Peter Hitchens on Question Time

A decent debate has been had by all the lads in the office this morning. In spite of some subtle disagreements and a bit of back and forth, we unanimously agreed on the fact that rational decision making has become far harder in today’s society for fear of causing offence.

I couldn’t resist initiating the debate today, after having watched a ‘you tube’ clip in which Peter Hitchens (author of numerous books and a journalist with the Mail on Sunday) was asked to give his views on Britain’s approach to foreign aid.

Without knowing a great deal about Mr Hitchens before this morning’s exposure, it was fairly obvious to me that he is someone who the general public love ganging up against and who is not properly listened to, on account of his conservative views. This astounds me given that the Conservative party gained the greatest number of votes in the most recent General Election.

Anyway I digress. The question put to Peter Hitchens was as follows: “Is it right to seek to become a development superpower at a time when our public services are being slashed?” Hitchens responded with what I considered to be an objective and common sense-led argument, in which he alluded to aid being overrated because such a great deal of it ends up going astray or being wasted.

He made mention of the fact that simply because it is called aid does not necessarily mean it helps anyone and that very often money is simply being taken from the poor in the first world to fund the rich in the third world.

This provoked an impassioned reaction from one young lady in the audience. The lady was clearly so caught up in her own idealistic view of the world that she was unable to listen properly to what Hitchens was saying, let alone actually produce a compelling rebuttal.

In a foolish attempt to talk down to a highly educated and established journalist who writes for a prominent newspaper, she asked Hitchens if he had ever actually been to an undeveloped country before. What a daft question to ask of someone who is so clearly not a fool. It was as though she had somehow misinterpreted Hitchens’ well-articulated views for the ramblings of an imbecile.

Of course a 60 year old professional journalist who has written 5 books, and holds a regular fixture with the Mail on Sunday, is not going to comment so strongly on things which he has not properly researched. It was not as though he had just popped out of the sky and ended up on Question Time by accident was it old girl?

She began by recounting her experiences gained when working in Nepal before easing herself into a loosely restrained rage, in which she suggested that Hitchens was opposed to certain members of the 3rd world being allowed access to basic human rights.

Hitchens said nothing of the sort and was merely suggesting that the way Britain currently collects and administers aid to 3rd World countries is both overrated and more importantly inefficient. Such naivety, lack of listening ability and stark refusal to think beyond her own ideals were displayed by the audience member.

That this sort of subjective nonsense should be allowed to stand in the way of rational decision making and the making of key processes more efficient in practice is criminal. I appreciate that a ‘question time’ debate is not the forum in which new policies are implemented but it is a widely respected show, which holds great influence over the general public that tune in. That Hitchens or anyone for that matter should be heckled when answering important questions in an objective fashion, unafraid of causing offense is deeply worrying.

For all those who champion democracy and get up in arms when someone talks sense by going against the herd, check yourselves and realise that you are being hypocritical.

Modern day bureaucracy and political correctness has become a major barrier to progression. We have been overtaken both socially and economically by rival nations who have successfully defended against the rise of feelings over facts.

This particular event on Question Time is representative of a wide spread belief that always telling people what they want to hear is an acceptable way to run any sort of institution. Yes working on the front line and helping people in the 3rd World is admirable. It is and should continue to be championed! To think, however, that charitable giving is the only or even the most efficient way of improving living standards is utterly laughable.

It is capitalism that drives economies. It is enterprise that creates jobs and increases household income. We must not forget these truths, lest we slide further down the global leader board.