主播大秀

"There will be reaction from senior Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat politicians and veteran US broadcaster Charlie Rose will tell us how the debate compares with US Presidential debates."

Why? We don't have a Presidential system. I know lots of our politicians have 'done time' in the USA, and that the USA largely dictated what sort of government has been permissible in Western European countries ever since the end of WWII via The Marshall Plan and asset-stripping IMF etc, but this is now taking matters too far surely?

#1 math ap mathonwy

"Why? We don't have a Presidential system. I know lots of our politicians have 'done time' in the USA, and that the USA largely dictated what sort of government has been permissible in Western European countries ever since the end of WWII via The Marshall Plan and asset-stripping IMF etc, but this is now taking matters too far surely?"

You don't need a Presidential system to have debates that may inform the voter on policy and on character.

You don't really identify why the US is a bad influence and what was wrong the the Marshall Plan.

It was remarkably successful and far sighted and helped bring peace to an area that had been de-stabilised by the insanity of National Socialism.

It also speaks well of a country that they learn from others rather than being myopic and xenophobic.

The odious BNP made it onto the news last night and Griffin was his usual contradictory self.

"I am not a racist" followed by "you should not be over here spreading Islam!".

Its like Griffin after the the EHRC required them to conform their membership rules to the law and they said "they had been meaning to do it for years".

Then they called the EHRC a "sniveling quango" and have yet to fully comply.

They have not provided any scientific or factual basis to support their desire to not comply with the law.

You assume that the Collett alleged threat to kill Griffin - that may turn out to be a stunt I suppose - relates to their abject failure to project any coherent image.

Following on from that report a woman was shown at the door indicating her son would never get a council house so she was voting BNP.

It would have been very interesting to know whether she understood what the BNP were about. I have heard similar comments from people who had experienced the war.

Do they understand the relationship between those nasty Heinkells and Dorniers that used to bomb them and what the BNP are about in terms of National Socialist tenets? The Holocaust?

We should fight to stop people being hoodwinked but a different approach may be needed for those that knowingly endorse the evil philosophy of the BNP.

I will be angry, possibly unjustly as I am not a member, if the Lib Dems could have taken Oldham and fail to do so because of the alleged actions of some activists being paid a few hundred pounds at a rate that was not the National Minimum.

Money is toxic in politics whether it is cash-for-honours or lobbygate or cash for questions - or potentially a few hundred pounds for trivial labour by a past and present Labour activist.

They are allegations and may not be true and I assume the voters are savvy enough to draw in the big picture of what happened.

Do they want to see Phil Woollas smiling - a truly distressing action that Hannibal Lecter would be proud of - any more than me?

Surely not.

On the debates I am for them and loved the Independents endorsement of them today and their call for PR if their is a hung Parliament.

My personal expectation is that the third debate - I think the Beebs - will probably be the most interesting.

I am guessing that by then the polls will show Labour is going to lose and my take on Brown is that he has a volcanic temper and hates to lose.

Reality only seems to be just setting in with him as the man on his way to the battlefield has only just admitted that his role in the economic tsunami that nearly took down the global economy was not perfect.

There should have been more national and global regulation. He had learned from that.

As many have commented he was one of those that in fact extolled light touch regulation so he is still not really expressing reality.

Clem Attlee was afriend of mine...I knew Clem Attlee....Sir, you are no Clem Attlee....

It worries me the Obama so far as I can see is being objectively outstanding so far and the US right resort to increasingly outlandish criticism.

There are valid concerns about AfPak but there is not really the evidence that we could take a risk by withdrawing and risking the ultimate capture of Pakistani nuclear weapons by al Qaeda/Lashkar-e-taiba elements.

The health care had no public option but it is a good step for them.

Now on the economy the Independent reports:

'The President and his aides hope a financial reform Bill will pass the Senate by the end of next month, despite opposition from Republicans. Speaking to reporters before yesterday's meeting at the White House, he said the goal was to prevent banks from becoming "too big to fail", and he also put a spotlight on the clampdown coming in the derivatives market.

Many exotic derivatives, such as the credit default swaps and collateralised debt obligations that were central to the financial crisis, do not currently have to be traded on exchanges. Instead, they are traded directly between banks, and the lack of transparency and the intertwining of financial institutions caused the 2008 financial panic to spread through the financial system. Much of the derivatives market exists in a "shadow economy", Mr Obama said, and "we want to get that into daylight".
'

That's not even been on the agenda over here and contrary to the views of Math ap Mathonwy we surely need to heed the lessons of our national failures as well as the global failures.

To me though the headline reporting does not indicate yet that Repo 105 and fraud laws will be amended (over here and over there) so that "creative accounting" practices that actually lead to people playing Russian roulette with the global economy receive draconian penalties.

So what of the US right?

In the HuffPost Palin is quoted as saying

"I'm not calling anyone un-American, but the unintended consequences of these actions -- the results -- are un-American."

Uh huh. So that's typically precise and informed.

You can see why Jon Stewart (Daily Show) is so busy these days and has PLENTY of material to work with.

Math ap Mathonwy. I totally agree. I just hope that having an American on the programme doesn't give them another excuse to air yet again those old black and white films of US debates gone by.

The whole thing is becoming a circus. We've had the psychologists and the body language "experts" . Its only a matter of time before they bring on the make-up experts, the hair experts, the tailoring experts and the theatre critics to rob British politics of the last vestige of meaning.

thegangofone [#2] "You don't really identify why the US is a bad influence and what was wrong the the Marshall Plan."

You seem to have missed it.

Just some of the bad influence includes over 40 years of Cold War with a nation which was our ally in WWII, the loss of the British Empire (the price for US economic 'support' after the war) and our raw material for industry driving us to the (largely US) IMF in the 1970s, leading to even more 'family silver and gold' being disposed of in the 80s, 90s and noughties, and... obviously, the recent economic mess which began in Wall Street. If Britain has to go to the , it will be just more of the same. We also became involved in a war in the Middle East (and on terror) which brought nothing but more discredit and into conflict with lots of our New Commonwealth British citizens to boot.

I take it you are aware of the recent statement in Parliament about the Special Relationship? Europe is now in a mess, especially Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain and Britain.

This is the USA's bad influence.

"Tonight our programme will be one hour long - we've managed to squeeze 10 extra minutes out of the schedulers to bring you the best reaction and analysis the license fee can buy."

Wow, I suppose they may have been listening to Paxman lashing 主播大秀 executives over their heavy "Skippy" bias on other Beeb channels.

I am a news addict admittedly but there are many issues that don't get covered fully and investigative journalism really should be more to the fore.

Here's something to think about given the mess which some of the EU is now in after the fall-out from Wall Street (or is it the clever grip of Wall Street?).

Ireland was a reluctant signatory to the Lisbon Treaty, and has recently suffered through being in the Euro. But apart form implications for our own currency (especially savings given likely inflation/devaluation) consider how changes in European state populations impacts upon how legislation will be passed after 2014. Ask yourself, given the track record of politicians in this country, do we have evidence that they care about the composition of the country, or is it just the size of the electorate and the consumer base?

"Irish people are finding out the hard way these days that we cannot
restore our lost economic competitiveness by devaluing our national
currency, as we have no currency to devalue, so we can only restore it by cutting pay, profits and pensions instead, for possibly years on end. This experience will surely lead future historians of our times to conclude that abolishing the Irish pound was the worst decision ever taken by an Irish
government...

..from 2014 onward EU law-making will take place primarily on the basis of population size, with 15 states being able to outvote 12 as long as they have 65 per cent of the total EU population between them. This will double Germany鈥檚 voting weight in making EU laws from its present 8 per cent of the total EU Council votes to 16 per cent. It will increase France鈥檚 and Britain鈥檚 from 8 per cent to 12 pre cent each, while halving Ireland鈥檚 from 2 per cent to 0.9 per cent."



My emphasis. Whilst we are not in the Euro like Eire, the costs will fall elsewhere (Public Services). This was Wall Street's doing. They also got Greece into trouble with seductive loans remember.

As they say, 'if you have them by their......'

#9 math ap mathonwy

"the loss of the British Empire " - goodbye and good riddance! Does that not say something about you and how Britain has changed for the better.

"and... obviously, the recent economic mess which began in Wall Street. " - well that is yes and no isn't it as our banks were intimately connected to the problems as were Ernst and Young with the Repo 105 stuff and so on. We probably gave them our banking system by and large - its what funded the empire that we can be morally proud we no longer possess.

Think of the positives they were our allies against the fascist National Socialists and also Stalinist Russia.

You aren't going to start complaining about the de-Nazification of Europe are you?!!

#11 math ap mathonwy

"Here's something to think about given the mess which some of the EU is now in after the fall-out from Wall Street (or is it the clever grip of Wall Street?)."

Hmm, would you mean Wall St, the "clever grip" of Wall St or perhaps ... Jews?

"do we have evidence that they care about the composition of the country"
Surely you are not referring to the racial composition knowing after so many posts from me and others that there is no evidence whatever that there are significant differences between the races?

It could be that I am being harsh and associating your comments with variants of jaded_jean/statist who has absolutely abhorrent views about Jews and Hitler and so on - sort of BNP-without the mask on.

The mindset is all there with the conspiracy theory about the crash being orchestrated on the basis of no evidence.

Tell me that it isn't true!

If Europeans want to be in the Euro that's for them and they may be the winners in the long run. Personally I think they are going too far and far too fast but I am generally for European cooperation.

I don't see us making an entry any time soon and that is also fine by me.

Will there be any coverage of the Rachel Maddow analysis of the McVeigh tapes and whether there is any relevance to our far right?

We know that Von Bruun, a one time American Friend of the BNP, is on trial for killing a US Holocaust Memorial security guard and that there is "cross pollination".

Griffin has spoken well of the KKK and most would say that the KKK are unacceptable to any democratic society.

On the Jon Stewart (Daily Show):

"He said at one point, 'I look at it in the crudest terms and see 168-1. You can kill me and I'm still ahead,'"

Will any new government ensure that whether Prevent - that has apparently alienated some Muslims and now covers the far right - will continue to look at these lone wolves?

#84 from previous page

Your kind of attitude has worked for me, Brightyangthing, and now the punitive types want a slice of the cake and eat it, never mind parasiting for years on my ideas and creativity.

It's just so obvious who's now hiding behind 'math' of something or other.

Keep up the good work, BYT.

mim

G01 # 12 - of course, the actions of the US in accelerating the loss of the British Empire (e.g. the Suez crisis) were not selfless acts in order to liberate the populations of the colonies from British rule. It was done for selfish US puposes; to allow the US to extend its own influence, power and control. While I'm sure math ap mathonwy can answer for himself, it seems to me the point he is getting at here is the British Empire has simply been replaced by the US Empire/US spheres of influence in many parts of the world.

#11 and #13 - take a look at Latvia. There has already been an 18% drop in GDP and some economists are predicting a top to bottom fall of 30% in GDP over the course of the recession/depression. This has resulted from an enormous property bubble fuelled by the banks (mainly Swedish I understand). It is now in the grip of the IMF. Those of its population which can work are leaving in their droves. They will leave the elderly, infirm and incpapable behind. The IMF are insisting on cuts which will involve massive slashes in health, social and welfare provision. It makes Ireland's problems seem minor. It is causing human misery on a massive scale. I bet you many of Latvia's population are looking back at the old Soviet days with fondness! After all, misery is all relative.

thegangofone [#12] "the loss of the British Empire " - goodbye and good riddance! Does that not say something about you and how Britain has changed for the better."

No. It is now much smaller and more crowded. It is weaker economically too. How is that better?

"and... obviously, the recent economic mess which began in Wall Street. " - well that is yes and no isn't it as our banks were intimately connected to the problems as were Ernst and Young with the Repo 105 stuff and so on. We probably gave them our banking system by and large - its what funded the empire that we can be morally proud we no longer possess."

These are not our banks, i.e. these are not nationalised banks, they are private sector banks which lobbied for, and were run under, the same deregulated principles as those on Wall Street. Anti-usury deregulation legislation was lobbied for and passed under Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown in conjunction with Reagan and Clinton's legislation.

This served to enrich the minority at the expense of the majority, who never saw what was going on. The poverty and ability gap is greater now than it was in the 70s.

I have noted that you assert some things which just are not true, and which it is dangerous to allow to go unchallenged. You must try to grasp at asserting that all people are the same is highly irresponsible and predatory. It reveals a failure of discrimination/learning. If people think everyone is the same, it licences some people to take advantage of the vulnerable as they feel no duty of care for and protect them from self-destructive behaviour. The people who have been predatory in this way have been Financial Service sand the Retail Sector. They want people to get into debt and they don't care if people become obese and ill so long as they keep buying. They make out that anyone can get an education and make choices. They can't though. Not all people are able to make informed choices. Not all people are born equal. we may well have all come out of Africa 30,000 years ago, but even back then there was diversity and it's got greater. Just remember, we have lots in common with other animals too, we are not the same as them either. This is all much more complex than you make out.

"Think of the positives they were our allies against the fascist National Socialists and also Stalinist Russia."

There was a very high price for the population of Russia and Eastern Europe. Why do you think so many have been coming here? There has also been a very high price for Western Europe. It has led to what is called 'naked capitalism'. Socialism tried to protect the vulnerable in society. Do you understand that?

"You aren't going to start complaining about the de-Nazification of Europe are you?!!"

I certainly think that the de-socialisation of Europe has been an absolute disaster, don't you? Just look at what's happening. Nobody can plan their futures anymore.

thegangofone [#13] "The mindset is all there with the conspiracy theory about the crash being orchestrated on the basis of no evidence."

'Mindsets' don't matter, and I don't know what you are so obsessed with the BNP, Jews, and race either. What I am writing about in response to your posts refers to what's happening economically and politically.

Regardless of who you think is, or is not, 'behind' it, all that matters is what's actually happens, what the conditions are which make it happen, and what can be done about it? That won't change by you scapegoating or calling people names.

It seems to me that you don't really want to discuss these issues rationally. Why is that?

I don鈥檛 care if it was meant to be 鈥榗utting edge鈥�, sarcastic, cynical, amusing, or 鈥榥ew age鈥�!

I鈥檓 not bothered if it was designed to 鈥榖ring in鈥� the next elite generation!

I don鈥檛 care if somebody at the 主播大秀 was - euphemistically - using the old UK currency by way of experimentation!

I鈥檓 not interested in whether Nn has just had an influx of newly qualified staff from c主播大秀tv and wanted to give the programme a 鈥榣ift鈥� !

I really don鈥檛 care if the Nn production team is totally, just SO 鈥榓bsoloootly鈥� jealous of the 主播大秀 Breakfast programming budget and wants to curry favour!

I鈥檓 not interested if it鈥檚 classic corporate nepotism and a senior staffer has just got his her offspring work experience stroke internship with the Beeb!

I don鈥檛 care if it is deemed 鈥榖reakthrough television鈥�!

I鈥檓 not interested if it gets five plus stars from the TV critic from 鈥楾he Gruniad鈥�!

I don鈥檛 care if the presenter was is a poet, an author, a harvard professor, former politician, an ex-laureate or even THE most all-time most famous person ever in the entire history of mankind, the world and the entire solar system! (Or even an Z factory runner-up!)

I am not interested if it was the first prize in the Nn office鈥檚 鈥淐harity needs Children Appeal鈥� raffle and the Beeb didn鈥檛 want to be in breach of 鈥榤oral contract鈥� with the PC 鈥淥iks鈥�!

I鈥檓 not interested if it was let loose before several wined and dined 鈥榞litterati focus groups鈥� and came out the most popular idea EVER since tree grown spaghetti !

I鈥檓 not interested if it was necessarily shown by Prime Ministerial - or even Royal - Command! (Even if the threat was the entire Nn team going to The Tower!)

I don鈥檛 care if it was put in as a last minute replacement for yet another 鈥淧op up Politics鈥� piece 鈥榗oz (again) you couldn鈥檛 find any GBP!

I don鈥檛 care if Finkelstein et al thought it hilarious!

I don鈥檛 care if it was a piece that missed the broadcast deadline for 1st April and absolutely, just absolutely and very completely decidedly had to be shown anyway.! (Or else ... No bickies at break-time!)

I really don鈥檛 care if the only feasible alternate was a redacted screen!



Come to think of it .....


I don鈥檛 even care if Mr Cashcroft鈥檚 lucre was used to make it!



It was dross, dire and amateurish to the point of 鈥榓lmost鈥� appearing professional! ( Is there such a thing as a 鈥淧rofessional Amateurism? )

Child-like,

Meandering and meaningless to the point of pathos.

Totally un-newsworthy, informed or entertaining.

If there is only one iota of sanity left anywhere on the planet it will NEVER win ANY award for content, entertainment or educational value, originality or wit!

TOTAL DRIVEL!

SO THERE!



In case you don鈥檛 know what I鈥檓 talking about? ( Whomsoever 鈥榣istens鈥� anyway? ) ....

The absolute waste of broadcast time and consequently completely unwarranted in any Newsnight 鈥榮lot鈥� - now or in the future - is also known as ....


Newsnight鈥檚 Party Anthems!


And 鈥淟ucky me!鈥� ....

Still two more to come!

Hence ....

With due apologies ....


SPOIL PARTY ANTHEMS





In the absence of the official entry form the above is my attempt at winning the, as yet to be formally announced, competition called .....

鈥淓xclamations to the Max!鈥�



Feedback from the competition organisers would be appreciated!

nedafo2 [#17] That's the sort of post which I appreciate, informative and an intelligent analysis. Thanks.

Your earlier appraisal of my post was spot on too.

I fear these people have generally preyed upon trusting/unsuspecting people. Those living under socialism would have been easy prey because they were induced for decades to be socially orientated rather than self-interested. I recall a piece of footage a few years back showing a middle-aged couple in Russia appalled at their son's behaviour. he describing himself under the prevailing conditions as 'a businessman', but they remember the same behaviour classed as a 'criminal' i.e. 'an enemy of the people'. I confess to sympathizing with the middle-aged parents. people forget that after 1989, many released criminals became 'businessmen' and were free to talk of their days of repression under a dictatorship.

Why, whenever we turn to 主播大秀 NEWS these days, do we have to endure 主播大秀 employees (vapidly) discussing what the politicians 'mean'?

I want 主播大秀 presenters to do just what they are supposed to do - i.e. report the news. I don't want them becoming the news itself. I don't want them presenting themselves. There are already far too many soft porn channels for that sort of thing. They don't even have interesting things to say!

We don't need to know a presenter's name, and we most certainly don't need to see their faces all the time!

Does anyone else feel the same way?

C'mon thegangofone admit it....you are Billy Bragg!

"Bragg Close, a street in Dagenham, is named in his honour, and he currently lives in Dorset."

..As the goal of Afghanistan becoming an independent and secure country and true partner with international forces ..




nothing about women's rights, democracy etc here. it's a return to the 'Shah' or 'Saddam' regime model? which fits in with the new 'churchill's choice' approach.

22 Math ap Mathonwy wrote:

"Why, whenever we turn to 主播大秀 NEWS these days, do we have to endure 主播大秀 employees (vapidly) discussing what the politicians 'mean'?

I want 主播大秀 presenters to do just what they are supposed to do - i.e. report the news. I don't want them becoming the news itself. I don't want them presenting themselves. There are already far too many soft porn channels for that sort of thing. They don't even have interesting things to say!"

--------------------------------------

Don't worry....there will be a belly load full of it on TV tonight....I'm off down the pub!

...Since August 2002, nearly 100 detainees have died while in the hands of U.S. officials in the global 'war on terror.'

According to the U.S. military's own classifications, 34 of these cases are suspected or confirmed homicides; Human Rights First has identified another 11 in which the facts suggest death as a result of physical abuse or harsh conditions of detention. In close to half the deaths Human Rights First surveyed, the cause of death remains officially undetermined or unannounced. Overall, eight people in U.S. custody were tortured to death."

John D. Hutson, Rear Admiral (Ret.), JAGC, USN said about Human Rights First's report,

"Command's Responsibility documents a dozen brutal deaths as the result of the most horrific treatment. One such incident would be an isolated transgression; two would be a serious problem; a dozen of them is policy....



file under

'why do they want to kill us'.

DebtJuggler [#23] Whoever he is, I hope you appreciate that much of what he posts is the opposite of what academic research and government bodies throughout the world show is the case? He keeps posting what he says he believes without seeming to grasp that what he believes is wrong.

Why does the 主播大秀 not censure posters for deliberately posting falsehoods after they have had their errors pointed out supported by evidence?

I thought the 主播大秀 had a duty to inform and to educate?

Listening to the debate tonight, I found myself asking this simple question: if there is room for such debate, what has been learned from all that research by academics across the world over the past few hundred years?

If all that these leaders can do is argue that the other is so wrong, what's the point of the subjects or experts they draw upon? What is the point of all this education?

Whilst there is disagreement in the sciences, it isn't a squabble over fundamentals, it's about subtle differences about how best to make improvements in prediction and control.

Watching this performance tonight, is it really any wonder that today's kids (and grown-ups) are so argumentative and difficult? These supposed role models are telling them that this is desirable behaviour!

It isn't. It really isn't. It's the problem!

On performance, score draw between David and Nick. As fewer people knew about Nick, he'll be most pleased.

Cameron the pointless probably might not work expensive drug salesman, welfare state for the stock market parasites ?

Gordon agrees with Nick so much I'm wondering why anyone would bother voting for him, when they could have the same policies from a fresher, more articulate, more human alternative.

Just listened to the debate on radio 4. Please, please don't be duped by Cameron, he is a career politician like the rest of his party and his privileged class. He has no real feeling for the populace of Great Britain, he was groomed for power and the personal advantages power brings. At least Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg have some sense of social justice. If you value the NHS, the welfare state, and free education then don't vote for a candidate who has no interest or need for any of them.

'THE PARTY' AND THE VOTER WANT VERY DIFFERENT THINGS FROM AN MP

But the parties dominate voter-choice. How's that ever going to work then?

PM鈥檚 Application Process. Round One.

(Notes.)

Sadly the man on the street will choose not to see the wood for the trees!

More wasn鈥檛 said - for fear of rocking the boat - than was!

鈥�.... momentous ....鈥� ...... Not!

Pity Jeremy wasn't hosting the debate tonight.......

It is really disappointing that your commentary on tonight's debate failed to focus on content but instead focussed on image and snapshot reactions. You used a body language "expert" uncritically without any evidecnce to support her contentions. Am very pleased to see that you continue to use your panel.

Why are we asking AA Gill, a restaurant reviewer what he thinks?

Wow - that web review on tonight's programme was breathless, chaotic and flimsy. I realise all the Newsnight journalists are over-excited by tonight's events, but come on...

There was a clear winner in tonights debate: Alastair Stewart

Not so much a comment on the debate as one about Newsnight comment; whoever's idea it was to show the Twitter nonsense and search engine based buzzword bobbins, please do the decent thing and apologise.

Note to Newsnight - you are not on ITV...

Nick Clegg was considered the winner by over 50% in some snap polls, but does this really mean the Lib Dems will actually get over 50% of the votes? How much do you think the debate tonight will make any difference to how people vote in the general election?

We are running a poll here if you want to vote and let us know

bettyuk [#36] "It is really disappointing that your commentary on tonight's debate failed to focus on content but instead focussed on image and snapshot reactions. You used a body language "expert" uncritically without any evidecnce to support her contentions."

It is indeed really disappointing. Sadly, most of the people involved won't see what's wrong - too young. If you tell them, they still won't get it. Someone has told them it looks good, and so they can't possibly see what's wrong with it.

Worm-o-meters to gauge strength of feeling too.

It's all witchcraft.

Dear Newsnight - well done on your great coverage of the Debate tonight but why the 'tag clouds'? They don't seem to lend anything to the analysis and leave the presenter (Justin in this case) stuck to make any serious points.

Why did Newsnight have an American pontificating about OUR political process. It's nothing to do with them. What has America given us? debt, obesity,gun crime, need I go on.

A.A. Gill was right, anyone who relies on the 'Great Debate' to decide who to vote for should be disenfranchised.

What right has a pollster, on tonight's program, have to say that the Liberal Democrates are unlikely to form a Governnment? He was only there to to give a view on how the debate had unfoulded. I didn't hear him say who would win the election, so why could he be so sure of who could'nt?

OH SO TELLING IN THE TELLING

A brown nurse in the audience, at the leader 'debate', asked a question in Manglish. Sitting at home, neither distressed nor in pain (except the usual political kind) I could not understand all she said. I am glad I was not in a hospital bed.

In All New Fair Britain, will I be able to demand medical attention from NHS staff who hail from my culture, and who speak RP? If not, will the Human Rights Court look kindly upon my case, or will I be branded racist, or worse: brownophobic? (Not to be confused with Brownophobic!)

Anyone who subscibes to A A Gill's views should be disenfranchised!

I would like to have watched the debate.
It is available via itv.com, however, despite the fact that I am entitled to vote, and surely have an interest in viewing the coverage in full rather than some journos summary, I am denied access to it because of my location in Australia.
The same is true of Newsnight feeds.
I tollerate the advertisements the Beeb now pumps expats when they use the 主播大秀 web site, and yet, for this 'additional revenue' stream, I am not entitled to watch via you I-player your current editions when they are posted. Why?
Fortunately, channel 4 news does not block international I.P addresses, so I am off there now.

MOPPING UP - THE LEADER DEBATE

No one has told Dave that ONLY toffs say 'PROPLY', or that the service HE gets in A&E, is a little different from what we get.

Brown did far too much 'am I bovvered smiling' - when clearly bothered. He was glib, wooden, obsequious, trite, and spouted claptrap.

Clegg failed to explain why a nice boy like him, would put up with Westminster. Might it be a 'PRICE WORTH PAYING'?

#49 Spot On Barrie! ; )

I noticed the proply all the way through, and thought oh that sets him apart, and I've not experienced this wonderful NHS he talked about. Manglish and curtness abound.

Yes why doesn't Brown be himself, dour. We all know he's made a mess, perhaps he should get back to clear it up and expose himself.

Clegg yes a very nice boy, and an internationalist I believe, who wants all and sundry to live here.

A leaf out of blairs book?



So this is why you lead countries?

Assertions that programme audiences are representative is not just far-fetched, but coupled with commercial interests like Twitter and ITV, they're rather worrying, especially when some have the gall to suggest that online petitions and X Factor/Strictly populism is 'democratic'. Representational democracy has to be protected from exploitation by special (often commercial) interest groups which abuse the media to promote their own agendas. Studio audiences, like campaign trail PR managers, distort/corrupt representational democracy in that they only select motivated, minorities.

The majority of people are fed up with this pantomime.

Read: LIGHTS, CAMERA, DEMOCRACY!
On the conventions of a make-believe republic
By Lewis H. Lapham 1996

Just to be 100% clear on the point about motivation: if the majority of the electorate is worn down so it either a) doesn't vote at all, or b) doesn't care much how it votes because all it sees are tedious differences, special interest groups, who do vote, or swing the vote (although comprising only a minority), wield disproportionate power.

The centrist (and anti-extremist) politics which we have seen in recent decades may look like apathy, but it can better be seen as engineered centrism facilitating a motivated minority to push governance in the direction which best suits their interests - minimal governance.

This does not mean less legislation. Legislation is passed in order to make central governance more bureaucratic and thus less efficient. This in turn justifies 'efficiency savings' and cuts in Public Services, something which in turn, results in more privatization.

Note where the money still comes from. in comes from taxes and asset stripping of Public Services. This ensures that the minority controlling the Private Sector have a secure revenue, just like the banks in the bail-out.

This all counts on most people not being able to think the predatory process through. This is why there were laws to protect the people, and why indiscriminate 'freedom' is not necessarily a good thing - as it gives predators/criminals freedom too.

NUCULAR STRATEGY (NB - I spell 'nucular' the Dumb Dubya way, as nukes are dumb.)

Take China (prompted by #50)

Missiles are detected heading towards UK. Our one Trident Sub, at sea, fires what is has. Some nukes get past defences (in both directions).
Britain is seriously rogered BUT WE GOT OUR OWN BACK!

Was that a 'Famous victory'?

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO CAPITALISM - SUPPLY AND DEMAND? (#52)

With nice little earners like that (and the speaking engagements on retirement - eh Tony?) why pay the President at all? The wannabes would still queue round the block.

Speaking of our Tony: will Brown's close destroyers (oops - delete 'destroyers', insert 'advisors') will he be back to 'support' Brown?

:o) Morning All!
Here's an amusing article in today's Daily Telegraph.....

Source:

Last night, David Cameron made reference to cancer rates between Britain and Bulgaria. Why?

Does David Cameron's Party really think that all nations (and even groups within nations) are the same, and that rates of cancer reflect government policies? One's risk of cancer is largely a genetic matter. That's what he research shows doesn't it? What has that got to do with government?

According to this source:



Iceland has nearly 5x the incidence of breast cancer as Japan. Why?

The answer is that people differ across the world, and differ even within countries. Governments have to make provision for these demographic differences as these differences place different demands on health care. As populations change, so do demands. This is where government comes in, doesn't it? That entire countries differ markedly along all sorts of measurable biological dimensions shows that we are not all the same doesn't it? If government policies lead to changes in the population, one has to take immigration and biological risk factors into account when making policy doesn't one?

I won't vote for people who talk nonsense ignoring or falsifying physical reality. I don't believe that such people know or care what they're talking about, and that makes them dangerous in my view.

"An unnamed source close to the investigation in Moscow told Russia's Interfax news agency on Thursday that no evidence had been found in the flight recorders that "any of the high-ranking passengers forced the pilots to land near Smolensk"."

Source - 主播大秀 NEWS


I don't wish to appear cynical, but why the reference to "high ranking"? Why not "nobody on the plane"?

On a lighter note: wives and girlfields, along with inducements to perform precarious balancing acts!

22. At 7:57pm on 15 Apr 2010, Math ap Mathonwy wrote:
Why, whenever we turn to 主播大秀 NEWS these days, do we have to endure 主播大秀 employees (vapidly) discussing

Without this, one would merely get the news in factual form, around which you may in turn form your own opinion.

Now you get it with added 'enhanced narrative' such that some can better be steered towards 'better' understanding.

For instance, there are those who may think that a hung Parliament is the best option of those presented. Hence our current, in theory 'Leader' seemingly capable of little more than 'Agreeing with Nick' serves them well and thus will be unlikely to be 'analysed' (which is too often opinion dressed up to appear objective) as critically as one might have thought it deserved.

Hung maybe, but then drawn and quartered painfully as the true nature of the politico-media establishment stitch up unravels. I am sure those financially invested, or at least well insulated enough, will still find it 'brilliant'.

media is driven by reductionist philosophy

the reduction of politics to 'celebrity' is their aim. its what they do. vote for the person not the policies. the logic being you need a celebrity as a party leader.

nn seemed in hysteria mode? or was it the 'media sugar' in the tea?

more 'fairness'?

that its worth fighting for? why prefer fair over good? why take iron over gold?

fairness is the ultimate expression of nihilism and moral relativism.

Nick Clegg wins what exactly? The most positive sound bites competition..would that be it, well okey, well done the Cleggster. If he walked away from this 1st round of a three round bout as victor I'm really worried, but a hitech wiggly worm gave us the results so who I'm to question. But I do question: Is not the Cleggster just another articulate Jack straw?..a man for all seasons perhaps, spouting out popular sentiment to gain applause from an audience, and been in a position of having nothing to lose, well your in a good position from the-off really aren't you. Its easy to tap into the idealist mind sitting in the audience even from an ardent but feeble minded Conservative; you'll soon get him clapping to your libby words. Some call it witch craft, others call it 'the manipulation of words'. Getting up on stage and discussing your political beliefs instantly gives you power, the audience assumes - most of the time at least - you must know what your talking about, and they've seen you often enough (unlike the Clegg, but he finally got his showcase thanks to the ITV debate) but what your invariable getting is a performance from someone with strong ambition; the strong desire for power; control..they'll say anything! but its left to us to decide who would make the best in leading this country out of the mess its in. We by design discriminate mostly due to bias and vote/employ another power hungry nut case to run the country but hope - usually in vain though - they are not as bad as the last fella.

An example of liberalism: A young man is attacked and left wheelchair bound - and for life - because a young thug rammed a screw driver into his scull. The thug will do three and a half years in prison for that crime. That, ladies and gentlemen is the ever present danger and consequence of liberalism. You have been warned!

FUNNY YOU SHOULD SAY THAT (#61)

I heard Shiny-Boy Dave say that Clegg didn't 'win' because it is ALL about policies.

So a party would be bonkers to give their leader's pic the beauty treatment, and bung him up on hoardings - right? THAT would surely lead folks to think that party saw it as being all about Leader Image!

the truth is, they are all dissemblers within the Big Lie that is Westminster. Voting for party ciphers is to vote for party games. Clegg may well be whiter than Labour and Tory 'White', but they all have in common the near-total blackness of the Westminster ethos - STILL IN PLACE.