Question Time

Yesterday Question Time returned to BBC One TV after its summer rest. This autumn this programme is celebrating 30 years continuous broadcasting [excluding the annual holidays, etc]. It still has a long way to go before it approaches Any Questions, the similar programme on radio hosted by another of the Dimblebies [or is it Dimblebys] and which started in 1947 with Freddie Grisewood as the chairman. I used to enjoy watching Question Time but in recent years the programme has often been a bore because of the declining quality of the participants. It is not that high level politicians are missing; it is that too many of them are not much good. Last night was dragged to the lowest levels by the presence of Harriet Harman who is, I believe, deputy Leader of the Labour Party. Moulded by Blair, she sounds like the sort of person from whom you would not buy a second-hand car. She oozes insincerity, self-righteous arrogance, hypocrisy and vacuous party-political waffle - all at the same time. After 5 minutes listening to her I have to give up. Digby Jones was on the panel as well as Frazer Nelson [Ed of Spectator], David Laws [Lib-Dem MP] and Michael Heseltine. Michael Heseltine, at 76 much the oldest panel member was much the most impressive, since he could make valid points that rose above a lot of political point scoring - in his day, he was an excellent speaker. Indeed, it was easy to score political points here because that was all that the discussion amounted to. And this is what is wrong so much of the time. Harriet Harman was committed to defending the indefensible [her government] but Michael Heseltine was the only other participant with serious ministerial experience. I will discount the short period when Digby Jones was a trade minister.

All too often in recent years, the only time there is decent discussion on this programme is when the panel includes a number old stagers - like Tony Benn, David Steel, Chris Patten, Kenneth Clark, Michael Howard and a few others. They can speak clearly and with some authority. Another good performer has been Nicholas Soames. He rarely tries to make cheap political points and has been willing to accept the merits of an idea even when it was put forward by an opposition party. I feel that, to some extent, he can adopt such a free approach because he has a pretty rock solid political pedigree. He is the grand-son of Winston Churchill and the son of Christopher Soames who was a very creditable minister during the 1960s.

There was much discussion yesterday about Gordon Brown being snubbed by President Obama because they did not have a specific one-to-one meeting. So what? The Americans want to show their fundamental objection to the ridiculous release of the Lockerbie bomber. It may be that he was not guilty of the terrorist offence but, if so, this should have been proved in an open court - or was it not "convenient" to hear the evidence in open court? In any case, surely, Gordon Brown has a relationship with President Obama that allows them to talk on the phone whenever they want to and they meet whenever they need to. He has had several short chats with Obama in new York and they even managed, bizarrely, to slide off for a quick chat in the UN kitchens. That sounds more like a "special relationship" - if such exists - than any formal meeting would ever suggest. There is a very considerable advantage in having a common language.

Watching Brown on TV at these major international get-togethers he seems much more the professional statesman than he ever does at home. He is not a bad speaker and he does create an impression of consummate professionalism. So what goes wrong at home? I don't know. This government is awful but how much is Brown's fault and how much is the dead wood in the parliamentary party plus the debris of New Labour left by the sickly and ultimately demented Blair?