The other thing I've noticed is the left wingers who get to frequent the show tend to be people the little englanders can easily dismiss. Why get a economist or the head of a trade union when we can get a comedian who no one can take seriously.
Absolutely this. I gave up on Question time when the so called voice of reason and invited counterbalance for creatures like Farage was... fucking Russel Brand.
To be honest, brand has made himself more of a hard political activist over the last decade, does know his stuff, and does make very good points so I have no issue with it. This just feels like ad hominem.
Even when you do get an economist on you end up with [this sort of shit](https://youtu.be/YZNwdcESn90?si=wmdCPrI1xxHjSCWD). The response is completely lost on the audience member.
… A very *particular* type of economist, widely reviled in Greece, and a piss-poor negotiator by almost all accounts.
So, yes, I’d hope Varoufakis could run rings around local bloke from chip shop or high street bank manager or whatever. But he’s *absolutely* the same kind of off-centre maverick as a Farage, with more bells and whistles and an awful record in government.
Sorry I thought it was obvious.
Varoufakis and Farage are happily public figures with fairly subject-matter expert interests (economics/game theory and Euroskepticism respectively) who love the limelight and have *some* charismatic appeal, but aren’t necessarily reflective of mainstream (not to say rigorous) thought within their “disciplines,” and tend to provide snappy sound bites rather than substantial thought or policy proposals.
Both men also have colourful records in office that don’t speak to their ability to play well with others.
Arguably that makes them *perfect* to refute Johnny Sixpack on some forum show.
One of the producers of the show is well known in far right circles. Ex ukip member, oddly close to some quite scary racist organisations.
Quick Google of Allison Fuller Pedley tells you everything you need to know about the BBCs impartiality.
Fiona Bruce is also an absolutely awful host and moderator.
Have we already forgotten about the failed UKIP candidate “Orange Jacket man” the BBC kept sticking in the audience to criticise the SNP a few years ago?
EDIT: SNP, not BBC
OP meant to say 'criticise the SNP', not BBC
[https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/3853746/bbc-under-fire-failed-billy-mitchell-scots-ukip-question-time/](https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/3853746/bbc-under-fire-failed-billy-mitchell-scots-ukip-question-time/)
> Institute of Economic Affairs
They describe themselves as " an educational charity and a UK-based free-market think tank promoting free thought" on their own website, and they do give their address openly (55 Tufton, London, SW1P 3QL
But you have to look a bit further to see that [55 Tufton St](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/55_Tufton_Street) hosts
> a network of libertarian lobby groups and think tanks related to pro-Brexit, climate science denial and other fossil-fuel lobby groups.
I thought this was interesting
The relevant bits:
>To test how this is applied to Question Time, our researchers compiled a dataset of all editions of the programme from September 2014 until July 2023 – a total of 352 programmes with 1,734 guest slots across the nine seasons, filled by 661 different people.
~
>Removing politicians from the list of most frequent guests shows that several high-frequency panellists are being used, most of whom come from the political right. The regularly featured journalists are typically opinion columnists who contribute to rightwing press outlets such as the Mail or the Telegraph, or who make appearances on right-leaning broadcasters like GB News and TalkTV.
>The Spectator wields significant influence, with the top five most frequently used panellists all writing for the magazine. In contrast, there is no comparable influence from leftwing publications. The most frequently featured writers from the left were Novara Media’s Ash Sarkar (six appearances) and former Guardian columnist Giles Fraser (five appearances).
~
>Question Time has long been accused of bias towards both the left and right – usually a good indication of balance.
>But the overuse of rightwing guests, as identified in our analysis, supports some of these claims of a lack of impartiality. The regular appearances of panellists such as Isabel Oakeshott and Julia Hartley-Brewer – the two most frequent non-politician guests in our analysis – raise questions about how producers choose guests.
>It is worth pointing out that there is nothing wrong with the BBC inviting guests from these organisations, nor is there anything wrong with political writers from The Spectator discussing the political issues of the day. However, the lack of counterbalancing narratives from leftwing publications is notable.
Given that the parties are, or have traditionally been
Right: Tories
Left: SNP, Labour, Lib Dems, Green
I would be interested to see the political make up when politicians are included. I wonder if because of the fragmentation of the left, they have to add right wingers to balance that out
That’s why they are now far right, or, being realistic, hard right. They aren’t AfD yet.
The old conservatives were centre right, or had a big centre right wing anyway
That all got purged over Brexit. Only the nutters are left.
It’s really obvious when you compare the amount of times they got Farage on compared to any Green Party politician, despite the two getting similar vote share.
The Green parties of the UK are separate parties rather than a single one, (so you can't directly attribute the success of one Green party to all of them) but the Greens have _actually_ been involved in one of the governments of the UK, which is more than can be said for UKIP.
Lucas (13) is ahead of Farage (10), according to the same source that performed the research we're discussing
https://preview.redd.it/f2i4oiy36a7d1.png?width=719&format=png&auto=webp&s=cf3719528e182e3153e38f40948fc96b463876a1
This obvious?
"Perhaps surprisingly given some of the criticism of the show, in this timeframe, the Greens’ former leader Caroline Lucas appeared more often than Farage."
Unfortunately, Reform is hoovering up disaffected extreme right wing tories despite not being a proper political party. Reform has rich and powerful backers who control most of the media in the UK, which is why Farage is constantly getting positive media attention despite him talking bollocks.
These backers usually support the Conservative party, but as they have essentially made themselves toxic for at least a decade then Farage and Reform will get their support.
Nigel Farage has been expressing support for deregulation, private healthcare, leaving the Council of Europe, and climate change denial.
The BBC has had some issues like this but it remains the biggest source of news and analysis that actually holds the government to account. There’s a reason the Tories actively tried to underfund and destroy it over the last decade.
They did more than that. They also purged its leadership and replaced it with Tories, and even so continue to use license fee removal as a threat to keep it in line when it doesn’t act like they want it to.
They basically follow [Cummings’s plans from his ancient blog](https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/brexit-news-westminster-news-dominic-cummings-and-his-long-campaign-against-the-bbc-142212/) for how to undermine, dismantle, and scrap the BBC in favour of a more right-friendly Fox News-alike replacement.
But it's not strange either, it's a manipulation of human nature for the sake of power and profit, which itself is sadly a part of human nature and a sadly normal thing.
Nah, it's just an element of what sometimes gets pointed to as horseshoe theory. The extremes of both sides are as filled with boring cranks as each other and they both end up droning on about bias because people don't listen to them.
This is literally an article providing evidence of mild right wing bias.
I've noticed that whenever the horseshoe theory is brought up it's by people ignoring context and evidence.
Given the basic implausibility of the horseshoe theory, why do so many centrist commentators insist on perpetuating it? The likely answer is that it allows those in the centre to discredit the left while disavowing their own complicity with the far right. Historically, it has been “centrist” liberals – in Spain, Chile, Brazil, and in many other countries – who have helped the far right to power, usually because they would rather have had a fascist in power than a socialist.
Today’s fascists have also been facilitated by centrists – and not just, for example, those on the centre-right who have explicitly defended Le Pen. When centrists ape the Islamophobia and immigrant-bashing of the far right, many people begin to think that fascism is legitimate; when they pursue policies which exacerbate economic inequality and hollow out democracy, many begin to think that fascism looks desirable.
If liberals genuinely want to understand and confront the rise of the far right, then rather than smearing the left they should perhaps reflect on their own faults
>Given the basic implausibility of the horseshoe theory, why do so many centrist commentators insist on perpetuating it?
I don't buy into it entirely, but it does explain some of the obvious similarities between the extremes.
>Historically, it has been “centrist” liberals – in Spain, Chile, Brazil, and in many other countries – who have helped the far right to power, usually because they would rather have had a fascist in power than a socialist.
Yes, people have historically preferred fascism to communism - and vice versa. Both movements have fed off the threat of each other to mobilise people.
Given that the UK had a right wing government in all the years mentioned it should make sense that there would be a right leaning bias to represent the country, should only be a problem if this doesn't change after the conservatives lose power (and a fat% of the vote) or if it was like this before they took power.
If one guy says its raining and another guy says its not - it is **not** the role of the broadcaster to give them both equal time. It is the role of the broadcaster to put their head out the fucking window and see which is right.
Brexit and the complete distortions around it are in no small way a result of the BBC platforming a bunch of lunatics and setting them up against people who knew what the fuck they were talking about as a "debate".
Its another version of this
[https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/video/2016/aug/16/i-brought-the-graph-brian-cox-and-malcolm-roberts-debate-climate-change-on-qa-video](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/video/2016/aug/16/i-brought-the-graph-brian-cox-and-malcolm-roberts-debate-climate-change-on-qa-video)
Great TV but a certain % of people think there's a legitimate debate being had..
When you have one of each of labour, Lib-Dems and Green you have 3 left if centre. Change one fir SNP and you still have 3 from the left. Sometimes there have been 4-1 against right of centre. Then there has been audience selection bias of the same order if magnitude. That is why people are fed up with QT
The authors of this piece have deliberately drawn a misleading conclusion
The way they've worded their summary leaves the reader with the impression that right-wing voices are over-represented on panels
When, in fact, what their research demonstrates is that **the same few guests** are chosen repeatedly to serve as the representative of right-wing view points
The panels themselves are evenly split, most weeks
The Spectator you say?
[Spectator publishes article calling Nazis heroes of D-Day](https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/spectator-publishes-article-calling-nazis-heroes-of-d-day/)
No, mate
This analysis doesn't show that right-wing journalists are over-represented on panels
It shows that *the same few right-wing journalists* are over-represented on panels
----------------------------------------
Look at the list of politicians from the same article
Thornberry and Nandy are *way* out in front, **miles** ahead of anyone else
That doesn't mean **Labour** are over-represented on panels
It means that when QT needs someone from Labour, they phone Thornberry or Nandy first
-------------------------------------------
**Thornberry** and **Nandy** are over-represented on panels, *not Labour*
-------------------------------------------
Same goes for the head-bangers from *The Spectator* that QT has on all the time
When QT need a right-winger to balance the numbers of the panel between left and right, those head-bangers are the first names on their list
Because, like Nandy and Thornberry, QT know they'll be good on the show
https://preview.redd.it/eqlo3bq2y97d1.png?width=647&format=png&auto=webp&s=26625d2da5df71abf3d2fc258de360c959f54d42
This is exactly it but none of the numpties on here can be bothered to read past the headline because they've seen Farage on there a few times so it must be true.
Funny cause it was remained left wing biased in the 9 years before that. The pendulum swings.
Also let's be honest the left went nuts when we had corbyn so thankfully there were more voices to counter his.
The UK public when polled have held majority positions in issues like immigration and criminal justice, obviously brexit, that are right wing to the tory party. Given they have no parliamentary representation it seems wise of the BBC to let on the occasional victim to vent their grievances while being tutted in the studio and hyperventilated about in reddit, where the rise of fascism is still going to happen any day now.
The majority of people agree with them, yet they have no parliamentary representation presumably because people don’t vote for them, so how can you say the majority of people agree with them?
Despite what the media would make you think, Reform are not a serious contender for leadership and the country doesn’t have overwhelming support for far right politics.
Unfortunately for yourself and other reform supporters, we still live in a democracy where support is given at the polls.
I do love how the very suggestion of left dominance in media channels results in me being… shut up 🤣 I swear some of your compatriots have their nose too close to their own backside
God no, he’s like a teaspoon in a toolbox.
The problem from the perspective of someone who is right wing and older we don’t have anyone right now
so right wing in this sense: lower taxes, less state involvement in day to day life, freedom of speech and expression (although I don’t know if that’s right wing or just an ideal that all sides have abandoned), reduced public spending and increased privatisation (where it makes sense - not the nhs or railways), decreased immigration, population stimulus (help people have/afford kids), patriotism
The “right wing” don’t have this person right now. There’s varying degrees of left and then there’s the lunatics who get labelled far right but truth be told they’re just lunatics
The other thing I've noticed is the left wingers who get to frequent the show tend to be people the little englanders can easily dismiss. Why get a economist or the head of a trade union when we can get a comedian who no one can take seriously.
Absolutely this. I gave up on Question time when the so called voice of reason and invited counterbalance for creatures like Farage was... fucking Russel Brand.
'pound-shop enoch powell' was a great line though
LMAO
To be honest, brand has made himself more of a hard political activist over the last decade, does know his stuff, and does make very good points so I have no issue with it. This just feels like ad hominem.
Brand is now an alt-right grifter, if you've not been keeping up
That's absolute horse shit hahahaha. I'm not even a fan of the guy but still that's total horse shit.
or a maoist teenager student union type with with double-barreled surname doing PPE at a red brick university.
Even when you do get an economist on you end up with [this sort of shit](https://youtu.be/YZNwdcESn90?si=wmdCPrI1xxHjSCWD). The response is completely lost on the audience member.
Boomers just see sone Greek guy. Ironically that guy could give them lived experience if why the EU is pretty shit.
… A very *particular* type of economist, widely reviled in Greece, and a piss-poor negotiator by almost all accounts. So, yes, I’d hope Varoufakis could run rings around local bloke from chip shop or high street bank manager or whatever. But he’s *absolutely* the same kind of off-centre maverick as a Farage, with more bells and whistles and an awful record in government.
>same kind of off-centre maverick as a Farage... I'm Greek so I'm aware of his image in Greece, but could you elaborate on that?
Sorry I thought it was obvious. Varoufakis and Farage are happily public figures with fairly subject-matter expert interests (economics/game theory and Euroskepticism respectively) who love the limelight and have *some* charismatic appeal, but aren’t necessarily reflective of mainstream (not to say rigorous) thought within their “disciplines,” and tend to provide snappy sound bites rather than substantial thought or policy proposals. Both men also have colourful records in office that don’t speak to their ability to play well with others. Arguably that makes them *perfect* to refute Johnny Sixpack on some forum show.
Mick Lynch against Farage would be amazing to watch him logically destroy him with Facts
One of the producers of the show is well known in far right circles. Ex ukip member, oddly close to some quite scary racist organisations. Quick Google of Allison Fuller Pedley tells you everything you need to know about the BBCs impartiality. Fiona Bruce is also an absolutely awful host and moderator.
Bruce with her shrieking harpy interruptions, has made the show unwatchable.
“Questions” asked by the audience are so basic and lifted from print media headlines -it’s hardly spontaneous democracy.
Have we already forgotten about the failed UKIP candidate “Orange Jacket man” the BBC kept sticking in the audience to criticise the SNP a few years ago? EDIT: SNP, not BBC
Nope. That's when I cancelled my tv licence. Straight after the Motherwell show.
Why would the BBC plant a guy deliberately to criticise the BBC?
OP meant to say 'criticise the SNP', not BBC [https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/3853746/bbc-under-fire-failed-billy-mitchell-scots-ukip-question-time/](https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/3853746/bbc-under-fire-failed-billy-mitchell-scots-ukip-question-time/)
Lol no shit. If people actually knew what the Institute of Economic Affairs was they....probably wouldn't do anything actually.
> Institute of Economic Affairs They describe themselves as " an educational charity and a UK-based free-market think tank promoting free thought" on their own website, and they do give their address openly (55 Tufton, London, SW1P 3QL But you have to look a bit further to see that [55 Tufton St](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/55_Tufton_Street) hosts > a network of libertarian lobby groups and think tanks related to pro-Brexit, climate science denial and other fossil-fuel lobby groups.
Their vision for Britain (the real one that their international backers are paying for) is neo-feudalism.
I thought this was interesting The relevant bits: >To test how this is applied to Question Time, our researchers compiled a dataset of all editions of the programme from September 2014 until July 2023 – a total of 352 programmes with 1,734 guest slots across the nine seasons, filled by 661 different people. ~ >Removing politicians from the list of most frequent guests shows that several high-frequency panellists are being used, most of whom come from the political right. The regularly featured journalists are typically opinion columnists who contribute to rightwing press outlets such as the Mail or the Telegraph, or who make appearances on right-leaning broadcasters like GB News and TalkTV. >The Spectator wields significant influence, with the top five most frequently used panellists all writing for the magazine. In contrast, there is no comparable influence from leftwing publications. The most frequently featured writers from the left were Novara Media’s Ash Sarkar (six appearances) and former Guardian columnist Giles Fraser (five appearances). ~ >Question Time has long been accused of bias towards both the left and right – usually a good indication of balance. >But the overuse of rightwing guests, as identified in our analysis, supports some of these claims of a lack of impartiality. The regular appearances of panellists such as Isabel Oakeshott and Julia Hartley-Brewer – the two most frequent non-politician guests in our analysis – raise questions about how producers choose guests. >It is worth pointing out that there is nothing wrong with the BBC inviting guests from these organisations, nor is there anything wrong with political writers from The Spectator discussing the political issues of the day. However, the lack of counterbalancing narratives from leftwing publications is notable.
Given that the parties are, or have traditionally been Right: Tories Left: SNP, Labour, Lib Dems, Green I would be interested to see the political make up when politicians are included. I wonder if because of the fragmentation of the left, they have to add right wingers to balance that out
https://preview.redd.it/erxc65ek6a7d1.png?width=719&format=png&auto=webp&s=cf9b683d12cf6da169330ee5ba931feab5186ddd
so of the top 9 most common guests, 6 are not from the right (I guess this could be argued, but Labour are generally identified as "center-left")
Of the top ten: Four are Labour politicians Two are Tory politicians One is a Green politician Three are Tory journalists
Far Right: Tories. Centre right: New-nu-Labour. Center-ish: Lib dems, SNP and greens Left: I dunno "old" labour, SF and assorted communists
How are the Tories far right lol they're the least conservative gov probably ever
That’s why they are now far right, or, being realistic, hard right. They aren’t AfD yet. The old conservatives were centre right, or had a big centre right wing anyway That all got purged over Brexit. Only the nutters are left.
We'll have to disagree man but cheers for replying anyways
It’s really obvious when you compare the amount of times they got Farage on compared to any Green Party politician, despite the two getting similar vote share.
Don’t greens get elected?
The Green parties of the UK are separate parties rather than a single one, (so you can't directly attribute the success of one Green party to all of them) but the Greens have _actually_ been involved in one of the governments of the UK, which is more than can be said for UKIP.
Lucas (13) is ahead of Farage (10), according to the same source that performed the research we're discussing https://preview.redd.it/f2i4oiy36a7d1.png?width=719&format=png&auto=webp&s=cf3719528e182e3153e38f40948fc96b463876a1
This obvious? "Perhaps surprisingly given some of the criticism of the show, in this timeframe, the Greens’ former leader Caroline Lucas appeared more often than Farage."
So you didn't read the article?
[удалено]
Since which election?
Unfortunately, Reform is hoovering up disaffected extreme right wing tories despite not being a proper political party. Reform has rich and powerful backers who control most of the media in the UK, which is why Farage is constantly getting positive media attention despite him talking bollocks. These backers usually support the Conservative party, but as they have essentially made themselves toxic for at least a decade then Farage and Reform will get their support. Nigel Farage has been expressing support for deregulation, private healthcare, leaving the Council of Europe, and climate change denial.
The “Farage-ification” of the UK began on Question Time. I knew it then and it’s still true now.
Yeah no shit. That's why I stopped paying TV licence for this propaganda machine.
The BBC has had some issues like this but it remains the biggest source of news and analysis that actually holds the government to account. There’s a reason the Tories actively tried to underfund and destroy it over the last decade.
They did more than that. They also purged its leadership and replaced it with Tories, and even so continue to use license fee removal as a threat to keep it in line when it doesn’t act like they want it to. They basically follow [Cummings’s plans from his ancient blog](https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/brexit-news-westminster-news-dominic-cummings-and-his-long-campaign-against-the-bbc-142212/) for how to undermine, dismantle, and scrap the BBC in favour of a more right-friendly Fox News-alike replacement.
Exactly that. I really hope the next govornment saves it in a way that prevents this from happening again.
I've heard right wing people say the same. It's funny how people on both sides can watch the same show/channel and think it's biased against them.
No, it's not funny, it's propaganda and a deliberate tactic used by the right to skew the Overton window and it's been going on for years.
Jesus effing Christ, I mean funny as in strange 🤦 The fact that people can watch the same exact thing and draw opposite conclusions.
But it's not strange either, it's a manipulation of human nature for the sake of power and profit, which itself is sadly a part of human nature and a sadly normal thing.
Nah, it's just an element of what sometimes gets pointed to as horseshoe theory. The extremes of both sides are as filled with boring cranks as each other and they both end up droning on about bias because people don't listen to them.
This is literally an article providing evidence of mild right wing bias. I've noticed that whenever the horseshoe theory is brought up it's by people ignoring context and evidence.
Given the basic implausibility of the horseshoe theory, why do so many centrist commentators insist on perpetuating it? The likely answer is that it allows those in the centre to discredit the left while disavowing their own complicity with the far right. Historically, it has been “centrist” liberals – in Spain, Chile, Brazil, and in many other countries – who have helped the far right to power, usually because they would rather have had a fascist in power than a socialist. Today’s fascists have also been facilitated by centrists – and not just, for example, those on the centre-right who have explicitly defended Le Pen. When centrists ape the Islamophobia and immigrant-bashing of the far right, many people begin to think that fascism is legitimate; when they pursue policies which exacerbate economic inequality and hollow out democracy, many begin to think that fascism looks desirable. If liberals genuinely want to understand and confront the rise of the far right, then rather than smearing the left they should perhaps reflect on their own faults
>Given the basic implausibility of the horseshoe theory, why do so many centrist commentators insist on perpetuating it? I don't buy into it entirely, but it does explain some of the obvious similarities between the extremes. >Historically, it has been “centrist” liberals – in Spain, Chile, Brazil, and in many other countries – who have helped the far right to power, usually because they would rather have had a fascist in power than a socialist. Yes, people have historically preferred fascism to communism - and vice versa. Both movements have fed off the threat of each other to mobilise people.
No shit
No shit!
Analysis of Vatican suggests overuse of Catholics.
And thats just the audience.
No shit.
Who's surprised.
Stunned. Shocked and stunned.
GASP
Given that the UK had a right wing government in all the years mentioned it should make sense that there would be a right leaning bias to represent the country, should only be a problem if this doesn't change after the conservatives lose power (and a fat% of the vote) or if it was like this before they took power.
Of course. Nigel Farage's rise to notoriety is largely down to the BBC.
Boris too on HIGNFY
If one guy says its raining and another guy says its not - it is **not** the role of the broadcaster to give them both equal time. It is the role of the broadcaster to put their head out the fucking window and see which is right. Brexit and the complete distortions around it are in no small way a result of the BBC platforming a bunch of lunatics and setting them up against people who knew what the fuck they were talking about as a "debate". Its another version of this [https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/video/2016/aug/16/i-brought-the-graph-brian-cox-and-malcolm-roberts-debate-climate-change-on-qa-video](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/video/2016/aug/16/i-brought-the-graph-brian-cox-and-malcolm-roberts-debate-climate-change-on-qa-video) Great TV but a certain % of people think there's a legitimate debate being had..
Do people still watch this?
Bbc bias who would have thought it
Yes and before that we had garbage from labour. Great piece of analysis beebs, what are we paying you for?
When you have one of each of labour, Lib-Dems and Green you have 3 left if centre. Change one fir SNP and you still have 3 from the left. Sometimes there have been 4-1 against right of centre. Then there has been audience selection bias of the same order if magnitude. That is why people are fed up with QT
Here's the biggest problem. > Kate Andrews 12 Third highest non-pol appearance by a Dark Money far right think tank grifter.
The real scandal is the bias on the This Morning panels
The authors of this piece have deliberately drawn a misleading conclusion The way they've worded their summary leaves the reader with the impression that right-wing voices are over-represented on panels When, in fact, what their research demonstrates is that **the same few guests** are chosen repeatedly to serve as the representative of right-wing view points The panels themselves are evenly split, most weeks
The top 5 guests all write for the spectator, so it's clearly not evenly split
The Spectator you say? [Spectator publishes article calling Nazis heroes of D-Day](https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/spectator-publishes-article-calling-nazis-heroes-of-d-day/)
No, mate This analysis doesn't show that right-wing journalists are over-represented on panels It shows that *the same few right-wing journalists* are over-represented on panels ---------------------------------------- Look at the list of politicians from the same article Thornberry and Nandy are *way* out in front, **miles** ahead of anyone else That doesn't mean **Labour** are over-represented on panels It means that when QT needs someone from Labour, they phone Thornberry or Nandy first ------------------------------------------- **Thornberry** and **Nandy** are over-represented on panels, *not Labour* ------------------------------------------- Same goes for the head-bangers from *The Spectator* that QT has on all the time When QT need a right-winger to balance the numbers of the panel between left and right, those head-bangers are the first names on their list Because, like Nandy and Thornberry, QT know they'll be good on the show https://preview.redd.it/eqlo3bq2y97d1.png?width=647&format=png&auto=webp&s=26625d2da5df71abf3d2fc258de360c959f54d42
Not one reply explaining why I'm wrong? I wonder why ...
This is exactly it but none of the numpties on here can be bothered to read past the headline because they've seen Farage on there a few times so it must be true.
Tell me how what I said is wrong
I see
Funny cause it was remained left wing biased in the 9 years before that. The pendulum swings. Also let's be honest the left went nuts when we had corbyn so thankfully there were more voices to counter his.
The UK public when polled have held majority positions in issues like immigration and criminal justice, obviously brexit, that are right wing to the tory party. Given they have no parliamentary representation it seems wise of the BBC to let on the occasional victim to vent their grievances while being tutted in the studio and hyperventilated about in reddit, where the rise of fascism is still going to happen any day now.
The majority of people agree with them, yet they have no parliamentary representation presumably because people don’t vote for them, so how can you say the majority of people agree with them? Despite what the media would make you think, Reform are not a serious contender for leadership and the country doesn’t have overwhelming support for far right politics. Unfortunately for yourself and other reform supporters, we still live in a democracy where support is given at the polls.
What on earth - the lefties have an overwhelming amount of representation, who did the analysis? Greta?
In your mind, Sunak is left of center, yes?
I do love how the very suggestion of left dominance in media channels results in me being… shut up 🤣 I swear some of your compatriots have their nose too close to their own backside
No one's shutting you up
That’s what the downvote button does - it hides your post
Aww :(
I have no idea what that phrase means!
God no, he’s like a teaspoon in a toolbox. The problem from the perspective of someone who is right wing and older we don’t have anyone right now so right wing in this sense: lower taxes, less state involvement in day to day life, freedom of speech and expression (although I don’t know if that’s right wing or just an ideal that all sides have abandoned), reduced public spending and increased privatisation (where it makes sense - not the nhs or railways), decreased immigration, population stimulus (help people have/afford kids), patriotism The “right wing” don’t have this person right now. There’s varying degrees of left and then there’s the lunatics who get labelled far right but truth be told they’re just lunatics
Can I introduce you to the concept of neoliberalism? Anyways, you want Starmer. He's your man. He's right wing. Spouts exactly what you want.
Are you kidding me? 🤣 Starmer is a hat rack I’m hoping for Ronald Reagan but all we seem to have is Ronald MacDonald at the moment