A codified constitution would be staggeringly stupid. A constitution, even a coded one, does not really exist on paper - it exists in the political culture, which cannot be changed by a mere document. It wouldn't change anything for the better.
A constitution's force depends entirely on the context of the political history. After all, did Saddam respect Iraq's constitution? Or Stalin the Soviet Constitution? It's a moronic way of looking at politics.
I think nerves played a big factor in the performances here. Understandable really, but you would hope whoever gets picked would be better on the night with the added adrenalin from a genuine studio audience. It was odd to see panellists agreeing with each other, and whilst they might have been reasonable they didn't produce as good a spectacle as normal QT. As a friend of Tom's, I was very impressed by Suzanne, and also liked Daniel's style of argument as mentioned below.
Yeah Tom Wyatt was very good, I wish there had been more of him - his comments were by far the best. They were insightful and cutting; and he had a way of pinpointing the real issue at hand.
For me, Daniel Thomas appears to benefit from not being a 'student of politics', but from seeing real life in his own community and trying to do something positive to enhance his community.
He communicates his ideas clearly and seems to get to the crux of the matter very quickly, in particular with his idea of Primaries for electing politicians as a response to the Expenses scandal.
I've posted more on his video as to why I think it's an appropriate response to the Expenses scandal. Well done.
Not as impressed as i thought -the answers seemed rehearsed and lacked originality but i think that was partly down to the questn. It would have been nice if QT had thrown in a debate where original opinions could have been expressed. If I was forced to pick some1 it would be probably be Suzanne or Tom. And after reading some of the comments posted by the panelist on here i think my vote swings towards Tom-he just needs to stop talking to the table n address the audience (Also lose the jacket)
Wow they did well hiding how small that audience actually was!
I think it has to be between Liam and Suzanne. The others really added nothing to the debate and struggled to express their views coherently. I would like Liam to be chosen as he represents the average young person best. He is clearly not a political hack but an engaged person who will be able to spark debate and is confident of his opinions.
I thought Suzanne communicated her ideas well and stayed focused on the question. The others seemed to wander off what was asked. It is good to see someone express their views so clearly.
... genuinely seemed to think through his answer before giving it. He also interacted better than the rest with the audience, and provided a decent springboard for debate. In all honesty, I was more impressed by the audience member named as Effi (Effy?), who in two sentences showed himself to be more verbally astute than the panellists in twenty minutes.
By and large, the panel members were guilty of naivity and incapable of anything but regurgitating various broadsheet comment sections. It is, of course, entirely plausible that this was down to nerves. I thought that we were going to be impressed by Daniel Thomas, yet he was unable to back up his points sufficiently, or when questioned further by Dimbleby seemed unsure of himself. Suzanne Burlton provided absolutely nothing of merit. The most impressive of the five was Liam Ager, who ...
Suzanne was the most thoughtful candidate. The others all gave the impression that they were showing off their credentials as representatives of the 'youth vote', but she engaged with the issues. This was particularly true of her nuanced thoughts on the extent to which the Iraq inquiry should be public. She was not afraid to offer a complex answer to a complex issue, which suggests the sort of honest and rigorous reflection one would hope to find in this type of programme.
I'm guessing you're assuming that Tom is public school. Sadly, despite his apparent poshness, he isn't. I would have thought the same though on hearing his voice for the first time :) And as to your other comments...That may be how he comes across, but he genuinely isn't. Well alright, he is a bit ludicrous sometimes.
I agree with wiccanop91. Tom was articulate and engaging. Add this to the fact that he's already identified a slight flaw in his performance, which will be rectified, i think he'd be he best person for the role.
Im going to say Johnny over Tom, he did stand his ground when Dimbleby question him and he was the only one to probe the other panelists. It looked like tom kept on looking at his notes. still, I used to like charles and after listening to them both, im now a republican. so well done guys!
I feel that Tom was certainly the most articulate and passionate, he did however seem rather nervous, which could be a problem.
Johnny was also a very good speaker, and he didn't seem to show the same level of nerves that let Tom down. Although to me it looked like he grew tired of having to explain his point, and just backed down once or twice.
Liam was clearly very passionate but didn't his point across and didn't seem confident.
They were all quite good! i thought jonny was the strongest. i agreed with most of his views. he came across passionate, really confident on camera. The others seemed too shy, i don't know whether they'd be able to step up to the politicians level as much as him.
Suzanne came 2nd, but as for representing young peoples points of view, im not to sure.
Liam was quite clearly the worst, no comedians please. also not quite sure he understood what he was saying. Mps would rip him apart. sorry.
Its between Tom Wyatt, Johnny LeVan-Gilroy and Liam Ager for me. All put forward their arguments in a concise and passionate fashion.
Their own views also closely reflect my own in regards to constitutional reform and republicanism, both of which are big issues I would like to see raised and debated throughly on QT.
Liam despite being less of a polished speaker than the rest,(something which is taught to varying degrees depending on where you are schooled) had valid points, and represents the average "young person", someone who isnt a political activist, and someone who seems to be a regular person with a job who happens to have views on issues that are close to his heart. We need an "anti politician" on the show to balance out the conclusionless ambiguity that most mainstream politicians spew uncontrolably
No, I think Johnny definitely showed to be the most articulate and he was significantly the strongest. His views were very defined and he clearly demonstrated his independent morals when he argued his point. His confidence showed that he evidently knew what he was speaking about and he had self -assertive debating skills!
Morality is the new black, as legality is now flouted by our aristocracy.
It's all about who theyre running the country for, I get the impression were being farmed by a bunch of treasonable parasites.
The financial system is a one way street aided and abetted by a government of usurers that has carried out a financial and moral drive by shooting of the public.
What right does any government have to serially steal from the people through legislation?
I'd like to see Johnny given a chance to speak more. He was quite sure of his views but I didn't feel he had questions directed to him by DD as much as others (why not?) and this should be redressed.
And what's wrong with idealism? I'd rather have an idealist than cynical profiteering. If Barack Obama wasn't an idealist the US'd probably have another 'the President's brain is missing'(again).
Suzanne seems to be the only person on the panel able to firmly back up what she's saying without resorting to repetitive arguments!!!! I'd definitely choose her as she's the only one who seems to look comfortable!
The whole time i was watching this it made me think a lot, but i personally think Liam is quite a good choice because he a real down to earth guy and it seems like i think most can relate to what he means.
I also feel that Liam is most likely to offer the best representation of the 'youth' of today. It's frustrating to even think that this should be considered but sadly, there are hundreds of muppets out there who will instantly dismiss any youngster and Liam, through his slight humour and well delivered but unpretentious speech offers the best solution.
All of them to some extent (Daniel quite as much much, but still...) strongly represent Youth today, which is why I (admittedly a young person myself) may just not watch SQT this year.
Last year was just awful with that woman from the apprentice spurting out any random and irrelevant recycled soundbite in order to be 'hip' and get cheers from the easily exited 17 year olds in the audience.
Each time I watch SQT I always get a stronger feeling that the voting age should be raised (and I'm 18).
Sure, all of them did admirably with their contrasting personalities and I'd say they'd all have a fair stab urinating over Piers Morgan or at the very least, shining Christopher Hitchen's shoes. However, I do feel that Liam managed to offer insightful responses in the least convoluted way. I'm going to resist the urge to suggest that he offers a 'fresh' or 'average' opinion because to some extend, it's probably implying that I read the Daily Mail and falsely believe all politician are crooks.
Nick Griffin standing in front of a KKK meeting in the USA and saying
"our ideas...which are your ideas too"
"one day perhaps the British people might change their mind and say yes, every last one must go...instead of talking about racial purity you talk about identity"
If you support a thinly veiled racist party you will attract the racist label.
why all my coments taken off apart from wanker is that to make me look like a right wing thug ill shall pass on this knowlege on to youtube you think your clever your signing your own downfall
I'm 21, I don't have a clue on politics, I'll watch whatever or whoever catches my interest. If I channel hop to Question Time, I'd sit and wait for what Liam offers, probably because he just seems like someone I could actually have a debate with, whether we got anywhere with it or not.
While the others have their merits as being what I imagine the usual Question Time viewer to be like, maybe, with this appearing to the YouTube generation, we could do with an "average" voice.
I'm voting for Liam cos he seems like a real young person rather than someone just quoting from a newspaper or a young conservative like suzanne, who is no longer young really. You will alienate all young left wing people in the country if you carry on exposing us to these creepy tory kids. At 8.40 an audience member (called Effy) makes a valid point!! Better selection than I thought it would be, I thought they'd *ALL* be slimy wannabe politicians!
Well Liam just lost his temper in a comment below and called someone a "racist f..." - I don't suppose the BBC will risk him losing his temper on TV now.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Well let's hope not. I doubt it, panellists like Shami Chakrabarti for example bring a lot to the debate by being passionate about things they believe in rather than being a cold robot. GO LIAM!
I like Shami being on QT, I enjoy her passion. People should be passionate about what they believe in, but at the same time should be respectful - which is how she conducts herself.
I don't think we'll see the day when she tells someone to go f... themself, do you? :-)
All of these candidates are weak. There's no conviction, and almost every time the audience challenges the candidates they stumble to gather together the semblance of an answer. Susanne is confident in her speech but is speaking little of substance. Johnny is a write-off straight away. Tom is skilled but impersonable. Liam stumbles early and never gets up. Daniel is my favourite of a bad bunch, purely because he speaks with confidence. If it was my choice, I'd give the seat to the audience...
I agree. I think it is because is he merely offering his opinion based on life experience rather than the others who seem to be merely regurgitating other people's opinions, and then finding themselves unable to quantify their statements when questioned because they have no idea how their conclusion was originally reached.
I agree with MrPMorris, of all the panelists, Daniel had far more interesting answers. He seemed to express himself clearly with thought provoking answers. Well done Daniel, hope to see you on again.
Even though I don't agree with what he said about Prince Charles I think he was the best panelist.
He articulated clearly, didn't back down on his opinions, and was able to explain further when questioned rather than stalling - most importantly he was able to talk from real-life experience.
3) if you want to improve the scrutiny of parliament. give more funds and greater powers to select committees, employ more staff and the people that would be in the lords into the select committee.
this rubbish self indulged - title wearing, who has the bigger cock mentality is in a bygone era.
zacsautograph - iv told you why it is relevant (scroll down) and i no your trying to be annoying, im not going to let you.
sirinferno - 1) if you want careerists in parliament then it should be down to the parties PPC and the electorate.
2) having a 18th century system that trusts MPs to much that lets unelected people into our legislator, creates a political class and contradicts this countries value or meritocracy is wrong.
1. I DON'T want career politicians in parliament, that's what we have at the moment.
2. It didn't trust MPs to[sic] much, because you had the watchdog of the constitution, in the form of the House of Lords. They might have been unelected, but they protected British values.
I don't see where you're getting this idea that Britain, or indeed any democratic country is or should be a perfect meritocracy.
sirinferno - sorry made a typo. if you 'dont' want careerists.
the HOL hasn't done much. the talented people inside it have. if ur referring to the good people in the lords who have contributed greatly. i have nothing against them, and in actaul fact, implore them to do more - in select committees, as consultants,
the fact that we have to reward patriotism to british values with class titles is wrong
we both agree that there needs to be limits on politicians, you say lords, i say statue
zacsautograph, you obviously don't understand our law, because if you did, you'd realize it's a crisis. as i said before. the highest body in the land is parliament (a centralized self-regulator body). nothing is above it, yet because of this scandals, we now have to regulate our highest institution and because our constitution dictates nothing is above it. it underminds our law(constitution) making it a crisis. thus we need clarity, a codified constitution gives us that clarity. that help?
Surely a government unable to act is merely a sign of political atrophy and impotence?
There are already checks and balances, like the Lords and conventions? I think within reason, being elected does mean you can do what you want? then 4 years later, you can have ur authority withdrawn...
what does any of this have to do with expenses scandals?!
Lol! Tbh I don't know how we've ended up here! The whip system is rotten as Dan pointed out and it is the tip of the iceberg in the distrust of our system. Changing this will help restore trust in our MPs at least. We'll agree to disagree!
Yes, we get it, you're promoting Daniel (subtly...), but it's become startlingly apparent that whips do not relate to the issue at hand. Whips do not make anyone distrust a system, they simply ensure that the government maintains the authority that we granted it...
Daniel was the best candidate and I think based on his answers and background, he is the best candidate to represent the people. Well Iraq highlighted my point and the distrust that followed helped by the whips. Btw the question wasn't directly about the expenses scandal it was what can be done to gain public trust. Poor question really.
To clarify. - The person voted to represent my views can vote against my wishes, and we all have to accept it because "it's the party line".
The other thing that loses my trust is the dishonesty of politicians, but until politicians are fully accountable to the electorates we will never see any real change.
Perkin, surely when you vote, you don't vote for your MP to represent you, you vote for your government and ur PM. I don't want to vote for an impotent and pointless government that can't do anything because of petty rebelling MPs. We have plenty of checks and balances on govt power. Why have you seen an expenses scandal and decided that means the govt is a tyrant?
The govt doesn't have to put cases forward, it's the GOVT, not a pressure group!
If the petty rebelling MPs as you put it do block any govt policy then clearly this is a sign of a good system. If the major party is putting policy through and it finds the majority of its MPs are not with them, then surely this means that the party isn't following its ethos which it was charged to pursue?! Sure, you are bound to get an individual being petty, but a big collective thats saying something. The whips distort this. Just because you're elected in doesnt mean youcan do what you want!
If the government doesn't have to put cases forward, how will it command the consent of the people? How will it substantiate radical changes, how will it defend actions that may breach human rights?
You paint the picture of a parliament that should be filled with yes men, when we all know scrutiny creates the most rigorous bills.
Johnny (although you're billed as Jonny on the show), you keep saying our constitution doesn't work, that it's in a crisis. What does that mean? the constitution is so abstract, you're going to have to substantiate what you're actually talking about...Is your problem that badly paid MPs made the most of a weak system, or the lack of a separation of powers?! what exactly is your point? the constitution is sinking? it's existed hundreds of years, i don't think this incident proves it's broken.
Perkin158 , the whips clearly are not a bad thing, they guarantee that the mandate actually is given to government to carry out their manifesto, it's not up to individual MPs to hijack the authority granted by the electorate for their own pettty views
I disagree. In the case of the Iraq war, whips had a large influence on the vote. MPs should of voted on what their constituents thought, not what the whips told them to. The way whips conduct their business is sleezy and dirty. Ofcourse whips may have their advantage in achieving a consensus, but I think it should be down to the govt to put a strong case forward and let the MPs rationally decide. This is more democratic. Not put a poor case forward yet still get the whips to get MP support.
But they shouldn't be representing their own "petty views" in the first place, they are not the delegates of their party, not the representatives of their own personal judgements, but the representatives of their constituents solely like Edmund Burke propagated clearly in his 1774 address to the electorate of Bristol. MP's should be independent, which sidles well with the separation of powers doctrine, they should not be coerced by whips or anyone for that matter, but their constituents.
IWillFindAWayOrMake1: "they are not the delegates of their party"
It's about time this was realised. Daniel mentioned it too. People accept that politicians vote against their will on cases of "party matters" - Nick Clegg + European referendum for example.
MP's are ordered what to do by their party. I strongly suspect parties are "persuaded" by their campaign sponsors.
It's top->down. It should be bottom->up. Us doing the telling, and MPs getting fired by us if we are unhappy.
The panellists weren't at all bad. Overawed, maybe, but that's understandable given that many of them may never have been on television before. As a generalisation, the entire panel seemed overly concerned with using big words and trying to look clever and appear like lefty pin up boys than make a valid point. Miss Burlton actually made some great points without pretending everything is an absolute. Maybe it's because she's a woman. Or maybe it's because she doesn't live up her own arse.
he was so startlingly out of his depth - he couldn't answer the first question and started spouting nonsense about whips. Do these people not understand the questions are just not feel like answering them?? Only Sue understood what she was being asked, and could give a non-ridiculous response!!
And all this obsession with consitutional reform from people that don't seem to understand it (it's your rights...sir......???)
Lol! I don't think he was out of his depth. What I liked about Daniel was the fact he kept his cool throughout and gave some good answers. What he was touching at was the way parliament operates and highlighting the dirty tricks, which happen inside. The question was about regaining trust, and sorting the whip system out is a start in regaining that trust between MP and constituent. Some MPs abstain on matters because of the whips. It's rotten!
Most of these candidates aren't speaking from the heart and are saying what people want to hear, not what they truly believe. I think Daniel is the best candidate out of them. He can compose himself well and put across some good arguments. All the others are a turn off - Liam ..." a valid point and I can't rememeber it"!!! and finally when Sue laughed when Liam said "over 1 million have died over this", and she found it appropriate to laugh! - just shows how immature she is!
Sorry, if I could just interject. You condemn me for laughing at Liam saying that over a million people have died, but I think you'll find I was giggling at his qualification that the deaths were not my personal fault.
I still don't understand why that was funny? The death of 1 million people as Liam put it is not a laughing matter in any context. In my eyes it was a misjudged response to an emotional truth.
I'm sorry, but that couldn't be more further from the truth! My point wasn't the "fact" that she was laughing at, but at her inappropriate giggle. There was no need to laugh within this topic no matter what you said. To me, it highlighted her immatureness. Thats just how it came across to me when I watched it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
what century do you live in? people swear these days... its just the social evolution of the english language.
and he is a racist, he has the phrase "i'll fight till every last muslim is out of britain" so a tit for tat response is about the only thing is tiny mind can understand.
"He is a racist" - possibly yes, but Islaam is a religion and not a race, I often see white muslims.
"people swear these days", sure they do, I use bad language like punctuation, but I wouldn't use it in a job interview, and I wouldn't use it on a forum which exists to help decide if I should be on Question Time.
If you can't control your temper when applying for the position then why would the BBC risk you losing it on TV?
Fourth person on the left (boy near to Mr Dimbleby)
Personality qualities are shocking. Never looks at the audiances, which is a slightly worrying when they consist of only young producers and their parents. Seems too sarcastic and unable to debate properly. Needs to develop from childlike manner.
I freely acknowledge the fact that I didn't look at the audience and am cross with myself for not doing so. However - I can assure you that this was not due to nervousness and was down to inexperience. I fully believe that this issue can be resolved quickly and easily!
At times felt confused with what each person had raised. His facial impressions and tone of voice tells the viewer that "these kids don't know anything"
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Second person on the right (girl)- Worst performance ever, i have never seen such worst performance on debate shows. Her lack of knowledge in politics and in my view her speaking skills appear too much philospical than political. Wrong place madem. Overall the worse from all
First person on the right- Extremely finding it difficult to raise his view from the dabate and always overshadowed- In my view he won't be able to cope withe the real debate. Improve on it.
What's wrong with Tom? what does a separation of powers have to do with a scandal involving MPs?? and Jonny does the same thing, what does a codified constitution have to do with MPs' behaviour? and daniel seems to think that a decentralisation of power will solve a problem that is in no way related...? did he just have no opinion on the question asked and start talking about some issue that he liked?
the reason why i said, i wanted a codified constitution as well as many of the other suggestions, was because i dont believe our current system of parliamentary sovereignty is works. we have given are parliament/(thus the exective) to much power.
we should have popular sovereignty because the power should lie with the people. the Mps expenses scandal has shown why are constitutional convention of self regulation doesn't work and there should be restrictions on power.
i'm getting a lot of comments saying i wasn't that insightful or that i wasn't different .... i must explain..... i was sent on there to represent young people from age 13 - 25 and not just fellow politicos who know and have studied our system.
also, i would like to point out that, I was the ONLY ONE to suggest we should abolish our constitution.
you don't have much time to explain why in 20 minutes, when every panelist has to have a fair say.
in what ways is abolishing a constitution a proportionate response to MPs using their expenses too liberally? This just seems like scapegoatism about the recession...
Besides, you really want a codified constitution that doesn't have a bill of rights or separation of powers, so much as one that sets out what MPs' can spend their expenses on?! You want a referendum for every quotidian change??
I'll tell you a way. our constitution is in such a crisis that we've now given an independent body regulation over our own parliament, taking away its sovereignty. what other evidence do you need do you need that the system doesnt work?
we have an executive that gets to much power, takes more than 55% of the legislator and is less accountable each election.
The expenses scandal was merrily a tiny hole in a sinking ship that is our constitution.
perfectly fine (meaning it could be improved) or perfect?
n our constitution says that no matter what they do. they arn't accountable to the electorate, until a general election because of some silly convention by the queen.
no impeachment or recall. There is no limit of power. if they want to stop freedom of information or an attack on our liberties, they can.
Johnny, i rather agree with you about government having too much power without formal restrictions. There are still plenty of uncodified checks and balances that work fine
But still, the question was about the expenses scandal. in what way is talking about constiutional reform relevant?
we've never needed any of these formal measures because 1.) MPs were decent, 2.) the House of Lords was powerful. far better to have a reversion to a previous constitution than constitutional reform, allowing more career politicians and new labourites and unconservatives to get into power.
zacsautograph I didn't state that constitutional reform was a direct reaction to a scandal involving MP's. I stated that it formed part of a wider issue around how Parliament operates and the extent to which citizens can no longer relate to it. In this respect I agree with Johnny in that the expenses issue adds to a pre-existing crisis in British Politics, illustrated by plummeting voter turnout figures and the rise of the BNP.
a crisis concerning how Parliament operates and the extent to which citizens can no longer relate to it, is illustrated by plummeting voter turnout figures and the rise of the BNP?
i see.
in which case, you may like to note that the consumption of chewing gum is closely related to the decrease in legionaries fighting for Rome
Tom: This argument seems incoherent. You suggest that there is a"crisis" in politics (which I assume means voter apathy). You also say that this is a growing problem, and its cause is an uncodified consitution. So people in the past didn't have this crisis...but had the same form of constitution? why could they relate to parliament in the past if not now, if nothing has changed...? explain...
Secondly - (very briefly) I challenge your interpretation of the past. The British 'constitution' has experienced crisis as with the 'glorious revolution' in which it was renewed and developed. Modern circumstances precipitate such a change today. Also - Parliament has been far less supine in the past compared to today - willing to challenge Monarchs and PM's alike.
I did not memorise that 'phrase' and neither did I refuse to stop repeating it. I am not in the habit of making the same point with different words simply to avoid repetition at the cost of clarity. It is a wider debate because, as I illustrated in the below comment, it adds to the cumulative alienation of voters from Parliament.
This, i realise, is effectively the same point as that made by sirinferno: what does your dislike of an uncodified consitution have to do with people not voting? Couldn't an equally good explanation (...well, much better explanation) for low voter turn out be a lack of public engagement in unideological consensus politics?
also I assume you were being ironic with your clearly pleonastic denial of your own prolixity
I would simply refer you to my previous comments. There is a new crisis in British Politics that necessarily revolves around public engagement with politics. I totally agree with you about 'unideological consensus politics' - this - along with the dominance of the executive in Parliament feeds into a 'wider debate about democracy' - examples of scandal and lack of representation (both within parties and Parliament) all develop an image of the 'ruling elite' being 'in it for themselves'.
What was with all the "this feeds into a wider debate" from the guy with the glasses?
was that the phrase he'd memorised and refused to stop repeating? whys it is a wider debate...!
did like all of them have 1 issue they'd read up on and refuse to let drop? (this relates to the whip system...over and over again...no it's got nothing to do with whips....). i swear susan (sp...?) was the only one who didn't just keep repeating some catchphrase and was actually a bit coherent in her arguments.
I believe Daniel should be the people's panelist. He would be most suitable to represent the views of the public and large and the concerns of young people today also. Suzanne, also would be a great choice.
Suzanne definitely in my opinion, I wish I could have taken the position I was offered rather than doing my exams but I think Suzanne hit the nail on the head more times than the others.
Constitutional reform as a reflex reaction to MP's expenses rather than necessary. Extremely valid point.
As much as it pains me to say another middle class southerner but she was rather more outstanding than the rest.
When is constitutional reform not a reflex reaction to scandal? What about the glorious revolution of 1688, no one was going to wait for the king to realise he could not use arbitrary power while unelected.
Expenses has been the trigger and almost all notable historical events occur because of a trigger, as proved when charles I entered the house of commons, what happened after this unacceptable abuse of power? CIVIL WAR
And the idea of parliamentary sovereignty cannot exist if it is "lead" by a bill of rights.
and if this is such a negative thing, that we have no bill of rights, find me an example of where the lack of it has failed to uphold British residual rights.
42 day detention period, Brown, hindered by the checks and balances already in place! The House Of Lords.
And Jack Straw talking about reform is very different from the Prime Minister having it on his agenda.
ofcourse ill give you some examples, the war damage act and burmah oil case saga, mid 1960's. parliament used RETROSPECTIVE legislation to take away rights that the individuals clearly held, not residually but under common law, a rule of law breach from parliament of significant proportions.
The government was not hindered but advised since parliament is unconstrained they could quite easily have passed legislation overruling that judgement, subject ofcourse to EU law considerations.
Sure those are two different things, but the statement does not carry weight since, it is on the agenda of the prime minister as he has explained for some time and as displayed by his recent constitutional renewal statement.
I didn't quite get your last point, but I assume you mean that our political system has become more robust? To an extent I agree with you, we need to have more trust in our political system. and i especially agree with your final statement regarding wider purpose and
This was when Britain was under a monarch with unrestrained powers, a dictatorship.
The necessity for change was clearly apparant, now we have a democracy with a stable unpolitical figurehead at the top, which presides over a number of governments and so has a wider viewpoint.
As well as embracing Britains heritage and history, giving us all a feeling of involvement in a wider purpose. Something everyone seeks in one way or another - football, religeon etc.
our history, but at the same time we should always be open to minor or in some situations some major tweaks/changes especially since the executive now dominates the legislature there can be no argument against that, and in addition because MPs can very readily be seen as the delegates of their party not of their constituents.
And its not like reform was not on the agenda, Jack Straw has been talking about reform ever since the constitutional reform act was enacted and rightly so, we have a parliament that is "sovereign" and unconstrained, with no bill of rights to lead it.
And who cares if she's middle class and a "southerner" this is no place for pathetic class squabbles, but she clearly was wrong to deny a wider debate accrues from the scandal, a shocking judgement she failed to substantiate.
No place for a class squabble? I think you will find that politics, especially in Britain has always been about a class squabble. So I don't know what country your'e from.
And my reason for saying so is a middle class southerner must find it hard to understand the real world when they have never encountered it.
And constitutional reform is unnecessary and most agree the whole electoral system idea from Brown is only because he stands a better chance of winning the next election with it!
On the class squabble point, with respect to your opinion, I find it difficult to see how you could just put her in an adhoc category of a middle class southerner based presumably on the way she speaks and presents herself. Incidentally I've encountered lots of "working class" people who speak like her.
I didnt say politics is no place for a class squabble but merely this show to imply she should not have been considered because of her suposed class seems an odd, archaic position to take.
Liam seems like he's a great guy and may have performed better on his day but to say he was "the best" and "articulate" is beyond a joke what video were you watching? On balance NONE of the panel stood out as winners, just like last year but Tom and Daniel were the best of a poor bunch by a mile.
lol "to regain trust in our govenment, we have to trust the government"....
wow i never thought of that!
WHAT ARE YOU DOING ON THIS PROGRAMME
GoldenbanjoDJ 1 year ago
A codified constitution would be staggeringly stupid. A constitution, even a coded one, does not really exist on paper - it exists in the political culture, which cannot be changed by a mere document. It wouldn't change anything for the better.
A constitution's force depends entirely on the context of the political history. After all, did Saddam respect Iraq's constitution? Or Stalin the Soviet Constitution? It's a moronic way of looking at politics.
InvisibleEmperor 2 years ago
6:21 - geez don't cry about it.
pearlaJ92 2 years ago
I think nerves played a big factor in the performances here. Understandable really, but you would hope whoever gets picked would be better on the night with the added adrenalin from a genuine studio audience. It was odd to see panellists agreeing with each other, and whilst they might have been reasonable they didn't produce as good a spectacle as normal QT. As a friend of Tom's, I was very impressed by Suzanne, and also liked Daniel's style of argument as mentioned below.
Pianocized 2 years ago
Yeah Tom Wyatt was very good, I wish there had been more of him - his comments were by far the best. They were insightful and cutting; and he had a way of pinpointing the real issue at hand.
kjh0104 2 years ago
LIAM AGER WINS!!! Tom Wyatt was also very good.
erichargrave12 2 years ago
Comment removed
erichargrave12 2 years ago
Daniel Thomas
poossum12345 2 years ago
Suzanne Burlton or Daniel Thomas.
The first was the most straight talking, the second the most genuine.
teenagelifeinglasgow 2 years ago
For me, Daniel Thomas appears to benefit from not being a 'student of politics', but from seeing real life in his own community and trying to do something positive to enhance his community.
He communicates his ideas clearly and seems to get to the crux of the matter very quickly, in particular with his idea of Primaries for electing politicians as a response to the Expenses scandal.
I've posted more on his video as to why I think it's an appropriate response to the Expenses scandal. Well done.
antonjw 2 years ago
Not as impressed as i thought -the answers seemed rehearsed and lacked originality but i think that was partly down to the questn. It would have been nice if QT had thrown in a debate where original opinions could have been expressed. If I was forced to pick some1 it would be probably be Suzanne or Tom. And after reading some of the comments posted by the panelist on here i think my vote swings towards Tom-he just needs to stop talking to the table n address the audience (Also lose the jacket)
tbag1234 2 years ago
suzanne communicated her views most clearly and had responses that felt considered and thoughtful. she gets my vote to appear on the panel
RoyalGibbon 2 years ago
Daniel Thomas wins.
TotalKO1 2 years ago
Wow they did well hiding how small that audience actually was!
I think it has to be between Liam and Suzanne. The others really added nothing to the debate and struggled to express their views coherently. I would like Liam to be chosen as he represents the average young person best. He is clearly not a political hack but an engaged person who will be able to spark debate and is confident of his opinions.
walleypd 2 years ago
I thought Suzanne communicated her ideas well and stayed focused on the question. The others seemed to wander off what was asked. It is good to see someone express their views so clearly.
Margrave1970 2 years ago
... genuinely seemed to think through his answer before giving it. He also interacted better than the rest with the audience, and provided a decent springboard for debate. In all honesty, I was more impressed by the audience member named as Effi (Effy?), who in two sentences showed himself to be more verbally astute than the panellists in twenty minutes.
Christophe110011 2 years ago
By and large, the panel members were guilty of naivity and incapable of anything but regurgitating various broadsheet comment sections. It is, of course, entirely plausible that this was down to nerves. I thought that we were going to be impressed by Daniel Thomas, yet he was unable to back up his points sufficiently, or when questioned further by Dimbleby seemed unsure of himself. Suzanne Burlton provided absolutely nothing of merit. The most impressive of the five was Liam Ager, who ...
Christophe110011 2 years ago
Suzanne was the most thoughtful candidate. The others all gave the impression that they were showing off their credentials as representatives of the 'youth vote', but she engaged with the issues. This was particularly true of her nuanced thoughts on the extent to which the Iraq inquiry should be public. She was not afraid to offer a complex answer to a complex issue, which suggests the sort of honest and rigorous reflection one would hope to find in this type of programme.
rlukey 2 years ago
Wow. Only 2 of the candidates are ludicrous public school types with an over inflated sense of self importance. How times have changed....
natdarke 2 years ago
I'm guessing you're assuming that Tom is public school. Sadly, despite his apparent poshness, he isn't. I would have thought the same though on hearing his voice for the first time :) And as to your other comments...That may be how he comes across, but he genuinely isn't. Well alright, he is a bit ludicrous sometimes.
Pianocized 2 years ago
Thank god at least Suzanne could understand and engage with the issues, rather than dragging out some irrelevant agenda...
zacsautograph 2 years ago 2
Of all of them, I feel Tom was the one I would most enjoy seeing on my television screen tomorrow
muse986 2 years ago
I agree with wiccanop91. Tom was articulate and engaging. Add this to the fact that he's already identified a slight flaw in his performance, which will be rectified, i think he'd be he best person for the role.
rrabnif030990 2 years ago
Although I feel that they all did a good job I reckon that Liam chap came out on top. My vote goes to him.
ambergambler 2 years ago
They were all hopeless.
mithralis1 2 years ago
Im going to say Johnny over Tom, he did stand his ground when Dimbleby question him and he was the only one to probe the other panelists. It looked like tom kept on looking at his notes. still, I used to like charles and after listening to them both, im now a republican. so well done guys!
Johnny for me
bitibetty3 2 years ago 3
I feel that Tom was certainly the most articulate and passionate, he did however seem rather nervous, which could be a problem.
Johnny was also a very good speaker, and he didn't seem to show the same level of nerves that let Tom down. Although to me it looked like he grew tired of having to explain his point, and just backed down once or twice.
Liam was clearly very passionate but didn't his point across and didn't seem confident.
The other two didn't seemed to lack substance
wiccanop91 2 years ago 3
They were all quite good! i thought jonny was the strongest. i agreed with most of his views. he came across passionate, really confident on camera. The others seemed too shy, i don't know whether they'd be able to step up to the politicians level as much as him.
Suzanne came 2nd, but as for representing young peoples points of view, im not to sure.
Liam was quite clearly the worst, no comedians please. also not quite sure he understood what he was saying. Mps would rip him apart. sorry.
rockingtheboat69 2 years ago 5
Its between Tom Wyatt, Johnny LeVan-Gilroy and Liam Ager for me. All put forward their arguments in a concise and passionate fashion.
Their own views also closely reflect my own in regards to constitutional reform and republicanism, both of which are big issues I would like to see raised and debated throughly on QT.
nathjmassey 2 years ago
I think Liam is the clear choice.
He demonstrated intelligence, confidence and courage in his convictions, and i feel he most accurately communicated the views of todays youth.
djmiller88101 2 years ago
Liam despite being less of a polished speaker than the rest,(something which is taught to varying degrees depending on where you are schooled) had valid points, and represents the average "young person", someone who isnt a political activist, and someone who seems to be a regular person with a job who happens to have views on issues that are close to his heart. We need an "anti politician" on the show to balance out the conclusionless ambiguity that most mainstream politicians spew uncontrolably
malikk99 2 years ago
Johnny for me
grahamrodber 2 years ago
i think daniel definetly was the best
singingsade95 2 years ago
No, I think Johnny definitely showed to be the most articulate and he was significantly the strongest. His views were very defined and he clearly demonstrated his independent morals when he argued his point. His confidence showed that he evidently knew what he was speaking about and he had self -assertive debating skills!
He has my vote.
pearlaJ92 2 years ago 2
Tom was easily the best. He was articulate, and his views i would say, best represented me and my peers
rrabnif030990 2 years ago
Liam has the right approach.
Morality is the new black, as legality is now flouted by our aristocracy.
It's all about who theyre running the country for, I get the impression were being farmed by a bunch of treasonable parasites.
The financial system is a one way street aided and abetted by a government of usurers that has carried out a financial and moral drive by shooting of the public.
What right does any government have to serially steal from the people through legislation?
smudge6699 2 years ago 2
I'd like to see Johnny given a chance to speak more. He was quite sure of his views but I didn't feel he had questions directed to him by DD as much as others (why not?) and this should be redressed.
Frogs4truthNjustice 2 years ago
And what's wrong with idealism? I'd rather have an idealist than cynical profiteering. If Barack Obama wasn't an idealist the US'd probably have another 'the President's brain is missing'(again).
Frogs4truthNjustice 2 years ago
Johnny and Tom I vote for you!
Frogs4truthNjustice 2 years ago
Johnny is the best.
elixeter 2 years ago
Comment removed
elixeter 2 years ago
Suzanne seems to be the only person on the panel able to firmly back up what she's saying without resorting to repetitive arguments!!!! I'd definitely choose her as she's the only one who seems to look comfortable!
craigadams90 2 years ago 2
Liam was definitely the best. Very down to earth and he knew what he was talking about!
adampayne01 2 years ago
Liam was definitely the best.... I think he handled the questions the best and i agree with most of his views.
Shame they couldn't of had a longer debate.
DanEv91 2 years ago
The whole time i was watching this it made me think a lot, but i personally think Liam is quite a good choice because he a real down to earth guy and it seems like i think most can relate to what he means.
beneggy 2 years ago
You seem to have this belief that if you say 'fuck' it is an indication that you've 'lost it'. I can say 'fuck' quite calmly thanks.
raisehighcarpenters 2 years ago
I also feel that Liam is most likely to offer the best representation of the 'youth' of today. It's frustrating to even think that this should be considered but sadly, there are hundreds of muppets out there who will instantly dismiss any youngster and Liam, through his slight humour and well delivered but unpretentious speech offers the best solution.
raisehighcarpenters 2 years ago
All of them to some extent (Daniel quite as much much, but still...) strongly represent Youth today, which is why I (admittedly a young person myself) may just not watch SQT this year.
Last year was just awful with that woman from the apprentice spurting out any random and irrelevant recycled soundbite in order to be 'hip' and get cheers from the easily exited 17 year olds in the audience.
Each time I watch SQT I always get a stronger feeling that the voting age should be raised (and I'm 18).
howsU2day 2 years ago
I almost feel that he's a mini Charlie Brooker.
raisehighcarpenters 2 years ago
now charlie brooker would be good. Hey ... I'm like a female charlie brooker, they should let me on.
SiLeNtPuNk1 2 years ago
Sure, all of them did admirably with their contrasting personalities and I'd say they'd all have a fair stab urinating over Piers Morgan or at the very least, shining Christopher Hitchen's shoes. However, I do feel that Liam managed to offer insightful responses in the least convoluted way. I'm going to resist the urge to suggest that he offers a 'fresh' or 'average' opinion because to some extend, it's probably implying that I read the Daily Mail and falsely believe all politician are crooks.
raisehighcarpenters 2 years ago
I'll add some more succinct points as to why this was the case in the near future.
raisehighcarpenters 2 years ago
Liam was clearly the best.
raisehighcarpenters 2 years ago
liam was easily the best. he used the most common sense out of all of them
doctoroo1 2 years ago
ever heard lions led by donkeys watch you dont piss off the lions
BIGPRO83 2 years ago
explain to me what a racist is watch a conversation about race
BIGPRO83 2 years ago
"explain to me what a racist is"
Nick Griffin standing in front of a KKK meeting in the USA and saying
"our ideas...which are your ideas too"
"one day perhaps the British people might change their mind and say yes, every last one must go...instead of talking about racial purity you talk about identity"
If you support a thinly veiled racist party you will attract the racist label.
watch?v=04QolIvfQEw
mrpmorris 2 years ago
why all my coments taken off apart from wanker is that to make me look like a right wing thug ill shall pass on this knowlege on to youtube you think your clever your signing your own downfall
BIGPRO83 2 years ago
I'm 21, I don't have a clue on politics, I'll watch whatever or whoever catches my interest. If I channel hop to Question Time, I'd sit and wait for what Liam offers, probably because he just seems like someone I could actually have a debate with, whether we got anywhere with it or not.
While the others have their merits as being what I imagine the usual Question Time viewer to be like, maybe, with this appearing to the YouTube generation, we could do with an "average" voice.
3WMElliott 2 years ago
Johnny looks like the only one who'd have the confidence and backbone to take on a seasoned politician and have a fighting chance.
He looked as though he had a lot that he wanted to say but didn't get enough time to say it.
The others all look a tad more timid and as though they could quite easily be taken for a ride by most politicians.
a02lubil 2 years ago
I'm voting for Liam cos he seems like a real young person rather than someone just quoting from a newspaper or a young conservative like suzanne, who is no longer young really. You will alienate all young left wing people in the country if you carry on exposing us to these creepy tory kids. At 8.40 an audience member (called Effy) makes a valid point!! Better selection than I thought it would be, I thought they'd *ALL* be slimy wannabe politicians!
SiLeNtPuNk1 2 years ago
Well Liam just lost his temper in a comment below and called someone a "racist f..." - I don't suppose the BBC will risk him losing his temper on TV now.
mrpmorris 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Well let's hope not. I doubt it, panellists like Shami Chakrabarti for example bring a lot to the debate by being passionate about things they believe in rather than being a cold robot. GO LIAM!
SiLeNtPuNk1 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yeah good point.
raisehighcarpenters 2 years ago
I like Shami being on QT, I enjoy her passion. People should be passionate about what they believe in, but at the same time should be respectful - which is how she conducts herself.
I don't think we'll see the day when she tells someone to go f... themself, do you? :-)
mrpmorris 2 years ago 2
All of these candidates are weak. There's no conviction, and almost every time the audience challenges the candidates they stumble to gather together the semblance of an answer. Susanne is confident in her speech but is speaking little of substance. Johnny is a write-off straight away. Tom is skilled but impersonable. Liam stumbles early and never gets up. Daniel is my favourite of a bad bunch, purely because he speaks with confidence. If it was my choice, I'd give the seat to the audience...
Linkinbassist 2 years ago 3
"Daniel......speaks with confidence"
I agree. I think it is because is he merely offering his opinion based on life experience rather than the others who seem to be merely regurgitating other people's opinions, and then finding themselves unable to quantify their statements when questioned because they have no idea how their conclusion was originally reached.
Sorry to rant on a bit there, I do that a lot :-)
mrpmorris 2 years ago 3
I agree with MrPMorris, of all the panelists, Daniel had far more interesting answers. He seemed to express himself clearly with thought provoking answers. Well done Daniel, hope to see you on again.
morellahcaracas 2 years ago 3
I think suzanne was the best panelist she talked the most sense.She was the most coherant.didnt need to use catchphrases or cliches
JaneFadden 2 years ago
Personally I think Daniel was very good.
Even though I don't agree with what he said about Prince Charles I think he was the best panelist.
He articulated clearly, didn't back down on his opinions, and was able to explain further when questioned rather than stalling - most importantly he was able to talk from real-life experience.
I'd like to hear more!
mrpmorris 2 years ago 4
Comment removed
mrpmorris 2 years ago
Where's the token Muslim?
JasonRadley 2 years ago
JasonRadley: Maybe your preconceptions of the BBC are unfounded after all?
You'll need to find yourself another cause to fight for now :-)
mrpmorris 2 years ago
If only they were ... you should check out the Biased BBC blog.
But I'm already resolved to stop paying my license fee, so the Beeb can go swing.
JasonRadley 2 years ago
3) if you want to improve the scrutiny of parliament. give more funds and greater powers to select committees, employ more staff and the people that would be in the lords into the select committee.
this rubbish self indulged - title wearing, who has the bigger cock mentality is in a bygone era.
johnnylvg 2 years ago
zacsautograph - iv told you why it is relevant (scroll down) and i no your trying to be annoying, im not going to let you.
sirinferno - 1) if you want careerists in parliament then it should be down to the parties PPC and the electorate.
2) having a 18th century system that trusts MPs to much that lets unelected people into our legislator, creates a political class and contradicts this countries value or meritocracy is wrong.
johnnylvg 2 years ago
1. I DON'T want career politicians in parliament, that's what we have at the moment.
2. It didn't trust MPs to[sic] much, because you had the watchdog of the constitution, in the form of the House of Lords. They might have been unelected, but they protected British values.
I don't see where you're getting this idea that Britain, or indeed any democratic country is or should be a perfect meritocracy.
sirinferno 2 years ago
sirinferno - sorry made a typo. if you 'dont' want careerists.
the HOL hasn't done much. the talented people inside it have. if ur referring to the good people in the lords who have contributed greatly. i have nothing against them, and in actaul fact, implore them to do more - in select committees, as consultants,
the fact that we have to reward patriotism to british values with class titles is wrong
we both agree that there needs to be limits on politicians, you say lords, i say statue
johnnylvg 2 years ago
*i say lords AND self-restraint.
statute = rules. and we've seen what badly formulated rules accomplish...
meh
sirinferno 2 years ago
meh
johnnylvg 2 years ago
"*i say lords AND self-restraint."
But who will enforce the "self-restraint" :-)
mrpmorris 2 years ago
enforced self restraint? seems a bit of an oxymoron
sirinferno 2 years ago
"enforced self restraint? seems a bit of an oxymoron"
Which is why it qualifies as a joke :-)
We have tried self-restraint already, it was the complete lack of any kind of restraint from some people that got us where we are now.
mrpmorris 2 years ago
some? quite a few; including the leader of the 'opposition' party
sirinferno 2 years ago
"some?"
I was just avoiding saying "all", which I very much doubt is the case.
mrpmorris 2 years ago
Who cares what these people think? This dumbing down is worrying. Jodie Marsh will be presenting Newsnight soon enough.
thAchauffeur 2 years ago
I'm not as educated as every else that has posted a comment; so I'm just going to say:
"Interesting."
And leave it there.
niallswand 2 years ago
Lack of education is not equal to lack of intelligence, and certainly not a lack of importance.
"Everyone is worth hearing, unfortunately not everyone is worth listening to." - Hopefully I just made that up :-)
I'd like to read your thoughts before deciding if I disagree with them or not.
mrpmorris 2 years ago
why are you replying that too me? :-)
niallswand 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
zacsautograph, you obviously don't understand our law, because if you did, you'd realize it's a crisis. as i said before. the highest body in the land is parliament (a centralized self-regulator body). nothing is above it, yet because of this scandals, we now have to regulate our highest institution and because our constitution dictates nothing is above it. it underminds our law(constitution) making it a crisis. thus we need clarity, a codified constitution gives us that clarity. that help?
johnnylvg 2 years ago
Surely a government unable to act is merely a sign of political atrophy and impotence?
There are already checks and balances, like the Lords and conventions? I think within reason, being elected does mean you can do what you want? then 4 years later, you can have ur authority withdrawn...
what does any of this have to do with expenses scandals?!
zacsautograph 2 years ago
Lol! Tbh I don't know how we've ended up here! The whip system is rotten as Dan pointed out and it is the tip of the iceberg in the distrust of our system. Changing this will help restore trust in our MPs at least. We'll agree to disagree!
perkin158 2 years ago
Yes, we get it, you're promoting Daniel (subtly...), but it's become startlingly apparent that whips do not relate to the issue at hand. Whips do not make anyone distrust a system, they simply ensure that the government maintains the authority that we granted it...
zacsautograph 2 years ago
Daniel was the best candidate and I think based on his answers and background, he is the best candidate to represent the people. Well Iraq highlighted my point and the distrust that followed helped by the whips. Btw the question wasn't directly about the expenses scandal it was what can be done to gain public trust. Poor question really.
perkin158 2 years ago
Comment removed
zacsautograph 2 years ago
"Whips do not make anyone distrust a system"
They are one of the 2 main reasons I distrust the system. The person voted to represent me votes against my wishes?
"they simply ensure that the government maintains the authority that we granted it"
I didn't grant a government authority. I voted in an individual to represent my views.
mrpmorris 2 years ago
To clarify. - The person voted to represent my views can vote against my wishes, and we all have to accept it because "it's the party line".
The other thing that loses my trust is the dishonesty of politicians, but until politicians are fully accountable to the electorates we will never see any real change.
mrpmorris 2 years ago
Perkin, surely when you vote, you don't vote for your MP to represent you, you vote for your government and ur PM. I don't want to vote for an impotent and pointless government that can't do anything because of petty rebelling MPs. We have plenty of checks and balances on govt power. Why have you seen an expenses scandal and decided that means the govt is a tyrant?
The govt doesn't have to put cases forward, it's the GOVT, not a pressure group!
zacsautograph 2 years ago
If the petty rebelling MPs as you put it do block any govt policy then clearly this is a sign of a good system. If the major party is putting policy through and it finds the majority of its MPs are not with them, then surely this means that the party isn't following its ethos which it was charged to pursue?! Sure, you are bound to get an individual being petty, but a big collective thats saying something. The whips distort this. Just because you're elected in doesnt mean youcan do what you want!
perkin158 2 years ago
Comment removed
johnnylvg 2 years ago
If the government doesn't have to put cases forward, how will it command the consent of the people? How will it substantiate radical changes, how will it defend actions that may breach human rights?
You paint the picture of a parliament that should be filled with yes men, when we all know scrutiny creates the most rigorous bills.
IWillFindAWayOrMake1 2 years ago
Johnny (although you're billed as Jonny on the show), you keep saying our constitution doesn't work, that it's in a crisis. What does that mean? the constitution is so abstract, you're going to have to substantiate what you're actually talking about...Is your problem that badly paid MPs made the most of a weak system, or the lack of a separation of powers?! what exactly is your point? the constitution is sinking? it's existed hundreds of years, i don't think this incident proves it's broken.
zacsautograph 2 years ago
Comment removed
johnnylvg 2 years ago
Perkin158 , the whips clearly are not a bad thing, they guarantee that the mandate actually is given to government to carry out their manifesto, it's not up to individual MPs to hijack the authority granted by the electorate for their own pettty views
zacsautograph 2 years ago
I disagree. In the case of the Iraq war, whips had a large influence on the vote. MPs should of voted on what their constituents thought, not what the whips told them to. The way whips conduct their business is sleezy and dirty. Ofcourse whips may have their advantage in achieving a consensus, but I think it should be down to the govt to put a strong case forward and let the MPs rationally decide. This is more democratic. Not put a poor case forward yet still get the whips to get MP support.
perkin158 2 years ago
Glad to see someone has a good grasp of our constitution.
IWillFindAWayOrMake1 2 years ago
But they shouldn't be representing their own "petty views" in the first place, they are not the delegates of their party, not the representatives of their own personal judgements, but the representatives of their constituents solely like Edmund Burke propagated clearly in his 1774 address to the electorate of Bristol. MP's should be independent, which sidles well with the separation of powers doctrine, they should not be coerced by whips or anyone for that matter, but their constituents.
IWillFindAWayOrMake1 2 years ago
IWillFindAWayOrMake1: "they are not the delegates of their party"
It's about time this was realised. Daniel mentioned it too. People accept that politicians vote against their will on cases of "party matters" - Nick Clegg + European referendum for example.
MP's are ordered what to do by their party. I strongly suspect parties are "persuaded" by their campaign sponsors.
It's top->down. It should be bottom->up. Us doing the telling, and MPs getting fired by us if we are unhappy.
Independent!
mrpmorris 2 years ago
The panellists weren't at all bad. Overawed, maybe, but that's understandable given that many of them may never have been on television before. As a generalisation, the entire panel seemed overly concerned with using big words and trying to look clever and appear like lefty pin up boys than make a valid point. Miss Burlton actually made some great points without pretending everything is an absolute. Maybe it's because she's a woman. Or maybe it's because she doesn't live up her own arse.
porkachov 2 years ago
perkin158 - what is wrong with you?!
you thought Daniel was good?!!
he was so startlingly out of his depth - he couldn't answer the first question and started spouting nonsense about whips. Do these people not understand the questions are just not feel like answering them?? Only Sue understood what she was being asked, and could give a non-ridiculous response!!
And all this obsession with consitutional reform from people that don't seem to understand it (it's your rights...sir......???)
zacsautograph 2 years ago
Lol! I don't think he was out of his depth. What I liked about Daniel was the fact he kept his cool throughout and gave some good answers. What he was touching at was the way parliament operates and highlighting the dirty tricks, which happen inside. The question was about regaining trust, and sorting the whip system out is a start in regaining that trust between MP and constituent. Some MPs abstain on matters because of the whips. It's rotten!
perkin158 2 years ago 5
Thank God for Newsnight!
jennyqj1 2 years ago 2
Most of these candidates aren't speaking from the heart and are saying what people want to hear, not what they truly believe. I think Daniel is the best candidate out of them. He can compose himself well and put across some good arguments. All the others are a turn off - Liam ..." a valid point and I can't rememeber it"!!! and finally when Sue laughed when Liam said "over 1 million have died over this", and she found it appropriate to laugh! - just shows how immature she is!
perkin158 2 years ago
Sorry, if I could just interject. You condemn me for laughing at Liam saying that over a million people have died, but I think you'll find I was giggling at his qualification that the deaths were not my personal fault.
ohmygaloshes 2 years ago
I still don't understand why that was funny? The death of 1 million people as Liam put it is not a laughing matter in any context. In my eyes it was a misjudged response to an emotional truth.
perkin158 2 years ago
ive put off trying to comment on this video but ive gotta say something here.
a number of this provoked suzanne's laughter. My change of tone, my awareness of how i was coming across, my change in facial expression.
The fact is not what she was laughing at, she was laughing with me at my over-agressive behaviour.
lager1188 2 years ago 3
I'm sorry, but that couldn't be more further from the truth! My point wasn't the "fact" that she was laughing at, but at her inappropriate giggle. There was no need to laugh within this topic no matter what you said. To me, it highlighted her immatureness. Thats just how it came across to me when I watched it.
perkin158 2 years ago
wanker
BIGPRO83 2 years ago
whatever you racist fuck
lager1188 2 years ago
"whatever you racist f..."
Well, I think that just about rules you out of being chosen, doesn't it?
mrpmorris 2 years ago
potentially, but i swore in front of just about everyone on the day and didnt get any funny looks.
swearings just a part of the language, and when a racists has a go at me, theyve gotta expect a bit back. im not just gonna sit there and take it.
lager1188 2 years ago
"swore in front of...everyone on the day"
Ah, so you weren't going to be chosen anyway.
"when a racists has a go at me...a bit back"
Yeah, but resorting to explicit abuse isn't giving some back, it's just making yourself look bad.
By the way, just because he supports the BNP don't assume he is racist, he might just have a low IQ.
mrpmorris 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
what century do you live in? people swear these days... its just the social evolution of the english language.
and he is a racist, he has the phrase "i'll fight till every last muslim is out of britain" so a tit for tat response is about the only thing is tiny mind can understand.
lager1188 2 years ago
"He is a racist" - possibly yes, but Islaam is a religion and not a race, I often see white muslims.
"people swear these days", sure they do, I use bad language like punctuation, but I wouldn't use it in a job interview, and I wouldn't use it on a forum which exists to help decide if I should be on Question Time.
If you can't control your temper when applying for the position then why would the BBC risk you losing it on TV?
I just think you made a mistake, that's all.
mrpmorris 2 years ago 5
wanker
BIGPRO83 2 years ago
Fourth person on the left (boy near to Mr Dimbleby)
Personality qualities are shocking. Never looks at the audiances, which is a slightly worrying when they consist of only young producers and their parents. Seems too sarcastic and unable to debate properly. Needs to develop from childlike manner.
sadaqut 2 years ago
I freely acknowledge the fact that I didn't look at the audience and am cross with myself for not doing so. However - I can assure you that this was not due to nervousness and was down to inexperience. I fully believe that this issue can be resolved quickly and easily!
MrTomWyatt 2 years ago
Third person- Mr Dimbleby
At times felt confused with what each person had raised. His facial impressions and tone of voice tells the viewer that "these kids don't know anything"
sadaqut 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Second person on the right (girl)- Worst performance ever, i have never seen such worst performance on debate shows. Her lack of knowledge in politics and in my view her speaking skills appear too much philospical than political. Wrong place madem. Overall the worse from all
sadaqut 2 years ago
My assessment of each individual
First person on the right- Extremely finding it difficult to raise his view from the dabate and always overshadowed- In my view he won't be able to cope withe the real debate. Improve on it.
sadaqut 2 years ago 2
For me, Tom was the most articulate and as a young person best represented my views and the views of the majority of my piers.
dancingiloveit 2 years ago 2
I vote for Liam. Very articulate and sensible.
ZoltanRick 2 years ago
What's wrong with Tom? what does a separation of powers have to do with a scandal involving MPs?? and Jonny does the same thing, what does a codified constitution have to do with MPs' behaviour? and daniel seems to think that a decentralisation of power will solve a problem that is in no way related...? did he just have no opinion on the question asked and start talking about some issue that he liked?
zacsautograph 2 years ago
the reason why i said, i wanted a codified constitution as well as many of the other suggestions, was because i dont believe our current system of parliamentary sovereignty is works. we have given are parliament/(thus the exective) to much power.
we should have popular sovereignty because the power should lie with the people. the Mps expenses scandal has shown why are constitutional convention of self regulation doesn't work and there should be restrictions on power.
Johnny.
johnnylvg 2 years ago
i'm getting a lot of comments saying i wasn't that insightful or that i wasn't different .... i must explain..... i was sent on there to represent young people from age 13 - 25 and not just fellow politicos who know and have studied our system.
also, i would like to point out that, I was the ONLY ONE to suggest we should abolish our constitution.
you don't have much time to explain why in 20 minutes, when every panelist has to have a fair say.
in the show i will have more time.
johnnylvg 2 years ago
in what ways is abolishing a constitution a proportionate response to MPs using their expenses too liberally? This just seems like scapegoatism about the recession...
Besides, you really want a codified constitution that doesn't have a bill of rights or separation of powers, so much as one that sets out what MPs' can spend their expenses on?! You want a referendum for every quotidian change??
zacsautograph 2 years ago
I'll tell you a way. our constitution is in such a crisis that we've now given an independent body regulation over our own parliament, taking away its sovereignty. what other evidence do you need do you need that the system doesnt work?
we have an executive that gets to much power, takes more than 55% of the legislator and is less accountable each election.
The expenses scandal was merrily a tiny hole in a sinking ship that is our constitution.
a walking contradiction of meritocracy.
johnnylvg 2 years ago
our constitution is perfectly fine, it's those persons working within the constitution that are rotten.
sirinferno 2 years ago
perfectly fine (meaning it could be improved) or perfect?
n our constitution says that no matter what they do. they arn't accountable to the electorate, until a general election because of some silly convention by the queen.
no impeachment or recall. There is no limit of power. if they want to stop freedom of information or an attack on our liberties, they can.
johnnylvg 2 years ago
Johnny, i rather agree with you about government having too much power without formal restrictions. There are still plenty of uncodified checks and balances that work fine
But still, the question was about the expenses scandal. in what way is talking about constiutional reform relevant?
zacsautograph 2 years ago
we've never needed any of these formal measures because 1.) MPs were decent, 2.) the House of Lords was powerful. far better to have a reversion to a previous constitution than constitutional reform, allowing more career politicians and new labourites and unconservatives to get into power.
sirinferno 2 years ago
zacsautograph I didn't state that constitutional reform was a direct reaction to a scandal involving MP's. I stated that it formed part of a wider issue around how Parliament operates and the extent to which citizens can no longer relate to it. In this respect I agree with Johnny in that the expenses issue adds to a pre-existing crisis in British Politics, illustrated by plummeting voter turnout figures and the rise of the BNP.
MrTomWyatt 2 years ago
a crisis concerning how Parliament operates and the extent to which citizens can no longer relate to it, is illustrated by plummeting voter turnout figures and the rise of the BNP?
i see.
in which case, you may like to note that the consumption of chewing gum is closely related to the decrease in legionaries fighting for Rome
sirinferno 2 years ago
Tom: This argument seems incoherent. You suggest that there is a"crisis" in politics (which I assume means voter apathy). You also say that this is a growing problem, and its cause is an uncodified consitution. So people in the past didn't have this crisis...but had the same form of constitution? why could they relate to parliament in the past if not now, if nothing has changed...? explain...
zacsautograph 2 years ago
Firstly - I refer you to my above reply
Secondly - (very briefly) I challenge your interpretation of the past. The British 'constitution' has experienced crisis as with the 'glorious revolution' in which it was renewed and developed. Modern circumstances precipitate such a change today. Also - Parliament has been far less supine in the past compared to today - willing to challenge Monarchs and PM's alike.
MrTomWyatt 2 years ago
Comment removed
daviddavid3 2 years ago
also, what's up with the (painful) faux philosophy:
"Something everyone seeks in one way or another - football, religeon etc."...???
zacsautograph 2 years ago
I did not memorise that 'phrase' and neither did I refuse to stop repeating it. I am not in the habit of making the same point with different words simply to avoid repetition at the cost of clarity. It is a wider debate because, as I illustrated in the below comment, it adds to the cumulative alienation of voters from Parliament.
MrTomWyatt 2 years ago
This, i realise, is effectively the same point as that made by sirinferno: what does your dislike of an uncodified consitution have to do with people not voting? Couldn't an equally good explanation (...well, much better explanation) for low voter turn out be a lack of public engagement in unideological consensus politics?
also I assume you were being ironic with your clearly pleonastic denial of your own prolixity
zacsautograph 2 years ago
I would simply refer you to my previous comments. There is a new crisis in British Politics that necessarily revolves around public engagement with politics. I totally agree with you about 'unideological consensus politics' - this - along with the dominance of the executive in Parliament feeds into a 'wider debate about democracy' - examples of scandal and lack of representation (both within parties and Parliament) all develop an image of the 'ruling elite' being 'in it for themselves'.
MrTomWyatt 2 years ago
What was with all the "this feeds into a wider debate" from the guy with the glasses?
was that the phrase he'd memorised and refused to stop repeating? whys it is a wider debate...!
did like all of them have 1 issue they'd read up on and refuse to let drop? (this relates to the whip system...over and over again...no it's got nothing to do with whips....). i swear susan (sp...?) was the only one who didn't just keep repeating some catchphrase and was actually a bit coherent in her arguments.
zacsautograph 2 years ago 5
I believe Daniel should be the people's panelist. He would be most suitable to represent the views of the public and large and the concerns of young people today also. Suzanne, also would be a great choice.
alisonbateman 2 years ago 3
Suzanne definitely in my opinion, I wish I could have taken the position I was offered rather than doing my exams but I think Suzanne hit the nail on the head more times than the others.
Constitutional reform as a reflex reaction to MP's expenses rather than necessary. Extremely valid point.
As much as it pains me to say another middle class southerner but she was rather more outstanding than the rest.
caversmill 2 years ago
When is constitutional reform not a reflex reaction to scandal? What about the glorious revolution of 1688, no one was going to wait for the king to realise he could not use arbitrary power while unelected.
IWillFindAWayOrMake1 2 years ago
Expenses has been the trigger and almost all notable historical events occur because of a trigger, as proved when charles I entered the house of commons, what happened after this unacceptable abuse of power? CIVIL WAR
IWillFindAWayOrMake1 2 years ago
And the idea of parliamentary sovereignty cannot exist if it is "lead" by a bill of rights.
and if this is such a negative thing, that we have no bill of rights, find me an example of where the lack of it has failed to uphold British residual rights.
42 day detention period, Brown, hindered by the checks and balances already in place! The House Of Lords.
And Jack Straw talking about reform is very different from the Prime Minister having it on his agenda.
caversmill 2 years ago
ofcourse ill give you some examples, the war damage act and burmah oil case saga, mid 1960's. parliament used RETROSPECTIVE legislation to take away rights that the individuals clearly held, not residually but under common law, a rule of law breach from parliament of significant proportions.
The government was not hindered but advised since parliament is unconstrained they could quite easily have passed legislation overruling that judgement, subject ofcourse to EU law considerations.
IWillFindAWayOrMake1 2 years ago
Sure those are two different things, but the statement does not carry weight since, it is on the agenda of the prime minister as he has explained for some time and as displayed by his recent constitutional renewal statement.
I didn't quite get your last point, but I assume you mean that our political system has become more robust? To an extent I agree with you, we need to have more trust in our political system. and i especially agree with your final statement regarding wider purpose and
IWillFindAWayOrMake1 2 years ago
One final thing,
This was when Britain was under a monarch with unrestrained powers, a dictatorship.
The necessity for change was clearly apparant, now we have a democracy with a stable unpolitical figurehead at the top, which presides over a number of governments and so has a wider viewpoint.
As well as embracing Britains heritage and history, giving us all a feeling of involvement in a wider purpose. Something everyone seeks in one way or another - football, religeon etc.
caversmill 2 years ago
our history, but at the same time we should always be open to minor or in some situations some major tweaks/changes especially since the executive now dominates the legislature there can be no argument against that, and in addition because MPs can very readily be seen as the delegates of their party not of their constituents.
IWillFindAWayOrMake1 2 years ago
And its not like reform was not on the agenda, Jack Straw has been talking about reform ever since the constitutional reform act was enacted and rightly so, we have a parliament that is "sovereign" and unconstrained, with no bill of rights to lead it.
And who cares if she's middle class and a "southerner" this is no place for pathetic class squabbles, but she clearly was wrong to deny a wider debate accrues from the scandal, a shocking judgement she failed to substantiate.
IWillFindAWayOrMake1 2 years ago
No place for a class squabble? I think you will find that politics, especially in Britain has always been about a class squabble. So I don't know what country your'e from.
And my reason for saying so is a middle class southerner must find it hard to understand the real world when they have never encountered it.
And constitutional reform is unnecessary and most agree the whole electoral system idea from Brown is only because he stands a better chance of winning the next election with it!
caversmill 2 years ago
On the class squabble point, with respect to your opinion, I find it difficult to see how you could just put her in an adhoc category of a middle class southerner based presumably on the way she speaks and presents herself. Incidentally I've encountered lots of "working class" people who speak like her.
I didnt say politics is no place for a class squabble but merely this show to imply she should not have been considered because of her suposed class seems an odd, archaic position to take.
IWillFindAWayOrMake1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I converse with my son only and no other living or dead.
Godtomanonly 2 years ago
Liam seems like he's a great guy and may have performed better on his day but to say he was "the best" and "articulate" is beyond a joke what video were you watching? On balance NONE of the panel stood out as winners, just like last year but Tom and Daniel were the best of a poor bunch by a mile.
IWillFindAWayOrMake1 2 years ago