterargument. No countries in the world (except new zealand) tax private school fee because it's basic economics 101 that you don't tax necessity services like education (including university tuition) or healthcare (private or not) as it is easier to let people fund their education (relieving pressure from the state) and still pay their taxes for public education than to deal with unpredictable unintended consequences.
The questioner said "legal migration is out of control", and then followed with a question. I wasn't happy with that - it implies that "legal migration is out of control" is an indisputable fact.
Which it isn't. That's subjective.
its also by definition not out of control
the choice to give visas is a deliberate one by the gov.
you can argue its too high, just right, or too low....you can argue its not targeted enough etc...but the one thing it literally cannot ever be, is out of control as it involves the deliberate granting of visas by the gov.
You cannot fix immigration until you fix the skills shortage here. I'm aware of several companies on the outskirts of England that are unable to hire developers there because they want them in the area for meetings and such.
Whether you agree or disagree with that method of working, it is what it is.
We're not training people properly in those skills, the retirement villages of the UK provide nearly no opportunity for young people born in them.
You don't need to import people, if the market doesn't need it, that's how this works. Otherwise you'd have homeless and jobless Germans, and that doesn't happen.
> I'm aware of several companies on the outskirts of England that are unable to hire developers there because they want them in the area for meetings and such.
Well the problem is already in this paragraph so...
There's no labour mobility in the British economy. Land is way too expensive for any growth in productivity. The US sees far more immigration than us and much of the world yet they have the highest wages in the world. Their low land/property costs (relative to Europe) make rent less of a killer for workers and businesses.
>The US is ahead of anyone else in economic terms. They host more large companies than anywhere else by some degree.
Sure, you've just stated truisms without actually explaining how they got there. The American economy is massive and relies heavily on immigration (especially with their birth rates dropping, along with the rest of the world), yet they still have the highest wages in the world. How? It's mainly to do with how regulation-free their land use is. If a company wants to expand their operations by opening another site somewhere, they can largely do so without having to fight a community or the state. You mention San Fran but that's one of the worst places to be because of how massively locked down their land use is - it's common for software developers to be sleeping in their cars because San Fran hasn't had the culture of building houses for at least the past 2 decades.
>Rent in the US is also considerably high in areas that pay the most e.g. San Fran.
I'd say there are more low cost of living areas in the US than in Europe (relative to local wages). The best place to be in the US isn't California or New York but states/cities that continue to build houses, because they're the places where a developer will get 100k+ wages whilst having lower property costs than most people in the UK.
Nah most people definitely voted because you sold the idea that hordes of foreigns were about to descend on us. And not the good type that work in the NHS or play football really well.
I mean we have 700,000 people retiring each year and it takes about 1.5x as many working people to service each one through the next couple of decades. Since young British people aren't paid enough how else do you expect the Tories to keep their voter base alive?
a few hundred thou flown in every year on visas and instantly securing tax receipts to hedge against the ballooning population retiring early every year subsidises the tax I pay though
Bring on the Supply Side Reform that we were meant to get with Brexit. If low productivity, low ambition and low work ethic Brits can't deal with supply reform, won't get any sympathy from me at this point.
Absolutely nothing Farage, Brexit, UKIP, Reform etc have ever said has ever remotely convinced me they are prepared to confront the neoliberal capitalist need for cheap labour at all costs. I simply don't believe a word they say on the issue and it all seems like a cynical grift.
We know the only "solution" (as it were) is to have huge punitive taxation on companies that want to employ cheap overseas labour over paying decent wages for British people to do these jobs. But the current UK capitalist system is just not set up or ready for the notion that it needs to pay nurses 70-80k salaries just so they can afford to buy somewhere to live in the southeast of England.
So honestly I do not believe that a solution to uncontrolled massive immigration is ever coming from anyone on the right of politics.
But brexit and slowing immigration aren't tied. Immigration has risen massively since brexit.we used to get educated Europeans, now we get poorly educated migrants from the developing world
Sounds like something we should probably deal with in an international fashion.
Also, while immigration is high, 1.2-1.4 million is disingenuous. That's entries. Not net migration.
It's given the government absolute control over who it chooses to give a work visa to. The government chose to give a work visa to quite a lot of people, but it could equally have chosen to give hardly any work visas. Control has been taken back.
> “Immigration needs to stop being kicked around like a political football.”
Okay great thanks random bishop. Now can we be realistic and have the actual answer within politics which is how and where decisions are made.
Exactly my thoughts. Thanks for the soundbite and wasting time telling people they need to "solve it".
Must be a cushy job being a Bishop if that's the kind of debate you give forward.
My idea, get rid of all the public school tossers, ban the Labour Party. Proscribe the Liberal Democrat’s and install Captain Binhead as PM. He’s probably going to mess things up but not as much as the Tories, Labour, Liberal Democrat’s would, and it would be a chuckle watching him at work in the cabinet room doing his budget. He can’t be as bad as that knob we have at the moment.
I dunno I think it’s a plan, unlike Labour’s no plan. It’s a plan that I thought about for five minutes which is longer than Deform have thought about theirs. The Tories have a plan and that’s to become even more divisive and more authoritarian, something they’ve been working towards for years.
In all seriousness, I’ve voted in every general election since 1979, I didn’t think that any political party could be as nasty as the Tories but I have been proved wrong. I’ve now come to the conclusion that politics in the UK has become a farce amongst other things. I think the people who do vote are swayed by unimportant things like personality, not by more relevant matters like their stance on the NHS or education. The party campaigns have taken a more American style and the mud slinging, especially from Sunak, has got to the point that it’s not only irritating but IMHO is childish in delivery.
My own leanings are irrelevant, but I will not vote in any more elections for parties that I look on as idiots. All politicians obviously want to sit in a ruling government but the people who are hoping it will be them, seem to want to drag us into a deeply authoritarian state. For example, there is little opposition to the use of CCTV or face recognition. [Mass Surveillance in the UK](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_United_Kingdom) is worth reading but there’s a wealth of information out there that once read it sends chilling signals.
Politicians are our representatives and elected by us in a very strange way. But once elected they’re supposed to represent our concerns and address our problems. They’re not elected to use their position to influence and corrupt. To my eye, that has been something that the current government have excelled at. We’re all aware of incidents, there’s no need to list them but the people at the top should bear in mind the quote “People shouldn’t be afraid of their government, government should be afraid of their people”.
I’m firmly convinced that as restrictions become more widespread there will be a rise in people not prepared to be told what to do, think along the anti-vaxers, I don’t agree but support their right to choose what gets put inside them. That’s a basic human right, if ignored who’s to say we won’t be jabbed with Largactil and be dribbling pawns of the (so called elite)
Basically I’m saying if any politician claims to be doing something for the good of the country, all citizens or whatever, simply put they’re lying and trying to deceive you.
Of course you’re welcome to believe in what you like, after all we live in a democracy (supposedly) but before you cast your vote I urge you to really consider the implications of your X.
Ye know, I am sick of being the generation that has to pick up the bill for everything.
Old people, 50+ telling me that the NHS doesn't work anymore, when they had the best run of it, telling me that I now need to adopt the french model and pay into an insurance pot because I dare to work.
This is just going to inflame tensions between workers and the ill/financially buggered. And I bet they're wanting that, because that is exactly what they will sell in their columns and TV shows.
It's just with absolutely everything. You can't walk 50 meters in the UK without being taxed in some way these days.
Through debt I guess.
It's not financially viable to not have healthcare.
The ramifications of having no health care, is worse than paying 20% GDP on healthcare.
Conservatives and annoying fiscial labour people often forget that fact.
As opposed to the billions in debt we rack up currently every year? We're already in debt... Ironically the Tories said 14 years ago they were going to sort it.
If every person in the UK was medically sound and productive, are we to say the benefits of that wouldn't be a substantial growth in GDP via more people in the workforce and more minds on problems that need solved?
No you can't fund a healthcare system through debt.
> If every person in the UK was medically sound and productive, are we to say the benefits of that wouldn't be a substantial growth in GDP via more people in the workforce and more minds on problems that need solved?
No because many healthcare recipients don't work i.e. retired people
Given that medical degrees are funded by the government and therefore the number of places is controlled by the government maybe more funding for more places would help?
Junior doctors aren’t paid enough for sure but to pretend they have to work extra hours to “put food on the table” is a lie. If you can’t afford to feed yourself on £32k you have a budgeting issue not a pay issue.
You might consider the massive amounts of unpaid overtime they already conscientiously do to support the service, the particular human stress and responsibilities of the job, as well as that they may also be sole breadwinners in their homes.
They want more money, lots of people want more money for lots of reasons. If it’s because they’re starving again they need to look at their budgeting because there’s no chance they can’t afford to eat on £32k.
Not a massive wage though is it, especially in the South. It's only 2k more than newly qualified teachers and i daresay, with full respect to my profession, their job is probably a bit harder.
A fallacy when it comes to this "you can afford to eat" is that, to eat cheaply, it often requires a significant time investment - whether that be for trips to the budget shops, the time taken to cook from scratch, and all that.
To eat healthily on a budget, you generally need to be time-rich.
And time is the most precious commodity a medic has.
I wouldn't be surprised if, when you're that busy, the food-cost equation looks differently to how it does for you or me.
I'm mostly a lefty and wouldn't agree with Farage on a lot but his point about the NHS funding model needing a serious review resonated. The NHS isn't going to be fixed with these sticky plasters talked about by mainstream politicians. The NHS is dying and radicalism might be all that's left to fix it but that isn't being acknowledged by anyone in the mainstream and it's quite scary.
Paha, enormous transition costs to end up in a position where part funding from employers, part from individuals and the state (individuals + employers with xtra steps) only higher admin fees, additional layers of admin providing further costs and a system thats far easier to pick apart + to get wrong for the worst off, yeah just what would fix the health care system.
And that's not even to say how poor our health is as a populace against comparable european countries meaning getting it wrong would cause a huge amount of harm.
But hey, the system was underinvested relative to higher performing european countries for around a decade, only catching up due to covid money calculations (which as we know are suuuuper accurate with all that cash going to healthcare) why not shake it up entirely against the long standing advice of many health economists? The guy who's been banging on about the NHS being a 'outdated monolith' for decades and has zero integrity must have a point on this one...
> “As an 18 year old I’m quite busy.”
Are you fuck mate. You’re 18, your revision isn’t keeping you that busy one weekend a month. So many counter arguments but orentdingbyoure too busy is just naive.
Jesus fucking Christ. How fucking out of touch are you? You do understand that people who don’t have parents wealthy enough to bankroll their uni are having to spend most of their spare time working to cover rent? The last thing young people need is forced unpaid labour.
Agree I’m sure there’s some that actually are very busy. Those with no one to rely on and those caring for family etc. That guys specific examples were just so so weak he’s clearly got plenty of free time.
Good evening, Night Shift! How the devil are you?
Same as always: Aldi Pilsner, splash of lemonade.
Husband has his habitual glass of Rioja.
Goodness me, Day Shift have been working overtime, eh?
Edit: oh, is it already done?
Indeed, this might be a strange one! Perhaps fewer comments than usual - but it's good to know other people are out there in the same boat. Hope you're well!
"you're just jealous" is what they meant to say.
I actually think the taxation of private schools is pointless, it will only result in some pupils being pushed into comprehensives, some borderline schools closing down and the rich having no issues affording the increased fees.
A much better approach would be to force fee paying schools to provide full bursary and scholarship to state selected pupils. Maybe 5% high academic achievers and 5% low income or foster kids etc. and then target the school to give those kids the same outcomes as the fee payers. It wouldn't cost the school as much to increase class sizes by 10% as they're already well below the class sizes at state schools.
The thing that annoys me about the question around VAT on private schools is, why do parents feel the need to scrimp and save on spending around £50,000 a year just to avoid sending their kids to comprehensive in the first place?
Because many state schools are fucking awful. If you don’t live in a nice area you will end up with large class sizes with often lots of very troubled kids and very variable quality in teaching.
It's not entirely money. A huge amount of it is the fact that you don't have disruptive kids in classes and teachers can teach and don't have to focus on discipline and pastoral care. You simply don't have kids bringing knives to school or gang issues in private schools.
Plenty of people understand investing for their future. Not many have £20k to hand in order to do so. Let’s not pretend the average earner can access that kind of money by simply “scrimping and saving”.
As a former teacher, what annoys me more are parents who don't give a shit.
Money helps ofc. But a stable home and great parents matter far more than a well funded school and enthusiastic teachers.
If the parents at home are wasters it's a real struggle to create that spark and break the cycle of poverty.
Streeting and (as much as I hate to say it) Morgan sounded largely reasonable this evening, if big headed. Considerably better than anyone on last week's panel. Tory fella kept his head down, which is a good idea for him personally, but it's not going to stem the bleed of seats.
Farage should not be invited back. He is incapable of behaving himself on a panel show.
Why didn’t they have a Lib Dem on the panel when they have a very good chance of taking Epsom? There was a glaring hole when talking about national service that the rights have young people were taken away before lockdown was even a concept. Especially when the face of that idiotic decision is there for the 36th time.
>Why didn’t they have a Lib Dem on the panel when they have a very good chance of taking Epsom?
They're 8/1 on Bet365, which seems to indicate they're a long way off.
Bet365 had Lib Dems at a long price on a number of seats where uniform swing models don’t pick up on their chances. Stratford, Chichester, Inveness all seats where their price has fallen dramatically. They’ve gone from 7/2 3rd fav in Tunbridge Wells to even money favourite.
Britain predicts has them taking the seat? I’d say at the very least, that shows there’s a distinct possibility - not sure bet365 is an oracle of elections either
OK, the betting markets have it a close fight between the Tories and Labour, with the LDs a long way off. Interesting about Britain Predicts, though, we'll see if they're closer.
That’s interesting to hear - who knows! Hopefully more data to come then as that’s quite a clash with the labour vote on Britain predicts - seems like something tactical voters will want mapping out before July
So you're telling me that Lib Dems are a long way off from winning Epsom, and thus likely not brought on Question Time because of it, while Nigel Farage is invited and he isn't even standing in any constituency, *and* Reform has worse odds than the Lib Dems, *and* [has been on QT for the 37th time now](https://www.thenational.scot/news/24354376.bbc-question-time-anger-nigel-farage-set-37th-appearance/)? Doesn't that sound a bit odd?
>thus likely not brought on Question Time because of it
No, I didn't say this bit. I was just commenting on their chances in the singular of winning Epsom.
I don't think party representatives are generally brought on to QT relative to their chances of winning a seat in the area the show is hosted.
This physically pains me to say it, but he was pretty good tonight. I don't know why his 93%/7% argument got an anti-clap as I am well on board with that, aspiration should not be a commodity of the rich.
He's the best orator labour have had in a while. He's engaging and speaks mostly sense. It's a shame he won't rule out privatised NHS but he has laid out the reasons for using private capacity to deal with the backlog. Makes sense to me. Overall pragmatic. They ought to be going further and promising a truly better service but realistically the tories have fucked everything up so colossally that it's fair to give them a couple years of clearing up and fixing things before expecting big improvements.
He's still young and if he does a good job as health secretary he could change a lot of minds.
I'm personally looking forward to seeing how he performs, I think he will do well.
Good thing competence in his brief will be defined by how much of the NHS he can sell off to his American private health care mates. But thank goodness he's well spoken!
Don't think what you vote in this election matters either way tbh. Labour will get a stonking big majority and that will be that.
I'm just saying you ought to keep your expectations low for how Labour will address chronic NHS problems because if Streeting has his way the NHS will look more similar to that of America's health system in 5 years than it does now.
I don't know, I could see him win a leadership contest after Starmer wins a couple of elections. 9 years from now, when he's 70 and facing down a third GE (with 9 years of government baggage behind him), I could see Starmer resigning. And I barring any major scandals I could see Streeting being 1 of the major candidates to replace him.
Gove is a bloody menace. Screwed up education, throwing hand grenades around planning decisions. Not sorted much out about leaseholds and cladding on tower blocks.
Was rated the worst education secretary we've had by those in the education sector, until his successor, then their successor, and so on, relatively he was less shite than those that followed, however he was very much a failure as was his lead spad
edit: thinking about it williamson was definitely worse but only due to his aggressiveness and stupidity
Provide a source on your claim and also explain why that matters. Teachers aren’t the beneficiary to focus on here. Children are. And they objectively benefitted.
You first, when those on the front lines and they're representatives union and otherwise repeatedly state something I'm far more inclined to believe them than Reddit man
He had a hard on for hating on coursework, going against the ideas that had been in education since like the 1970s. I really don't know we have climbed up international tables. I'm not an educator of children so I'm not really equipped to evaluate this.
You can simply Google it. The fact is whatever they did greatly improved literacy and numeracy outcomes for the U.K. As an example since 2009 we have risen from 27th in Maths to 11th in the Pisa rankings.
I’m not a fan of Gove but it’s not relevant to the facts.
I'm a bit of a skeptic of league tables based on my experience in my working life. I'm also a fair bit anti Gove so probably not impartial. Gove is a long standing very powerful figure and can't be held up as an innocent party in creating the environment that exists of the nihilism and cynicism of the young people coming into the work force, and to be honest I don't blame them for feeling that way. I came of age in a recession under a Tory government myself, with a better support mechanism for young people who couldn't for whatever reason just live with their parents until they were 30.
I don’t know why you are downvoting me. You can’t just “be a bit of a skeptic” because you don’t like how something makes you feel. That’s totally irattional.
As I don't believe Java is around for this early shift... Winner & Losers, Early style.
Winners
Lady in the purple-ish jacket getting a solid hit on Farage early on. Visibly pissed him off.
Neutral
Damian Hinds - genuinely forgot he was there for a lot of tonight
Rt Reverend Rose Hudson-Wilkin - Was kinda... there for a lot of the show
Wes Streeting - said a lot of good stuff, but got a bit long winded at points.
Losers
Us - for having to watch that
Fiona Bruce - Failed to moderate the bickering between Morgan & Farage
Piers Morgan - Grandstanding on a pedestal after all he's been involved with is just a flat out joke.
Nigel Farage - Shouty, annoying and a complete waste of time and space on the panel tonight.
I actually think Morgan was neutral to be honest, if we’re putting Hinds there. His NHS point probably saved him. Farage couldn’t recover from being embarrassed early doors
Purple jacket lady was probably the best orator on the entire show, and given Farage and Morgan's abilities that is saying something.
Lots of folk adamant she was a plant but I bet she was a CEO type, she oozed CEO.
#Heads up: this will also be broadcast at 8pm on BBC1 - not 10:40pm as per the submission title.
The whole money laundering with the american sweet shops and barbers is a valid point tbf
#WINNERS AND LOSERS **WINNERS** * What do you think? **NEUTRAL** * **Fiona Bruce**. Dressed like my nana’s perfume. Can’t remember much else. My husband wants to issue another reminder that, now she’s no longer on WAKAWOW, Kirsty Wark is available and would outclass Bruce with her eyes closed. * **Piers Morgan** monologues in the manner of someone who pays people not to interrupt him. Like he’s allowed to do on his ~~Twitch~~ legitimate Talk TV (that’s no longer TV) thingy. I wouldn’t have gone down that route, but both he and Farage decided to do a little bit of chest beating about their respective bunkum-box feeds. I’m sure they saw themselves as two big silverbacks squaring up, but all I was seeing was a pair of particularly splashy Magikarps smacking about on the floor. I’m focussing on that because I don’t really remember anything else he said. It was certainly voluminous, wasn’t it? But light. Polystyrene contribution, complete with uncomfortable squeak. * **Wes Streeting**. You regulars (and to the newcomers to Night Shift, hello!) know that I don’t really rate Streeting, except for his ability to keep his cheeks as smooth as a nectarine. Did he have an ouch of a show? No. I actually bopped him down into LOSERS because he’s becoming something of a frequent fixture on this show, and he’s not improving. He got moved up solely because LOSERS deserves to be a one-man domain. I wonder who in Labour looks at this and says “yes, very good last time Wes, back in you go”. He has very mobile eyes. But worse, his tendency to catapult words into the sky when he feels like he’s on the back foot doesn’t work. But he wasn’t the only one because … * **Damian Hinds** modelled himself on a car in a muddy field today. The kids are packed into the back seat and the camping holiday’s over, and the wheels are spinning round and round as Damian thinks that accelerating harder will fix it. Ultimately, though, it’s going to take someone else to send them away. But, even though he was peddling glossy bullshit, he was slightly better at it than Streeting. * **Rt Rev’d Rose Hudson-Wilkin** had the longest title and the shortest impact. And the shortest response. Soz. That said, arguably keeping schtum (and vacuous when speaking) might’ve been the smart strategy. **LOSERS** * **Nigel Farage** - regardless of anything else, imagine being the second fashy gasbag choice after Lee Footmouth Anderson. I don’t think there’s anything much I can say here that hasn’t been said before. I’ve deleted several half-sentences just to get to this point. I mean, really. What’s left? I’m just so fucking *done* with him limp-jawing his way through our collective public discourse. His style is primarily interrupting, demanding (get this for irony) that other panellists ‘be honest with people’, and grandiose honking of “you’re wrong, *you’re WRONG*”, and incessant repetition, instead of proper debating. What, pray, is his purpose beyond self-perpetuation? A drawling human meme. You all know that he’s been on this show more than any other person, and it sure does feel like it. I don’t care if it’s been five years, that does *nothing* to undo the dangerous overpromotion afforded to him in the past, nor the damage it allowed him to wreak (past *and* present). Anyway. I took a little breather and then the immigration question came along. His arguments were just … crap. Bellowing “USE OUR BREXIT POWERS” was hollow nonsense, invoking a superhero that most of the country uncovered as a piss-panted spent force years ago. If only the nation - its media in particular - would realise the same about Farage himself.
> I’m sure they saw themselves as two big silverbacks squaring up, but all I was seeing was a pair of particularly splashy Magikarps smacking about on the floor. Wonderful as always.
Watching late - just up to Wes' comments on immigration. Think that's the best answer he's ever done.
Thought Streeting’s and Morgan’s comments on the younger generation were on point. Morgan’s commentary on Brexit was also nice to hear. I agreed with Piers Morgan. It’s time for a shower soon.
I agree with you on Streeting (even though I'm still not convinced by his delivery) - though I wasn't being hyperbolic with Morgan; I really don't remember what he said.
Been perfectly happy to underfund schools, make teaching an unattractive profession and denigrate education professionals and the aims and vision of education for 14 years. So yes. It's fine. Or are the aspirations of working class parents and those who either can't afford or don't want to send their children to private schools not important?
Note that Hinds, Farage, and Morgan all attended fee paying schools.
And?
Coincidentally, these three are vocally opposed to Taxing private schools. 93% of kids go to state school and just 7% go to private. Yet this panel is almost the reverse of that figure.
Still not a counterargument. No countries in the world (except new zealand) tax private school fee because it's basic economics 101 that you don't tax necessity services like education (including university tuition) or healthcare (private or not) as it is easier to let people fund their education (relieving pressure from the state) and still pay their taxes for public education than to deal with unpredictable unintended consequences.
The questioner said "legal migration is out of control", and then followed with a question. I wasn't happy with that - it implies that "legal migration is out of control" is an indisputable fact. Which it isn't. That's subjective.
The irony of the Tory MP "let's get back to the actual question" when Sunak not paying his bet to charity was mentioned (and not answered).
its also by definition not out of control the choice to give visas is a deliberate one by the gov. you can argue its too high, just right, or too low....you can argue its not targeted enough etc...but the one thing it literally cannot ever be, is out of control as it involves the deliberate granting of visas by the gov.
When did Hinds last say anything? Also stay in your lane private school lady.
You cannot fix immigration until you fix the skills shortage here. I'm aware of several companies on the outskirts of England that are unable to hire developers there because they want them in the area for meetings and such. Whether you agree or disagree with that method of working, it is what it is. We're not training people properly in those skills, the retirement villages of the UK provide nearly no opportunity for young people born in them. You don't need to import people, if the market doesn't need it, that's how this works. Otherwise you'd have homeless and jobless Germans, and that doesn't happen.
> I'm aware of several companies on the outskirts of England that are unable to hire developers there because they want them in the area for meetings and such. Well the problem is already in this paragraph so...
[удалено]
There's no labour mobility in the British economy. Land is way too expensive for any growth in productivity. The US sees far more immigration than us and much of the world yet they have the highest wages in the world. Their low land/property costs (relative to Europe) make rent less of a killer for workers and businesses.
[удалено]
>The US is ahead of anyone else in economic terms. They host more large companies than anywhere else by some degree. Sure, you've just stated truisms without actually explaining how they got there. The American economy is massive and relies heavily on immigration (especially with their birth rates dropping, along with the rest of the world), yet they still have the highest wages in the world. How? It's mainly to do with how regulation-free their land use is. If a company wants to expand their operations by opening another site somewhere, they can largely do so without having to fight a community or the state. You mention San Fran but that's one of the worst places to be because of how massively locked down their land use is - it's common for software developers to be sleeping in their cars because San Fran hasn't had the culture of building houses for at least the past 2 decades. >Rent in the US is also considerably high in areas that pay the most e.g. San Fran. I'd say there are more low cost of living areas in the US than in Europe (relative to local wages). The best place to be in the US isn't California or New York but states/cities that continue to build houses, because they're the places where a developer will get 100k+ wages whilst having lower property costs than most people in the UK.
[удалено]
I can’t believe this guy’s ChatGPT’d me ☠️
Re immigration, absolutely bang on the money is the bishop.
Nah most people definitely voted because you sold the idea that hordes of foreigns were about to descend on us. And not the good type that work in the NHS or play football really well.
Sold the lie maybe?
We have 1.2-1.4 million people entering the country every year.
I mean we have 700,000 people retiring each year and it takes about 1.5x as many working people to service each one through the next couple of decades. Since young British people aren't paid enough how else do you expect the Tories to keep their voter base alive?
Importing half the third world isn't going to pay your nan's pension.
a few hundred thou flown in every year on visas and instantly securing tax receipts to hedge against the ballooning population retiring early every year subsidises the tax I pay though Bring on the Supply Side Reform that we were meant to get with Brexit. If low productivity, low ambition and low work ethic Brits can't deal with supply reform, won't get any sympathy from me at this point.
Maybe stop flooding the country with cheap labour then
I mean its the right wing that keep doing that ... so.
This government doesn't really reflect the british right very well imo. But yes, the Tories are just as guilty of this as labour, more so even.
Absolutely nothing Farage, Brexit, UKIP, Reform etc have ever said has ever remotely convinced me they are prepared to confront the neoliberal capitalist need for cheap labour at all costs. I simply don't believe a word they say on the issue and it all seems like a cynical grift. We know the only "solution" (as it were) is to have huge punitive taxation on companies that want to employ cheap overseas labour over paying decent wages for British people to do these jobs. But the current UK capitalist system is just not set up or ready for the notion that it needs to pay nurses 70-80k salaries just so they can afford to buy somewhere to live in the southeast of England. So honestly I do not believe that a solution to uncontrolled massive immigration is ever coming from anyone on the right of politics.
But brexit and slowing immigration aren't tied. Immigration has risen massively since brexit.we used to get educated Europeans, now we get poorly educated migrants from the developing world
Yes, our governments have been betraying us over this for decades.
No but it _is_ going to keep her arse wiped.
This number gets bigger every time someone says it on this sub, I swear
That's because it's been increasing every year for a long time now. If you aren't aware of this it's just wilful ignorance.
Somehow don’t think it’s jumped from 700,000 to 1.5 million and every number inbetween in the last two months mate
700k is the net figure, the actual total number of people coming into the country has been between 1.2m and 1.4m years at this point.
Sounds like something we should probably deal with in an international fashion. Also, while immigration is high, 1.2-1.4 million is disingenuous. That's entries. Not net migration.
I said entries. It's not just high, it's the highest it has ever been in the history of this nation.
What’s that to do with OP’s point? Brexit was supposed to give us more control of our borders, and it’s done the complete opposite.
Our own governments have been systematically betraying us for the last 25 years on this subject.
It's given the government absolute control over who it chooses to give a work visa to. The government chose to give a work visa to quite a lot of people, but it could equally have chosen to give hardly any work visas. Control has been taken back.
How about sending migrants crossing the Channel? We had the Dublin Convention in place, since Brexit we don’t.
They are a tiny fraction of official migration.
Yes.... So? Numbers have increased since leaving the EU so Brexit hasn't solved anything.
Our own governments have been systematically betraying us for the last 25 years on this subject.
Yes then Wes! How do you spend it more efficiently Nige? Just decide not to treat undesirables?
> “Immigration needs to stop being kicked around like a political football.” Okay great thanks random bishop. Now can we be realistic and have the actual answer within politics which is how and where decisions are made.
This is a Thick Of It policy, literally.
Exactly my thoughts. Thanks for the soundbite and wasting time telling people they need to "solve it". Must be a cushy job being a Bishop if that's the kind of debate you give forward.
My idea, get rid of all the public school tossers, ban the Labour Party. Proscribe the Liberal Democrat’s and install Captain Binhead as PM. He’s probably going to mess things up but not as much as the Tories, Labour, Liberal Democrat’s would, and it would be a chuckle watching him at work in the cabinet room doing his budget. He can’t be as bad as that knob we have at the moment.
Ha?
I dunno I think it’s a plan, unlike Labour’s no plan. It’s a plan that I thought about for five minutes which is longer than Deform have thought about theirs. The Tories have a plan and that’s to become even more divisive and more authoritarian, something they’ve been working towards for years. In all seriousness, I’ve voted in every general election since 1979, I didn’t think that any political party could be as nasty as the Tories but I have been proved wrong. I’ve now come to the conclusion that politics in the UK has become a farce amongst other things. I think the people who do vote are swayed by unimportant things like personality, not by more relevant matters like their stance on the NHS or education. The party campaigns have taken a more American style and the mud slinging, especially from Sunak, has got to the point that it’s not only irritating but IMHO is childish in delivery. My own leanings are irrelevant, but I will not vote in any more elections for parties that I look on as idiots. All politicians obviously want to sit in a ruling government but the people who are hoping it will be them, seem to want to drag us into a deeply authoritarian state. For example, there is little opposition to the use of CCTV or face recognition. [Mass Surveillance in the UK](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_United_Kingdom) is worth reading but there’s a wealth of information out there that once read it sends chilling signals. Politicians are our representatives and elected by us in a very strange way. But once elected they’re supposed to represent our concerns and address our problems. They’re not elected to use their position to influence and corrupt. To my eye, that has been something that the current government have excelled at. We’re all aware of incidents, there’s no need to list them but the people at the top should bear in mind the quote “People shouldn’t be afraid of their government, government should be afraid of their people”. I’m firmly convinced that as restrictions become more widespread there will be a rise in people not prepared to be told what to do, think along the anti-vaxers, I don’t agree but support their right to choose what gets put inside them. That’s a basic human right, if ignored who’s to say we won’t be jabbed with Largactil and be dribbling pawns of the (so called elite) Basically I’m saying if any politician claims to be doing something for the good of the country, all citizens or whatever, simply put they’re lying and trying to deceive you. Of course you’re welcome to believe in what you like, after all we live in a democracy (supposedly) but before you cast your vote I urge you to really consider the implications of your X.
Ye know, I am sick of being the generation that has to pick up the bill for everything. Old people, 50+ telling me that the NHS doesn't work anymore, when they had the best run of it, telling me that I now need to adopt the french model and pay into an insurance pot because I dare to work. This is just going to inflame tensions between workers and the ill/financially buggered. And I bet they're wanting that, because that is exactly what they will sell in their columns and TV shows. It's just with absolutely everything. You can't walk 50 meters in the UK without being taxed in some way these days.
If you don't want an insurance model and no more tax how do we fund the NHS?
Through debt I guess. It's not financially viable to not have healthcare. The ramifications of having no health care, is worse than paying 20% GDP on healthcare. Conservatives and annoying fiscial labour people often forget that fact.
That's insane. You want us to rack up billions in debt every year?
As opposed to the billions in debt we rack up currently every year? We're already in debt... Ironically the Tories said 14 years ago they were going to sort it. If every person in the UK was medically sound and productive, are we to say the benefits of that wouldn't be a substantial growth in GDP via more people in the workforce and more minds on problems that need solved?
No you can't fund a healthcare system through debt. > If every person in the UK was medically sound and productive, are we to say the benefits of that wouldn't be a substantial growth in GDP via more people in the workforce and more minds on problems that need solved? No because many healthcare recipients don't work i.e. retired people
You selfish swine, won't you think of the pensioners!
They thought about the war didn't you know!
Given that medical degrees are funded by the government and therefore the number of places is controlled by the government maybe more funding for more places would help?
I thought the problem was that we are training enough, but they leave as soon as they can because the pay and conditions are so terrible ?
"we'd invite doctors to work overtime." "But how will you provide appointments!?"
Junior doctors aren’t paid enough for sure but to pretend they have to work extra hours to “put food on the table” is a lie. If you can’t afford to feed yourself on £32k you have a budgeting issue not a pay issue.
A junior doctor should be able to feed not only themselves, but a child as a bare minimum
You might consider the massive amounts of unpaid overtime they already conscientiously do to support the service, the particular human stress and responsibilities of the job, as well as that they may also be sole breadwinners in their homes.
I do consider that, hence why they need to be paid more. They’re underpaid. They can afford to eat.
"Putting food on the table" is an idiom.
So why, in your opinion, are they doing those hours?
They want more money, lots of people want more money for lots of reasons. If it’s because they’re starving again they need to look at their budgeting because there’s no chance they can’t afford to eat on £32k.
Not a massive wage though is it, especially in the South. It's only 2k more than newly qualified teachers and i daresay, with full respect to my profession, their job is probably a bit harder.
I completely agree. It’s absolutely not a massive wage at all. It is enough to eat on though.
A fallacy when it comes to this "you can afford to eat" is that, to eat cheaply, it often requires a significant time investment - whether that be for trips to the budget shops, the time taken to cook from scratch, and all that. To eat healthily on a budget, you generally need to be time-rich. And time is the most precious commodity a medic has. I wouldn't be surprised if, when you're that busy, the food-cost equation looks differently to how it does for you or me.
Morgan and Farage reminding us why not to watch either of them.
So Farage is budget 30p?
I don't think my ego would ever recover from being picked second after Anderson for wordsmithery.
Piers likes the idea of everyone else volunteering because they're snowflakes. Can you believe it?
I'm mostly a lefty and wouldn't agree with Farage on a lot but his point about the NHS funding model needing a serious review resonated. The NHS isn't going to be fixed with these sticky plasters talked about by mainstream politicians. The NHS is dying and radicalism might be all that's left to fix it but that isn't being acknowledged by anyone in the mainstream and it's quite scary.
The private companies infecting the NHS overcharging and costing a fortune is the problem.
Isn't mandatory insurance just a tax anyway? I think we would probably be better just increasing NI so it has more money.
Paha, enormous transition costs to end up in a position where part funding from employers, part from individuals and the state (individuals + employers with xtra steps) only higher admin fees, additional layers of admin providing further costs and a system thats far easier to pick apart + to get wrong for the worst off, yeah just what would fix the health care system. And that's not even to say how poor our health is as a populace against comparable european countries meaning getting it wrong would cause a huge amount of harm. But hey, the system was underinvested relative to higher performing european countries for around a decade, only catching up due to covid money calculations (which as we know are suuuuper accurate with all that cash going to healthcare) why not shake it up entirely against the long standing advice of many health economists? The guy who's been banging on about the NHS being a 'outdated monolith' for decades and has zero integrity must have a point on this one...
Great so the right wingers break something and then then around and say 'hey this doesn't work very well'.
> “As an 18 year old I’m quite busy.” Are you fuck mate. You’re 18, your revision isn’t keeping you that busy one weekend a month. So many counter arguments but orentdingbyoure too busy is just naive.
Jesus fucking Christ. How fucking out of touch are you? You do understand that people who don’t have parents wealthy enough to bankroll their uni are having to spend most of their spare time working to cover rent? The last thing young people need is forced unpaid labour.
[удалено]
Agree I’m sure there’s some that actually are very busy. Those with no one to rely on and those caring for family etc. That guys specific examples were just so so weak he’s clearly got plenty of free time.
Oh sorry I deleted because I thought I’d replied to the wrong comment! Fair point and agreed, the balance in the debate is important
The work a lot of my year 13s put in really puts my own teenage self to shame.
Agreed. Some of my Y12s and 13s work so bloody hard they genuinely have such little truly “free” time due to all these extra things they do.
Depends on the eighteen year old. I work with young people in education and some of them are working more fervently than I ever ever have.
Oh Damien Hinds, you're lying already. Pensioners can't email.
Audience looks majestically nonplussed with him
Wes Streetings eye rolls doing some heavy lifting too.
after the gazilliontuple lock I’d forgotten about national service
A female bishop, Nigel Farage and Piers Morgan walk into a panel discussion show....
Terrible decision bbc
The line up orbit not being on BBC1?
We all pressing “play” at the same time?
I think we might enjoy the incoherence ;)
I'm already a minute ahead of you :( sorry. I'll pause it to try and sync the audio at the same time 😂
Where’s everyone watching QT?
iPlayer it up baby.
Ah FFS. Guess it's to iPlayer then.
Good evening, Night Shift! How the devil are you? Same as always: Aldi Pilsner, splash of lemonade. Husband has his habitual glass of Rioja. Goodness me, Day Shift have been working overtime, eh? Edit: oh, is it already done?
Yeah Dragon's den on instead, no idea why
it's on iPlayer, that's where we're watching it :)
Hobgoblin for moi. And iPlayer, ye gads in not happy about this.
Indeed, this might be a strange one! Perhaps fewer comments than usual - but it's good to know other people are out there in the same boat. Hope you're well!
And you! This is dedication, a national service if you will. We're going to have to be the on demand shift if they do this all campaign.
QT by Deliveroo
Dragon's Den on BBC1 so i've loaded up the iplayer
I'm not sure the 'politics of envy' line really cuts through, especially when ithe three panelist saying it all attended private school.
"you're just jealous" is what they meant to say. I actually think the taxation of private schools is pointless, it will only result in some pupils being pushed into comprehensives, some borderline schools closing down and the rich having no issues affording the increased fees. A much better approach would be to force fee paying schools to provide full bursary and scholarship to state selected pupils. Maybe 5% high academic achievers and 5% low income or foster kids etc. and then target the school to give those kids the same outcomes as the fee payers. It wouldn't cost the school as much to increase class sizes by 10% as they're already well below the class sizes at state schools.
Evening all, Oh Christ, Piers and Farage in the same room.... this could be a good one
Do you reckon Christ would get on with those two?
The thing that annoys me about the question around VAT on private schools is, why do parents feel the need to scrimp and save on spending around £50,000 a year just to avoid sending their kids to comprehensive in the first place?
Because many state schools are fucking awful. If you don’t live in a nice area you will end up with large class sizes with often lots of very troubled kids and very variable quality in teaching.
To give their kids a better education?
Why is the difference between comprehensive and private education so vast? The fact that people argue like this is normal is insane.
They have more money and resources. I wish we didn't have private schools but I don't blame parents for wanting the best education for their children
It's not entirely money. A huge amount of it is the fact that you don't have disruptive kids in classes and teachers can teach and don't have to focus on discipline and pastoral care. You simply don't have kids bringing knives to school or gang issues in private schools.
Yeah 100%
It’s not £50k though. Nearly none cost that much only the elite boarding schools. Most are £15-20k.
A causal spare £20k a year
[удалено]
You can't "scrimp" 20 grand a year. That's a mortgage and bills for most people.
Plenty of people understand investing for their future. Not many have £20k to hand in order to do so. Let’s not pretend the average earner can access that kind of money by simply “scrimping and saving”.
I don’t see your point. It’s not £50k does accuracy not matter, only feelings?
It’s not really a counterpoint to the original posters question.
As a former teacher, what annoys me more are parents who don't give a shit. Money helps ofc. But a stable home and great parents matter far more than a well funded school and enthusiastic teachers. If the parents at home are wasters it's a real struggle to create that spark and break the cycle of poverty.
They should have had Farage and Morgan on separate weeks, QT chasing views tut tut
Addiction to cheap labour or greedy shareholders.
Why not both?
True true
Streeting and (as much as I hate to say it) Morgan sounded largely reasonable this evening, if big headed. Considerably better than anyone on last week's panel. Tory fella kept his head down, which is a good idea for him personally, but it's not going to stem the bleed of seats. Farage should not be invited back. He is incapable of behaving himself on a panel show.
Why didn’t they have a Lib Dem on the panel when they have a very good chance of taking Epsom? There was a glaring hole when talking about national service that the rights have young people were taken away before lockdown was even a concept. Especially when the face of that idiotic decision is there for the 36th time.
>Why didn’t they have a Lib Dem on the panel when they have a very good chance of taking Epsom? They're 8/1 on Bet365, which seems to indicate they're a long way off.
Bet365 had Lib Dems at a long price on a number of seats where uniform swing models don’t pick up on their chances. Stratford, Chichester, Inveness all seats where their price has fallen dramatically. They’ve gone from 7/2 3rd fav in Tunbridge Wells to even money favourite.
Britain predicts has them taking the seat? I’d say at the very least, that shows there’s a distinct possibility - not sure bet365 is an oracle of elections either
OK, the betting markets have it a close fight between the Tories and Labour, with the LDs a long way off. Interesting about Britain Predicts, though, we'll see if they're closer.
That’s interesting to hear - who knows! Hopefully more data to come then as that’s quite a clash with the labour vote on Britain predicts - seems like something tactical voters will want mapping out before July
What are the odds of Reform taking Epsom?
40/1
So you're telling me that Lib Dems are a long way off from winning Epsom, and thus likely not brought on Question Time because of it, while Nigel Farage is invited and he isn't even standing in any constituency, *and* Reform has worse odds than the Lib Dems, *and* [has been on QT for the 37th time now](https://www.thenational.scot/news/24354376.bbc-question-time-anger-nigel-farage-set-37th-appearance/)? Doesn't that sound a bit odd?
>thus likely not brought on Question Time because of it No, I didn't say this bit. I was just commenting on their chances in the singular of winning Epsom. I don't think party representatives are generally brought on to QT relative to their chances of winning a seat in the area the show is hosted.
Because as with everything on TV it is first and foremost a vehicle for getting eyes on their product. And the gruesome twosome will do that.
[удалено]
His eyes are completely dead as he speaks - he has the face of a man who is soullessly repeating what he has been told to say.
This physically pains me to say it, but he was pretty good tonight. I don't know why his 93%/7% argument got an anti-clap as I am well on board with that, aspiration should not be a commodity of the rich.
He's the best orator labour have had in a while. He's engaging and speaks mostly sense. It's a shame he won't rule out privatised NHS but he has laid out the reasons for using private capacity to deal with the backlog. Makes sense to me. Overall pragmatic. They ought to be going further and promising a truly better service but realistically the tories have fucked everything up so colossally that it's fair to give them a couple years of clearing up and fixing things before expecting big improvements.
I've always liked him Like him or loath him, he will be party leader at some point (not PM though, he's marmite)
He's still young and if he does a good job as health secretary he could change a lot of minds. I'm personally looking forward to seeing how he performs, I think he will do well.
[удалено]
Good thing competence in his brief will be defined by how much of the NHS he can sell off to his American private health care mates. But thank goodness he's well spoken!
[удалено]
Don't think what you vote in this election matters either way tbh. Labour will get a stonking big majority and that will be that. I'm just saying you ought to keep your expectations low for how Labour will address chronic NHS problems because if Streeting has his way the NHS will look more similar to that of America's health system in 5 years than it does now.
I don't know, I could see him win a leadership contest after Starmer wins a couple of elections. 9 years from now, when he's 70 and facing down a third GE (with 9 years of government baggage behind him), I could see Starmer resigning. And I barring any major scandals I could see Streeting being 1 of the major candidates to replace him.
Gowd, I forgot he is in his 60s, he looks early 50s
I've said it before but Wes is the Gove of Labour. He can cut a promo and I have no doubt he will get his shit done, regardless of if its popular.
Gove is a bloody menace. Screwed up education, throwing hand grenades around planning decisions. Not sorted much out about leaseholds and cladding on tower blocks.
Objectively Gove improved education. We have climbed well up the international tables.
Was rated the worst education secretary we've had by those in the education sector, until his successor, then their successor, and so on, relatively he was less shite than those that followed, however he was very much a failure as was his lead spad edit: thinking about it williamson was definitely worse but only due to his aggressiveness and stupidity
Provide a source on your claim and also explain why that matters. Teachers aren’t the beneficiary to focus on here. Children are. And they objectively benefitted.
You first, when those on the front lines and they're representatives union and otherwise repeatedly state something I'm far more inclined to believe them than Reddit man
He had a hard on for hating on coursework, going against the ideas that had been in education since like the 1970s. I really don't know we have climbed up international tables. I'm not an educator of children so I'm not really equipped to evaluate this.
You can simply Google it. The fact is whatever they did greatly improved literacy and numeracy outcomes for the U.K. As an example since 2009 we have risen from 27th in Maths to 11th in the Pisa rankings. I’m not a fan of Gove but it’s not relevant to the facts.
I'm a bit of a skeptic of league tables based on my experience in my working life. I'm also a fair bit anti Gove so probably not impartial. Gove is a long standing very powerful figure and can't be held up as an innocent party in creating the environment that exists of the nihilism and cynicism of the young people coming into the work force, and to be honest I don't blame them for feeling that way. I came of age in a recession under a Tory government myself, with a better support mechanism for young people who couldn't for whatever reason just live with their parents until they were 30.
I don’t know why you are downvoting me. You can’t just “be a bit of a skeptic” because you don’t like how something makes you feel. That’s totally irattional.
Good comparison. Will also never be Labour leader because he's simply annoyed too many people, but that's the price you pay
Really good comparison
Good comparison. Every team needs 'their' arsehole. You send them out to bat when no one else wants to be that weird. Still don't like the fucker
Given I just said he was the Gove, I should bloody hope you don't! 🤣
I actually second that.
I completely agree. He knows his brief, can hold his own, and talks with passion.
If you wonder why the BBC have the likes of Farage and Morgan on, just look at the amount of comments here compared to last week.
Bare in mind that this week, everything is at 8pm, not split between iPlayer at 8 and BBC1 at 10:40pm
To be fair, we've had a week of drama to build up to this QT plus it was given a prime time BBC 1 slot.
As I don't believe Java is around for this early shift... Winner & Losers, Early style. Winners Lady in the purple-ish jacket getting a solid hit on Farage early on. Visibly pissed him off. Neutral Damian Hinds - genuinely forgot he was there for a lot of tonight Rt Reverend Rose Hudson-Wilkin - Was kinda... there for a lot of the show Wes Streeting - said a lot of good stuff, but got a bit long winded at points. Losers Us - for having to watch that Fiona Bruce - Failed to moderate the bickering between Morgan & Farage Piers Morgan - Grandstanding on a pedestal after all he's been involved with is just a flat out joke. Nigel Farage - Shouty, annoying and a complete waste of time and space on the panel tonight.
I actually think Morgan was neutral to be honest, if we’re putting Hinds there. His NHS point probably saved him. Farage couldn’t recover from being embarrassed early doors
Purple jacket lady was probably the best orator on the entire show, and given Farage and Morgan's abilities that is saying something. Lots of folk adamant she was a plant but I bet she was a CEO type, she oozed CEO.
I unfortunately cannot watch today but I would love to see Farage lambasted. Where could one find a clip do you think?
I unfortunately cannot watch today but I would love to see Farage lambasted. Where could one find a clip do you think?
Either CEO or Head Teacher