91Èȱ¬

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

I have a question to the guests on Q.T. this week:

Is the recent news about the news of cuts to departments that will be making in governments agencies....What will the impact be if the purported 40% cuts will be implemented going to be on the average family/person in the United States; In services....

(d)

When are you going to replace David Dimbleby, the guys so dull, weak and patronising?

Get someone in the chair who does not let the members of the panel off the hook and makes them answer the damn question that was asked!

If the guest goes meandering off topic, shut them up, move on.

2. At 8:05pm on 15 Jul 2010, Dennis Junior wrote:
I have a question to the guests on Q.T. this week:

Is the recent news about the news of cuts to departments that will be making in governments agencies....What will the impact be if the purported 40% cuts will be implemented going to be on the average family/person in the United States; In services....

A) i dont believe the british government proposed cuts on spending on british public services is likely to have much of an effect on the average joe in the usa,
Or put another way , who cares let america worry about it own defecit which makes britains look like someone lost the lunch money

I have a question to the guests on Q.T. this week:

In view of Francis Maude's decision to submit a bill to parliament whose sole purpose is to allow the Coalition government to change the Civil Service compenstion scheme. Bearing in mind the Law courts overturned the last governments efforts to change this scheme. If this bill is passed does it set a dangerous precedent that the the government can change any law to enable it to do what it wants?

To return to the university education system:

How do you compare the universities? As an outcome of educated quality, or quantity, of the social and student experience, the universities teaching quality, the universities rankings in which table, or even the pupils satisfaction?

Aside from the tuition fees then how does this transcribe to the issue of living expenses and the student loan directly (non means tested assistance to tuition fees)?

The student loan is an ongoing concern and each university is located in different places with differing ranges to living costs.

If you wish to eat well, or live well, study well, or even experience well the opportunity to make mistakes, does this affect the graduate tax?

How is the graduate tax to be distributed across the ongoing issues of how the tuition fees, government finance and the student loan as our current incarnation of the intellectual economy go to have relevance with?

At the moment it feels more like a cheap trick rather than a serious strategic policy.

It feels sadly disappointing as a opening shot to this long awaited debate.

University Cuts:

Please can someone listen?!! The solution to the challenge of finding a way for universities to take their share of the national cut in spending is straightforward. It is widlely evident and has been for some time that many degree courses have only a handful of lectures each week. Most courses have annual holidays of about 24 weeks. It is blindingly obvious that 3 year course can be cut to two and four year courses to three.

This will mean that terms will need to be a bit longer. Students and lecturers will have to work a fuller year. Students will get into the workplace sooner than they do now. They will have a better work ethic and to their advantage they will have smaller loans to pay off.

Some may say the first year is needed to bring the less able students up to speed. That is something that secondary education will have to address. It can no longer saddle the universities with this one year burden.

We can also no longer say that everyone can have this 3 or 4 year rite of passage. Students cannot afford it and we cannot afford the cost either. Cutting back about 33% of the time spent at university must be able to deliver at least 25% savings.

Stop playing with loan repayments and extra tax for some students etc and face the fact that students and lecturers now have to accept that they have to contribute to the cuts and this is the logical and least painful way to tackle it. I suggest it will be one of those changes that when implemented people will say they cannot understand why we left it unchallenged for so long.

Another balanced 91Èȱ¬ panel; George Galloway, Mrs Bercow the Labour Activist and a shadow cabinet minister! Not that the Tory rep can be counted as a man of the right, along with the rest of his party.

Question Time - is it time that it is replaced by a game show - it seems to have become one - courting popularity by inviting the Speaker's wife - it degrades that office and reinforces the standards to which politicians have descended. It seems that it is used to lobby for future position and they have learnt nothing from the expenses scandal and refusing to submit to the populace.

Lets put the whole Labour party on trial - were they really backing a leader that was known to be "not fit for purpose" to coin a Labour phrase as per Mandy while the country continued to suffer under these bumbling idiots. They should be tried and charged then drummed out of politics.

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

what is the point where society pushes you over the edge with a short term sentance and/or permanent record?

I would never defend such a man but we have to think that Lord Justice Clarke this week has a considerable amount of work to do in making this new judicial reform work.

Why is the taxpayer having to fund the single-parent chav culture in Newcastle ?

Question for QT - Why is Silly Berkoff on the panel - who next Jordan - think I will have to cease bothering to watch this shambles

Galloway is right. The white underclass are very angry and dissatisfied with their lot. They have no self respect, are reliant on drugs and drink and have no idea on how to get out of their messed up lives. We will see major social unrest in the next ten years and new labour are to blame.

Yet again a strongly biased audience. When are we going to get anything but a left wing audience?

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.

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

5. At 10:37pm on 15 Jul 2010, Markus61 wrote:
...If this bill is passed does it set a dangerous precedent that the the government can change any law to enable it to do what it wants?....


That's what Government does. That's where law comes from. Where do you think laws are made?

If the NHS has only achieved half of the development that advocates speak of, then I am a huge fan, but that aside the NHS is a great achievement a feather for the nation to bear proudly.

But aside from this with the problems we have facing the country, requires an evolution of the service to deliver those core things which will become fundamental to all and every society in the future.

It’s sad, but the responsibilities ahead, will require us to move this service forward in a way that it is prepared to deliver for our needs for the future.

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

The comment about white poor people getting very angry about the state of this country should miss out the poor and possibly the white as the British people in general are getting very angry indeed and this warning should be taken very seriously.

The next point about GP practices acting as accountants for the health service is ludicrous as most of them cannot manage there own practices. This has been widely shown by the failure of the GPs to have their staff trained for the new computer system which should now be available all over the country - if their staff had wanted to keep their jobs they should have been willing to go to nightschool to learn this system.

The barracking from the audience is regrettable and worsens the job of
keeping order which has become extremely difficult already.

Question for the panellists

On the subject of regional elections next May, what is their opinion on further powers for the Welsh Assembly, should Wales be given the same powers as the Scottish Parliment?

the nhs needs to be taken out of the political arena....its thrown around like a ball to make some political status......they should all agree to give a percentage of gdp towards the nhs and have a governing body....until they do that it will cost us all loads of money and heaven knows how many lives!

Am I the only one who has noticed when I visit hospital that many of the Nursing staff have mangerial titles such as Ward Manager. Are these the Managers that everyone want to get rid of?

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

can someone please shut those two women in the front row up!!!

Yesterday I heard the sports minister say We are in the worst financial crisis in "Peacetime Britain" During the election the tories promised to recognise that we are at war and would set up a war cabinet immediately. Has this happened and if so why is the sports secretary saying different.

Why as my comment not been shown.

Why is Sally Bercow on the panel?

She doesn't have a political career and couldn't even get elected on the Council, which with her contacts shows her to be a complete lightweight.
She was a Tory and now she is calling herself a Labour "Activist", which is not a Job.

I see the 91Èȱ¬ have loaded the audience and panel yet again, Frances Maude it being "ganged up on" and its disgusting, why does no-one hask the Labourites why these cuts have to be made?

Have we all forgotten that just 10 weeks ago Mr Burnham was part of the outfit that was "fiddling while rome burned" Francis Maude seems to be alone, there is no balance to the panels politics. Come on 91Èȱ¬ where is the balance?

Another hand-picked left wing audience by the 91Èȱ¬.

Will this rogue political pressure group a.k.a the '91Èȱ¬' ever be brought to heel?

The discussion on Raoul Moult failed to name the real issue which is domestic violence. Domestic violence and abuse is not caused by poverty, mental health or alienation. It happens across all social strata and affects 1 in 4 women at some point in their lives. It is about power and control and 2 women die every week from it.

Isn't it interesting that the issue of DV hasn't been a feature of any of the media coverage of the Raoul Moult situation at all.

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

Why is Sally Bercow on the panel?

She has never been a Politician, she has never been elected and she has only been calling herself a "Labour Activist" since she failed to get elected to the Council on May 6th.

Its obvious that Andy Burnham has not received treatment in an NHS hospital recently

The NHS is always a political football and always causes heated debates. GP's know what patients need - they are not going to change into accountants- they will still be treating patients as they always have- hopefully without the constraints of targets. The NHS should be kept away from private providers all the money that is paid to private providers should be invested in NHS services - things can then be improved.

Do the panel think that it's time to introduce a system to ensure that Managers are professionally trained so that they are qualified to do the job?

Can only agree with those wondering about the balance of the panel. Poor Mr Maud. Mr Dimbleby overwhelmed. This feels like a Kangaroo Court rahter than Question Time.

Balanced? Impartial? Pah!

Come off it, David Dimbleby! I am the chairman. It's my job to interrupt," said Dimbleby just now. Sorry, but no! It is not the job of a chairman to interrupt. Dimbleby was unnecessarily unpleasant to Andy Burnham over 'twittering' and himself inflated a very minor comment into something that interrupted and distracted from the debate. That is the opposite of a chairman's job. The chairman is supposed to see that a balanced debate takes place with everyone having a fair chance to speak and to say what they want to say. A chairman might need to interrupt when someone goes on far too long or completely strays off the subject, or is abusive, or if an audience might become too noisy, but Dimbleby seems to have developed an inflated idea of his own status.

In relation to university funding...secure it to secure our nation's future.

We all benefit from university education. Every penny and more that has been directed in recent months to inept or corrupt banking should be returned by the banks and culpable individuals and should - in part at least - be redirected to every level of education from early years to higher education.

We need to invest in our nation's future, rather than sucking dry its life blood.

I would like to say, about tonights show the issues raised about moat, our policing and prisons. I have a solution that could illiminate all these problems, to start with prisons are overcrowded so criminals are released early, police have no rights of discipline on streets so we get people like moat causing chaos because they know they get away with it or have easy high life in crowded prison. The solution if these individuals want to run riot and kill people let them do it but send them to afganistan so if they die who cares, get our brave troops back here where they belong, send the thugs and rapists and murderers there, I garantee crime will probably reduce to the thought of this.

Referring to the Facebook discussion earlier, surely if extremists like Abu Hamza are stopped from preaching hate due to the influence on others on TV ( rightly so )then Facebook needs to impose its own restrictions due to its worldwide audience and unregulated medium.

As a gay man, who has recieved hiv treatment from both governments, i can only describe my treatment as exemplary....long live the NHS and the services they offer. 15 years later I am still alive....

Andy Burnum - if he is so concerned about the health service, why was he so ready to give up reciprocal agreements with the crown dependancies? specifically the Isle of Man - detrimental to IOM and UK!! Notably a u-turn was made when Gordon Brown ( who I beleieve was potnetially the best leader this country would have had after John Smith) listened to logic!!

Emotively charged tick boxing, leaves us open to becoming too heavily involved in the provision of care to a point where we will struggle to deliver on on the great duties of care that the service would come to bear.

This is not as simple as beaurocrats and front line services.

We must have a service which can deliver on the needs of the future as much as now.

We need the future as much as the present, so we need to bring a diversity of training requirements throughout the service, but that should not place too much responsibility on young shoulders, or become burdensome to service delivery.

We really need an unpoliticised awareness of the service rather than politicians telling us what they want us to consider as a giant consultation with the patient.

i have a comment i cant believe the byast the panel is tonight most are labour people or ex labour people so was not a fair repentasion of people on the panel i watched it every week but its becoming a shouting match against one person not injoyable but i dont agree with what there doing on nhs

Francis Maud says that the public spending cuts are going to be 'rough for everybody'

I wonder: how exactly it is going to be rough for the super rich bankers and city denizens who put us in this situation and who have been, ultimately, bailed out with our (taxpayer) money?

When David Cameron and Andrew Lansley sneer and spit the words SHA and PCT, talking about the people and organisations as if they are lazy, sponging and worthless, do they consider that these are exactly the same people and organisations who they are asking to champion and lead the development of the new GP Commissioned NHS ? You have to wonder at the leadership skills of these politicians.

In regards to the comments made about regulating facebook would be a complete breach of freedom of speech. In no uncertain circumstances do I feel that any level of sympathy should be directed towards Raoel Moat however the issue is why do some others? There is a level of society which is termed as being the "underclass" which personally I feel is derogatory. These people will mostly come from deprived areas that have been pushed aside by the rest of society and forgotten about. This in turn causes a "them against us" attitude which mostly ends up being more aimed at the police. It creats a sub culture. The reason for this is the level of crime these people are involved in and view the police as the natural enemy. Whether these points are debated or discussed on facebook or any other sites is irrelevant. The same conversations would still happen in local pubs, clubs etc. We need to tackle why these attitudes are there in the first place and deal with these issues rather than hiding these thoughts and opinions and further pushing the "underclass" further under mainstream society.

Sally Bercow obviously does not realise that the Daily Mail has the largets number of readers in the country. Bet she reads the paper with the lowest number of readers The Guardian

Nice to see a really balanced panel - this programme loses credibility week by week and is a shadow of it's former self. If you want a balanced argument (and I'm not sure that the 91Èȱ¬ does) then at least try to balance the panel. If you just want to fill the seats with loony lefties and grandstanding Labour leaders-to-be, then at least be honest about it. I'm sure that loading the panel to gang up on Francis Maude amuses the biased elements of the 91Èȱ¬ but it leaves me cold.

Wheres the balance in the panel and audience?

Is it just me or since launching himself as a candidate for Labour leader Burnham is overdoing the makeup????????

We currently waste a lot of money on managerial posts within the PCT's and the strategic health that could be put to better use. Managers salaries in both of these sectors are far higher than those working in Local Authorities. We are just paying for people to collect numbers and tick boxes, but it does not improve the service we receive. GP's are often left "out of the loop" and are in a better position to agree the right treatment for their patients, without having to pay for the "layers" in between.

The NHS is already fragmented into business 'units'. Ask Lansley how many PC's have been formed, reformed and dissolved. How many changes in corporate letterheads and signs outside the same buildings? Do not talk about the cost of re-organisation. It has been years of constant re-disorganisation. The NHS is a corporation. Franchises called Trusts. The brand of NHS is carried in different guises. Every one is required to have a business plan. It has become top heavy with targets that can be easily measured rather than having meaningful clinical targets.

It's all very well talking about doctors and nurses but what about the support services? Those of us who feed, clean and transport medical records, pharmacy runs - we are what keeps the NHS running. David Cameron sent a letter out to staff asking them where the NHS could save money, my answer DO NOT PRIVATISE SUPPORT SERVICES if you have a consciense. It's detrimental to patient care but the easy area to make cuts. Mr Cameron, you need to come and look at the service we provide and you will change your mind. But then patient care isn't your priority so you probably won't.

missed this out in #6


The graduate tax?

What is that about?

You could go to university and drop out before finishing and so how is it a graduate tax?

Aside from semantics:

How are tuition fees to be tackled as an increasing cost to any chosen education institutions where some universities are trying to create a finance league table system?

If you can afford the costs to go to a top university, then you can go and get that extra quality of teaching.

If you can't afford to go to a top university, do you go for a 'lesser' quality institution in order to get that graduate education of a 'lesser' quality?

At the moment the local education authorities pay for their catchment areas to go to university in a means testing manner. But is this sustainable within local government costs?

Do the college, or sixth form institutions, compete locally to deliver better education results, in order to get a better chance of gaining access to the means testing facilities, or funds?

If they do, then if you have rural areas with private schooling and rural less well performing educational institutes (say like the polarized performance of Eton and the local Eton Porny C of E School) in the same area do the students from both places fight for the local LEA funds?

Do private, public and day schooling compare to academies, grammars, state and home schooling have the same rights in relation to catchment of parental residence, pupil residence, or the school have the defining characteristic to the LEA funding?

To return to the university education system:

How do you compare the universities? As an outcome of educated quality, or quantity, of the social and student experience, the universities teaching quality, the universities rankings in which table, or even the pupils satisfaction?

Aside from the tuition fees then how does this transcribe to the issue of living expenses and the student loan directly (non means tested assistance to tuition fees)?

The student loan is an ongoing concern and each university is located in different places with differing ranges to living costs.

If you wish to eat well, or live well, study well, or even experience well the opportunity to make mistakes, does this affect the graduate tax?

How is the graduate tax to be distributed across the ongoing issues of how the tuition fees, government finance and the student loan as our current incarnation of the intellectual economy go to have relevance with?

At the moment it feels more like a cheap trick rather than a serious strategic policy.

It feels sadly disappointing as a opening shot to this long awaited debate.

I am a police officer and there is no doubt that there are many 'police officers' masquerading as administrative assistants. There needs to be reform. I doubt very much that there will be a reduction of officers on the streets as it simply cant go any lower.

education is the basic of society, so if a head teacher earn a great amount for a good job so be it. Then people will not have to send their children to private school.

if the nhs is so good why has my son been wating 9 months to get the result back from an MIR scan And 6 canceled appointments

Never have liked George Galloway but he really has talked sense tonight.

Questiontime should be ashamed of itself. This Panel had 4 labour or past labour avtivists against one coalition politician.This is the second time that you have done this with a panel and an audience the first time being with the BNP leader Nick Griffin. You have once again weighted the panel and the audience against the coalition party not in power 6 months and you should be disgusted with yourselves. I am no lover of politions persay but I am a supporter of fairness

I was on a Police Liaison Committee over 12 years ago. Crime figures then were as good as they are now......People did not report crimes because of the delay in getting a response at the time or for fear of repurcussion

On Health Spending and Cancer waiting times:-
Today my wife had her Cancer check up.
The Registrar Oncologist seeing her can't get a Consultant Post.
They are frozen.She will emigrate.
Our Daughter and Son in Law now live in Australia. They were both trainee doctors. Cost of training approx, 1 million. Same reason, no posts or impossible training conditions. All this a result of the reorganisations in the NHS, to meet targets and Trust Accounting policies.
Fear of Redundancy payments to reduce the grossly bloated NHS beaurocracy that 13 years of target flammery and idiocy has produced, is the worst possible reason to avoid action.
The only Doctors who believe any of this has worked are the Dupes who have taken the Clinical Director posts.
I know of hilarious waste in my own field as a result of PCT cronyism to meet "targets"
The Coalition are pussyfooting. They should abolish the whole NHS management beaurocracy, PCT's, Trusts, the lot & start again. Get local senior GP's and a mix of Senior Consultants to locally organise local funding. Most importantly, re-energise Medical Careers to favour UK trained clinicians. We have lost thousands & replaced them with overseas doctors with lesser clinical skills & no language or social understanding.

What's the difference Question Time and my missus?

Question time is only on once a week.

Tribal has sold it's healthcare arm to a Canadian Architectural firm, with goverment healthcare cuts who knows what the future holds!

I can't believe that someone described the audience as left wing have we been watching the same show? The clapping of nick's comments about moat which were about as right wing as you can get. It is apparently down to the individual to get themselves out of any disadvantaged situation that they may be born into. The solution to which is to go out and find a job- problem solved. People are not born as murderers society has to take a certain ammount of responsibility, the system ultimately failed Moat. Maybe the only problem in Nicks world is finding a job for the rest of us life throws up more complex problems. As for the use of the concept of an underclass I am appaled that this thatcherite terminology is still being thrown around as if it in itself is not a divisive term.

The 91Èȱ¬ should be ashamed of itself! Any vestige of impartiality has disappeared. On tonight's programme, out of a total of five panellists, three were from the far left. I felt sorry for Francis Maude who by and large was obliged to face a constant barrage of heckling and barracking, not only from those three but also from the audience which was so obviously not chosen at random, if its left wing bias was anything to go by.

I have been a GP for 28 years. I don't want to run the NHS, in the same way that I don't want to type my letters or paint my Surgery. The NHS needs bureaucrats, but we have always had poor quality bureaucrats. Improve them, don't re-organize. If GPs run the NHS it will be run even less efficiently and take clinicians away from treating patients - a double whammy! Why not spend the £bn1.7 on the likes of Robinson or Branson who have a proven track record? We have excellent doctors & nurses, we need excellent administrators who will do what the doctors nurses & patients ask them to do and help clinicians to treat their patients in the best possible way.

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

I've never seen such a biased QT. Was it supposed to be a Labour Party broadcast? And the audience were obviously all recruited from the Labour party too. Andy Burnham was given far too much time to put forward his points of view, interrupting everyone on the panel and also the audience. It's time David Dimbleby was put out to grass and a fairer, stronger person brought in as chairman.

The way things are going the national health service should be renamed the national sickness service. If pcts are no longer present who will be ensuring that projects to combat obesity, std's and teenage pregnancy to name just a few come. Pcts do provide a form treatment to patients, it's just different to how doctors do. One other point, if gps have greater control, what is to stop the drug companies offer them incentives to 'push' their products.

There was criticism of the earnings of one particular head teacher, and recently, the remuneration of many people in the public sector has been the subject of complaint - usually along the lines that they are earning 'more than the Prime Minister'.

If we are ever to have a more balanced society, in which the public and private sectors are valued equally, it is in my view essential that there has to be a cap on top remuneration packages (salaries plus 'bonuses') in the private sector, and a recognition that you can have more money than you need, and there's no point to that.

I will stick my neck out and say that the absolutely top remuneration paid to the 'best' CEO, public or private, should be £150,000 p.a., and that other 'top earners' should get little more than £120,000. These more modest demands on the payroll of an organisation should allow for those at the lower end of the pay ladder to receive more than the almost poverty-level wages they currently get.

50 per cent of the population enjoy 90 per cent of its wealth, according to economist Will Hutton, leaving the other 50 percent of the people to subsist on the remaining 10 per cent. A balance nearer 60:40 would seem more equitable, still allowing senior people a differential, thereby to provide an incentive.

Mr maud is very long on speeches but consistently offered no solutions and reassurances to those meer mortals the electorate whom the 'condem' coalition are going to inflict all these cuts upon, the irony of the Tory mantra that we all want more choice, mr maud and the 'condem' coalition are making this deliberate 'choice' now, they have a duty to all people in this country, the extreme cuts and obsession with misguidedly cutting the deficit so fast is unecessary, worrying and shortsighted, watch out the 'have nots' of this country and those who support the coalition we may have balanced the books in five years but our country and most importantly out people will not be well balanced!!!

What exactly has Question Time become? most of the debate was about a facebook page. I think there a more pressing and urgent matters to discuss, not to mention the fact i heard hardly any questions being answered and a lot of bickering. So much for the programme beng called "Question time".........that is all.

GPs as budget holders:
I work for the health service. It was already in the middle of another reorganisation before the election, which was information that was not generally in the public domain. Services were being split into provider and commisioning services - which in my view was breaking the NHS up further.
As a community based team (Child Development Service) we were told that we could not stay as we were in the PCT. As practitioners we are having to think about how to sell our services. Whilst it is good to look at how we can develop the service to improve it, it means that as clinicians, we are spending time doing things that we are not trained for to the detriment of patient time. Whose decision was it to split the PCTs into commissioning and provider services?
There have been so many changes in the NHS, that it is diffiuclt to keep up with them, and each change means more money wasted. Why not just let us get on with the jobs that we have been trained to do?
The whole service is too beuracratic - we chase our tails trying to answer questions about different targets. The biggest waste of money has been the computer service, which is not used universally. We have staff from the local acute trust and the community trust sharing a building. We often treat the same children (at different times), but are on different computer systems, and the paediatricians are still using paper notes, so there is no joined up recording system. We need to still retain some paper records as assessments completed are paper based and cannot be put onto the computer. We often need to refer to notes and reports when we go out to meetings, so it means that two sets of notes are kept - taking longer than before.
Within the building where I work, there are constant discussions about who is responsible for what within the building - even to the extent of who provides the paper for a shared printer! On occasions there has been no paper or envelopes. We have had to provide things like this ourselves as staff in order to keep the service running. As a therapy team, we put in hours of unpaid overtime to serve the children and families on our caseload.
We need to make the system less beuracratic, but more cohesive!

I am pleased to see that the audience has seen through the Tory spin about the reorganisation of the NHS which is supposedly not a reorganisation.
It is in fact a £1 billion change where bureaucracy is just being moved from one group of people to another. When I visit my GP I want him to focus on the best treatment for my condition not about choosing the cheapest option so he can save money.
The point from the audience about why this policy was not mentioned during the election campaign is very relevant. This policy was not cooked up in a few weeks, we have all been systematically lied to by this Government. As a Lib-Dem my vote was stolen - it is time to kick out Clegg.

My husband has been employed by Tribal healthcare consulting for over 10 years, please can I correct the idiotic George Galloway, Tribal is NOT A PRIVATE HEALTHCARE PROVIDER!!!!!! They are a management consultancy firm who specialise in strategy, finance and ops management for the NHS. They do not provide private healthcare and will not be providing private healthcare in the future. Please can the 91Èȱ¬ ensure that chosen panelists do the proper research in future!

Funny that Francis Maude commented that people in public service shouldn't expect the same rewards as in the private sector: he's certainly trying to reinforce that with his latest attack on the civil service!

ALTHOUGH NOT PERFECT (WHO IS?) LABOUR DID TRY AND ACHIEVE AN ACCEPTABLE BALANCE but got it right in principle but wrong in finacial terms. The new co-allition government must recognise that the general public understand budgets and living within our means but also the need to reflect fairness and support for what are regarded as "must have" items and in fairness tha means everyone pulling their weight. Defining what is fair is difficult but at a minum wage of £5+ per hour is it really fair that a publicly paid employee can earn in exceess of x10 that rate i.e £50+/hr or say £100/hr? Perhaps the government should link caps on payment to some form of multiple i.e. if the lowest paid worker in an organisation is paid £12k pa then is it right that anyone gets more than £120kpa in that organisatio? However, if the lowest paid worker is increase to £20kpa then let the CEO get £200kpa = I suggest this would focus bonus incentives etc.

If this is the best the 91Èȱ¬ can produce I'm afraid the sooner you
loose your status a a national broadcaster the better.

I have never watched a programme as one sided as this. A left wing panel
augmented by a biased audience did nothing for debate in the country.

The new government must be scrutinised and held to account but this
evenings production was a farce.

To those who have complained about it being Francis Maude (the only Right wing member of the panel) against the rest, it should be remembered that Nick Ferrari is a right wing journalist. He was against these changes to the NHS because they are bonkers. In recent weeks we have had panels with both Conservative and Lib Dem members of the Government on the same panel. There has been a Daily Mail journalist (usually very right wing) on almost every week. This has been the first week since the election when the panel has had more members on the left than the right. The 91Èȱ¬ bias in recent weeks has in fact been right wing, not holding the new Government to account for the constant lies and broken promises.

Best Questiontime of the year. Interesting panel. David just about held it together. Star performers Andy Burnham & George Galloway.

Should not watch Question Time, some topics make me so annoyed - can't sleep!!Why should someone in the public sector not earn as much as someone in the private sector???

I object to Sally Bercow's remark about Mail readers, how many Mail readers does she know? I don't agree with everything that the paper decides to print but that applies to most newspapers.
I still don't think the answer to everything is locking people up, it depends if the criminal is a danger to a member of the public.
I found disgusting the rolling coverage of the Raoul Moat case, this must have also been a hindrance to the police, and to show him with a gun pointed at his neck was sick. I do not agree with Facebook websites but it is time our media looked at the way they cover this type of story.
The police, for many decades, have tried to keep us safe despite the fact that many of Magistrates are insufficiently trained. As for unreported crimes, its no good the public complaining about policing if they don't report crimes, it can be done on line now.

So much has been discussed and given so much media coverage on the Rothbury incident. I would just like to question this. I would ask the media (public) to consider the dignity and quiet self-governance of the people of Whitehaven and outlying areas who lost 13 people only last month through another similar incident. Why the difference? What makes this incident such a public outcry? Was such a tragic loss of life and its consequences on so many families so easily forgotten? Shame on us all that we have come to this.

Yes, those who have complained about the imbalance of panellists are right. The coalition government is NOT one political party, but two. It is unfair to both parties to treat them as one. Compromises in Government have been and are being reached for obvious reasons. There was no LibDem on tonight, which is wrong. And, from your audience's point of view, to have Conservative and LibDem panellists would make the debates more interesting. Please wake up, Question Time, and cut out the bias.

That facebook has certainly provided plenty of simplistic talk show style outrage based entertainment. How was this issue political. Are we meant to assume because Cameron is outraged at this flamebait that the implication is that the PC Brigade Labour party sympathise with the facebook flamebait? Notice how many times Maude in this program and Cameron in PMQs say Bureaucracy and Bureacrat while explaining why they "need" to force their free market religion on us. To me its blatent proof by assertion propaganda

So agree with Andrew GP!I have been a nurse for 18 years,have worked in both NHS and the private sector in UK,Ireland,Middle East,Africa and with an umbrella American company.Doctors in any country usually have quite enough to do with their patients best interest in consideration without balancing the books for the Government.Nurses do lots of complex calculations daily.........maybe we should have a go!