Great question - who cares about the answer?

Unsuspecting Pierce Brosnan was being interviewed by Dennis Pennis.

"Otherwise I would have left!"

Brosnan was big enough to laugh, but it wasn't so amusing for comedian and actor Steve Martin when Pennis controversially asked him: "How come you're not funny any more?"

Pennis, a 1990s spoof interviewer played by Paul Kaye, would ask celebrities pointed and often cruel questions.

His technique has now moved into the mainstream.

ARE YOU PLEASED YOU CALLED THE ELECTION, MRS MAY?

ARE YOUR PARTY NOW ALL BEHIND YOU, MR CORBYN?

HAS THE GOVERNMENT BEEN UNDERPAYING NURSES AND TEACHERS, FOREIGN SECRETARY?

And so the spirit of Dennis Pennis has been reborn. He lives again when it comes to questions shouted out by political correspondents when, say, Theresa May walks through the doors of Downing Street, or Jeremy Corbyn arrives somewhere or other.

The point of the question is not to get an answer. The politician isn't likely to shout one across from the other side of the street, unless they are Donald Trump. The point of the question is to get the question on tape for the news broadcast.

So the news clip shows the politician arriving somewhere, and then you can hear that channel's correspondent shouting out their so-called question, which is actually just a bit of Dennis Pennis-style needle to wind the politician up and make them look uncomfortable.

It's rude, pointless, unenlightening to viewers, and of entertainment value only. Were they never taught not to shout out in class?

There are, in the words of that 1970s political philosopher, Johnny Nash, more questions than answers. And unless they're on the receiving end of the questions, that's the way the politicians generally like it. They are not particularly interested in any answers they receive because, in their own heads, they know the answers already.

The same emphasis on the questions rather than the answers comes in what is appropriately called Prime Minister's Questions, rather than Prime Minister's Answers.

Rarely do we learn anything.

The questions are often great, and if they are especially good and pertinent they get shown on the news or broadcast on the radio, invariably with a spoken headline along the lines of "the Prime Minister and Jeremy Corbyn clashed in the Commons today over..." and then whatever it was they clashed over.

It is enough to broadcast the clever-clever questions, and ignore whatever the answer might have been although, to be fair, with Theresa May you are living in forlorn hope of any clear answer unless the question has been planted by some compliant backbench Tory MP to cue a pre-prepared statement.

In times of avoidable national tragedy the need for answers - real and important answers - becomes pressing.

The fire at Grenfell Tower which claimed so many lives is an example. Why did the fire spread so quickly? How can we stop it ever happening again?

Judging by the official response so far, it seems that provisional conclusions have already been made about some fire safety aspects, with the finger of suspicion pointing to the cladding to explain the swift spread of the blaze, with the result that cladding on other tower blocks has been tested or removed.

Yet this tragedy has also taken a political dimension. One lady appeared on television to say that she wanted to have an inquiry into the wider issues, and as she expanded on them she mentioned the closure of the local library and of a local nursery.

It suggests that the answer being sought by those seeking a wider inquiry is that the fire was the result of Tory cost-cutting. If such a broader inquiry is held, but does not reach that conclusion, the critics will still believe that that is the real answer to this particular political question, and that the whole process (that they had called for) was a whitewash.

In the current political landscape there is a really big question that concerns us all, as we are all going to have to pay up to answer it.

It is this: where's the money coming from?

During the general election campaign, strong and stable Mrs May promoted herself as the candidate for fiscal prudence, as opposed to Jeremy Corbyn and his magic money tree.

Amazingly, Jeremy's magic money tree appears to have taken root in the garden of 10 Downing Street.

Already it has mysteriously borne fruit in the shape of a £1 billion bung to Northern Ireland as a thank-you to the Democratic Unionist Party for propping up Mrs May's minority government.

More fruit is ripening on its boughs.

Michael Gove and Boris Johnson have been in symphonic tandem to create the mood music which has raised expectations - admittedly being downplayed by Downing Street - that we shall see the cap on public sector pay either eased or ditched.

It is not so long ago that to have been described as a "deficit denier" was a crushing label to be put on the opposition, even though the UK budget has been in deficit semi-permanently for the past 60 years.

Tax, borrow, and spend looks to be coming back in fashion, with even leading Tory economic eggheads like Sir Oliver Letwin saying people are willing to pay more in tax to fund the National Health Service and social care.

Politically, Mrs May may not be able to afford any more austerity.

She has talked about those in society who are "just about managing." That is her now - just about managing to cling to power.