麻豆官网首页入口

ONLY ONE CAMPBELL - MANY MENTAL HEALTH 'EXPERTS'

Campbell is (rightly) known for a range of facility that I will not begin to list.

If you feature how the disturbed mind drives individuals to dominance and abuse, have him on the program.

For all else please leave him out.

Did they cause the crisis? Yes.

Are they making it worse? Yes.

Is their request for bonuses the final straw? Yes, yes, yes.

Is it time the bankers were put in the dock? Yes.

BANKERS ARE A SYMPTOM

To 'go' on 'did they cause the crisis' is to LIVE WITHIN THE LIE.

What we are witnessing, is a cultural collapse. It requires philosophical nous and psychological acumen, not the usual suspects skipping over the surface.

Please?

Please, will a Newsnight presenter press the following questions to the arrogant bankers?

- Why no public apology from them for destroying savings, pensions, business and lives with total incompetence?

- Why no public thank you for bailing them out, protecting their jobs with inflated salaries and potential bonuses?

It is significant by its very absence!

Thank you!

WAKE-UP CALL?

Look at the in Germany for the first four decades of the C20th. There were concerns in Britain too after the 'demographic transition', in fact there were concerns throughout Europe - that's what the interest in eugenics was all about, i.e. it was a concern for healthy population growth. This is what all the emphasis on the birth-rate and 'race' amounted to - i.e. it was a serious concern about a race dying out - the European race! If one looks at , i.e. it's happening, and it's actually got worse since the end of 'Socialism in One Country' in the Eastern Block, that is, it's become worse since they were 'liberated'. Immigration is a last resort to a problem Liberal-Democratic governments can't beter manage, in fact, it may well be a problem of their very making.

Now, what sort of 'liberation' leads to the progressive extinction of a population/race? Who would encourage such behaviour, by what means, and why?

Tonight's running-order is apposite.

Bankers certainly should be in the dock: their bonus culture should be illegal. I am a salesman in IT: for every sale I make I get a percentage of the value as part of my salary package.

I get paid the commission when the customer pays the company. If the customer doesn't pay I don't get commission. If the customer subsequently withdraws from the transaction and monies are repaid, commission is clawed back.

I want to see bank staff subjected to the same scrutiny and pay back their ill-gotten bonuses.

Simple - let all the bonuses be paid.
Government should pass a bill immediately to the effect that all banking bonus payments > 拢10k must be taxed at 100%.
Simple - problem solved.
Lets all move on.

Please can somebody explain why Jeremy Paxman鈥檚 name is hardly ever mentioned these days in the announcements of the 鈥楴ewsnight鈥� programmes? Are you guys jealous or something?

not so much trickle down, as blow-holed out' the top!

vince cable on sky was classic, i'm not sure the presenter knew what to say as there was no grey area, 'so you don't think da dee da demonised de da?' vince: 'no, clearly, some very excessive bonuses have triggered the collapse of the banking sector'...

hung parliament, vince?

maybe not such a bad idea

anyone got any rope?

It's only natural but only too easy to blame everything on "the bankers".....a catch all phrase for everything bad, but a convenient blame point. Faced with a business opportunity to grow their businesses exponentially without recourse to the boring raising of capital, whilst passing on the extra risk to third parties...what exactly were they to do? It was a massive game of chicken combined with pass the parcel and russian roulette.....the pyramid may have been destroyed...but I am afraid, a new one is being constructed as we speak. The banks will pile up a mix of their toxic stuff with better stuff and start packaging it into bonds for a hungry investment market not seduced by earning 1% on their cash....and give it 5 years and we will be back again. And this is before the banks have started to reconcile the disasters on the asset side of their balance sheet....the real frightener is that all the attention has been on the liability side and shoring that up.....everything to date has been the tip of the iceberg....the government money to date might as well have been thrown on the fire.....drop in the ocean is so apposite.

One thing to keep in mind in relation to bonuses, is that the perceived problem (ie that they reward short term risk taking not long term growth), is wholly the result of current government tax policy.

Consider the following alternatives. Firstly, company X pays its employee a cash bonus of GBP100,000. In this case, the bonus forms part of gross pay one month, and is taxed via PAYE. So the employee receives GBP100,000 gross, pays GBP41,000 tax/NIC, and ends up with a net GBP59,000.

Now consider what happens if the employer gives the employee shares worth GBP100,000, but with a clause that they cannot be sold for some specified period, eg 3 years. In this case, the employee receives no immediate cash payment but, as far as the Revenue is concerned, they've still received remuneration of GBP100,000. So the employee now has an immediate GBP41,000 tax/NIC bill and no cash to pay it.

In this situation the employer will either pay the tax on the employee's behalf, or (more likely in the current economic situation) lend the employee the money (probably interest free) to meet the tax bill. However, this makes the long term share incentive scheme more expensive for the employer. If they do nothing for the employee, then the scheme is hugely unattractive to the employee (they are left GBP 41,000 out of pocket for three years).

Paying large cash bonuses to reward performance that, as we've seen recently, can reverse very suddenly, is clearly dumb. But then so is a tax system that encourages firms to adopt this structure. Of course, what drove the government's thinking until recently was getting in lots of tax to pay for all the shiny new public sector "improvements", whilst maintaining the myth that this could be paid for without increasing taxation. Just consider the tax on non-received remuneration as another stealth tax. And remember, that these bonuses that Brown is now apparently so angry about, he was very happy to share them 59/41 with the recipients while he was Chancellor.

I'm afraid this is just another sickening display of hypocrisy from Brown and Co. If he was worried about excessive risk taking and the impact of remuneration structures on it, he's had plenty of time to fiddle with the tax system to encourage a better way of paying people. Incidentally, the FSA has had the power for years to consider remuneration structures' impact on financial firms' risk taking. Might be an idea to ask them why they never used the powers. I think you'll keep coming back to all the lovely income tax Gordon was getting from these bonuses, not to mention the Corporation Tax paid by City firms (25% of all such tax receipts). And we won't even think about the stamp duty on expensive house purchases made from these bonuses, or the VAT from recipients' excessive lifestyles.

This problem begins and ends with Brown's need for ever more tax, and the City's seeming ability to pay ever more. Now, however, the illusion has hit home with a vengeance. But let's make sure we focus blame on where it is deserved, namely the government that failed to utilise the regulations that it had already put in place to control this kind of thing. Financial services firms, and their staff, simply played the system the way they've been encouraged to do so. Brown is in no position to moan about it now, I'm afraid.

#6; are you not part of the bonus culture also? Why does your employer not pay you what you are worth? You are a salesman; do you really need an incentive to sell? Does this not mean the price of your product takes account of your commission, therefore is too high, and equally your salary is too low, so you are on commission?

#7; gets my vote!

#5; a propos de gumbo, as per usual; gets a bit boring after a while; go for a rest, why don't you? L.H.O.O.Q?

STRAIGHT TALK

I hope one, two or even three of the inquisitors might ask whether Mr Campbell ever thought that there might be anything risky in presenting matters in such a way that it's contrived to lead others to believe things which are not as they are. For example, one of the three Newsnight professional spin panel could ask him if he'd ever thought that such behaviour might disconnect him from reality just a little.

That would make for a salutary Newsnight - maybe The Panel could be expanded for one night to include Mr Draper?

The bankers just don't get the fact they created a bubble by lying about their markets. Disincentivise dealers? BRILLIANT IDEA, we need fewer of them.
And as far as the final debate is concerned, you got turned off. That, by the way, was the term used by Albert Pierpoint, and was what happened to those responsible for the fraud after the South Sea Bubble. Let them be grateful, I would suggest their true calling is in the gutter.

WHAT IS THE FAR RIGHT?

Mr (and presumably Ms Cooper, First Secretary of the Treasury?) is concerned about the 'Far Right' apparently. But doesn't the 'Far Right' comrpise the laisez-faire anarchists who created this economic mess by trusting the Pandora of market forces, globalisation and securitization through deregulation? Does he mean that the BNP is a risk, or UKIP - I don't think so, as nobody relaly takes them seriously? More likely he means those 'nasty' statists like the Old Labour types, aka Socialists in One Country 'Stalinists' whose 'fascist' policies of control of the means of production and running the counry they abandoned when they dumped Clause IV, the unions and everything else Labour stood for in favour of PPP/PFI, and cash for who knows what (because it didn't go anywhere and nobody did anything wrong anyway)?

Knowingly or unknowingly Prescott has found the 鈥榞et out of gaol鈥� card for Gordon Brown and Labour on Newsnight tonight.

He probably isn鈥檛 aware of the fact but if he and Gordon sit down and think about it then they might realise that Prescott has hit on something tonight that just might save Labour being booted out come the next election.

Prescott accused the bankers of lending ridiculous multiples of salary for mortgages 鈥� at the end of the day this was not the Government鈥檚 fault and had nothing to do with Brown and Labour. The banks decided to do it themselves. Prescott ranted how the banks stopped lending at 3 and 3.5 times salary on a mortgage, which had been the norm for decades, and began lending ridiculous multiples. BINGO!

If Labour begin repeating this then they would be able to divert blame for this mess from the Government to the banks.

For, and this hurts me to admit it, Prescott is actually right and spot on on this matter. If the banks had kept to 3 and 3.5 times salary for mortgages it would have been impossible for them to have helped ramp up house prices and give out mortgages to people who clearly never had any chance, even if they lived for 500 years, to repay the mortgages.

Add to that the self-cert mortgages, where borrowers could basically say whatever they wanted on a mortgage application form and the banks did not look too closely, then it is clear that the greed in the UK mortgage market was not only the foundation stone of the Ponzi scheme that drove up UK house prices to unsustainable and silly amounts鈥� but was also ultimately the cause of the collapse to the point now where we effectively have several bankrupt banks needing billions of Public money to bail them out. If Brown actually said this, and kept saying it, then it would be become clear to Joe Public that it was the banks who lent on stupid mortgages and not the Government.

If Brown can get his ego around stopping saying 鈥淚t all started in America and is all the fault of US subprime鈥� and actually admit that the UK banks got greedy, that they lend out silly multiple mortgages, dubious self-cert mortgages and dubious buy-to-let mortgages in their tens of thousands then, because most people in the street already know this, Labour has a chance of moving from talking nonsense to a non-believing angry Public and actually diverting attention from Gordon and the Government causing the problem to the bankers.

Yes, Prescott actually may have hit the nail on the head tonight. I wonder if it just came out in an outburst of emotion when faced with bankers or whether some not so dim people in Labour are actually putting two and two together? The public already know this, Prescott appears to have stumbled upon it but I doubt Brown鈥檚 ego will allow him to actually work out. Hang on, anyone hear a penny dropping in Downing Street?

#5 , JadedJean

As ever , JadedJean says it all for me! Any sane person who read's that entry needs no comment from me. This is purely to to introduce JadedJean to the idea that people don't all don their jackboots in readiness for Newsnight. Different kind of audience.

As for Prescott tonight, my God!

Whose worse the bankers or the people who have a zillion, rich, banker advisers or the politicians who let them rip? Who us they say? But his professional performance won't last long as they would have to admit that then they were playing Russian roulette and only woke up when they went bust.
People may suspect that is not the best defence.

The government looks very weak. Bankers are making a fool of the government. I believe most of the public are very angry. Prescott has the right ideas. Government must take control of the situation, starting with RBS. It must put a stop to any bonuses, it must take the bankers to court for gross negligence and rogue practices and it must make people like Goodwin pay back the money they have taken. Plus it should take his knighthood off him. It must sack the entire boards of these publicly owned or part publicly owned banks and get different people in to run them on it's behalf.

If the government did this it might even have a chance of winning the next election. By making a popular move that looks decisive, strong, and morally right the government could gain some support and credibility among disillusioned former labour supporters and floating voters.

Has Gordon Brown got the courage to do it? Probably not.

Interesting to note the "screaming mob" is still alive and well calling for someone's blood without understanding why and not looking to themselves too - headed up by Prescot as usual.

Yes Treasury Bankers have really screwed up - yes CEO's should be accountable. But what happened to the responsibility of the counterparty? Those that borrowed excessively i.e. you and me - Joe Public we all wanted that house, that car, the latest gismo etc today.

We are all in part to blame in this circle of greed not just the stupid bankers for having too little back bone to say no - greedy house buyers - greedy businesses - greedy shoppers - greedy pension funds pushing for higher value bank shares - a greedy government for fast growth - et al.

There is always more than on the surface than meets the eye - a little intelligent reflection would go a long way rather than a knee jerk blame culture looking for a hanging party!

I fail to understand why Alastair Campbell is given any time on Newsnight regardless of the topic.
He did so much damage to investigative journalism in the 麻豆官网首页入口; damage from which it has still not recovered.

I won't mention my thoughts on his role in selling the invasion of Iraq for fear of being modded.

FROM SHOW-BIZ TO COMEDY PLAYHOUSE

Prescott blustering (from ignorance) about PROPRIETY in banking and Campbell, declaring (from a distinct lack of practice) we should be more CARING.

Where was hard-man Paxman? He let Prezza waste valuable time and failed to point out to Campbell the absence of this nice guy in his 'Tony Days'.

As for Blair, taking on a guy who struggled with his demons would have made it easier for him (TB) to struggle with HIS. A struggle his face says he is now losing.

Just watched Newsnight, the bankers looked decidedly uncomfortable, and were not very convincing. Not even sure they defended bonus payments to bankers.

The arguments put forward in defence of the banking sector, regarding blame for the whole crisis, was a bit of a damp squib. I thought what was said was, the government was to blame for lack of regulation. Considering I am led to believe that the top people in banks are the best of the best, and are paid far more than any one else in the world because they know more than everyone else appears rather pathetic.

As John Prescot said GREED, GREED, GREED. As the former head of the high street bank said, when asked what question he would put to the former heads of RBS, did they actualy know what they were doing?. Easy answer to that is NO.

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

kashibeyaz (#12) Please try to post something worth reading. You clearly hold yourself in high esteem, but this really is just a consequence of rather poor insight.

PRESTIGIOUS HIGH-RISE BUILT ON SAND.

We have discovered the doors are sticking on the 42nd floor (the Executive Suite) of the prestigious 'Western Tower'. Qualified Easers are now easing them, by planing bits off, but as fast as they plane, the doors stick again.

The church has quite a handy book, along the lines of 'Enquire Within', but they, nevertheless, complain about bankers. Newsnight (a counterbalance to the church) is having a go at - bankers. Newsnight bloggers are having a go at - bankers. But all the time the problem is that we have built on sand - the foundations are going.

Meanwhile, a great leader, to rival Quetzalcoatl, has miraculously appeared in North America, out of a magical pile of money, and drawn to his side a Gollum-like figure, with a haunted appearance, who seems (totally unnoticed by Ol' Quetzy) to be searching for something. And J Gordon Brown has installed himself in the top of the Western Tower, the better to direct world recovery.

Looks like DIY Armageddon to me.

bankers should be given no more than the old age pension

why are you bankers?

who are you

Prescott right ? Two Jags ? Two jobs ? Right ?

The reason banks had to increase the lending criteria was because our gifted chancellor took house prices out of the inflation index.

Obvioulsy house prices can now rise without salaries being increased - result ? No one can afford houses. So, tax breaks for buy to let to encourage the rental market - result ? Cheap homes bought by speculators and ordinary people can't afford to buy houses.

And our ex-steward was right there saying what a genius Gordon was.

Perhaps also worth remembering that Mr Prescott voted for student top up fees - something that is saddling our brightest and best with 拢30K worth of debt before they start work.

REVERSE ALCHEMY

Barack Obama has been hailed as second only to self-slicing bread, and credited with wisdom and integrity beyond measure. He has since declared: "This is Tony, in whom I am well pleased!"

But Tony is probably one of the most darkly-driven, corrosive influences on this earth; pursuing all aspects of 'Affluenza' (Oliver James) as he sold his country-of-origin for a price only he could find acceptable.

What does this say of Obama? By what measure does Obama judge worth (INCLUDING HIS OWN)? Obama, who PONDERED CAREFULLY whether to fight dirty on the way up, JUDICIOUSLY choosing 'relatively clean'; Obama who sketched out his chances of a win (in an earlier campaign), against money-raised; a win being CERTAIN (and acceptable) at $10 million.

This is the tarnished-gold heart of the 'free world'. Men who exercise power out of NEED, free nobody; they are not free themselves. Such golden leadership transmutes to lead.

Few in this country now fail to see the real Tony Blair; the TB who was handed unwarranted power by adoring masses. In his fading glow, we should look very carefully at the Obama phenomenon and ask ourselves: "ARE WE DOING IT AGAIN?"

The reason I think we are all in this mess, "prudence". Bankers forgot that word and lent enormous sums of money to people who couldn't possibly pay it back. (I wonder if we'll be let off our enormous PFI debt?! ;-D ) Banks were going to suck people dry until the pips squeaked, unfortunately that happened much quicker than the banks thought! We've all just been on a money merry go round of credit, it's unbelievable that banks were so ignorant.

IT'S A MAN THING (#31)

Hi Lizzie. Try to visualise male chimps going berserk in the jungle, and you will have a reasonable take on banking. Humans are The Ape Confused by Language; a synapse too far.
Lump money in with war, religion, exploration, colonisation, raw power and recklessness, and you have MAN. Only woman can modify him, but she is too busy trying to APE him!

I'll get me body armour.

thegangofone (#17) "Any sane person who read's that entry needs no comment from me."

Yes, all things considered, you have got that right.

You need to look at the statistics objectively, you need to look back at the history, and you need to ask yourself, rationally, what you would have done under the circumstances.

Take note: . When one abandons eugenics, one lets dysgenics reign.

DEREGULATION: SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL....SO DO NOTHING

The Treasury Select Committee provided a nice illustration of the way light-touch regulation is implemented internally. The HBOS executives were asked (~11:35am) why they sacked their concerned risk manager and put someone else in the job who had no experience in risk management.

This is, a fear, a widely implemented personnel strategy these days and it finds its most cynical expression in our Public Sector/Civil Service where the over-riding political interest for years has been to weaken the sector in favour of privatisation and The Third Sector.

Barrie,

language is our future

we choose what we say

try to visualise humans remaining calm and agreeing not to be greedy

it has happened before and it can happen again

Irish_Mark - Alistair has become a sort of 'nasty nick' character in this anarcho celeb-fest world that JJ so deplores. British culture seems never to veer far from panto. I think it's our salvation and our handicap. We love a lovable rogue, especially one that returns to the fold, that's another love of ours, the prodigal son - any excuse to celebrate, eh, JJ? A nice homecoming to warm the cockles and the wine. I saw Alistair's frank expose of his mental collapse - due to overwork, alcoholism and a residual genetic tendency to depression shared by many in the public eye, the corrollary of craving and enjoying attention. I felt one couldn't help but be moved by Alistair's story and his remarkable relationship with Fiona. He's won me over I'm afraid, I am interested to hear what he says, he's a man with unusual perception.

5/17/33 JJ

Why does it matter if the white European race becomes extinct anyway?

And isn't there evidence that white Europeans are making such racial changes explicitly and voluntarily? What I'm referring to here is what Trevor Phillips had to say on inter-racial partnerships in the UK, and the impact this will have in future in terms of Britain's racial composition.

It seems many of Britain's citizens are choosing to create a more homogenous race by virtue of their mating choices. In a few generations Britain may well have a "cafe latte" majority. Personally, I don't see the problem. I think we'll all look better than we do right now, ie white and pasty. Haven't you noticed how all white people spend a forune trying to look brown? Meanwhile in a number of other cultures, eg parts of Asia, it's a real big deal to be pale. Makes sense to me just to mix it up a bit and for all of us to get that "cafe latte" look.

doctormisswest (#36) "I felt one couldn't help but be moved by Alistair's story and his remarkable relationship with Fiona. He's won me over I'm afraid"

Perhaps you should be afraid. He's a spin-doctor - what do you expect? It's what they do (see also Draper). The trademark is plausibility, charm, chutzpah and incorrigibility.

Please tell us you were being ironic.

THE EVIL THAT MEN DO (#36)

Hey Doc! If we are going to forgive Alastair Campbell his activities as Blair's alter ego, as we went to war and Killed Dr Kelly, I think there is one among us who might question your refusal to see that as a dark episode in ALL our lives, for which he might be expected to show regret - at least when 'OK'. I don't think Campbell can have it both ways.

As JJ always says: we must work from the data. We have now moved on to the Obama-fest and, again, no one wants to see what is in front of their eyes. (My post 30.)

I would expect nothing less than your kindness to a man with a problem Doc, but don't be too kind eh? 'Loveable rogue' applies to the likes of Bart Simpson; how about 'hard to love obsessive?'

Watching/listening to the Treasury Select Committee this morning accept the role of securitization in this fiasco one has to bear in mind the demographics which I've been pushing for some time (admittedly ad nauseam). This is necessary in order to drive home to some that it is these continuing dysgenic demographics which comprise the most likely force at the heart of this emerging crisis, as all too few still appreciate the parameters of this all too sient/insidious Liberal-Democratic trend.

THE CAFE SOCIETY (#37)

With 'idiots' in charge, basic bloke culturally in his cups, and do-gooders in denial, the ideal mixing you (rationally) espouse JP28bpr, is utterly fraught.

Should we get a dictator who declares open the 'Cafe Latte Reich' and makes us breed accordingly, while suppressing basic blokes and do-gooders, Voila! (Especially controlled by the Ministry of Mixing, who will have all our DNA on file!!!)

But one slip along the way and all Hell will break loose.

Now I have frightened myself: it is all too possible. EU breeding directive anyone?

ON A MORE SERIOUS NOTE (additional to 41)

I PERSONALLY know a brown toddler with a dark brown mother and a stark white father. One day he declared himself 'white' LIKE HIS FATHER and was corrected . . .

Any who have watched Prof. Winston's 'Child of Our Time' will know how little it takes to screw up a kid.

The road to 'cafe latte' might have more holes than at first apparent.

I seem to recall schizophrenia is disproportionate in black Britons? We do not 'know' our own image, in a mirror, until well into the second year. What assumptions are then confounded in a 'white' country? And with what result? Try some thought experiments - if you dare.

JayPee28bpr (#37) "Why does it matter if the white European race becomes extinct anyway?

And isn't there evidence that white Europeans are making such racial changes explicitly and voluntarily?"

It matters because statistics reveal that behaviour at the population level is different across populations. Change the population and you change the behaviour. I have pointed out some of the contingencies between violent crime and ethnic group, educability, intelligence, infractructure, social and economic stability. Look elsewhere in the world for those populations and their behaviour ad reassess why you see no harm. In the past, demographic warfare has been used to weaken an adversary. You might like to consider whether you may be a victim of egregious politics, as politcal correctness hides the statistics - I've highlighted some of them.

Mixed 'heritage' relationships are indeed increasing, the result is that educational attainment regresses to the joint population mean. Soe groups want a dumbed down population, as it's easier to market to and profit from.

Read the book 'The Corporation'.

Fatuous shooting of the 'bosses' will simply achieve nothing. They will be replaced, due to the way 'The Corporation' works by another class of 'bosses'.

We've been here before with Enron, Global Crossing and many more...

We will be hear again in the future with Tesco, Monsanto and Citizen Murdoch.

By all means throw the shoes at the bosses at the Treasury Select Committee. But without totally changing the way The Corporation works and how it is regulated, we will back here again very very soon.

It is time to wake up and smell the coffee.

#37 JayPee

Forty years ago I would have agreed with your "caf茅 latt茅" society, but then it was called "one big melting pot".

I've decided I like the diversity of different races and cultures. It's almost racist to suggest we should be just one "coffee" colour. How boring if we were, I like seeing different races with different colours. If we are all the same the whole world over I don't think it would make any difference to how we all got on. One can always see social division amongst people, and those that want to make an issue of it still will.

I don't know why you keep on about colour, I don't know the colour of anybody here, and it doesn't matter to me. I love reading everyone's different opinions, they make me think! And some are very funny : )

#32 barrie

"Lump money in with war, religion, exploration, colonisation, raw power and recklessness, and you have MAN. Only woman can modify him, but she is too busy trying to APE him!"

How right you are barrie, women have lost their way it's true. I think Germaine would agree with you as well. She wanted women to be women, not copy men! I think most of us missed that point entirely! We have become man's pawn again, but keep telling ourselves, it's our choice, and we do what we like!

nationalise the banks ? why ?are we cretins ,its the government who relaxed the rules which the banks took advantage of ,within the rules .So imagine what a mess they would make .The government G.Brown in particular were very proud of our financial institutions because they brought enormous wealth to this country.Labour are twisting this so they look squeaky clean ,more spin ! The Labour government is to blame for our financial position . When are they going to have the courage to admit that Gordon is not the wizz that they think he
is.
By the way can everyone stop saying the government should nationalise the banks.The only bank owned is RBS. shareholders own 57% Lloyds,not the great british public ,thank God.Barclays HBOS Abbey are owned by shareholders too.

ecolizzy (#45) I agree, it has nothing to do with colour.

45. ecolizzy

"I don't know why you keep on about colour"

I think you've got me mixed up with JJ!

PAWN-AGAIN. BUT WHO/WHAT MOVES THE PAWNS? (#46)

I think we have a paradox Lizzie (have I used that word before? :) Our females judge value and success in ever-more male ways, while our males become 'New' i.e. more feminine. I suggest we are ALL pawns of some demon whom we have let loose. I go so far as to say that Mother Nature LOVES stereotypes but the PC culture demonises them. This is not sustainable.

Nature, present in our animal substrate, which carries the procreative drive, is orders of magnitude more powerful than our cerebral twittering. (Try saying cerebral 'no' when your body is in 'YES' mode. If unconvinced, ask a bloke.) The only sustainable culture (i.e. cerebral construct) is one that acknowledges, celebrates and yields to, Nature. Control, to a degree, is possible with taboos and rituals, but Nature, by force majeur, will always re-assert.

Just like the non-money bubble, the un-Nature bubble will surely burst. There is going to be a lot of puss.

Ecolizzie #45

"Melting Pot"
Cue . I thought that was a good idea then when I was a young hippie - but not now.

I think we must be 'of an age'. I was born in the mid 40s and thus have a deep affinity for such things as steam locomotives, village cricket, morris teams, oak trees, warm beer and suchlike. Cue . I am English and enjoy being so. I don't see why my culture should be submerged to please someone who decided to come from the other side of the world to live here. I'm not a racist but I am a culturalist. I don't want to live amongst coffee coloured folk. Odd isn't it that people changed colour as a result of travel, we came out of Africa and gradually went blonde as we hove to up in Scandinavia. Now it seems that ever easier travel is evening it all out again. I'm just thankful that I won't live so long as to have to witness it.

JayPee28bpr (#49)

"I think you've got me mixed up with JJ!"

No, it's definitely you that's confused. Skin colour is a phenotype which people act upon, but what's at issue here is genotyptic differences and we know they exist, from risk of breast cancer to prostate cancer. You are distracted by appearance, which is only superfical. DNA profiling (which is 99% accurate) is not done visually, it's done on a large number of , although ignore forensic CODIS as that was specifically constructed to ignore markers which differentiate by ethnic group for politically correct reasons.

Your over-confidence comes from lack of knowledge. Be careful, it is revealing to many but yourself. The ignorance expressed with such confidence in these blogs is truly disconcerting. You should ask yourself why so many people come to the UK but so few go to immigrants' home countries. Then ask what will happen as the number of people who made up this country shrink or dumb down. What did immigrants move away from, and what did they move to? Was it the scenery do you think? The weather?


"It seems many of Britain's citizens are choosing to create a more homogenous race by virtue of their mating choices. In a few generations Britain may well have a "cafe latte" majority. Personally, I don't see the problem."

You should not celebrate your ignorance perhaps? You don't know what you are talking about. Learn how to use your quantifiers: many, some, all, they are hopelessly indeterminate. As people flee the inner cities, those left behind have less assortive 'choice' do they not? What is choice? What is 'voluntary'? You need to learn something about behavoiour and genetics. A good dose of humility might help that.

JayPee28bpr (#49)

"I think you've got me mixed up with JJ!"

No, it's definitely you that's confused. Skin colour is a phenotype which people act upon, but what's at issue here is genotyptic differences and we know they exist, from risk of breast cancer to prostate cancer. You are distracted by appearance, which is only superficial. DNA profiling (which is 99% accurate) is not done visually, it's done on a large number of , although ignore forensic CODIS as that was specifically constructed to ignore markers which differentiate by ethnic group for politically correct reasons.

Your over-confidence comes from lack of knowledge. Be careful, it is revealing to many but yourself. The ignorance expressed with such confidence in these blogs is truly disconcerting. You should ask yourself why so many people come to the UK but so few go to immigrants' home countries. Then ask what will happen as the number of people who made up this country shrink or dumb down. What did immigrants move away from, and what did they move to? Was it the scenery do you think? The weather?


"It seems many of Britain's citizens are choosing to create a more homogenous race by virtue of their mating choices. In a few generations Britain may well have a "cafe latte" majority. Personally, I don't see the problem."

You should not celebrate your ignorance perhaps? You don't know what you are talking about. Learn how to use your quantifiers: many, some, all, they are hopelessly indeterminate. As people flee the inner cities, those left behind have less assortive 'choice' do they not? What is choice? What is 'voluntary'? You need to learn something about operant behaviour and genetics. A good dose of humility here might help that.

JayPee28bpr (#49) Here's something to think about, those who assortively mate upwards are mating eugenically, those who assortively mate downwards are mating dysgenically.

Ecolizzie #45

"Melting Pot" cue . I thought that was a good idea then when I was a young hippie - but not now.

I think we must be 'of an age'. I was born in the mid 40s and thus have a deep affinity for such things as steam locomotives, village cricket, morris teams, oak trees, warm beer and suchlike. Cue . I am English and enjoy being so. Odd isn't it that people changed colour as a result of travel, we came out of Africa and gradually went blonde as we hove to up in Scandinavia. Now it seems that ever easier travel is evening it all out again.

THE BANANA FACTOR (#55)
I have a comedy book mark that says we are 30% banana (sometimes very apparent). More to the point, we react physiologically and psychologically, in various ways, to incident light.

The Scandinavian does not belong in Africa and vice versa. When the Euro Zone takes in the whole of the non-American land mass,
and some obsessive 'idiot' takes charge, one can just imagine the equivalent of 'bussing' in the name of homogeneity.

We are manifestly best suited to staying put among those with whom we have a lot in common. When you speak of 'gradually going blonde' I think - in the words of Tennessee Ernie Ford: "A lot of men didn't - a lot of men died". I am sure you agree, that's how Nature does it.

But anyway, cataclysm is coming. Isolation and annihilation will reign again. Mankind will return to what he does best - survive with minimal kit and maximum wit. Hurrah! What stories they will tell of the Age of Madness; but will anyone believe?

#55 NewFazer

Hee,hee, "mid 40s" snap, funny us old hippies recognising each other! But we're pretty boring now with our yapping on a Newsnight blog! : (

Yup I like our way of life, I'm quite happy for others to share it, as long as it's not too many, but I hope they appreciate what we have to offer. We've always been a tolerant race, I hope others join us in that.

Although I would add, I now think we baby boomers got a lot of things wrong.

#54 Jean, I was going to ask you about that. Surely it's possible to raise IQ levels for children, if one marries someone of a higher IQ than oneself? But doesn't this happen more by chance than design?

#56 barrie I think you must be lurking about in my brain!

But anyway, cataclysm is coming. Isolation and annihilation will reign again. Mankind will return to what he does best - survive with minimal kit and maximum wit. Hurrah! What stories they will tell of the Age of Madness; but will anyone believe?


I've come to realise that nature will have the last laugh.

ecolizzy (#58) See page 635 of the Rushton and Jensen (2008) article for a summary of regression-to-the-mean here. The data show we tend to assortively mate, i.e we tend to go for people somewhat akin to ourselves (people we 'get on with'). One can see this all about us. Very different people tend to drive each other 'nuts' (especially if one erroneously thinks themselves an alchemist!). Some groups are more monogamous and high investing parents than others. True, we may not know why we select a mate - even odor has something to do with histocompatiblity - but does it matter how much of it's done wittingly? Females tend to go for resource-rich mates, for obvious reasons (it's also correlated with intelligence). Males on the other hand....

NATURE MOST AWESOME (#59)

Lizzie, if you would like to see just what Nature has up her sleeve to duff us with, put: 'Synopsis of the Electric Universe' into your browser. A Creationist's dream.

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

That's a shame, CaringHumanist's post at 62 getting removed. Nothing contentious there, just a nice alternative angle on the Caf茅 Latt茅 world I thought.

First Newsnight then Breakfast News trawl Prescott out to talk about the Banks. My God this must be an all time low for Newsnight/ News.
How this arrogant baffoon can rant about Bankers bonus with his tract record on claiming allowances while knocking of his secretary beggars belief.
Can you imagine Paxman letting a Tory get away with it, me-thinks not. This blatant bais is getting embarrassing, its time for a total rethink on the future on where the B B C are going on their current affair programmes.