[Spencer]

I think it goes back to trying to create a Sunday magazine show (rather like a Sunday paper’s various sections) instead of a show that is politics in it’s entirety.

I don’t feel that a purely hard-debating politics programme can find a decent audience on a Sunday morning. If the programme is basically Hardtalk but with an added panel, casual viewers won’t be interested. If you water down the content to be “accessible” to people who don’t really follow politics, it becomes too anodyne and simplistic for the politics-keen viewer that the programme ought to naturally attract. So you have to tread a fine line to allow a wide audience but also not alienate the “core audience” of the political nut, to put it bluntly.

This difficult balance is why there have historically been other sections to this sort of programme, which also doubles as a sort-of news programme and even look ahead at the week.

This is essentially what I was alluding to in my earlier comments that the show wasn’t really working because it simultaneously tries to be purely politics but also attract a casual viewer - so it’s something that seems simplistic to a politically-minded viewer but also too argumentative to a casual viewer. A bit of a “reset” with other programme segments helps make the overall programme tone more cordial even if you do sometimes have hard interviews throughout the slot.

I totally get where you're coming from. And I think we're sort of in agreement. A programme based on two unconnected topics (politics and the arts) seems a bit odd. If there's a wider blend, it makes a bit more sense.

I'll be honest though, I don't remember this slot featuring any other topics... other than a quick read of the headlines and a weather update.