Question Time

donnajunkie

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

We do indeed need that. But we don't need the BBC-style policy of bringing on left-leaning 'celebrities' criticising only those they choose to see as out of order :- "the rich", Conservatives, the upper classes, big business etc. Apart from the odd Conservative MP who appears on QT to be shouted down and ridiculed, who criticises for example :- over-reaching Trade Unionists, those obsessed with repressive political correctness, those who dumb down education for reasons of 'anti-elitism', minorities who try to play the race card unjustifiably etc ?

they do have people with right wing views as well.

donnajunkie

ukcarper wrote: »

I earned a lot less than the proposed benefit cap for all my working life and managed to bring up my children and have a reasonable life including running a car, foreign holidays and indulging in a fairly expensive holiday. So I would have though there must be room for some cuts.

i believe the majority of the benefit cap goes to covering sky high rents. want to stop covering high rents? well fair enough but these people will need somewhere else to live. personally i prefer some sort of rent control as a way of reducing the hb bill. you also need to realise most dont get anywhere near the 26k cap.

GeorgeHowell

donnajunkie wrote: »

they do have people with right wing views as well.

I'm at a disadvantage here because I haven't watched it for quite a while, other than snippets. I found the leftist bias on both the panel and audience unacceptable, Dimbelby's sanctimonious attitude unbearable, and some of the audience dorks who ask stupid questions and make fatuous points unwatchable. But I haven't heard anything recently to suggest that it's changed much for the better. When they do have more right-wing people on, other than Tory MP's, the impression is that they tend to pick people like David Starkey who they think will be easy to bait and ridicule (brilliant mind but limited street cred of course).

BobQ

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

No it isn't. But it's pretty audacious for some of those who have accumulated, and held onto, substantial wealth via show business or the media to then go on TV and slag off others who have acquired it by other means.

.
I'm sorry but this sounds like jealosy more than audacity. Many of the people you list have ordinary working class backgrounds who have done well for themselves. This does not make them unqualified to comment because they have made money. Now if one of them has legally used the tax system in the way Jimmy Carr has done and has then gone on TV to condemn people for being wealthy you would have a point.

chewmylegoff

donnajunkie wrote: »

i dont know how to solve the issue i just know cutting benefits in most cases is not the answer. if there were massive numbers of jobs available then they could start something that matches people to jobs. if they then refused then there would be justification in cutting that persons benefits in some way.

It may not be the answer that you like, but the fact is that we are spending £125 billion a year more than we raise in tax revenues, so there isn't enough money to sustain benefits at their current levels unless the economy grows by something in the order of 25% very quickly. As much as labour likes to pretend that taxing bankers' bonuses is the solution to every problem, it ain't going to cure this one.

ukcarper

donnajunkie wrote: »

i believe the majority of the benefit cap goes to covering sky high rents. want to stop covering high rents? well fair enough but these people will need somewhere else to live. personally i prefer some sort of rent control as a way of reducing the hb bill. you also need to realise most dont get anywhere near the 26k cap.

I do realise most don't get £25k.

The high rents mainly apply to London and parts of the south east, In the part of surrey I live in lha for a 3 bed house is £200 a week.

donnajunkie

chewmylegoff wrote: »

It may not be the answer that you like, but the fact is that we are spending £125 billion a year more than we raise in tax revenues, so there isn't enough money to sustain benefits at their current levels unless the economy grows by something in the order of 25% very quickly. As much as labour likes to pretend that taxing bankers' bonuses is the solution to every problem, it ain't going to cure this one.

you think causing great hardship will solve our problems? you think it will get these people into employment? you think it will make the low paid worker better off? who will cover the cost related to the extra crimes committed? who will cover the extra cost to the nhs due to the impact on health this would have?
the government is pretty much blaming the poorest for the problems we have. even thatcher didnt sink that low.
if money is as tight as they say how do they find the hundreds of millions of pounds to pay for back to work schemes that dont get people back to work? cutting them isnt even considered.

GeorgeHowell

BobQ wrote: »

.
I'm sorry but this sounds like jealosy more than audacity. Many of the people you list have ordinary working class backgrounds who have done well for themselves. This does not make them unqualified to comment because they have made money. Now if one of them has legally used the tax system in the way Jimmy Carr has done and has then gone on TV to condemn people for being wealthy you would have a point.

In my book nobody who has substantial wealth, however legally acquired, and enjoys the fruits of it has the right to criticise others with legally acquired wealth just because that's what they are. This sounds like the tired old socialist dogma again that the working class lad made good is automatically a superior human being to the privileged aristocrat who went to Eton.

donnajunkie

ukcarper wrote: »

I do realise most don't get £25k.

The high rents mainly apply to London and parts of the south east, In the part of surrey I live in lha for a 3 bed house is £200 a week.

the problem with capping hb is it creates ghettos and takes people away from their communities and possibly away from the jobs. rent control would prevent all of this and would reduce the hb bill at the same time.

BobQ

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

I'm at a disadvantage here because I haven't watched it for quite a while, other than snippets. I found the leftist bias on both the panel and audience unacceptable, Dimbelby's sanctimonious attitude unbearable, and some of the audience dorks who ask stupid questions and make fatuous points unwatchable. But I haven't heard anything recently to suggest that it's changed much for the better. When they do have more right-wing people on, other than Tory MP's, the impression is that they tend to pick people like David Starkey who they think will be easy to bait and ridicule (brilliant mind but limited street cred of course).

I cannot agree with you and unlike you I do watch the programme.

I think QT is a well balance programme, and difficult to make so. The idea that they only pick right wing guests who are easy to ridicule is absurd, programmes this year have included Chares Moore, Kelvin MacKenzie, Christina Odone, Peter Hitchens, Melanie Philips, Ruth Lea, Simon Jenkins, Julie Meyer, and Anne Leslie none of who I would say were lefties and all of which are credible centre right speakers.

I do agree about Dimbleby being sanctimonious though.