³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

Peter Benjamin Mandelson...back in Cabinet...with his reputation - TWO Government resignations - good Lord, what is the World coming to?

Might as well go on blustering about Russia being the aggressor in S. Ossetia. Oh sorry, you realised you were wrong on that didn't you? Hence the silence...

Go on Newsnight do your worst, you have my full attention... :O)

Will you be asking Mandelson about his personal experience of the sub prime market and of so called 'liar' mortgages - so topical in the news these days?

Set a spiv to catch a spiv seems to be the big idea ........?

Can you just do the country a favour and get a Constitutional expert on to tell us how we might force a General Election? Please...

What have the British people done to derserve to get the most hated man in the country brought back into Government.

Whatever it was it must have been bad

Either that or Brown is really taking the *

Have you say comments give a good indication of the feeling against Browns latest madness. Bring on the men in white coats and save Britain

BREEDING INCOMPREHENSION

GrumpyBob (#5) See the Leitch Report, see high levels of low-skilled African/S. Asian immigration, see 'education, education, education'.........see the indigenous TFR, see our differential fertility rates, see the post 70s de rigueur narcissistic self-centredness/egocentricism of the 'educated' Generation X which wants everything now, i.e. right now (hence credit/debt)......and see the UK's exclusion from PISA detailed analyses because of very bad sampling.......sigh... Yes, very, very bad..but is anyone really listening?

In the USA, see the ETS report 'America's Perfect Storm' (Feb 2007).

THERE OUGHT TO BE AN ANSWER

As an inventor, with a wide range of kit to my credit (some patented and a lot more just used in my chemical processing business to get an edge over the big boys)
my motto was: 'There is always a better way'. And, indeed, I believe there IS a better way - the fact that JJ has taken to sighing, notwithstanding. But the problem with mankind is the Inverse Crap Law. This is stated as: "the least able, yield a sub-set of the most driven, who become leaders by striving 25 hours a day".
When a driven twit happens to have charisma (an indefinable advantage - probably derived from the ape substrate) as in the case of Blair; should they discover its facility, they proceed to screw vast numbers of charisma-fodder. Only by raising awareness of their own gullibility, in the masses, can we ever get out of this bind. And as JJ constantly indicates, education X 3 is no way to raise fundamental awareness and social skills. You just get Mammonburgers.

I am quite impressed. Not worried about his past, he has been in Europe for a bit and has been networking, surely we need a broad concensus.
Also good to see Margaret Beckett back.
Maybe some of the old kids need to back on the block.

THERE OUGHT TO BE AN ANSWER (#7)

So long as you prompt people to question... as you most effectively do....?

TEARS IN MY EYES JJ

My brother - five years my senior - does Sudoku and crosswords. I tilt at socio-political windmills. I just hope I am first against the 'Mandelson Wall'.

> 5. At 9:42pm on 03 Oct 2008, GrumpyBob wrote:

I think the last thing we need now is another politician who's primary motivation is a good public image. In times of difficulty you need those that are prepared to do what is necessary.

I view Mandleson in that category. I do not personally like him, but I respect what he has achieved in saving the Labour Party, and his work elsewhere in Government and in Europe. He may not be popular amongst the Left of the Labour Party and elsewhere but he is the right kind of individual to have in place when tough and difficult decisions are called for.

This also takes the heat off of Brown; he has made a move in the right direction.

"... to reinstate possibly the most divisive figure in Labour's recent history"

To me, division implies two or more parties that are opposed over some point of opinion.

When members of the Labour party make this accusation it sounds a little disingenuous since it detracts attention from themselves, i.e. those that hold on to the old, destructive ways, rather than accept the practical, common sense solutions to the problems of our times.

So my comment about asking Mandelson about his personal experiences of liar mortgages was censored - why it is a undeniable fact that he lied to his mortgage provider about his resources and income to buy a fancy house he felt was worthy of him ...

But as usual for Newsnight asks only Labour supporters, Liam Byrne, Polly Toynbee and Steve Richards for their opinions - where exactly was the balance? Did you not get a slap on the wrist for from the Governors for doing the same thing when he was forced to resign (for the second time.)

What is your excuse this time....?

The reshuffle is a sign of weakness. What irritated Ed Balls I guess is that by turning
to 'serious people for serious times' Brown
effectively conceded that prior to this the
Cabinet was in fact stuffed with novices?

Mandelson will stray in to the territory of
the novice Foreign Secretary - that is the
job he has always hankered after? - and
that may be one source of tension. Mrs
Beckett is left outside the full Cabinet -
but will bring expertise on caravans and
gazebos but will not alas be in on any of
the key decisions despite her experience.

Both Ministers who had deep reservations over the embryo research decision - Kelly
and Des Browne - decided to opt out but
instead of being allowed to move on their
own terms appear to have been treated
rather shabbily. That was not very smart.

What does John Hutton know about defence? Not a lot I suspect - but he
was a potential rebel so will now be
so busy mastering his new brief and
new department that he has been
neutralised for the time being? Low
politics is never a good idea though
in choosing a defence chief in a war.

As for all these 'business ambassadors' - curious that these days Labour doesn't
include any trade unionists in such a
category, preferring instead to stuff
such panels with hedge fund people,
arms dealers (BAE Systems for example),
and prawn cocktail circuit trusties like
the banker who lobbied Brown over
waiving competition rules for banks.

Sending Myners to the government
department responsible for business
regulation is also pretty Brechtian as
he was chairman of The Smith Institute
whose Trustees were very recently
slated by The Charities Commission.

And of course there are all the Lords:
not good for scrutiny - or democracy,
but what can you expect from Brown
who lacks a popular mandate and is
soldiering on scared of any Election?

MY FORTUNE SQUANDERED?

Fortunate me: to be one of the idle-retired, and able to trawl the Newsnight blog finding weekend cogency as at #14 above and on other threads.

But what do the Newsnight funsters, plotting their next excursion to the distant, semi-obscured land of Cameracraft, or to Brigadoon for an exhibition of Omni-bifurcation; excitedly meeting to discuss another level of confused noise over exasperatingly mundane human speech, think of these posts?

Thought so.

> 14. At 3:52pm on 04 Oct 2008, neilrobertson wrote:

> What irritated Ed Balls I guess is that by turning to 'serious people for serious times' Brown effectively conceded that prior to this the Cabinet was in fact stuffed with novices?

Well, yes. You only have to look at what has come out of the Foreign Office in recent months to see evidence of that.

#8 LizMingus

Draper clone alert! - see NR threads

#11 Lorentz
"This also takes the heat off of Brown; he has made a move in the right direction."

It certainly does - in Mandy, "Duff" Gordon has brought into the limlight just about the only person in the UK more hated than himself.

The more I read the Newsnight blogs and Neo-Fascist posters the more enthusiastic I become about legislation against holocaust deniers and their like.

I am appalled at Chris Huhne defending Toben as "He has previously been convicted in Germany for breaking a law that prohibits denying or 'playing down' the mass murder of the Jews under Hitler".

We should take the European approach as they have more experience.

Then their like could "feel... well ... a little" locked up.

MERCHANTS KEEPING (OLD) LABOUR OUT?

thegangofone (#19) "The more I read the Newsnight blogs and Neo-Fascist posters the more enthusiastic I become about legislation against holocaust deniers and their like."

You've told us what you think, but please tell us what EVIDENCE you have for a deliberate genocide rather than a major humanitarian disaster towards the end of WWII. Otherwise it risks looking like a ruse to reinforce a personal or group agenda,

How much of this disaster was due to a) starvation and typus epidemics as a consequence of carpet bombing of Western Germany b) large numbers of disposessed, 'Displaced Persons' (DPs) at the end of WWII losing touch with families, and c) the creation of the 'Iron Curtain' in the late 1940s compounding those 'losses' through loss of communication as DPs moved behind it? How many DPs went into the USSR to become the dissident exodus (to the USA and Israel) in the 80s and 90s? Remember, Israel was legally created in 1948, and a good part of that was to create a homeland for DPs.

I agree that it was a humanitarian disaster, and I accept that large numbers were dispossed of their homes and businesses which understadably enraged them, but a) where does one put the blame for what happened in the 1920s and 1930s, and at the end of WWII? b) Has blame been accurately attributed? and c) to what extent has this been politically/economically exploited?

> 19. At 11:50pm on 04 Oct 2008, thegangofone wrote:

What has that got to do with the current topic. I think the approach you suggest is very dangerous - if you try to suppress a group it will only go underground and become more dangerous. Your best defence against such groups is public opinion and common decency not political correctness.

FREE SPEECH IN THE EU IS GOOD (SO LONG AS IT DOESN'T ROCK THE BOAT?

It's just.. well... isn't it? So why does anyone bother it? It makes no sense... does it? What possible purpose could making any of it up possibly serve?

Chapter 12 of is worth reading, and given the extreme lengths which the Allies (incl. the Soviets) went to in order to denazify/democratize Germany in the late 1940s. In fact, look up what and , and WHY the Soviets were cunningly all for it. The stopped it just in time, and laid the foundations of the EU superstate being built for us today with its and . These may well not exist "in their current form" but what about ? No 'nazi' nation states, just EUSSR NUTS steering businesses?

Freedom means free-markets...which as we've recently seen, clearly require ever so light-touch regulation...
...and evidently, lots and lots of spin.

Too big to fail?

Comments 20 and 22 seem to be by people who genuinely believe that there was no holocaust.

Come again?

CRITICAL ANALYSIS/POLITCAL PROPAGANDA

TheMaskedMarvel (#23)

'Belief' is an intensional idiom of propositional attitude, and as with other intensional (psychological) idioms, it's non-truth functional (i.e. resistant to logical quantification and to substitutivity of identicals salva veritate). What matters is empirical evidence, how it's collected, presented, analysed and used. If that does not make sense to you, look up the terms.

I suggest you look into what Stalin said he wanted at the , what was discussed beween FDR and Churchill at Quebec II, the Articles of the (see Articles 18-21 especially) which defined how the Soviet/Continental/Anglo-US hybrid legal system operated with respect to usual rules of evidence (the USA was about to walk away in the early days because the Soviets had basically decided on guilt before hand and considered it legitimate to do whatever was necessary to achieve their political ends (see Katyn and some of their other 'evidence'), the objectives of the .

Then, after considering why the above should make any rational person critical of blindly accepting whatever they're told, critically compare and then . I repeat, read BOTH critically. Remember, this was in Soviet liberated territory.

If you first inclination is to say 'yes but'.... think what you're doing. I have no desire to minimize any of the horrors which happened during WWII, but can you imagine National Socialism (or Stalinism) as viable political movements in the West today (China's is basically Stalinist, as is North Korea's), and if not, why not?

The Masked Marvel #23

Simple sum. Just three numbers and all easily verifiable if you go and look.

1933 - World Jewry was at about 15 million.

Jewish people have a below replacement rate of fertility, like most of us westerners we are all gradually dying out.

2008 - World Jewry is at about 14 million. That would equate with the TFR mentioned above.

OK - where did the other 6 million come from / go to?

Or has your mask slipped over your eyes?

THE BIRTH DEARTH

NewFazer (#25) pointed out that whilst the Orthodox (in USA, Israel and probably elsewhere) have a higher than replacement TFR, the majority of Jews do not. In fact for the non-Haredi Jews "fertility has fallen steadily to very low levels, with estimates ranging from 1.4 to 1.9 children per woman. Despite surveys that show their desire to have more children, American Jewish women in their thirties are nearly twice as likely to be childless as their non-Jewish counterparts." (One contributing factor to lower fertility and shorter stature etc may be the higher frequency of CYP21 polymorphisms in this group which, it must be said, is a liberal-democratic country problem (see the Far-East).

I have provided links to population declines before. It's something to think about.

JJ #26

Thanks for the detail, I had cleverly omitted the TFR in my last - sorry chaps.

I have had it recently pointed out to me that many of the statistics generally bandied about concerning the holocaust are spookily close to the figures quoted in Rudolph Hoess' 'testimony' given at Nuremburg in 1946. That seems to be where the figure of 6 million started. Also much description of the gas chambers and their through put. As the document appears to be generally a work of fiction in violation of many standard rules of legal procedure, such as the rule of evidence being suspended, might it follow that we should review the 'facts' contained therein?