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

Tuesday 2 June 2009

Sarah McDermott | 16:10 UK time, Tuesday, 2 June 2009

Here's what is coming up this evening on Newsnight:

Jacqui Smith is to stand down as Home Secretary in a few days and no fewer than four Labour MPs have said they will stand down at the next election. So is this a Government in crisis, and can Mr Brown really claim to be in control of events? We'll have front bench and back bench reaction on another momentous day at Westminster.

We will also be speaking to Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague and asking him about Tory European policy and his party's position on the Lisbon Treaty.

Plus, our Diplomatic Editor Mark Urban will report from Germany and Hungary about how extreme left and right wing parties could fare in Thursday's European elections.

Do join Jeremy for all that at 10.30pm on BBC Two.

Comments

  • Comment number 1.

    Re: My opinions as at No 17. Last nights Blog. 01.6.09.

    Am I hot or what! ( Is one from three hot ?)

    I didnt get any of my questions asked. (Did anybody?)

    Ms Harmon didnt give any of the answers I would have liked - In fairness none of my questions were asked so ......

    But ... Boy! The questions that Sir JP did ask ....... she answered exactly as I had predicted!

    Dont forget my same requests for questions as yesterday and my same preferred answers.

    But Ill predict, whom-so-ever is dragged in tonight, will give the EXACTLY the same answers as I predicted Ms Harmon gave in last nights charade.

    Oops! .... Sorry ..interview.

    Incidentally .... Ms Smith will be a topic for tonights programme:

    Genuinely sorry to see her go, despite her hubbies - natural? - foibles, she has done a very good job.

    And .... No ....... Im not a labour voter!

  • Comment number 2.

    This Parliamentary crisis, which gathers pace like a snowball, thus gaining greater mass and momentum, which makes timings more delicate, and could make the stability of the State, even precarious.

    Today I hear, Plaid Cymru are tabling a Constitutional measure, requesting the Queen to porogue (close) PARLIAMENT. Not that I don't want a change of Government; assume we will get one anyway, whenever the election is called.

    However this argument that the current MPs are all corrupt is completely overdone, erroneous, hysterical, rate producing and self-fulfilling. Undoubtably, many 'unforced-errors' seem to have been made 'inadvertantly', 'absent-mindedly'!

    Equally, they were all knowledgeable of the corruptibility of the Expenses system, whereas we were not. Though frankly, I think all the self-righteous political journalists must have known quite alot. Yet we the ultimate judges need to take into account that this situation has come about because the culture since Maam Thatcher was in power, allowed for heavy expenses claims, rather than overtly acknowledge to the Public the public controversy of raising MPs salaries.

    Yet I agree, some have swung the lead too strongly; hogging moats, dry rot, double entry, and endless mortgage interest. But we can deal with them at an election or just before.

    I am more concerned about the stability of the English State, the long term democratic rule of a modernised Parliament, reduced to more appropriate size. Perhaps if they can be induced to vote 'like turkeys', for their own reformation, including reduction in their numbers; we can tolerate their continued drawing of their salaries.

    I am not happy that if we elect another Parliament, they will have enough knowledge, expertise, ability, motivation to reform the place into which they have just been elected, and will want to get their teeth into Power, not vote on their demise. It would be a false assumption to think they would be bound to do reforms which they will have little knowledge of its procedures, other than in the most general manner.

    We must place on the statute books, vote on the legislation, obtain Her Majesties Constitutional seal, before we abandon Parliament to a new Election, or perhaps we shall rue not applying appropriate, intellectual, educated foresight.

  • Comment number 3.

    TOUGH COOKIE

    "Jacqui Smith is to stand down as Home Secretary in a few days and no fewer than four Labour MPs have said they will stand down at the next election. So is this a Government in crisis, and can Mr Brown really claim to be in control of events?"

    Home Secretaries tend to do about two years. There's an election coming up in a year. People stand down. Parties start whipping up the public when elections are coming - they've been learning from the Americans haven't they?

    MPs here don't really have a lot to do. If we had a Command Economy ('nazi' in some deluded people's books) i.e. where utilities and the Means of Production were all still in state hands as after WWII (instead of owned by the French or a bunch of Russian 'oligarchs' etc) it would all be quite different. As it is, ask yourselves a really basic question: in the absence of that, what do MPs really do which matters? Isn't that why the electorate is so disinterested in politics and has been ever since the Welfare State was broken up and sold off? What's in it for them, apart from some theatrics on TV, and a cup or tea and a biscuit in their MPs 'surgery'?

  • Comment number 4.

    Too bad Mrs Smith - can't say you ever floated my boat in the clean sense - something 'Midlands' but dour about the close colleagues of Mr Brown. Talk about the blind leading the blind - although we all are for the most part not clear regarding the future, but the worst gaff you made was in not confronting the Mayor of London, Boris 'Karloff'. The wrong police person got shafted over the death of the Brazilian, Charles de le M........? Or possibly both should have been sacked. You have weakened democracy with this failure - and badly damaged a Government already rocked for six by numerous leaks, cockups, and Brown/Blair conspiracies, and being in power too long for the abilities and intellects involved. God help us if Ed Balls with his staring, manic, unflinching eyes, takes your job. A Home Office ......ath!

  • Comment number 5.

    More should fall on their swords. They led us to belive they were leading from the front with zero % payrises. I would have accepted my own below inflation rises with much more grace, had I realised I could go out and make up the difference on expenses.

  • Comment number 6.

    Smith is to go..so is that the end of ID cards?

  • Comment number 7.

    Please could someone explain how Mandleson who is not elected nor an MP could possible be put forward for a top job as forgien secretary in a reshuffle of the cabinet, again not elected?

  • Comment number 8.

    ginadean (#7) Liberal-Democracy = much overated and much misunderstood. You give them a mandate to do pretty much whatever they like within the law, and probably get to change a few of those along the way too. Except at election time, electorate doesn't really matter much. They only have a 'big tent' for the people they like.

  • Comment number 9.

    Can I just say what an absolute privilege it has been to watch the disintegration of the Labour Party.

    I truly am humbled.

  • Comment number 10.

    Jacqui Smith to Stand Down

    I suppose it has nothing to do with this ?

    If Mr Weaver does get the court to issue a summons for Jacqui Smith on the 26th will NN follow the case ?

  • Comment number 11.

    Strugglingtostaycalm (#9) That was completed when they a) got rid of Clause IV b) became Neo Labour/Conservatives.

  • Comment number 12.

    Whatever Harriet Harman claims about MPs' motives, she is a poor example. As legal officer of the National Council for Civil Liberties (now called Liberty) she would have vigorously opposed the government's attacks on our civil liberties - ID Cards, NIR, extended detention without trial, recording all our communications, more snooping and tracking, restriction of protests and so on - but as a minister she has done a U-turn on her principles.

    How can we believe what she says or have any respect for her? ID Cards break all of the government's 10 principles set by its Gateway Review to protect people from an authoritarian state. She also lied when, during her deputy-leadership campaign, she said on TV that the government should apologise for the Iraq War. After she won, she denied everything.

    How can this government carry on regardless, as Brown and Harman claim it can? Parliament is in disarray, MPs have lost the trust and respect of the people, the cabinet is falling apart, and the government has clearly lost its mandate (Gordon Brown never had one). If we really were a democracy we would have an immediate general election.

  • Comment number 13.

    JJ #11

    I seem to remember of something in New Labour's "clause 4 " about allowing people to attain their full potential, not much sign of it in policy when it comes to driving like the proposed cut in the National Speed Limit to 50 Mph ?

  • Comment number 14.

    The rule that allows Gordon Brown to cling onto power, is as sham as the rules that allow MPs to cheat the taxpayers. We are being cheated out of the right to get rid of an unwanted government (and an unelected prime minister) by a rule that benefits those in power, instead of the people.

    In a true democracy, it should be possible to force a general election when enough people want one.

  • Comment number 15.

    I just watches JP on newsnight and he was totally out of order attacking William Hague the way he did. He was embarrassing and totally biased. Trying to score points all the time and to appear a tough interviewer but not achieving anything with the kind of questions he asked.

  • Comment number 16.

    JadedJean # 3 wrote : If we had a Command Economy ('nazi' in some deluded people's books) - Nazi means National Socialist - it is the twin brother of InterNazi - International Socialists. The National/International part is a irrelevance.
    InterNazis had the idea of turning a large minority Manual Workers, in this case, into a political force that used their political power to run the economy for the principal benefit of themselves at the expense of those not in the group.
    Nazis had the idea of turning a large minority White-Collar Workers, in this case, into a political force that used their political power to run the economy for the principal benefit of themselves at the expense of those not in the group.

    The hatred between Nazis and InterNazis is due to the fact that the professions are interchangeable and the slice of economic pie they were after was the same : a road digger could become a shop assistant so these two organisations were fighting for the over the same group of people. In essence though they are both the same - The whiney whimper of in Sweden they do this. That we have heard from socialists for decades now used to be in Germany they do this. right up to the end of WWII

  • Comment number 17.

    I thought Jeremy Paxman did an excellent job of showing Hague up as someone who will not commit to anything and was indecisive and devious in his answers. The weasel words and evasiveness of Hague really tell you all you need to know on their European policy.

    His performance decided me not to vote Conservative on Thursday. What is the point of voting for a party which can't even tell you where they stand on important issues? At least the minority parties tell you their position in no uncertain terms. Hopefully at a General Election we can get rid of politicians of this ilk and replace them with some straight talkers.

  • Comment number 18.

    I KNEW tonight would be one of the best! Jeremy on top form again :o)
    From Roy Hattersley's remark that it was "cheap journalism" when Jeremy was stating the facts to him to the utterly outstanding interview with William Hague who simply did not have a clue - he couldn't give an answer to any of the questions posed by Jeremy. Definitly a classic interview. Excellent discussing with Danny Finkelstein & Peter Hyman too. What a line by Danny - that he had heard Peter Kilfoyle saying that Labour now had a window of opportunity...to which he stated that the only possible thing they could do was push Gordon Brown out of it. Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

  • Comment number 19.

    Excellent questioning last night by Jeremy Paxman of William Hague concerning the tax weasel Lord Ashcroft. William Hague, Shadow Foreign Secretary, did not seem to know or did not want to answer if Lord Ashcroft is a UK resident. Lord Ashcroft, just to remind you, is a major Conservative party donor and by this 'virtue' also the Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party. Such is the transparency and Britishnes of the Conservatives, it is quite shocking! The 'core value' of the Conservatives seems to be to make as much money for themselves as possible, preferably untaxed! This is sad, really, and a bad policy for the beloved British public, which, let's be honest, many of the richest Conservative weasels like to plunder (if they can get away with it).

  • Comment number 20.

    GlenisDevereux (#16) "Nazi means National Socialist - it is the twin brother of InterNazi - International Socialists. The National/International part is a irrelevance."

    I disagree.

    This is very simple. National Socialism is Socialism in One Country (either in germany in the 1930s or the USSR from the late 1920s to 1953) where workers (i.e anyone who works for a living in any sphere of work from manual labourer to brain surgeon) rather than capitalists (who live off money and its interest) own the Means of Production and have that managed by the state via a Command, Planned Economy in the hands of a strong Civil Service acting on behalf of the workers/electorate. The alternative is International 'Socialism' and economic anarchism which is really just the neo-Liberal free-market. There, the means of production are in private, individual ownership where the means of production is sold to shareholders on the international stock exachanges. People are misled that they can own what they once collectively owned anyway, and that they can do this by becoming shareholders! (see privatisations in the UK in the 1980s and Russia in the 1990s). New Labour is a member of the 'Rose and Fist' Socialist International. The latter, like Thatcher's brood, are essentially asset-stripping Trotskyites/Neo-Conservatives. Judge history by outcomes rather than ideolgue's stated intentions/make-overs.

    Does the above description not fit the facts? Focus on The Means of Production and how it chnages hands. Stalinist USSR and Nazi Germany were much the same. Stalin forbade the German Communists from opposing Hitler during his rise to power because the German 'Communists' were (Jewish) Trotskyites.

  • Comment number 21.

    invisiblehandadvisor (#19) Well said. If the ever more naive electorate votes Conservative it'll just be leaping from the frying pan into the fire. It's time for a return to this. With it's nemesis the USA now severely weakened it might just be viable if Old Labourites got their act together. I doubt they will though. The New Left is strong amongst them.

    I was disappointed with John Denham last night.

  • Comment number 22.

    7. At 6:45pm on 02 Jun 2009, ginadean wrote:
    Please could someone explain how Mandleson who is not elected nor an MP could possible be put forward for a top job as forgien secretary in a reshuffle of the cabinet, again not elected?


    Very good question. However, the answer might be a tad 'unique' for some in the MSM to feel like asking, much less answering.

  • Comment number 23.

    HOOF AND HORN PARTIES SMELL - THEN FALL APART.

    Nick Robinson sees political parties as held together by the glue of 'combined self interest'. It has a nasty ordurous ring to it, does it not? All the more reason to govern (manage) through a group of mature individuals bonded by integrity, without party games.

    Another Nick - Clegg - can't wait to be submerged in Europe. (Could it be a blood thing?) He seems not to realise that EU glue is desperately inferior, even to the UK variety.

    Better to stick to the pursuit of individual maturity and integrity. Viable cohesion follows, without the make-or break rigidity of glue. Our current 'society' is hell-bent on destroying both attributes.

  • Comment number 24.

    barrie (#23) "Better to stick to the pursuit of individual maturity and integrity. Viable cohesion follows, without the make-or break rigidity of glue. Our current 'society' is hell-bent on destroying both attributes."

    Agreed. 1) The interesting question for 'debate' perhaps, is to ask why? 2) The important thing to do is to reverse this trend, but how, given that the population has been conditioned (especially through foreign policy) for over a generation to regard the solution aversive?

    It would be good if Newsnight systematically covered these two points.

  • Comment number 25.

    Addendum (#24) But realistically, the BBC, like HMG, will pursue its own agenda.

  • Comment number 26.

    'Mr Darby said BNP candidates attracted unparalleled hostility from the media, campaigners, celebrities and other political parties - who accuse it of being racist and divisive - but said the election of a BNP MEP would "change the rules of the game" '

    Well if they actually come out and say what they are they will change the rules of the game.

    They claim they are NOT a Nazi party and are a modern and progressive party.

    You only have to read the posts on this page - by people who are NOT BNP activists - on a typical day to see that they want an end to democracy, they want eugenics, race "realism", a planned economy Hitler style and suchlike. Holocaust "agnostics" of course.

    So probably the 12% they claim to have in some areas is a very soft vote and would collapse quickly even if they did make gains as most voters are NOT voting for their core policies.

    Myself I tend to think that the BNP claims that its website has more hits than all of the other political parties combined - so maybe they tend to over hype themselves and should not be taken too seriously.

    But we should be concerned about any vote for the BNP as something has gone wrong if people start to look at murderous tyrant who's actions led to the deaths of millions.

  • Comment number 27.

    #23 barriesingleton

    "All the more reason to govern (manage) through a group of mature individuals bonded by integrity, without party games. "

    You could mention the "mature individuals" are people who want a Hitler-ite society and an end to democracy.

    One word like "Hitler" and everybody can see what you are about.

  • Comment number 28.

    #23 barriesingleton

    "Nick Robinson sees political parties as held together by the glue of 'combined self interest'."

    I don't think Nick Robinson sees Hitler-ite policies as a solution.

    and

    #24 Jaded_Jean

    If you are genuinely "agnostic" on the Holocaust why aren't you going to take your "statistics" on Jewish survival rates from the thirties to the Djemjanjuk trial as you believe there were no death camps - hence no crime?

    You do have integrity don't you?

    On a separate note quite a few senior people in the BNP have criminal convictions.

  • Comment number 29.

    Will higher education be affected badly by the downturn when we hit the autumn?

    I assume foreign students will not arrive in the same numbers and domestic numbers may well be down - particularly from low income income families.

    Will universities buckle under the financial strain?

  • Comment number 30.

    Well we agree on one point : "Judge history by outcomes rather than ideologues stated intentions/make-overs". You ask "Does the above description not fit the facts?" - no. In Pre-Hitler Germany a train would take teachers, bank clerks etc to work in the morning. The driver of the train, because he was a 'worker', would be paid 8 times what the passengers were paid - these under-paid white collar malcontents living in unheated houses and bare cupboards with hungry children were Hitler's caucus you would have joined had you been there. The facts of history were that 'Extreme Right Wing Hitler' and 'Extreme Left Wing Stalin', called Nazis and InterNazis had only a slight difference of caucus but had the same essential policy of centralisation - mass murder of dissidents is a logical consequence of centralisation. You try to get away from this by re-defining Stalin to be a Nazi - you do this by using the "ideologues stated intentions" i.e. there is something important about the International part of 'International Socialism" instead of judging by history - the National/international tag was an irrelevance - they were both mass murdering centralisers. You re-define real International 'Socialism to be global free trade. Well at this point it is impossible to debate with you - it's like trying to count to 10 and saying that 1 really means 2 and 3 is seven - counting to 10 like that becomes impossibly complex and any debate on it will go on for hours or years all complicated by tower of Babel language difficulties. Yet counting to 10 is simple. You have to use words as you find them. If you have an old idea that you feel is lost in so many different meanings of the word then go and get a new word for it - "Stalin wasn't a real communist, Real communism is..." how many times I have heard the start of that sentence being the same... and the end of it being different (Im guessing this is your theme tune). As for the 'very simple split between workers and capitalists you state, until Brown stole the pensions, many people lived off their wages during their youth and lived off interest on their retirement If they died early their children got to live off some of that Interest during their youth. It seems you have a 1930's cartoon picture in your head drawn by a 1930s ideologue of a good worker with a scarf around his neck and a cloth cap on his head banging a rivet into a steal frame while a bad fat bloke in a suit smokes a cigar you cant add very much to modern debate while your head is stuffed with 1930s cartoon caricatures and while every word you use has a meaning to you that is different from what everyone else thinks it means.
    i.e. You started off with : If we had a Command Economy ('nazi' in some deluded people's books) but then you say Stalin was a Nazi who had a command economy
    so command economies are Nazi or only some or is it as far away from Nazi as possible ? please try to explain in simple modern English without using a 1930s ideologues language.

  • Comment number 31.

    thegangofone (#28) "why aren't you going to take your "statistics" on Jewish survival rates from the thirties to the Djemjanjuk trial?"

    Is it because JadedJean hasn't been called as an expert witness?

  • Comment number 32.

    Go1 #28

    "Jewish survival rates from the thirties"

    Either you have a very poor memory or you deliberately twist what is written to suit yourself.

    Let's try it again and see if you can come up with a simple, and civil, answer. In easy round numbers... World Jewry in the early 30s was around 15 million. If 6 million died as a result of Nazi activity during WW2 how come there are around 13 million Jews today? Bearing in mind their birth rate is below replacement level. (These numbers courtesy of The Jewish Virtual Library.)

    Come on, convince me.

  • Comment number 33.

    GlenisDevereux (#30) ".. they were both mass murdering centralisers.

    Is the Premier of the PRC a 'murdering centraliser'? They hold a lot of US debt these days note.......

    "You re-define real International 'Socialism to be global free trade."

    Have you not seen their polices?

    "Well at this point it is impossible to debate with you"

    Perhaps you just don't like being de-brainwashed aka educated?

    "You have to use words as you find them."

    That depends where one finds them. You have found them in black propaganda. The German National Socialists were left wing fighting Jewish Bolshevism and international capitaism not Stalinism. Most of the mass murder stories are just black propaganda to make people like you fear statism, i.e government control of The Means of Production (e.g The Old Labour Party or Roosevelt's NRA). What most people believe today is just spin manufactured by the US and especially the Austrian/Chicago/Frankfurt Schools of 'economics' and decades of junk 'social science' i.e which is factually all radically wrong empirically.

    Have you noted how New Labour spins? People now know this because New Labour wasn't as good at it as the Conservatives were. Why is that? Why did Political Correctness really only start to take root in the 80s? Was it because that was the decade when Thatcherite/Reaganite (largely Jewish led) Neoconservative economic anarchism (Trotskyism) started to take root?

  • Comment number 34.

    From the Observer:

    'Barry Bennett, MEP candidate for the South West, posted several years ago under a pseudonym in a white supremacist forum the bizarre statement that "David Beckham is not white, he's a black man." Bennett, who is half-Jewish according to the BNP's deputy leader, Simon Darby, continued: "Beckham is an insult to Britishness, and I'm glad he's not here." He added: "I know perfectly respectable half-Jews in the BNP... even Hitler had honorary Aryans who were of Jewish descent... so whatever's good enough for Hitler's good enough for me. God rest his soul."'

    1. It sounds likely that Hitler was related to the Salomons.
    2. Qualification for the death camps was either political or racial - using a one sixteenth rule.
    3. Therefore Bennett would have qualified for the death camps.

  • Comment number 35.

    #32 NewFazer


    So that is a "Yes" you are taking your "facts" to the Djemjanjuk trial as no Holocaust no crime?

    No you aren't - because you know that the facts aren't true. Remember anyway that you are "agnostic" and therefore are not persuaded by your own arguments.

    Irving failed to justify his views in Austria. What a surprise.

    You know full well that there was no reliable census figures in the countries occupied by the vile Nazis.

    There have been many trials and volumes of confessions and testimonies, there are the camps and the soldiers who found the camps.

    But I know you will continue to propagate these lies - hence I would think making Holocaust Denial a criminal offence a good thing.

    However readers will see what you are about and hopefully nobody will be swayed by your anti-democratic ideology.

  • Comment number 36.

    go1 28:
    "On a separate note quite a few senior people in the BNP have criminal convictions"

    Can i draw your attention away from 'spring time in germany' and remind you of the revelations that the Daily telegraph has ran for about the last 3 weeks...!!! you know! er...get with the programme buddy!

  • Comment number 37.

    #33 Jaded_Jean

    'The German National Socialists were left wing fighting Jewish Bolshevism and international capitaism not Stalinism. Most of the mass murder stories are just black propaganda to make people like you fear statism, i.e government control of The Means of Production (e.g The Old Labour Party or Roosevelt's NRA).'

    So the millions related to those who were massacred or those that fought and found them are all in on the propaganda?

    If they had won the war convincingly why would they need a lie?

    Stalingrad was actually a bun fight?

    By the way you have never gone beyond your Ladbybird Book of Far RIGHT Ideology story that Nazi hatred of 'Jewish Bolshevism' was borne from Stalin ejecting large numbers of Jews in the thirties.

    Be honest you just need somebody to hate.

    Incidentally Roosevelt fought against the Nazis and the Old Labour party despised your views.





  • Comment number 38.

    #31 Jaded_Jean

    True comrades - you all stick together! I think Himmler tried to do a bunk and offered to help the Allies against the Soviets at the end but nobody wanted him.

    He owned furniture made from human body parts.

    You can trust "statists" - vote BNP?

    You could "demolish" the "black propaganda" of the Holocaust but you are too busy.

    Of course. Life in la-la-land.

  • Comment number 39.

    thecookieducker (#36) For a parody of thegangofone's approach to reason, argument and evidence, (which has much in common with a more sinister post WWII campaign) see here.

    Note the empirical/logical refutation/'demolition' of NewFazer's case in thegangofone's #35. No wonder he's eager to find McBride.

  • Comment number 40.

    Re - #33 JadedJean
    You ask Is the Premier of the Peoples Republic of China a 'murdering centraliser'?
    Reply - Err Yes

    "You re-define real International 'Socialism to be global free trade."
    Have you not seen their polices? Reply - Who is the "their" ? - International Socialists ? - Who are they ? Do they have any polices ? I've seen things written by people claiming to be International Socialists they start all their sentences with "Stalin was not a real communist Real communism is ..." and then say some something different each time and it's usually stuffed so full of 1930's political cartoon terms like proletariats that they may be saying something but I cant fathom it and frankly I suspect that, take away the jargon, and all you are left with is either nothing or Ive got a great idea lets centralise power !

    "Well at this point it is impossible to debate with you" Perhaps you just don't like being de-brainwashed aka educated? - Reply no I mean that if you have your own sect like language in which words like International socialism have now got a new meaning, which only you know, then the communication breaks down you might have something to say but if I dont know what the words in your oxy-moronic private language mean then its just technically impossible to debate with you.

    You say that : The German National Socialists were Left Wing. Reply - but then youd need a new definition of Right wing. I suppose you could have said that Stalin was Right Wing like Hitler but then youd need a new definition of Left Wing. Whatever you say you need new sect like definitions for old words and the debate with you becomes a tiresome what do you mean by the word. Make it easy: Stalin and Hitler and Pol Pot and were all centralisers of power and mass death follows as a logical consequence. The answer to Left is not Right, the answer to Right is not Left. First get the question correct : The problem - the question - is Centralisation and the answer is decentralisation.

    You say Most of the mass murder stories are just black propaganda to make people like you fear statism, i.e government control of The Means of Production (e.g The Old Labour Party or Roosevelt's NRA) Reply So next time a Russian diplomat comes to London and asks the famous question Who controls Londons Bread you will be able to introduce him to Mr Bean a civil servant. Tell me : will Mr Bean use organic flour in the bread what will Mr Jones who controls the non-organic farms department have to say about that ? Will Mr Bean make Polish Breads or African breads and what will they be wrapped in ? paper or plastic - what will the paper department or the plastic department have to say about that ? Will they make croissants or is that too bourgeoisie or too complex for the department to handle (those people down at the butter department are always in committee meetings and so difficult to get hold of) Gosh Im not sure Mr Bean will have the time to meet the diplomat hell be so busy trying to solve the problems that every central planner has faced and failed to crack since the dawn of central planning (there is one way to solve the bread question that central planners frequently use wait till it runs out then ask the Americans to send some to you in on a starvation relief programme !).

  • Comment number 41.

    Not difficult to see who pays the BBC's bills is it.
    Why were you not that hard on the Government apologists? They are the ones in power and can actually make a difference. Your bias is even more obvious on your website.
    Who needs a spin machine in No.10 when the Beeb roll over and die as soon as their tummy is tickled.

  • Comment number 42.

    thegangofone (#37) "So the millions related to those who were massacred or those that fought and found them are all in on the propaganda?"

    Which millions are you refering to? Do you know how many US and British (+commonwealth) troops died fighting Germany and other Axis powers? The allies didn't land on the Continent until summer 1944 remember. As to what happened in the East, who was doing the counting? Why did Hitler withdraw his troops from the French coast and mass them near the USSR in 1941? Note that the USSR and Germany were close allies 1939-1941 and by 1945 the latter had taken control of Eastern and Central Europe where the threat of Jewish Bolshevism was at its greatest. It wasn't that much of threat in France and England etc, small numbers. Stalin was anti Jewish-Bolshevik like Hitler.

    "If they had won the war convincingly why would they need a lie?"

    Depends who you mean by they.

    The Soviets won the war, no doubt about that. They lied at the IMT about Katyn and the Jewish lampshades, soap etc. Why? They were of course, one of the allies at the time. They had a long range plan. They were hoping to take over not just East and Central Europe, but Western Europe too, but they want the people to do that, they wanted people to want their system. Apparently, Dexter-White was a Soviet asset, and it was hoped that the Morgenthau Plan (Dexter-White and Morgenthau were Jewish) would make West Germany (and maybe more of Western Europe) run into the arms of mother USSR. Hence the volte face of the Marshall Plan when the USA twigged - it poured money into Germany etc instead. Marshall still urged Truman not to recognise Israel in 1948 saying it would just cause trouble. It has.

    The USA lied (spun) to denazify Germany and promote free-market liberal-democracy in opposition to Stalinism, a Command Economy and anatema to American economic interests in Europe, as was Old Labour here in 1945.

  • Comment number 43.

    GlenisDevereux (#40) You're silly.

    Links to The Socialist International.

    Note which countries are not there and who their allies are not.

  • Comment number 44.

    Go1 #35

    So that is your simple, and civil, answer?

    You've evaded once more. Who do you think you are impressing with all your unfounded nonsense?

  • Comment number 45.

    My Personal Views -

    Labours Woes

    It's funny out of all the interviews and discussions lately about Mr Brown, with his supporters saying "He's getting on with the job" , no one is mentioning his mismanagement of the economy or the collective denial of it.

    As for the guardian piece this morning saying he should go , were these not some of the people that told us year after year he was a "Iron Chancellor" with "Prudence" and a set of "Golden Rules" and "No return to boom and bust", there was very little criticism of his "not just light touch , but limited touch regulation" policies he was implementing to keep the credit bubble going !

    To me the whole of the left are in deep denial , they have lost touch of reality and need a sobering kick from the electorate to grasp reality again.



    Call a general election , let all the parties publish their manifestos , then let the public choose their own destiny. That's democracy !

    The Hague Interview

    I thought Mr Hague did rather well.

    I don't think the Conservatives should give away their general election manifesto, no general election has been called yet. This is a European and local council election.
    Also only 23 of the 27 EU nations have ratified the Lisbon Treaty so far, in some of the nation states the Lisbon Treaty is still stuck in their respective constitutional courts (I believe Germany is one of those).

    As for the new centre right European Parliament grouping of non pro-Euro and non pro-federal super state party's , that's the point isn't it ?
    As long as the Conservative MEPs' are not aligned or aiding the pro-Euro or pro-Federal-Super-State group's agendas, the Conservatives stance is consistent with their policies of "no to the Euro" and "no to a federal centralized super state".

    As for Lord Ashcroft, maybe you should ask the Labour MPs' that bxxxx and moan about his donations to the Conservative party to produce some evidence of him not paying taxes in the UK.


  • Comment number 46.

    #43 JadedJean wrote :
    GlenisDevereux (#40) You're silly.
    Links to The Socialist International.
    Note which countries are not there and who their allies are not.
    - It's a web site to an organisation started in 1951 that currently has
    as it's Assoicated Organisations both the World Labour Zionist Movement, WLZM and Fatah along with parties like the Puerto Rican Independence Party, PIP as members - this shows what ? that a central planner can make bread ?
    -it's just another web site of another puffed up organisation - or is this the true voice of socialism ? Does this organisation prove that Hitler was left wing ?

  • Comment number 47.

    Can't share in the Paxomania I'm afraid. It is a very old game. Presenter asks same question over and over again while interviewee gives same answer ditto. Enlightenment of watchers is zilch, because no sane interviewee from whatever party or faction will be tricked into making policy on the hoof in a television studio so that some smart-a**e reporter can keep it on tape and produce it years later when things might be different and say 'But you promised....!' It might of course help if JP asked about the 'ishoos' and having discussed the undoubted problems of the EU then asked Mr Hague what he thought we as a nation ought to do about them. That way we might be better informed.

  • Comment number 48.

    GlenisDevereux (#46) "this shows what ? that a central planner can make bread ?

    Did you not notice that the Central Planners are not there?

    "Does this organisation prove that Hitler was left wing ?"

    No, this one does.

    Are you ready to start learning yet?

  • Comment number 49.

    Re #48. JadedJean wrote:
    Did you not notice that the Central Planners are not there?
    - Looks like plenty of once_we_get_into_power central planners to me in that list. But if they don't say so remember that Central planners have always been a bit shy of answering the question : "What will you do on 1st day after the revolution when you are in power ?"
    They have contented themselves to be critics but don't say what they would do - oh they will support the nurses or whoever is on strike to
    gain their support but they don't say how they would allocate the economic cake when they had control of all of it - when giving to nurses means taking from firemen. But come the day that they get elected or take power then the plans will be drawn up, implemented... and fail and mass murder will follow in order to retain power as usual Have you ever heard of a whatevertheflavour socialism that didnt work like this ? Im talking real history not the ideological Oh real socialism has not been tried yet stuff.
    re - "Does this organisation prove that Hitler was left wing ?" The Ludwig von Mises bods show that Hitler was left wing ? - they are happy, as I am, to say he was a central planner and indistinguishable from every other central planner. Right Wing/Left Wing/Nazis/InterNazis - they are all central planners - which is why State Control can be called Nazism with out being deluded - the original comment you made I picked you up on.
    Are you ready to start learning yet? - Ditto

  • Comment number 50.

    GlenisDevereux (#49) "But if they don't say so remember that Central planners have always been a bit shy of answering the question : "What will you do on 1st day after the revolution when you are in power ?""

    Have you heard of China, Vietnam or North Korea?

    Come the revolution you'll be off to re-education camp on the first day ;-)

    PS> Is

  • Comment number 51.

    #49 and 50

    "What will you do on 1st day after the revolution when you are in power ?"

    If only given the chance.

    Just how much time have you got spare for the answer to that one?

    Celtic Lion

  • Comment number 52.

    Jeremy was right to push William Hague to answer his questions directly. After patiently listening to the shadow foreign secretary, I still had no clue about Tory's policy on Europe. Has Cameron transformed the Conservatives for real, or are they still having the same fight they did in the 90s, which had weakened the party's position significantly in the eyes of the electorate? Euro fanatics v.s. Euro skeptics - there are pros and cons on both sides of the argument. Just an idea, why not find a compromising solution between the two extremes that will be acceptable for everyone?

  • Comment number 53.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

 

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.