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

Wednesday 21 April 2010

Sarah McDermott | 11:46 UK time, Wednesday, 21 April 2010

More details on what's happening on tonight's Newsnight:

Tomorrow night sees the second of three Leaders' Debates between Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg.

The Liberal Democrat leader is widely perceived to have 'won' the first debate which led to a sudden surge in support for the party - described by our Political editor, Michael Crick, as "certainly the most interesting development in any election in the 30 years in which I have been covering them".

Michael is in Bristol tonight, keeping an eye on the preparations for tomorrow's debate, and he'll be assessing what the Labour and Conservative strategies for dealing with the Lib Dems might be.

Our Diplomatic editor Mark Urban will also be looking ahead to tomorrow's foreign affairs debate where Trident is likely to be a key focus, with Brown and Cameron expected to attack Clegg over his proposals to scrap it. Read more on Mark's blog - where he also recounts a memorable lunch at which former Newsnight presenter Peter Snow pressed naval chiefs about Trident's phallic symbolism.

Britain's unemployment figures have reached their highest since 1994 with 2.5 million people now out of work. Our Economics editor Paul Mason is in Redditch - the West Midlands new town which is home to light industry and Halfords' headquarters - to speak to people there about unemployment, and to investigate what the three main parties are planning to do to create jobs in the future.

And comedian Danny Robins returns with the next instalment of Newsnight's Party Anthems - where he helps the three big parties set their manifesto promises to music to try to get their political messages across. Watch his first attempts at songs for Labour here, the Conservatives here, and the Lib Dems here.

Join Jeremy at 10.30pm on BBC Two.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's what we are planning for tonight's programme:

Our political editor Michael Crick is in Bristol to keep an eye on preparations for tomorrow's TV leaders debate. What are the Labour and Conservative strategies for dealing with the Lib Dems?

The number of people unemployed in the UK rose by 43,000 to 2.5 million during the three months to February bringing the jobless total to its highest since 1994.

Our Economics editor Paul Mason is in Redditch - the West Midlands new town which is home to light industry and the headquarters of Halfords - to speak to people there about unemployment, and to investigate what the three main parties are planning to do to create jobs in the future.

Our Diplomatic editor Mark Urban will be asking if Nick Clegg's scrap Trident policy is credible.

And comedian Danny Robins returns with the next instalment of Newsnight's Party Anthems - where he helps the three big parties set their manifesto promises to music to try to get their political messages across.

More details later.

Comments

  • Comment number 1.

    the Russians are our mates now aren't they? So why waste billions on a weapons system to please a few old duffers in the military? We are not going to lob a few warheads into caves looking for Al Kaida or the Taliban, so why keep this expensive monstrosity? This is a no brainer that Clegg will win on making the Tory and Brown looking foolish....

  • Comment number 2.

    #80

    It looks like you're on the right track, Brightyangthing, and as per my previous posts, the truth is dear to me. As you say, it is by now widely known anyway so there isn't necessarily the need to bring up some of the embarrassing details. It's the dictatorial, dehumanised 'inventors' and persistent perpatrators that need to be dealt with.

    mim

  • Comment number 3.

    CREATIVE BLOCK

    Job Creation. Always think that is always an interesting choice of words.

    Jobs should EXIST based on need shouldn't they? (OK, here I am ignoring for benefits of discussion, ALL manner of goods/services that are currently imported)

    Why do we 'Create' Jobs?
    So that people can 'work'?
    So that people can increase their wealth/income?
    So that they can avail themselves of the goods and services that are provided by those 'created' jobs.

    Viz.....

    - young mum wants to 'contribute' to family
    - young mum gets administrative job at local council offices barely above minimum wage
    - young mum puts child to nursery (private)
    - private nursery needs to 'create' more nursery nurse jobs for increased uptake
    - pays new nursery nurse just above minimum wage
    - both pay minimum tax/ni into system or get extra benefits
    - Young mum and nursery nurse go to cinema once a week
    - cinema shows more films, needs more ushers paid at just above minimum wage
    - cinema sells more popcorn and drinks to young mum and family so needs more retail assistants at barely above minimum wage
    - young mum is bust and tired so buys most of her 'ready meals' at local supermarket
    - young mum buys 'cakes' once a month for all the 'girls'
    - young mum joins the team for lunch out in local cafe every friday
    - young mum succumbs to 'office collections' and 'birthday treats that occur regularly
    - young mum gets sucked into the 'bacon butty' or 'latte and muffin' run almost daily
    - young mum takes the kids to swimming, football, dancing, judo, parties (one a week for many I know)
    - younhg mum is stressed so NEEDS to have a bottle of wine every night (from the supermarket) to unwind.....

    And the fiasco of must haves and keeping up with the Jones's takes place every waking moment of the day.

    ALL of the above feed an ever increasing circle of have/want, have/want..... But is anyone really better off?

    Haven't even started on the choices made by the nursery nurse, the usher, the shop assistant, factory worker....... and the impact on petrol station, local cafe's, supermarket............

    It becomes a cycle. It's called Progress. It doesn't always sit comfortable with me.

  • Comment number 4.

    Besides, BYT, I've achieved some of my goals in steering things in the right direction, apart from the headless chicken.

  • Comment number 5.

    Sorry to repeat myself from Tuesday....

    #69 Thanks for that link JunkkMale, very interesting, I'd heard about this interview, but couldn't find the video. Two bright, clear headed, and non interupting young women.

    Good points made as unemployment has risen yet again by 43,000, but we still keep welcoming the immigrants. Now 2.5 million unemployed the same amount (net) that have arrived here in the last few years, strange that!

    Apparently out of the 6,277 workers at the Olympic site, only 828 are british, thanks to Mr David Isted for persuing this question, under the freedom of information act, with the ODA.

    So british jobs for british workers a total lie, as we knew it was!

    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23826274-2012-chiefs-admit-only-one-in-eight-jobs-go-to-britons.do

    So what happens now? Unemployment just keep rising? With jobs going to new comers and overseas, not much hope for this country is there?

  • Comment number 6.

    KENNETH CLARKE - THE WESTMINSTER GOLDEN-BOY EPITOMISED.

    Today, Ken has come out with one of his hallmark pronouncements: "A Lib/Lab pact would be a fiasco."

    LETS TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT KEN'S CV. Clarke was Health Minister for three-plus years AND A TOBACCO BARON FOR CONSIDERABLY MORE. The FIASCO that Clarke SHOULD inspect, is the fiasco of his own, unwarranted, status in the Westminster charade. The golden leaf may yield a fools gold, but it takes a consummate knave, to sell it to another human being.

    Only in Westminster could the incongruity, not only go unnoticed, but progress to his RECALL TO HIGH OFFICE, AS AN ASSET!

    THAT'S A FIASCO KEN!

  • Comment number 7.

    #4. addendum

    BYT

    My main task has been to get through to the people I really care trully and deeply about and it looks like I'm getting there.

    mim

  • Comment number 8.

    stevie [#1] "the Russians are our mates now aren't they?"

    No. Not really.

  • Comment number 9.

    Good point Steve @ #1! Trident is a waste of money and it is pointless keeping it. The £billions saved from Trident could be diverted to lowering the deficit.

  • Comment number 10.

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

  • Comment number 11.

    The Tories and Labour both are starting to creak with internal divisions as the need to combat the Lib Dems forces them to the surface.

    The Lib Dems don't exist to "fulfill the New Labour project".

    The Tories would start off on a very bad foot with the public with the need for cuts to public services plus having disenfranchised almost as many voters as put them into power should they resist PR.

    The Ivory Towers of Westminster have left the two old parties out of touch with a changing world and their responses are as chaotic as the response to Icelandic volcanic activity.

    Meanwhile I can't see why in the new age of non-proliferation we cannot have a cheaper and truly independent nuclear deterrent whilst sending out a positive message to the efforts of Obama to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons. Trident is disproportionate to the threat that we face and we would never launch on our own against a large power anyway -but it is insurance against rogue states and so on.

  • Comment number 12.

    steveie [#1] For example, try to find USA military bases in Russia or Russian military bases in the USA (if you look at US bases in former Soviet reublics, they're areas of anxiety for Russia). Do the same for China.

    What does this tell you?

  • Comment number 13.

    In the New York Times "Financial Debate Renews Scrutiny on Banks’ Size " :

    "At a hearing on Tuesday about the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, which caused credit markets to seize up in September 2008, the Fed chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, reiterated that his preference was to limit the risky behavior of banks rather than break them up.

    “Through capital, through restrictions in activities, through liquidity requirements, through executive compensation, through a whole variety of mechanisms, it’s important that we limit excessive risk-taking, particularly when the losses are effectively borne by the taxpayer,” Mr. Bernanke said.

    But when Mr. Kanjorski pressed him on whether regulators should be allowed to break up big banks, he replied, “It’s something that would be, on the whole, constructive.”

    Representative Brad Sherman, Democrat of California, added: “We should go further and not just allow, but require, regulators to break up firms that have reached a certain size.”

    What is not in doubt is that the crisis increased the size and importance of the six largest banks: Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. "

    --------------------------------------------

    I can see that breaking up oil companies and telecoms companies has not been a problem in the past.

    I can see also that if the smaller units were still carrying on risky behaviour then you still may be left with much the same risk.

    Regulation and other measures may reduce that.

    But if the Fed and the SEC were in Lehmans for six months before they crashed and they did not discover the Repo 105 acts why would they be any better in the future?

    Will the UK measures leave us better or worse off than the US?

  • Comment number 14.

    On the Paul Mason piece and thinking ahead to the environmental need for the flight from carbon and the 2020 carbon shortfall there is an ongoing need to produce renewable energy and problems siting the windmills.

    Why could we not produce windmills-come-street-lights for use on the motorways that would both provide a source of renewable energy without blighting the countryside and also provide a viable spine for electric cars that would reduce CO2 emmissions? They may not even need planning permission.

    We have the skills and we have the need to employ people - particularly in NE England where they have steel and engineering skills and a lack of jobs.

    Why is there no innovation at the top?

  • Comment number 15.

    #3 It becomes a cycle. It's called Progress. It doesn't always sit comfortable with me.

    No it doesn't with me either BYT, you make a good point.

    But the young women I know, without children, all have to work to pay the mortgage. And only have one car and one holiday a year, not endless "stuff". If you live in the overcrowded south east, house prices are astronomic, so need two incomes to buy one.

    I don't know what happens when children come along, Blair wanted all mothers to work that was his mantra, sod the baby.

    Then your excellent scenario comes into play I feel.


  • Comment number 16.

    #5 ecolizzy

    "So what happens now? Unemployment just keep rising? With jobs going to new comers and overseas, not much hope for this country is there?"

    You reveal yourself best when you explain that you don't like visiting London due to "the racial mix". You have mentioned in the past that you "visited the BNP website".

    Incredible!

    Anyway just in case you were hoodwinked by them democracy corrects itself over time via elections that take account of how governments have performed.

    By contrast Rohm, Von Staffenburg and many other (equally nasty) people could only try to get rid of Hitler by trying to kill him. National Socialism is just a magpie collection of policies concocted to allow a replacement monarchy.

    Griffin of the BNP was democratically elected by his party. Even so he has not dis-similar problems as his publicity officer Collett threatened to kill him.

    I have yet to hear any vociferous far right support for Collett though kevseywevsey, the grand intellectual, thinks that "the Griff" is going to be a king maker.

    I always imagine that the far right posters, who pollute this page too frequently, froth at the mouth and play with toy soldiers.

    You can all see why.

  • Comment number 17.

    #8 math ap mathonwey

    "stevie [#1] "the Russians are our mates now aren't they?"

    No. Not really. "

    You are just upset because the Russians banned Mein Kampf that depicted Russians as sub human in their response to their far right.

    Their far right shot down a judge recently who had jailed neo-Nazi murderers.

    The Russians lost 22 million dead to the Nazis so it tells you a lot about the mental state of people who shift off to the far right.

    So in a way they ARE our friends but maybe they are not YOUR friends if you see what I mean.

  • Comment number 18.

    My #10 got blocked but was simply saying that the BNP are a Nazi Party no matter what they pretend in public and that to avoid a repeat of the shame of the Euro elections we need all of the democratic parties to cooperate so that these people never get any major office anywhere again.

    That means, hopefully, thinking through the implementation of PR so that it has the granularity to allow protests over immigration without people resorting to a fascist party.

    It probably means also electoral cooperation.

    I would suggest also that it should encompass positive education on democracy in contrast to National Socialist tyranny.

    Mostly it would simply be exposing their lies and shedding light on what they are really about.

    I hope also that any new government will look closely at why there are more wannabe far right bombers "lone wolves" in recent years than al Qaeda .

  • Comment number 19.

    DO NON-NUKE COUNTRIES ALL FEAR ATTACK?

    Although we have made enemies of most of the world (and Britain a laughing-stock in the rest) I am IN NO DOUBT that Trident is simply for waving at the Globopoly game, played by our PM and Attack Ministers. their 'dice-throws' count more weightily by virtue of a) nukes b) GDP c) aid dispensed d) wars e) disasters rushed to. (Read that list and weep.)

    The obvious elephant is: do we INVITE attack? Were we to check all the target coordinates, at 'enemy' missile bases, would FASLANE be writ large, the switch be in the 'on' position, taped over, and with an ancient post-it-note saying LEAVE ON?

    (refrain) "You never WAVE your Trident, at the Globopoly table; just be sure that you renew it, or your gaming's done."

  • Comment number 20.

    BYT # 3 - this scenario resonates with me. My wife doesn't go out to work at the moment. She wanted to stay at home to look after our children at least whilst they were young. I backed her fully in that decision. We are of course fortunate to be in the position where she does not need to work although it does mean we have to make some scarifices.

    What surprises me is how hostile the "system" seems to be to stay at home mothers. The school two of my children attend has recently moved building. As part of the security arrangements at the new building, it is now very difficult for children to go home for lunch and it is actively discouraged by the school. The last communication from the headmistress states that it is far safer for children to stay in school over lunch time. Of course, this statement has no basis in fact - my children are collected and delivered back to school by me or my wife every lunchtime. Left in school the children are poorly supervised - the teachers are not contracted to work over lunchtime and do not supervise the children. Indeed, one of the older teachers actually recommended to us that younder children should go home for lunch if possible particullary as osme of the yopungest children canbnot read menus, hold trays an d feed themselves properly. To me it is simply a bias against stay at home mothers - presumably my wife should be out working so that she can buy designer handbags and dirty big car; it is her patriotic duty to consume. Meantime we should delegate the child care of our youngest child to a disinterested 16 year old nursery assistant on minimum wage - that means our child will have equality with all of the other children in childcare. Progress indeed.

  • Comment number 21.

    The 'anonymous' prisoner, BYT, searching 'excitement' and telling people off, etc

  • Comment number 22.

    SHOULDN'T BROWN BE STARTING A WAR ABOUT NOW?

    Do you reckon his 'Armada that never was', to his desperate mind, amounted to a great leader doing 'SEND A GUNBOAT'? Perhaps, when Maggie paid him that visit at No 10, she popped those words of absolute, colonial wisdom in his ear. Poor James - he is so impressionable.

    Bloggers, go back to your kitchens and prepare for war.

  • Comment number 23.

    SWEEPING GENERALISATION

    #15

    (Try again - the perils of balancing a laptop on your lap!)

    In a way Ecolizzy you have picked up the more subtle angle of the point I was trying to make.

    It is very easy to outline the pro's and con's of one aspect of a huge issue. Apply ones own bias. But it's just that. One aspect and all journalism and politics, possibly out of need, over generalises on whatever the 'buzz' of the moment is. One could do the same 'vicious' cycle on just about any aspect/situation.

    I know only too well the South East Issues. I grew up, got married and had my first child in the over crowded South East. Good old Middlesex (hope JP doesn't read this - that'd be my street cred negated!)

    And despite being of working class stock, made something of myself through hard work and hard choices.

    Of course, there are 'exception's but we live in a world that discourages people making tough choices (if they have A they can't have B - earn before you spend etc...!)offering them instead, everything on a plate in instant gratification.

    I worked and saved (rather than spent on holidays/clubbing/cd's) but I was a basic clerk when I left school but chose to some extent ( a narrow escape aged 19) NOT to marry and have family too soon. I had been working 10 years when I got married, 13 when I had family - largely BECAUSE I recognised the need to earn/save to be able to afford to indulge my choices.

    Had a decent deposit and then worked for three more years, gaining some better positions through hard word, before PLANNING my family. In that time house prices went through the roof but we bought our house as a home not an investment and did not waste money 'upshifting every couple of years. In fact, had it not been for a career move for husband to Scotland we would probably still be in the same house.

    NOBODY does that anymore. Anywhere.

    I have enormous sympathy for people in parts of the south east who are teachers, nurses, police, fire crews, retail and entertainment providers whose pay is poor. Especially the past 5 years. They have lost out in the 'buy to let' lending spree as much as anything I think.

    But for many, the choices are there to be sensible, careful and plan. And refuse to swallow the 'you CAN have it all'.

    HOW do we help people to learn to make better choices. The more who can do that, the more resources are for those who need help and support.


    p.s. I am being a tv trollope today and just picked up Gavin E as guest on Daily Cooks challenge on 'THE OTHER SIDE'

  • Comment number 24.

    "Why do we 'Create' Jobs?
    So that people can 'work'?
    So that people can increase their wealth/income?
    So that they can avail themselves of the goods and services that are provided by those 'created' jobs."

    yes.

    and also to produce items, and services that we need and want. Better housing, better infrastructure both physical, intellectual and social. So they can feel productive. Unemployment is more than just a drain on the benefit system, it causes depressions, poverty, and human waste.

    some of the Green jobs are to be created in permaculture farming, so the UK can continue to produce food if there is another oil crisis, and also to repair our eco-systems, are those wasted jobs? Having possibly 500,000 people or more back producing food, healthy food in a sustainable way. Rather than huge agri-business refusing to pay taxes and wanting ever more financial support from the tax-payers.

    job creation is an awesome thing - if used responsibly.

    job creation aka 'Manpower, McDonald's and Tesco's' is a travesty, as is the big 3 parties plan to reduce benefit payments to make minimum pay more attractive.

  • Comment number 25.

    #23 Crumbs BYT that really is uncanny, you have described my life, except my years were 12 and 15. But why did we follow this route, and now young people don't seem inclined to. As you say everything must be now, not tomorrow, or in the future, NOW.

    What has changed so much in the last 30 years is it greed? Or is it the direction politicians have taken us? Why is everything about money and profit? Why don't lives have value these days, why only the mighty dollar?

  • Comment number 26.

    #23

    the thatcherite aim for the "low-wage-economy" destroyed the whole "work hard, save hard, live good" ethos, rot at the core spreads outwards.

    we see the super-rich doing sweet F All - or positively harming our country - yet awarded stupendous wealth for doing so, whilst the incomes of those working hard were slashed, along with free dentistry, free eye care, free education, and long-term pension plans. The many could feel the few engorging themselves, and knew, even if unconsciously, that there would come a crunch point. But in the meantime - the good times rolled.

    based on easy given credit, and deliberately targeted advertising to reinforce the spending and mortgaging spree.

    "HOW do we help people to learn to make better choices. The more who can do that, the more resources are for those who need help and support."

    by building new cooperatives, that reward the entire working community rather than the few 'owners', so working hard and responsibly becomes the norm again. By converting existing exploitation companies into cooperatives - perhaps by requiring privatised local council services such as refuse collection/disposal/recycling to be run by cooperative structures. I suspect bin-men, street-cleaners and recycling plant workers have a greater grasp of the sheer scale of waste - and ideas of how to deal with it - than ivory tower Whitehall civil servants, or barely electable politicians desperate for the 'Murdoch vote'.

    equally, having local services such as water under the ownership of either local communities or the workers themselves could only improve services, as well as rewarding those workers for working hard, for planning well, and for working well together.

    as well as giving vastly more job security, enabling families to plan ahead for the long term.

  • Comment number 27.

    #24 I presume this http://www.thanetearth.com/ is what you are talking about gnuneo? It is a bit of an agri business though, but I must say the produce is very good, and sold in Tesco.

    I agree with your point about reducing benefits, but I do think the minimum wage is far to low, how could you live on roughly £12,000 a year and bring up a family?

  • Comment number 28.

    I wish you'd give up on these cack-handed attempts at light entertainment. They're never remotely funny.

  • Comment number 29.

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

  • Comment number 30.

    #2

    The question remains, BYT, who keeps authorising or even encouraging the game. With all the evidence there and everything on record, if revealed, this could be an election winner, never mind the minor embarrassments

    mim

  • Comment number 31.

    jaded_jean, statist, math, now gnuneo and there have beeb others - assuming all those other 'roles' I've spoken about already, i.e. those of Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, Borat, George Galloway and many, many others.

    A split personality or what?

  • Comment number 32.

    Slightly off topic, BYT, but I think I'll have a snooze now as later on I'm meeting a few friends in high places so need to feel fresh enough to have any sensible exchanges with them.

    mim

  • Comment number 33.

    ..German troops in Afghanistan call on Angela Merkel to explain why they're at war

    German soldiers are wearing their hearts on their sleeves - in the form of a badge that protests their country's involvement in the war in Afghanistan.


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1267802/German-troops-Afghanistan-Angela-Merkel-explain-theyre-war.html

    milliband can't explain it to us and he told the usa that the uk public are right behind his democracy through regime change by military means policy. he must be hoping the usa public do not read the uk press or meet many brits to get away with that nulaboursht.

  • Comment number 34.

    MRS MERKEL'S TROUBLE : "80% GERMANS DON'T WANT THIS WAR" (33 link)

    That must be about the same percentage of dissent, as Herr Braun is ignoring in this country. I just hope the Deutscher Squaddischer is 'DOING THE JOB HE LOVES'. We should not lose sight of the fact that: work, especially when loved, sets you free.

  • Comment number 35.

    #31 Hey well spotted mim, not forgetting Adrienne, Veritas and the U with a load of numbers, all one man, how does he do it?!!!!

  • Comment number 36.

    WHEN YOU WANT TO TELL A SCANDALOUS PORKIE - WHO YA GONNA CALL?

    Why Big Beast Ken, of course! A man who took an income from his ‘own people’ as they gassed themselves with cigarettes, yet who can look an audience in the eye and protest "THEY CHOSE TO - I merely facilitated their choice", is JUST THE MAN to tell us that the IMF will surely intervene, 'before Breakfast, Lunch and Tea', if we install a hung Parliament.

    Ironic that one of the (oft repeated) things, we held against Sadam, was that he 'gassed his own people’! The difference was, Sadam’s poisonous gas was not-addictive. Thereafter, to their great good fortune, we were able to kill a great many, with bombs, before they could die of imported cigarettes.

    Westminster attracts the Ken Clarkes of this nation. It elevates them, and still does not (choose to?) see. While WE do nothing to erase the Westminster ethos, Beastliness will stalk us, though the gassing will be of the verbal kind: porkies galore - no shame, no remorse, no integrity.

  • Comment number 37.

    At #1 on 19 Apr 2010 Go1 wrote:
    'The Institute of Public Police Research (sic) conducted analysis exploring the roots of the BNP's support. They found that the more immigration an area has experienced, the lower its support for the far right"

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/blog142/F16946210?thread=7449009&post=95157501#p95157501

    At the request of the moderator I have modified my original response:

    IPPR Co-Director Carey Oppenheim, said:
    “This research provides solid evidence for the need to take seriously the slow-burning mixture of frustration, isolation and sense of powerlessness people are feeling in some communities.”
    There is NO solid evidence provided and this statement then leaps to a nul hypothesis that this powerlessness makes the call of extremist parties so compelling. Even if that is a fair assessment, it also make voters turn to ANY alternative to the big 3, including The Monster Raving Loony Party.

    The report’s ‘evidence’ (based on some very weird regression analyses) reached a conclusion that areas where people have higher than average qualifications are less likely to vote for BNP. Such areas are likely to have voters with higher earnings whose lives are less affected by the negative results of immigration, such as overcrowding and a shortage of employment and low-cost housing.

    Other 'amazing' findings were that the fewer people who turn out to vote, the higher the proportion of the population voting for the BNP, because when non-BNP voters fail to turn out this makes it easier for the BNP to gain a higher proportion of the votes. And that in areas where there were high levels of social cohesion amongst people with different backgrounds they are less likely to vote for the BNP.
    It was admitted that this ‘gem’ verges on being tautological, but added that this did indicate that if the Government can find ways to build more socially cohesive communities then this should sap support from the BNP. - More tautology!

    This may be ‘solid evidence’ to anyone relying on the headline alone. If there are more immigrants in an area then there are more voters who will obviously NOT vote BNP. As others have observed just as ‘turkeys don’t vote for Christmas’, similarly immigrants don’t vote for Griffin’s anti-immigration policies.

    It confirms that IPPR is neither scientific nor neutral.
    Wiki has it as extreme left.

    It’s not rocket science Go1, it’s pre-election panic.

  • Comment number 38.

    IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE (#37)

    If I don't fire any of my rockets, I achieve 100% non-failure i.e. 100% success.

    Priceless.

  • Comment number 39.

    they are our mates...remember when we used to call Stalin..Uncle Joe? He was our mate then even though special branch knew he had liquidated millions of his own people, but it suited us. Stalin made an 'non-aggression' pact with Hitler because it ....suited him. In times of strife and emergency and because we want to survive we make pacts with the Devil spo please no lessons on morality especially on Soviet relations...together we defeated Hitler and for that alone we should be always grateful

  • Comment number 40.

    35. At 8:30pm on 21 Apr 2010, ecolizzy wrote:

    #31 Hey well spotted mim, not forgetting Adrienne, Veritas and the U with a load of numbers, all one man, how does he do it?!!!!

    ------------------------------------

    Who cares?

    When will you thicko's get it!

    The name is inconsequential.....its the propositions (i.e. the arguments) that count....STOOPID(S)!!!

    Jaded/Stat/Math...whatever....I thoroughly recommend you you keep the new username 'U14421706' that the mods have graciously christened you with....its anonymous....and it's just how as it should be!

    Jesus-H-Christ!

    (that's not me by the way)

  • Comment number 41.

    FUNNY YOU SHOULD MENTION HITLER (#39)

    One charismatic nutter, full of spiritual zeal born of neediness, got to the top a hierarchical system of governance, and went to war BECAUSE HE COULD.

    We should beware it doesn't happen here. But then, our system of governance is totally different. In a democracy, the people would never let it come about.

    How fortunate those Germans never invaded, they would have changed our whole way of life! As it is, our time-honoured, and honourable, British Values remain intact - and in good hands.

  • Comment number 42.

    Steve at 1 wrote:

    "the Russians are our mates now aren't they? So why waste billions on a weapons system to please a few old duffers in the military? We are not going to lob a few warheads into caves looking for Al Kaida or the Taliban, so why keep this expensive monstrosity? This is a no brainer that Clegg will win on making the Tory and Brown looking foolish...."

    well, lets hope they're gonna be our mates forever eh.

    Like I've said before now on here, Liberalism is a mental illness, especially noticeable in the young idealist mind who've yet to have a slap in the mug. Maybe I should forgive them for their immaturity.

  • Comment number 43.

    Re. the general election coverage;

    It would be fine to focus on just three parties if they covered a wide spectrum of political thought. This is not the case, however, as they each muscle in on the middle ground. Anyone like me who wants something different will find the coverage boring.

    Like many in this country, I find that none of the three main parties represents my views. I want to withdraw from the E.U. before we are bankrupted and lose our sovereignty completely. I think it was a German politician who recently calculated that 83% of our new laws don't originate here. They originate in the E.U. Yet on the continent laws are based on the principle of guilty until proven innocent, whereas we are traditionally innocent until proven guilty.

    The parties that would interest me are not shown on television much. You have to go looking for the minor parties on TV. The BBC seems to be engaged in a campaign to persuade everyone that to vote for anyone else would be a wasted vote. Yet see the difference a bit of serious coverage has on one party: the Liberal Democrats would be much further behind the other two parties if Nick Clegg had been barred from last week's debate.

    What I'd like to see would be a few four way debates between UKIP, the Green Party, the BNP and the Christian Party. Now that would be far more interesting and might help me make my mind up which of these might get my vote!

  • Comment number 44.

    bloody hell!....my no 40 is pretty damn funny!... (even if I say so myself! ;o)

  • Comment number 45.

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

  • Comment number 46.

    #40 debtjuggler

    "The name is inconsequential.....its the propositions (i.e. the arguments) that count....STOOPID(S)!!!

    Jaded/Stat/Math...whatever....I thoroughly recommend you you keep the new username 'U14421706' that the mods have graciously christened you with....its anonymous....and it's just how as it should be!"
    --------------------------------
    Yerr like the propositions that the Holocaust was made up to put people off statism and it was organised by ... statists! The hard evidence never made it to court in Nuremburg and won't make it to the Djemjanjuk trial (alleged Nazi death camp guard).

    Hitler was a peace lover - we assume it was just bad luck that 70 million died in WWII then though many were innocent civilians.

    There are genetic differences between the races in terms of IQ - yet there is no genuine science behind that ludicrous proposition.

    I could go on and on and on.

    The key characteristic of a far right poster seems to be the will to keep posting rubbish no matter how ludicrous it is.

  • Comment number 47.

    Thoroughly excellent Jeremy tonight particularly with Ken Clarke :o)
    Very funny piece Danny Robbins tonight - but have to say that Hadouken's composition for Labour was pretty awful :p

  • Comment number 48.

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

  • Comment number 49.

    #35 ecolizzy

    "#31 Hey well spotted mim, not forgetting Adrienne, Veritas and the U with a load of numbers, all one man, how does he do it?!!!!"

    Maybe its his job description with the party?

    Why is a better question than how.

    They are not great "explications" and most Newsnight viewers don't want to "go on a journey" with somebody who admires Hitler.

  • Comment number 50.

    The Lib Dems should thank the Tories as I assume the various smears against Clegg will back fire and the usually admirable Ken Clarke is running dangerously close to suggesting that the electorate can vote for a majority government only. That could also back fire in a big way as there is the unlikely possibility of the Lib Dems surging still further and being the majority party with votes but still quite possibly last in seats.

    That will cause severe discontent right at the start of a new administration that would need credible solid public support to push through the debt reductions.

    Myself I think that the vote of the public has to be respected and that a minority government that relied on Lib Dem support in return for PR could still be very successful.

  • Comment number 51.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8634147.stm

    So governments were wrong to close the airspace, and they also would have been wrong if planes started falling out of the sky, so a no win situation.

    I also heard a spokesman for an airline on Radio 4 stating governments must pay airlines compensation. That's you and me folks, the airline mustn't lose profits, us tax payers will bale them out. : (

  • Comment number 52.

    I would of liked a bit more coverage devoted to Paul Mason's piece on job creation. The concentration on narrow measures of (un)employment can be fairly unhelpful in getting to grips with the movements of the labour market. I dont think any of the main parties have really addressed this issue thoroughly - apart from very broad statements. Its seems odd given the frightening statistics bandied about. My first concern is that knee-jerk incentives will be offered to companies which may do more damage than good. Incentives can be imprecise and have nasty side-effects. I would also like to see an approach that recognises and addresses a trend of most employees shouldering more of the risk as corporate pensions and other benefits have been eroded. Some may view this a rightful shift that empowers responsible individuals. I'm personally doubtful though I can understand the logic and sentiment. Whatever your view, I'd like to see the parties and journalists deal with these topics in a more serious way.

  • Comment number 53.

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

  • Comment number 54.

    These light-hearted inserts from Right said Fred and body language experts which could be on GMTV, what's the point? British TV is 99% made up of such drivel, Newsnight should be a refuge from this. Plus the fact it's totally unamusing. Paxman must hate it or maybe he's past caring.

  • Comment number 55.

    On the Trident piece Mark Urban covered the bases but I noticed that the cooperation with the French and possibly using their submarine technology did not come up. I assume that in a smaller geographical country using land based missiles as I believe they do (off the shelf cheaper weapons) could be an outside possibility - but probably would not be politically acceptable and would not be as effective as submarine based ones.

    On that note it was not mentioned that a French sub hit a Trident boat and that that could have been very unfortunate as no system is perfect.

  • Comment number 56.

    #35

    Ecolizzy

    Adrienne, Veritas and the U with a load of numbers as well?

    He must be bursting at the seams!!

    mim

  • Comment number 57.

    Let me guess whilst waiting for a mulitiude of post 'are awaiting moderation. GO1 is gonna rattle-on about the BNP and the Nazis. Knowing his MO, I would hazard a guess that Anne Burgess@43 might be accused of having a Nazi sympathy/BNP bent from Gango because she wanted to see more representation of the smaller parties on the tube from our lame stream media; I could be wrong, got any odds on me being right folks? Nick Griff and the BNP are gonna get a mention whatever he says. Go1, can you hurry up and get yourself a girlfriend... and join the real world please. Just a suggestion Gango, I only have your best interest at heart on this one buddy.

  • Comment number 58.

    No, I have no sympathies in the Nazi direction: quite the opposite. As to the BNP, I simply don't know enough hard facts about them to make a judgement. Their opponents would like to drown them out without providing the rest of us with any evidence as to why; and it's hard to tell whether this is just a tactic to silence a political opponent or whether there is any substance behind the accusations.

    We need more free speech in order to make an informed judgement on the BNP as well as the other parties just behind the big three. Why should we have our opinions formed by people who just shout others down? In order to make an informed choice I need to hear what each party has to say on education, housing, transport, the E.U., foreign policy, the economy etc.: not just immigration and race. In the West in this day and age we indulge too much in ad hominem attacks against political opponents. It's really lazy just to make accusations against the people we oppose without addressing any of the issues they are raising. It's about time the British people stopped being taken in by such tactics; but sadly the tendency is to join in rather than open oneself up to the vulnerability of being associated with the vilified opponent. I'm not saying the BNP is right; just making a plea for freedom of speech and public information.

    I'm more interested in the other second rank parties, to be honest. I'd like to hear a good, wide-angled debate about a variety of issues by people who have the freedom to leave the centre ground. How about a debate between UKIP and Respect, for example? Wouldn't that be more fun? I simply want to hear the issues that matter debated by people who care about them rather than the same old stuff from the same old people. An independent radio programme recently aired a series of debates between the three major parties; but by far the most interesting was the final one with representatives of the Green Party, UKIP and the Christian Party.

    If someone has paid the deposit and bothered to present themselves to me on a ballot paper, shouldn't we have the right to be informed about what their parties are offering and to have other parties challenge them on-air?

    A similar sidelining happened to Ron Paul in the U.S. elections. He was at least included in some discussions, but was left watching on for much of the time while the others were invited to give long speeches. When he was finally allowed to add a sentence or two he had bad camera angles to contend with. Yet many claimed he was the only one who understood how to sort the economic mess out in America. Not living there I wouldn't want to give an opinion on that; but it would be good if we didn't do the same to the not-quite-front-runners here.

  • Comment number 59.

    #58 Very good points Anne, but you'll wait a long time for our media to be fair and unbiased. They don't want to see change, they want the status quo, no bounds what would happen to them all if we had a proper democracy.

    I've heard a few words from Lucas and Pearson, but nothing much, and usually cut off in mid sentence. You'd think we just had a couple of parties here with a rogue one chucked in for good measure.

    I'd love to hear what all the others say, but I think it's wishful thinking.

  • Comment number 60.

    BNP (#58 & 59)

    As a one-time Angry Young Man, now demoted (courtesy of testosterone decline) to Irritable Old Bloke, I offer the suggestion that anger turns up in a variety of dress. Whether it is religious fundamentalism, extreme politics, football riots or whatever, anger - mostly driven by testosterone, often with alcoholic enhancement - is the underlying force. This is why its practitioners, struggle to present coherent, light-of-day justification for their stance and actions.

    Once again, The Ape Confused by Language, fails to apply that thin veneer of cerebral function to calming the Ape (redirecting his nihilistic force) usually because we have elevated to governance THE MOST CONFUSED OF ALL!

    Oh it's all going terribly well.

  • Comment number 61.

    46 thegangofone

    'The key characteristic of a far right poster seems to be the will to keep posting rubbish no matter how ludicrous it is.'

    ---------------------

    oh, the irony!

  • Comment number 62.

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

  • Comment number 63.

    WE ARE CONTROLLED

    #58 Another thought Ann, the English want change, viewed as a dangerous position by politicians. The Welsh have Plaid, the Scottish the SNP, so do have their chosen change.

    So the controlling media have only offered us Clegg, no one else, after all they don't want to upset the applecart do they. ; )

  • Comment number 64.

    i see the bnp leaflet has a picture of churchill on it. but no polish squadron spitfire.

    is there no protection in the uk for image rights?


  • Comment number 65.

    DebtJuggler #61

    "oh, the irony!"

    Wonderful isn't it?

    Ecolizzy #59 & #63

    That people are asking to be shown these other parties by the regular media (rather than actively going to the websites of the smaller parties and making their own decisions), is quite revealing of the herd mentality.

    This really shows how passive and sheep-like most people are today. Basically, if one wants the mainstream broadcast media to tell one what to do, how to vote, what to think etc, the mainstream media will oblige. Knowing this, the larger parties vie to make the mainstream media serve their end. Between them, they succeed, excluding their competitors because they have the money/resources/connections to do so. It's just like business.

    Solution - go to the smaller party (and Independent candidate's) websites and make your own choice. The BBC is just one media vendor.

    To the Moderators

    Now I was going to say above "sheep like most people are today (especially women?)" but decided against it n the grounds that It would likely get censored. Let's be more specific. It is a scientifically proven fact that men and women are different. There are many sex differences, in soicial conformity it's know as Field Dependence. It's related to risk-aversion. Note how many City dealers are male and how many female cage fighters do you know? It's why there are so few female offenders etc. My daughter, a Cambridge science graduate, once complained to me that "Of course women can't rise in their careers as well as men do - we're only sane for half the damn month!" To which I could only reply that it is worse for us blokes who go mad on average 7 times a day.

    So is posting scientifically proven truths being sexist? Does that make a post eligible for the sin bin? If so, then that by omission is promoting untruths.

  • Comment number 66.

    Baz, the ape is gonna be amused to death if he's not careful, that new ipad and the box in the corner of the room is gonna do it, he'll be slowly hypnotised whilst Wall St and George soros dips their hand in his back pocket.

    Meanwhile another poll comes out putting the Cleggster in poll position. At the bottom, the small print says 1500 apes were surveyed...it was the live audience of britians got talent.

    The cleggster gets a mention over the pond in this clip:


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_EQGcS0T6s

  • Comment number 67.

    #58 ann burgess

    "As to the BNP, I simply don't know enough hard facts about them to make a judgement. Their opponents would like to drown them out without providing the rest of us with any evidence as to why"

    The list is endless.

    Start with the fact that they are Nazis and then think of the Holocaust denial. Throw in Collett threatening to kill his own BNP leader recently. Consider the Griffin remark on the victims of a former BNP member who bombed a gay pub as "disgusting creatures".

    They don't want democracy so flirting with a potential National Socialist tyranny.

    I would find it hard to believe that you would not be aware of these things.

    But they have a web site you can visit and it "gets more hits than all of the other parties combined" and so they will surely win the elction and not be a minor irritation.

  • Comment number 68.

    #57 kevseywevsey

    "Knowing his MO, I would hazard a guess that Anne Burgess@43 might be accused of having a Nazi sympathy/BNP bent from Gango because she wanted to see more representation of the smaller parties on the tube from our lame stream media; I could be wrong, got any odds on me being right folks?"

    Its about the same as the BNP activists who pollute this page ranting on about Holocaust "agnosticism"; the benefits of National Socialism over democracy; Hitler was a "peace lover"; the Jewish "hegemony" and so on.

    But you people contradict yourselves all the time.

    The other day you were saying that the BNP were going to do well; Clegg wasn't and that "the Griff" would be a king maker.

    Meanwhile you people have not noted any ideological division within the BNP ranks as you attempt to be secretive.

    For instance they may be publicity stunts but you had the two guys leaking the BNP members addresses and now Collett allegedly threatening to kill Griffin (he is your leader n'all).

    So I guess that what you people are prepared to discuss in public is not really the whole story is it?

    Lets throw in the question what are you people? Modern and progressive or National Socialists?

    You don't even have the guts to admit to what you are.

  • Comment number 69.

    #65

    Solution - go to the smaller party (and Independent candidate's) websites and make your own choice.

    Oh I do NF, but it would be interesting to hear them actually speak of policies, and to put each other on the spot. Just like they did in the "the big three" debate. Not!

    To which I could only reply that it is worse for us blokes who go mad on average 7 times a day.

    Good grief, That Often! ; )

    Nice to see you posting NF, I always ejoyed reading what you had to say, just want Roger Thomas to arrive now.

 

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.