In the Question Time audience

The phone rang and the initial screening call from Question Time asked the right questions, so it had the potential to produce a balanced audience if everyone gave honest answers. When you arrive, the ID check is thorough, so impersonation would be difficult.

We were encouraged to provide two topical questions, one a couple of days beforehand, and one on the day. Then they pick the most popular topics, and from those they select a question. They favoured very short neutral questions just lobbing the topics into play.

The panel was lacklustre, mainly because they scarcely challenged each other. Adam Afriyie had that day had a letter from most of the 2010 intake of Conservative MPs asking him not to proceed with his Commons amendment to bring forward the proposed EU referendum to 2014. Politically, then, he was a dead man walking, but he still turned up. Impressive? No. He said he hoped David Cameron would be Prime Minister for a thousand years – which is simply stupid. He also claimed that negotiations in business could be completed in a year, so there was no reason why renegotiating the terms of our EU membership should take any longer. Low quality.

It emerged that Diane Abbott casually tells whoppers whenever she feels like it. Thus she said if she had been fired from her frontbench job for voting against bombing Syria, it was worth it. David Dimbleby was quick to point out that the Commons motion hadn’t been about bombing Syria at all. Diane Abbott says what suits her, and if it isn’t true, then so what.

To Matthew Parris, Question Time is a parlour game (of course he’s right). A smooth man, he gave no sign that he cared very much about any views he put. Jo Swinson was as boring as I’d expected, and the American Literature professor from the University of East Anglia emerged as soft left, balancing Matthew Parris.

What of the audience? The FT’s Janan Ganesh has said that if Question Time audiences were representative, Neil Kinnock would be in his fifth term in Downing Street.

We were warmed up with a discussion of childhood obesity, which produced opinions across the spectrum. When it came to the broadcast political topics, though, the audience seemed to emerge as soft left. Sarah Churchwell drew loud applause when she said she hoped any EU referendum would be preceded by a campaign to explain to the country why EU membership was beneficial. (Those pushing for a referendum on EU membership, be careful what you wish for.)

One contribution shocked the audience. A school student said some teachers in his previous school had been more interested in their pay cheques than in good education – which produced loud gasps. Were the audience shocked by a criticism of saintly state sector workers? They were more comfortable with the contribution by a teacher who claimed that teaching was tougher these days because of inequalities and inadequate housing. (I recall a similar line from a teaching union leader interviewd on Sunday Politics a while back. Of course, it’s nonsense.)

What can you conclude about the audience? Obviously they are untypical just because they are interested in politics. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of their occupations. For instance, are state sector employees over-represented? And what was the average age?

The fluffy left probably was over-represented. But that may have reflected the people who were interested in applying, rather than bias on the part of the production company.