The Editor of Question Time, hand-picked by host David Dimbleby, has decided to resign from his post in objection to the moving of the production of the show from London to Glasgow. Noone likes to see people lose their jobs under any circumstance but I have to say that I have little sympathy for Ed Havard’s arguments.
The regular belittling of Scottish issues, typified by a quite disgraceful verbal slapping down of the SNP’s Nicola Sturgeon in a recent episode, not to mention the general London-centric tone of the show, has become quite grating for a while now. So what better way to remind the makers of the show that devolution exists and that local issues count than to have the show produced in Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland where many Westminster policies do not actually apply.
In many ways the difficulties in pitching Question Time at the right level is intertwined with the West Lothian Question that still plagues Westminster. Discuss Health, Justice and Education issues and millions of licensepayers are getting shortchanged through irrelevant content but discuss strictly Scottish issues and you alienate 90% of your audience. The answer, presumably, would be to ensure that discussion of devolved issues was limited to the same split as across borders within the UK’s population but this is far from the case currently as Question Time’s disallowance of fiscal policy discussion in Glasgow itself testified.
Furthermore, in terms of moving BBC shows away from London, there can be little argument against spreading jobs and economic activity away from the UK’s capital and out to areas where the need is greater. The aim for greater than 50% of BBC spending on network programming being based outside of London is a commendable one and if it means putting a few noses out of joint then so be it.
I have feared for a while that David Dimbleby has gotten too big for his bullock to be honest and if he can’t see that the BBC needs to adapt going forward then a tipping point may be reached. The host of a London-based and London-centric politics show getting in the way of a better balanced economic and regional solution can only mean one thing as far as I am concerned.
Perhaps a change is as good as a rest. Or, then again, one can instead just watch Channel 4’s rival, The Ten O’Clock show (starring the artist formerly known as Tory Bear this evening incidentally).
It’s a shame BBC Question Time has reached this situation though. The programme could provide a great service to help constituent nations of the UK learn about each other a bit more if it adapted its format just a little bit. We’ll just have to wait and see what happens I suppose but Glasgow’s gain and London’s perceived loss will be to the UK’s benefit.
#1 by Mike on February 3, 2011 - 6:24 pm
Whilst I don’t live in Scotland, (I am in North West England), I do find Question Time very Londoncentric and can agree wholeheartedly with the article. I stopped watching it as it didn’t seem to be relevant to my region at all.
I do think the BBC as whole is Londoncentric by virtue of it having a young and urbanised workforce. This may start to change though with some of the BBC departments being moved to Mediacity at Salford – but if you saw some of the comments by BBC employees regarding this move, you would think they were being asked to relocate to the moon.
#2 by Jeff on February 3, 2011 - 8:18 pm
Thanks Mike. Pulling/pushing functions away from London can only be a good thing these days. Not just for the places that receive the work but also for London which can’t be far off some sort of breaking point.
#3 by fitalass on February 3, 2011 - 6:43 pm
Jeff, hardly a slapping down of ‘Nicola Sturgeon’ in particular, he regularly does the same to politicians of all political persuasions. I think that as she was the only member of the Holyrood Parliament on that panel, he had a point to be honest, hence the comment about UK issues.
I know the SNP are used to a populist reception on the programme on Scottish soil, but I suspect that the continued whinge about her treatment had more to do with the fact that she didn’t perform that well and was surrounded by a very robust panel. Many other guests have been given a far tougher time on the programme when they have appeared at a Scottish venue.
#4 by Jeff on February 3, 2011 - 8:17 pm
I agree that other politicians get talked over and reprimanded by David Dimbleby but it is rarely, if ever, because a topic is supposedly out of scope due to geographical factors.
#5 by Erchie on February 4, 2011 - 10:02 am
fitalass, you are a Tory, but even by their standards this is a silly comment.
Dimbleby brought up Megrahi, that was a Holyrood matter. He does it as it suits him, don’t try and justify him
#6 by cynicalHighlander on February 3, 2011 - 9:06 pm
Strange that we had to put up with a London only issue dealing with Boris fo 20 mins yet nothing Scottish!
#7 by Father MacKenzie on February 3, 2011 - 7:14 pm
I’m not convinced that Question Time being a BBC Scotland production will actually create jobs, it’ll still travel round the country etc. It’ll probably be another accounting ruse like Film [Insert year here] which is officially a BBC Scotland production but rents a studio and editing suite in London.
#8 by Jeff on February 3, 2011 - 8:16 pm
I disagree with your understandably cynical view. If the programme is filmed in Glasgow as suggested then techie and camera crews will surely be required. It won’t be much for this show alone but if it is being replicated across the BBC timetable then it adds up to a good idea.
Not that I know about the Film xxxx ruse.
#9 by Father MacKenzie on February 4, 2011 - 10:17 pm
The programme is not going to be filmed in Glasgow any more than usual, it will continue to travel the country, and therefore it’ll continue to employ local/travelling cameramen (I have no idea if they have the same cameramen each week, or hire new ones in each town). All that is happening is its production is going to come out of BBC Scotland’s budget rather than the central BBC budget, something that is in the letter but not the spirit of the move to increase regional broadcasting.
I suspect that like Film xxxx the argument will be made that they need to have an office in London to arrange guests, because politicians/big film stars are more likely to be near parliament/premières in London, and BBC Scotland will end up renting the facilities at Television Centre that were already being used.
I’m all for Scotland getting a larger share of BBC Spending (I’m not convinced by the argument that it should be in line with our share of the population because I accept that there are some centrally overheads etc) but this is not the way to go about it.
#10 by Indy on February 3, 2011 - 9:23 pm
Lol. After the notorious Nicola Sturgeon incident there has to be some kind of karma involved here.
#11 by Dubbieside on February 3, 2011 - 10:45 pm
Jeff
How can this program create Scottish jobs when it is filmed around the UK and visits Scotland once in a blue moon?
Tonights program is from Workington, how many Scottish jobs will be created by that program?
This is just another BBC scam to try and hide how little of the TV tax raised in Scotland is actually spent in Scotland.
They have tried this before, there was a childrens TV program that they claimed in their accounts was a Scottish program, turned out that one secretary worked in Scotland handling correspondence, all the rest of the employment was in the only country the BBC is interested in.
P.S. That is not Scotland.
#12 by Jeff on February 3, 2011 - 10:59 pm
Yeah, fair enough. No extra work for Glasgow techies if the show is on the road.
I still think that if the BBC spending on network shows is guaranteed to be > 50% outside of London then that is a good thing and guarantees that jobs will be spread around. How can spending be moved away from London to regions without jobs doing the same?
There’s already one job gained with this guy resigning and, presumably, someone a lot closer to Glasgow taking over. I’ve heard Frankie Boyle is in the frame!
#13 by fitalass on February 3, 2011 - 11:07 pm
“I agree that other politicians get talked over and reprimanded by David Dimbleby but it is rarely, if ever, because a topic is supposedly out of scope due to geographical factors.”
No, out of scope because of Parliamentary representation rather than topic or geographical factors. I suspect that Nicola Sturgeon was told that this particular programme was going to be UK rather than Holyrood and Scotland focussed due to the make up of the panel. And maybe they should have chosen Angus Robertson rather than Nicola Sturgeon for the SNP in light of that?
#14 by Jeff on February 3, 2011 - 11:13 pm
That sounds like you’re agreeing with me Fitalass. Why should a BBC programme cover 100% of Westminster issues and 0% of devolved issues when many Westminster issues don’t affect Scotland?
I’ve just listened to about 10 minutes of Forestry Commission chat about a policy that doesn’t affect Scotland. Are Scottish license payers not getting shortchanged here? Angus Robertson being on the show makes no difference; what does he care about English forestry?
(Now onto Law & Order, another devolved area so another talking point that is largely irrelevant to Scotland)
#15 by Indy on February 4, 2011 - 9:31 am
Absolutely. It is a piece of absolute nonsense to say that panellists on QT are only allowed to discuss issues that affect the entire UK population.
And even if that was the rule – which we know is not the case! – would Scottish independence not affect the whole of the UK?
DImbleby was completely out of order. I just hope that before the SNP sends anyone else onto QT they get a written assurance that they will be allowed to talk about independence. Otherwise there is not much point having anyone from the SNP on the programme in the first place!
#16 by John Ruddy on February 4, 2011 - 8:18 pm
Why is it largely irrelevant? Do Scots not visit England? Do they not go into woodland and forests as those visitors?
And what about the 10% of the population of Scotland who were born in England?
It may be irrelevant to Scotland, but it was not irrelevant to Scots.
#17 by Jeff on February 5, 2011 - 1:36 pm
So English forests are relevant to the whole world then? I’m sure Aussies, Kiwis, Nigerians and Argentinians have been in an English forest. Do we need to beam BBC Question Time to these countries as a matter of urgency.
I’m no sure if you’re being purposefully disingenuous John but discussions of how to organise and pay for English Forestry when the issue is devolved to Scotland is far from relevant.
#18 by John Ruddy on February 6, 2011 - 9:46 pm
I did not say they were as relevant to Scots (or Aussies etc) as they are to people living in England. However, what they are not is irrelevant to Scots.
And not when you have scottish ministers saying the UK Government cant sell off Scottish forests, while secretly selling them off itself.
The thing which annoys me is this attitude of “if its anything to do with England, its nothing to do with Scotland”. And like I said – what about the 10% of people living in Scotland who were born in England? Does it not matter to them?
#19 by Jeff on February 7, 2011 - 9:00 am
Let’s put it this way John, can you ever imagine BBC Question Time discussing the future of Scotland’s not inconsiderable forestry. Of course not, because it is devolved and therefore out of scope foe the show. There’s an
imbalance there that needs addressed, that’s all I’m saying.
#20 by douglas clark on February 4, 2011 - 1:29 am
An interesting aside, well for me at least, is that the output of BBC Wales, especially in the entertainment field, has been consistently excellent.
#21 by Politico on February 4, 2011 - 8:58 am
When have nationalists ever cared about the UK’s benefit?
What a non statement.
#22 by An Duine Gruamach on February 4, 2011 - 12:36 pm
Well, we live here for a start. Until we achieve independence we have to do what we can to make life better for people.
#23 by Indy on February 4, 2011 - 11:42 am
On the subject of QT itself I think it would take more than a re-balancing of the metropolitan bias to take it back to its glory days. It has been apparent for some time that QT has gone downmarket and now invites guests on more for their shock value than for any ability to get to the bottom of things or clarify complex issues for the audience. The preposterous Melanie Phillips being a case in point. The Ten O’Clock show actually does a better job than QT in that sense.
#24 by Alec Macph on February 4, 2011 - 6:01 pm
In what way was that broadcast with Sturgeon “notorious”? I thinks people are getting personal interests mixed up with national relevance… as others have pointed out, her treatment was less anti-SNP than Dimbledum’s standard proprietorial behaviour.
Still, it taught her (and other SNP politicos) that they cannot be guaranteed of uncritical audiences.
>> (Now onto Law & Order, another devolved area so another talking point that is largely irrelevant to Scotland)
I can’t say I’m looking forward to Law & Order: Kirkaldy.
#25 by Indy on February 6, 2011 - 7:02 pm
“Still, it taught her (and other SNP politicos) that they cannot be guaranteed of uncritical audiences.”
Sod all to do with the audience. The issue was Dimbeby telling her that she was not allowed to talk about the Scottish Parliament’s financial powers because the show was for a UK audience.
Pingback: Scottish Round Up is brought to you by literature – Scottish Roundup
#26 by Edward Harkins on February 6, 2011 - 3:14 pm
This is all not just about BBC London-centric myopia, Dimbley arrogance or disrespect for Scotland.
The dysfunctional position of Metro London and all its institutional and cultural webs is afflicting all other parts of the U.K. The Economist magazine (hardly an SNP hotbed) this week has some very incisive copy on this issue, including:
” ONE common observation made by visitors to England is the extent to which the dominance of London, one of the world’s truly global cities, makes its south-eastern half feel like the hinterlands of a city-state. This week, we argue that London is so distinctive that it is beginning to evolve its own, unique political idealogy that is pro-finance, pro-immigration and hungry for investment.”
http://www.economist.com/node/18073240?story_id=18073240
#27 by John Ruddy on February 6, 2011 - 9:56 pm
South East England has long had its own seperate culture and economic pull. Its like some kind of Black Hole, in that the bigger it gets, the more it attracts, so it gets bigger, etc.
The de-industrialisation of the West Midlands, the North West, the North East and Strathclyde has meant that the UK has become more and more dependant on SE England for driving growth – and it seems our politics.
This trend isnt new – as long ago as 1963, Peter Hall was arguing that what we were seeing was a London not defined by the odl boundaries, but by including economic ties streatching across the south east. Indeed, he later suggested that there was now a “Greater South East” region – with London’s influence spilling out past the governmental regional boundary for SE England.
Until we get a proper regional and industrial policy (sadly lacking since 1979) we’re not likely to do more than tinker around the edges. And that policy will have to use the resources of SE England to re-balance our economy and country.