Question time tonight thursday ???

[Dom Tuk]

After the disclosures of the past 24 hrs with regards to the legal advice for the Iraq invasion, will question time go ahead. Blair has not much to gain by going head to head with the leaders of the other party. BBC says it is live...but i guess they must be recording about a few hours previously. Will Blair pull out??

[Escher]

I heard that it is now going to be each leader in turn on QT, staggered throughout the evening, and not all at the same time. I have been looking forward to a debate with all the leaders for a couple of weeks and am very dissapointed to hear we will not get it now.

I'd love to know why the change in format, because if it is for cowardly reasons, it stinks.

[Quizmonster]

The separate sessions with the leaders was always the intended format. Far from not having much to gain, Blair has nothing whatever to lose by submitting himself to comparison with the other two.

[Dom Tuk]

It appears that the format in QT was always going to be in separate sessions. I think that the way BBC were promoting it was misleading and i for one thought it was going to be head to head with all party leaders together with the same audience. many viewers will feel misled by this promotion tactic.

[Quizmonster]

Throughout the 18 years of Tory government, Labour leaders asked constantly for such head-to-head debates as you were hoping for, Dom, and such as are held during Presidential elections in the USA and elsewhere. Guess what happened...they were invariably refused! Hence the fact that they do not happen now either.

[Dom Tuk]

I was aware of that QM. I am narked by the BBC promoting todays QT with pictures of all 3 leaders together. Thats what led me to believe that they were all together this time. I do recall the debate on whether a US style free for all will take place here but i guess that will never happen here.

[eupraxia]

well I don't get the whole thing. The teletext is saying that Blair is in some way vindicated because this Goldsmith bloke implied it was all legal and the papers are saying otherwise. I don't buy papers because they are mostly drivel, But I do see them on the stands.

So whos telling porkies this time, am I right in thinking its the papers again.

I'm lost.

[El D]

Personally I believe the ruckus about the legality of the war is irrelevant. There were far more obvious reasons to doubt our good faith in going to Iraq. As for international law - who enforces that? Can you really see countries holding embargoes against the US?

[OBonio]

"The separate sessions with the leaders was always the intended format."

Why Sir Dimbleby's question right at the end then?

[Quizmonster]

Did you read my second response to this thread above, Obonio? Tory leaders consistently refused such head-to-heads when they were in government, but now - when it's Labour's turn to decide - such a refusal is taken to be a cowardly way out. What nonsense! What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Dimbleby should have pointed out the facts of the matter. Maybe - after Labour has had 18 years in office - they'll change their minds. Check it out in 2015!