Question Time cocks it up again

Yet again the beleaguered BBC programme Question Time has shown us the reason why it might be a good idea for it to be produced outside London. The bland and supercilious response of the BBC and its flagship current affairs programme demonstrate exactly why the programme is no longer fit for purpose in the modern Britain.

To claim that the programme retains balance, because the ‘main parties’ had representation, misses the whole point. One was a candidate in an election and none of his opponents were given the opportunity to be there. The voters of that election received the broadcast. That is clearly against the guidelines that the BBC itself purports to operate under.

It is possible to overstate this, however. It isn’t an anti-democratic plot. It certainly isn’t a deliberate ploy to boost Alex Salmond. The other parties could, if they wished, have resolved the matter quickly by telling their invited representatives (and any substitutes) to withdraw from the programme. This was never going to happen - after all if they were prepared to sit on a panel with Nick Griffin, Alex Salmond was hardly going to be more objectionable!

But it is symptomatic of the real problem with this show, as was the reverse problem of Nicola Sturgeon being gagged by David Disdainful, back in October when the show apparently came from Glasgow. There is no understanding (nor is there any wish to understand) that the UK is now a multi-national entity, and to reflect that. As it was once said of then Tory Scottish Secretary, Ian Lang, ‘He is both too ignorant of the problem and too arrogant to care.” Any of us who have worked for the Scottish arm of a UK body knows exactly the issue. 

The SNP too, in gloating over the discomfiture of the ‘unionist’ parties, would do well to not to throw too many stones as their own glass house has been upset by this before, and will be again (General Election Leader’s Debates anyone?).

But the sooner that Question Time’s production is moved away from London (or the ROSEland hinterland) the more likely that this problem will be addressed. If that means also jettisoning the current producer and chair, so much the better.