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

Wednesday 6 October 2010

Verity Murphy | 18:06 UK time, Wednesday, 6 October 2010

Here's what is coming up on tonight's programme:

"I think it's time for a new conversation about what fairness really means," David Cameron said as he made his first Conservative conference address as prime minister today.

"Fairness isn't just about who gets help from the state. The other part of the equation is who gives that help, through their taxes... Fairness means giving people what they deserve - and what people deserve depends on how they behave."

Tonight, we will be discussing the prime minister's assessment of fairness with guests including Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt and film director Ken Loach.

Michael Crick, will be reporting on how the message was received by delegates, and whether it managed to assuage anger over what critics say is an unfair cut in child benefit for higher earners.

Mr Cameron said the furore over the plan showed the spending cuts would not be easy - but repeated his argument that it was fair to ask "those with broader shoulders" to "bear a greater load".

Did the audience agree?

Our political panel - Danny Finkelstein, Peter Hyman and Olly Grender - will be giving us their take on how the political conference season has been going.

Richard Watson will have an update on the story he broke last night about the leader of a planned new UK terror group being killed in a drone attack.

If you missed last night's report you can watch it here.

And we will be discussing the recent killings of German citizens in a Pakistan drone attack and warnings about an increased European terror threat with Former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff and Germany's ambassador to the UK, Georg Boomgaarden.

Comments

  • Comment number 1.

    http://maxkeiser.com/2010/10/06/max-keiser-rodney-shakespeare-and-rollin-amore-on-press-tvs-news-analysis-program/

    Max on the above link has put the transcript on the comments section of his site, of what I guess is the unedited version of this from my number 38 post on Tuesday worth a read:-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9WEdsup6KY&feature=player_embedded

  • Comment number 2.

    ' Our Political editor Michael Crick will be in the hall assessing how the message goes over.'

    Hopefully getting an overall assessment from a gaggle of those famous un-named sources, who could be ministers or just as easily a Graun journo in the bar.

    Those really add to the whole circus.

  • Comment number 3.

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

  • Comment number 4.

    35. At 04:44am on 06 Oct 2010, mimpromptu wrote:

    "We'll just have to disagree on that one. I do think that I think deeply."

    Tragically, it's very hard to judge that accurately for oneself. It's far better to trust the judgement of a collective of others. That's what socialisation and education is all about. You definitely need to listen to others far more than you do and to judge yourself more on the basis of that than what you think, as the alternative is self-centred delusion.

    Changing the subject, why was Paxman trying to wrong foot May (Home
    Secretary) ion issues to do with welfare? As she said, that is the responsibility of IDS and the DWP. Even prisons are not her responsibility any longer. No wonder bloggers here and elsewhere go off on tangents given the bad examples being set.

    "36. At 09:30am on 06 Oct 2010, Mistress76uk wrote:
    :o) Jeremy v Theresa May also hits The Daily Telegraph this morning!"

    Do you ask an accountant to look at your teeth?


    "Tonight on the programme Richard Watson has exclusive new information on a British man accused of being behind plans to carry out Mumbai-style attacks in Europe, which led to a ratcheting up of terror warnings from both the UK and US governments."

    Why call them 'terrorists?' Why not just refer to them as 'gangs of armed criminals? Might the idea of 'terrorists' serve a political purpose? Namely to encourage us to have some antipathy towards some in the Middle East, e.g. Palestinians? Might that serve any other groups' interests or should one not ask?

    See the recent CNN sacking fiasco for the other side of this covert
    propaganda
    , i.e what we are simultaneously induced to love on TV and at the 'movies'. See the push and the pull? No? To look into this a bit further, see Connelly on how US (and UK) TV programming appears to have shifted over the decades. Who are 'our' kind of people these days and what function might this serve in the greater geo-political/economic Great Game?

    Look into who is being induced to spend their savings, is it you or is it the corporates (who have lots of cash)? Who is being asked to sacrifice their country/state and for what? Perhaps Richard Watson could look into this instead of serving as an uncritical conduit for the rather tired 'war on terror'?


    "This seems to be discriminatory against families of disabled children who disproportionatly have a parent who stays at home as a carer."

    Do you not think that discrimination in favour of (i.e incentives to) not having disabled children is a good thing? What is the alternative and what is the cost? Should one not think very carefully about this?
    Are disabled people equal to non disabled people, or should they just have equality before the law in all matters to do with opportunity? This is a difficult area and simple, ill thought through responses, like much discussion of 'farness' (which is central to Rawsian Social Justice/law) is far more intricate than is grasped by most bloggers or even Newsnight staff alas. Instead, we tend to just get to see and hear people reporting what they think and believe, most of which is very ill-informed. It's like hearing kids yell out what they think 5*9 is most of the time (and then many having hissy fits when they're told they're wrong ;-)

    Democracy as populism doesn't work.

    46. At 10:25am on 06 Oct 2010, barriesingleton wrote:

    "We need a 'British Survival Forum', not wretched factional party 'conferences', giggled over by juvenile media."

    Not if most people vote for Libertarian politics as their idea of democracy. In Libertarian politics, politicians are essentially hands-off, hence - The Big Society.

    You are confused. You keep asking for what you've already got (you just don't see it and won't be shown either - hence the quagmire).
    Conclusion: you (we) get what you (we) deserve.

  • Comment number 5.

    #2

    I like going to the circus, junk, a real one, but I'm pretty sure that serious and caring thought is given during preparation of Newsnight with occasionally some imaginative theatrics thrown in but then why not. A bit of imaginative or ironic light touch never goes amiss as far as I am concerned.

  • Comment number 6.

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

  • Comment number 7.

  • Comment number 8.

    It would appear that the eco-fascist leaning BCC ( or perhaps its just one pig headed eco-fascist aligned moderator ) do not allow contributions which draw parallels from history in relation to climate science ?

    Perhaps I should wait for shift change to attempt to post again ?

  • Comment number 9.

    "After apologising for not including changes to child benefit in the Conservative party's election manifesto"

    Is it not remarkable that politicians can get away with doing what they like and just apologizing? Is this a Libertarian thing? Can anyone do it now? How about people coming to your house, taking your things, and leaving a written 'apology': "Sorry we took your stuff - needs must you know!"? Oh, that's OK then. This country has gone nuts. Most of the debt is private because most of the country is in private ownership. So, ask Mr Cameron's crew why the Public Sector (state) is paying?

    He's a magician. Did he do magic at university?

  • Comment number 10.

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

  • Comment number 11.

    So tonight it's Jeremy v Jeremy plus my favourite trio of Danny/Peter/Olly are on tonight too - lookng forward to it already :o)

  • Comment number 12.

    Perhaps there would appear to be historical parallels between Piers Corbyn and his solar activity based science on climate variation and the answer to the cause of cholera in London in the 1850s. History now recalls that it was a lowly local GP John Snow who first correctly identified the cause of a major cholera outbreak in his area to one particular stand pump and the water from it. Snow removed the pump handle and the cholera quickly died away.( Joseph Bazzeljet, The Sewer King, BBC Seven Wonders of the Industrial Age. )

    The government scientists insisted that cholera was spread by the " miasma " or foul air. It was not until after the construction of the sewer system which took away the " great stink " and cholera still occasionally broke out that the government scientists were forced to admit that everything they believed in as far as cholera was based on a falsehood and had all the time been carried in the water supply as Snow identified. Perhaps the same principle applies to CO2 and alleged man made global warming, and Piers Corbyn has identified the correct true cause of climate variation ?

    It would appear that the RT link broke house rules for some reason, search RT eco-fascism and scroll down the list to find it on YT for yourself, its quite interesting.

  • Comment number 13.

    Even though I class myself as a Tory skeptic I found David Cameron's speech this afternoon quite positive and overall attractive. However he had to spoil the overall effect by trying to score brownie points with the US neocons by harping on about the release of the Lockerbie Bomber when most thinking people have come to the conclusion that Megrahi had been fit up and was totally innocent.

    Likewise referring to Carbon Capture and Storage as being a technology of the future when in reality it is a green investment scam aimed at promoting false economic growth by increasing the cost of living for everyone. If he claims to be acting in the interest of the lower income families in our country the last thing he needs to do is get involved with " green " stock market parasite investment scams.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/file_on_4/7444470.stm

    I was pleasantly surprised that Cameron never really said that much if anything about " the environment ", not a single reference to wind farms. I was expecting him to trot out all the usual drivel green propaganda. Perhaps the cat is now out of the bag on the alleged CO2 link to climate change, and its only a matter of time before the Westminster politicians de-rail from the eco-fascist agenda for good, at least the modern Conservative party if they are dedicated to the true future interst of our nation .

  • Comment number 14.

  • Comment number 15.

  • Comment number 16.

    Can somebody answer a simple question on this child benefit question?
    If you are married then it looks like if you are a stay at home mum, i.e. give up work then if your husband is a high earner (£44K) then you will not get child benefit.
    But what if your not married to your partner?
    Is this a tax on being married, and if you are would you be better off getting divorced while bringing up your children!

  • Comment number 17.

    #8

    Why don't you, bross, wait that is? Hopefully the shift will never happen, although I see you're posting again.

  • Comment number 18.

    #11

    I'm looking forward to tonigh's programm as well, Mistress76uk., wondering what the Jeremies will be talking about. I suppose about the shake up of the BBC though it would be interesting off they also talked about art and culture i'n general.

    I like the trio as well. They always seem to discuss things in a convivial manner and are never nasty with one another.

    mim

  • Comment number 19.

    YOU MEAN BROWN DIDN'T SAVE WORLD-MONEY AFTER ALL?

    Disguise Crick as a little old lady (easy) and send him to get Brown's comments.

    But don't worry: you've got your 9/11 - that's safe. And Dave was sooo vehement, in his speech, that Megrahi dun it (Lockerbie) that's sure to be safe too.

    Mind you, if 'loose cannon' Warsi keeps going off half-cocked, and the amount of election fraud keeps rising, we might soon get ANOTHER election, and a chance to

    SPOILPARTYGAMES.

  • Comment number 20.

  • Comment number 21.

    I've just been at the BBC Broadcasting House at a Media Society event entitled 'Starsuckers' discussing how easy it is to spread false rumours on celebs with the tabloids buying and publishing. CARP stories with checking up on them. I might more about it on return home.

  • Comment number 22.

    15. At 5:27pm on 06 Oct 2010, jauntycyclist wrote:

    paul did you read soros speech?

    http://pragcap.com/soros-why-ignoring-history-threatens-the-global-economy

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

    The word "greed" is not mentioned once!

    Can you guess why?

  • Comment number 23.

  • Comment number 24.

    To expand on Orwell (another duplicitous Blair who also had it in for Old Labour), not only is freedom the right to say "2+2=4", but it's also the right to point out that disabled is not equal to abled just as 5 is not equal to 3.

    We may not we under threat from MAD, but we are most certainly at psychological war.


    Kulturekampf - read all about it. Then as you watch TV more critically, ask if any of your shaped views are serving anyone else's political/economic purposes or are these authors just paranoid bigots?

  • Comment number 25.

    "11. At 4:35pm on 06 Oct 2010, Mistress76uk wrote:
    So tonight it's Jeremy v Jeremy plus my favourite trio of Danny/Peter/Olly are on tonight too - lookng forward to it already :o)"

    Why did you post that? To be annoying? Why do you think that other readers/viewers want to know what you personally look forward to?
    This does appear to be predominantly a human female disposition. A form of display behaviour to draw attention perhaps? But why, if you are anonymous, as it adds no information to what the day's editor already posted surely? Gay males seem to do the same, i.e. they draw attention, presumably a fragment of the female mating behaviour? No doubt it makes much in the media more sexy? Human males on the other hand, tend to talk about the world from an allocentric perspective, which is what one might expect a news and current events programme to focus upon surely?

    You are in good company though Mistress76uk, but I predict it will cost this country dearly in the end. You can be as proud of that as you are featuring in Jeremy Paxman's school video which advertised Newsnight as something which a (properly trained (presumably at great expense) Gibbon could do according to Paxman) could do and made out the blog was like Facebook! Newsnight doesn't in factpresent the world as it is, it just presents it as some (apparently very young and impressionable) journalists view it. Hopefully, one of the purposes of people posting here is to add some corrective balance to that arrogance?

    In your case, it doesn't seem to be working.

  • Comment number 26.



    If you’ve seen the following somewhere before, s’coz I posted - most of it - it on the wrong date site!
    So ...... Again .....




    Matters in the National Interest from this week’s Party Conference.











    This list is now closed.




    “It takes two” by Ike and Tina Turner was used as Top Con’s ‘Anthem’

    More Domestic Violence intimated?



    ‘Hooz writes a poem about the death of Plaff’

    So what?

    Judging by Mr Hooz script his time might have been better spent training as a Doctor!



    Rarely seen in the news footage from trouble spots around the world are women.

    So how come there is such high population growth?



    Would being an adequate singer be seen as suitable reasons to grant an appeal?



    On a more serious note - assuming that some might think that the above comments should not be taken seriously (Why?) - Jonathan Miller’s report tonight - on C4 News - on the people of the Swat Valley indirectly offers many, many reasons on why the conflict in Afghanistan must be fought and why the West should do everything it can to support the people of Pakistan.

  • Comment number 27.

    "15. At 5:27pm on 06 Oct 2010, jauntycyclist wrote:
    paul did you read soros speech?"

    You can tell that Soros is largely making stuff up after just a couple of paragraphs. Technically he doesn't know what he's talking about and hopes that most readers won't know enough to see that. For example, Strange Attractor is a term from Dynamical Systems Theory (a complex attractor describing how a non linear pure mathematical function maps) and the term 'evolutionary' just doesn't come in to it. The same is the case later on. It's largely gobbledegook. Spain with a trillion in debt?

    How many homes at £180,000 each does it take to make a grand mortgage bill of 1 trillion? Maybe someone is counting on the low (child like on
    average) numeracy level in most of the population? This is why we used to have a big state, to protect the vulnerable from predatory people like Soros.

  • Comment number 28.

    Therse's a lot of talk about people with children, whether rich or poor employed or destitute. What about those people who would love to have children but cant- who are paying tax for everyone else- child benefit, schools,etc?

  • Comment number 29.

  • Comment number 30.

    Don't waste licence-payers' money broadcasting David Cameron's illusions. Give Ken Loach more air-time - he is brilliant and should make a film 'Coalition go home'. They are so out of touch and it is about time the BBC side-stepped their cronies and gave the people a voice for a change. Ken Loach showed us that this evening.

  • Comment number 31.

    I used to respect Peter Hyman but his egotistical stupidity when talking about Ed Miliband tonight tells us all that it's a good think that he and his ilk no longer hold any sway at the top of Labour. The toxic 'uber-Blairs' who think that nobody other than one of their own can ever win are deluded. Many of them now ritually claim that John Smith wouldn't have won if he had lived - I don't know of anyone with any credibility who ever thought that.

  • Comment number 32.

    I enjoyed the ding-dong between Heseltine and Loach. I've never rated Heseltine, he's never been a deep political thinker; he's Tory lite..a bit generic. Tonight he met his match with Newsnight pitching him against Filmaker Ken loach. I've never rated Ken Loach on account he's a communist.

    I hope Crick is doing ok. It must be really hard for him spending all this week surrounded by Tories.

  • Comment number 33.

    @ Tabblenabble #25 - Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz :p

    What a packed edition tonight! Excellent debates by Jeremy both in the Jeremy v Jeremy interview and with Chertoff & Boomgaarden on the current terror threat. Very interesting debate too with Heseltine & Loach too :o)
    At least poverty in London has decreased from 35% to 22%......

  • Comment number 34.

    ALL POSTS ARE PRE-MODERATED. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

    Well, imagine a post is something a member of the public has put some thought and time into - OK? Now imagine he or she (going forward) clicks 'Post Comment' and the legend: "This comment is awaiting Moderation" appears - OK?

    Well, PRE moderation means that because many available members of staff are cramming intrusive music into incongruous slots, and the rest are causing blurred and banal images (blobs) to float round studio walls, your post will probably lose all edginess and immediacy, long before it ever comes up as REFERRED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION or HOUSE RULE-BREAKING.

    I didn't come into blog-posting to stand idly by and watch this sort of thing happen. I am off to have a word with the Big Society, to see what can be done.

  • Comment number 35.

    AND THERE'S MORE (#28)

    Tall men get more pay and abetter choice of partners. Ugly blokes get sent to jail. Pretty women get away with murder and pair lucratively. Ginger blokes cop the lot.

    When is all this (and a lot more of similar ilk) going to be taken into account in taxation law?

    You might almost think Dave is not being honest about Fairness.

    In passing - a hoot to see the fear in Hezza's eyes, in case they had checked his tax arrangements before the programme.

  • Comment number 36.

    "It’s much easier to solve if countries come together and do things to complement each other.”

    Cloud cuckoo land

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-06/geithner-sees-a-damaging-dynamic-in-policies-to-undervalue-currencies.html

  • Comment number 37.

    Kes is an outsanding film

  • Comment number 38.

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

  • Comment number 39.

    One for flicks2 to chew over !

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5g8tkwgTh8

  • Comment number 40.

    Flicks:
    Yeah, kes was a great flick. I'm in agreement with you on that but it was the last thing he ever did that was any good. It went all down hill when he went all Cuban. He's another Polly Toynbee with pants.

    Power to the people!...yeah save it, because it don't work. I'll only ever watch a Ken Loach film when a reviewer trots out "Ken finally gets objectivity".

  • Comment number 41.

    Why is Peter Hyman still appearing on Newsnight, masquerading as a Labour commentator, if he doesn't support the elected leader of the Labour Party? Surely the honorable thing for him to do is stand down in favour of someone else who can better represent the party. As a new member of the Labour Party, I've been appalled by the negative briefing indulged in by some in the New Labour establishment in recent weeks, of which Hyman's performance this evening was one of the worst examples. His feeble contributions before the General Election were bad enough. And isn't the idea of a three-way political panel now rather questionable, given the inbuilt 2:1 bias in favour of the Government?

  • Comment number 42.

    39 - Goldman like BP are going to get sued and then shorted into oblivion over the next 5 years.

    I was watching the Conservative coverage to see if anyone pointed out that even a small tax on the Forex (I didn't see anyone ask) would bring enormous amounts - its funny money alright but what the heck are the main media doing concentrating on the trivial stuff. They are as much in a privileged bubble that brings pettiness, self serving attitudes and a sense of entitlement: that what they say is what is important and to be listened too . The event in Birmingham was a kinda symbol of how things are - those with privilege including the media have a whole area cordoned off for their exclusive use, the locals kept out unless they were servants cleaning up after them. And that's what we have - privatise the profits - make sure you dont talk about them, socailise the failure - enormous debt and talk about the lazy unemployed - transfer blame and get the poor grassing on each other over benefits. Sick in the context of what has/is happened / happening ! Blame Labour , ok sure but also be sure it would be just as bad had the Conservatives been in power with no financial regulation.

    Nobody (except those online - Max Keiser and his like) is facing up to some very dark truths about 'Capitalism.' The wealth removal that is happening will bring terrible change and a very difficult future for anyone who isn't from the privileged classes. The lower middle class may revolt and take to the streets, who knows I doubt it though . As American it will be 3rd world UK with many (who still can) fleeing asap in the next 5 years .

  • Comment number 43.

    SOLAR POWER RIGHT AROUND THE WORLD

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Smile -

    The only international THANK YOU MEDAL designed and awarded by KIDS

    mim (^_^)(^_^)(^_^)(^_^)

  • Comment number 44.

    SOLAR POWER RIGHT AROUND THE WORLD

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Smile -

    The only international THANK YOU MEDAL designed and awarded by KIDS

    mim (^_^)(^_^)(^_^)(^_^)

  • Comment number 45.

    #44 update

    And the smiling and caring Michelle Obama tops the Forbes list of the most powerful ladies:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11490437

    mim (^_^)(^_^)(^_^)(^_^)

  • Comment number 46.

    Ive listened to Celente for many years

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-rm4FiHpIo&feature=player_embedded#!

    'The papers worth no sense, capice'

  • Comment number 47.

    33. At 11:30pm on 06 Oct 2010, Mistress76uk wrote:

    What a packed edition tonight! Excellent debates by Jeremy both in the Jeremy v Jeremy interview and with Chertoff & Boomgaarden on the current terror threat. Very interesting debate too with Heseltine & Loach too :o)"

    Note how your 'appraisals' are just references to your personal and affective states?. There's no critical (i.e objective, evaluative) information in any of your appraisals. they just come down to you liking or not liking something. Is that yow you read other people's posts too?

    Is that how you view the world? Your posts are just a reflection of you and your likes and dislikes and it's literally childlike, SELF centred.
    "Mmmmm chocolate pudding for desert, I like it".... "Mmmmm swimming it's great". Me me me.

    This is meant to be helpful feedback as this is not bow healthy adults behave. Are you an adult?


    34. At 11:31pm on 06 Oct 2010, barriesingleton wrote:

    "I didn't come into blog-posting to stand idly by and watch this sort of thing happen. I am off to have a word with the Big Society, to see what can be done. "

    We did finally hear some sense last night about policy viz benefits and the skewed birth-rate which is destroying this country. If Paxman and crew keep on that issue, they could push this Big Society business in a credible direction using Newsnight as a lens to focus on what matters.

    I may be wrong, but I don't think Ken Loach has a lot of time for Stalinism, which in my view means he doesn't have much time for Fabianism. Paul's short piece needed to have been more discerning there.

    Loach is far too obsessed with ''the poor' without enough of a grasp, it seems to me, as to f why most of the people who are 'poor'
    are so, and why a nation can't afford to have more poor people having babies than more able people. As with most people his thinking stops short of asking important questions It is a question of demographic balance and Ken doesn't seem to understand this, which gives the likes of Heseltine ammunition.

    Why doesn't Newsnight pick up on this? It's just a matter of numbers!
    You can't have people who can't afford or cope with large families having kids at the expense of everyone else when the more able are having far less. That is what happens. That is the Big Society problem.

    But note, that skewed balance suits those who want a nation of dumb shoppers! - i.e. the Con-Dems and Labour Lites. They just want more consumers, and if the underclass doesn't breed them, they'll import them as immigrants. Fact.

    "41. At 01:19am on 07 Oct 2010, quadrille wrote:
    Why is Peter Hyman still appearing on Newsnight, masquerading as a Labour commentator, if he doesn't support the elected leader of the Labour Party?"

    To remind us that New Labour (like the Con-Dems hence the agreements between the other two panellists for years) stood for those who wanted to make money out of undiscerning consumers. By pushing equality all the time and making discrimination a taboo, in time stupidity becomes de rigueur. Don't you see?

    PS. This is not a joke.

  • Comment number 48.

    The Trotskyite, Socialist Internationals were out in force on Radio 4's Today programme this morning.

    First up was Sir Harry Kroto (speaking from Florida where he now resides btw) bemoaning the UK gov't's immigration cap as being harmful to 'our' resaerch industry.

    Eight Nobel Laureates have written a letter to The Times today about the issue (which some on here may remember was also pushed by that arch 'anti-capitalist' Vince Cable the other week).

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article2756550.ece

    Kroto was talking as if he was still resident in the UK. You must listen to the interview to sample the rank hypocrisy of the man (on at around 7:53am this morning). However, during the interview, Kroto did let slip part of his own family's past.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Harry_Kroto

    Why is it that some people feel the need to change their surnames after emigrating?

    Next one on was Richard Parry-Jones (ex Ford CTO) with with Dr Alan Rudge to discuss whether it mattered if UK companies were bought out by foreign competitors. Parry-Jones, who has Trotskyite form was, of course, arguing that it it didn't matter at all.

    These free-market pushing, globalist anrchists are certainly consistent and pernicious.

  • Comment number 49.

    should have read (at around 6:53am this morning)

  • Comment number 50.

    Nobel laureates urge rethink over immigration cap
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/oct/07/nobel-laureates-immigration-cap

  • Comment number 51.

    IF WE CAN IMPORT ATHLETES AND FOOTBALLERS . . . (#50)

    I feel quite sure this Land of Integrity would find some way to 'render unto Britain' any scientific talent who wanted to come. Breaking our own rules is what Westminster does best.

    In passing, the court challenge to Woolas has been brought SPECIFICALLY under Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act. 'Liar flyers' (my concern) fall under Section 115. Yet both are about influencing how people vote.

    British Rule of Law?

    Oh - it's all going awfully well.

  • Comment number 52.

    Since the programme went out we now know from the FT that the cuts are undeliverable in the timeframe Cameron promised - it is quite literally impossible to make the changes the Government nailed to the coalition mast this quickly - so his remark about the cuts being "difficult" had another meaning from that which we all assumed he meant - i.e. the Government machine literally can't cope with the scale and timescale of Cameron's & Osborne's plans.

    "Labour politicians would surely accuse the government of backsliding and the political pain of the cuts would be pushed close to the next general election. But ministers are also weighing the dangers of cutting the wrong items if pushed to do so early and the risk that deep deficit reduction in 2011-12 could undermine the fragile recovery."

    (C) FT 7/10/10

    This means that the Government is guilty of massive arrogance and complacency about what is possible and what is practical - this is incompetence and negligence writ large.

    It means that all the ludicrous, irresponsible and wreckless approach to reviewing government spending at breakneck speed was fundamentally impossible to deliver before Cameron even started - that ideology was put before the realities of economic management responsibility - and that from the very top down, The ConDem Coalition was totally unrealistic about what could - or should - be achieved in spending reductions.

    And if spending won't be cut in the planned timeframe, then UK borrowing won't fall and the claim that the UK's credit rating is at risk will be tested - if it does fall, then Cameron has mismanaged expectations by claiming to be able deliver massive spending cuts in short order - if it doesn't, then he was wrong to say it was essential to implement the cuts that now can't be delivered.

    Nick Clegg will be completely exposed as the patsy in believing the "panic - panic now!" line that Cameron sold him in the negotiations for the coalition if there is no collapse in market confidence in the UK because the accelerated cuts programme cannot be implemented. We could not have wished for a more effective way to put Clegg and Cable to the test if we had tried to invent one!

    If there is no meltdown in our credit rating, it means Alistair Darling's less radical cuts programme was much more realistic because it was deliverable - the boring, Mr. Premature-Whited-Hair Chancellor got it right whilst the massed ranks of the Tories and Lib Dems are revealed as incompetent.

    Cameron is now in a no-win situation - either his assessment about the urgent needs for cuts to placate the markets is not true, or his programme was undeliverable and our credit rating will fall - the markets will decide which fundamental mistake he made - and its got to be one or the other.

    The rhetoric about Labour's failings and his values may go down a storm with the Tory Party - but will the leadership judgement stand the test of time?

    The cuts in Child Benefit revealed a PM who will wobble under pressure - will the collapse in his spending cuts programme make him dissemble into the mass of contradictions that is David Cameron? The cuts programme is at the very core of his political strategy - to find out that the system isn't capable of implementing them is a bodyblow to his judgement and credibility.

  • Comment number 53.

    #47

    you write ' It's just a matter of numbers!'

    Apart from numbers 01, mr educating table, do you like numbers like 2, 23, 32, 52, 816 & 69? Are they significantly important to you?

  • Comment number 54.

    "MASSIVE ARROGANCE AND COMPLACENCY" (#52)

    A perfect summation of the Westminster Malaise, acted out in a royal palace, blessed by the presence of bishops, connived at by a powerless monarch and underwritten by corrupt elections. A gunboat-gifted template for the world.

    ONLY IN GREAT BRITAIN 2010.

    I echo Max Kaiser's cry: "REVOLT". To make a start;

    SPOILPARTYGAMES

  • Comment number 55.

    "46. At 09:53am on 07 Oct 2010, flicks2 wrote:
    Ive listened to Celente for many years"

    You are just buying into another bubble.

    Answer these questions, but try to give them some serious thought and not just to rebut them or you risk talking yourself deeper into the mire

    1) Can you eat gold? If there is not enough food being produced what will you do with your gold?

    2) How much collective debt is 14 million homes at an average of £200,000 each?

    3) What is private debt, does it cover corporates i.e banks, major retailers, multinationals?

    4) Why is the Public Sector being withered away to bail out banks?

    5) Why is it the public which is being induced to spend their savings and not the corporates (including the banks)

    6) These think tanks, research organisations that you cite, could they be like you, i.e just a private citizen with an agenda (to make money)?

    7) Do you know what reflexivity and recursion refer to and why people like myself make such a big issue of the crisis of endemic self-centredness today, its blindness, and a need for a corrective, regulative state?

  • Comment number 56.

    "Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Meridiaga -- who was a runner up for the papacy -- blamed the Jewish-controlled media, particularly The New York Times, for the sex scandal that has plagued the Catholic Church."

    Alan Dershowitz, Huffington Post, Oct 6 2010

    I didn't know that - is that why he lost?

    Imagine the media was mainly run by women and gay people. All quite unrelated people too. Would they collectively exert a bias on how the media operated do you think, especially if being female (or being gay) was genetically determined? This is about behaviour and outcome, not consciousness, and intention. It doesn't matter what you are aware of doing (are you aware of your kidneys working?) it's what actually happens which makes the world the way its is.

    Lesson: don't discuss or argue about maters in terms of what people 'sincerely' think, believe, feel, and intend etc, as these are all just mental states which are not truth-functional. Perhaps Alan Dershowitz truly believed that OJ was innocent, he's lawyer, and by all accounts, a very successful one. Lawyers have little to do with pursuit of truth though, like business people, they are out to win.


    53. At 11:25am on 07 Oct 2010, mimpromptu wrote:
    #47

    you write ' It's just a matter of numbers!'

    Apart from numbers 01, mr educating table, do you like numbers like 2, 23, 32, 52, 816 & 69? Are they significantly important to you?"

    No.

    You ask me questions but you don't ever seem to understand that this means that you should respectfully listen to my answers. Follow this link below and have a look at the A level data for 2010 (or any other year). Go and look at the number of boys and girls sitting maths and physics A level, and try to see what I am telling you.

    http://www.jcq.org.uk/national_results/alevels/

    What do you notice? Note, this is a choice. When it comes to university, this is even more obvious. Why might his be the case. Note, it is true all over the world too. If you look at the other side of the coin, what is most of higher education catering for, and what is the bias in our unproductive economy? You can continue to ask what to me seem to be very odd questions if you like, and we can all be nice and tolerant about it, but there comes a point when doing this is like welcoming disaster into our lives, homes, families, economies. Just to be 'tolerant'.

    I'm sure you probably mean no harm (any more than Flicks2 or Mistress76uk do), but are you, and millions like you, doing harm nonetheless?

  • Comment number 57.

    "54. At 11:35am on 07 Oct 2010, barriesingleton wrote:
    "MASSIVE ARROGANCE AND COMPLACENCY" (#52)

    I echo Max Kaiser's cry: "REVOLT". To make a start;

    SPOILPARTYGAMES "

    On the basis of just what you post and advocate here to this blog, I accuse you of massive arrogance and complacency. I accuse you of only dimly recognizing this in your own behaviour, and thus projecting it, as all you advocate is yet more individualism, more anarchism. You just have not thought it through enough to see this. If you were enlightened in your politics you would try to see this and be trying to redress it in your own behaviour. I know you won't like this, but then, people tend not to like learning, as it always means they were wrong before hand (else what would there be to learn?). You should think long and hard on this, but I bet you don't. That is why we are in a collective mess. There are lots of people out there like you, and lots who are taken in by charisma too. This is why you rail against Blair etc I suggest - he was/is a kindred spirit. People often confuse their own mental states with those of others - that's why professionals focus on behaviours ;-)

  • Comment number 58.

    quoted from #47, Tabblenabble01" "

    "Loach is far too obsessed with ''the poor' without enough of a grasp, it seems to me, as to f why most of the people who are 'poor'
    are so, and why a nation can't afford to have more poor people having babies than more able people. As with most people his thinking stops short of asking important questions It is a question of demographic balance and Ken doesn't seem to understand this, which gives the likes of Heseltine ammunition.

    Why doesn't Newsnight pick up on this? It's just a matter of numbers!
    You can't have people who can't afford or cope with large families having kids at the expense of everyone else when the more able are having far less. That is what happens. That is the Big Society problem.

    But note, that skewed balance suits those who want a nation of dumb shoppers! - i.e. the Con-Dems and Labour Lites. They just want more consumers, and if the underclass doesn't breed them, they'll import them as immigrants. Fact."


    My goodness, that's a brave, unequivocal statement. Bet you don't get many Christmas cards!

    I found trying to explain the facts, figures and fallout of 21st century malaise in such terms to be quite a good way of cutting the dead wood off my list.

    Few people like to hear such thoughts expressed. But it is true in much of the western world, not just the UK and her twisted politics/economics.

    There will always, as Desiderata puts it, 'be lesser and greater', than any individual and in fact I think a civilised society requires such structure to bring out its greatest humanitarian and altruistic traits

    It helps when handled correctly to understand ones place in the greater scheme of things. At a school prize giving I recall using the tree analogy (when you are at the top, don't forget the place of the decaying vegetation in your journey, or words to that effect. Only about 1% of the audience got it. And half of them were distinctly uncomfortable about it.

    The problems arise, as you point out, when there is too much decaying vegetation that it smothers the life out of the tree.

    How the vicious circle of keeping people consuming, be it through media and business placement of desirable images, or of manufacturing operating a 'limited lifetime' policy- therefore most people needs jobs to earn to buy and so on ad infinitum, and selling the nightmare of all should be equal and have equal opportunity/availability can be broken is so far beyond me.

  • Comment number 59.

    #52 richard bunning

    Do you really believe in this red/yellow/blue team BS narrative?

    Look back into Darling's past and you will find he was an affiliated Trotskyist (aka 4th International). BOTH PARTIES WERE/ARE GOING TO MAKE MASSIVE CUTS! A few months between how they quickly they intend to carry them out doesn't make one jot of difference.

    Cameron's mantra of slashing the state for private consumption was purely for the free-market fundamentalists/anarchists. He will do it as fast as he can get away with it. It's really that simple.

    You come across a bit like 'stanilic' who tends to write a lot, yet actually says very little. I get the impression that some post on here just to look good!

  • Comment number 60.

    CLARITY BEGINS AT HOME - ONE OF OUR POSTERS IS A COMPUTER! (#57)

    I am in your debt 01. Your post makes the error crystal clear.

    However, it has suddenly dawned on me (slow - I know) that your '01' is a clue to the fact that you are, in reality, A HUMAN-MIMIC COMPUTER (albeit experimental and flawed) with a penchant for caprice. The 'give-away' is an incongruous mix comprising 1) a breadth and depth of data assimilation and file retrieval beyond human capacity 2) the random use of inapposite juvenile phrasing 3) a didacticism that is so intense, as to rival THE LEGENDARY Monty Python himself.

    The byter bit?

  • Comment number 61.

    In this day and age of many varied and reliable methods of contraception, I don't understand why people have so many children. It can't be just to get benefits surely?! I find it utterly irresponsible to produce more children than you can comfortably afford, bringing up a child properly costs a kings ransom, so surely Hunts carefully chosen words were right. In fact why should the whole of society support parents who don't work but have half a dozen children?

    Why doesn't someone use the responsibility word a bit more often? As a teenager in the '60s none of my friends were planning to have babies without a father and home, not necessarily married, but a good partnership. And people weren't given anything then, so a very good form of contraception! ; ) After all the world is already very overcrowded, and we really could do with a mass cull instead! ; )

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1318439/Jeremy-Hunt-Dont-expect-pay-benefits-unlimited-babies.html


  • Comment number 62.

    NOBODY TOLD THE BUGS

    The Global Village myth is 'on the run' at the Commonwealth Games. You don't get sick when you walk to the other side of your village.

    Differencism Rules.

  • Comment number 63.

    Second thoughts on the FT piece....

    I've banged on in earlier posts about the risks inherent in taking o/o/m £1Tn of demand out of the economy and how the UK could end up like Eire deeper in debt AND with a shrunken economy, 5M unemployed, a 40% price property collapse and 2nd round of bank bailouts, as well as a run on the pound and skyrocketing debt interest rates.

    Could it be that these risks are finally dawning on the ConDems? Could it be that they have looked over the abyss and realised they could trigger a complete economic meltdown that would take generations to recover from?

    It would be politically impossible to row back from their aggressive cuts proposals - a complete 180 for Cameron, Clegg et al - all credibility would be gone - Clegg's claim that he had to join Cameron to save the economy would leave him hanging out to dry with his own Party, let alone the voters.

    However, if the Mandarians could be prevailed upon to find a systemic reason why the logistics of such deep and rapid cuts "could not be implemented in the timeframe", then this would provide a very convenient figleaf to hide behind, wouldn't it?

    The thrust of the FT quote I gave above does rather infer that this is the case - therefore my money is on the Autumn Statement cuts announcement neatly dovetailing with Alistair Darling's own proposals, but with some mild rearranging of the deckchairs to switch the items around a bit to allow Cameron to claim he's doing something completely different from the last Government, when in reality the bottomline will be virtually identical.

    Cynical?

    Moi?

  • Comment number 64.

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

  • Comment number 65.

    Some people are paid to BS...

    http://www.ebsglobal.net/programmes/r-bunning

    Sniff, sniff!

  • Comment number 66.

    HAVE YOU CONSIDERED ALCOHOL LIZZY? "PROCEPTION" (#61)

    "I don't understand why people have so many children."

    Though not always good for potency, and a bit indescriminate, overall - alcohol is a first-rate adjuct to fecundity.

    Sober bloke is easily deflated by sober bird.

    Drunk bloke's aim is no match for sober bird's agility.

    Drunk bloke and drunk bird, even by random motion, default to 'a result'.

    (Was there anything in Dave's speech about alcohol? Has he closed those Westminster (subsidised) bars yet?) No use putting a written warning on the bottle . . .

  • Comment number 67.

    Tabblenabble01 - You've said on here as jj that you admired Germany from 1933 - 1939 when if at all do you think it went wrong ? and if so the reasons ?

  • Comment number 68.

    Barrie - "1) a breadth and depth of data assimilation and file retrieval beyond human capacity"

    He gets it wrong, makes assumptions about us being beneath him and doesn't do enough research - remember Janet Tavakoli being married ? Well there are numerous others. But I have better things to concentrate on than post the references on here.

  • Comment number 69.

    #61 EcoLizzy

    Good link.

    For once, a politician stating it how it is, as unpalatable as that may be for many to hear, and guess what happens........

    Shame on the labour politicians and others who have slammed slammed him for being honest. Takes courage - even lore to carry it through.

    We need replacement generations but we need them in the right numbers and the right abilities and the words social responsibility seem to be treated as a profanity these days.

    It is imbalance that is killing us, and the planet. However, I do think basing an arbitrary limit on the CB cut on an individual earner, rather than household is not a good start.

    Unfortunately, in order to save money long term money needs to be spent on making changes good and workable. Sometimes you need to spend in order to save. Sadly payback could take longer than a parliamentary term- which would have dire consequences.

    How about
    Year 1 - Remove ALL CB from third or further children
    AND
    Reduce age to 16. All 16+ year olds can and should contribute to household. Whatever happened to paper rounds?
    YEAR 2 - Bring in an upper limit per household NOT per earner
    Year 3 - Remove all CB (didn't it used to be called Child Allowance????) and invest in either much better targeted system or a voucher based system that can be used only on child care or education needs.

    I know many mothers who use this money on foreign holidays, facials and fashion.

  • Comment number 70.

    #56

    Could you be a little more specific, table, about the 'harm' I'm doing? What about the millions as well?

  • Comment number 71.

    '...and doesn't do enough research - remember Janet Tavakoli being married ?'

    But she is married! If I recall correctly, tn01 stated that she was married to an Iranian.

    'Tavakoli grew up in the south side of Chicago, received a B.S. in chemical engineering from the Illinois Institute of Technology in 1975, and an M.B.A. in finance from the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business in 1981.
    After marrying an Iranian Ph.D. student in college, Tavakoli lived in Iran for over a year during the time the Shah was overthrown, leaving in 1979, three months after Ayatollah Khomeini returned.'

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Tavakoli

  • Comment number 72.

    Richard Watson reporting on the wars in pak and afghansitan just cant be viewed as anything other than propaganda.

    when will it be explicitly stated that drone atacks are war crimes, the incursions into pak are war crimes and illegal.

    when will NN tell it as it is that afghan war is illegal.

    and there cannot be any credibility if NN seeks opinion solely from the neo con asian pacific foundation who are supporters of the illegal wars.

    and then what is the actuality of this threat in the uk one attack some years ago whilst the irish dissidents have committed some 40 in the last year.

    europol has so called islamist attack as 0.4% in europe over the 2007/8/9.

    worldwide the actuality is that only 4% of terrorist acts are islamist and 96% are not.

    in the usa according to cnn/rand/duke university surveys/research there were 6% islamist attacks whilst there were 7% jewish (by jewish religious extremists) .

    what is the threat to the usa barely a handful over the years.

    the propaganda of this almost negligible threat to people in the uk is hyped into something enormous by govt and the likes of the bbc.

    so if the terrorist threat is tiny then the propaganda can only be for other purposes.


  • Comment number 73.

    PROGRESSIVE DECLINE OF THE APE CONFUSED BY LANGUAGE (#69)

    Well Elsie - I am prepared to make te and sandwiches if you will do the hard part.

    I reckon the only way HomSap will ever 'fly right' is if cataclysm strikes, or the aliens declare Earth a wildlife park. Either way, if we are busted back to hunter-gatherer, there is a chance.

    Or maybe Nick'll fix it.

  • Comment number 74.

    Re: 59

    I agree that the libertarian ideological view of the world - the "Washington Concensus" - has managed to enter and take effective control of all three main political parties in the UK and that at a fundamental level there is no difference between them all in trying to keep the lid on the system of free market, laissez faire capitalism in a globalised economy, even after the "light touch" deregulation for the world's financial system so vigorously advocated by the NeoCons very nearly destroyed the world's economy.

    OK?

    There are differences in the extent to which politicians are simply going along with this paradigm for personal career reasons, or whether they are really true believers in the magic of the market to sort everything out, and it's just the "wicked socialists who are ruining things with their bloated state bureacracies".

    My perspective on this is that for the UK "free" trade is actually very expensive trade because it has created an economy where we don't produce the goods, services, food & energy we consume - so we go into debt to pay for them - whilst we also foot the bill to keep the people that should be employed to produce these things either on the dole, or we invent public sector jobs to keep them off the streets.

    With me so far?

    I take the view that the UK is now so far in hock, our industry is so depleted and our economy so exposed that the "slash public spending" approach is not going to work to keep that lid on UK PLC as it will precipitate a massive recession - but neither is just carrying on as we are because the market won't go on lending more and more money to us as a nation and as individuals - nor can we afford to pay a higher and higher proportion of our DGP in interest charges.

    Therefore we need a fundamental change in our thinking - and that must be to challenge the libertarian model and reject globalisation as the way forward because it simply won't work for the UK.

    Therefore all three political parties are trying to balance on a tightrope, leaning this way or that - on one side is meltdown through our credit rating being downgraded, the cost of borrowing going through the roof and a run on our currency, on the other there is the "Eire II" outcome, where the Government implements the sort of drastic spending cuts carried out in Ireland, and again the economy implodes as it has across the Irish Sea.

    At some point we will run out of tightrope - it will make no difference which direction we happened to be leaning when this happens, either way the game will be up.

    I therefore post here and elsewhere to bring out the contradictions of cutting - or not cutting public spending - and try to bring home to people that a sustainable economy is one that pays its way, employs its population productively, produces what it consumes and uses energy and resources in a sustainable way.

    Re: 65

    not me - no relation of mine either.

  • Comment number 75.

    REALLY LOOKING FORWARD . . . (#72)

    (As one of our most loved poster might write) to a post-9/11-revelation that it was a false flag operation: Can't wait to see Jeremy smirk his way through forcing Dave to apologise for all the killing that was based on that lie.

    Also can't wait for Lockerbie to be properly investigated, and to see Jeremy embarrass Dave for being so sure Megrahi dun it.

    Well done Newsnight - in anticipation!

  • Comment number 76.

    "61. At 1:12pm on 07 Oct 2010, ecolizzy wrote:
    In this day and age of many varied and reliable methods of contraception, I don't understand why people have so many children."

    At the risk of being very repetitive (someone else said this here all before, I'm sure, and the libraries are jam packed with the stuff if one looks - in some circles this is very common knowledge, but evidently not here or on NN etc - dumbed down nation maybe? ) and writing in juvenile phrases (Mr Singleton seems to think it's grown up to write complex sentences, it isn't it's just pretentious - he also judges far too much by his own lights, as there is nothing special about my breadth of knowledge, his is just limited through the absence of higher education perhaps?), the reason 'the poor' (in brains) have so many children is that they can't think ahead to the consequences. That is, they are not very bright and that's largely genetic. There is an inverse (negative) correlation between birth-rate and educability (or smartness). It holds all over the world too, even for average smartness of a country and its birth rate. Honest! It also holds for GDP! The smarter you are, the less children you have, the dumber you are the more (statistically speaking) you have, not smart people can't help it. They forget to take the pill or use a condom etc or don't see what the consequences of a large family will be all round. This shows up in the registration of birth figures, all the research, and lots of people know this. They just get sick of stupid people who don't know about it arguing with them so end up shutting up The UN is well aware of it. It's an effect which means that the population gets dumber very slowly over time unless one implements family planning practices which work to control it (this is called eugenics, an English, Fabian idea, endorsed by Old Labour decades ago, along with nearly all the great minds in the first half of the C20th). This is what the Welfare State and Child Benefit was originally supposed to shape, a better population which was in decline in every sense of the word after the Demographic Transition.
    The battle against it, I am seriously suggesting is a battle for more dumber consumers, for profit. Give them benefits so they spend them at Tesco!

    Oddly, if you speak to bright people they don't want lots of children unless they can afford them (they don't have them). There is a problem getting them to breed in fact, has been for decades. We actually have a birth dearth at the top and a surfeit at he bottom which washes out as a below replacement level population necessitating immigration (which largely breeds more dunb consumers). At that end of the scale, many just don't care. Like kids they want want want. Have you noticed how, relative to adults, kids are not too smart? Think of not very smart people as like kids. It works.


    63. At 1:52pm on 07 Oct 2010, richard bunning wrote:

    "I've banged on in earlier posts about the risks inherent in taking o/o/m £1Tn of demand out of the economy and how the UK could end up like Eire deeper in debt AND with a shrunken economy, 5M unemployed, a 40% price property collapse and 2nd round of bank bailouts, as well as a run on the pound and skyrocketing debt interest rates."

    You have indeed, maybe you are trained in writing/communication, but you seem to ignore what anyone else posts. Here's a pointed question for
    you:

    Up to the crunch late 2007/8, we were told that there had been 65 consecutive quarters of growth averaging a 2.5% in GDP a year. After the crunch we were told that much of that had been based on debt. Over the decade up to the crunch, many houses doubled in price (bear in mind that 40% projected fall).

    So, if we were to return to where we were a decade ago, why would we have to slash and burn our Public Sector, especially if most of that debt is in the Private Sector (especially the corporates)?

    The average numeracy level of the population is even lower than its literacy. We live in a feminised Libertarian democracy too. Do you think the political strategists don't know this and exploit it to achieve their ideological objectives? What's the mortgage debt of 14 million homes at £200,000 each at 5% pa? How much does Tesco borrow, Sainsbury, M&S, Virgin, BA, etc etc. With the mass media/internet, these predators have an ever more captive, stupid audience. Note how they want to broadband Britain?

  • Comment number 77.

    "67. At 2:14pm on 07 Oct 2010, flicks2 wrote:
    Tabblenabble01 - You've said on here as jj that you admired Germany from
    1933 - 1939 when if at all do you think it went wrong ? and if so the reasons ?"

    Lots of people say this, and we'd be here all day if I went to town on it. Most went right between 1933-39. Suffice it to say that I think Germany tried to implement essentially Old Labour socialist policies in order to return their country to stability after anarchists tried to wreck/exploit it after WWI. Their economy was essentially Keynesian and it was going in the direction which the Stalinist USSR was (you have to understand that Stalinist USSR hated Trotskyites too, they hated these communists like the Germans. This is why Germany and the USSR were allies in 1939, and BOTH invaded Poland in Sept 1939. For how long they remained allies I don't know, as it's early days in terms of full release of that history I suspect. What went wrong? The simple answer is they (Germany) lost the war but in terms of outcomes passed the baton to the USSR I think (a big sacrifice) but for great gains too and had it not been for the Marshall Plan it would no doubt have gone much further West in influence. After that, I reckon we here were inevitably fed a load of Libertarian propaganda domestically which was designed to do two things:

    1) keep the USSR's national socialism from taking over throughout Europe (they controlled much that Germany had control over (by agreement?)), and

    2) scupper the post 1945 Welfare State here in the UK and elsewhere, as that was conducive to the Soviet Union's interests.

    If you look up GM's "The Road To Serfdom" cartoon (Hayek), and read Orwell's 1984 very critically, you'll see how it this was done (Orwell was a Trot/anarchist not a Fabian/Stalinist). We got some way with Fabian (Stalinist/national) socialism here after 1945, but the Conservatives (anarchists) and USA Libertarians largely scuppered it.

    What then happened is that the latter said under Thatcher/Reagan etc "look, it doesn't work!!". Surely you can see that? I guess that's politics. Now we are seeing the last vestiges of the Public Sector butchered by them and most people are cheering them!.

    As to all the nasty Germans stuff, whilst no doubt some bad things happened, that works great to put you and I off statism doesn't it, especially if you and I don't discriminate much because we get all emotional. It's like a massive ad hominem smear. Surely you can see that too? They tried it on the USSR, China, the DPRK and ...well all over the place really. If you watch the news viz Iran, you can't miss it - even some of the Iraq horror stores. That's the free market propaganda machine at work, that's all, we should expect that. racism? Why was Germany allied to Japan?You get a bucket full of rubbish every day on the SKY History channels if you are dumb enough to watch any of it.

  • Comment number 78.

    #72

    Propaganda, you say? So why some of the NN bloggers keep issuing threats to the public and myself? Am I supposed to give in blackmail or succumb to financial enticements to keep quiet?

  • Comment number 79.

    #74

    mr bunny

    Barack Obama and his government are indeed doing everything they can to regulate the banking system but are you saying they've 'bought' the main UK parties to go with your wishes?

    New York, New York??

  • Comment number 80.

    I wrote yesterday that I'd attended an event about starsuckers at the BBC Broadcasting House. Unfortunately, when it came to cycling back home, I found my bike deprived of properly working breaks so I had to leave it by the Oxford Circus station and take the tube. Was it tb01 who was talking about a circus yesterday by the way?

    Anyway it's been fixed now thanks to a young newspaper vendor and a most kind and helpful media manager who works at the Broadcasting House. Without their help I think I would have no choice but to walk and push my bicycle for miles until I found a district line station which allows bikes on board. Thank you, gentlemen!!!!

  • Comment number 81.

    78. At 4:43pm on 07 Oct 2010, mimpromptu wrote:
    #72

    Propaganda, you say? So why some of the NN bloggers keep issuing threats to the public and myself? Am I supposed to give in blackmail or succumb to financial enticements to keep quiet?"

    You're just more than a bit paranoid Mimpromptu. Think of that as being a bit like having diabetes. Don't let it run out of control. It needs to be actively managed. If you discipline your behaviour, you might even be able to turn your tendency to make these creative (but false) referential judgements into a researching skill. That would require lots of discipline with logic and statistics though, which is actually very time consuming, boring and taxing..That's my constructive advice to you.

  • Comment number 82.

    76.

    "Up to the crunch late 2007/8, we were told that there had been 65 consecutive quarters of growth averaging a 2.5% in GDP a year. After the crunch we were told that much of that had been based on debt. Over the decade up to the crunch, many houses doubled in price (bear in mind that 40% projected fall).

    So, if we were to return to where we were a decade ago, why would we have to slash and burn our Public Sector, especially if most of that debt is in the Private Sector (especially the corporates)?"

    The debt is BOTH in the public sector - i.e. accumulated central government borrowing to bridge the gap between tax income and expenditure - AND in the private sector - i.e. companies AND individuals.

    BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LEVELS OF DEBT ARE IMHO UNSUSTAINABLE.

    For the Government, the cost of the interest payments are now much greater than the cost of defence or the NHS - this is money we should be spending on pensions, health or education that is going straight down the drain.

    For companies, there are a number of aspects to debt - one of them is "private equity" and hedge funds, where perfectly good companies are taken over, asset stripped, loaded with debt, their workforce cut to the bone then dumped back on the stock market barely able to service their debt burden.

    For individuals the causes of debt are complex - housing is a key factor particularly as Government has virtually given up on building social housing so people has no choice but to saddle themselves with large mortgages - but easy credit fuelled personal debt - credit cards, HP, personal loans - then there's student loans - and the sheer cost of living today drives many into debt.

    What happens if the fall in house prices happens an d there is widespread mortgage defaulting, repossessions and bankruptcy?

    The banks would rapidly become insolvent just as they did in the USA with the sub-prime crisis - just as Anglo Irish Bank has just done - the ba banks are too big to fail - so the State steps in to shore them up - just as happend in the USA with the Thrifts - just as has just happened in Eire.

    The private debt is simply shoved over into public debt, because the Government then has to step in to prevent the whole financial system from melting down - which is what happened with Northern Rock, with RBS and the other UK banks.

    I'm not in favour of slashing & burning the public sector - it's not the cause of the problem and in many ways has acted to stave off its effects - but the level of debt and the ongoing gap between income and expenditure is not sustainable - but as the Irish have discovered, large spending cuts make thengs even worse!

    Germany is growing - and has an even larger public sector than the UK - so the size of the public sector is not the problem at all - there must be another problem - what do the Germans do that we don't do - answer they have run their manufacturing industry sensibly, they have kept jobs, invested in technology and skills and more than pay their way in the world and don't run a massive balance of payments deficit.

    Conclusion - British industrial policy has been one of neglect and British trade policy has been abolished by the free marketeers, who have exploited production from low cost, undervalued-currency countries to import goods and sell them in the UK at below the cost of production here.

    TRADE and INDUSTRY are the root cause of the problem - not the number of civil servants or what they are employed to do.


  • Comment number 83.

    #81

    Statics? No. If I had the time, I'd rather learn Japanese and Portugese, table.

    If I was paranoid, I wouldn't go out and mix with the public, I would not cycle around London during the day and at night, I would not dare to challenge people, including some in high places. In fact, out of total respect and admiration, the only person I would not challenge is The Queen. Having said that, I don't often have to challenge many people the way I challenge you and a small number of other individuals but also I don't mind being challenged by those I do respect.

  • Comment number 84.

    #74 rbunning

    Fair enough, your alright IMHO. Not many on here 'get it'. I truly believe tn01 is the only other on here that 'gets it!'.

    I have travelled extensively in Germany and Japan, through work, in very high tech manufacturing environs. I know all too well where we (the UK) are deficient. And I think you get it too.

    We're all being soft soaped and shafted in the UK at the moment.

    keep posting.

  • Comment number 85.

    #76 At the risk of being very repetitive.... It was actually a rhetorical question tab. I do understand what it's all about, and have one just like it in my relatives by marriage! ; )

  • Comment number 86.

    84. At 11:18pm on 07 Oct 2010, DebtJuggler wrote:

    "We're all being soft soaped and shafted in the UK at the moment."

    Yes, and I suspect the major subterfuge is in the ambiguity of what is public and what is private debt. Vast amounts of the Public Sector has been privatised over the past three decades. People forget this. There is very little clear talk here about where the debt actually is. How much borrowing is actually moved onto HMG's books for the convenience of private corporations which were allegedly taking on the provision of public services? How much of the sovereign debt is covering them because banks are not lending to corporates?

    This fog continues to be a very convenient means for the Con-Libs to further wither away what little is left of Public Services (the state) - New Labour was doing this too.

    I've suggested that people look into how much of the Public Sector has been financed by PFI and similar schemes all based on private borrowing with them taking the risk for profit. Look into how much more expensive these 'cost cutting' privatisations turned out to be than the original public funded services (hospitals, schools, computer systems etc etc). Forget about houses and credit cards. Think massive loans for commercial property and business expansions. That's private debt. Privatising profit and socialising loss means moving losses/liabilities/risk to the Public Sector because the taxpayers have no say in the matter.

  • Comment number 87.

    #86 Very well said tab and very clearly, what a pity the BBC doesn't state these facts so openly. I've been aware of the problem from PFI ever since it started and was informed of the massive debt it would mean to government (us!) in future years.

    I wish people would understand that the money is coming from their wage, but generally they all talk of government money, why don't they think a bit further and think that's my money.

    A pleasant woman in the audience on QT last night was objecting to any cuts to benefit, she said it would penalise people who have a lot of children. But why doesn't she think that money is coming directly from mine and my husband wage packet to support that benefit family. I can't understand why people think government money is not their money, via taxes.

    Perhaps as in a discussion on radio 4 this morning, citizenship should not be dropped as a subject in schools, but used to teach pupils how the world revolves, about government and how their wages will be spent! It can be explained clearly as you have just demonstrated, but would any government allow that.

  • Comment number 88.

    #76 (part the first).

    Tough message, simply, succinctly put. Now here's the rub.

    1) Are we too far down the road of insulated, manipulated slightly too comfortable population to find a humane and acceptable way back to reality.

    2) If not, where does one start?
    a) The current populace, through welfare claw backs etc
    b) The future generations through the above and greater (or maybe I mean lesser?) state intervention
    c) or by removing the power and rewards of the prime manipulators?

  • Comment number 89.

    "85. At 11:54pm on 07 Oct 2010, ecolizzy wrote:
    #76 At the risk of being very repetitive.... It was actually a rhetorical question tab"

    Yes, I should have realised that. Sorry.

  • Comment number 90.

    I can't understand why people think government money is not their money, via taxes.

    Perhaps as in a discussion on radio 4 this morning, citizenship should not be dropped as a subject in schools, but used to teach pupils how the world revolves, about government and how their wages will be spent! It can be explained clearly as you have just demonstrated, but would any government allow that."

    I fear you badly over estimate how 'deeply' people think. Consider this in terms of sentence length (or short-term memory capacity aka attention
    span) etc. Most people want everything put to them in simple child like sound bites because they get lost with anything longer. They want everything put briefly and simply, but as some of the way the world works can't be expressed that way, education becomes selective. Far more people Twitter or Facebook than they do NN blog.

    The woman you refer to probably won't think beyond such child-like thinking. The logical process only goes a few steps and runs out of memory. If you tried to make her think further she'd get confused, and if you persisted observers would say you were bullying. Try explaining some basic adult principles to an 11 year old. Many (nice) people think like 11 year olds or younger/ They ask questions, but don't think they are asking questions as they hear themselves as making criticisms. "Why doesn't..!!". hence there's no teaching them. Note how kids sulk and stamp when they don't get what they want? That's narcissism. Adults try to knock it out of them knowing that if they don't, sooner or later life with batter them. Hence dysfunctional people,

  • Comment number 91.

    2. At 2:27pm on 06 Oct 2010, you wrote:
    ' Our Political editor Michael Crick will be in the hall assessing how the message goes over.'


    Have things in the intro changed, again, without advice, again, making what has been written in response a bit more isolated, again?

    I cut and pasted the above.

    It appears, now, to be...

    'Michael Crick, will be reporting on how the message was received by delegates, and whether it managed to assuage anger over what critics say is an unfair cut in child benefit for higher earners.

    Why? And why no admission of re-write?

    Oh... and..

    'And we will be discussing the recent killings of German citizens in a Pakistan drone attack'

    Betting there is a slim chance they were not called Hans & Gustaf, which may explain why the BBC chooses to frame it this way, and most others are not so bothered about discussing the killing if 'German citizens' who may not have been on holiday snagging the best slot with a towel.

  • Comment number 92.


    DEMAND HOUSEHOLD INCOME BASED CHILD BENEFIT CHANGES

    What is upsetting many of us is that if two of you earn just under the threshold then you keep the benefit. Thus, a family with an income of £44,000 loses benefit (which many agree with) but the neighbouring family on up to £88,000 will keep benefit. Many of us think this is madness and unjust
    PARENTD FOR FAIR CHILD BENEFIT CHANGES

 

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.