³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

No Heathcliffe for me thanks!

The Litvinenko affair is important in terms of diplomacy with Russia. It is also important in terms of justice and seeing that a crime is resolved. It is also important in terms of it perhaps revealing that our security services are not in good health.

I am hoping that Mark Urban is in the process of responding to "timelythoughts" on his blog?

Given the utter seriousness of the matter and the clear implications if this problem is mishandled I cannot believe that you are not going to get the view from the US side of the water. If the Russians are targeting people abroad its very odd that the US seem unconcerned. Given the confrontation over the Star Wars II deployment its not because they are now best buddies with Russia.

If we, as a country, are taking two and two and making five in this matter then we need to handle that and acknowledge the error if one has been made. Then we need to make sure that it doesn't happen again.

Despite not being a Tory, I truly wish Davis well, but can we please also get on with some real coverage of the Glasgow East by-election soon?

Whatever the outcome of Haltemprice and Howden our authoritarian government can only the delayed in the HoL until the next general election.

Glasgow East may determine when that is and who fights it for NuLabour. It may even give Cameron a few headaches about how he's going to save the union when/if he gets to No.10

#3 Brownedov

Maybe the union is history. I am broadly for it, and content if it continues. But I can see advantages if its gone.

But the Scots are looking at 2010 and "Crisis?What Crisis?" Brown is in ostrich mode. Cameron is on a par with Nessie in Scotland so I don't see him having much luck.

The Welsh I believe are penciling in 2011 - so if the Scots win and the world does not end then they may be gone too.

I just argue you should get the debate and planning out of the way well before the votes so that whatever decision is made is well informed.

Fancy getting Tessa Jowell on for a repeat performance of top leadership in action*?

Just to get 'a sense of proportion':)

'MPs discuss ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ bosses' bonuses'



I now have to add 'self-denying ordinance' as the new, cute obfuscating 'mots du jour' from Ministers who, it seems, do not not need to have anyone justifying anything to them, begging the question as to what they do, or not, and on whose behalf... to justify their equally handsome wadges of wonga.



*Don't think she actually ever had a view, much less answered the question. Though it seems I get a say via the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ Trust... really?

Re #3 thegangofone

Some good points there, especially on when Plaid might follow the SNP lead.

My guess is that the 2010 date was probably set by the SNP in 2007 expecting a severely weakened NuLabour still to be clinging on by their fingernails.

The prospect now is that it'll most likely be the Tories in power at Westminster by then and if Cameron's smart and really wants to save the union he'll be starting some true cross-party talks on the UK constitutional arrangements before then rather than having Clarke fiddling at the edges with the "English votes" issue which may be enough to win the election but lose the union.

I think he'd have to offer some kind of fair voting pledge for the LibDems to play ball but some of the serial Labour rebels might go for it anyway.

He could also point out to the DUP that unless they go for something new they may be all of the UK that's left, with early prospects for a re-united Ireland. Might even make them think twice on 42 days when the HoL starts playing ping pong again.

as 'housing' rather than manufacturing is now 'the engine' of the UK economy 40% lay offs are more significant than an increase in the number of public servants?

which is why those countries who do not depend so much on housing are not so affected by credit crunch.

micro generation on the two way grid empolys 1/4 million people in germany. in the uk 7000.

one must assume the growth areas in the uk are in security and surveillance corresponding with a doubling of known organised crime gangs and booming prisons?

#5 Brownedov

I so agree on the fair votes side. If the Tories and the Lib Dems did a deal they would annihilate Labour in England. Labour are going to get boshed in Scotland and Wales. They aren't in NI, that is an area of concern of course as I fear if the UK breaks up it may be destabilised.

But yes I agree with all you say and the 42 days.

The US manages on 8 - why can't we?

as the building industry forcasts meltdown, the price of petrol rockets weekly, the airwaves blue today with people screaming about car tax going through the roof for cars that our leader said would only affect one fifth of road users, it is all going pear-shaped....and what is it that Brown worries about? Well, he says he cuts a sort of Heathcliffe figure. Someone should have a quick word, the mad Yorkshireman was a bit of a whacko who was not averse to giving a woman a go-along, treated his servants like garbage and was prone to run amok on the moors when the sun went down. Come to think of it he reminds me of Brown as each disaster unfolds.

Re #7 thegangofone

Glad we're on the same wavelength. Makes a change from the NuLabour diehards (if they're not really one person with multiple IDs) and the Daily Mail brigade.

Cameron is quite bright but I really don't think there's any evidence he's thought this stuff through. Whether he cares personally about the union or not, I can't see him wanting to go down in history as the Unionist who broke the union. Wouldn't play well at the following Tory Conference!

Re fair voting, I really don't understand why the Tories couldn't at least agree to majority voting in single member constituencies, either in 2 rounds like the French or with a 1-2-3 ballot as in STV.

Barely a third of MPs got 50% of the votes cast and I don't think a single one got 50% of their electorate, which is how NuLabour got in last time.

I wouldn't say that's perfect, but it would satifsy all the diehards who seem to think a "local" MP is essential (even if you disagree with every word he speaks) and should be a step far enough forward for the LibDems to consider a coalition.

For most people with whom I converse openly the 'elephant in the room' is still immigration - more sacred cow to others.

The official reason for mass immigration was 'all the new jobs created by nulabour' (ignoring that most of them were caused as a direct effect of the resulting increase in our population).

With substantial layoffs (in the construction sector alone) we should now be seeing a proportionate return home of immigrants, and an official acknowledgement that we no longer need to build millions of new houses.

Could we have some analysis of this by ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳'s backroom experts? I suggest Sir Andrew Green be invited to discuss.

#9 Brownedov
If you want fair votes you have to keep it simple.

Most of the very well intentioned electoral commission types that start on proportional representation could kill pot plants with their speeches. I am an enthusiast and I would duck one of those talks so what is the average punter going to be like.

I think there is a lot to be said for a local MP. I can't even remember the system name but I like a certain number who come in to reflect the total vote - which is where the Lib Dems lose out right now. Is it the Additonal Member system?

In fairness to Cameron I think the real reason the Union is done is two fold "strong" leaders who are detached from the people. Thatcher and then Blair. Secondly the EU. I am pro-EU although I think the Lib Dems are too "happy-clappy" on Europe. But the Union is that - a union. As we are all in the EU there is a weakening of the bonds. In fairness I think if you said to a lot of hesitant Scots that the economy would be all right in an independent Scotland many would vote for separation.

By the time Cameron gets there there is going to be very little he can do. The only thing that will change things as I see it is if the analysis is done beforehand and Scots - and Welsh - are persuaded.

I know you aren't suggesting trickery but if there is genuine commitment to the Union then it all works. We don't want a long period of strife. Of course many of those getting their butts shot off at the moment are Scots and Welsh so I am not rejecting anybody myself. Its their decision.

Re #10 hillsideboy

Good point, although it's no longer exactly the 'elephant in the room' things have certainly gone quiet and a little stirring of the pot would be no bad thing.

Re #11 thegangofone

Again some good points.

Re keeping it simple, I don't recall too many complaints over the London mayoral election, which was essentially the French system with the two rounds combined on one ballot paper. Maybe 1-2-3 instead of a single X is asking too much of the average voter but it says a lot about our educational system! The Additonal Member would also keep it simple but would be a step too far for the Tories as it would guarantee they never had an overall majority again.

I don't want to get into an EU rant as I tend to feel it has almost as much of a democratic defecit as we do in the UK but just maybe that could be changed from the inside whereas Labour (Old and Nu) and the Tories only ever consider changing the constitution when they're sure they're about to lose and in no state to change anything.

If Cameron does nothing soon, then you're probably right the union will be lost. I'm just saying that if he wants to save it, now's the time to start discussing it seriously.

#13 Brownedov

Fair point about the London election and what the Tories would take.

I suppose part of me is hoping that people will start taking 2010 seriously - not just Cameron.

But the underlying issue is we need to ask ourselves where are we going because the ground is changing and the parties - thats all of them to be frank - are WILDLY out of touch. But the Lib Dems are my favoured party nonetheless.

---------------------
So hey Newsnight are you going to give timelythoughts (Mark Urban blog) or the US intelligence community some airspace on Litvinenko?

Something serious or something bubblegum like Heathcliffe? Hmmmm.

Re #14 thegangofone

On 2010 I agree that it's difficult to raise any interest in UK issues in English voters, even when they feel hard done by.

I also agree that currently the LibDems are the leastworst option, although it still rankles that they didn't vote with the Tories over Lisbon. Europe, yes, but keeping promises and democracy should have come first. I don't think Ashdown, Kennedy or Cable would have made that mistake.

Re Heathcliffe, I'll grant it's all too easy to poke fun at him nowadays but it's quite an enjoyable process.............

WHAT'S UP? (Song by Linda Perry).

hillsideboy (#10) As you probably appreciate, this has been said many times in NN blogs over the past year - Green has said it too. Like snow these days, it just doesn't stick

The root 'problem' is the below replacement level TFRs of the indigenous (white) population brought about by universal suffrange and our liberal, hedonistic 'equalitarian' values. This is now a major problem throughout the EU and developed world in general (although to different extents). It has major implications for skills (see ETS and Leitch). Population growth in the UK is essentially non-white British as a consequence (99% of London's population growth in the next 30 years is in ethnic 'minority' groups - hence all the housing is for them and their progeny). As these immigrants tend to come from poor parts of S. Asia or Africa which have low levels of educability, they will no doubt serve as reliable New labour voters (who will prmise pananceas they will want to believe in) and serve as an expanding army of retail and service consumers for those who profit from this. I suggest it's that cynical.

One should trust the demographics and functional relations beween variables, not the spin from politicians.

Frattini plans to bring 20 million more into the EU from Africa and S. Asia. We ignore natural inequalities at our long term peril. I'm sure many will be very good/nice people, but if one look over to their own countries, one can see what's likely to come.

'One can take the ..... from... but one can't take the ....' It's already starting to happen in London and other cities, and people are flapping around with daft social 'solutions' which the more experienced know will never work.

Betancourt's first British TV interview to Stephen Sackur and The Baghdad Blogger. Good choice.
with an interesting juxtaposition.

They are the audience grabbers.
The rest is forgetable. Nothing of interest will be said in the two the items.

Hopefully you will not run with the posters suggestions above. Some dire stories there.

'thegangofone' must be living in cloud cuckoo land if he thinks we can stop the FSB from 'talking out' anyone they wish to.

To quote a line from Stephen Gaghan's screenplay for the the feature film 'Traffic',
"If they can get to the President and the Pope then they can get to anyone".

IDENTITY BROWN

We should not see Brown's attempt to be associated with a strong identity as non-news; link it with his book on 'courage' and feel a chill down the spine. Blair showed how a desperate damaged psyche can claw its way to the top, but still never find a legacy big enough to fill that terrible hunger.
Now we have another (and another will follow, while party politics prevails) frantic to be big, because he feels so small. Multiply this problem by leaders and political wannabes all round the world, and you know just how deep the ordure is. Don't smile - Blair started the war that has no end. What might Brown do to go one better?

Re #10. Hillsideboy.
How right you are to raise the issue of immigration. It should of course, be at the top of the news agenda everyday-the little manner of millions of aliens being brought into the country without the consent of the electorate, might be felt to worth a mention in a free-press.
Now that the growth of the BNP has forced the occasional mention of the issue, the Establishment churns out the same old names and faces, continues to exclude the people they must, and will be forced to admit to the debate.
I'd agree that Andrew Green's contribution is always worthwhile, now that what's left of the Home Office has closed down ( I believe) the unit that they set up to 'counter' Migration Watch. But of course, his group bases its analysis on the Govt's own figures, and few now believe those; and they'll never do anything serious to combat the immigrant/community crimewave
( eg. the street-gang stabbings we're currently witnessing and picking up the bills for) any more than the corrupt old parties will.
It's very fair-minded of you to suggest that some analysis by ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ experts of the economics of immigration, might be timely; but I'm afraid the reality is that Newsnight and the rest of the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ are experts only at slowing or blocking the flow of information, and preventing, rather than promoting debate IMO.

Re #13. Brownedov.
There certainly was a complaint about the conduct of the London Mayoral and GLA Elections. The BNP complained that ballot boxes had been interfered with overnight, this being possible due to the Blair/Brown Govt's altering the long-standing arrangements whereby counts took place as soon as the polls closed.
I don't claim to be an expert on these matters; like everyone else, I've a living to earn and a life to live, but I believe that the BNP were told that there was nothing they could do. Concerns were also raised about the massive numbers of what were judged to be spoilt-ballots.
There is widespread electoral fraud in this country, and in every case that I've been able to get details of (when you delve beyond the "3 senior Tories found guilty") those reponsible have been Asians. Strangely, Newsnight and the rest of the media, are as reluctant to report and analyse this issue, as the authorities are to prosecute.

NO-GO AREA

grumpy-jon (#19)

To be fair, it has been debated/actively promoted by ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ Newsnight (although some silly things continue to be debated as on the TODAY programme thismorning - people just don't read the figures properly - i.e the rise in fertility here is down to births in ethnic minority, essentially Muslim groups, and note how we try to induce them to be more like the indigenous population!). The rea problem is that we will not face up to what really drives this flood of immigration (i.e. primarily the below replacement level indigenous birth-rate typical of developed world economies - i.e 'liberal-democracy' and all its freedoms - especially since the 1960s - and it wasn't just The Pill). To discuss the driver of this properly would, I fear, upset too many of our liberal-democratic/Socialist-International apple-carts/gravy-trains. Just about nobody wants to go there.

/blogs/newsnight/2007/05/friday_25_may_2007.html
/blogs/newsnight/2007/11/the_big_immigration_debate.html
/blogs/newsnight/2007/11/thursday_8_november_2007_the_big_immigration_debat.html

Re #20 grumpy-jon

"There certainly was a complaint about the conduct of the London Mayoral and GLA Elections."

OK. I accept that, but my point was made solely concerning the complexity on the ballot paper when discussing whether our fellows are capable of voting 1-2-3 or whether a single X is the most they can cope with.

"There is widespread electoral fraud....."

I suppose that depends on your definition of "widespread", but yes it certainly exists and all major parties seem to have "pockets" of it.

There were certainly many "spoiled" papers in the 2007 Scottish elections but these seem to have resulted from the use of multiple systems on a single ballot paper, which is clearly asking for trouble.

WISDOM? OR NORMAN WISDOM?

The mixing, willy-nilly, of long isolated 'races' and cultures, highlights to perfection of how little wisdom (Wisdom deserves a capital) has prevailed during our decline from sustainable hunter-gather to terminal 'post-everything' junker-smotherer.
Individual humans rarely, even, come close to maturity in a short lifetime, hence they are easily over-ridden by those with an obsessive need to 'be someone'. Gordon is just the latest in a very long line.
So: we are an island peppered with enclaves of difference, politically (albeit bizarrely) 'at the heart of' a nearby continent, run by the last bloke Wisdom would choose, collectively propped by 'substances' and about to suffer a loss of purchasable-distractions.
I would not start from here, but if we must, let's recognise the need for Wisdom in governance. Then we can call a spade a spade and start digging our way up towards the light.

"There is no absolute right to have as many children as we want, a study from the Optimum Population Trust argues. Professor John Guillebaud, a patron of the trust, and Dominic Lawson, columnist for the Independent, discuss whether humans have a right to procreate."

From the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ Radio 4 Today programme thismorning. It starts off talking about a fertility rise here and then they start arguing about world population growth. This is just like the way Jeffrey Sachs (see oligarchs) talked about population growth in his Reith Lectures (when he took a break from wrecking OTHER nations' command economies as a 'leading' economist...).

/radio4/reith2007/lecturer.shtml



There just isn't enough discrimination when these 'experts' talk about all of this, so when the term WE is used, too many people think that the referent group is theirs. But what precisely does WE refer to here? So long as everyone naively chants that there are no individual or group differences (and there ARE), it's easy for politicians and NGOs to persuade the electorate (and now this is goiung EU wide thanks to the SI) to vote in ways which are actually contrary to the long term best interests of the majority of a country. Think of housing, who is it for in London given the projecte dgrowth? Those who abhor the BNP (and there is much to abhor) need to think about this when denigrating those left of the indigenous East London population who see things very differently to 'liberals' elsewhere (see first link in last post above for the context if anyone needs a reminder).

No 6 WHOSE RIGHT IS IT ANYWAY?

There is only one absolute right. It belongs to the UNCONCEIVED and is the right to JUST SAY NO to conception. OK that's a paradox, but it's a bloody good one.
We all know it is hell out here, but those of us blessed with enough positive brain chemistry not to need chemical props or any of the 'cides' for relief, can just about get through to a permissible exit without too much angst. Once the right to remain unconceived has been violated, those responsible are in infinite debt to the new person and, in a perfect world, would behave accordingly. Oh dear. All the down-stream guff of sociologists, religions, do-gooders etc is just angels on a pin. Once again a fundamental truth languishes outside the discussion.

Barrie (#25) "All the down-stream guff of sociologists, religions, do-gooders etc is just angels on a pin. Once again a fundamental truth languishes outside the discussion."

Many have tried to reiterate the unspeakable truth over recent decades - (Hernnstein thought there was a 'liberal conspiracy' to silence the truth). What's politically incorrect today was mainstream thinking up until the late 1940s when allied de-nazification propaganda programmes were systematically implemented throughout Europe - except ... many seem to forget that the USSR (since nobbled by free-marketeer neocons like Sachs) was one the allies at the time and that many of the de-nazification enthusiasts were Trotskyite/Gramsciite 'communists' or sympathizers.

Is the reason we don't hear much about the radical/anarchistic 'left' anymore because they've been in power since at least 1979? Is this why the blight of contemporary political correctness (aka human rights aka cultural marxism) is now so hard to resist? Going under the name of Human Rights it's effectively law, and if they get their way over the Lisbon Treaty (and Sarkozy looks adamant that Ireland's NO isn't going to get in the way) it will surely get worse once the 53 article FCHR is un-redlined.

What many don't see is how Human Rights and the Free-Market serve much the same radical/anarchistic agenda.

Re #21. JadedJean.
Usually agree with you JJ and certainly bow to your mega knowledge of the subject. But this time, I have to differ.
I've yet to hear any worthwhile debate of immigration on NN or anywhere else on the national media. There have been any number of pretend debates, all characterised by an absence of anyone who's full-on opposed, and angry about what has happened to our country, without our consent. I've wasted my time watching the "Great Immigration Debate," and "The White Season" which of course, were anything but. We'll get out of this situation, exactly what we fight for. Apologising for being there won't get it done.
The fact that the BNP has developed its support to the point where its website is more visited than the 3 old parties put together, and is still excluded by the political establishment, is an absolute disgrace, and I'm not accepting it for a second.
These media fat-cats think they can leave millions of British people unrepresented, except for some poorly- educated guy hanging on the phone, at his own expense,hoping to get 30 seconds to express his anger, while the Jack Straw, Trevor Phillips, Claude Morais and Sentamu figures, are collected by their ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ drivers, welcomed to the programme by the producer, given carte blanche to deal with the subject for 10 minutes, before drinks, a buffet, a nice cheque, and being taken back to their home or hotel, all at the expense of the guy on the phone.
The dice are massively loaded, not just against my side of the debate, but against the debate taking place. This situation is indefensible and undemocratic. It has to be, and will be, challenged and corrected.
Thanx as usual for the refs, which I look forward to checking out at the weekend.

Re #22. Brownedov.
Thanx for that.

grumpy-jon (#27)

Thinking back to the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ Big Immigration Debate simulcast, it was disappointing - it was ineffectual and biased, just giving the appearance of debate.