Overall your point is that you'd like as many heavily left leaning members to be on the show as you believe their views will be torn apart logically. You'd have been better off with something like that because if not your analysis just comes across quite bitter and biased.
On being swivel-eyed, the history of it's use in recent years has been by Guardian columnists accusing right-minded people of being unhinged. Note the article is written by no other than Carole Cadwalladr that in 2009 wrote about the Conservative party conference:
It's true that there are 18-year-olds in pinstriped suits with handkerchiefs tucked neatly into their top pockets, as well as lady golfers with strangely immobile hair, and swivel-eyed ideologues who have a crazed Pavlovian reaction if you so much as whisper "Europe" within 500 yards of them.
So, I'd say I'm no more biased than the author of this article, and I have no reason to be bitter.
To be honest you could have just dropped it from your initial post and included the information about the television interview with the shadow chancellor and it'd have added a lot more to the HN community than tired insults all sides use.
I want discourse and intelligent debate from all sides without the slide into the type of vocabulary used in so many other places on the internet.
I was a proud Marxist back when I was a teenager. Only now do I realize how swivel-eyed I was.