Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú

A large glass of Merlot. Mind you, I am quite middle class.

GRAVITAS.

Just gravitas.

"...in the absence of child benefit, what steps the government is taking to support the family?"

"The Newsnight bottle."

Cameron didn't even come close to answering the question.

thankfully with iplayer one can watch when it suits. which is rarely at night time

hemlock

My tipple is Scrumpy Jack. Who cares what 'class' that denotes. I'm drinking it now and it's not what you drink but how you drink that counts(!).

Mug of black coffee - and a Toblerone to remind me of Swiss neutrality .... and Blairite triangulation of issues!

Stephanie Flanders. Very refreshing.

Jeremy Paxman is the perfect Newsnight Mixer!

Ouzo and baklava.

just the baklava thanks

Most of Scotland can, of course, only get its teeth into two Newsnight Topics before the Scottish optout at 11 -
thank goodness for the I-Player!

just wish NN was on all over Xmas and Paxman had to work...because NN doesn't work without him....!

Popcorn!

Petros (8) "Stephanie Flanders. Very refreshing."
Seriously? Stephanie Flanders, it seems to me, writes economic fiction like many other journalists these days. This is because most of modern economics is not empirically sound. I suggest you read Hudson on Krugman on this to see why (basically, most of modern economics is analytical not empirical). I suspect Ms Flanders doesn't see it this way, and like good novelists is able to write seductive stories as she has learned the verbal tricks of the trade. We are drowning in this these days. It's narrative. It's one thing to write about what happens (warts and all), and quite another to create seductive arguments to entertain. Argument is empty. It's suitable for fantasy, for games perhaps. Without sound empirical data it is dangerous. What's happened in recent years actually shows that what's been going on has been mass deception. Where was Flanders when this was going on? They are all wise after the event.

Poster 15's attack on Stephanie Flanders is patently ridiculous. I seem to recall that she worked alongside Larry Summers at one point in her career as a professional economist? Prior to becoming Obama's blue-eyed boy at The White House, Summers was one of the most distinguished and empirically rigorous of Harvard's economics professors. One of his uncles was Paul Samuelson and another uncle was Kenneth Arrow (both Nobel laureates).

#16

Poster 15's comments are actually spot on.

The fact that she worked alongside Summers is, in fact, a huge indictment. Summers is arguably one of the most discredited players in this whole financial train wreck that is currently labelled The Great Recession. Summers was the one driving the train btw.

You haven't got a clue.

No 17 is talking nonsense. Summers did not work for George Bush.

Perhaps poster 17 is confusing Larry Summers - who is a qualified economist - with Gordon Brown who isn't?

Mind you repealing Glass-Steagall under Clinton was unwise - I will grant you that! Obama seems to agree.

Neil Robertson (20) "Mind you repealing Glass-Steagall under Clinton as unwise - I will grant you that! Obama seems to agree."
No. You have just looked this up, learned something about the matter, and are now hoping that others might excuse your faux pas and inappropriate defence of Ms Flanders. Where was Ms Flanders when the growth of derivatives (and liars (NINJA) loans) was running amok? Why was the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú ignoring warnings which were being raised about the demographics in the USA/EU and what these suggested was going on as consumerism under the pretext of one-world equalitarianism? Most of our journalists lack the big picture (perspective) and just write clever populist narrative for an ever more dumbed down readership. The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú now facilitates this by stifling critical discussion, which, under normal circumstances would have raised standards (or at least helped prevent them from further deteriorating). As it is, Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú journalists are now all but pop stars. Read many of the blog comments to see how fans fawn and treat them as experts (see my comment on Adam Curtis where he just gets matters of fact completely wrong). This is unhealthy, and it is completely at odd with what a free press is supposed to be. Instead, many journalists are now self-interested partners in processes which brought about economic ruin for many, and yet most will not see any of it, as doing so would undermine their raison d'etre, which is to get attention and 'sell' copy....(and often books, private appearances etc etc)..