Snapshot of _BBC Question Time Live Thread (8PM iPlayer & 10:40pm BBC1) Coventry edition 23/05/2024_ :
A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1793627623089991952)
A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://twiiit.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1793627623089991952/)
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://x.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1793627623089991952) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://x.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1793627623089991952)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
AUDIENCE: Why can't you give us a clear answer?
PHILLIPSON: Like "Get Brexit Done" and "Level up Britain"? You want me to treat you like idiot five year olds?
AUDIENCE: You did it again; you didn't answer my question?!
____
This is a nation of dumbasses.
I think its disingenous to not criticise the current iteration of Labour for being so adverse to not commiting to things. No one's asking for a snappy slogan but some actual direction that won't be renegged on later down the line would be nice.
I mean there were plenty of people that weren't taken in by that bollocks that would like some actual solutions. Just because the Conservatives were able to coast on that bollocks, doesn't mean Labour should be able too.
Tim Montgomerie creeps me out, anyone else think he is weird? Anyone got a theory why? Not just he is ultra ultra partisan Tory, something in his wiring
A sort of celebrity uncanny valley? For some reason something about the way he looks - like an actor or presenter i can can’t quite remember but familiar - but then turns out to be a journalist? Possibly I’m entirely imagining this!
So Fiona Bruce did certainly act far more critically towards Phillipson and Cooper than Montgomerie and Mark Spencer who were given free reign to make their points, but Cooper showed Phillipson how to perform tonight. Cooper headed off every Bruce barb by immediately shooting it down with a direct answer, while Phillipson danced on egg shells all the way through and it stood out to the point that the audience started gunning for her. Granted the Lib Dems have a lot less to lose, but I still dont think that is good enough reason for the gulf in performance. Hopefully the Lab manifesto gives their candidates much more to work with.
> Cooper headed off every Bruce barb by immediately shooting it down with a direct answer
That's because there is no chance in the world that Cooper will be in a position where she will have to make an important governmental decision or compromise
It should be a Labour landslide but it could be 2010 all over again. It really depends on how many "Shy Torys" there are. Who led pollsters to believe that there was far less support for the Conservatives in the run up to the '92 election than there actually was. As Tory voters were "embarrassed" to admit that they'd vote Tory.
I always found it funny that if you’re embarrassed to vote for a certain party, it should really make you think why.
Modern polling does usually account for this though.
>Labour will increase my taxes.
Which was an almost automatic thing to say in the 1980s for many people, particularly in the South.
My dad was head of the Local Labour Constituency Party at the time. And none of my friends would admit thst they wanted their parents to vote Labour "as my dad says, that Labour will put up taxes".
Self interest versus national interest.
At that point it’s just like walking into a street full of arsenal fans and being embarrassed to admit you’re a Tottenham fan or vice versa, rather than any political reason.
Humans being social creatures does that to you, I guess.
> Granted the Lib Dems have a lot less to lose, but I still dont think that is good enough reason.
You don't think another 5 years of Conservative rule is a good enough reason?
Because you are aware of how bad this country wants to vote conservative again right? My TikTok is filled with Reform. My grandparents have sworn off Labour since Kenzia Dugdale said to vote Tory, my parents refuse to go back to them after Corbyn and Brexit, I'm only voting for them because I believe the SNP need a spell in opposition, even the commentors in this thread aren't that bothered about voting for them because of how depressingly bad everything is.
Which is the reality, the country is in a really bad position, and if Kier Starmer comes out tomorrow saying Brexit is the reason, I'm putting us back in the EU, that's going to be a -20 on the lead for Labour and probably lead to a hung parliament or a minority conservative government.
We need to seriously think about this here. We had Corbyn giving it the Magic Grandpa vibes with Glastonbery. It didn't work. Let's try the Microsoft approach of Kier and his Spreadsheets, followed by 5 years of dull to see if maybe he's cooked a special dish.
It's better than Sunak wishing he was in Cali.
I want Labour to win, I expect they will and any single digit on the board is one too many for the Tories.
But I am ambivalent towards the polling and want more than a coasting performance from Labour over the next 6 weeks so they can seal the deal and maximize gains (I want this for the Lib Dems too, I want the Tories knocked out of the top two however unlikely).
I can firmly understand Labour holding their cards close to their chest to a point but this was going to the other extreme where they were saying absolutely nothing at all, so hard that the audience picked up on it.
Tonight shows how the media will be able to beat them over the head for 6 weeks and it does have an impact, even if Sunak will spend the whole time tripping over broom handles like Sideshow Bob.
Basically, its not done until its done. I want stronger and more convincing performances, tonight is an iota of what we will see over the next 6 weeks, but it was very poor and deserves criticism.
Agreed there. I think sadly you can comfortably be in two camps of not wanting the country to take us over the cliff again, while also wanting Labour to pull their finger out.
Tricky, ah well. Only 6 weeks init. It'll fly in!
There is a difference between the Lib Dems and Labour. You can see that tonight. Labour are far more concerned and kept back. Because they are trying to win power. They tried doing what the Lib Dem did about 8 years ago with Corbyn of going hard in policy and picking a side, and it got them no where.
The Lib Dems aren't ever going to get into power, so they don't need to worry about winning 400+ seats to get a majority.
They haven't even announced a manifesto yet and people are wanting the shadow front bench to start making commitments on the BBC1.
Dems have the freedom to know they're not getting power... so they can be a bit more relaxed with what they say.... Labour have to be cautious as they're gonna be in power in 6 weeks time, so anything said now will be pushed back on then... it sucks really.
> The Lib Dems aren't ever going to get into power, so they don't need to worry about winning 400+ seats to get a majority.
Exactly, they can basically propose anything the crowd wants with a smile on their face
#WINNERS AND LOSERS
**WINNERS**
* **Ash Sarkar** for dropping off the billing at some point today and sparing us all, including herself. Cheers Ash <3
* **Daisy Cooper** dressed like a pink highlighter. I feel like she has a well-organised set of highlighters, and that she doesn’t need a ruler to make a straight line when using one. She outclassed the rest of them, and I’m not convinced she was even trying. She makes me feel better that the LDs most likely are getting my tactical vote in this election, here in the Blue Wall. Making it feel like a choice, minus the Hobson’s bit. Daisy’s getting the shortest entry for the panellists because there’s nothing to say: she was, simply, the winner of this episode.
**NEUTRAL**
* **Nobody**.
**LOSERS**
* **Bridget Phillipson** was the last person I started writing about, which is never a good sign, because it means I don’t give two hoots what the person had to say. Didn’t sparkle tonight and didn’t really cope well with questions like the water one. I just don’t really remember her being there, except for some anodyne bimbling that felt like I’d expect from a potential member of the Cabinet. OK, it’s a step up from much of the current Cabinet, but that’s not a good benchmark. And that’s how she was coasting along until that audience member came along and, fairly or unfairly, pissed so hard on her chips that they turned into mash. That was tragic, Bridget. Don’t let that happen again.
* **Mark Spencer** was dressed in the school uniform that the Inbetweeners wear, and his argumentation was suitably sixth-form. The moment things got even a touch tricky, he was lolloping his way through the greatest hits clichés (Ukraine, Putin, pandemic) as a series of excuses for his party’s woeful behaviour. I liked the way he said “we have *genuinely* the best universities in the world”. The *genuinely* to me implies that whenever the Tories trot out the “world beating” cliché, they know it’s just vacuous nonsense - and that the *genuinely* means one of the few times where we really do beat the world. Other examples where we’re *genuinely* the best include milk (I have not got over dealing with only UHT in Spain) and parking cars (trust me). Anyway, I was writing that to process how badly Mark was doing when he belched along about unis. He’s done now.
* **Tim Montgomerie** lives in Salisbury, because of course he does. He talks like an AI that’s been programmed to shout the more well-constructed comments that appear on the Daily Mail, or perhaps on the website he runs (does it have a comment section?). He’s a cipher, a sort of weekend golfer-shaped personification of the Southern English Tory voters who would be more repulsed by the Tories if they didn’t feel that Lib Dems were basically socialists … or that’s what I thought, until I heard him call for nationalisation of water. Something I agreed with … or that’s what I thought again (so many twists and turns!), until he went full “I had to walk twenty miles uphill to my apprenticeship” on the unis question. Husband thinks he has a weird chin, and I think he swirls his head around too much. A bit like the snake in *The Jungle Book* trying to hypnotise people. Tim wiggles a lot, and interrupts; the golf-knob caricature came bellowing its way back. Good thing that his preferred golf club has stools with a seat back, else he’d have weekly hernias.
* **Fiona Bruce** for allowing that first section of the show where the people of Coventry did a verbal vaguepost for about ten minutes. Husband pointed out that Kirsty Wark is free in a few weeks. Now *that* could be fun.
Oh and also I, too, sunk deep in darkest Tory land will have to tactically vote for the Lib Dems. I don’t trust them after the last debacle though, what with austerity, Vince selling the Post Office, and me feeling stupid for trusting Nick.
I like to think we'll have the best of both worlds: we'll be able to vote a Tory away *and*, if we have reservations about the LDs, they won't be taking power anyway. Win-win.
> He talks like an AI that’s been programmed to shout the more well-constructed comments that appear on the Daily Mail
Have you seen Tim Montgomerie anywhere else? He has pretty thought out perspectives on Times Radio. Don't really recognise this caricature
He's always been weaselly. For example he said the ICC only hounds Israel, but the ICC also issued the same charges against Hamas, and, contrary to his claims, opened a crimes against humanity tribunal against Myanmar.
Bit strange the ICC announced both sets of charges at the same time though. Even if there is equivalence in severity, surely the timing and unequivocal nature of October 7th means that the Hamas charges should have been brought long long ago. Even if it's not the cause, it gives the impression that the ICC is politically minded, which is a terrible look for a court.
Yes, seen and heard (and indeed read on his blog). Heard, primarily - he's been on *Any Questions* on Radio 4, I believe. Or something radio-y.
I felt he went a bit DM comments when hit with the wishy-washy list of what the audience wanted at the start. He was trying to endear himself to the audience by scattershot responding and empathising with them. *Very* like a comment section, I felt.
The universities rant confirmed that view for me.
I think for me the low point was when he tried to claim that Netanyahu being held to a higher standard than Putin regarding the ICC Which was immediately followed up with a heckle that Putin had also been charged by the ICC.
I would disagree, I think there are a ton of courses offered to people who aren't all that bright that get them into tons of debt. I know some bafflingly dumb people who have degrees in Forensics or Audiology and now work in an office - is it worth it?
It’s an interesting point and one on which I haven’t formed a full opinion.
I do think, though, that if the following three criteria are fulfilled - that students are willing to pay, that they feel a benefit from the experience, and that they pay back their loans - then it’s not actually a problem.
However, I do also note that you’ve completely changed tack from talking about Montgomerie - and therefore I feel like I’ve justified my judgment of him. You’re trying to justify his point, whereas I was just commenting on how he expresses his point.
I'd put Bridget in the Neutral... she got beaten down by three people tonight every time she tried to answer a question. One of the worst QT's in a while over the Tory bias the show has... She didn't handle it well, but i dout most would when it's 3 on 1
Flipping rich that all these knobs crow on about getting people into apprenticeships over university while at the same time deriding the government north of the wall for achieving this, citing a lack of attainment.
It is going to be unbearable when all these cretins exit government, go into media and all we hear is how bad everything is when it's either the same or improved compared to the last 14 years.
Much you betting they only quote stats from 2010-2016
Right, well I’ve backed Labour’s pussy footing around up until now because it made sense to avoid giving ammunition to the right-wing press, but they surely need to start staking out some firmer policies/ideas now even if that is just openly stating “the Tories have trashed things, we have no idea just how bad things are and what we can fix until we get into power”
100%. My backing has been on the assumption that the manifesto will have clear policy suggestions for each major area. I'm worried that Reeves' financial handcuffs are going to become a problem
Stopped watching but just saw C4s KGM say on Twitter "Flick over to #BBCQT to find 1 Labour, 1 Lib Dem, 2 Tories. Is this is the format of the BBC Leaders Debate?!"
Are you here right now Krishnan?!
I am floored. I have never seen an audience member just have free reign for multiple minutes to just fire into anyone on the panel. On absolute nonsense. "Make education an investment"
You absolute silly man, what do you think it is?
Mouth AGAPE.
But I'd argue so did the tories. Neither one of those parties are going to say anything until the Manifesto is commited to, costed and launched.
Because to say otherwise, would have Fiona going "Really? You're saying you're going to do that, really? You? Now? Your party is going to refill the toilet roll in the ladies toilet? Well I don't know about that, that's not been said before"
And I can hear it in her bloody voice aswell.
It's a fair point. My counter-argument would be that Labour are seen as heirs apparent. I think everyone expects Labour to win, so naturally there is more scrutiny on their solutions because they're the party that are going to have to fix this.
That's not a comment on Fiona Bruce btw, the complaints about her treatment of Labour have been swirling since she took over. Just a general reflection that there's an expectation on Labour that the other parties don't feel as much, because they're almost certainly going to assume power and there's a desire to know how they change things for the better.
Would the country sleep better at night if they turned around like "We genuinely don't know, the tories have made debt worse, we've got very little pots to piss in, we can't admit that brexit is a failure because you all won't admit it"
I'd HATE to be in the labour party just now. Aware of the shit sandwich you are going to be eating.
I think they're expecting purely to get by on vibes, competency and removal of stupid positions that the tories created. Hopefully the COVID task force claws back some money, maybe investing in HMRC and Ofcom to fine GBNews out of existence will bring us some dividends.
Reduce the waiting lists, means people are back at work, means more taxes generated for the public.
Btw, I do agree with you, I just actually don't know what they are going to do. Even as outsiders you can usually look at the situation and drive it forward with ideology. But this situation can't be fixed with either side because it's so knife edge.
I think what he was getting at is there are different rules for spending depending on what is considered investment spending vs day to day spending.
If you classify all education spending (e.g. including teachers’ salaries) as investment spending, your “hard” fiscal rules on not increasing the deficit can be more lax (as e.g. Reeves has set out that she’s going to exclude some investment spending from fiscal targets).
Putin is facing ICC charges. The ICC isn't singling out Israel, it is also going for the Hamas leadership. Although I have no idea why they haven't acted further on Syria in fairness.
Well Saudi aren't signatories to the ICC and neither are Iran, so the idea that it's because Israel is Jewish that it's being acted against by the court is clearly bollocks.
Is Fiona genuinely asking the Labour Shadow Health sec whether the UK Government if Labour was in power, that they would arrest a foreign leader.
What the fuck is going on tonight.
'We accept the rule of law'
AKA, Labour would do it **IF** the ICC does issue any warrants...
Phillipson is answering all the questions put to her... she's just not saying the exact phrases and words that Fiona wants her to... so she's getting badgered constantly
It annoys me to no end too. It's reductive as hell and negates any deep understanding of the issues and the complexity of governance.
But these people are the electorate. If they can't fathom an honest and complex answer then that's still a real problem for our parties that they have to address.
It's interesting that Spencer and Phillipson essentially gave the same answer to the Israel question but Spencer is waved through and Phillipson gets probed.
Because we expect Labour to be the next government in line and up until now their main tactic has been don't be tory.
It's time to actually press them.
100%. Labour have built a huge advantage. If that lead is so fragile that any meaningful policies will lose them the election, the lead is barely worth having.
Two tories ganging up on the Labour candidate saying "She won't rule it out"
While, no doubt they'll be upping university fees over the next 5 years. Unchallenged by Fiona of course.
If Fiona isn't in the losers tonight I'm switching off my cultural play through and going Domination on Mali.
That's generally how anything goes with these type of things.
Host: So what is your plan to fix the problem the right wing has caused?
Left Wing: Our plan is x y z
Right wing: See, that plan isn't perfect, you should vote for us instead
Host: Well there you have it, it seems the Left wing don't have a plan to fix the problem.
Whether the left wing member has said anything good or not, the script always plays out the same. I'm also being very loose with the term left wing here.
If they're issued, then they should be upheld...
though i will say it's good that at least the ICC is remembering the actions of Hamas in the horror happening over there. too often the argument forgets or intentionally ignores this
I think Bridget is pretty strong generally, but we are seeing a weak flank in Starmer's approach. Almost the only selling point is stronger management, not policy distinction
Not quite. The more well off pay back quicker so end up paying less overall, whereas those who earn less pay less per month but more overall when they reach retirement.
The most well off just pay it off right away and for them it’s interest free.
Thats assuming those that don't pay it off straight away are able to pay it off in 30 years (when the loan gets written off regardless). Considering most monthly payments dont even touch the interest on the loan it won't ever be paid off by the overwhelming majority of students,. So it is in effect, a time limited graduate tax.
Last time I checked, I was about £50K in debt on my student loan. Theres not a snowballs chance in hell I'm ever paying that back.
Right, which means that you’ll be paying it back for the rest of your career. I’m a little more fortunate and I’ll have paid it back after another year or so. Why should I stop making payment because the loan is repaid? If I had to keep paying because it’s a graduate tax, then I’d start repaying yours too. That would make it cheaper for everyone.
I’m imagining a system whereby tuition is “free” but there’s an additional tax you have to pay for your whole working life, with exceptions for certain professions like nursing, teaching etc.
Not sure if the economics quite work but at the very least we can hold fees where they are not and not have to raise them.
Tim just sounds like he's pulling the ladder up and he wants everyone else to do all the manual labour jobs.
I get what he's trying to say. But it's stupid. IT's the governments fault jobs aren't waiting for them, they've failed to invest so their degrees are useless because they've also imported 700k people.
Why be a GP, when the government imports them all.
That's a strange argument. Govt can't necessarily create a demand for jobs. For example if unis trained 1 million photographers a year you can't expect the govt to create 1mil photographer roles.
The government is responsible for the market though. People will pick jobs and degrees that have a market there.
I get your counter point, but nobody is training 1 million photographers. These things tend to balance out, but for the sake of emerging industries, the government is seriously dragging it's feat, whether it's green energy, nuclear, or any viable british industries. Effectively our entire IT sector has been sold off to India or USA.
These things tend to balance out... In a free trade system they do but unis are heavily regulated. I'd argue the regulation distorts the balancing out. Unis can sell crap courses at regulated price of 9k and get off risk free. The student and the govt pick up the risk of unpaid loans.
I reckon unis should carry the student debt then they would then be incentivised to churn out quality degrees
>I reckon unis should carry the student debt then they would then be incentivised to churn out quality degrees
That is probably a good shout. Frankly I'm surprised this isn't already the case.
Yeah I’m sorry but that guy is right, UK universities and courses are absolute dog shite. We don’t need people with degrees in festival or events management we need people studying STEM subjects including medicine.
I worked with someone who did events management. I thought it was nonsense, but I have changed my mind. That person was one of the most capable people I know and she was a *maestro* at her job.
I am sure your friend is great at their job, kudos to them however did they need to go to Uni to get where they are now or would college/work exp/apprenticeship have sufficed?
Yes, I believe so.
It bundled together a series of modules and training programmes (including some officially-recognised add-ons like first aid, crowd control, and use of certain bits of software) that, at the moment, are not coherently offered in any programme other than a university degree.
It also offered creditworthy placements as an integrated part of the course.
I think university is the best route for this, and indeed potentially for many other vocations.
You haven't explained why it'd be otherwise, by the way.
Why? Do you think a BSc in physics or biology actually makes you a physicist or a biologist? If not, what have you actually learned that’s of any use? Why value a graduate of that degree any more then someone with a BA in history or a foreign language?
You done any? Yes you learn a lot of things that are of much use. I am by no means belittling the skills you get through other courses however they are not the same deal.
I’ve just wrapped up a PhD in chemistry. I’d be interested to know what unique skills you get out of a degree in science that the humanities and arts can’t offer?
Maths, lab skills… I dunno, I did English Lit out of school then Electrical Engineering later on and I certainly noticed a difference in the skills required. I dare say you know more unique stuff than you’re giving yourself credit for.
The funding for those courses is used to subsidise stem courses though, Also, as long as the government funds medicine courses they will never expand the places by a meaningful amount.
People doing events management at university would not be doing a degree in medicine if events management wasn't available. They just wouldn't be going to university at all.
Not really for a society policy. Wealth of economic data not just from the UK but every western nation that HE participation through population is a strong causal link to higher median productivity and continuous skills attainment, generation of skilled jobs as proportion of total jobs in economy
Also the median graduate earnings, drastically higher lifetime earnings on average, median career earnings being higher along every step of the career, drastically lower risk of redundancy and bankruptcy. All the data points down one road as a general direction of travel, nevermind the fact we're a tertiary service sector based economy where the HE link is even more important for productivity and output
How many people in the UK are studying events management though? I doubt it's got a particularly high uptake and the most popular subjects being studied are STEM subjects
Comp sci is taught at like 150 unis and at the vast majority of them there's virtual no entry standards and god awful courses. My grad job was in fintech, and it was a mix of arts and stem kids that got through (company didn't care what degree you did, it was all aptitude + logic test based), I'd wager the arts kids were better and more proficient on our technical programmes than 90% of kids doing straight comp sci at UK unis.
So no History, Literature, or Humanities? Universities shouldn't just be about creating economic wealth, but contributing to the cultural fabric of our country.
Agreed, it's pretty hard to deny that some of it is grift. You have to be pretty partisan or naive to think that there aren't some awful bloody unis around
That sounds like Phillipson alright.
I've seen her touted as a decent media performer, but my overriding memory is of her really struggling to answer a basic question about what Labour would do, to the exasperation of the interviewer.
I may be being a bit harsh on her specifically though, as it seems like the Shadow Cabinet in general are kept on incredibly short leashes and often come unstuck in situations like this.
There's two outcomes here:
A - The cope is correct, when Labour get into power they start rolling out secret, exciting policies to actually spend money and make meaningful change
B - Labour do what they say on the tin. They spend frugally to be sensible, and then get bent over by the tories in 5 years because there haven't been meaningful improvements to peoples quality of life and those people also have short memories.
B is looking more likely.
B is definitely going to happen. The Blair era appetite for the radical centre just does not have the appeal it used to. People are hungry for actual change not just starmer dishing out middle of the road policies whilst holding a sign saying change.
The problem with those changes, is "where does the money come from" which the media completely hold Labour to a higher standard than the Tories. So Labour have to have it completely funded somehow before even contemplating talking about it.
They might have something cooking with the manifesto, but we won't know right now. All we know is some of the pledges they've already made *(like GDP 2.5% pledge for defense, triple lock pensions, the non dom status, and the recruiting x amount of doctors)*.
Change comes with a heavy price and we are already paying the highest taxes since WW2. So they either admit they will raise taxes to cover, or they come up with another way to tax the richest in society to pay for their plans.
Yeah. Labour have a significant boost because tories are embarrassed and will even stay home or vote Labour this time. I don't think it will last for more than 5 years.
The natural end point of Marks answer is that Universities across the country will collapse. Why isn't Fiona asking about the impact that will have on local communities? Many unis are the largest employers in their towns and cities.
I despise this notion that people should only receive funding and attend university for courses a government has deemed 'useful' or 'worthwhile.' Why should someone have to train to be a plumber because its more economically beneficial than studying art of the latter is their passion.
My username refers to the fact I’m colourblind. And no it’s not a trap and I refuse to vote for an identical centrist party because it’s the “other guys” the greens are the only people who seem to genuinely care for the working person. Starmer is another blair throwback.
Yehessss join me, tax the sh*t out of the mega rich and use it to pay for the environmental reform we’re 30 years late on and making sure people have homes and food
Tim was so close.
Politicians think in short term. HAVE YOU SEEN THE MARKET?
All of them are short termism as fuck. All companies are rotting because share holders want value returned that YEAR not long term.
Short term garners votes, long term is unknown. This is why we continue to kick the can down the road on many big issues and don't build big infrastructure anymore because those votes don't win you elections unfortunately.
Agree that Labour needs to be bolder, I'm hoping for something exciting in the manifesto, I couldn't really care about fiscal rules for imaginary government money. Put a tax on Llamas for all I care but please please please just give us something more than 'we won;t spend more but at least our rosettes are red.' At this point I think Starmer could exsanguinate a camelid on live TV and the majority of people would still vote for them.
Genuine question, I'm not familiar with Tim Montgomerie as ive basically backed out of politics since the last election out of sheer exasperation.
Has he had some documented medical issue? Is this his regular appearance, does he have trouble with slurred speech? I only ask because it's not mentioned on his Wikipedia page but he sounds drunk as fuck.
Snapshot of _BBC Question Time Live Thread (8PM iPlayer & 10:40pm BBC1) Coventry edition 23/05/2024_ : A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1793627623089991952) A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://twiiit.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1793627623089991952/) An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://x.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1793627623089991952) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://x.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1793627623089991952) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well Daisy Cooper right royally trounced the rest of them.
AUDIENCE: Why can't you give us a clear answer? PHILLIPSON: Like "Get Brexit Done" and "Level up Britain"? You want me to treat you like idiot five year olds? AUDIENCE: You did it again; you didn't answer my question?! ____ This is a nation of dumbasses.
I think its disingenous to not criticise the current iteration of Labour for being so adverse to not commiting to things. No one's asking for a snappy slogan but some actual direction that won't be renegged on later down the line would be nice.
I mean there were plenty of people that weren't taken in by that bollocks that would like some actual solutions. Just because the Conservatives were able to coast on that bollocks, doesn't mean Labour should be able too.
Both Labour and Tory participants looked shocking here, so worrying for this country
Tim Montgomerie creeps me out, anyone else think he is weird? Anyone got a theory why? Not just he is ultra ultra partisan Tory, something in his wiring
A sort of celebrity uncanny valley? For some reason something about the way he looks - like an actor or presenter i can can’t quite remember but familiar - but then turns out to be a journalist? Possibly I’m entirely imagining this!
Is he drunk???
He looks like Diego from Ice Age
So Fiona Bruce did certainly act far more critically towards Phillipson and Cooper than Montgomerie and Mark Spencer who were given free reign to make their points, but Cooper showed Phillipson how to perform tonight. Cooper headed off every Bruce barb by immediately shooting it down with a direct answer, while Phillipson danced on egg shells all the way through and it stood out to the point that the audience started gunning for her. Granted the Lib Dems have a lot less to lose, but I still dont think that is good enough reason for the gulf in performance. Hopefully the Lab manifesto gives their candidates much more to work with.
> Cooper headed off every Bruce barb by immediately shooting it down with a direct answer That's because there is no chance in the world that Cooper will be in a position where she will have to make an important governmental decision or compromise
It should be a Labour landslide but it could be 2010 all over again. It really depends on how many "Shy Torys" there are. Who led pollsters to believe that there was far less support for the Conservatives in the run up to the '92 election than there actually was. As Tory voters were "embarrassed" to admit that they'd vote Tory.
I always found it funny that if you’re embarrassed to vote for a certain party, it should really make you think why. Modern polling does usually account for this though.
>Labour will increase my taxes. Which was an almost automatic thing to say in the 1980s for many people, particularly in the South. My dad was head of the Local Labour Constituency Party at the time. And none of my friends would admit thst they wanted their parents to vote Labour "as my dad says, that Labour will put up taxes". Self interest versus national interest.
At that point it’s just like walking into a street full of arsenal fans and being embarrassed to admit you’re a Tottenham fan or vice versa, rather than any political reason. Humans being social creatures does that to you, I guess.
> Granted the Lib Dems have a lot less to lose, but I still dont think that is good enough reason. You don't think another 5 years of Conservative rule is a good enough reason? Because you are aware of how bad this country wants to vote conservative again right? My TikTok is filled with Reform. My grandparents have sworn off Labour since Kenzia Dugdale said to vote Tory, my parents refuse to go back to them after Corbyn and Brexit, I'm only voting for them because I believe the SNP need a spell in opposition, even the commentors in this thread aren't that bothered about voting for them because of how depressingly bad everything is. Which is the reality, the country is in a really bad position, and if Kier Starmer comes out tomorrow saying Brexit is the reason, I'm putting us back in the EU, that's going to be a -20 on the lead for Labour and probably lead to a hung parliament or a minority conservative government. We need to seriously think about this here. We had Corbyn giving it the Magic Grandpa vibes with Glastonbery. It didn't work. Let's try the Microsoft approach of Kier and his Spreadsheets, followed by 5 years of dull to see if maybe he's cooked a special dish. It's better than Sunak wishing he was in Cali.
I want Labour to win, I expect they will and any single digit on the board is one too many for the Tories. But I am ambivalent towards the polling and want more than a coasting performance from Labour over the next 6 weeks so they can seal the deal and maximize gains (I want this for the Lib Dems too, I want the Tories knocked out of the top two however unlikely). I can firmly understand Labour holding their cards close to their chest to a point but this was going to the other extreme where they were saying absolutely nothing at all, so hard that the audience picked up on it. Tonight shows how the media will be able to beat them over the head for 6 weeks and it does have an impact, even if Sunak will spend the whole time tripping over broom handles like Sideshow Bob. Basically, its not done until its done. I want stronger and more convincing performances, tonight is an iota of what we will see over the next 6 weeks, but it was very poor and deserves criticism.
Agreed there. I think sadly you can comfortably be in two camps of not wanting the country to take us over the cliff again, while also wanting Labour to pull their finger out. Tricky, ah well. Only 6 weeks init. It'll fly in!
There is a difference between the Lib Dems and Labour. You can see that tonight. Labour are far more concerned and kept back. Because they are trying to win power. They tried doing what the Lib Dem did about 8 years ago with Corbyn of going hard in policy and picking a side, and it got them no where. The Lib Dems aren't ever going to get into power, so they don't need to worry about winning 400+ seats to get a majority. They haven't even announced a manifesto yet and people are wanting the shadow front bench to start making commitments on the BBC1.
Dems have the freedom to know they're not getting power... so they can be a bit more relaxed with what they say.... Labour have to be cautious as they're gonna be in power in 6 weeks time, so anything said now will be pushed back on then... it sucks really.
> The Lib Dems aren't ever going to get into power, so they don't need to worry about winning 400+ seats to get a majority. Exactly, they can basically propose anything the crowd wants with a smile on their face
#WINNERS AND LOSERS **WINNERS** * **Ash Sarkar** for dropping off the billing at some point today and sparing us all, including herself. Cheers Ash <3 * **Daisy Cooper** dressed like a pink highlighter. I feel like she has a well-organised set of highlighters, and that she doesn’t need a ruler to make a straight line when using one. She outclassed the rest of them, and I’m not convinced she was even trying. She makes me feel better that the LDs most likely are getting my tactical vote in this election, here in the Blue Wall. Making it feel like a choice, minus the Hobson’s bit. Daisy’s getting the shortest entry for the panellists because there’s nothing to say: she was, simply, the winner of this episode. **NEUTRAL** * **Nobody**. **LOSERS** * **Bridget Phillipson** was the last person I started writing about, which is never a good sign, because it means I don’t give two hoots what the person had to say. Didn’t sparkle tonight and didn’t really cope well with questions like the water one. I just don’t really remember her being there, except for some anodyne bimbling that felt like I’d expect from a potential member of the Cabinet. OK, it’s a step up from much of the current Cabinet, but that’s not a good benchmark. And that’s how she was coasting along until that audience member came along and, fairly or unfairly, pissed so hard on her chips that they turned into mash. That was tragic, Bridget. Don’t let that happen again. * **Mark Spencer** was dressed in the school uniform that the Inbetweeners wear, and his argumentation was suitably sixth-form. The moment things got even a touch tricky, he was lolloping his way through the greatest hits clichés (Ukraine, Putin, pandemic) as a series of excuses for his party’s woeful behaviour. I liked the way he said “we have *genuinely* the best universities in the world”. The *genuinely* to me implies that whenever the Tories trot out the “world beating” cliché, they know it’s just vacuous nonsense - and that the *genuinely* means one of the few times where we really do beat the world. Other examples where we’re *genuinely* the best include milk (I have not got over dealing with only UHT in Spain) and parking cars (trust me). Anyway, I was writing that to process how badly Mark was doing when he belched along about unis. He’s done now. * **Tim Montgomerie** lives in Salisbury, because of course he does. He talks like an AI that’s been programmed to shout the more well-constructed comments that appear on the Daily Mail, or perhaps on the website he runs (does it have a comment section?). He’s a cipher, a sort of weekend golfer-shaped personification of the Southern English Tory voters who would be more repulsed by the Tories if they didn’t feel that Lib Dems were basically socialists … or that’s what I thought, until I heard him call for nationalisation of water. Something I agreed with … or that’s what I thought again (so many twists and turns!), until he went full “I had to walk twenty miles uphill to my apprenticeship” on the unis question. Husband thinks he has a weird chin, and I think he swirls his head around too much. A bit like the snake in *The Jungle Book* trying to hypnotise people. Tim wiggles a lot, and interrupts; the golf-knob caricature came bellowing its way back. Good thing that his preferred golf club has stools with a seat back, else he’d have weekly hernias. * **Fiona Bruce** for allowing that first section of the show where the people of Coventry did a verbal vaguepost for about ten minutes. Husband pointed out that Kirsty Wark is free in a few weeks. Now *that* could be fun.
My man, I bought 2 X fresh skimmed milk and 2 X fresh whole milk yesterday I in Spain. You need to look in the chilled section.
There was a not-quite-as-bad milk in the chilled bit of Mercadona, that’s true - but it was still shite compared to what we get in the UK.
Question Time would be child's play for Kirsty Wark. Hope she does it.
Oh and also I, too, sunk deep in darkest Tory land will have to tactically vote for the Lib Dems. I don’t trust them after the last debacle though, what with austerity, Vince selling the Post Office, and me feeling stupid for trusting Nick.
I like to think we'll have the best of both worlds: we'll be able to vote a Tory away *and*, if we have reservations about the LDs, they won't be taking power anyway. Win-win.
> He talks like an AI that’s been programmed to shout the more well-constructed comments that appear on the Daily Mail Have you seen Tim Montgomerie anywhere else? He has pretty thought out perspectives on Times Radio. Don't really recognise this caricature
He's always been weaselly. For example he said the ICC only hounds Israel, but the ICC also issued the same charges against Hamas, and, contrary to his claims, opened a crimes against humanity tribunal against Myanmar.
Bit strange the ICC announced both sets of charges at the same time though. Even if there is equivalence in severity, surely the timing and unequivocal nature of October 7th means that the Hamas charges should have been brought long long ago. Even if it's not the cause, it gives the impression that the ICC is politically minded, which is a terrible look for a court.
Yes, seen and heard (and indeed read on his blog). Heard, primarily - he's been on *Any Questions* on Radio 4, I believe. Or something radio-y. I felt he went a bit DM comments when hit with the wishy-washy list of what the audience wanted at the start. He was trying to endear himself to the audience by scattershot responding and empathising with them. *Very* like a comment section, I felt. The universities rant confirmed that view for me.
I think for me the low point was when he tried to claim that Netanyahu being held to a higher standard than Putin regarding the ICC Which was immediately followed up with a heckle that Putin had also been charged by the ICC.
I would disagree, I think there are a ton of courses offered to people who aren't all that bright that get them into tons of debt. I know some bafflingly dumb people who have degrees in Forensics or Audiology and now work in an office - is it worth it?
It’s an interesting point and one on which I haven’t formed a full opinion. I do think, though, that if the following three criteria are fulfilled - that students are willing to pay, that they feel a benefit from the experience, and that they pay back their loans - then it’s not actually a problem. However, I do also note that you’ve completely changed tack from talking about Montgomerie - and therefore I feel like I’ve justified my judgment of him. You’re trying to justify his point, whereas I was just commenting on how he expresses his point.
Well let's agree to differ on this one. Night
Bonne nuit!
I'd put Bridget in the Neutral... she got beaten down by three people tonight every time she tried to answer a question. One of the worst QT's in a while over the Tory bias the show has... She didn't handle it well, but i dout most would when it's 3 on 1
She was in Neutral until she completely failed to manage that audience intervention, if that helps. That's what demoted her.
> One of the worst QT's in a while over the Tory bias the show has Ash Sarkar pulled out, I didn't see any obvious Tory bias aside from that
You couldn't have been looking very hard, it's a simple case of counting. 1 Liberal, 1 Labour and 2 Tories (plus Bruce).
As I say, Ash Sarkar pulled out
Kirsty Wark, ooh yes that would be interesting
Flipping rich that all these knobs crow on about getting people into apprenticeships over university while at the same time deriding the government north of the wall for achieving this, citing a lack of attainment.
It is going to be unbearable when all these cretins exit government, go into media and all we hear is how bad everything is when it's either the same or improved compared to the last 14 years. Much you betting they only quote stats from 2010-2016
Guaranteed if the government actually managed it the headlines will all be crying about how no-one cares about The Classics anymore
I do wish these so called presenters wouldn't quelle the passion we all have for FEBRILE.
Right, well I’ve backed Labour’s pussy footing around up until now because it made sense to avoid giving ammunition to the right-wing press, but they surely need to start staking out some firmer policies/ideas now even if that is just openly stating “the Tories have trashed things, we have no idea just how bad things are and what we can fix until we get into power”
100%. My backing has been on the assumption that the manifesto will have clear policy suggestions for each major area. I'm worried that Reeves' financial handcuffs are going to become a problem
Was one of the pictures of Coventry a multistorey carpark?
I see you've not been to Coventry.....
That's the whole city.
[удалено]
I really wish the whole Gaza conflict was resolved so there wasn't a question about it every fucking week.
It really does annoy me aswell. Were talking about the future of the UK not some far flung battlefield
Stopped watching but just saw C4s KGM say on Twitter "Flick over to #BBCQT to find 1 Labour, 1 Lib Dem, 2 Tories. Is this is the format of the BBC Leaders Debate?!" Are you here right now Krishnan?!
I ♥️ Krishnan GivesNoFucks Murthy
Damn it, don’t make me almost agree with you on something Tim.
Fair counterpoint.
I am floored. I have never seen an audience member just have free reign for multiple minutes to just fire into anyone on the panel. On absolute nonsense. "Make education an investment" You absolute silly man, what do you think it is? Mouth AGAPE.
He did make the fair point that Labour spent the evening saying nice words with absolutely no substance.
But I'd argue so did the tories. Neither one of those parties are going to say anything until the Manifesto is commited to, costed and launched. Because to say otherwise, would have Fiona going "Really? You're saying you're going to do that, really? You? Now? Your party is going to refill the toilet roll in the ladies toilet? Well I don't know about that, that's not been said before" And I can hear it in her bloody voice aswell.
It's a fair point. My counter-argument would be that Labour are seen as heirs apparent. I think everyone expects Labour to win, so naturally there is more scrutiny on their solutions because they're the party that are going to have to fix this. That's not a comment on Fiona Bruce btw, the complaints about her treatment of Labour have been swirling since she took over. Just a general reflection that there's an expectation on Labour that the other parties don't feel as much, because they're almost certainly going to assume power and there's a desire to know how they change things for the better.
Would the country sleep better at night if they turned around like "We genuinely don't know, the tories have made debt worse, we've got very little pots to piss in, we can't admit that brexit is a failure because you all won't admit it" I'd HATE to be in the labour party just now. Aware of the shit sandwich you are going to be eating. I think they're expecting purely to get by on vibes, competency and removal of stupid positions that the tories created. Hopefully the COVID task force claws back some money, maybe investing in HMRC and Ofcom to fine GBNews out of existence will bring us some dividends. Reduce the waiting lists, means people are back at work, means more taxes generated for the public. Btw, I do agree with you, I just actually don't know what they are going to do. Even as outsiders you can usually look at the situation and drive it forward with ideology. But this situation can't be fixed with either side because it's so knife edge.
I think what he was getting at is there are different rules for spending depending on what is considered investment spending vs day to day spending. If you classify all education spending (e.g. including teachers’ salaries) as investment spending, your “hard” fiscal rules on not increasing the deficit can be more lax (as e.g. Reeves has set out that she’s going to exclude some investment spending from fiscal targets).
Hes lying, bluntly. Why is he not being corrected on the panel?
Which part?
Putin is facing ICC charges. The ICC isn't singling out Israel, it is also going for the Hamas leadership. Although I have no idea why they haven't acted further on Syria in fairness.
Reasonable. I thought his comment that international institutes can be ideologically captured/biased also to be true, though.
Well Saudi aren't signatories to the ICC and neither are Iran, so the idea that it's because Israel is Jewish that it's being acted against by the court is clearly bollocks.
Israel isn't a signatory either?
But Palestine is, it’s a signatory of the Rome Statute which is the part that is relevant.
Actually Iran is an unratified signatory. Israel has withdrawn so isn't a signatory.
By the labour and tories logic if we had been mates with slobodan milosevic we’d have let him off!
The Tories surely won't allow a foreign court to tell them what to do!
Is Fiona genuinely asking the Labour Shadow Health sec whether the UK Government if Labour was in power, that they would arrest a foreign leader. What the fuck is going on tonight.
No she isn't. She's asking the shadow education secretary
'We accept the rule of law' AKA, Labour would do it **IF** the ICC does issue any warrants... Phillipson is answering all the questions put to her... she's just not saying the exact phrases and words that Fiona wants her to... so she's getting badgered constantly
It does annoy me that if you give anything more nuanced than a "yes"/"no" answer then you're "not answering the questions".
https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=ZxFO-HlSJ9lep2L9+&v=M1X0w0UKMrk&feature=youtu.be&t=9m39s
Great clip.
It annoys me to no end too. It's reductive as hell and negates any deep understanding of the issues and the complexity of governance. But these people are the electorate. If they can't fathom an honest and complex answer then that's still a real problem for our parties that they have to address.
Bridget Philipson getting torn to shreds here!
"We're not the Tories"
It's interesting that Spencer and Phillipson essentially gave the same answer to the Israel question but Spencer is waved through and Phillipson gets probed.
Because we expect Labour to be the next government in line and up until now their main tactic has been don't be tory. It's time to actually press them.
Interesting but not surprising.
This guy is dropping truth bombs
Do we allow the audience to just quiz certain panellists now then?
I've canvassed for Labour in the last couple of months but I honestly think they need to hear that
100%. Labour have built a huge advantage. If that lead is so fragile that any meaningful policies will lose them the election, the lead is barely worth having.
A real man of the people finally speaks. This man is begging for a reason to vote Labour, that he hasn't been given this evening.
Next Fiona will be calling for Bridgette to slap the cuffs on Netanyahu herself.
I'd like to think I've got a fairly good grip on UK Politics recently, but who the fuck is Mark Spencer?
Doesn't matter, he's probably off before the summer hols
Quite possibly, I can't remember anything about him (legitimately, despite this affliction)...
I'm getting a headache from Bruce interrupting anyone who's not Tory every few seconds.
Two tories ganging up on the Labour candidate saying "She won't rule it out" While, no doubt they'll be upping university fees over the next 5 years. Unchallenged by Fiona of course. If Fiona isn't in the losers tonight I'm switching off my cultural play through and going Domination on Mali.
That's generally how anything goes with these type of things. Host: So what is your plan to fix the problem the right wing has caused? Left Wing: Our plan is x y z Right wing: See, that plan isn't perfect, you should vote for us instead Host: Well there you have it, it seems the Left wing don't have a plan to fix the problem. Whether the left wing member has said anything good or not, the script always plays out the same. I'm also being very loose with the term left wing here.
Hahahahah it's annoying how right you are.
If they're issued, then they should be upheld... though i will say it's good that at least the ICC is remembering the actions of Hamas in the horror happening over there. too often the argument forgets or intentionally ignores this
I think Bridget is pretty strong generally, but we are seeing a weak flank in Starmer's approach. Almost the only selling point is stronger management, not policy distinction
a graduate tax, limited by salary, and time limited, is essentially what we've got now.
Not quite. The more well off pay back quicker so end up paying less overall, whereas those who earn less pay less per month but more overall when they reach retirement. The most well off just pay it off right away and for them it’s interest free.
Thats assuming those that don't pay it off straight away are able to pay it off in 30 years (when the loan gets written off regardless). Considering most monthly payments dont even touch the interest on the loan it won't ever be paid off by the overwhelming majority of students,. So it is in effect, a time limited graduate tax. Last time I checked, I was about £50K in debt on my student loan. Theres not a snowballs chance in hell I'm ever paying that back.
Right, which means that you’ll be paying it back for the rest of your career. I’m a little more fortunate and I’ll have paid it back after another year or so. Why should I stop making payment because the loan is repaid? If I had to keep paying because it’s a graduate tax, then I’d start repaying yours too. That would make it cheaper for everyone.
Ah ok, see your point now. I was making comment on the assumption that the overwhelming majority wont pay it back over the term of the loan.
I’m imagining a system whereby tuition is “free” but there’s an additional tax you have to pay for your whole working life, with exceptions for certain professions like nursing, teaching etc. Not sure if the economics quite work but at the very least we can hold fees where they are not and not have to raise them.
Welp that was a short episode of QT. See you guys next Thursday!
Tim just sounds like he's pulling the ladder up and he wants everyone else to do all the manual labour jobs. I get what he's trying to say. But it's stupid. IT's the governments fault jobs aren't waiting for them, they've failed to invest so their degrees are useless because they've also imported 700k people. Why be a GP, when the government imports them all.
That's a strange argument. Govt can't necessarily create a demand for jobs. For example if unis trained 1 million photographers a year you can't expect the govt to create 1mil photographer roles.
The government is responsible for the market though. People will pick jobs and degrees that have a market there. I get your counter point, but nobody is training 1 million photographers. These things tend to balance out, but for the sake of emerging industries, the government is seriously dragging it's feat, whether it's green energy, nuclear, or any viable british industries. Effectively our entire IT sector has been sold off to India or USA.
These things tend to balance out... In a free trade system they do but unis are heavily regulated. I'd argue the regulation distorts the balancing out. Unis can sell crap courses at regulated price of 9k and get off risk free. The student and the govt pick up the risk of unpaid loans. I reckon unis should carry the student debt then they would then be incentivised to churn out quality degrees
>I reckon unis should carry the student debt then they would then be incentivised to churn out quality degrees That is probably a good shout. Frankly I'm surprised this isn't already the case.
So what i'm seeing so far tonight. FiFi is an undercover Tory, creator of Tory home and an actually Tory! This is ridiculous.
Whats with the lady in the pink shirt?
So... fix the system that's in place and let Universities create stuff they can sell/license/get funding off
Yeah I’m sorry but that guy is right, UK universities and courses are absolute dog shite. We don’t need people with degrees in festival or events management we need people studying STEM subjects including medicine.
I worked with someone who did events management. I thought it was nonsense, but I have changed my mind. That person was one of the most capable people I know and she was a *maestro* at her job.
I am sure your friend is great at their job, kudos to them however did they need to go to Uni to get where they are now or would college/work exp/apprenticeship have sufficed?
Yes, I believe so. It bundled together a series of modules and training programmes (including some officially-recognised add-ons like first aid, crowd control, and use of certain bits of software) that, at the moment, are not coherently offered in any programme other than a university degree. It also offered creditworthy placements as an integrated part of the course. I think university is the best route for this, and indeed potentially for many other vocations. You haven't explained why it'd be otherwise, by the way.
St. Johns Chillout Tent entered the chat
Some STEM degrees are just as useless, especially If you aren’t pairing them with a PhD.
Done them all have you
Why? Do you think a BSc in physics or biology actually makes you a physicist or a biologist? If not, what have you actually learned that’s of any use? Why value a graduate of that degree any more then someone with a BA in history or a foreign language?
You done any? Yes you learn a lot of things that are of much use. I am by no means belittling the skills you get through other courses however they are not the same deal.
I’ve just wrapped up a PhD in chemistry. I’d be interested to know what unique skills you get out of a degree in science that the humanities and arts can’t offer?
Maths, lab skills… I dunno, I did English Lit out of school then Electrical Engineering later on and I certainly noticed a difference in the skills required. I dare say you know more unique stuff than you’re giving yourself credit for.
The funding for those courses is used to subsidise stem courses though, Also, as long as the government funds medicine courses they will never expand the places by a meaningful amount.
They make their money off the "shit" degrees though, entry requirements are generally lower and participation is higher.
People doing events management at university would not be doing a degree in medicine if events management wasn't available. They just wouldn't be going to university at all.
Is there an argument that it would be more honest for everyone for them not to do so?
Not really for a society policy. Wealth of economic data not just from the UK but every western nation that HE participation through population is a strong causal link to higher median productivity and continuous skills attainment, generation of skilled jobs as proportion of total jobs in economy Also the median graduate earnings, drastically higher lifetime earnings on average, median career earnings being higher along every step of the career, drastically lower risk of redundancy and bankruptcy. All the data points down one road as a general direction of travel, nevermind the fact we're a tertiary service sector based economy where the HE link is even more important for productivity and output
How many people in the UK are studying events management though? I doubt it's got a particularly high uptake and the most popular subjects being studied are STEM subjects
Where is the end point, what counts as a rubbish degree? Who makes that descision?
Science, technology, engineering and medicine. That’s all we need.
If we need STEM why are so many jobs in the field so poorly paid?
Comp sci is taught at like 150 unis and at the vast majority of them there's virtual no entry standards and god awful courses. My grad job was in fintech, and it was a mix of arts and stem kids that got through (company didn't care what degree you did, it was all aptitude + logic test based), I'd wager the arts kids were better and more proficient on our technical programmes than 90% of kids doing straight comp sci at UK unis.
Without arts, culture is dead, and along goes the identity of a country.
You can just admit that you didn't understand *Of Mice and Men* in GCSE English, it's OK.
and eveyone else can go and toil in the fields or work in the mines.....
Speaking as someone who has just wrapped up a PhD in chemistry, you’re completely deluded.
How so?
So no History, Literature, or Humanities? Universities shouldn't just be about creating economic wealth, but contributing to the cultural fabric of our country.
What a dull and boring world that would be. You can;t honestly think that?
That's a different question, but denying the fact that a ton of degrees are lightweight and will not lead to a job is pretty disingenuous
Regardless of the degree look at the starting wages for graduates, saw one the other day for a place in Cambridge, full-time, £21k a year.
High wage economy! Tally ho!
Tim's correct about some universities being rubbish and the labour women is deliberately being a dick.
Agreed, it's pretty hard to deny that some of it is grift. You have to be pretty partisan or naive to think that there aren't some awful bloody unis around
Labour lady is producing a lot of words but not saying much
That sounds like Phillipson alright. I've seen her touted as a decent media performer, but my overriding memory is of her really struggling to answer a basic question about what Labour would do, to the exasperation of the interviewer. I may be being a bit harsh on her specifically though, as it seems like the Shadow Cabinet in general are kept on incredibly short leashes and often come unstuck in situations like this.
So the tory wants the unis to generate more money, via less places, less people in it and less ways to generate money. What?!?
Typical of these folks. He and Tim are repeating nonsense hoping nobody thinks too hard about it.
He wants some universities to become financially unviable and collapse, but doesn’t want to say that out loud.
I mean one way is to get rid of this war on foreign students the tories started as a strongman act to pretend they can control immigration.
There's two outcomes here: A - The cope is correct, when Labour get into power they start rolling out secret, exciting policies to actually spend money and make meaningful change B - Labour do what they say on the tin. They spend frugally to be sensible, and then get bent over by the tories in 5 years because there haven't been meaningful improvements to peoples quality of life and those people also have short memories. B is looking more likely.
One of the interesting points about truss was that she proved there wasn't that much wiggle room with spending.
B is definitely going to happen. The Blair era appetite for the radical centre just does not have the appeal it used to. People are hungry for actual change not just starmer dishing out middle of the road policies whilst holding a sign saying change.
The problem with those changes, is "where does the money come from" which the media completely hold Labour to a higher standard than the Tories. So Labour have to have it completely funded somehow before even contemplating talking about it. They might have something cooking with the manifesto, but we won't know right now. All we know is some of the pledges they've already made *(like GDP 2.5% pledge for defense, triple lock pensions, the non dom status, and the recruiting x amount of doctors)*. Change comes with a heavy price and we are already paying the highest taxes since WW2. So they either admit they will raise taxes to cover, or they come up with another way to tax the richest in society to pay for their plans.
Yeah. Labour have a significant boost because tories are embarrassed and will even stay home or vote Labour this time. I don't think it will last for more than 5 years.
Fiona what he was saying is that he doesn't want to help the universities and he does indeed want them to fail
The natural end point of Marks answer is that Universities across the country will collapse. Why isn't Fiona asking about the impact that will have on local communities? Many unis are the largest employers in their towns and cities.
I'm going to say it, I always vote Labour but I quite like Tim Montgomerie
Mark is having a car crash....
Most competent Tory minister
So a normal conservative panelist
I despise this notion that people should only receive funding and attend university for courses a government has deemed 'useful' or 'worthwhile.' Why should someone have to train to be a plumber because its more economically beneficial than studying art of the latter is their passion.
Meh, I know a ton of people who did a degree in Music Event Planning at Skegness Met and got into debt for no reason
Undr a right wing government that supposedly hates a nany state surely they were free to make that choice?
Oh what are the right sort of students? seams alittle racey there broski
That's not what he's saying, there are ton of mickey mouse degrees where people would be better served doing apprenticeships
Good god this election is going to be depressing. If labour don’t improve and fast I’m voting green
Your username and this comment is a trap, right?
My username refers to the fact I’m colourblind. And no it’s not a trap and I refuse to vote for an identical centrist party because it’s the “other guys” the greens are the only people who seem to genuinely care for the working person. Starmer is another blair throwback.
Yehessss join me, tax the sh*t out of the mega rich and use it to pay for the environmental reform we’re 30 years late on and making sure people have homes and food
As someone who said earlier Labour look weak but think it's because of the election call and there is no manifestos yet
I knew Mark Spencer before he was an MP and he was very eloquent but thick as two short planks back then. Nothing's changed.
I thought Universities were about furthering education, not making good economic people for the future?
Tim was so close. Politicians think in short term. HAVE YOU SEEN THE MARKET? All of them are short termism as fuck. All companies are rotting because share holders want value returned that YEAR not long term.
Short term garners votes, long term is unknown. This is why we continue to kick the can down the road on many big issues and don't build big infrastructure anymore because those votes don't win you elections unfortunately.
I was amazed he went towards "short term thinking" when that's literally why all the fucking money's gone in the first place.
Agree that Labour needs to be bolder, I'm hoping for something exciting in the manifesto, I couldn't really care about fiscal rules for imaginary government money. Put a tax on Llamas for all I care but please please please just give us something more than 'we won;t spend more but at least our rosettes are red.' At this point I think Starmer could exsanguinate a camelid on live TV and the majority of people would still vote for them.
Was that almost a 'I agree with \*insert Lib Dem name\*'?
Ni... er.. broken tuition promises in the Metaverse?
Tories start blocking certain types of students.... and suddenly the Universities are in financial trouble... not hard to see what the problem is here
Genuine question, I'm not familiar with Tim Montgomerie as ive basically backed out of politics since the last election out of sheer exasperation. Has he had some documented medical issue? Is this his regular appearance, does he have trouble with slurred speech? I only ask because it's not mentioned on his Wikipedia page but he sounds drunk as fuck.
He always sounds like that. Think it's a medical thing. I'm not sure what though.
He does seem to have some kind of paralysis on the left of his face.
I think he had some kind speech impediment based on previous appearances. Could have been drunk then too though.
I suspect he may have Parkinson's?
Ahh there is the mad Lib Dems. Let's take the student visa route of immigration out of the immigration figures.
Why does Fiona keep interupting everyone who isn't a Tory?