https://www.smry.ai/proxy?url=https%3A% ... strup.html
It's been a while. What's she talking about?
First, there's her revelation that in fact it was all Question Time's fault that she got laughed at. And her opinion of Mariella Frostrup?
Take the rather fabulous Mariella Frostrup, a veteran broadcaster and acclaimed campaigning journalist. You couldn’t wish for a nicer and more fun person to sit down to dinner with – if you’re talking about anything but politics.
Mariella’s contribution to the programme was to make the case for refugees....
[snip]
Sadly, like every champagne socialist I know, she was speaking without, I suspect, her own life ever having been particularly impacted by the out-of-control number of asylum seekers and illegal migrants arriving here and the knock-on effect on already over-stretched public services....
[snip]
Mariella is married to a very successful human rights lawyer, lives in a house in leafy Somerset, and I am sure that her financial status means that if she can’t get an NHS appointment, she could pay for a private one. As ever, hypocrisy is lost on a liberal bleeding heart.
"Leafy Somerset" got me wondering. First, isn't anywhere not an inner city (and especially in the countryside) going to be a bit "leafy"? The countryside where we're all told everyone votes Reform? And since when does "leafy" indicate luxury? I remember a few years ago Carole Malone saying that Jeremy Corbyn's policies might "Go down well in a church hall in his leafy Islington village", which seemed to suggest she has a rather odd idea of north London. Anyway, back to QT. Nads has a plan to fix it:
There is a way for Question Time to fix this problem – by having an audience made up of a percentage of members of respective political parties based on the poll ratings of the previous week.
Public opinion shifts so quickly in a world of rolling news that the BBC should not be relying on an outdated model of selection. Membership of political parties or organisations should be checked and proof of membership provided at the time of application and entry to the venue where the programme is filmed.
In the words of Malcolm Tucker, is the weather nice in your reality? So, rather than getting 'ordinary' people, everyone in the audience is a committed member of a party. And what about where it's broadcast from? How will that affect the selection?
Anyway, her theory about QT ("long been the suspicion" and "I believe" doing a lot of work here) is topped off with a claim that she's no careerist, and that she was never one to obey the rules. Ahem.
Moving on, she touches on Britney Spears, whose ex-husband seems to be a bit of a shit. He's published a 'tell-all' memoir, which wily old Nad reckons is a sneaky opportunity to exploit his links to the singer. Well, what a fucking profound insight! And it's also an excuse to list some of Britney's odder-seeming acts, couched in a 'just saying' disclaimer. In other words, who'd want to be married to that mad bat?
Finally, she's cottoned on that Andrew and Fergie might be bit fucking toxic.
And yet they have one powerful ace up their sleeve. Andrew, reportedly his mother’s favourite, has lived through every royal drama of recent decades, while Fergie was at one time close to Princess Diana.
If either of them was to kiss and tell all, it would be sensational, miring the Firm in yet more controversy.
It would also further damage the standing of their daughters, Beatrice and Eugenie.
I'm no monarchist or follower of royal gossip, but I'm guessing that the relevance and impact of any such revelations would be somewhere between fuck and all.
Seriously, have a read. Someone thinks she deserves paying for this shit.
- By Tubby Isaacs
- By Malcolm Armsteen