Question Time

[blueinsa]

You’re of the same ilk. You just can’t see it. That’s fine, but you have your little club that “tells it how it is”.

Old people ranting at the end of a bar syndrome. ;)

My ilk is the vast majority of the population.

 

[blueinsa]

And then occasionally he'll sober up and blame himself for voting for Brexit and an oven ready deal. :)

I wish I was drunk.

Tomorrow night for that though ;-)

 

[Eebo]

Enjoy the show Che :-O

I don't watch it because there is no point expecting a Tory to answer a question, but carry on Alf

 

[metalblue]

i don't mind politicians or anyone having a different view of the World but be please be prepared to answer a simple straightforward question.

It really winds me up that they are either so stupid they can't answer a question or think we are so stupid that we can't see that they are not answering the question.

It's the political equivalent of saying 'no comment' continually in a police interview, the difference being that the people you are disrespecting and avoiding questions from are the people who pay your wages and who you want to vote to keep you in a job. It's the same technique as corporate bullshit speak in business, just meaningless inpenetrable waffle to avoid answering a reasonable question. If you do it enough people get bored and can't be bothered asking, but is really just a way of saying "fuck off I don't have to answer you".

You think that was a simple straightforward question? I doubt she even understood the complexities of what she was asking, particularly as she framed it in the binary.

The activist bloke certainly didn’t.
The politicians didn’t want to show they didn’t, or appreciated it would require some hours to answer.
And I can’t recall what the funny old bloke said.

I do get the general point of your post however.

 

[Eebo]

You think that was a simple straightforward question? I doubt she even understood the complexities of what she was asking, particularly as she framed it in the binary.

The activist bloke certainly didn’t.
The politicians didn’t want to show they didn’t, or appreciated it would require some hours to answer.
And I can’t recall what the funny old bloke said.

I do get the general point of your post however.

I understood her to be asking the question "how will allowing a multinational company to drill for oil improve energy security?" as the Tories claimed.

Mercer simply kept repeating again and again that it would be more secure with absolutely no specifics or details or explanation, and did not address how it was any way different to what we already have. He had plenty of opportunity to expand or explain but just expected people to believe it because he said it.

He was clearly parroting the party line and either because it is untrue or he doesn't understand there was no argument to support his claim.

 

[BrianW]

I'm afraid the Tories (and to be fair, many people in the wider population) believe that to assert something is enough. It needs neither proof nor analysis.

It's all part of a desire for simple solutions to complex problems. I wish I had a tenner for every time I've seen it asserted that we should simply turn the boats back to France. No one cares that it's both impracticable and unlawful. And if you bring up the Dublin Agreement that the clown Johnson scrapped - well, let's just say, they don't like it up 'em. They are in denial.

 

[metalblue]

I understood her to be asking the question "how will allowing a multinational company to drill for oil improve energy security?" as the Tories claimed.

Mercer simply kept repeating again and again that it would be more secure with absolutely no specifics or details or explanation, and did not address how it was any way different to what we already have. He had plenty of opportunity to expand or explain but just expected people to believe it because he said it.

He was clearly parroting the party line and either because it is untrue or he doesn't understand there was no argument to support his claim.

How does it not improve our energy security? Risk diversity will always improve security. Thats what I would have said, probably be accused of avoiding answering the question she didn’t really understand the complexity of.

Unless …. she wanted to challenge the ownership model against a backdrop of global supply chains that we’ve already seen stretched? (A fair challenge but not one that can be answered in 5 minutes and I’m not going to get in to the sheer hypocrisy of the left supporting the government to pay our energy bills).

Maybe she was hoping for a discussion on increasing refining capacity or government adopting a mothball approach to unused capacity to ensure security…

Or perhaps she wanted a conversation around security of renewables and was concerned with the lack of any noise from government or opposition on the storage conundrum (the elephant in the room if ever there was one)…

Maybe she wanted to expand on technology as a security driver and discuss the viability of direct air capture to fuel as a scalable tool to net zero? (Check this one out, it’s interesting tech)

And so on and so forth. Try having a meaningful conversation on any of these in a couple of minutes. Thats why the answers are always shit like let’s insulate homes or “waffle, waffle, something, because I said so, waffle”.

 

[law74]

Just expected people to believe it because he said it.

He was clearly parroting the party line and either because it is untrue or he doesn't understand there was no argument to support his claim.

This is now unofficial self-servative party policy.
We have stated Rwanda is safe.
Therefore Rwanda is safe and how dare anyone use facts to dispute this.

Much the same as me saying that tomorrow it will be Sunny all day and 28°.
I'm going to the beach for a swim and to get a tan.
Anyone want to join me?

 

[BrianW]

If only this lot had been in charge in 1939. We could have avoided WW2 by simply passing an Act to say Poland hadn't been invaded.

 

[Eebo]

How does it not improve our energy security? Risk diversity will always improve security. Thats what I would have said, probably be accused of avoiding answering the question she didn’t really understand the complexity of.

Unless …. she wanted to challenge the ownership model against a backdrop of global supply chains that we’ve already seen stretched? (A fair challenge but not one that can be answered in 5 minutes and I’m not going to get in to the sheer hypocrisy of the left supporting the government to pay our energy bills).

Maybe she was hoping for a discussion on increasing refining capacity or government adopting a mothball approach to unused capacity to ensure security…

Or perhaps she wanted a conversation around security of renewables and was concerned with the lack of any noise from government or opposition on the storage conundrum (the elephant in the room if ever there was one)…

Maybe she wanted to expand on technology as a security driver and discuss the viability of direct air capture to fuel as a scalable tool to net zero? (Check this one out, it’s interesting tech)

And so on and so forth. Try having a meaningful conversation on any of these in a couple of minutes. Thats why the answers are always shit like let’s insulate homes or “waffle, waffle, something, because I said so, waffle”.

I get your point that there are always more complexities and that the format is not suitable for an extended in depth discussion of all the angles.

However I would have been a lot happier with just your first paragraph as an answer than what we got from Mercer.

That could at least have lead to an exchange of views and some learning and improved understanding.

There is no interest or benefit watching people say what they think, I would prefer to know why they think what they do.

It is not just QT that is like this, everything including the news is now about how people feel or what they think, very little about why they think that or how they justify it, or what the facts are.