Dr David Starkey on Question Time

I've just watched a rerun of Question Time on the BBC's i-Player. The most entertaining member of the panel was, as I suspected it might be, Dr David Starkey. He was arrogant, prickly, temperamental - and brilliant.

He had a few advantages over his fellow panellists, of course. Not being a politician, for a start. (And these days, that's an instant bonus.) Secondly being a minor TV celebrity; never discount the power of the media. And thirdly having a historian's mind and perspective, which perhaps explains why he was so cutting and eloquent.

Again and again he hit the nail on the head, wiping the floor with the various political mouthpieces and ignoramuses on the panel (and the audience). His expose of Gordon Brown's leadership and New Labour's failures was particularly savage.

I found myself squirming at his pomposity and gall, but I couldn't help agree with most of what he said. "A devalued currency is a sign of a devalued Government," he said. Which was a quote from Gordon Brown when the Tories were in office! Ker-ching! Let's see any Labour supporter squirm out of that one. Kind of hard when your own leader was the one who said it.

His sarcasm was not designed to win over waverers, but he didn't care. And neither did I. He exposed fallacies in a way a straight-laced politician never could have. When the repugnant Margaret Beckett tried to pretend that 35,000 extra jobs were evidence that Government policy was working Starkey shot back, cuttingly: "If you spend tens and tens of billions of pounds, of course you will reduce unemployment - by 35,000!" Bullseye.

He then demolished the UNITE cabin crew at BA who decided they wanted to strike, pointing out that they were paid double - yes double - what most cabin crew get. (Must be easier if you're a well-paid TV historian, I thought, but he had nonetheless nailed them.)

He slaughtered Brown for his deception or gross negligence (there is no other explanation) in falsely claiming at The Chilcott enquiry that spending on defence had increased in real terms each year, and then exploded when he talked of Gordon Brown 'milking' the army for political purposes.

I thought that, as a historian, he would perhaps be on less sure ground when discussing the Bulger murder (which I have discussed myself on this humble little blog), but in fact he gave an insightful and interesting analysis, eschewing populism by calling neither for vengence nor mollycoddling of the perpetrators, as audience members have done both on this show and the show with Will Self and Carol Vorderman a few weeks ago.

Vorderman came across as a nut, and not a terrifically well-informed one at that. Today there was a loon in the audience, a young lady with blonde hair who couldn't explain why 10 was too young to understand wrongdoing and who showed no understanding of the wider context of child behaviour. It's always amusing to watch an audience big-mouth go silent when they realise they haven't thought through their point and that their argument doesn't stand up to any kind of cross-examination. Great tv.

Starkey showed just such an understanding however. I was surprised. He pointed out that in Norway a similar case had concluded with the killer being 'nurtured' back into society. But he cleverly pointed out the different social attitudes that Norwegians have. The different population, living space, and attitudes the Norwegians had. He pointedly tied in the lack of discipline that young people experience, painting it as a sign of neglect rather than weakness. "We're confused in this country about how to treat children," he said.

He didn't comment on what should be done to Venables and Thomson, which to me was a sign of thoughtfulness - after all, how can anyone really say when they haven't themselves examined the boys? He pointed out the wider failures to discipline and nurture children and tried to address that issue instead. A wise move. The only discordant note was when he suggested that in the UK we "have 25%" of feral children. What did he mean by that? That we have a 25% share of European 'ferals'? Or that 25% of British kids are 'feral'? I think he was wide of the mark with that one.

Another wally in the audience started blabbering that something or other he said was 'disgusting', leaving Starkey to point out she had actually agreed with him! Can't they introduce an IQ minimum for Question Time audience members?

But then he was back on it. The Green leader, Caroline Lucas, spouted verbal diarrhoea for much of the show. Big mistake with Starkey at the end of the table. I remember he once described himself in an interview as an 'academic thug', and he was nothing less with her. When she said we should ignore the deficit and keep spending like there's no tomorrow to keep unemployment down Starkey took his medieval axe to her head.

She was in 'never-never land', and 'spitting in the wind', he sneered. He pointed to Greece, Italy and Spain and their deficits, and explained that when Britain had a debt 3 times its output we had a little thing called an Empire to export our problems to. And that amyway economists don't control the market. It shut Lucas up. He then twisted the knife by reminding everyone that virtually all the jobs Labour have created have been in the public sector -and that the public sector didn't create any wealth. So it can't drag us out of recession. Game, set and match.

I think if I ever met David Starkey I would probably dislike him for his arrogance and condescending manner. He doesn't seem like the world's most pleasant chap. But he was right, absolutely right, on most things on Question Time and he was great entertainment. Sometimes you need a maverick like that to point out that the emperor has no clothes. Get him back on Question Time soon.