Army Rumour Service

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Question Time Commentary

The Week in 60 Minutes with Andrew Neil


Description:
Host Andrew Neil is joined by Dr Flavio Toxvaerd, an economic epidemiologist from the University of Cambridge; Sir Graham Brady, chairman of the Conservative backbench group, the 1922 Committee; and a selection of Spectator journalists. On this week's episode: // Is Rishi Sunak turning the money taps off? (4:00) // Dr Flavio Toxvaerd explains the economics behind infections (19:40) // Sir Graham Brady tells Andrew why Tory MPs are rebelling over the latest Covid restrictions (30:10) // What does a dispute with the US over Iran mean for British foreign policy?
 
Live with Littlewood was worth watching. As expected optimism was down on last week, partly economy but a lot of it to do with loss of liberty (Labour would want even more draconian laws). Mike and Steve gave optimistic scores of 7 and 6. Yes there's stuff to be concerned about but also some optimism. Looking further ahead, Toby thinks it will be Rishi vs Starmer in 2024.
Far more informative than any QT showing, even if the the speakers are overwhelmingly economically and socially other than the hard/soft left, and the 'liberal' political type. Economically more grounded and consequentially probably a little more genuinely progressive. The guest cast of this show (is that what it is?) was both pro (optimistic) and anti (pessimistic) on the Government's position on all sorts of issues, but generally realistic, which can't be said of any QT panel's set of opinions. I do wish they'd include some good academic views from the sensible Left (there are some), and there are some like O'Neill who make the others bristle a bit, but that adds to the possibility that views can be changed by their logic. If only Scruton was still around.

If Littlewood wants to expand the attraction value to his little show, he'll bring in more of the social and societal opinion elements; the last third of of this week's one was probably more interesting to the less economically-educated, especially in the current hateful atmosphere which has been artificially engineered by the more zealous political elements among us. Sorry to have to say it (as a committed* misogynist), but it was the women* speaking who raised the really relevant points on this, and they were wholly right. Of course, it's the IEA's product, so that possibly won't happen, but I do think that it's still within their remit.

* Pissov
 
Far more informative than any QT showing, even if the the speakers are overwhelmingly economically and socially other than the hard/soft left, and the 'liberal' political type. Economically more grounded and consequentially probably a little more genuinely progressive. The guest cast of this show (is that what it is?) was both pro (optimistic) and anti (pessimistic) on the Government's position on all sorts of issues, but generally realistic, which can't be said of any QT panel's set of opinions. I do wish they'd include some good academic views from the sensible Left (there are some), and there are some like O'Neill who make the others bristle a bit, but that adds to the possibility that views can be changed by their logic. If only Scruton was still around.

If Littlewood wants to expand the attraction value to his little show, he'll bring in more of the social and societal opinion elements; the last third of of this week's one was probably more interesting to the less economically-educated, especially in the current hateful atmosphere which has been artificially engineered by the more zealous political elements among us. Sorry to have to say it (as a committed misogynist), but it was the women speaking who raised the really relevant points on this, and they were wholly right. Of course, it's the IEA's product, so that possibly won't happen, but I do think that it's still within their remit.
Yes, I was very glad I watched it for a number of reasons. I expected an economic downer but this was balanced by some historical context. The awareness of the threat to free speech and free thought seems to be gaining traction but I wasn't aware of the numbers of politicians and journalists now realising that. Credit to Toby and his free speech union. Yes, they are mostly fans of free trade, small state, low tax, free speech and minimal state interference but there is often a wide range within that. Littlewood is a master at hosting the show and clearly knows his stuff.

I think the furthest left they have had on was former communist Claire Fox (Peter Hitchins was also a Trotskyist as a student). As you say Brendan O'Neil has appeared from the left. Soc Dems centre/centre-left and libertarian conservatives to the right.

Increasing popularity is fine but they won't do it at any cost. As Mark says, they will happily take donations but not to change their research, policies or principles. Also, dumbing down would be counter-productive.

Andrew Neil's This week in 60 minutes Episode 4 was also informative. I like Katy Balls. She is really sharp. Former IEA Kate Andrews was there too in her new role with the Spectator. The scientist was interesting. Rather than treating economics and epidemic separately, he said they need to be considered together due to the complex interactions of cause and effect. Treating one side rather than both can be a problem. Sounds like a sensible if complicated holistic approach.
 
Last edited:
Yes, yes, yes.
They’ve passed through half a dozen ‘safe’ countries to get here mate.
They could’ve & should’ve sat down as soon as they reached Italy, Greece etc
 
Every person under 21 seems to have ‘mental health’ problems nowadays, often for a series of non issues that people of my generation would simply shrug or laugh off.
Seems it’s a catch all ‘look at me, I’m different’ statement.
 

Euclid

War Hero
The SNP cnut Linden is basically, well, a cnut. And ‘mental health’ is really just a bollox expression to justify general malingering and lack of backbone. And it belittles those unfortunate few with genuine mental health issues.

As for Fiona Bruce - great legs.
 
The SNP cnut Linden is basically, well, a cnut. And ‘mental health’ is really just a bollox expression to justify general malingering and lack of backbone. And it belittles those unfortunate few with genuine mental health issues.

As for Fiona Bruce - great legs.

Exactly my thinking. It dilutes the impact for genuine cases.

102 years ago people of their age were standing in queues outside recruiting offices. Did the RSM go up & down the line asking if everyone’s mental health was ok?
 

Karamoja

War Hero
The SNP cnut Linden is basically, well, a cnut. And ‘mental health’ is really just a bollox expression to justify general malingering and lack of backbone. And it belittles those unfortunate few with genuine mental health issues.

As for Fiona Bruce - great legs.

Wish she would wear tights though.
 

NSP

LE
Exactly my thinking. It dilutes the impact for genuine cases.

102 years ago people of their age were standing in queues outside recruiting offices. Did the RSM go up & down the line asking if everyone’s mental health was ok?
One hundred and six, five, four, or three. One hundred and two years ago everyone was most excited to learn that on the eleventh day of the eleventh month at the eleventh hour it would all be over.
 
Last edited:

Latest Threads

Top