主播大秀

Well done to Milburn and Clarke for coming onto Newsnight and being interviewed by Paxman. It might sound a rather trival point, but can anybody recall the last time Gordon Brown subjected himself to a interview by Paxman? Yesterday the Chancellor made a speech on Britishness yet again but he did not defend the speech in any interviews. I've no doubt plenty of people will doubt Clarke and Milburn's motives but at least they been prepered to subject themselves to proper scrutiny all day on the World at One, PM and the 主播大秀 One O'Clock News and Sky News etc.

Milburn, has his 拢30k per annum pay off for ordering medical scanners from a specific company ended?
Has he any thoughts about actually visiting Parliament on a more regular basis?
Is he still receiving the Duchy of Lancaster payments?
does the 2nd hand (communist) book shop on Westgate road, N/Cle still exist?

As for Clarke, another Marxist who knows his way around Moscow already, would he sign up-to an alliance with Putin?

why have they put another Labour web site on-line?
what is wrong with the existing one:-

Or are they on the Renewal trail, what will the Labour party be known as in the future, Old, New, Newish, Real, Provisional, Official or maybe Continuity?

My goodness, a lot of questions with no chance of getting any answers, they are Politicians afterall.

I don't think the move by Messrs. Clarke and Milburn will be seen as a bad thing if it has the effect of bringing the Chancellor out of the rather murky shadows into the light to be properly questioned. It would be nice to see him savaged by Paxman. Failing that he should follow the incumbent one onto the Simpsons for a pasting. Either would be nice. As for the Messrs. motives, well they're politicians so you have to judge for yourself.

Blairites are rare...they should be in the rares not the commons...

Blairites still haven't had the vision to progress towards the 21st century...

... they are just beginning to get into business out of poverty socialism think, 1910 grandparents attitudes, expressed with 70's ideas, and rudimentary idealist methods, presented in yr 2000 technoformats

They are f#ing up a society working well...

We as a nation are always working towards a great life...companies have successful politics and accountabilities not politicians....they really are just customer representatives overloaded with thesistic provianisms...p!ssed off enough not to give a sh!t about the public...

We are all labour hearted... enjoying the fascinations of creation, and mastery of many practices and approaches, the romance of art and fashion, the adventure, appreciation of society and the understanding, and exploring of the sensualities of the body..the awe at the rewards of achievement, and the fun of trade..the trust of contract, and the admiration of others, the acceptance of authority and abilities, and the tolerance of a bit of wrong doing...

We are all liberal... wondering at others, keen to avoid trouble, eager to make discoveries, and explore the possibilities, keen to make togetherness easy, and quick to volunteer for new experiences that make us better... and entertain with fun opinions..

We are all conservative... game for a dare, socially corporatist, always going for top opportunities, keen to argue a case and a opportunity, honest yet aware of the many options and choices of company and leadership...

We all of whatever division love to work towards a great life and show off what we can do...

But blairites don't...they are rare...and pissed off with humility...less than 11% of Britain are Blairites and most of them only 13% of the time...

>they need privatised imperialist thinking; to be in charge everywhere everytime for ever

>they are eminence deluded; they believe in issues and prejudice and ignorant social elevation based on vaguely intelligent views enforced with a hatred at anyone's disbeliefs and disagreements that they don't represent their own approach or the most suitable way forward...they think they are the best and are prepared to fight for it and make others suffer who don't agree...

>they are opiated with obedience, intoxicated with annoyance at the advantages of others, inebriated with criminal freedoms, and addicted to the hatred of the lives of others
me me me people defiantly in conflict with society and our you what classes of and for society

>they deny their options in to primitive intentions like fight or flight

>they deny their genders and fight romance opportunity and ease of appreciation

>they are prejudice dependent and fight every prejudice they see
they are self serving and self employed to their own economic need
they damage others without regard to others who want them work fit...
they think crime is only criminal when it happens to them and encourage criminal justice not lawful justice excusing every violence and fight for revenge as deserved
they feel every action taken against someone they think is bad i.e. outclassing them with care and attention or honesty duty and opportunity.. is good their actions are always good whatever they do...
they are a white tempered danger to others
and they as people believe in educational resentment of other options and alternatives...despite the nations natural hopes and desires

Everyone around a blairite is at risk we are all now sufficiently exposed occasionally intimidated and intrusively victimised to be annoyed into practical good riddance and disestablishmentarianism...they are inferior to the economic positions they have attained and they do damage to everyone who knows what is worth doing...

All services should have full representation focused on the charitable objectives of delivery not the ethics of employee self service

BCD TLC in preparation for reoccurrences similar to the past experiences we have had...

I'm delighted that the Labour party are having an open forum for discussion on future policy.

How about starting with: No egotistical, self-serving fools like Milburn and Clarke. Transparent, boring and patronising.

So, Clarke and Milliband sincerely wish for the British public to be involved in open debate on policies that will affect their lives and the future direction to be taken by Government. What the media has failed to ask them is this: why during their time in Cabinet was public opinion ignored and parliamentary debate curtailed so that, in the main, only cabinet decisions mattered. Are they really interested in open debate and genuinely wish to listen and take action on the basis of general debates or is it their way of undermining particular potential leaders and setting policy traps for 'them'.

Newsnight is heading down the pan. Last night we had a three-way laugh-in with the girls making unacceptable generalisations about men, tonight we got a report on international finance IN VERSE! I watch Newsnight for a sober summingup of the days affairs, not to see the editor having fun. Stop it.

Rather than "Kick Starting" a debate, the dynamic duo's website is more like trying to breathe life into a dead corpse, and I speak as probably the last card carrying member of the Labour Party whose "subs" increase so much annually that I am seriously awaiting my "cash for honours" gong.

The Classics on Newnight
Shakespeare Retold

Scene
Paxmanum: Is this website about the leadership?

Milburnius: Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
like a colossus and we petty men,
walk under his huge legs and peep about,
to find ourselves some dishonourable graves.
Men at some time are masters of their fates.
The fault, dear Clarkus, is not in our stars,
but in ourselves, that we are underlings.
Upon what meat does Our Gordonus feed that he has grown so great?

Clarkus: I have seen potents and signs. Indeed, they say the senators mean to establish Gordonus as a king. [Brings out Knife]We need a new policy.

But will we get to Act 3? :)

Such stupid thing happened in white horse village make every Chinese ungry. It is better not say it is a decision of Party, it is a decision from a stupid party village member.
The same kind of thing happen in my village which is near Beijing. The
village Communist Party secretary was voted out by villages, my friends there vote for friend but not for the applicant's policy!
Chinese are learning to use their right, it need time.

A veritable first for Paxman. He achieved his objective last night by hardly saying a word.

The double-jointed, chain-linked monological rant performed by Clarke and Milburn served to expose their covert as well as their purported agenda far better than anything that Paxman could have thrown at them.

As fast as one started to run out of gobbledygook the other stepped in without even pausing for breath and continued to stitch up a bemused Paxo, leaving him gasping to find an opening.

Body language also played a big part. Clarke's was a subservient role, whereas the Milburn theatricals, gesticulations, voice inflections et-al, were pure Blair. For all we know it could well have been Rory Bremner doing an impersonation of Milburn doing an impersonation of Blair.

This aggressive Blair style posturing by Milburn was in itself a clear sign of his personal ambition to become leader of the Labour Party - something that Blair badly wants him to achieve and always has.
Only twice did viewers hear the use of the word 'Jeremy', which, to many has come to indicate a frantic, almost deferential plea for relief from the usual Paxman onslaught. This in itself is a further indication that time is not on the side of Milburn and Co

To top it all, Milburn has the colossal crust to say that they are looking for 'dialogue not monologue'. Clarke also has been reported as saying - with reference to Brown -that no individual owns the Labour Party, This could come as quite a shock to Blair who has owned it lock, stock and barrel for the past decade.

And now for the real thing:-