Yes, I do. But more critical of any right-wing views in general. They go easier on the Tories than UKIP, for example. But they are clearly left-leaning. As I keep pointing out - week after week the QT audience is full of animal-noise making pinkos who are pro-mass immigration. This is clearly at odds with the majority opinion in this country.
They completely accept Gideon's views on the deficit and therefore the need for austerity. They're more socially liberal than you or UKIP, but then so is the current government. I don't care of they're "more critical of any right wing views in general", because that doesn't change whether they're pro-Establishment or not.
Why do you always feel the need to dehumanise/slander those you don't agree with?week after week the QT audience is full of animal-noise making pinkos who are pro-mass immigration.
Do they?Originally Posted by Toby
When they perceive the current government as right wing of course it matters. Anyway, since this is the QT thread I will lead my crusade on that front. The hard left has always been given a ready platform on the show. Will Self, Mehdi Hassan, George Galloway - how many times has a right wing equivalent of those lot been on? Once, and was hounded off.They're more socially liberal than you or UKIP, but then so is the current government. I don't care of they're "more critical of any right wing views in general", because that doesn't change whether they're pro-Establishment or not.
Those people who drown out legitimate views with animal noises deserve slander. It's always the left you get this from as well.
They don't perceive the current government as right wing, they'd consider them (at least outwardly) as centrist.
Melanie Phillips has been on far more than any of those three since the the Tories entered government.
As if Melanie Phillips is the hard right
She was a Guardian writer/editor for 20 years. You've obviously not realised you've been conditioned to think that centre-right = far-right. This is not the case.
If Mehdi Hassan is the 'hard left' (which he isn't), then Melanie Philips surely counts as hard right. We could do with a sliding scale really, since it seems to be drawing equivalence between Will Self and Nick Griffin.
She's not, but she's comparable to Will Self (or Mehdi Hassan).As if Melanie Phillips is the hard right
She was a Guardian writer/editor for 20 years. You've obviously not realised you've been conditioned to think that centre-right = far-right. This is not the case.
Will Self isn't even that left wing is he? He's more twat wing.
Melanie Phillips is an (actual) neo con.
That's because you don't understand the far-left when you see it.
To Jimmy - NeoCon does not = far right.
Yes, it certainly looks like me not understanding things here.
If you've got something to say, say it. Those kind of glib comments add nothing.
I notice you didn't even try to defend Galloway of the charge. A regular on QT, of course. I could have included Owen Jones, too.
I won't 'defend' Galloway of anything because he's a fucking idiot.
I've said what I have to say, but your grasp on reality is too thin for there to be much value in saying any more. As Lewis points at, that you suggest Will Self is more comparable to Nick Griffin than to Melanie Phillips shows how seriously the subject should be taken with you.
Owen Jones has been on it four times - ever - which is considerably less than the likes of Douglas Murray or Peter Hitchens.
A far left idiot, yes? Who is continually chosen to appear on QT with no equivalent from the right. That's my point.
Neither Murray or Hitchens are far right. You need to learn what it is to be far right.
The Griffin equivalent is Galloway. The other 2 are far left journalists/self publicists. There is no right wing equivalent. Phillips continually denounces the far right - something I don't recall Self or Hassan doing with regards to the far left.
Anyway, Daily Politics has Farage on, so pipe down. Time to bathe in excellence.
I never claimed they were. You need to learn to read the arguments put in front of you, not the ones you want to have.
The far-left equivalent of Nick Griffin would be somebody like Robert Griffiths or the nearest pleb from the Workers Revolutionary Party. George Galloway is more equivalent to Nigel Farage.
Okay, ignore that, and explain why it is that the definitely far-left Galloway has been on so often and no right-wing equivalent has?
No, you're incorrect. Galloway has made it very clear he will not debate with any Israeli and walked out of a debate a couple of years ago, remarking ''I don't debate with Israelis". That's clear bigotry.
How does being an anti-Semite make him a 'member of the far-left?'
He was being anti-Israeli by his statement, not anti-semite. The far-left are always pro-Palestine, of course.
If 'far right' is exclusively fascist, then 'far left' should be actual communists. George Galloway isn't a communist, for all of his other quirks, and he himself has said that his approach to politics is quite similar to Farage's, even making a point of saying UKIP voters aren't all racists (which is obvious, but still the belief of some twats). That's probably why they apparently get on so well.
I don't agree that he's "definitely far-left".
If we pretend he is, then Galloway was still an MP until the latest election, and I can't think of any "far right" equivalents you could say that of. I'd agree with you that Galloway is on too much but I don't agree that it reflects a left wing bias.
It isn't. It's authoritarianism, among other things. If the far left is just communists then the coming swathe of Labour twats appearing on QT would easily outnumber any far-right equivalent, anyway. So my case would be even more solid.
They get on well primarily because they both want Britain to remain Britain and to leave the EU.George Galloway isn't a communist, for all of his other quirks, and he himself has said that his approach to politics is quite similar to Farage's, even making a point of saying UKIP voters aren't all racists (which is obvious, but still the belief of some twats). That's probably why they apparently get on so well.
The left-wing bias is clear in the audience. It's plainly audible nearly every time an immigration debate is on. I suppose some of it could be the fact that the left tend to get overly-emotive and can't control their outbusts, but you'd think the majority view in the country would draw the odd round of applause of similar magnitude to the 'I love immigrants, me. Doctors! Nurses!' type of comment.
He's given up on the panels argument, folks, we're on to audiences now.
I haven't given up on it at all. I have been banging on about the audience for ages - I've already given a clear argument for the panelists which hasn't been refuted.
They aren't communists either, and if authoritarianism is the main qualifier then the current government is going to take some beating.
Galloway doesn't. He's one of those 'reform and stay' wallies.They get on well primarily because they both want Britain to remain Britain and to leave the EU.
It's been refuted by three or four people now, that you don't agree with the refutation doesn't mean it hasn't existed.
It hasn't. You're trying hard because obviously you could never agree but until you bring up some far right equivalents of the far left then you are very much on the losing side of the argument.
You'll believe anything. The current government is only authoritarian compared to what has gone before in recent times. Broadly speaking, they are not authoritarian at all compared to what that word means in other countries.
He was but he's coming around - https://twitter.com/georgegalloway/s...29697562103808Galloway doesn't. He's one of those 'reform and stay' wallies.
Even before he stated it would need massive reform - and that ain't happening.
While I'm dominating, I came across this quite excellent observation from perpetual hero, Douglas Murray:
And on Twitter laterThe things people say in anger are generally the most revealing things of all. So it was on last night’s Question Time when a clearly very angry Simon Schama confronted Rod Liddle of this parish on the question of migrants.
I’m sure Rod himself will have something to say about this, but I thought it very striking that in a debate over whether the UK should take in millions more economic migrants and asylum seekers, Simon Schama chose to level two insults in particular at Rod.
The first was that Rod is a ‘hack’ who writes for the newspapers. Of course Simon Schama clearly regards his own voluminous contributions to the press on both sides of the Atlantic as being on a far higher plane. Indeed you can find a selection of these immortal pieces preserved in the volume ‘Scribble, Scribble, Scribble: writings on ice cream, Obama, Churchill and my mother.’ Even Simon Schama’s writings on ice cream are clearly works which fly higher in his own estimation than anything by Rod on the biggest issue of our time.
But the other word was even more revealing. In berating comrade Liddle, Professor Scribble denounced him for turning ‘your suburban face away from the plight of the miserable.’ I suppose we will all just have to speculate over what kind of face Simon Schama regards himself as having (metrosexual, aristocratic, epicene?). But that word is one hell of a give-away. Indeed I don’t think any liberal celebrity has slipped quite so conspicuously since Stephen Fry denounced public concern during the MPs expenses scandal as being ‘tedious, bourgeois’.
In that use of ‘suburban’ Schama showed something a lot of us had suspected – which is that for a certain type of globe-trotting international celebrity, any concern for borders, national identity and cultural continuity are not just beneath them, but actively ‘common’. Of course, like so many other advocates of mass immigration, Simon Schama can probably live pretty much where he wants. And if the area around him goes somewhat downhill because the neighbours all start to come from the rougher corners of Eritrea then Simon Schama can move. And he will probably move to a very nice area. But of course not everybody has that choice. And one thing we can all be certain of is that Simon Schama will probably never choose to live in Bradford, Malmo or any of the (dare I say it) ‘suburbs’ outside Paris. Yet all the time he will urge other peoples’ neighbourhoods to more closely resemble those great success stories, and look down at people from an ever-loftier height when they dare to object.
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/201...medium=twitterThanks to all who noted Simon Schama advocates mass immigration for the UK while living in a distinctly monocultural suburb of New York.
I believe I've never seen or heard them advocating communism, if that's what you mean (if you have them link me to it). And yeah that's the point. You're using a fixed definition of 'far right', but not doing so with the 'far left'. Will Self and Mehdi Hassan aren't very left-wing compared to what that word means in other countries.
But he hasn't said he wants 'Britain to remain Britain and to leave the EU'.He was but he's coming around - https://twitter.com/georgegalloway/s...29697562103808
Even before he stated it would need massive reform - and that ain't happening.
I want Britain to be about British.
It very clearly has, we've just hit the point where your reading comprehension goes out the window because you're not sure how to form a proper argument and decide to start acting like a wally instead.
Nobody has accepted the premise that the "far left" are getting regular time on Question Time, so there's no need to name equivalents. There have been various names put forward for right-wing representatives comparable to the left-wing ones you named, who multiple people in the thread have agreed are relevant, but you don't want to accept them as valid comparisons because it doesn't fit with your victim complex.
I'm going on a march.
You've got a few months of prep ahead.
Well, you're never the best on reading between the lines. Corbyn has refused to deny he's a Marxist and lists Marx as his hero. Many in the Labour party and those journalists like Owen Jones who are full Labour fanboys come from families who were in the Communist Party of Great Britain. It doesn't take much working out.
It's hard to pin down a definition which everyone will be happy with, but I think nobody would have hesitation in calling Griffin far-right, would they? In the same respect, I would have no hesitation in calling the people hard left which I have done.And yeah that's the point. You're using a fixed definition of 'far right', but not doing so with the 'far left'. Will Self and Mehdi Hassan aren't very left-wing compared to what that word means in other countries.
It's that lack of reading between the lines again, I fear. We are 100% not going to get massive reforms, so what do you think that will mean?But he hasn't said he wants 'Britain to remain Britain and to leave the EU'.
I'm not going to repeat myself again, but I will let QE Douglas Murray reiterate my points in av even more eloquent fashion:
Again, a massive failure on your part. I was, of course, referring to his support for the 'In' campaign regarding Scottish independence.
It just goes to show, doesn't it, that you don't have to say something word for word for it to be the case.
I hear plenty of Douglas Murray on Question Time, thank you very much.
That's okay, you would never admit you're wrong anyway. I don't think he's ever spoken about BBC Bias on QT, either.
Oh. Right. I suppose them having never done anything to advance the cause of communism is irrelevant when their parents were communists, or if they admire Karl Marx (hard to disagree with what Corbyn said, even if you disagree with Marx's conclusions). It's not so much a failure of 'reading between the lines' as not being a conspiratorial, misinformed loon. Who else falls foul of this sippenhaft logic?
That's because Nick Griffin is 'far-right' according to the sort of widely-used definitions that would only call proper communist plebs 'far-left'. Recognising half of that doesn't mean that you can then just make things up. You're being like those idiots who use 'fascist' to describe anything remotely right-wing.It's hard to pin down a definition which everyone will be happy with, but I think nobody would have hesitation in calling Griffin far-right, would they? In the same respect, I would have no hesitation in calling the people hard left which I have done.
He says nothing will be gained by leaving, which suggests (like all 'reformers') that even if no changes are forthcoming he will elect to stay in.It's that lack of reading between the lines again, I fear. We are 100% not going to get massive reforms, so what do you think that will mean?
I'm not sure why you've quoted this line in isolation in another post as well. In this post you're saying it refers to Europe, and in that one you aren't. Not that it matters. George Galloway does not share Nigel Farage's wish to leave the European Union regardless, which is what you originally claimed (unless you woz writing it wrong).
Ah yes, I note the usual trick of simply not quoting the answers which show you up, hoping you can sidetrack me with other bullshit in the hope it will be forgotten.
Galloway said that in 2013, it seems he is being swayed.
Corbyn and many of his cronies are described as 'far-left' according to virtually all the media, in case you hasn't been awake the last few weeks.
You've obviously not realised that you've been conditioned to think that centre-left equals far-left. This is not the case.
More disingenuous nonsense.
Has he said he definitely wants out? If not then he doesn't have that in common with Nigel Farage.Galloway said that in 2013, it seems he is being swayed.
I haven't seen many examples. The BBC got a bit of stick for constantly referring to him as left-wing, but I suspect that was some dastardly communist plot.Corbyn and many of his cronies are described as 'far-left' according to virtually all the media, in case you hasn't been awake the last few weeks.
I don't know if he's said he definitely wants out. He's clearly sceptical, which is something he certainly has in common. I'm sure you more than agree.
As for the BBC - I've never said it was any kind of conspiracy. As Murray says - it's just people with leftist world views meeting other people with similar world views. It's a university thing, I think.
Reply With Quote
