´óÏó´«Ã½

"In the past few days and weeks there has been much excited talk about revolution.

I think that is overblown: we must keep a cool head and a sense of proportion.

But equally, we must not let ourselves believe that a bit of technocratic tinkering here, a bit of constitutional consultation there, will do the trick.

No, this political crisis shows that big change is required."

So, no revoluton required - just a bit of change then, just a bit of rhetoric now elections are coming up -remmber all the excitement for year when Obama was on the trail? What we want is just more of what New Labour has been doing since 1997 and what Thatcher was doing from 1979?

So what does he suggest:

"This wouldn't be so bad if the powerful simply left the powerless to get on with the rest of their lives.

But in Britain today a growing culture of rule-following, box-ticking and central prescription robs people of the chance to use their judgement or to take responsibility for making the right decisions.

And an increasingly Orwellian surveillance state - symbolised by the simultaneously ineffective and intrusive ID cards scheme - reminds people that the powers-that-be don't really trust them.

So this compounds the rage that we feel."

Is that because they have abrogated responsibility for governance, swollen the underclass and eroded 'elitism' and deference?

What does David Cameron spot:

"We lose our temper more than any other people in Europe.

We have record family breakdown.
Record teenage pregnancy.
Record childhood obesity.
Record drug abuse.
Record violent crime.

The list goes on and on and it is the direct result of the collapse in personal responsibility that inevitably follows the leeching of power and control away from the individual and the community into the hands of the elite."

And what does he offer?

More anarchism still! Even more than New Labour. All the scientific research shows the things he says there is too much of is precisley what we need more of, it's just that we are denuded ofthe people to do it because of a falling birth rate where it's most needed and a swelling birth rate where it's not.

It's like saying "there's a growing culture of MRIs, medication and professional training which robs witch-doctors of the chance to use their judgement or to take responsibility for making the right decisions - we need more witch-doctors!".

Fixed term Parliaments are a good idea. So would "recall elections" be, as they have in the USA (though nobody seems to be suggesting that yet).

Although the first-past-the-post system is unfair in many ways, I'm against PR as you end up with the "tail wagging the dog". Perhaps the House of Lords should be turned into a Senate and elected using some form of PR, with increased powers (though with the Commons still having primacy).

That would be a start, but I'm not sure how much of it will ever happen.

you cannot enforce virtue except in a basic blunt way. people have to choose it. becoming an adult is not something that 'happens' to people its something they must choose. choose to live with the idea of the good as the highest idea of the mind. a person's honour and dignity come from that. those that don't choose the good remain with infantile behaviour patterns and praise cunning and outwitting the 'system'.

so if we say the good is the highest idea of the mind then we can ask what follows?

then we can ask what polices would be in harmony with that.

will these polices enshrine the good and promote it as the best choice for an adult or guardian?

the multiculturalists will hate this idea and say the cunning duplicity infantile behaviour is a valid culture and nothing should be said against it. because they say all cultures are relative and so 'equal'. which is the lie at the centre of uk society. This lack of discrimination or choosing the good is called the pig philosophy that leads to a pig society [because pigs do not discriminate in their food]

The guardian class should promote the good and the choosing and preferring of the good or [as the children's 'swing on a star' song goes] 'would you rather be a pig?' ;)

I am very disappointed with Cameron today. I felt that he may be on the edge of offering real reform rather than just basically imitating a lot of what Gordon Brown has said (and not fulfilled) in the past.

I used not to be a lover of PR, but I am now a convert. I can understand the balancing act that it offers to politics, and I like the fact that politicians are kept constantly on their toes.

My worry is that neither of the main parties, as a matter of policy, are offering the radical reform we so desperately need. And whoever wins (probably the Tories) will be able to let it slide - through William Hague they have already dismissed PR completely.

It strikes me that change cannot come from parliament, it has to come from us - the people. This means the electorate putting mass pressure onto their MPs to say "change, or next election we don't vote."

As much as we can no longer trust our politicians to do their own expenses, I don't think they can be trusted to do this far more important reform.

1. Some form of PR
2. Less MPs (400? 450?)
3. Elected second chamber
4. Fixed term governments
5. Rebuilt and stronger committee structure
6. Petitions to remove MPs

And so on. Maybe a new building where they sit in the round (but NOT designed by some over priced architect!)

I wrote today to Phyllis Starkey, my local MP, saying what I wanted and urging her to work with Alan Johnson. I also wrote to Nick Clegg and said that although he has no hope of winning an election, he and all his MPs should start lobbying the back benchers - all of them - and try for a mass, all party, back bench rebellion. I also wrote to an electoral reform campaign telling them to stop making negative comments and start selling reform positively. And to stop talking to the Observer, but work with the Sun, the Mirror, the Express - the Star even! Basically, all the papers that reach the people normally so divorced from the politics of the Westminster village.

Maybe we should all so the same. ALL write to Alan Johnson through our MP. All write to Nick Clegg to get him to put some action where his mouth is. Put as much pressure on as possible so that the politicians cannot get away with ignoring us any longer.

I don't care which party starts the reform, as long as all of them push it through, and in a BIG hurry!

bookhimdano (#3) "becoming an adult is not something that 'happens' to people its something they must choose."

No, people do just become adults. It's a maturation thing. It's genetic. Some don't ever make it cognitively. We refer to this as their having lower cognitive ability for their age relative to their peers' norms.

Classes are born. The frequencies in classes can be changed and have been changed through pressures on differential fertility. People can't change their class any more than they can change their genes, regardless of what Blair and his spin-doctors asserted and many romantic but clueless educationalists would have one believe. We have been making a mess of Natural Selection since the 'demographic transition' (which was a long time ago). We have been making it worse much faster quite recently :-(.

PR

"More parties exist in nations with full representation, making it less likely for a single party to obtain the majority of votes and seats. Coalitions therefore occur, often between two parties, sometimes based on the cooperation of three or more parties."

This sounds like fixing a constant hung parliament between the Lib Dems and Labour Party, a Euro fanatics dream.

If I was being cynical, I would say that's why Labour are in favour of it now, because they know that's the only way they can stay in power.

If the Lib Dems and Labour Parties want to merge into one party, then they should do it so the voters can make a informed choice at a election, after all ,between them they agree on 99% European policy now.

So No thanks to PR , when the majority of the citizens vote for change , that's what should happen, not back room wheeling and dealing between parties bargaining their manifesto pledges away in search of self power.

If you get a Tory spokesman in tonight talking about this devolvement of power to the people could you put the following proposition to them which I saw on a Tory site. It would be a very good test of Cameron's sincerity and show him to be standing up to EU and New Labour authoritarians.


Actions, not words.

There are plenty of places where the Conservatives are in power both at Local and County level. Let us see the power to allow smoking handed back to the Landlords in those authorities before the Euro Elections. It is a simple matter just not to enforce the law as it currently stands in exactly the same way that the hunting ban is not enforced. Put the power back into the hands of these Landlords and allow them to make the decision, if they get it wrong they will lose business. What could be more Conservative than that?

A simple test for Cameron. Let's see how sincere he is.

MODERN ACADEMICS DISCOVER BIRDS HAVE BRAINS

Other academics say:

NORTH KOREA (SMART PEOPLE) LAUNCHES A COUPLE OF SHORT RANGE MISSILES

Most people say: "So what, why shouldn't they? - Cool!"

MP SPENDS £500 ON PLANTS, FIRELIGHTERS & MATCHES (WHICH IS OK'D)

Yawn..........

jj

an adult is more than an age thing. or legal term. it is about having the power of choice and freely using it. those that don't remain with infantile behaviour patterns.

IS CAMERON ALLOWED TO USE GENDERIST LANGUAGE WITH IMPUNITY?

Shiny-Boy-Dave spoke openly of the 'man and woman in the street'. Not a word about the burgeoning cohort of 'don't knows'. This is narrow 'toilet door' bigotry, for which there is no room in a forward looking Britain - going forward.

I trust the EU masters of everything are going to sweep away this outmoded, simplistic characterisation of gender. How the end to 'all woman' shortlists will be welcomed in the land! And won't the Olympics be fun!

PR

Political parties are a bit like military juntas - the party decides who is on the list and who is on top of the list -The parties control who we the people can elect - how can that be democratic when someone chooses for us who we can vote for?

and to #10. barriesingleton who wrote: "And won't the Olympics be fun" - I agree it won't be - austerity cannot be described as fun! And for decades afterwards when we are still paying for it - cancel it now!!!

Orders and off!

The political parties are positively engaged now in the 'empty gestures' race to out 'radical' each other, being careful not to step over the line of doing something that would actually damage their power base of course.

The tide has gone out on politics as well it seems and Jeremy did very well pointing out to the two party stooges wheeled out tonight that both their parties had no bathing costumes on.

Politicians meekly go about their self appointed task of 'rebuilding confidence in politicians' like a naughty boy who was found with his hand in the coookie jar!

They can not use the rules as a defence because they made the *** rules and fought tooth and nail to keep the details of expenses secret!

Can we have a morotorium on giving main stream politicians publicity please ´óÏó´«Ã½ in light of their failings.

Here is an idea newsnight...How about a 2 week period where none of the mainstream parties are allowed on newsnight as punishment. Only alternative views and panellists are used outside of the incumbent politica elite in all discussion and debate.

Go on...I dare you to do it and I dare the political parties to complain about it in the current climate. They stuffed up..let the little guys have a shout on the stage for a change, make the mainstream guys work for it. What have they done to deserve all the coverage they get?

It may up the ratings y'know and be a worthy news event in its own right.

If Newsnight does not champion these sorts of things who will?

Where would that leave us?

Jericoa

Missed Paxo on newsnight tried to find it on the beebs websites, like fighting through jelly in fog can anyone tell me how to find it please ?

What our MP's fail to understand is that blaming our loss of trust in politicians and politics on this expenses fiasco is entirely mistaken, as that "trust" never existed in the first place.

Clearly we're not in a position to pass advanced judgement on the leading suspects if we embrace a system of lawful due process (no-matter how obvious things may seem), but we ARE in a position to judge the outcomes of that process once the facts are proven. I have little doubt that most will be following proceedings very closely.

For so long have MP's repeatedly failed to answer even the most fundamental basic questions regularly raised by forthright people such as Jeremy Paxman, relying on transparent side-stepping tactics - but largely impossible for the general public to positively establish either way. Political foundations founded on such "lack of evidence" is hardly a solid foundation for betterment, though I suspect that the failings of our political system already has a crippling stranglehold on change.

I believe that it is only possible to trust the words of someone that has NOT been educated and honed for public life by the Westminster framework. Anything positive that our current politicians have to say is brought into question as possibly "Not the whole truth" laced with spin agreed by chief whips at the breakfast table, or simply as hollow vote-winning promises broadly met by scepticism by default.

I do however believe that such promises are more often driven by the very best of intentions and belief. However, the number and extent of "mistakes" now being claimed over staggering accounting "errors" and "oversights" would suggest, by proportion, that honest mistaken decisions are rarely declared without extreme public pressure to do so.

The public have had time enough to wise up to this, and are mostly relishing the humility on languishing MP's that have for so long existed almost beyond public reproach.

MP's, like the rest of us mere mortals, are fallible. We all know that as we ourselves are equally as fallible. It is a common human trait, and none of us can claim that we are immune to mistakes.

I would have considerably more respect for MP's should they admit to their mistakes and simple human failings, and be forthright by refusal to be drawn on questions that they choose not to answer - rather than to mask or side-step with lashings of dodge and spin. My idea of change is for people that have the decency and backbone to give direct and honest answers, and show that they can be trusted to do so.

Furthermore, I would like to see fair lawful process applied to those suspected of defrauding the public purse, with similar outcomes that would be brought to bear on anyone else.

Finally, I loudly applaud those in Westminster that have to-date conducted themselves honestly whilst selflessly serving their constituencies. I believe that change for the better can only ever come about with such people at the helm and not on the back-benches, though sadly difficult to see how this could come about in a suitably short timeframe - while the appetite for change remains uppermost in the minds of the voting public.

"Sounds good - does he say that to all the girls?" Ha ha ha ha!!! Jeremy's opening line was one of the best I've heard in a long time.

@ X-tunbridge, on the top right hand corner of the Newsnight homepage, you should see a box which says "Watch on ´óÏó´«Ã½ iPlayer" with a picture of Jeremy and the gang on. This directs you to another page which gives you the date and title of Newsnight. Just click on that and it will start.

bookhimdano (#9) "an adult is more than an age thing. or legal term."

I'm afraid it is. We have to work with what is. The rest is suitable for Newsnight Review ;-)

PS. Have you read 'Two Dogmas of Empiricism'? perhaps the most importaht paper in logic/philosophy in the last half of the C20th. When we tell one another what we 'believe', are we merely confessing our ignorance?

Mistress76uk (#15) "Sounds good - does he say that to all the girls?" Ha ha ha ha!!! Jeremy's opening line was one of the best I've heard in a long time."

Yes. I do sometimes fear he comes close to holding the fort alone though. The team needs to get a grip and rally round. you know. More people need to wake up to .

Reading ability, like other cognitive abilities, is highly heritable (see Kovas et al. 2007).

DAVE'S POWER TO THE PEOPLE

Well I went to hospital last week for an operation. I was wheeled into the ante room before the theatre. The surgeon and anaesthetist came in.

In order to give me the option of the best possible experience they explained I was to do my own operation.

So you do nothing I asked, no we allow you to take control they explained.

So both of you are out of a job and don't get paid for doing the operation, do I get the money I asked.

No we still get paid, they said, we get paid for giving you the chance to do your own operation, thus giving you the power to potentially achieve the best outcome, under your control.

Oh I said.

Celtic Lion

Im sure Martin Amis had some views worth hearing on Newsnight about the Ruth Padel/Derek Walcot saga, but was unable to expand on them because the conversation was monopolised (without any intervention by Jeremy Paxman to correct it) by the other guest, Sarah Churchwell. Next time just invite Amis on his own.

SupremeChancellor #2

Fixed term Parliaments are a good idea. So would "recall elections" be, as they have in the USA (though nobody seems to be suggesting that yet).

Take a .

Martin Amis used a word which sounded like 'parasidiacal' and which was translated in the subtitles as 'not fair to say'. I can find parasitical, prosaical, and even prodosical - none of which really fit. What was that word (and what does it mean)?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

OUR MP's DID NOT MAKE MISTAKES - THEY FELL TO TEMPTATION (#14)

As JJ notes above: maturity is a matter of not being prey to juvenile urges, but making adult choices. In a sense, we DO need slightly more than 'mortal' individuals (ref #14) in roles of leadership and governance. This is PRECISELY why Britain is so stuffed. The 'Law of Inverse Elevation' (LIE) is at work in Westminster and nothing will be improved until a 'deep clean' of politics is achieved NOT PRESIDED OVER BY POLITICIANS. To start this process at the next General Election: SPOIL PARTY GAMES.

An astonishing lack of coverage of the EU election. Even if the government party won't engage in a debate at the very least the ´óÏó´«Ã½ should be doing asomething like a half hour programme with each of the party leaders (or stand in if preferred). I suppose this would give UKIP some actual coverage & even allow us to see the issues & since it is indisputable that membership costs us about £90 billion a year (say £3,000 out of each salary) I can understand why the ´óÏó´«Ã½ don't want to cover it.

To jollydrowser

The word Amis used is 'pharisaical'. Check it out -- New Testamaent stuff.

Paxman: "Kirsty is already garling in honey..." ;-)

NEVR USE A SHORT WORD WHEN A LONG ONE (WITH TORTURED EXPRESSION) WILL DO. (#22)

Poor chap - even his initials, ever since the christening, are demanding scholarship . Probably going for 'paradisiacal'?

Thank you MordechaiFeingold. I'll look out for an opportunity to use it myself!

Notsky (#19) "..unable to expand on them because the conversation was monopolised (without any intervention by Jeremy Paxman to correct it) by the other guest, Sarah Churchwell.

High ('female') verbal fluency..... it hides a multitude of sins ;-)

An instantiation of the Trotskyism/anarchism unleashed more widely upon innocents who romantically/ignorantly believe in and other seditious fairy tales in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. Is that art?

Nice to see airing his views too... For good measure, perhaps Newsnight should try to get Satan himself on sometime as it welcomes his minions.

Just in case there's any confusion in #1

This: "All the scientific research shows the things he says there is too much of is precisley what we need more of, it's just that we are denuded of the people to do it because of a falling birth rate where it's most needed and a swelling birth rate where it's not.

It's like saying "there's a growing culture of MRIs, medication and professional training which robs witch-doctors of the chance to use their judgement or to take responsibility for making the right decisions - we need more witch-doctors!".

relates to this:

Cameron: "But in Britain today a growing culture of rule-following, box-ticking and central prescription robs people of the chance to use their judgement or to take responsibility for making the right decisions."

MordechaiFeingold (#25) "The word Amis used is 'pharisaical'. Check it out -- New Testamaent stuff."

Oy vey ;-)

Thank you for the reply barriesingleton - somehow I think he was being less generous than you.

Can anyone at Newsnight explain why we had Martin Amis talking about the Oxford poetry affair?

He's not a poet.
He's never been a poet.
He's not an Oxford professor.
He's not really a professor at all, just an honorary title at Manchester.
He hasn't published a novel in years.
His last three or four novels have been universally panned.
He was not involved in the decision he was discussing.

It was ragingly apparent from his 'contribution' last night that he knew no more than anyone else who'd read a couple of newspaper articles.
Why does the London media continue to be obssessed with this narcissistic, preening, self-aggrandizing, talentless idiot?

poetry corner


bricking the kittens,
the ferrets in a sac,
a bloodied dog fight,
the poets on newsnight.

sweetsmellofsuccess - It wasn't discussion about poetry, or even literature, it was about morality and judgement. Surely Martin Amis is as qualified as anyone else? I thought he summed it up rather well.

erratum (#26) Paxman: "Kirsty is already gargling in honey..." ;-)

jollydrowser:

It was a discussion predicated on why the two candidates had behaved in the way they did. Since the two interlocuters were from the literary establishment, it presupposes that it was not simply a general discussion on philosophy (otherwise, why not have philosophers?) but about that particular issue.

Why is Martin Amis as qualified to talk about morality? His opinion is no more weighty or informed than a million others. So why have him on the programme, rather than anyone else? It's because the London media and literati think he's God's gift, despite the considerable evidence to the contrary. He did not move the debate forward one jot, thereby proving my point.

TOPSY-TURVY ANARCHISTS

sweetsmellofsuccess (#33) "Why does the London media continue to be obssessed with this narcissistic, preening, self-aggrandizing, talentless idiot?"

Is it because it's the culture?

It appears to be de rigueur.

Normal people don't appear to be required as I presume they're deemed not good for the economy - which is probably close to being a terrorist in their distorted view?

jollydrowser (#28) "Thank you MordechaiFeingold. I'll look out for an opportunity to use it myself!"

Steady on - people get 'extraordinarily renditioned' to Israel for that sort of behaviour.

sweetsmellofsuccess - There wasn't anywhere for the discussion to go. Literary squabbles are only interesting in that the brightest, and most thoughtful are as capable of crass misjudgements and petty jealousies as the rest of us. That's all.

shiney boy Davey......could also mean slippery

#1 Jaded_Jean

Contrast Jaded_Jean with constant, and I mean constant, rants about anarchists and Trotskyites and the need for revolution. Race "realism", eugenics, Holocaust Agnosticism and planned economies (probably with no clear idea on how to fix a price).

Then think about the BNP European election broadcast where Griffins big message was not to turn off and that they weren't using technology to spy on rubbish bins and had arranged a children's day trip.

There is a bit of a difference there.

Then consider,as an example, that the BNP still claim that their website gets more hits than the Labour, Lib Dems and Tories combined.

So is that going to convert into votes in the same proportions? If not why not?

Are BNP activists going to take their statistics off to Germany to defend Djemjanjuk as if there was no Holocaust, or the Russians did all the killing, then there could have been no crime?

When push comes to shove about why they hate Jews the best you will get is Stalin ejected some who were anarchists and Trotskyites in the thirties. But Cameron is an "anarchist and a Troskyite" - as is Blair. I am an "anarchist and Trotskyite" as I "paint Hitler as darkly as possible for party political reasons".

Who isn't an "anarchist and Trotskyite" in the Ladybird Book of Far Right Ideology?

Is it not a meaningless term when the user of the phrase is frothing at the mouth with hyperbole and propaganda?

Are the BNP going to create a revolution in the UK political system? Only if they can fix the results.

We have North Korea ramping up towards war and a piece on the misdeeds of poetry professors.

In fairness I assume that North Korea are posturing and are still "rational actors" i.e. they are not going to launch this week.

But even so in some chaotic, statist system, things could go wrong and if they do respond to ships being stopped then we could hit a knife edge pretty quickly. I also assume that they would not be so touchy about it unless they were thinking about transporting material or weapons.

That can't happen.

I would wonder whether natural internal pressures and rational actors (people who did not want to die in a nuclear exchange they could not win for no reason) may hasten the transfer of power from the "great leader".

On the other hand if there is no successor and the great leader passes does North Korea then become an "irrational" actor, a headless chicken with nuclear weapons.

Less poetry more foreign affairs.

Where is McBride and why is there not a clamour to find him, as in my world if he confirms Brown had knowledge of the campaign we are on for an election soon?

If there is a general election the first important change could be that we would see both major parties in major decline in Scotland just before the Scottish referendum. I haven't heard much from Cameron as to what his solution would be of late - whatever the Queen asks him to say? How will the Welsh react?

Meanwhile the Lib Dems would be the strongest Unionist party.

They want proportional representation as that would keep us in line with most of the world where PR systems have higher voter turnout (as the votes count) and first past the post have the lowest figures.

What interesting times we live in.

So soon we will all be ranting far right propagandist puppets, who chew carpet in our fervour for the BNP and Nick Griffin - and because we can't control our race "realist" tendencies.

There is an impending sea change according to the far right posters who smear their messages on this page. Democracy will be a thing of the past. Hitler will be revered.

Nothing can stop them except .... the voters.

They think of everything and "doh!" they forget the strength of democracy is that it harnesses the power of freedom and liberty to oppose tyranny.

We are saved! It was so close.

Many posts by the far right does not mean many readers are going to vote BNP now or ever.

thegangofone (#42) "Who isn't an "anarchist and Trotskyite"?

The PRC, North Koreans, Iranians (Maoism with an Islamic face), our Civil Service as it used to be, Old Labour, the USSR as it was before 1953, in fact, probably most of the world aside from the USA and its 'running dogs' ;-)

The UK and USA is brimming with muddled anarchists/Trotskyites, but mainly as 'useful idiots' these days. Decades of 'social science and education' courses have ensured that. See earlier links.

You, evidently, are still very confused. Take note: 'Statists are left-wing' whilst 'Free-marketeers are anarchistic right-wing'. It's all to do with centralised power and regulation, power to the people is anarchistic/Trotskyite. The 'clue' is Germany in the 1930s being governed by National-Socialists and Stalinist USSR being described as 'Socialism in One Country', not as International Socialism.

Liberal-Democracy is Internationl 'Socialism' (Trotskyism/anarchism) with a make-over. It privatises profit and it socialises debt/risk.

Did you enjoy the Credit Crunch?

Go1 #42

"Contrast Jaded_Jean with constant, and I mean constant, rants about anarchists and Trotskyites and the need for revolution. Race "realism", eugenics, Holocaust Agnosticism and planned economies (probably with no clear idea on how to fix a price)."

That's not English and makes little or no sense. I'm sure I'll regret saying this but would you like to try again? Then, perhaps, I could figure out which thorn you are sitting on.

Go1 #45

Have you skipped your medication again? ;-)

thegangofone (#44) "Where is McBride and why is there not a clamour to find him, as in my world if he confirms Brown had knowledge of the campaign we are on for an election soon?"

Is it because that might amount to ?

What do you suggest? That he be nabbed by the secret police and 'put to the question' like your suspected 'holocaust-deniers'? ;-)

Changes in government? Easy. Return to the old system which has been marketed to us for so long: give us constituency MPs again. Don't foist high-fliers, but bring in a rule, as exists in many other countries, whereby all MPs must be resident for a minimum period, say three years, in the constituency before they can put their names forward. No more helicoptered parliamentarians, rescued from one constituency to be dumped on another.

But of course the whipping system would then still control them. So whipping must be specifically banned. If MPs vote for their party, either because they are bribed to do so, or threatened to do so, they should be excoriated in the media. They willingly go against the will of the electorate purely for personal profit, or to prevent shameful facts being broadcast. Whipping should be illegal. Forcing or bribing an MP to vote against his or her judgement makes a mockery of our constituency-based politics.

That is the real problem. Most MPs would be reasonably good, if the party system didn't corrupt them all.

So give us the MPs the parties have assured us we've had for so many years already. Or don't they believe in the propaganda they expect us to swallow?

Incidentally, although I am not a supporter of the appalling Kirkbride, today there are strong rumours that the woman interviewed for producing the petition against her is herself a local candidate for the RESPECT party. Is this so, and if so, why on earth wasn't her own bias broadcast? Or does the ´óÏó´«Ã½ think we're all too vacuous to be able to understand conflicting messages?

One last point: no one has yet gone into how much money the MPs who're being forced to resign before being thrown out are going to get in pension benefits. I have heard it said that the Governer of the Bank of England is to have a pension of some millions, but that if it was an ordinary member of the public, it would have cost him £35,000,000 or more to have funded the pot for himself. Likewise, MPs are going to be granted massive pension funds which we'll all be paying for many years to come. Why the hell should I have to subsidise a bunch of corrupt, mendacious thieves to help them with their lives of ease when I can't afford any kind of pension for myself?

This whole fiasco is going to run and run. The longer it does so, the more enraged I, and many others, will grow. All politicians look on the public as a means of financing their own ventures. If only there was a party that honestly sought merely to help ordinary folks.

Where is McBide?

Lost or hidden in our freedom loving open demcracy?

'The leader of the British National Party has said he will not attend a Buckingham Palace garden party following uproar over his invitation.

Nick Griffin said he had "no wish to embarrass the Queen" at the event. '

Curious the BNP website gets more hits than all of the other parties put together - allegedly - and yet the uproar at his being seen in decent society (though I am no monarchist) is loud enough for the cloth eared far right to hear.

Perhaps the fact that Boris had already said that he could not go was a factor.

If only the far right posters that pollute this page would avoid embarrassing the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and decent law abiding readers.

There is always a dark place somewhere for you to inhabit.

#46 Jaded_Jean

I couldn't care less about your ideology just as I have no interest in how Mayans might have seen my views.

I do care about it though in the sense that it is a potential cancer and best dealt with early rather than late.

1. According to BNP views most of the UK are anarchists and Trotskyites.
2. The BNP wants their votes
3. Hitler would have shot anarchists and Trotskyites and had breakfast
4. Hitler wanted to implement HIS own policies rather than an ideologically consistent agenda (e.g. attitudes to big business) and his supporters were cannon fodder (e.g. Rohm and the SA)
5. The BNP revere Hitler
6. If the undecided voters weigh up that sometime down the road they could be eliminated if they oppose the BNP and could otherwise be cannon fodder thats an issue.
7. People of race won't vote BNP
8. Women may decide that they don't want to be homemakers to breed racially pure storm troopers.
9. Families with relatives who fought the Nazis may be offended that symbols like the Spitfire are used in BNP literature
10. The churches have been activated into opposition by the use of phrases like "Jesus would vote BNP".
11. The young voters might like to try and avoid catastrophe through climate change. The controversy seeking BNP supporters allege there is no climate change.
12. The BNP claim that their website gets more hits than all of the other websites put together.

So the colour of the sky in the world of the BNP is ......

thegangofone (various) In the end, the names don't matter much, just the behaviours. I'm dscribing what has been happening for decades. It is a sound, descriptive and importantly, predictive domestic and international analysis.

Ask yourself:

1) Do you see England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales being made a stronger unity or weaker?

2) Do you see England itself being made stronger or fragmented into Regional Development Agencies?

3) Do you see politicians building a stronger Public Sector or weaker?

4) Do you see more morality in society or less?

5) Do you see more crime or less?

6) Do see more cohesive family life or less?

7) Do you see a stronger economy and increasing employment/productivity or less?

8) Do you see a rising birth rate or a falling one?

9) Do you see more births amongst the less well off relative to the well off or the reverse?

10) Do you see more 'freedom of choice' or less?

11) Do you see more spin or less?

We are witnessing, by accident or design, the destruction of the UK through liberal-democracy in favour of markets, and consumers as dumb cash-cows.

We can blame our politicians until we are blue-in-the-face but the truth is that we get the politics and politicians we deserve. A lot of our problems are really the result of apathy on the part of the electorate.

David Cameron's proposals are far too timid and mild to really address the damage caused to politics by the culture of corruption. I agree with him about the dangers of PR and having fewer MPs (the weasle words of Jack Straw and other Labour MPs cut no ice when we compare our number of political representatives with other countries) but he said nothing about reforming the House of Lords or a genuine separation of powers.

After the House of Commons police raids, David Starkey was absolutely right to point out that entire parliamentary system is broken beyond repair and we need to have an immediate constitutional convention followed by a root and branch reform of our "democracy".

The expenses scandal and the suspension of the peers from the House of Lords bears this out so what needs to happen? Here are my suggestions:


1. Replace the House of Lords so we have a fully elected chamber. The second house should consist entirely of elected representatives whose sole function would be to properly scrutinise legalisation passed by the House of Commons.

2. Implement a full separation of powers so that the cabinet cannot consist of members from both houses. This would break the power of the whips and force the House of Commons to properly debate issues and hold the executive to account.

3. Pass a bill of rights so that we actually have a written constitution that fully defines the relationship between citizen and state. This would guarantee and protect basic individual freedoms (like the right to free speech) from the excesses of the state.

4. Reduce the ridiculous number of MPs that we currently have and introduce primaries that allow constituents to choose who they want to represent them for elections. There would then be no need for any party leaders to indulge in positive discrimination as the candidates will be entirely the responsibility of the local constituents.

5. Scrap politician's expenses with full forensic transparency of MP salaries and Party or candidate funding to be completely monitored by an entirely independent body that regularly publishes this data. This would be critical if we are to have primaries to select candidates as they will have to fully declare who funds their campaign and whose interests they represent.

6. Strengthen the Freedom of Information act even further so that no one who receives tax payer's money (including monarchy) are exempt. People have the right to know how every penny of their money is spent and the FOI act needs to rigorously enforced if power is going to be redistributed to the people.


This may not end political corruption but, if followed, then these suggestions would go a very long way to making our democracy more efficient, less expensive and far more accountable to the electorate.

At a grassroots level, all voters should demand that their political parties deselect MPs who have abused expenses and threaten to abstain or vote for another political party unless they pledge to introduce the changes that their local voters want to see in place.

thegangofone (#54) Can you see why people are jusified in describing your posts as irrational?

ChaosMagick (#55) It all seems to have happened very conveniently in conjunction with the Lisbon Treaty. Each Regional Development Agency is about the size of a NUT, as are each of the devolved countries in the UK. At the same time, we have seen Public Service like police, probation, health etc fragmented/regionalised, and there's common talk across the parties about the merit of devolving power. Hence the 'anarchism'?

#55 ChaosMagick
I would sign up to most of the points you make about the need for reform. The only one I'm not sure about is your proposal of the introduction of primaries as I have not had enough possibility to examine the subject.

I was very impressed with David Camerons speech on Tuesday. Having heard the reform proposals from all party leaders and various cabinet ministers so far, it seemed to me that the Conservatives are the only party who has thought their policies through. I am afraid this has been significantly discounted, after a group of Tories MPs have shown themselves to be even more corrupt than their Labour peers over the expenses row. It is not clear whether David Cameron will get a majority government, if a general election is called over the next two months, and a hung parliament would no doubt impede his progress of pushing through radical reforms in the next parliament.