Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú

'We changed the fabric of Britain'

Yes - by something around 9 -11 million immigrants (we don't even know how many)

Britain must now has highest % 'economically inactive' in the world? - we still don't have any accurate numbers on this -approximataly 9-11 million economically inactive?

Co-incidence or not it makes me feel ... I dare not write the words

We can divine that the NewsNight presenters are possibly somewhat less than enthusiastic about attending this Labour Party conference - Jeremy Paxman said last night that Kirstie Wark had drawn the short straw in the office Tombola and off she went to Liverpool.

Probably only people whose job is directly involved in this will be at all interested in what these politicians have to say.

The rest of us, especially us English, who are going to have to pay off Labours several years of profligate spending, when they should have been paying down debt, probably wish they would just go away.

However, Television, the great consumer of information, must have its schedules filled with something - so to the Labour Party Conference it goes ... zzzzzz.

Event of the day for me was the difference in coverage between main Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú news channel & Sky news re: labour conference.

Sky News managed to debate e.g. labour's economic record and Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú presenters there being all reverend like its a head of Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's marriage ceremony

I'm now becoming quite a pest with the TV remote control as flicking between channels.

"WE'LL BE ASSESSING MR MILIBAND AS LEADER"

Let me do the bit you will leave untouched NewsyNighty.

After doing all the pre-political stuff, and being assessed as a viable future Westminster Creature, Limited Ed was paraded in a safe seat, miles from home, where THE DUMB VOTERS VOTED FOR HIS ROSETTE. (That, under Westminster Rules, counts as being PERSONALLY elected.)

Ed proved himself to be a consummate Westminster Creature, gaining approval by doing politics in the manner required. Thus Limited Ed honed his craft, and when the time came to contest the leadership he triumphed. But where in his 'progress' is any indication that he has the attributes of a State Steward?

What manner of man accrues PERSONAL advantage simply by wearing a rosette, and spending a few weeks in an alien location? Anyone of integrity would die of embarrassment. Once inside the Westminster Citadel, his usurpation probably enhanced his status. Lesser MPs might have hawked thier rosette from election to election - constituency to constituency - for decades, before getting in.

So that is 'Leader Ed'. Virtually NO ONE, from the real world, has promoted him on human merit. It was the same with Tony and look where that led us. If Labour should win by virtue of Dave overreaching himself (very Dave) Limited Ed will be PM; we will have GOT OURSELVES ANOTHER ONE.

There you go NewsyNighty: that's the important stuff. You can do 'Angels on a pin'.

I think that the 'PC' rot that has set hard in the BCC is typified by this :



An totally admirable blog by the UK Ambassador to Syria hosted by the Foreign Office.

Did I learn about this on the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú?

No Sir - I found out via the Al Jazeera news channel!

'David Grossman will give us his analysis of Ed Miliband's performance later

It will be interesting to discover if this one person's opinion (analysis confers a heft on the process that is not deserved) matches the evidence of one's own eyes (cuts - ironic for an ex-climate minister - permitting), and the vast majority of reviews I have read so far from across the entire red to blue corners.

"Share Traders More Reckless Than Psychopaths, Study Shows"

This is a story which deserves wider consideration, as financial trading rather than real investment dominates modern banking.

7.At 17:59 27th Sep 2011, Sasha Clarkson wrote:
"Share Traders More Reckless Than Psychopaths, Study Shows"

>

The wider consideration should include the use of derivatives based on mathematical algorithms?

The banks are being very coy & cautious because some of the effects of trades placed using these financial instruments are starting to unravel because they are not dormant & were probably not constructed with the current low share prices in mind.

So what is the overall effect of these derivatives now that we have prolonged difficult market trading?
Or, is this partially the effect of those trades?
& the banks know that further serious share trade turmoil is coming & are not issuing any warnings as they manipulate their own assets very quietly in the background?

Perhaps someone could ask the bankers if everything is fine with their derivatives & as not likely to cause or exacerbate any existing difficult trading conditions?

Anyone else getting the feeling that there is something going on that most are being 'kept in the dark' on?

"THE TRUTH IS WHAT BIG BROTHER (CORPORATION) SAYS IT IS" (#5 link)

Where the narrative on the linked blog was of 'manipulated reality' (without the physical violence) I kept drifting into thinking I was reading about UK. Might subtle non-violent subjugation, through 'education-education-education', actually be more effective than the violence backed sort?

"Reporters Without Borders already ranked Syria as the fifth worst place in the world for media freedom."

Have RWB ranked the world for MEDIA SUBSERVIENCE?

Look! I am exercising free speech AGAIN! It's incredible.

Nuff sed

LAGARDE DOESN'T SMILE ANY MORE (#8)

As I have noted before: Lagarde looks like someone sitting on a bomb. I guess they only told her AFTER she took the job.

Nuff sed

@4 If you can get a copy of Ralph Milliband`s "Parliamentary Socialism" (1961) you may understand why it`s perhaps a mercy that Ralph is not around to witness his sons "careers" since 1997.

@8 - interesting one Nautonier.

On the one hand, gambling disguised as investment has been with us for a long time, as well as such instruments as "put options", etc. However, modern technology has helped the "whiz kids" transform trading into a new hybrid between gambling and a video game.

The one constant is that none of this has anything to do with real investment in plant, machinery, infrastructure etc - the actual excuse for allowing these markets in the first place. As has been repeatedly suggested, it's all about extracting rent from our neglected real economy - by people who seem to have a limited moral compass and relationship with the rest of humanity.

Whatever people think of Newsnight's lineup tonight, it's got to be better than the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú news channel. From the amount of live coverage over the last hour, one might get the impression that the trial of Michael Jackson's [who he? ;-) ] doctor was the most important story in the world. It's even displaced at least one weather forecast. This is Britain: there may be more important stories than Mr Miliband, but the weather? Shurely shome mishtake!

@13 The News Channel is a global phenomenon where the main idea seems to be about doing good works among the capitalist savages of America.
Think Hampstead doing missionary work among the Dr Who addicted Behemothists in our American colony.
An American was once asked why there were no left wing broadcasters in the USA to which he replied "Why bother when we get the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú for free?".
It might even have been true, in those far off days.

Its worth remembering that when Ed Miliband talks of 'rewarding those who put something in' and links this with social housing he is not saying (as is the impression) that all those hard working, long-suffering people who are priced out of a roof over their heads will be 'rewarded' with a council home.
No, what he is actually saying is that if anyone steps out of line as they are priced out of life and onto the streets over the coming decades they'll be struck off a list that not even those who behave and tow the line are going to get to the top of anyway.
So all stick really, without even a slice of carrot...

#10

I noticed that too, she has the contenance of someone who, having achieved a life long goal now realises in so doing she has willingly pursued, picked up and drank from the mother of all poison chalices.

She is going to the one holding the baby when the music stops and there is nothing she can do anything about it.

Worse still, she knows she has to keep on drinking from it, for her that must seem like the least worse option.

Hope Paxman gives Ed's pathetic speech the grilling it deserves. At least we know the nose job didn't work. Andrew Neil on The Daily Politics today was amazing when he roasted Liam Byrne who clearly didn't think much of Ed's speech either.

Could somebody on Newsnight ask Ed about the deprived childhood and the tough schooling he claimed in his speech? Surely he had a privileged childhood.

A room full of Marxists, gravy train Union barons and champagne socialists..but not one could run a small florist shop.

What ever happened to the Labour Party?

What they need is an Alan Johnson type -but someone who wants to lead the party and has the common touch - someone who has worked in the real world for a decade or more and not some University hack that went straight into politics. You've only gotta look at Ed Balls to know the closeted Uni types are useless at anything, let alone at running anything important.
The Labour party are basically finished as a political force...and as long as they have horrors such as Harriet hardface in the party...they'll be in the political wilderness for years and years and years.

Anyway, they'll never be forgiven for the damage they've done.

P:S Eds joke about his nose operation...didn't I hear that one yesterday?

@19 An Alan Johnson with drive would never survive the leadership competition.

Labour is not a working class movement or Ed and Dave Miliband and people like Mandelson,Blair and Balls would be in the City of London or working as barristers or PR men.

If you read Ed`s father`s books he describes and explains why Labour developed as a "parliamentary" intellectual Establishment movement with middle class instincts that made Thatcher seem like an inovative revolutionary.

Scratch the surface of Labour and it`s a party for opportunists and of open borders rather than protectionism.

So many incomers to Britain use Labour as a spring board without really having socialist beliefs or any interest in the populist Mrs Duffys..

Ordinary British people who run or work in flower shops have no political party looking out for them.The Tories have exported our industry and Labour despise working people.

Just ask why both parties carry on importing immigrants into a collapsing overpopulated economy.Whose interests are served by that?

Cardinalsinecure @ 20

Interesting and thought provoking contributions.

I think that these political parties in democracies are multi-faceted and at any given time, one faction gains the upper hand.

So, when 'we've got our Party back' is expressed, it means that the 'British' Labour Party leadership is now back under the over-riding influence of the so-called 'left'/Union faction.

Similarly, the Tory Party, despite the apparently 'centrist' Dave, teeters on the edge of falling to the Euro-sceptics, who are currently trying very hard to stick the knife in during Europes current travails.

Incidentally, you mentioned Labour being a party for opportunists and this is probably why Tony Blair was booed at the conference - he is probably now seen by some of them as an opportunist who simply used the Labour Party as a vehicle to primarily further his own ends.

This is not my personal opinion, by the way, having been enlightened somewhat by the Campbell Daries as to the extra-ordinary effort that is put in by these politicians at the highest level of the game.

@21 The "centre ground" is a very clever deceit, which journalists should expose, but don`t!

It`s meant to suggest that politicians are drawn towards the centre ground of democratic "public opinion",when their contemptuous use of the word "populist" tells another very different story!

Journalists are now the real politicians in a media age, with globalisation and an unstable financial market increasingly deciding what nations and politicians "think is best for Britain"!

The mistake is to imagine that we "voters" any longer have the political and economic power to govern ourselves.Watching RT and Max Keiser finally confirmed to me something that Westminster and our media is still denying.

Britain,England,even the EU, are playthings of oligarchs and financial markets and major international movements like Roman Catholicism and Zionism and unaccountable media institutions like the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú or Fox News.

Studying who owns the media in Britain and what they believe will tell you far more about our destiny than listening to the actors who play the parts in the soap opera we call Westminster.

WELL YES BUT (#22)

My 'SAS' can't fight the New World Order but can assault the Westminster Citadel and DISMANTLE THE REGIME (a bunch of NWO Quislings?) going on to INSTALL INTEGRITY. Then England can set about a defence of the tattered remnants of our culture.

ENGLISH SPRING?

#12 Sasha re#8

'..it's all about extracting rent from our neglected real economy - by people who seem to have a limited moral compass and relationship with the rest of humanity.'

I've had enough of being the good guy, now it's time for survival, so I've thrown away my moral compass and joined the 'looters in suits'; made a fair bit on the online casino yesterday, picking up some Rio Tinto and Kier shares while prices were on the ground. Of course I may find myself outwitted by the insider traders.

@23

My guess is that we have far more power on the web (while the internet is still in flux) than we ever had before.

My concern is that we are wasting energy on party politics and Westminster when they are just a red herring. Think bread and circuses?

If party politics and westminster really "delivered" any power to us "they" would shut it all down tomorrow "going forward"!

LIMITED ED SAYS "GOVERNMENT CAN SET RULES FOR ETHICAL BUSINESS"

Would that be using Westminster Rules as the template Ed?

Cheat, lie, steal, deceive, connive, collude, deny, obfuscate, manipulate, denigrate, subvert, avoid, evade, conceal, misrepresent, fudge, disguise, collude, abuse, renege, in the interest of money, possessions, power, status and pension.

FOR WESTMINSTER EVIL TO TRIUMPH ALL THAT IS REQUIRED IS FOR HONOUR TO BE FALSELY ASSUMED.

Put your own House in order Mr Miliband - much good might follow.

@26

If Miliband "put his own house in order" the media would turn their satirists and other career wreckers on him and he would become the "heir to Foot" in seconds!

Just watch Obama squirm as the real politicians and their backers turn the screw and make him "u-turn" on everything he professed to believe in when he was speechifying his way to illusory "power".He`s President "Glass-Steagal" Clinton dusted off and "changed"!

And Miliband would fare no better if ever he was catapulted into Number Ten!

#11 Cardinalsinecure

Ralph Miliband

Ed's father Ralph was a Trotskyist, and Trotskyists ARE Libertarians (see the history of the Neocon movement).



Judge the New Left/Labour by what has actually happened to see what is true and what was spin/rhetoric/propaganda. Student anarchism in the 1960s and 70s was all Trotskyist, and was used to undermine the status quo (Keynesian statism). This served those behind Thatcher, then New Labour and now the Con-Libs - i.e. the free market deregulators. That is what they think freedom is, i.e. it's consumerism free of regulators/watchdogs. That is open predation. Contrary-to-fact Rawlsian equalitarianism and Social Justice has been abused so the unscrupulous can more easily prey upon the weak from behind a 'veil of ignorance'. These people have simply exploited human self-centredness, which is child-like. Beware, as the young are idealists and thus extremely vulnerable (and were useful in a baby boom too).

Ed's speech yesterday condemning predatory behaviour was actually condemning the whole capitalist ideal...hence the discussions today about HOW private companies can actually be assessed as being predatory and hence policed/taxed.

It all SOUNDED good though.

WEB POWER? OR TANGLED WEB? (#25)

Surely the 9/11 web of deceit is proof that the Web is more burial ground than bastion of truth - when Machiavelli has access?

We are an island still. It looks to me as if another 'Finest Hour' is called for. But under Westminster, hours are consumed to no good effect.

PS Great nom de keyboard!

#27 Cardinalsinecure wrote:

"If Miliband "put his own house in order" the media would turn their satirists and other career wreckers on him and he would become the "heir to Foot" in seconds!"

Ed Miliband's function, along with New Labour generally over the past 13 years, has been to bury Old Labour as a statist party, and to facilitate grass-roots democracy (Trotskyism/anarchism/Neo-conservativism) instead. The New Left always has been Trotskyite not Stalinist. The state must wither away. Franco, like Hitler was essentially a Stalinist (a Fabian - see the Webbs' on Russia) and Wall Street USA regards Fabianism as anathema to free-market Libertarianism, aka consumerism.

'17. At 21:45 27th Sep 2011, teddyandgypsy wrote:
Hope Paxman gives Ed's pathetic speech the grilling it deserves.

Did he? I just ask, as balanced play governs my deploying the iPlayer and time commitment.

Possibly not.

It has been noted that the Guardian seems to have been dropped from its traditional top slot on Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú paper reviews. Today at least.

When the Graun gets dropped off a family review, you know there's a problem.

I am wondering when Aunty will decide to cut its loss leader and start moving on plan E-.

At which point, even some from traditionally empathetic corners with a smidgen of grey cells and democratic integrity may start wondering just how appropriate it is for a few mult-hundred-K market rate talents to be shaping political direction with a £4Bpa budget, in ways any other media monopolist could only dream of.

ps: speaking of 'don't ask; don't tell', in other news (elsewhere):



Just the latest 'twist', as the MSM, and the mighty Beeb try and establish who they invited on to comment in a volatile area where expertise is trusted.

TRUSTED EXPERTISE? (#32)

A rhetorical device too far there Junkk. But we are all guilty.

The only 'expertise' the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú have left is in EMBELLISMENT (studios, visuals, audio and unreality) and AVOIDANCE (9/11, Carbon, Electric cosmology).

It's a Tellytubby world.

I decided that I could safely skip NewsNight last night, preferring to invest the time in memorising the lyrics of an obscure early 1960's song (A Picture of You - Joe Brown and the Bruvvers, since you ask).

Not entirely convinced that the media is all-powerful in this society.

For example, during what became known as the Gilligan Affair, the Government managed to put enormous pressure on the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú, at one point threatening to cut the lifeblood of the organisation - the license fee.

The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú duly crumbled under that pressure and the Director General Greg Dyke and the journalist Gilligan both walked, furthermore, the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú subsequently diluted its coverage of that story.

More recently, we have seen the Murdoch empire also come under severe political pressure and has consequently lost one of its titles.

So, just now, I am not persuaded that the conventional media has the clout that some of our bloggers subscribe to it.

What a laugh



Another rich labourite

33. At 10:29 28th Sep 2011, barriesingleton wrote
It's a Tellytubby world.

Well, that may explain why some seem to live in Laa-laa land, telling Po-faced porkies, often more Dipsy than not, and I can't (possibly with some merit) go further on Tinky Winky without being modded.

All I know is that, if the nation's most trusted broadcaster (their words) fronts up an 'expert' or 'member of the public', I am on google to get the actual skinny before they can say 'enhance the narrative'.

And that... seems retrograde.

34. At 10:38 28th Sep 2011, JohnConstable - I am not persuaded that the conventional media has the clout that some of our bloggers subscribe to it.

Possibly and, probably, fortunately.

Clout I can live without. Undue influence still concerns.

Especially when there are those with whom my dissatisfaction can be made known in ways that do not lead to court and compulsion. And others not, uniquely.

35. At 10:49 28th Sep 2011, ecolizzy wrote:
What a laugh

Cue a Newsynity green room booking asap.

'Questions will be asked'. Others, maybe, not so much. Depends.

@34

Assuming that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú "crumbled", as you say, what would they have preferred to do and say given a free hand?

The Murdoch empire has come under pressure,as you say, but I do not sense that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú are under anything like the same intensity of pressure while they receive lashings of our cash and seem almost like an undemocratic government in their own right.

Murdoch did not pressure us to destroy and apologise for our own secular first world culture, or make it impossible to leave the EU, or bully us mercilessly into becoming a repository for every other nation`s unwanted citizens, but it`s my strong belief that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú did,and it`s about time we found out why!

Blimming right wing media...

/news/uk-politics-15082341

'The Tory press is already pouring abuse on it.



I wonder what a negative Guardian counts as?

What will the country think?

Well, the country is sure going to get told as, surprise, this one is, again, 'broadcast only'.

This being 'spoken for' lark is wearing thin.

@39

Do you seriously imagine anyone in politics,whether "right" or "left" or "centre",gives a hoot about what we want?

Maybe they do when the concoct the lies and evasions they use at election time,but they rip all that up the moment it`s their turn to get into Number 10 anyway.

Think of us as little peasant boys observing the conduct of the aristocrats in our society.

We can see they are naked (and I wonder if they know very well they are naked?) but the local town crier better not shout about it, if he wants to survive and keep his place among the minor aristocracy!

Cardinalsinecure @ 38

As Gilligans reporting on the 'sexing-up of the Iraq dossier' was ultimately found to be reasonable accurate, then the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú shoudl have stuck to its guns, as the morale and reputation of its journalists was shot to pieces by the whole episode.

Nevertheless, as you accurately point out, the enormous amount of money that is guaranteed to flow into the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú coffers every year via the license fee has had a subtle corrupting effect on the organisation.

The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's ethos has been broadly stated (by its own staff) as 'soft left'.

For example, they did not even have an editor for business until fairly recent times, as the conventional Beeb view of 'business' was that it is something deeply unpleasant, like 'defence', a sector where I understand there is still no Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú blogger.

Reinvented today, the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú would not have this funding model, which ultimately must be unsustainable and is possibly illegal (the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú seems to duck out of any legal challenges from License Fee refuseniks).

PS. You can tell I did not go to a Grammar School as per young Rory Teal, when I make howlers such as subscribe when I meant to write ascribe in the previous post.

@41

We knew you meant ascribe John, and your excellent posts suggest that you would be just as capable as any "Labour" front bencher if your parents had had Mr Weal`s connections!

Education is nothing to do with learning and everything to do with buying or getting asigned your "place" in society in most cases.

Do you imagine anyone would fork out fees for private education if we could all send our kids to the sort of "state" schools Blair`s kids were helicoptered to every school day?

Re-invented today the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú could well have its current funding model if that guaranteed it did what it does right now.Journalism is the new politics,and the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú bows to the powerful in our world.

Why do you think this blog is moderated so closely to refine out comments that might upset our masters?

NO comment, or I'll get censored

HOUSE OF LORDS REFFORM

Just been emailed by Unlock Democracy. They say: "Make sure they listen". UD have a questionnaire, but no reference on it to the matter ANSWERING when contacted.

Nuff sed

DISSECT, ANALYSE, DEDUCE, COMMENT - BUT WHO ACTUALLY WROTE THE SPEECH?

Hardly a media day passes but some weasel is introduced as having written speeches for Tony Blair. (He also seems to have used up advisors, faster than toilet tissue - is there a clue there?) So who wrote Ed's speech? When REAL people speak, composing as they go, generally saying what they mean and letting slip more than they mean-to, we gain other than just the meaning; the speaker's character is revealed.

Speeches composed by weasels, and spoken by xxxxxxxxs, are an insult to the listener and a mark of shame on the deliverer. Then when media muppets purport to draw shrewd conclusions, the charade is complete.

In real life, using the words of others, UNATTRIBUTED, is not thought well of. How telling that - yet again - we find the politicians espousing, even lauding, what good folk decry. Does that not illustrate the base nature of 'the politician'?

DISMANTLE WESTMINSTER - SPOILPARTYGAMES - DEMAND DIRECT SPEECH

"ASK NOT" (as Kennedy's hack writer coined for him) ASK NOT WHAT THE SPEECH INDICATES - ASK WHO WROTE IT!

I don't think it is very helpful to divide industries into producers and predators. It reminds me of the old socialist propaganda – farmers good; landowners bad. The important thing is to achieve a balance and take the best from both worlds, and where necessary, regulate to make unscrupulous companies behave more responsibly in the future.

Congratulations to NN and Sue Lloyd Roberts on winning the Emmy award! I hope the nice Korean man in the film didn't get into too much trouble with the great leader by spilling the beans about his fake 60th birthday.

40. At 11:34 28th Sep 2011, Cardinalsinecure wrote:
Do you seriously imagine anyone in politics,whether "right" or "left" or "centre",gives a hoot about what we want?

Nope. But I sure like to remind 'them' when they start pointing fingers in various carefully selected directions, as did the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Political Editor, in such as way as to warrant a very big one pointing at his own tribally-driven lack of objectivity.

The 'Tory press' is no better than any other, but I don't fund them with money, if on occasion providing the ad revenue of my gaze.

I do not have that option with the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú, and with one of its more senior and prevalently talking heads countering the 'Tory press' with whatever one wants to call it from the broadcast opposition, I don't think it's appropriate on the UK public's dime.

Especially when blatantly via editorial by omission at best. He made a partial political claim and I have called him on it.