Very naive suggestions to resolve a long standing problem. It's been happening since man came out of his cave. If you don't like the question, avoid it. Simple.

One of our leading lawyers has suggested there be a penalty for politicians who lie. Laughed out of town as politicians would have to pass such a law. But it is the only answer. Punish those who lie or evade valid questions. That is the way, not tickers.

How many people admired and voted for Howard because he was good at evasion? Answer? The majority of his supporters. They mistake deceit for cleverness. He was never a "good politician" as many say. He was though a very good liar and evader.

Question Time should just be abandoned as nothing ever is said in there that is of relevance to the people.

The problem is too few even understand the questions, so any answer will do for most of our population.

It's only if you pay attention all the time that you know what they are doing. Otherwise people just hear the words spoken and make decisions on those words. That's why they do it. Because we, the public, are naive and stupid basically. They know the few that do follow don't matter as they/we are fanatics who can be ignored as a minority always is.

Pollies have been dodging questions since Caesar asked, "Et tu, Bruté?"

Some more artfully than others:

Clinton: "I never had sexual relations with that woman."

Howard: "Never ever ...GST"

Where would we be without them? Who would Jon Stewart pillory or John Clarke and Brian Dawe satirise?

Lest we forget:

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=OM2Rs-05ReA

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=215172&title=the-bush-years-the-2000-election

The problem with stumbling truth-tellers is they create little fuel for comedy.

Pollies will always be evasive - some more so than others, the important thing is that we, the public, remain aware when they are evading the question. We are fortunate to have the Clarkes and Stewarts there to remind us of the awful truth.

Fractelle said:
Pollies have been dodging questions since Caesar asked, "Et tu, Brute?"

Um, wasn't the answer of Brutus both silent and to the point?...

... up to the hilt, as it were.

At least Caesar didn't dodge the answer.

Whilst I agree that we must rely mainly on the skills and tenacity of our interviewers, even the best struggle in the face of committed stonewalling. It is worth checking out on YouTube Paxman vs Howard (Michael) and the infamous 'did you threaten to over-rule' question, but also to note that Paxo later fessed up to pressing on with the question because the next item wasn't ready to roll.