Question Time sequence cut out of Yesterdays Broadcast

Episode Transcript - Edition 4,921 - 22/10/09

DD: Hello My name is David Dimbleby and welcome to question time. As always the panellists have not seen any of the lengths of rope which they will be given to hang themselves with. Let's have the first question from Mr Underdressed Student...

A: Thankyou David. Nick Griffin in relation to your parties attempt to hijack Winston Churchill's legacy I would like to ask - are you a tosser?

NG: There is no definite evidence that I have seen to suggest that I am a tosser. I realise the common view is that I am a massive penis but until recently I was unwilling to accept that I am indeed a tosser. However I cannot explain why but I have changed my mind. I did actually hear some radio intercepts from the Eastern front, the general gist of which was "Nick Griffin is an odious dicksplash who looks like the bride of chucky". This somewhat reinforced the general feeling for me and my party that I am indeed a tosser.

Jack Straw: You do not need radio intercepts to know that you are a tosser! I as justice secretary of this country personally assure you that the laws regarding Tosser Denial make it very easy for you to explain how you came to this view point

DD: Pipe down Jack. Bonnie Greer, why is it that so many people thought Nick Griffin's appearance on question time would be a triumphant one for the BNP?

BG: I have no clue David. Certainly aesthetically Mr Griffin will not appeal to floating voters. If I were and image consultant for the BNP my first move would be to remove the entirety of Mr Griffin's face and perhaps replace it with that of a horse. It would be more attractive, appear more studious and would give a a greater sense of assurance than Mr Griffins current face to this country that he is ready for the serious business of government

(loud applause)

DD: Lady Warsi what do you make of these proposals to replace Mr Griffin's face with that of a horse?

LW: I completely agree David, although I would be worried about the positive impact that this could have on the BNP's electoral fortunes. However, much though that I disagree with their policies I feel there should always be an outlet in a representative democracy for idiot minority parties. I believe that the democratic system has in this respect been let down by 12 years of wasteful Labour government - why haven't Labour ensured that Mr Griffin is walking around with an equine head? I think his current hideous visage and the lack of a Shergar-esque replacement highlights once again the terrible oversights of this Labour government.

JS: This is a totally ridiculous statement. We, as a government, mounted a review of minority party politics as far back as 2007 which recommended the drastic measures of taking Mr Griffin's face away entirely to help representative democracy for even the coarsest nutters amongst us. This fact in conjunction with the economic shit heap we've created and the expenses scandal mean that it is we the Labour party who have been looking out for the BNP from the very begining.

DD: Chris Huhne what is your view on the issue?

CH: Well David I would like to once again reiterate the support of myself and that of my party for the plans to end the ceaseless torment that is Nick Griffin's face. Churchill was mentioned earlier and I believe that that great man, who was first a Liberal, fought so that we had the freedom from oppression and fascism that would allow us to decide whether to replace a mans head with that of a horse. Churchill, who I hasten to add was first a Liberal, tirelessly stood against the forces of evil to secure the basic freedoms that we take granted for today.It was Winston, who I'm not sure if I mentioned was first a Liberal, who once said "we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving we would still have the sense to replace the head of any pug faced facist twats with one resembling Black Beauty"

(loud applause)

END OF SEQUENCE

Reality?

I am going to university. Naturally everyone that I know has assumed I will live the next three years in squalor whilst only eating gone off beans and the dead rats that infest my room. Family friends especially are keen to save me from this fate and as a result I have been plied with "student cook books".

As all teenagers know there is nothing worse than writers trying to be "down with the kids", especially when these writers themselves claim to be "one of the kids". This is sadly the case with my student cook book. It's called "SORTED!" which I assume is meant to reflect how young people only have the attention span for words of 2 syllables or less. It details recipes within of varying complexity all of which lean toward saving money. Now this is undoubtedly handy given that I am going to be in more debt than sub Saharan Africa within three years but the terms that these money saving tips are couched in rankles somewhat. In case I didn't realise that having money was good they continually remind me - the less money you spend on food the more you've got for beer! the more you've got for watching footie! the more you've got for buying condoms to shag fit birds with! ( It doesn't say exactly that but you get the drift)

By all accounts this book has been written "for students by students". I've never understood the whole idea of advice from a person similar to yourself. Sure it may be easier to relate to but I wouldn't want heart surgery from a medicine student who bounds into the operating theatre shouting "wicked!" and "quality!" , as the writers of "SORTED!" do on a regular basis. Rather than being "for students by students" it seems that "SORTED!" is "for students by idiots who think they know what students are like but in fact have just lived their whole lives as walking cliches". Not only do they not know their market but they also horrifically underestimate them. There are recipes which detail the difficult art of making fillings for sandwiches. Now I have always thought I knew how to make sandwiches but it seems that I missed out on a lot of the requisite culinary education. After deciding that students can't simply decide that they want cheese and ham in their sandwiches they provide a recipe which is so ridiculously complicated that it totally defies practicality. The intoduction states that making your own "delicious alternative" to Subway sandwiches saves money. They then go on to tell you to toast some pine nuts and take the flesh from an avacado have in your "sarnie". Maybe it's just easier to make a ham or buy one?

What I don't think the authors of "SORTED!" understand is that although I don't mind drinking alchohol the reason I will cook their recipe for beef and mint curry is so I can have dinner. It will not be to "absorb the alcohol after that 'quiet drink' down the union that became a marathon session! This is the perfect end to any night - a perfect Ruby Murray!". Really?

Important?

The Sun are now officially a conservative paper. It hasn't exactly been a secret what with John Gaunt and his other twat columnist stable mates refering to David Cameron as "our next PM " for the last six months, but at least it's official now.

Labour have imploded as a party ripping up copies of the Sun mid-conference and generally acting like a jilted lover screaming "We never loved you anyway!" whilst weeping as they stare into the void of free publicity and vote collecting that Britian's most bought daily guarantees. Is it really that important? Does the Sun hold the key to the election? You would think that it is the policies of the parties that command peoples votes, not the papers they read but perhaps this isn't the case.

A major turning point in the modernisation of the Labour party was gaining the Sun's support. It was Peter Mandelson and Alastair Campbell's primary concern in the spin war before the landmark 1997 election. For the first time they had the complete support of the most read British paper and most importantly the paper with the broadest cross section of readers. It was from there that they disseminated the spin and propaganda that helped attract the vital floating voters. It is listed as one of the turning points that brought them such a convincing win in 1997 and something that they have relied on heavily ever since. Where else can they turn? The Express and The Mail want nothing more than a Tory return to office (apart from maybe Diana's death to be proven as a MI5 conspiracy), The Telegraph has more chance of supporting the BNP than Labour, everyone knows that the Guardian are left leaning so it's pretty inevitable and know one gives a fuck what the Star, the Sport or the Mirror think.

So perhaps it is important, perhaps it signals a final nail in the coffin for New Labour and Gordon Brown. Or perhaps the people of Britain still prefer to make their own minds up, perhaps they rather making informed opinions based on their moral codes and values. Worryingly I suspect it could be the former.