´óÏó´«Ã½

More ´óÏó´«Ã½ and PM programming dumbing down...

"In short: undoubtedly not a perfect exercise, but hopefully an enjoyable and thought-provoking one."

So pretty pointless in other words, wouldn't it have been better to have asked listeners which of our elected MPs they would prefer to be Speaker, rather than a collection of people who are not and most likely never will be accountable to the electorate. Light entertainment dressed up as something meaningful, something that the the PM programme has become very good act during the current incumbents tenure, current-affairs the PM programme is not much of the time. :-(

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I enjoyed PM's Speakers Week. I backed Greg Dyke, but It was good to hear all of the speakers' views. It was the clarity of Mr Dyke's proposals that attracted me (in contrast to Lord Carey's ball in the long grass Royal Commission approach). Mr Dyke had the necessary spanners and wrenches required to make me feel happier about our politicians (the number 400 is stuck in my mind!).

I heard this and 'sort of' listened.

It really did not do a lot for me but it certainly was no worse than a lot of other programs and, why not, if some listeners found it interesting.

'Order. Counterorder. Disorder.' You know who.

This was a classic. It could only happen in the mother of all parliaments.

"Clean sweeep. New beginning. Transparency," was the cry.

So the left lot elect a 'right one' which the right lot detest and on the first day start plotting against him.

I am truly persuaded the right man was elected for the job.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#4. At 1:27pm on 23 Jun 2009, ExpatDinosaur wrote:

"and, why not, if some listeners found it interesting."

Because the programme could have been used even better, if PM wants to indulge in fiction then might I suggest that the producer and presenter ask to present "Book and Bedtime" or the "Friday Play"! My point being, that the same time could have been used to informed and educated rather than just entertain the PM audience, achieving two out of the three requirements of the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s Charter is surely far better than achieving just one?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I am unsure as to why the ´óÏó´«Ã½ wanted to introduce some more fiction into the Westminster processes. Don't we get this already on the Parliament channel?

#10

Unlike the recent PM programme, the election of the new Speaker as televised on the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Parliament channel was factual - now there's an idea, perhaps more people would be watching politics if the the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and MPs etc. referred to it all as "Reality Politics"!

Why all the censorship ?? And why the byline photo ??

Trying to justify your own existence with a 'profile-raising' exercise ?

Radio 4 - PM's Speakers Week was meant to be about 'restoring trust between governed and governors'. But the format chosen - getting listeners to vote for one of four people with a plan was unsatisfactory.

Each plan contained many proposals. And so for example, if we wanted to support proportional representation, we had to vote for Greg Dyke, the only person who backed it. But his plan also included many other proposals which we might not agree with at all.

Also, Greg did not say which *kind* of proportional representation was to be used. He needed to do so, because some kinds of proportional representation would have made MPs more accountable to the voters, while other kinds would have actually made them less accountable.

It would have been better to make each person give two concrete proposals, yielding eight proposals in all. The proposer would have described in detail how the proposal would be implemented, and what the benefits would be. Then the three other people could have said what they thought of it.

Finally, listeners could have been given one of four phone numbers to ring, depending on whether we thought the proposal was
* good,
* mainly good,
* mainly bad but with some redeeming features, or
* worthless.

From the latest reports, Mr BERCOW it seems loves to spend tax payers money like it was a god given right. Why cant the speaker and his family just be put up in a Hotel for the juration. It's got to be cheeper!!!