´óÏó´«Ã½

"The Conservatives claim today that Labour has driven social inequality up to levels unseen since Victorian times, and boldly claim that only the Tories can truly tackle poverty. It's a very interesting question - and also a bold political move to annex territory traditionally Labour's own."

Which surely just goes to show that the names of the parties mean nothing, that de-regulative Chicago-Austrian school anarchistic economics works only so long as one still has some family silver to sell-off, and that the UK population continues to be abused/rendered into illiterate/innumerate money-recyclers through dysgenic fertility and immigration.

MAINTAINING THE MYTH

I am puzzled at the reference to our political parties having 'traditional territory'.
Clearly this was once so - equally clearly it is no longer true. Blair took what was Labour to a whole new place where they could get elected. Cameron has now applied precisely the same strategy to the Conservatives. Not only do parties no longer have fixed dogma, we know that dogma for any one election is designed to please a few marginal seats. So, update the rhetoric Newsnight. Parties are now just mercenary armies; they will fight for any cause as long as there is a pay-back on winning.

The conseravtives are just making an attempt to move labour from it's middle ground position by forcing them to react to something which the conservatives have made no indication of correcting. I would like to hear a Conservative policy on anything. I recently heard Mr Cameron asking for a general election, he had better start talking about what he intends to do, rather than tossing a cap into the wind and seeing who it fits. My guess is when his policies are revealed especially the green ones that are suggested, we will see that the poorer members of our society will fare no better under a conservative administration. the next election should i toss a coin or should you i say heads David cameron (Walter Mitty- Everything to everyone) tails Gordon Brown (King Midas- not gold but Sand). And they say we have a choice come the next election, bah humbug or am i too early for that one.

So the government is now proposing to prop up the housing market by using taxpayers money to swap bad debt for government debt, thus destroying the Gilts market and Sterling, this is worthy of the USSRs 5 year plans, what's next? Gordon hailing an increase tractor factory output? See you all in the "re-education camps" where we can praise Gordon 'Marx' Brown.

The Tories will look after the poor! Well I've heard it all now. Just can't wait to see this revelation.
It is a pity that my party will hang on to power until the last minute. Perhaps if Milliband decides to run and then calls for an early election, when we will still be anihilated we can start to rebuild from the ashes.
Roll on 2028 or could it be 2027.

It isn't enough to reduce taxes on the poorest in the hope they rise up the ladder. This is effectively what the 10p tax band did before it was removed. The Conservatives offer nothing new here. The wealthy have the power and money to protect their access to better schools and housing as well as the social networks to help give their children other opportunities, such as travel or a first job. I've seen this time and again. Meritocracy is an ideal - it's not the reality. How can poorer people compete with this? The fact is we have locked in an vested interest group which has enough money and power to effectively become antonymous from the rest of society - it cries the loudest when asked to contribute a smaller percentage of income than the people at the bottom (most of their money goes on food, fuel and rent). I think higher levels of tax are desirable. A more equal society breaths a calmer sort of air than conspicuous wealth behind high walls designed to keep conspicuous poverty out. Likewise, it is more co-operative. The super rich doesn't need society and the poor see society fall apart. Equal income creates equality of expectations. If Scandinavians can do it, why not one of the largest economies in Europe?

In your Doha report it is asserted that: "The plan was to make the whole world richer by freeing up barriers to trade." What nonsense. What evidence do you have for this, apart from that this is the claim of the governments who sought to control the talks?

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is supposed to be balanced and objective, yet in this statement, there appear to be a number of unsubstantiated, baseless value judgements.

Are the ´óÏó´«Ã½ afraid of opprobrium from our government if it challenges this official line? Would daring to challenge it be deemed "unobjective" or the make "comment"? This is cowardice, and the worst kind of journalism: unfortunately, because it is Newsnight, i has a veneer of respectability

Firstly, what is meant by "richer"? Does this mean "growth" and the attendant centralisation of wealth among wealthy companies and the growth of economic inequality - as almost always accompanies so called "free trade"? (This is not mere opinion, by the way: The history of South American structural adjustment and shock, for one, and the Western military-economic impositions in the Middle East, among many other historical precedents, clearly prove this is usually the case).

Is this mere monetary "richness" or something more thoroughgoing? What do you mean by "free trade?" Is this true free trade which allows an equal footing for all, or the operational kind which involves military and economic imposition, CIA administered coups (think Pinochet) and the dismantling of welfare systems (everywhere where Reagan stuck his nose) and the leverage of debt peonage through ruinous loans, the control of interest rates and monetary speculation (all of South America and Africa)? The list goes on.

Secondly, what is meant by "the whole world"? How inclusive is this? If it is, indeed, supposed to include everybody, then the assertion is pure nonsense, with no evidence to support it and plenty to diminish it.

If your researchers had bothered to look at the history of "free trade" imposition - in South America, Indonesia, South Korea and so on - rather than just accepting the Western governmental line that free trade talks are designed to create a richer and more equable world for everyone, you might have at least have considered the argument, for which there is plenty of evidence, and for which an objective and cogent account can be produced, that the primary aim of Western governments, among other governments, in these talks, was to enrich themselves at the continuing expense of poorer nations.

If you had read the strong work of John Pilger, Naomi Klein, Edward Said, Noam Chomsky, and others, all of which is rich in fact and analysis, you may even have considered the possibility that G8 countries are interested in undermining the economies of poorer countries such that they can more easily impose their economic agendas, extract wealth, impose economies, displace communities or even create conflict for economic and political gain.

What is most worrying about your reportage is that, far from puncturing the jargon that so often accompanies political talks to simplify and explain, you embrace it. Terms like "free trade", "rich" and "barriers to trade" are accepted uncritically and without expansion: each of these phrases has a number of interpretions and connotations: I have already outlined two possible interpreations of "free trade", both of which often used dishonestly.

It should be clear to you that governments have agendas and that they are not always straightforward or honest: why repeat these phrases verbatim when it so often clear that these words so often go hand in hand with dishonesty, deceit and obfuscation?

As a newly qualified journalist, I am frequently told that I do not cut it, I am "green", and that institutions like the ´óÏó´«Ã½ hold something to aspire to. I am not sure about the last point. I could do better, why don't you employ me?

Mind the Gap

The Labour minister was laughable , he did not want to talk about family breakdowns , the educational failure and brushed off the OECD report saying social mobility has declined while they have been in power !

Then no mention of these British unskilled unemployed peoples job chances while Labour opened up the country's borders to Global/EU wide Unskilled workforce competition !

They are in Complete Denial of the consequences of their actions !

get your facts right Turbojerry, the capitalist hyenas and their running dog lackeys of the soviet system do not possess the guile and sheer cunning as their British counterparts. Marx once commented that his whole foreign policy would have been modelled on the British 'divide and conquer' maxim. The Japenese perfected their torture methods on the English court. We are the finest at the black arts, nobody can touch us. The bloodfest in the coming weeks over Brown's demise will be the big ticket event of the summer. Loyalty? Do me a favour.

Poor David Milliband. Whatever "popularity" he has will be soon scotched-or is it "Scots" by Brown.
My bet that, if he does decide on a Cabinet re-shuffle, he will be the next Chancellor, a poisoned chalice if there ever was one.

Milliband being at Number 11, what is the saying that comes to mind:-
"Keep you friends close and your enemies closer".

#7 - don't think they're quite as naive as Gavin Esler's intro made out, although I also raised an eyebrow as it was left unqualified (was it meant to be ironic?)..

Paul Mason's very good initial Doha blogpost (10/07/08) dealt with some of these 'better off' claims. He then posted again specifically about Mode4 migration and the unwillingness of politicians to talk about the fall-out. Unfortunately the related report and subsequent studio interview are no longer available for viewing.

And there's a vast and pretty thorough in-depth collection of reports/articles ...

no mention of the soviet ethnic cleansing of belarus in1939 when hundreds of thousands were transported to gulags in siberia or by the chinese border?

Milliband? Dos he still believe there is such a thing as an axil of evil?

Why not EU Peter for PM.? The initials fit. He is the only person i can think of making labour electable?