BBC BLOGS - Newsnight: From the web team
« Previous | Main | Next »

Tuesday 28 September 2010

Lucy Rodgers | 11:07 UK time, Tuesday, 28 September 2010

Here's what we're planning for tonight's programme:

Ed Miliband delivered his maiden speech to the Labour party conference in Manchester earlier, telling delegates "I am ready to lead" and that a new generation was in charge of Labour with "different attitudes, different ideas, different ways of doing politics".

He concluded his speech saying: "We are the optimists and together we will change Britain."

Jeremy is in Manchester for us tonight with an audience of Labour members who'll give their views on the day's events.

David Grossman will give us his assessment of Ed's wide-ranging speech - did he manage to reassure those who think the wrong brother won the leadership contest?

And our Political editor Michael Crick will give us his analysis of where the Labour Party is now, nearly five months on from its election defeat (and you can try your hand at Michael's latest conference season quiz - this week all about the Labour Party - by clicking here).

Then back in London Gavin will be speaking to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, about his new book - a collection of essays that looks at how we build a new social and economic model out of the ashes of the financial crisis.

All this and more at 10.30pm on BBC Two.


  • Comment number 1.

    "China blocks international crackdown on offshore, says European Commission President Barroso"

    From Lucy Komisar:-

  • Comment number 2.

  • Comment number 3.

    :p I've just tried Michael Crick's Labour quiz - I scored 4. As for the Lib Dem quiz, I scored 1.....

  • Comment number 4.


    Limited Ed is a Westminster politician who has 'evolved' under a regime that is largely unchanged over decades - decades of overall decline and failure. I will not justify those nouns - all I will say is: hospitals are not wellbeing - schools are not social competence, police are law but not order, and war is failure not triumph. And money - love of - has proved itself evil beyond price.

    Against that reality, Limited Ed - 'his own man' - claims HE can restore this country. Yeah right. There is only one word for such a man - DELUDED. Look at deluded Tony shrivelling as he rushes about the globe, fleeing reality, and deluded James G Brown, vaingloriously being triumphant in defeat, off to tell Americans 'how to'. These two were previous products of Westminster's shaping forces.


  • Comment number 5.


    Lift and shift? We get the drift
    Of what you’re saying flick number 2,
    Not that it’s not obvious but it’s good to see it
    All written down. It’s bound to prove fit
    For analysis pinned down with a clip.

    Local and focal your lift and your shift?
    Are you so sure you are not somewhat adrift?

  • Comment number 6.

    Ed Miliband was chosen by members of the Labour party, and since he's been leader, now Labour has gone up in the polls, above the Conservatives. Yes, David Miliband's speech sounded good, but then it had to really - otherwise it would look like sour grapes. Another point about Ed is that he comes across to the public as showing humility and promises a new start.......could the same really have been said for David?

  • Comment number 7.

  • Comment number 8.


    Just heard Pencil Man interviewed by Martha Kearney. NO' A GLO''AL IN THE WHOLE INTERVIEW! When Tony launched his banal, intrusive, glottal stops on us, it was quickly aped by pathetic HB and the Milibands. SUDDENLY it has gone - completely gone! Is this because Limited Ed has declared the Age of Blair DEAD? I had been wondering (here) if Ed would drop it, in the face of Dave (who speaks 'proply') but Hilary's eschewal is damascene!

    Oh - it's all going awfully well.

  • Comment number 9.

    Thirty plus years listening to ‘bottom rung labour supporters’ .......

    Last night’s Nn was the absolute epitome of where political parties have gone wrong ...

    The Political Elite - and those aspiring to be amongst ‘them’ - continually ignoring the fears, opinions and views of those that may eventually - again - put them back into power, and instead ‘pontificating’ about ‘ishooz’ that ‘they’ see as ‘worthy’! ( Looking at the gradual collapse of Lib Dim support might offer some validation of the premise as to what happens when HMP’s stop listening to the electorate.)

    Labour lost the last election as a result of three - “We dare not say them” - ‘real ‘oshooz’ ....


    In particular it’s failure to publicise the actions the - then - Government had introduced - in the last days of the ‘reich’ (?) - left core voters unaware of the party’s recognition of the impending sic problem and it’s willingness to deal with the ‘ishoo’. (Phil Woolas’s post-election admission that the media wasn’t reporting anything that was being said didn’t help. But then why would the media not publish something relevant to the concerns of the electorate? Hmm! )


    Most of the people in the UK are conservative with a small ‘c’! In fact most people in most countries are “are conservative with a small ‘c’”, It - small ‘c’ conservatism - is, surely, what must define ‘national identity’. (jadedjean, gnuneo, tabblenabble, et al ...... Informed comment appreciated?)

    Political Correctness.

    Xmas stopped being ‘religious’ as far back as 1979! ( At least IMO that is when the ‘trend’ was initiated!) It - Christmas - is now little more than an opportunity to consume to excess and is consequently ingrained in the ‘british‘ psyche as such. Because it is increasingly losing it’s religious root does not mean the GBP want ‘it’ called “Winter Celebration”, “Snow Time” etc etc. (Which, if any, member of the last Government took any stand against “PC” before it was too late?)

    So .....

    Talking endlessly - as per last night’s Nn - about ‘ideological’ ishooz’ may keep the suited socialist intellectually ‘massaged’ - or perhaps, in there own eyes, raise their ‘profile’ in the “W-illage” - but it will not regain lost votes ( AKA ‘power’)!

    Undoubtedly the GBP are rightly concerned about where UK finance is going but it - still - is not the “Big Issue” at grass roots level! ..... ‘Getting through’ is!

    The right wing political press have brainwashed the electorate into accepting that the ‘cutz must happen’ at the speed the coalition has dictated. The Lib Dims, living up to there ‘nu’ name, have no option - assuming they want to continue to exist - but to meander along desperately grasping on to the coat-tails of the Big Cons ....

    And Labour ? ....

    Elect - Ed - Get it? - needs to re-engage with the dispossessed - in a way that is seen as fair to all - and not to those lobbying minority groups that realise that those using the biggest megaphone are most likely to be heard! ( Work in a LA Housing Office for a couple of days to see how the system really works!)

    Or lose again. And again, and again ..... Ad nauseum!

    An .... Oh Yes! ....

    The Abbess is putting herself forward to stand for the Shadow Cabinet! (A previous post relevant? perhaps?)

    So ...

    Six members of the Labour Party have to be women.

    How does “Best person for the job.” come in to that then?

  • Comment number 10.


    Ed promises a new start with humility, Mistress76uk? Let's hope.


    while looking at a sculpture by the painter of BO's favourite painting 'Hope'.

  • Comment number 11.

    Let's hope Newsnight is going to be as good as yesterday.

  • Comment number 12.

    "With Ed Miliband expected to draw a line under New Labour in his first big speech as party leader later, we'll be in Manchester to assess whether he managed to reassure those who think the wrong brother won the leadership race."

    As with the 'choice' between New Labour and Conservatives, it was a false choice. Most of the choices we have are like this. be it Royal Gala, Braeburn Jazz, we easily forget that they're all (red) apples and not sausages!

    Whatever the line drawn under New Labour, from what was said last night it doesn't look like it will be a return to what was central to Old Labour, i.e

    Fabianism and Clause IV, as that was Stalinist National Socialism you know, and somehow, I can't see the spawn of the New Left ever taking Labour back down that route can you, as they hated all that as bad for them and consumerism (aka grass roots democracy/choice). That being so, what were the unions voting for Ed for? Is Bob Crow a Trotskyist?

    "Is he giving unionism a bad name" is the question one should ask, as it's outcomes which matter in life not intentions. He need not know that he's being played of course - few of us ever like to admit that we are being managed, but most of us are. In Stalinism (as opposed to Trotskyism), a vanguard must lead the party (a bit like our Civil Service in fact), not the workers. Stalin understood that to lead one has to be educated/educable which means self-critical. The same is the case in the world's most successful socialist state today, i.e. modern China. That's led by engineers, not by workers/peasants, and certainly not by PPE graduates. Engineers and scientists have to be self-critical, it's central to applied science/engineering - see GOSPLAN.

  • Comment number 13.

    "6. At 12:42pm on 28 Sep 2010, Mistress76uk wrote:
    Ed Miliband was chosen by members of the Labour party, and since he's been leader, now Labour has gone up in the polls, above the Conservatives."

    If 7/10 women say that they think putting cream on their face at night keeps them looking younger, will you be tempted to put cream on your face at night?

    This is really a subtle question about democracy as populism. Democracy is not necessarily populist, as China is also democratic (as was the former USSR and N Korea today) It's just not democracy as most here know democracy. In some countries, people are protected from those who prey upon their ignorance.

    To help your head spin just a little (in the best possible interests), read this and let me know what you think:

    What were these contributions to statistics, economics and politics doing?

    What does this have to do with the economy today? What was John Humphrys' programme on BBC2 about last night?

  • Comment number 14.

    Elect ... Ed.....

    Quote .... serve the british people again. .... unquote.

    Not much new there then .......

    Apart from the choice of music at the end!

    And ...

    Oh yes! ....

    D. Ed must go!

  • Comment number 15.

    "8. At 1:33pm on 28 Sep 2010, barriesingleton wrote:

    Just heard Pencil Man interviewed by Martha Kearney. NO' A GLO''AL IN THE WHOLE INTERVIEW! When Tony launched his banal, intrusive, glottal stops on us, it was quickly aped by pathetic HB and the Milibands.
    SUDDENLY it has gone - completely gone! Is this because Limited Ed has declared the Age of Blair DEAD? I had been wondering (here) if Ed would drop it, in the face of Dave (who speaks 'proply') but Hilary's eschewal is damascene!"

    Are you unable to see beyond the personal through to what matters in politics, namely policies? Either you are in the business of distraction, or you can't help yourself. You should study Mimpromptu's posts for a more extreme variation on this same theme.

    A few decades ago the model which best summed up animal conditioning findings (animals are used for most work on learning) was known as Kamin's Blocking Effect. After 1975 there was equivocation as to how to mathematically weight the linear model which best accounts for the data, but loosely it came down to learning being a matter of surprise, and the ability to discount irrelevant from truly predictive information (i.e that which removes prior uncertainty). I suggest you carefully look into this to see what you can do about it, as you are focusing on celebrity incidentals at the expense of what matters, possibly without knowing this.

  • Comment number 16.

    9. At 1:46pm on 28 Sep 2010, JAperson wrote:

    "How does “Best person for the job.” come in to that then?"

    Read around Ricci v. DeStefano and its history very carefully as this provides an insight into the level at which these politics operate.

  • Comment number 17.


    re: No. 14

    A case of too many Eds!

    Last line should read ......

    David must go!

    Both of them!

    But for entirely different reasons!

  • Comment number 18.

    #8 Ah Barrie you've just solved a problem for me, I partly listened to that interview, but the radios gone all white noise on me, not buying a new one as Mr Bean has instructed me to do though! I knew the voice but couldn't place the name it must have been the lack of glotal stops that got me too!

  • Comment number 19.

    New all time high for gold - over $1300 as mass currency devaluation war begins.

  • Comment number 20.

    #9 Brilliant post JAperson! Suberb, I love your posts and have missed them, a sense of humour is definitely needed in this day and age, you seem to manage informed public opinion with a smile. : )

  • Comment number 21.


    I didn't realise you or you head were into spinning as per #13.


  • Comment number 22.


    May I remind you, table, that The British Monarchy does not govern the United Kingdom these days but rather play a supportive and representative role burg internally and internationally. Is that something you're dreaming of? To play an equal or even superior role locally and on the world stage?

  • Comment number 23.


    Tab01, in your postings you have established, beyond doubt, that you have a PERSONALITY trait that leads you to espouse theories that confine all human behaviour into a structured, predictable regime. Consequently, you have a clear POLICY of instructing us all in the absolute veracity of this theory.

    For the avoidance of doubt, I think you are wrong, and shall not defend to the death your right to hold that view. Let's waste no more words.

  • Comment number 24.


    First we have to endure Unlimited Ed - as close to "A new dawn has broken - has it not" as I can stomach, and then The Arch of Cant wants to tell us about his NEW thing.

    Ed should realise Labour is just ONE Westminster illusion out of several and Archie needs to admit his illusion is also optional. BOTH SOULD ADMIT IT IS ALL SMOKE AND MIRRORS, and self-serving.

  • Comment number 25.


    Some Labour faithful popped up on PM to say we came to know Ed in that speech. Well - yes, but like Blair, only as a reader of the printed word, written by other, or others, unknown.

    Obama has proved a bit insubstantial when required to form sentences on the hoof. But remember how great he was with a crowd and an autocue?

    'Political posts are won with vacuous performance art, but justified with competence and gravitas.'

  • Comment number 26.


    With respect to Ed Miliband's speech, bear this in mind:

    "In previous years it has been the habit of X Factor bosses to replay tired old interview footage recounting how so-and-so has entered to “give their little boy a better life”, move out of the workhouse or in the most pitiable cases, escape Newcastle.

    But Simon Cowell has vowed that repetitive sob stories will not be allowed this year. Acts in previous years have, he claims, droned on with tales of heartache to win public sympathy."

    Why would any New Generation Labour strategists have ED Miliband open with his family's escape from Belgium/Poland? Just to expose the history a bit further, here's one from Londoner1234 written to Michael Crick's

    Is this a subterfuge to keep the party faithful/deluded from looking too closely into Fabianism, or doesn't ED understand? Does it matter? He gave the speech, it will have an effect, his understanding doesn't come into that any more than his glottal stops, unless you aren't paying attention to what matters.

  • Comment number 27.

    Listen carefully to the beginning of Ed Milband's speech today and give a lttle thought to how it squares with the objectives of the Labour Party as it once drew on the Fabians. Why was he talking about himself and his parentage at all?

    Forget about the modern incarnation of The Fabian Society, as Fabianism died to be replaced by Trotskyist New Labour which is grass-roots populist democracy. That is as close to anarchism as one can get. This should be far more obvious, but sadly it isn't. Much has been written on this subject to this blog by many others, but all that should be reviewed, as Debtjuggler says. To make a healthy society work one has to work against natural entropic market (Darwinian) -forces, and we've been doing precisely the opposite to all our cost. I hate to be the one to state the obvious, but Fabianism was National Socialism.

  • Comment number 28.

    Could it be the poky for Former Prime Minister Geir H. Haarde ?

    Now who else should be put in the freezer ?

    Please inform Dr Williams the financial crisis is only just two thirds underway. The media are so controlled that we dont hear about how bad it is already. Unless of course your a unemployed ill bum being fingered at by Osborne while 12 billions are spent in July alone on the US bond bubble - such farce.

  • Comment number 29.

    Maybe I've been reading to much of this blog too much, but it occurred to me that not only did the Milbands' parents escape the evils of socialism in Eastern Europe just in the nick of time as socialist Germany and Russia jointly invaded in 1939,

    but their father's New Left helped to ensure that Britain didn't go national Socialist under the influence of the Fabians either, whilst their mother helped to free British women from the burdens of kitchen and motherhood thereby keeping the birthrate down too. Now, Ed Miliband is going to further help to save us from the mess which Tony's New Left/New Labour got us into by making oppositional noises whilst the Con-Dems cuts the nasty public sector (state) to ribbons in order to pay for all the bad loans which financial services lent to private sector clients during New Labour's credit boom.

    Britons - they aren't stupid are they?

  • Comment number 30.


    Mr Singleton

    I'm not sure about a martyr as this implies suffering for some sort of a worthy cause but I agree with you that his 'ideal' ideas are totaly unworkable and in my view unacceptable. I find that he shifts from one thing to another, and from one person to another. He criticises so many bloggers, journalists, celebs and politicians and then expects to be backed by them. It all seems nothing but parasytic to me.

    And to think that you used to be a blogging colleague of his. At least one can have an open argument with you even if we are iin complete disagreement most of the time.


  • Comment number 31.

    y'know, I quite like the idea of the Archbishop of Cantebury, noah like, wading in to teach the political and economic spivs a thing or two about sustainable governance as we wallow in our world of sodom...especially is he can conjure up a miracle or two to back it up.

    Can the BBC get a special effects guy from Dr Who to conjure something up, or at least have an unexplained power cut at a critical part of his interview giving just enough time for a make up artist with night vision goggles chance to trim those extraordinary eyebrows of his (please).

    Judging by analysis on Paul Masons blog divine intervention, real or imagined, is about all the hope we have of getting the people off their bloated bottoms and their subdued imprisoned awareness out of the lotus eaters chamber of TV, internet and computer gaming to effect a change for the good.

  • Comment number 32.


    For verily, it is written, therein lies his awesome power of intellect.

    Great post Jericoa. I am in not doubt your edgy, fun, initiatives, going forward, will be taken up by Newsnight. Do you want musack with that?

  • Comment number 33.

  • Comment number 34.

  • Comment number 35.

    When listening to Ed Miliband's speech, I couldn't help being reminded of The Clangers.

  • Comment number 36.

    "23. At 6:06pm on 28 Sep 2010, barriesingleton wrote:

    Tab01, in your postings you have established, beyond doubt, that you have a PERSONALITY trait that leads you to espouse theories that confine all human behaviour into a structured, predictable regime. Consequently, you have a clear POLICY of instructing us all in the absolute veracity of this theory."
    Actually, no - you've just done it again, so let me enlighten you, again. My postings just establish that I post sentences hopefully one's which are logically sound and empirically true. That's all they reveal.
    On the other hand, despite your frequent appeals for help, it's clear that you won't actually be told anything. For example, people in political parties do try to speak from the same hymn sheet and that's essentially what parties are all about Mr Singleton. Your picking up on the minutiae of some of their behaviour as if they should be Independents is therefore not only a little tedious but is misguided and rather eccentric don't you think? It's like cynically commenting upon the tawny property of the tawny owl or the soporific properties of sleeping pills. This is an important point that most people do not understand about behaviour. Many descriptions or explanations are just the same thing in other words, i.e no explanation at all. These politicians try to be similar, that's because what they want to come across are party policies, not personalities. Time after time you've appealed on this blog for expert help with respect to some of your amateurish analyses of behaviour, and yet, when offered it, you take offence. How would that go down elsewhere, be it at the doctor, the dentist or anywhere else? "Hello Mr Singleton, what can I do for you today?"..."Oh, you don't want me to do anything or tell you anything you say"..."Can I ask why you came to see me please?" "Oh, you came to tell me how to do my job"....

    You have proudly told us several times that you lack an education in these areas, and yet, when advised on how to analyses these matters in the light of science and PR training, you refer to this as mere theory.
    Just ask what criteria you would have anyone judge the veracity of what is said or done? The omniscient (anarchistic) light of Singletonism perhaps?

    There's another term for that you know.- and it fits ;-)

  • Comment number 37.

    30. At 7:16pm on 28 Sep 2010, mimpromptu wrote:

    "I'm not sure about a martyr as this implies suffering for some sort of a worthy cause but I agree with you that his 'ideal' ideas are totaly unworkable and in my view unacceptable."

    You do have much in common, and you could build constructively upon that observation. Learning is always a surprising/painful process, and fighting that often just makes it that much harder. As to ideals, clarity only seems ideal or theoretical to the ill educated and those with otherwise disordered behaviours (it's how they preserve their muddled status quo). If you review my posts you might not like what you read, but you'll find them to be (largely) true nonetheless. There's a reason for that, which at present, neither you, nor Mr Singleton are privy to. A little diligence and self-criticism could change that however, and to your advantage too.

    PS. Any idea why the Milibands' parents didn't like the socialists as they marched into Poland from Germany and Russia? Might it have been that the mother's family were well to do capitalists?

  • Comment number 38.

    @ Tabblenabble #13 – :p Actually I cleanse, tone and moisturise every night!

    I haven't watched 'Unequal Opportunities with John Humphrys' yet, but will try to catch it on BBCi Player later on

    From the blurb, it states that "Lee Elliott-Major of The Sutton Trust tells how research still suggests that the overwhelming factor in who does well in school depends on who the parents are."

    The article you cited, is all about Eugenics at Cambridge (which subsequently ceased in 1933) The article states:

    "Some members of the intellectual aristocracy, the professional middle-class, felt that good breeding was very important; identifying the best people intellectually and physically and encouraging them to breed (positive eugenics) and preventing or at least discouraging those without these qualities from breeding (negative eugenics). With the scientific knowledge available at the end of the nineteenth century and beginning of the twentieth century, early eugenists such as Galton with traditional mainline eugenics proposed that our character, intelligence and physique are dependent on our biology, and that this determines breeding."

    Keynes was part of the Eugenics Society. The scheme of family allowances had originally been devised within the Eugenics Society with a graduated rate, which paid out more to middle-class parents and very little to the poor. The whole point was to combat the eugenicists’ great bugbear — the differential birth rate between the classes." However, the government decided to give a uniform rate to all.....

  • Comment number 39.


    I am glad at least somebody else here gets it. I was beginning to wonder.

  • Comment number 40.

  • Comment number 41.

    #24 barrie:

    Y a w n… y a w n….

    "First we have to endure Unlimited Ed - as close to "A new dawn has broken - has it not" as I can stomach, and then The Arch of Cant wants to tell us about his NEW thing."

    I too am sick and tired of all the column inches and commentators comments and opinions on ED - and I’m sick and tired of people who keep blogging that they are sick and tired of this!

    Please can we have something different.

    Perhaps a Newsnight special on the other ED - Not Balls, but - Erectile Disfunction.

    That should surely be of more profound interest to many, judging by the column inches on Viagra (no pun intended) being on special at Boots.

    Should also give scope to the BBC media studies grads who keep Newsnight backdrops really EDgy, and prevent flagging. Keep it up fellas,

    I’m actually looking forward to Archie Cant tonight as he usually thinks (deeply) for several moments before responding to questions, uses a shepherd crook in place of an autoqueue, and often comes out with something approaching intellectual gravitas, which has been absent for the last few Newsnights. Just a thought.

  • Comment number 42.

    Barriesingleton -

    Perhaps you might read some of the following in order to better appreciate some of my points made above, and how they bear upon what I and others suggest is a much wider, and far more grave subterfuge which is probably driving our current social and economic woes? I suggest this is far more important than the prevalence of Ed Miliband's and other New Labour MPs and their glottal stops etc..

    As you read, bear in mind that the Labour Party (not as we know it today
    alass) grew out of the Fabian Society. Also consider the contributions of K. Pearson, R. Fisher, J M Keynes and W. Beveridge when thinking about Ed Milband's parents escape form the nazis (socialists). Does what New Labour as its new incarnation make any sense?

    "Thus the decade following the First World War was characterised by evolutionary and, especially eugenic thinking. Indeed, when William Beveridge (a life-long supporter of the Eugenics Society) was appointed Director of the London School of Economics in 1919 he resolved to bring about the "application of biology to human society" by the creation of a Department of Social Biology. The syllabus for the proposed Department was outlined by Beveridge as: "Instinct in Man, Inherited and Acquired Characteristics, Quantity and Quality of Populations and Racial and Economic Tests of Fitness ....
    In making "quantity and quality of populations" central to his proposed new academic discipline, Beveridge was acknowledging what had now become a matter of general, and not merely eugenic concern: the problem of differential fertility. Nor was this concern confined to those on the political "right". Beveridge’s own Chairman of Governors at LSE, Sidney Webb, speaking for the Fabian Society, had told the National Birth Rate Commission in 1917 that rates and taxes fell most heavily upon the classes who should have most children but presented no impediment to "the thriftless and irresponsible, the reckless and short-sighted of all grades" with the result that "the community now breeds fastest from its least desirable stocks" . And Karl Pearson, a Fabian with Marxist economic leanings, claimed that the most fertile sector of the population produced fifty per cent of the next generation . The much delayed publication, in 1923, of the results of the 1911 Fertility of Marriage Census showed that, despite increasing resort to birth control by successive marriage cohorts since 1870, there was a persisting social class differential in birth rates. The problem was now officially recognised. It was also set to music. "There’s nothing surer", ran the lyrics of one of the most popular songs of the early 1920s, "The rich get richer and the poor get - children"

  • Comment number 43.

    38. At 8:54pm on 28 Sep 2010, Mistress76uk wrote:

    "The whole point was to combat the eugenicists’ great bugbear — the differential birth rate between the classes." However, the government decided to give a uniform rate to all....."

    Excellent - well quoted (sorry to hear about the face cream though).

    Now, how on earth did what you quote above ever come about? True, our liberal politics are clearly adversarial, that's just our Parliamentary system, but something is wrong. As I and others have been saying, one group seems to want more consumers who will readily part with their money wherever it comes from (usually indebting themselves whilst also overburdening all family members both local and extended), and another wants to limit that in the interests of all concerned. Note: It isn't even as if the more able in society have an equal number of children to the less able, The statistics show that they actually have far less. That's the problem as many see it. What's equal or rational about that, given all that we know from research and failed efforts to improve matters?

  • Comment number 44.


    The 'truth' and you, table? You must be joking.

  • Comment number 45.


    But levity works wonders. (:o)

  • Comment number 46.



    Perhaps that boaster of superiority does in fact suffer from bodily imperfections causing him taking an obsessive interest in eugenics, just like Hitler did. And it might also be something to do with his surname.

    I wouldn't worry too much about what he writes.


  • Comment number 47.

    Who is so fowl that talks of an owl?
    I've recently bought a mug with a couple of owls.
    Does mr fowl mix with the foals?

    chicken, eh? and all this for having chickened?

  • Comment number 48.

    At 3:38pm on 28 Sep 2010, tabblenabble01 wrote:

    Picked it up from the earlier posting, interesting and intriguing.

    But why is the first thought that comes to mind ....

    ‘A man that chooses to cover his eyes will never see.’

    At 4:45pm on 28 Sep 2010, ecolizzy wrote:

    Good that you are still fighting your corner!

    ( If we all hang on in there we’ll all go to heaven! ....sic)

    Without a sense of humour one must surely end up repeating oneself!

    Perhaps endless repetition criticising other people’s proposals on, say, ....

    Jewish hegemony!

    N’est pas?

    And ....

    Nn doesn’t really know how to do a ‘live’ ( Is it? ) audience does it?

    Perhaps a bit more experience stroke practice will help!

    Perhaps not!

    The Plebiscite might - shock, horror, probe - have something interesting to say!

  • Comment number 49.

    Below are just three stories from today's BBC website that typifies the environment that has been created in this rotten country that allows businesses to legally exploit the all of us (though especially the vulnerable) all in the name of profit.
    It's unfettered, free-market anarchist, PREDATORY behaviour that's been allowed to pervade our expenese of all of us.

    Some debt management firms 'exploiting' people in debt

    Some debt management firms are posing as charities and are driven by a sales culture, the Office of Fair Trading has found.


    Raoul Moat Taser firm licence 'revoked'

    It was believed at the time of Moat's death that, although the Home Office had not approved the weapons, their use was at the police's discretion. But it has now emerged supplier Pro-Tect Systems breached its licence by supplying X12 Tasers direct to police.


    Getting off train early costs Durham professor £155

    A Durham University professor has said being charged £155 for getting off a train a stop early was "absurd". Martyn Evans got off the East Coast service at Darlington, which is near his home in Hurworth, rather than stay on to Durham. The train company said he had breached the terms of his first class ticket to Durham by "breaking his journey". The firm, which is majority owned by the taxpayer, waived the charge after Prof Evans made a formal complaint.
    The married father-of-two, who is professor of humanities in medicine, said he was made to feel like a fair dodger.


    It's nasty, it's pernicious and it's evil.

  • Comment number 50.

    41. At 9:27pm on 28 Sep 2010, indignantindegene wrote:

    "I too am sick and tired of all the column inches and commentators comments and opinions on ED - and I’m sick and tired of people who keep blogging that they are sick and tired of this!"

    The reason why this leadership election and speech should have been important is because it was an opportunity to provide a credible opposition to what the Con-Dems are going to be doing. If, and I say this as a useful counterfactual, the entire financial crisis was set up as a boom precisely so that the public sector could be slashed to pay for the post bust bail-out of private sector debt, the only thing which could have stood in the way of that predation would have been a viable Fabian Labour Party as its started out at in 1884. Given what we've seen and heard today, that clearly isn't on the cards, and I think that's bad news for Britain as you and I once knew it. Watch the John Humphrys programme and ask yourself pertinent questions in the light of what you have been told is the case in this blog in recent times, because teachers are just environmental interventions are they not?

    What happened in the 1920s was that currencies were devalued and assets were bought up by a few on the cheap. That's how those few acquired disproportionate power at the expense of many. It was a power grab.

    That's what accounted for the hostility in Germany and Russia, it wasn't racist.

  • Comment number 51.

    I wont bother with the Ed milly speech..because it was c*** (can I say that mod?) He may have got my attention if he'd have pulled out a rubiks cube and cracked it with one hand in under 80s..but cumom, that speech was really poor...very poor delivery, Ed needs lessons in giving speeches. God help the Labour party!
    Can you Labour folks hurry up and get out of Manchester because your winding everybody up. (It appears I did bother with Eddies speech...i must've been very bothered)

    Why is there an inquest into the death of the drunk lawyer brandishing a shot gun? One less moron in the world.. good! but whats with the inquest?! Why are the police getting grilled over this incident?

  • Comment number 52.

    Forget traditional tame Hitler eugenics, try this on for size, everybody dead ( apart from the wealthy elite ) unless you can function as an 18th century farm labourer !

    The Real Green Agenda ( comments quite interesting also )

  • Comment number 53.

    It would have shown gravitas for JP and his studio experts and audience to have discussed the thoughts of the Arch of Cant than to have reverted straight back into the endless repetition of opinions on the overworked theme of the Milliband brothers, including the endless discussion of the brief reaction of David Milliband to his brother's comment about the war. Dum dum de dum dum

  • Comment number 54.

    Lively Newsnight tonight with Jeremy particularly with Daniel Finkelstein & Andrew Rawnsley :o)
    Good to see The Archbishop on as well with Gavin. What he said made a lot of sense....
    And the Big Ed interview is tomorrow!!!!!

  • Comment number 55.

    ;p Best line of the evening goes to Jeremy "Does anyone care what Gordon Brown thinks anymore?"

  • Comment number 56.

    Has anyone else noticed the 'nodding donkeys' throughout the conference coverage today (especially over Ed's shoulder and during NN). Whenever Ed or an activist blurted out an affirmation statement, there were a plethora of 'nodding donkeys' (all young of course) nodding away like demented Churchill advert dogs. Oh yes!

    Not only do they appear brain-washed but they all seem so desperate for group acceptance/acknowledgment that they feel the need to nod their 'eds in a faux sincere, (nay violent) affirmation manner. I guess it could be brain damage that has induced this behaviour.

    If only they knew how stupid they looked.

    Our economy is truly doomed!

  • Comment number 57.

    Jeremy introduced Michael's contribution by suggesting that his fellow journalist might annoy a few people. I suppose he might have been referring to 'table' or 'jaunty', or whoever, who suggested that Mr Crick should leave Newsnight and go and do fishing in the West of Scotland.

    I thought I might as well take this opportunity to say that Crickey, like Stephen Smith, never annoys me or gets on my nerves. I may not occasionally be sure about his politics and things like that, but it's neither here nor there. Every individual has the right, in my view, to their own opinions as long as they do not try and push them down the throats of others, almost suffocating them as a result.


  • Comment number 58.

    #11 update and #57 addendum

    I was not disappointed by tonight's Newsnight, neither ambiance wise nor content wise and it was really good to hear the Archbishop of Canterbury mentioning the importance and value of emotions in one's life.


  • Comment number 59.

    Re: Ed's beginning as the leader of the Labour Party

    I was originally alarmed by some of his statements, like a complete break with New Labour and the importance of the middle classes rather than the whole of society but his speech today showed a more balanced attitude to the problems the UK is left with by the previous government. And it was good to hear an apology as well. It does take a degree of courage to do that.


  • Comment number 60.

    So Ed Milliband is now leading a new generation in politics. Not exactly sure what that means, other than it's a new generation in politics.

    No doubt a slogan intended for us to interpret as a new dynamism, a better future, a change for the good. Could, of course, turn out to be the exact opposite.

    But 'new' sounds vital, fresh, though not alongside discredited New Labour, so what better than to slip it across to New Generation. Could even be weaved into a TV gameshow 'a la Brucie' to attract young voters.

    So give thanks to the nebulous creations of the advertising and PR gurus guiding us into a 'new' political future. No worries about substance.

    "Probably the best lager in the world", is open to interpretation, unlike the gritty "does exactly what it says on the tin".

    "I'm sorry, Dennis Skinner is a discontinued line sir."

  • Comment number 61.

    #60. Who do you think you are, jug, talking about people like that? You should be ashamed of yourself though it looks like you are well beyond that point. Have you had your own head checked? How about an MRI, a CT scan or a psychological and psychiatric assessment?

  • Comment number 62.



    Perhaps not many people care any more about what the former PM thinks but they do care about how to solve the problems they've been left with.


  • Comment number 63.

    What worries me is why the authorities are letting the likes of 'mr table' and the one who seems to get himself i'n debt get away with constant abuse of all good and sundry.

    The only hope, I feel, rests i'n the hands of the 'new' 40-year olds now i'n charge of the main Brotish political parties.


  • Comment number 64.

  • Comment number 65.


    'come-back kid'?, 'mademoiselle'?
    aren't you the infidelle
    posing under all kinds of masks and guises
    experimenting with high-frequency devices?

  • Comment number 66.


    Ed has been put in charge as the holding leader, while the labour party is out in the wilderness for the next ten years.

    David's out in the wilderness, off to europe or the USA I reckon, hhhmmm William has never made a spectacular comeback since the baseball cap has he? Even as foreign secretary he's not making waves.

    Is the whole of parliament a wilderness, as it is to me. No gravitas, no elderly statesmen, just a load of kids getting enthusiastic and jumping up and down, who haven't a clue what they're doing. Reminds me of head boy and the senior prefects taking assembly.

    Or perhaps I'm just old!

  • Comment number 67.


    The 'kids', as you call them Ecolizzy, may just turn out, given time and the right kind of guidance, ones of the best this country has ever seen, the 'kids' from most Westminster sides. I should imagine the Royalty will play a great part in guiding them. The time seems definitely ripe for something like that to start happening. That's my impression anyway.


  • Comment number 68.

    "64. At 06:21am on 29 Sep 2010, mademoiselle_h wrote:
    I think David Miliband should stay away from his brother`s shadow cabinet. This is not about him sulking after defeat. If he chooses to stay, every difference in opinion on an important policy decision from now on will be interpreted as the two brothers falling out, and paralyze the important working relationship between the leader and the shadow chancellor."

    Only if they are both incredibly incompetent and behave like women?

    Look at the undue weight which you give to personal trivia. What's discussed in government are policies. Most of what's discussed and decided doesn't involve the public at all, they only hear about it afterwards, and only substantively come into politics at election time when they are told any old rubbish to get their votes.

    Why is it that women in particular are obsessed with this personal trivia at the expense of anything which substantively matters? Did you see David MIliband pick Harriet Harman up yesterday and how other women leapt to her defence? No wonder Caroline Flint had a hissy fit over window dressing. Given their highly significant place in the workforce these days, the media now plays to this behaviour which clearly just serves to reinforce it. Do you not see how distracting this is? It makes rational discussion about what is materially relevant almost impossible because of a din of distraction. What you are telling us through the above post is that you think this din is politics, but it isn't, it's just what the media creates because that's what their FOCUS groups say their audiences like, and, because the markets want the public to be as little concerned about substantive politics as possible given that real politicians do regulate, i.e govern them. Do you understand this?

  • Comment number 69.

    56. At 11:41pm on 28 Sep 2010, DebtJuggler wrote:

    "If only they knew how stupid they looked."

    Given how our society has devolved over recent decades, many probably think they've joined the Masons. You should see those who signed up to be 'Future Leaders' (look this up) in education. These were the alchemists who, to mix metaphors, were going to turn the nation's pigs ears into silk purses. Now Michael Give is doing the same. How they were/are ever going to do this given all of the research evidence speaks volumes to me about the New Labour Project's Education, Education, Education and the similar ideas of the Con-Dems too, yet spelling out the folly to them will fall on SEN ears.Try it. The truth is so at odds with their core (false) dogma that it usually doesn't even register, and if it ever does, it just elicits rage. That is how bad things have become. Dawkins should try getting through to this lot as they are more dangerous than any of his witches and warlocks.

  • Comment number 70.

    "52. At 11:00pm on 28 Sep 2010, brossen99 wrote:
    Forget traditional tame Hitler eugenics,"

    Hey lighten up on Hitler already, it was the Real Labour Party (Hitler and Stalin just picked up on socialism from the Fabians - seriously).
    Don't you get it yet? The Labour Party was really evil. They wanted to make Britain a nicer/safer place and to reduce the number of spivs/speculators/criminals aka entrepreneurs and biznussmen. Russian accent - Russian Mother: "Segei, we used call him a criminal, but nowadays, we have to call him a biznussman!.

    We were saved from a Fabian horror by Hayek, Thatcher and New Labour etc.

    Remember this:

    that's them! - See Keith Joseph's profile he's subdued Spike!.


  • Comment number 71.


    Echo that restassured.

    Old - but not old-and-mild Lizzy.

    I came to the end of my patience when Ed wrapped himself in the non-sequitur of volunteer invader-heroes, to tell us the invasion was improper. Are squaddies still supposed to REFUSE AN ORDER if conscience says NO?

    But the thing about limited Ed, that struck me most forcibly, was the flat body-language. He is, surely, the 'Stepford Partner' of politics! I used to amuse myself spotting him, in earlier front-bench days, looking terrified, lost and vacant by turns. THERE IS A LOOSE WIRE IN THERE SOMEWHERE.

    Be afraid - be very er what was I saying?

  • Comment number 72.

    #66 ecolizzy

    Tony Benn

    1964–1970 Labour Government

    "As a minister, I experienced the power of industrialists and bankers to get their way by use of the crudest form of economic pressure, even blackmail, against a Labour Government. Compared to this, the pressure brought to bear in industrial disputes is minuscule. This power was revealed even more clearly in 1976 when the IMF secured cuts in our public expenditure. These lessons led me to the conclusion that the UK is only superficially governed by MPs and the voters who elect them. Parliamentary democracy is, in truth, little more than a means of securing a periodical change in the management team, which is then allowed to preside over a system that remains in essence intact. If the British people were ever to ask themselves what power they truly enjoyed under our political system they would be amazed to discover how little it is, and some new Chartist agitation might be born and might quickly gather momentum."

  • Comment number 73.

    #67 addendum

    I'm quite convinced that the Royal 'kids' will also continue to play a valuable part in keeping the UK on track, as well as quite a few so-called 'celebs' and stars. It's not a question of pretending that everything is OK and indulge in cheap and vulgar patriotism but it does help to keep the spirit of the nation positive as much as possible in these difficult times rather than incessantly banging on about doom and gloom and mad attempts at undermining those who already have and still do contribute to the wellbeing of this country, which, in the long term, does, in fact, strengthen their position.


  • Comment number 74.

    tables have legs but they're deprived of heads
    nor do they have hearts
    though I know of one table who likens himself to pets

  • Comment number 75.

    Mistress76uk - read that 2009 Spectator article critically.

    Did you Beveridge up from here after I posted the article yesterday?

    "those men who through general defects are unable to fill such a whole place in industry, are to be recognised as 'unemployable'. They must become the acknowledged dependents of the State... but with complete and permanent loss of all citizen rights — including not only the franchise but civil freedom and fatherhood."

    If so, look to who he battled with at the LSE in the early decades of the C20th.

    Can you see how benefit policy would have been subject to the democratic process, and how the democratic process can be abused (as it was in Germany at the time) in order to bring about a slow (or revolutionary) decline in the state, just as Fabianism strove to bring about a slow growth of the state? 1984 was an attack on Fabian socialism by the anarchist/Trotskyite, Eric Blair.

    This is the nature of realpolitik I suggest. Some lawyers like conflict as it is good for business.

  • Comment number 76.

    #61 mimpromptu

    The answer is yes and I am entirely insane, thus well-equipped to deal with this world.


BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.