´óÏó´«Ã½

The item on Harriett Harmon strikes me of Newsnight fiddling whilst Rome burns.
The best thing that Brown can do is to call an election, rather than publicity stunts on inviting the Pope to visit, or is he hoping for some devine intervention?

However, as I have posted many times, if you think this Government is bad, wait till you get the Tories back! They will save money by cutting all capital projects-(more builders out of work), ending all final salary settlements and abolishing national pay scales, just for starters.

Clarke was hinting today that an increase in taxes might not go amiss, if there is anyone left in work to tax.
What of my party in the meantime? Well we will get back to some socialist policies instead of continuing Tory Policy. As I have written many times, "Why vote Labour when you can vote for the real thing?"

However Brown of the "British dole for British workers" will hang on to the bitter end, an end which indeed will be bitter!

I doubt very much if Hectoring Harriet Harman will become leader of the Labour Party; JadedJean's got more chance.

As a teenager I was entranced totally by Civilization; it could be made again today, but clearly it would reflect today's views, production values and presentation style; I would envisage it looking something like the current excellent series on Iran and perhaps fronted by that Bryan Ferry lookalike who often does programmes on the Renaissance.

Offshore banking. Of course we must investigate. But a question I have - why have the auditors refused to sign off the accounts of the European union for at least the past ten years? Maybe the beam in my own eye versus the mote in my brother's.

The interview with Harman was carefully spun wasn't it?

You quoted her as saying that if she became Prime Minister there wouldn't be enough airports for all the _people_ that would want to leave. Of course the correct quote is "there aren't enough airports in the country for all the _men_ who would want to flee".

Is it editorial policy to airbrush out her sexism?

IF YOU WISH TO BOSS ME AROUND, HARRIET, FIRST DEFINE YOUR TERMS.

So Harriet is concerned that the influence of 'Woman' should be greater. But how, exactly does she define 'woman'? Not by self-reference one hopes? I am fortunate to have a number of mature women friends, and none of them reminds me of Harriet.

Poor Harriet, I don't know the forces that shaped her, but it is clear that she holds men in low esteem, at a visceral level. Hardly an agreeable definition of 'woman' I would suggest.

Is there perhaps some course she might be sent on (in the same House of Correction as Harry?) where she can be taught to appreciate the male?

barrie (#5) Are you a 'sex-realist'? Don't you know that 99% of scientists say that there is more variation within the sexes than there is between them? Ergo, there are no important differences between men and women and anyone who says otherwise is vile and may one day find themselves being deported (if we can build enough airports). Perhaps you should have married a man? They're all the same you know, despite superfical appearances (oh, and all that variation).

Brought to you c/o The Harry Potter School of Corrections, Argentina.

#1billbradbury; we all must ensure that the scenario you paint does not materialize.

We do need to get the vote out at the next election and prior to that, have in place a leader of the Labour Party who will re-introduce social/socialist policies that will move this country forward both socially and economically. The Conservative view, espoused by Cameron, that we live in a "broken Britain", reeks of Thatcher; "all the country needs is a right good thrashing to pull its socks up" type of approach. It won't be long before we start hearing "short sharp shock" phrases again.

Labour needs to get real, slough off the Blairite skin/spin and get to work.

nothing confirms the Darwin theory of evolution as opposed to the whacko ramblings of the evangelicals as the present feeding frenzy of the Labour party as they position themselves to gain maximum advantage to project themselves forward when Brown is toppled. Gordon cannot complain about this lack of loyalty as he weilded the knife often enough in his quest for the crown. What a shoddy bunch they are, each one trying to justify policies that have discredited a once proud Labour party to an ultra-state obsessed 1984 type with personal freedoms flying out of the window daily. A rapid departure from these tired, outworn policies will not save them. It is tragic enough that Labour could be out of office for a decade but still trying to force the electorate with the same old crap won't do either.

UP AND MARCHING - DO WE HAVE A SONG? (#7)

HO Kashibeyaz! Have you been at the Milton again? "Slough off the Blairite skin" has the ring of "Scum off the bullion dross" about it!

Or have you caught the Obama bug? A synthetic DNA chain; equal parts boom, rhetoric, charisma and vacuum.

Parties are the problem! They ALL connive at the Westminster charade, presided over by Pantomime-Dame Martin. I think Clegg did a bit of mumbling about fundamental reform but no doubt it was simply deemed expedient at the time.

At the next election, I shall be out there spoiling party games; trying to wake the sleeping voters and non-voters. Meanwhile let the cry go up: "God for Harry (when cleansed) England (incorporating all democratic states) and St George (as a metaphor for all good-doers; except the delusional T Blair)."

DEMAND QUANTIFIED ABSTENTION - SPOIL PARTY GAMES. You have nothing to lose . . . they have taken it all.

"GIVE ME SOME PERSONS WHO ARE STOUT HEARTED PERSONS . . . " (#8)

Hi Leftie. I think you have just described a bunch of Apes Confused by Language, all vaguely under the impression they are an elite running an illusion termed 'democracy'.

When the cerebral overlay of the raw ape is so messed up by 'parenting' and 'education x 3' that it can't think-and-chew-gum, simultaneously, - they go into politics.

I am marching behind Kashi and singing the rebel song. You coming?

Barrie (#9) "DEMAND QUANTIFIED ABSTENTION - SPOIL PARTY GAMES. You have nothing to lose . . . they have taken it all."

It won't work Barrie. This is how we ended up with New Labour (and their blue version before hand). Large numbers of people (who bothered voting at all) probably thought they were voting Old Labour.

You are calling for a (much needed, for sure) major overhaul of the entire electoral system, but for that to have any hope, you'll need a clearly worked out manifesto which also credibly covers all other policy areas.

barrie (#10) "a bunch of Apes Confused by Language"

I blame (that anarchist) Chomsky!

Have you read 'Word and Object" (1960) or yet? Better still, have you listened to 'On Having A Poem' (cf. NewFazer) ;-)

Harriet Harman QC MP

Since 2007 Harriet Harman has been the Minister for Women and Equality.

I tried to get to her web site , but all I get is but google has a of her site if anyone is having the same problem and wants to read it.

:)

ARE YOU SURE THERE ARE ANY CERTAINTIES? (#11)

'When investigating chaos, it is justifiable to apply any stimulus.'

I never mentioned hope. That way madness lies. (:o)

Steve-London (#13)

From the site: "Inquiry into City bonus fairness As Minister for Women and Equality I have asked the Equality Commission to examine City bonuses and rule whether they discriminate against women.

Men working in the finance sector are paid over 40% more than women.

We don't have to choose between a strong economy and fairness - we must have both. And that includes fairness in the financial services sector.

There is something rotten in the remuneration system of the banks and finance companies. Men paying themselves millions of pounds of bonuses each - and then saying that they didn't know what was going on.

The discretionary bonus system is a licence for unfairness and discrimination.

Is anyone any more going to justify a system which allows for the old boys' network to fall back on a financial cushion of millions of pounds while helping cause the problems which make others struggle?"

Interesting stuff given that it was her government which presided over the massive deregulation of the markets. In other words, New Labour legitimized the very behviour which she is apparently chastising here.

I wonder if she knows about (it's the upper tail that matters). Or

One wonders if higher female verbal fluency (relative to males) may be a consequence of relatively lower female spatial ability - that is, might it be easier to argue when one is less restrained/inhibited by inconvenient emprical facts?

On Harman it would have been better to have heard that she wanted not only attention to female unemployment but also to make sure that sex, race and sexuality were not factors. Justice.

On the offshore islands and financial irregularities its a shame nothing was said about their use, I believe, in instruments like Credit Default Swaps. Are these instruments with us forever and is there any move to license or control them?

Also we know organised crime needs to launder drug money. We know that Mexico is almost collapsing under the threat from Cartels. We know that "when the tide goes out we see who is not wearing swimming trunks" like Stanford. We know a lot of bankers do not now have a future with big bonuses.

Is it not an opportune time to have an initiative using cash and immunity in return for banker information about laundering that may/should have surfaced before?

On Brown and the recession/depression could not be predicted. Is that so? HBOS risk regulation, FSA will to regulate, instrument licensing/regulation? Is he saying that the economy was out of control?

#15 JadedJean

"...easier to argue when one is less restrained/inhibited by inconvenient emprical facts?"

You mean like people who harp on about race "realism" when 99% of scientists know that genetic variation is greater within a race than between races?

Do you mean facts like people >99% of the public would not vote for your political stance in a zillion years ? You are not a Nazi or the BNP and therefore there is no party that they could vote for anyway. Hence your views have no pertinence.

Do you mean facts like the Holocaust happened and your "pretend" statistics about 1930's Jewish survival rates?

Etc etc etc.

thegangofone (#17) Yes, it's all very interesting isn't it. But don't get too obsessed with it. It is rather as I have said , and that's before one has to deal with the even more tricky issue of intelligence ('g') probably being a QTL which is very hard to quantify at the molecular genetic level.

Steve_London(#13) I tried to access your link, but it looks like it is no longer available. The message reads: domain name not recognised.
I guess it is good that JJ has left an excerpt^^