Saturday, 16 January 2010

Question Time blog

Question Time is back and I enjoy listening to the programme for inspiration for these blogs. The best ideas come from the moment when you are ready to throw something at the TV screen. This happened with the first question of the evening which concerned Alistair Campbell standing behind every word of the Iraq dossier. He knew the country was going to war well before Peter Hain knew. Mr Hain admitted that he didn't know but then tried to defend the cabinet decision even though they didn't take part in it.

It is the role of a cabinet minister to show a united front but Peter Hain's defence of something he didn't know anything about verged on the ridiculous. He was sure "beyond doubt" that Saddam had the weapons. The truth of course is that the weapons investigators were told to pull out of Iraq, and the more they investigated, the more they thought that there were no weapons. Peter Hain is clear that he should have taken the opposite view and he still defends this view. The question was about Alistair Campbell who defends every word. Well he has to say that doesn't he but who actually believes him? The cabinet minister's defence was so weak and nobody is in a better position to defend the actions.

The comedian Shappi Khorsandi looked embarrassed to admit that she supported Labour and tried to say that all other parties would have come to the same conclusion if they were in power. I think she was trying to say that power corrupts, but it was quite clear that the Liberal Democrats were not of the same opinion and would not have gone to war.

The other moment when I was ready to shout at the television was when Peter Hain told us that the country was split down the middle. I only remember public outrage.

Change the world


  1. I thought Khorsandi's comments were outrageous - I'm sick to death of hearing these cowardly lying Labour celebs trying to justify their own voting habits.

  2. Thanks John. Yes I agree. I wrote this blog fairly late in the evening and if I had checked it I would have been stronger in my comments. She is saying that the opposition is just as corrupt without power than the government which is obviously corrupt. It's a good argument for a totalitarian state. I happen to think some people may not be corrupted even with power, and changes of government are a good thing.