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

Monday 17 October 2011

Sarah McDermott | 11:15 UK time, Monday, 17 October 2011

On tonight's Newsnight we have a remarkable undercover film from Sue Lloyd-Roberts in the central Syrian city of Homs - known as the "capital" of the uprising - where she has been spending time with activists.

Afterwards we will be talking to Danny Abdul Dayem, a British citizen of Syrian descent who was shot in Homs in August and Feeda Kardous, a Syrian living in Britain who has visited Syria during the recent unrest and who has a more favourable view of President Bashar al-Assad.

Then Mark Urban will join us to explain if anything is going to be done about the situation in Syria by the international community.

Plus Iain Watson reports on political lobbying and how it might be shaken up in the wake of the Fox-Werritty row.

And, we'll be looking at energy - as the prime minister pledges to work "harder and faster" to bring down energy bills ahead of a summit on gas and electricity prices and Energy Secretary Chris Huhne says that people should shop around more to save money.


  • Comment number 1.

    I am sure there is plenty that can be done in Syria by the 'international community', and like Libya, most of it will done in the shadows and therefore not be reported.

    The Prime Minster pledges ... whoa stop right there! ... I'm not listening - bitten too many times by politicians pledges/promises etc.

  • Comment number 2.

    Various commentators have been on BBC news all morning bleating about the high cost of energy and trotting out all the usual corporate eco claptrap about insulating homes etc, yet none of them have even mentioned the green tax factor once. Cutting all alleged green taxes could cut bills by 15% instantly, but as I suspect that the energy cartel are making a profit on top of the green taxes they are unlikely to flag them up.

    All the extra money to fund subsidy for useless wind farms in the vain hope of reducing CO2 emissions !

    The wind projects do not fulfill 'sustainable' objectives. They cost more fuel than they save and they cause no CO2 saving, in the contrary they increase our environmental 'foot print'.

    A decision to invest thousands of millions Euros in the construction of wind developments 'to save fossil fuel and to reduce CO2 emission' is irresponsible. There are no savings, THERE IS LOSS!

  • Comment number 3.


    Forgive me for re-posting your link from yesterday, but it seems entirely relevent to todays NN on energy and ... who knows... someone from NN may actually read it and bring it into the debate tonight.

    That would be interesting.

    Was that a pig I just saw flying past the window.

    I suspect energy will become a hot (sorry) topic in the coming months as temperatures plunge and many responsible middle class realise that in 21st century Britain they cant afford to keep themselves or their children warm in their own homes.

    Some of them will then realise that they may as well stay in a tent outside St Pauls.

  • Comment number 4.

    It’s quite simple. We’ve got a major problem with the economic balance sheet. Each side of the balance sheet has diverged to an unsustainable point:

    Assets (cheap energy & resources) are declining, whilst Liabilities (credit, paper money, and social welfare responsibilities) are growing.

    We can’t magic up the Asset side of the balance sheet (not unless you confuse planet earth with the garden of Eden), and therefore the massive Liabilities will have to be eroded, one way or another.

    Here is “one chart to bind them all”:

  • Comment number 5.

    “All institutions and individuals eventually use financial assets to purchase energy, natural resources, and labor…The end of cheap energy after 2002 marks the end of economic growth in real terms...Having built up a surplus of paper assets (both liabilities and claims) over a 25 year period, the economic system succumbs to its own lack of industrial growth….Paper assets become highly unstable as they are now deprived of cheap energy.”

    Rising energy costs are as much a function of declining marginal productivity as they are to a weakening pound.

    Balance sheet equilibrium will be restored (eventually), but at what cost?

  • Comment number 6.

    Since Syria is only the 32nd biggest oil producer in the world, whereas Iran is the world's 4th biggest (Iraq is the 12th, Libya 17th), doesn't seem that much point to do anything with Syria. It won't give us cheap petrol :p If we invade Iran, we make a bigger profit.

  • Comment number 7.


    What on earth does PPE/PR Dave bring to a meeting of power-mad (geddit?) energy weasels? Will he never learn when to drop the smoke and mirrors? If anything of value to the proles comes from this meeting IT WILL BE BECAUSE DODGY DEALS and QUESTIONABLE QUID PRO QUOs have been stitched up - along with us.

  • Comment number 8.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • Comment number 9.


    It has been said that affluence does not make you happy, but it helps you to be comfortable in misery. The end of imaginary affluence (cheap energy - what have you) will, in my view, expose the underlying madness of MOTHERLESS, SCHOOLED, ALPHA-TV INDOCTRINATED, HOM-SAP.

    Remember: the most insane always take control.

    Be judiciously afraid.

  • Comment number 10.

    the carbon tax should be stripped out the bills given 'co2 drives climate' is a failed idea. even the met are looking at solar cycles.

    Met Office wakes up to solar influence on climate

    given the lack of price increases in europe how can Huhne say 'its good value'? he should be replaced as he seems to be part of the problem.

    Germany — no increases in electricity, gas increased by 11%.
    France — electricity increased by 3%, no increase in gas.
    Italy — no increases in gas or electricity.
    Spain — electricity increased by 1.5%, no increase in gas.

    In Uk Last 12 months EON Electricity up 20% Gas up 21%

  • Comment number 11.


    A cynical person would postulate that Dave and the energy companies will reach a very satisfactory solution that solves both their problems. The Gvt undertakes to provide tax subsidies to the energy companies in return for them lowering prices. The companies then retain their profit margins, Dave claims a public victory and the covert subsidies get clothed as "green initiatives", to shut up any dissenting voices.

    Meanwhile the privatised profits get protected through transfers to the public purse.

    (Reckon I could get me-self a job as a ministerial "adviser" don't you think?)

  • Comment number 12.

    @3 Jericoa

    The questions are: Who is le Pair, what are his qualifications, who is funding him, what data are his analyses based upon etc? It's very difficult to find out!

    Even this "debunking" article doesn't say.

    Le Pair's conclusions may or may not be true. I am not qualified to say. I'm a great believer in mathematical models, but great care has to be taken that the data and model are correct.

    There is a lot of propaganda masquerading as research on the web. Many people cite this paper as evidence for their point of view without even asking about the provenance of the authors, or their data. If, as is alleged here, we have a mathematical model with made up data, then the results is not only worthless, but de-facto fraudulent. That's why peer review is so important. It doesn't eliminate disagreement, but it does encourage decent standards of scholarship.

  • Comment number 13.

    #12 Sasha

    Typical limp-dump personally attack the messenger tactics from the loony left attempting to cling on to their failed quasi-religion, the article has all the research detailed at the end so it not trying to deceive anybody unlike your warmist mates.

  • Comment number 14.

    On 17th November 2008 Ed Miliband has a meeting, in his role of Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, with the big six energy companies in an attempt to persuade them to lower energy bills. He must be hoping David Cameron succeeds where he failed.

  • Comment number 15.

    Its pretty clear that the energy cartel consider that its in their collective short term financial interest to play along with eco-fascist leaning ( influenced by lobbyists )governments in order to preserve the current Climate Scam. The fact that in the long term they will undoubtedly end up in a situation little different from Railtrack after the Hatfield incident in 2000 seems to have escaped them. However, there is now some question as to how long their stock market funding system can cling on before the perhaps now inevitable global financial meltdown where governments will have no realistic alternative other than nationalisation.

  • Comment number 16.


    yes labour were just as bad with energy companies. Gordon hide taxes and pet projects in the bills.

  • Comment number 17.

    10. jauntycyclist

    As a random sample here are the rise in energy prices in the latter half 2008 when Ed Miliband was Secretary of State for Energy(taken from BBC website):

    5 July - EDF Energy - Gas up 22%, electricity up 17%
    30 July - British Gas - Gas up 35%, electricity up 9%
    21 Aug - Eon - Gas up 26%, electricity up 16%
    21 Aug - Scottish & Southern - Gas up 29.2%, electricity up 19.2%
    29 Aug - Scottish Power - Gas up 34%, electricity up 9%
    29 Aug - Npower - Gas up 26%, electricity up 14%

    It is mightily dishonest to pretend that rises in energy prices were unheard of until this year.

  • Comment number 18.

    Auntidote (Friday blog) "If your masters will allow it why not go to the websites "Population Matters" and "Migration Watch" and soak up some facts?"

    Are you are a constructionist, a fabricator? Someone who lives in their head rather than the empirical world?

    These groups are either subversives ("Population Matters" see also Jeffrey Sachs), or partially informed (MigrationWatch, but see David Coleman), and so tend to mislead.

    Look back a few days to messages linking to Index Mundi and the point made about TFRs of Europe, Japan and South Korea. What's needed here is a grasp of demography (and perhaps some humility).

    "We need far FEWER people in the British Isles in preparation for the time when we are not allowed to steal our food from the poor of other nations and have to live within the means our own island is capable of offering to us!"

    Perhaps you do not understand WHY we have had immigration?.Read the Royal Commission on Population published in the late 1940s after many years work and after much concern in the 1930s which, via work by some in the Department of Social Biology (established in 1930 and led by Lancelot Hogben) all but began demography as a formal disciple via the PIC centred at the LSE (much to the annoyance of the likes of Ronald Fisher and Leonard Darwin considered them misguided. I suggest "Friends" of The Left Opposition aka Trotskyites. Until the late 1930s Britain simply did not have the legislation to ensure that the required census data was recorded. One needs Age Specific Fertility rates to see what is going on (along with a grasp of the role of natality, nuptiality and mortality). The required legislation did not fully come into force until the 1950s because of the war, and rather stupidly we have thought we have been "holding back" the forces of our own self-destruction via policies which are themselves the drivers of self-destruction (e.g. education, education, education, low skilled immigration and Human Rights, FOIA to name a few of our Libertarian follies).

    My advice (probably futile if, as I reckon, behaviour is largely genetic): - stop raging and start studying the details with which you are unfamiliar. This will, I hasten to add, severely shock if and when anyone hitherto unaware becomes aware of what's being pointed out as it IS counter intuitive, paradoxical. This may be part of a Cold War where sadly, the protagonists are largely unaware of the contingencies controlling their behaviours - that is, it just happens, without intention, and without awareness.

  • Comment number 19.

    @ Auntidote #8 - The term "we" refers to the country. We profit from attacking oil rich countries by seizing their oil and rebuilding their country, so we get the contracts, hence generate more money. We also sell weapons to the victorious, so it's profitable all round. We rush to countries who are oil rich/mineral rich, but we don't help those really in need like Somalia do we?
    And no it is NOT "gung-ho imperialism" it's just business. Simples :p

  • Comment number 20.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • Comment number 21.

    Mistress76uk "The term "we" refers to the country. We profit from attacking oil rich countries by seizing their oil and rebuilding their country, so we get the contracts, hence generate more money. We also sell weapons to the victorious, so it's profitable all round."

    Don't you mean the shareholders in the private utility companies which profit, and those holding shares in companies selling weapons? Is this the WE to which you refer? Given the very low Corporation Tax which goes to HM R&C maybe you underestimate what Mr Cameron, Clegg and others are referring to by "WE". Surely they are referring to Private Sector Financial Services, and shareholders, i.e people who may not even be domiciled in Britain.

    You just assume they mean you, just as many assume that they know what HOUSEHOLDS and Charities (NPISH) are, what "The Government" is etc. The deception counts on your not knowing what the class terms are, but thinking that you do.

  • Comment number 22.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • Comment number 23.

  • Comment number 24.

    #12 sasha

    I will not pretend that I have thoroughly researched it but I know enough to see a 'reasonable' argument when I see it which has a certain logical coherence to it.

    Wind, I think, can work extremely well in a local context, as a national supply it causes obvious efficiency issues in requiring lots of 'idling' back up highly responsive electricity generation to be present.

    As i mentioned before a turbine combined with a basic pump storage or ground source heat exchange system serving afew hundred houses could be set up and maintained by them entirely 'off grid' with a connection to the grid if they ever run out (it should be designed so that it is a rare event).

    That works well and engages the community.

    You dont have to read the detail to see the logic that a system which is unpredictable in power output yet supplies a significant %tage to the NG will have significant efficiency reduction associated with it.

    Has that been put into models properly or have they simply done a 'wind generates 'x' power therefore wind net contributes 'x' power not fully taking into account a risk based distrubution on the impact on the rest of the grid.

    I dont know Sasha, I suspect the numbers have been manipulated soemwhere and I suspect it is not as favourable as the pro wind lobby wopuld like us to believe.

    Ultimately it should be easy to tell, as more wind comes 'online' and becomes significant we should see a comparative quantum percentage drop in 'non wind' generation.

    If we do not, or if the drop is only very small........

    I like wind power, but I think they are applying it in the wrong context on large scale wind farms.

  • Comment number 25.

    In my first post on this thread (@1) I suggested that there might be a lot of international effort happening secretly in Syria, which by definition, will not enter the public domain for maybe decades.

    So a clarification is due - IMHO, NewsNight journalists such as Sue Lloyd-Roberts and Mark Urban are extremely brave people, who go to very dangerous places, to bring information out into the wider world.

    So, at least we get a partial picture of the situation in Syria and other countries where the people are oppressed.

  • Comment number 26.

    All well commented upon already, but to complement to the points of some...

    'Mark Urban will join us to explain if anything is going to be done about the situation in Syria by the international community.

    To explain such a thing so definitively suggests a remarkable degree of access to the minds making such future decisions. Else one might only hope for insights, based on experience, as to the options. That may be informed, but not certain. I will contact Wlliam Hill forthwith.

    'we'll be looking at energy'

    Guy helping clear our garden used to be an account director for an agency handling the vast wave of 'free' lightbulbs 'we' were 'given'. He was only this morning telling me about the vast costs taken from utility customers in 'green' levies, which were then returned via such 'donations' back, less p&p (pensions and parliamentary lobby bungs).

    It might be nice if NN, or indeed the entire BBC, made this price rise connection a bit clearer than has been managed so far. Before it gets chilly.

  • Comment number 27.

    @24 Who do I believe Jericoa? Nobody. It is all too easy for even bona-fide research to be tainted by commerical interest.

    Many "reasonable arguments" turn out to be untrue, or only partly true, in the light of a bigger picture. That's why peer revue is so important. There are problems with that too, but unfortunately there is no other credible way of trying to keep science honest.

  • Comment number 28.

  • Comment number 29.

    huhne says switch tarriff. How about we switch minister or switch government.

    Let Huhne explain why the same companies who raised by 20% in the uk did not do the same in their own countries?

  • Comment number 30.

    On the energy debate, it is perverse that no-one on the television news is mentioning the huge costs to the energy sector and ultimately consumers of low carbon, and in particular renewable, government policies. We were told on the bbc news tonight that we needed to spend £200 billion on new plant and infrastructure - but this is not a necessary cost, it is imposed largely by the renewables obligation. We can replace capacity cheaply by building gas plant. Neither was it mentioned that we are already paying a large bill in renewable subsidies. This would all be easier to bear if renewables actually added to capacity; but as they merely mitigate fuel and emissions they do not. WHY is the BBC silent on this issue - it is against the public interest. We need an open debate about energy policy, and to understand what our options are.

  • Comment number 31.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • Comment number 32.


    We need an open debate about energy policy, and to understand what our options are.

    Quite so!

    Lets throw in

    The financial system


    The influence of far right and middle east interests on defence policy

    The use of the Honors system (which has become a grotesque system of patronage now).

    Climate change, its true origins and how we should respond to it.

    Our alliances with regimes in the middle east straight out of a dark ages horror movies.

    The media's influence over politics.

    The collapse of building 7

    Oliver letwin's competancy (what happened to that story anyway) ??????? gagging order perhaps.

    David Camerons character judgement (personal friends with Rebekah Brookes, Appointed Andy Coulson, appointed Liam Fox, defends Ollie Letwin, led a standing ovation in Parliament for Tony Blair).

    The well is deep for an 'open debate... to understand what our options are'

  • Comment number 33.

    Here is an excellent instantiation of the Libertarian scam which preys on people's vanity and naive, empirically groundless belief in equality and choice.

    The politicians know very well that lots of people are virtually illiterate and innumerate, so can't understand. Bombarding them with ADVICE is not what's required. What's required is acknowledgement that CHOICE is a predatory sham/scam, and that prices need to be brought down at source of supply.

    This is predation. Think of the elderly. How do they shop around? How many can use the Internet etc?.

    This is venality disguised by a lie about equality. It exploits people's VANITY making them believe they are all equals. This allows politicians to go light on regulation. It exploits child-like, female, vanity based on ignorance of the facts of diversity in abilities, not only genetically, but through decline with age..

    This can be seen everywhere. But it isn't seen for what it is. It is masked by right-wing political-correctness, i.e nonsense about equality and consumer choice..

  • Comment number 34.


    Why do we get the calibre of MP that we do? Honourable individuals do not accept such title, UNEARNED, any more than I would add letters to my name, having passed no prestigious exams. We have 650 DISHONOURABLE MPs; one by one I am contacting them and their response (or lack of) gives the lie. Yet they are well paid and better pensioned; always leaving a legacy of costly folly. D MOCK CRASS Y?


  • Comment number 35.

    SLR is incredibly brave!
    Very interesting debate by Jeremy with Kardous et Dayem. Of course people want reform, but, as in the case of Egypt, if/when the current regime is overthrown, it will descend into a mess, and, like Egypt, the Christian population will be targeted. It won't bring freedom, just more repression.....

  • Comment number 36.

    How "Yes, Prime Minister" was the debate with Lord Butler et al?:o)

  • Comment number 37.

    On lobbying: "The figures published by the Guardian show that no department has published its record of meetings for any month more recent than March 2011 despite the coalition's pledge to regularly publish details of ministerial meetings. Several, including the Department for Media, Culture and Sport, the Home Office and Department for International Development have not even published the full log of meetings up to that point."

    Meanwhile, I've discovered an interesting new word: "kakistocracy" = "rule by the worst"; one for you Barrie perhaps? ;-D

    The root of the first part of the word, "kakos" or "kaka" = Greek for 'bad', as in "cacophony" ('bad sound') is common in many Indo-European languages.

    It occurs in the Tenby emblem as a quotation from Euripides.

  • Comment number 38.

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

  • Comment number 39.


    Cack-handed governance indeed Sasha. My brother's stroke, NHS 'care', and storage unto death, across three hospitals and a care home, over 8 months, made me a reluctant expert - even in 'social work'. I can tell good from bad.

    My 17 months of challenge to Greater Westminster, with an IRREFUTABLE DOCUMENT as evidence (Liar Flyer) has, likewise, made me an expert in the sheer hypocrisy, chicanery, deceit and arrogance (add your own) of the standard issue MP. THERE IS NO MITIGATION.

    These are self-evidently bad people. We all know it. Just watch them delivering the consummate politician's weasel-answer to a legitimate question, ON OUR BEHALF. All too often it is done OVERTLY, arrogantly saying to the proles: YOU CAN'T TOUCH ME. Only in politics is such behaviour REWARDED - that is the key. MPs work to a code INIMICAL to decent, honourable conduct; the more skilled at such unpleasant behaviour they are, the more they shine in the eye of the party leader. WHAT AN UNSPEAKABLE REGIME.

    And NewsyNighty shares the disgrace - never taking issue.

    Nuff sed

  • Comment number 40.


    We still have standardised postage - even when many have alternative means of data transmission. Yet some deluded PM (yes - we got another one) SOLD OFF THE UTILITIES!

    Brown suffered from myopia re Boom and Bust, and Maggie had the same lack of distant vision in privatising utilities. Clearly SHE had banished DROUGHT, international STRIFE, and extremes of WEATHER. Blair - of course - banished REALITY.

    D MOCK CRASS Y? Why do we elevate these disastrous 'leaders'? What Dunces we are to accept such crass decisions. We are mocked.

  • Comment number 41.

    Don't know why my #38 was censored!

    #33 b_d

    You are one of the few that actually identifies with those who are the unfortunate victims of such anarchistic predatory behaviour. It's an interesting and admirable quality imho.

  • Comment number 42.

    Dave and Chris rolled-over by the Energy 6 now. The banks have given Dave the runaround as has the EU. Not sure what is the politicians function anymore, except perhaps for the business lobby. Government appears to be run by corporates these days. As a proll I don't feel represented.

    With the incomes they command, energy bills probably don't register on Dave and Chris' radar, unlike the majority of people for whom it is a significan part of their income. Another example of the void between electorate and government. They're welcome to correct me if I'm wrong.

    My home is fairly new and 'A' rated for insulation, but I'm still getting far larger bills on unchanged energy consumption over the last five years.

    I've swapped supplier three times during that period. Story the same every time. Good starting price, then co-incidentally I presume, within a few months 'we need to increase your direct debit payment'. Lo and behold, I'm paying the same price as, or more, than the previous supplier.

    Even the regulator, Ofgem, doesn't know how they arrive at their pricing. What a country!

    Dave and Chris should pray that we have a mild winter. Or the main source of energy keeping the public warm will be boiling tempers.

  • Comment number 43.

    This viewer was surprised that during the discussion about lobbying, that when the opportunity presented itself, Paxman did not probe Tory MP Hancock as to the fact that Liam Fox was the only Tory MP who refused to co-operate with a Conservative Party initiative to identify all lobbyists.

    Which was a blatant red flag in itself.

    In fact, Paxman did not even raise the point, which suggests poor research.

  • Comment number 44.

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

  • Comment number 45.


    The 'evil' Taliban prevented this.

    Now watch the country decline into our pit. Big Brother soon.

    Weep world.

  • Comment number 46.

    museV wrote "You are one of the few that actually identifies with those who are the unfortunate victims of such anarchistic predatory behaviour.
    It's an interesting and admirable quality imho."

    Sadly, as you probably know, most don't bother to put the necessary time and effort into working through what's been said about the drivers of this dire demographic predicament. They just want short term fixes as that's all they can see.

    One can't see much of what is really going on with one's own eyes as it's just not that obvious. The drivers are much harder to see. As pointed out earlier, populations of the non Libertarian (largely Muslim) world have increased since the 1940s, but people must look carefully to see how, where and why. is it through improved longevity, higher than replacement birth-rates, decreased infant mortality, better hygiene? The indigenous population of Britain has only increased by reduced in that mortality and increased longevity but as the birthrate has been below replacement level for decades we have a problem which is due to catch up as it shortly will in Japan and Korea etc. Like the rest of the Libertarian populations Britain's population is projected to decline after the aged begin dying off, and what will happen when Public Sector health begins to be eroded? What will happen as the population further dumbs down too? Increased Immigration was just a poorly thought through effort to compensate for below replacement level birth rates.

    Many do not understand what's been going on and many don't appear to want to know what's going on either. Instead they talk to what they *imagine*, even though what they imagine is largely false. They trust what they *think* they can see, i.e their superstitions, instead of studying demography and the politics which have been based upon this.
    Some of our politicians know this, they just don't tell the public, either because of the reactions one sees here, or because they are happy to make money out of it in the short-term.

    As to lobbying - has everyone seen "Casino Jack" - Jack Abramoff?

  • Comment number 47.


    Liam Fox inquiry fails to identify Adam Werritty backers

    "Although Downing Street will publish the entire report, The Daily Telegraph understands it will not include detailed information about how Mr Werritty was funded, an omission which is expected to lead to accusations of a cover-up."

    A cover for whose convenience?

    Just who are BICOM?

  • Comment number 48.

    Haha NN still trying to normalise the failed co2 drives climate change when the evidence is its sun cycles.

    if i was in the bbc forced to churn out that bogus co2 narrative i would feel grubby and dirty if not humiliated knowing the only purpose of that narrative is to transfer wealth from the many to the few.

    and not one reference to the huge difference in price rises between the uk and europe from the same companies.

    is huhne on the run?

    bbc is a climate science free zone. It a carbon trading spin Meister?

  • Comment number 49.


    I suppose, now that England no longer knows what it is, the Flagship is truly representative of the fleet.

    Nuff sed

  • Comment number 50.

    @42 "Dave and Chris should pray that we have a mild winter. Or the main source of energy keeping the public warm will be boiling tempers." .......allied to their own hot air of course.

    What we have is an oligopoly, if not an outright cartel. It's certainly not a "free market" in any real sense. There is little long term benefit in switching suppliers under these circumstances.

  • Comment number 51.

    barriesingleton @ 49

    You say that England may no longer know what it is but I can report that the penny is slowly dropping for some of the London-centric glitterati.

    For example, Times journalist Giles Coren recently found himself in some far reaches of Scotland and young Giles found that surprise, surprise, the Times, Mail, Sun etc al had stories mostly centred around ... Scotland. Ditto, the television and radio.

    At some point, Giles seemed to understand that he was in another country and it was definitely not England.

    All we English need is for our fellow English people to finally understand that that we live in England, not Britain (politically speaking), the we English will get somewhere.

    Brits out! (of Westminster).

  • Comment number 52.

    I cannot believe the mods would'nt squeeze this through..I 'll do the usual censorship dance for you Mod. As they say in the desert state: take two:

    Paxman is upset that the 400yr British Empire history is getting erased in schools

    Why might that then be? Well if you've ever bothered to notice who sits around in our educational establisments filling the youngters head with magic.. its the teachers and academics whom are mostly self loathing leftist *** **** with a child-like view of the world (not unlike the BBC ..have you seen its news? *****!) who believe our past is awful to the point of doing an airbrush Job on our history.

    "We were not nice to ****** people, we shipped them off to work in the fields, we turned them into slaves...and thats not nice, so we'll pretend that did not happen as we are ***** and feel guilty".. Its concise but thats what runs through these peoples heads.
    The teaching profession was taken over by the radicals in the 60's and they are still there...well what did you expect, its trite but you'll always reap what you sow. And yes, George warned us about the rewriting of history..well, thats always gone on but I thought I'd better credit George with that there.

    Anyhow, like I I always say: ******** ** * ****** ********

    Oh, has the Beeb bothered with the Bankster protests yet or are they still ignoring it?

    There you go that for a little airbrushing :)

  • Comment number 53.

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

  • Comment number 54.


    I have harried my MP into an ignominious sulk - he can't take reality. I think we could ALL harry our MPs. A starting point is the duplicity of canvassing as BOTH rosette and self, then taking the whip or using discretion, WITH NO IDEA OF THEIR 'VOTER SPLIT' hence their enfranchisement. Then there are the various codes of conduct - bizarre in the extreme and sidelining the voter, ONCE THEY HAVE VOTED!

    HARRY YOUR MP, OR THEY WILL CLOSE THE WALL UP WITH OUT ENGLISH 'DEAD'. You can't shame them, they have no shame, but you can make their lives untenable as currently lived - WITHIN THE LIE. Spot their posturing in the local rag, then write in exposing the falsehoods and deviousness. Ask them: "Are you rosette or rosette stand?"

    The Westminster facade is cracking. Once more unto the breach dear friends.

    As an example of a small step that might lead anywhere: Last evening I read a poem, describing the Liar Flyer saga, to my local group. I attached the facsimile of the flyer, offering £100 to anyone who could validate the five lies.


  • Comment number 55.

    ok moddy you win... :)

    I'll just put the link of paxman not happy about British history getting airbrushed/erased from the schools..will that be ok?

    Thats probably on here already.

  • Comment number 56.


    Education - across many generations - has INSTITUTIONALISED most of us and wrecked most of the remainder. That they 'know not of Empire' is exceedingly small beer.

    Why not support our CEREBRAL RIOTING, against corrupt governance, Mr P? You could sport a couple of mil. for THE ULTIMATE GOOD CAUSE, could you not?

    You can find me at SPOILPARTYGAMES. Waiting your contact.

  • Comment number 57.

    Oh and I forgot to mention the leftists liberal white guilt..will that be ok to add to the paxman daily mail link.. or is that a bit too strong for the BBC

  • Comment number 58.


    Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre

    The current Chief Executive Officer is the former Labour Member of Parliament Lorna Fitzsimons. In 2010, when addressing the Herzliya Conference, Ms Fitzsimons told the conference that "public opinion does not influence foreign policy in Britain. Foreign policy is an elite issue."

  • Comment number 59.



    Complaints against MPs

    There is no formal procedure for complaining if you are unsatisfied with the service
    you have received from your Member of Parliament. If you are not satisfied with the
    treatment you have received you have two courses of action available to you.
    First you can take your complaint to the local party association. Although there may
    be no immediate sanction they can take, the choice of who is selected to represent
    the constituency in future elections rests with them. There should be a contact
    number and address in your local telephone directory. Alternatively, you can write to
    the party’s headquarters.


  • Comment number 60.

    OTHER 'ELITE ISSUES' OF GOVERNANCE (#58 link - well spotted)

    Integrity, altruism, honesty, decency, honour, virtue, trust, truth, dignity, respect; the eschewal thereof.

    Weep England.

  • Comment number 61.

    Maybe the MP's are really the visible tip of an iceberg, which takes all the flak from the punters.

    Underneath, wielding the real power is the Civil Service, i.e. if 'they' do not want it, it does not happen or else happens at glacial speed, such that it can be easily reversed when the opposing shower are elected.

    If this is what goes on in Whitehall, then one can see why some Ministers (Gove et al) may be tempted to setup parallel communications networks, thus by-passing the 'enemy within'; in their desparation to pull the levers of power and have an outcome.

  • Comment number 62.


    Ah! Do you mean Whitehall ONLY LETS THROUGH the duff ideas that squander vast monies and achieve little/noting? I feel SURE the Pratchetesque 'initiatives' came from the evacuated heads of their proud promoters.

    Oh POLLTAX! I forgot to honour Maggie! The most CRASSUP of all time.

    Only in Westminster.

  • Comment number 63.

    barriesingleton @ 62

    You can imagine a very senior Civil Servant thinking .. well, we are the people who grade intellects like fine wines, and so on this occasion, we will not advise Minister Yvette Cooper that her idea for Home Information Packs (HIPs) is 'very courageous' and let it be implemented.

    What fun they must have ... pity about the 9,000 or so saps who paid and took the HIPs training course but then again, they are just the little people, and when has Westminster ever REALLY taken any notice of them?

    Certainly not pre-Iraq war, where the little people, in a colossal mass demonstration in London, had precisely zero effect on Tony Blairs' Governments decision to go to war in Iraq.

  • Comment number 64.


    Your point well taken JC.

  • Comment number 65.

    Energy companies are run by very smart people. They will pick your pocket, and you won't even know what happened. As fantastic as call me Dave's pledge sounds, the truth of the matter is energy companies fund powerful lobbyist groups, as well as an army of scientists and lawyers that will always exert great influences over government policies (the Tory party included). I suspect we will see Israel and Palestine kiss and make up before we can get those bad boys to lower our fuel bills.

  • Comment number 66.

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

  • Comment number 67.


    Or perhaps rather an oiligopoly. Sorry!


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.