tygerland.net

Did you watch the last night’s explosive episode of Question Time? You can watch it - for the next week at least - here.

Bitter Orange

I know the debating programme has been away from our screens for a while, and there has certainly been many a few big stories over the past few months, but I can’t remember an episode being so charged and aggressive. Obviously the presence of Charles Kennedy, so close to his appearance at the Lib Dem conference, was going to make for an interesting debate, but few could have forecasted the high level of raw emotion, vitriol, and political insight that was on offer.

Kennedy, the former Lib Dem leader, started brightly and his jokes hit home raising a few chuckles from the audience, but then he was asked a question that was inevitably going to aggravate recent wounds and present a potential minefield. “What does the future hold for a political party when the ex-leader outshines the present leader at party conference?” Kennedy gave a look of vindication before leading an impassioned defence of Ming Campbell. He defended Juice-Bar Ming’s decision not to acknowledge Kennedy’s leadership in his speech (Campbell had already thanked his predecessor at the Lib Dem’s spring get-together), and then went onto to praise the many qualities Ming offers the party. Although I did detect the odd smirk on Kennedy’s face, when one or two of the other panellist’s remarks really kicked Ming in the ghoulies.

Kennedy’s openness and humanity led to many texts and emails to the show praising his contribution to Liberal Politics. See Ian Walter’s comments, from Portsmouth:

I find Charles Kennedy to be thoroughly engaging and was very disappointed in his party’s treatment of him after being honest and owning up to his failings. He is by far the most charismatic and apparently real of all the politicians in the public eye at present and the Liberal Democrats would be wise to seriously reconsider reappointing him as their leader.

Gary Raven, from Ely, was clearly enchanted by the evening when he gushed, “Well it seems to be “We love Charlie” night! Funny how everybody wants Mr Kennedy back in power.” But Carol from York preferred to sum Kennedy up in one-word: “brill.” The plotters within the Liberals may regret knifing Chat show Charlie sooner rather than later.

However the real fireworks were set-off when Labour’s minister for Constitutional Affairs, Harriet Harman, made several cutting remarks about having better things to do than watch Ming’s speech. I was disappointed with Harman. There was no need to convey such disrespect and bitterness towards Ming, and with her continued acrimony, she exposed a real tension within the Labour cabinet (Cash for Honours?). She was clearly lashing out. Kennedy was rightly furious, at comments which were obviously intended to bate him, and was visibly struggling to hold his tongue.

Harman has put her name forward for a future deputy PM ballot, but her performance as one of the cabinets Praetorian Guards, showed very little compassion, and came across as little more than partisan malice. Such attitudes will turn off voters beleaguered by Westminster infighting – even if aggression and loyalty are parliamentary assets. Many members think Labour desperately needs a female Deputy PM, but Harman will have to resist her tendency of slipping into attack-dog-mode every time an opportunity arises. We don’t need another Prescott.

Let the brown man speak

When, inevitably, the discussion moved to Blair’s relationship to Bush, a strange thing happened on the otherwise staunchly Multicultural BBC. Tariq Ali, the respected Pakistan-born writer and broadcaster, should, one would have thought, have a particular relevance to the debate. Being the only Muslim (and Asian) on the panel (Harman and Kennedy we also joined by Tory MP Anne Widdecombe and former ambassador to the US, Sir Christopher Meyer), you would have thought Ali would have been in a position to make a very valuable contribution to the debate.

However David Dimbleby proceeded to allow Kennedy, Meyer, and Harman, to bat the subject between each other, much to Ali’s frustration, for the majority of the question’s allotted time. There was something distasteful about watching white politicians discuss, with pseudo pious virtue, the effect Britain’s foreign policy is having on the East. It was, and I hate to use this term, a sort of imperialistic domination of the debate by the Western commentators.

Ali, who writes so passionately and knowledgably about both the region and Islam, should have been allotted at least a third of the discussion, and it was he who added clarity and insight into the debates closing moments. I’m sure Muslim’s watching the programme didn’t miss the prejudice, whether it be deliberate or not.

Cameron’s party still steadfast in their Pro-Israeli stance

Anne Widdecombe betrayed slippery Dave’s new LibCon (Liberal Conservative, as opposed to Neoconservative, please keep up) worldview, when she came out uncritically in support of Israel’s conduct in the recent fighting in South Lebanon. Cameron is keen to tap into the nations more sympathetic, almost left-leaning, view of the Middle East, and Widdecombe’s uncompromising support of Tel Aviv’s actions will muddy this new dovish approach. Does anyone take Cameron’s new outlook on the world seriously?

Even last nights emotions and controversies was not enough for some viewers, Tony from Epsom texted the show to demand, “Hurry up and get Galloway on.” Clearly this incendiary debate wasn’t fiery enough!