RayC

Only one person showing their bias. Anyone is free to apply to be a member of the QT audience. Audience members are selected based on age, gender, occupation, ethnicity, disability status, voting intention, voting history, and party membership in order to get a political balance. They do sometimes 'fail' (deliberately) to achieve a balance. For example, last year an audience consisted solely of people who had all voted Brexit. Wrt the panels. The link lists the individuals who have sat on the panels by episode. I looked at this year's panels. Unsurprisingly, there is no left-wing bias as you suggest: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Question_Time_episodes#2024

My default position is that referendums should be kept to a minimum. The UK has a parliamentary democracy. We elect MPs to represent us and the largest party to govern. I think that there can be little doubt that certain members/ sections of the establishment were anti-Brexit, however, I don't think that had much bearing on the Brexit negotiation process. Once Article 50 was tabled, it was clear that we were going to leave. However, Article 50 was not triggered until 27 March 2017, 9 months or so after the referendum. Imo the government should have had a plan and strategy for negotiation prior to the referendum "just in case", but there is no excuse for them not having one when we entered the formal negotiations. Having said all that, I don't think that it would have made much difference as the EU were always in the stronger position, and were always going to dictate the terms and conditions of any deal Although I never thought Johnson fit to be PM, he undoubtedly had a mandate to govern. However, he relinquished this mandate as a result of his actions. Imo he has no one to blame but himself. Similar story for the Tory Party as a whole. They have wasted their majority and destroyed their credibility as a result of their in-fighting. No one to blame but themselves. I agree that the UK government has, in general, been ineffective but the same might be said of the German government. With better leadership perhaps both countries would have escaped recession? However, wrt Brexit (the EU) imo more specific questions need to be answered. Would Germany's economic performance been better outside of the EU? I have not seen any reports suggesting that might have been the case. However wrt the UK, report after report suggests that leaving the EU has had a negative economic effect on the UK. In response to these reports, Brexiter's often cite bias on the part of the authors. However, when challenged they are unable to point to this bias and/or other errors in the reports' methodologies. A second line of defence is that Brexit wasn't 'done right'. Imo the only 'harder' Brexit possible was "No Deal". How that would have improved matters is again unclear. The third line of defence is that Brexit isn't complete, the benefits are yet to be seen. Notwithstanding the fact that there have been no trade deals signed with any of the major economic powers, how long do we have to wait for these benefits to materialise? 10/20/50 years? To misquote Keynes, "In the long run we are all dead". Bottom line: Imo Brexit has significantly damaged the UK not just economically but in many other ways too e.g. diplomatically, academically, culturally, etc.

I agree with your conclusion but not with your premise. Recent governments have set a target inflation rate of 2%. Between 2009 - 2021, the BoE was fairly successful at meeting that target (2011 was the only year when the annual rate was above 3%). From March 2009 until December 2021, the base rate never rose above 0.75%. A rate anything like 6% could have never have been justified. The base rate has to be set in accordance with the prevailing economic conditions not the historical average or a gut feeling.

Why 6%? Would you raise rates now? If so, that's a .75% increase at a time when growth seems to be stagnant at best. I can't see how that helps the economy recover.

What 'truth' is that, Bob? That the answer to Islamic terrorism is to kill all Muslims? Anyone who believes that is evil and/or mad.

Err ... Corbyn is no longer leader of the Labour Party and Diane Abbott has had the Labour whip removed so there is next to no chance of either eventuality.

I agree. Let's leave it at that.

No I won't be accompanying her to the ritual because there will not be a ritual. You've clarified that you are serious. I can't understand how you - and others - can have such a warped view of 25% of the world's population, so there really is no point in continuing this discussion.

If this is a wind-up, it's not very tasteful but you did have me going. If you are serious then I'm lost for words and I'll leave it at that.

Zealots who use religion as an excuse to commit violence are not my friends. Only a simpleton could think that 1.8 billion Muslims are all religious zealots with blood on their hands.

Yeah, I read it. Did you watch the clip? The Bible and Koran are both full of violence and contradiction. Imo both are as bad as one another. You won't get me defending zealots who use religion or the texts to wage war whatever their faith.

Sorry for the delay (see my previous post) Gentle reminder: You haven't answered my previous question. Repeated (paraphrased below for ease of reference) So what's your solution (to achieve world peace)? Forcable conversion of 1.8 billion Muslims? And those that refuse to convert? What happens to them?

Right. So that is a justification for eradicating Islam? How about eradicating Christianity based on this example? (plenty more examples where that came from; skip to 1'05" for the Biblical quote, although imo whole clip worth a watch)

Why don't you spell it out for me? I'm an idiot, remember?

So what's your solution? Forcable conversion of 1.8 billion people? And those that refuse to convert?

Muzzers - Nice derogatory term 1.8 billion people are Muslims and you think that it's perfectly reasonable and understandable to dislike them for that reason? No more questions. You're doing fine incriminating yourself without my help.

Starmer hasn't ruled out tax rises. He has only ruled out increasing income tax rates.

I agree 100% that "Once Brexit passed, disruptions to the British economy were inevitable". However, I don't see how you can possibly absolve the Tories from blame. Look at the evidence: Cameron, Tory PM, called an unnecessary referendum for purely selfish reasons. Nearly half of all Tory MPs campaigned in favour of Brexit. Cameron's replacement, May, ensured that there would be a 'hard' Brexit by effectively ruling out joining the EEA and any continuation of either the Customs Union and membership of the Single Market early in the negotiations ("Brexit means Brexit"). Her replacement, Johnson, made a bad situation worse by continually insulting and antagonising the EU. To give Sunak deserved credit, he has, at least attempted to rebuild our relationship with the EU, and he has had some success. Nevertheless, imo there are plenty of reasons to blame successive Tory governments for the fiasco that is Brexit.

I broadly agree. I think you are correct to suggest that some European nations need to contribute much more, both financially and logistically, to ensure the security of Europe. However, unfortunately, even if all the European NATO members were to meet their financial obligations tomorrow, it will be a long time before Europe is able to defend itself without US assistance. https://riponsociety.org/article/nato-at-75/

Imo Abbott is a fool and has, quite rightly, had the Labour whip removed. Unfortunately, she is still a member of the Labour Party. However, let's not pretend that anti-Semitism is an exclusively Labour Party problem. Unfortunately, there are plenty of examples of anti-Semitism within the Conservative Party as well https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_UK_Conservative_Party

So to sum up anti-Semitism is wrong (I agree) but Islamophobia is ok?

What will?

Absolutely nothing. (I think that you directed your question to the wrong person. Someone else decided to introduce race into the discussion)

I'm willing to engage in constructive debate with you at any point, Jonny. However, for that to happen you'll need to stop playing the 'race bait' card whenever you are challenged to justify your position.

Not in the slightest. If you look at my exchanges with others I disagree with, accusations of 'race baiting' and 'racism' have never been mentioned. I'd say that anyone who comes to a conclusion based on a false premise and extremely limited information looks a bit stupid.