±«Óătv

Good value as always Mr Paxman!

How many more times are New Labour going to re-invent themselves before the elctorate cotton on?

Of course the probles is: what is the alternative... (and I once had high hopes for Cameron, now I won't even VOTE Tory)

Signed middle class/aged female voter

And is if to add insult to injury, they want to cut your budget as well...

Nil desperandum, I read that the NUJ maybe gearing up for a strike, so let us know when we can start some 'secondary action' like bringing you hot tea and 'burning our braziers' outside TV centre so that we can toast some muffins for you...

Not sure if I'm ready for chaining myself to the railings just yet - a sit-down protest during a 'winter of discontent' would best be held within the confines [and warmth] of Newsnight offices, methinks..

Please refer Mr Milly Band back to our previous comments in 2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006.

EDDIE

the silent kingdom

oh poor Jeremy - i kind of feel sorry for you in your admittedly squalid-sounding surroundings. but it's worth it for your interviews, so thank you for suffering on our behalf. no one can get through obfuscation quite like you do. looking forward to seeing you in Blackpool next week. you can decide for yourself whether i am a bloodless cadaver of a delegate if you bump into me there. i can assure you that the Conservative Party conference will be a not-to-be-missed event.

oh poor Jeremy - i kind of feel sorry for you in your admittedly squalid-sounding surroundings. but it's worth it for your interviews, so thank you for suffering on our behalf. no one can get through obfuscation quite like you do. looking forward to seeing you in Blackpool next week. you can decide for yourself whether i am a bloodless cadaver of a delegate if you bump into me there. i can assure you that the Conservative Party conference will be a not-to-be-missed event.

The offices do sound terrible. But to really appreciate the conditions, surely some photographic proof is in order?

Since I am an American living in America I don't completely understand all of your allusions, which is why I have recently subscribed to Newsnight: I want to. The statement that did grab me was the lack of debate on the Iraq war. Since debate on the subject is looked down upon by our President's administration and has been called every thing from "not supporting the troops" to near treasonous, I was really glad to read that you intend to debate it. A lot of us here keep trying, but our supposed "lions" keep caving in.

With over 1 million dead in Iraq, an uncounted number of dead in Afghanistan and millions of refugees sanctimonious comments, nothwithstanding their responsibility for what can only be described as genocide, made by our politicians about Burma, Zimbabwe, Darfur etc. makes one want to throw up. Now our Foreign Secretary has come to the realisation that neither of the wars (Iraq or Afghanistan) can be won. It is a shame that they did not heed the warnings about counter productive reactions when they voted for these wars.

Having suffered union conferences in the past, I can imagine the mind numbing senseless boredom of the Labour Party conferences these days. At least the union conferences gave you the dubious pleasure of seeing some strange scenes of drunken debauchery at times.

I expect they are very introspective these days, but we do need our media in there, just to find out what they are up to - if anything!

There does seem to be a new mood, which seems more positive, but very hard to judge considering Wizard Blairs remarkable ability to cast some kind spell on his party - paralysing debate and turning it into a party of grey suits, replacing the old labour characters. I thought the picture of Tony Benn crouching on a wall, eating his sandwiches, somewhat sad for such a grandee of the labour left whose son is a minister!

The only way political life in the UK can change is if we have democratic reform, which brings the views of the majority back into the mainstream. At the moment all parties are elected on minority votes, marginal votes in marginal seats. We need reform to bring a change to a popular participatory democracy, reflecting the views of a legitimate majority of people. Unless we get democratic reform bringing our democracy into the 21st century, through PR or some other kind of reform, nothing else will change. In Burma while the brave people demand change, we seem to have sleepwalked under Tony's dodgy magic into a totalitarian mindset. These party conferences are resembling the Stalinist pre-arranged publicity stunts of the old Soviet Union!

im doing a level politics and have always watched u on newsnight religiously. i wtchd the past 2 party conferences u presented mr paxman and they were worth watching so this makes it my third one and its still great, maybe will come see u when im 18 and counted as part of the electorate. so hopefully u will sign my copy of the political animal. i am also excited about watching the debate tonight, as like many of my contemporaries i admire mr miliband immensely! he has lots of fans on facebook! hope he knows we all support him as long as he doesn't lose his substance.

RE underground-car-park workplace

Sounds like you lot would be right at home in overseas development aid negotiations... add some humidity and heat and a cocktail of aloof arrogance, utter boredom and desperate frustration in the eyes of most participants and you get the picture... oh, and every now and then people brandishing AK47 or similar.

In his interview with Paxman last night, Jack Straw referred to the fact that 42% (of a cohort?) now goes to university and suggested that whilst excellent, this was still not enough.

My question is this. Does he (and other 'levellers') appreciate that given cognitive ability is largely genetic/herditary, this would just appear to mean that the minimum entrance criterion for university in terms IQ is now 103 (IQ ia a normed, relational measure standardised on 100), and (leaving the Flynn Effect aside as an irrelevance) that this is prima facie evidence that New Labour must have effectively dumbed down standards and spun their doing so as something else?

Second question: Are they now trying to cover their tracks?

If not, I'm keen to hear what others might think the explanation [#1] might be for their policy of sending 42% (and potentially more) to university as we don't improve ability through education, we just equip it.

#1 Other than keeping them off the streets for a few more years and keeping crime and unemployment figures down.

it was good watching miliband exchanging verbal swords with paxman. miliband is made of patience and articulacy than most who grace the newsnight slots. way to go foreign sec!

Tonight on Newsnight Milliband was sharp, clear and concise. Paxman was confused and struggling to tackle him with any effect. The guy in the pink tie looked a bit pathetic.
Is Milliband the best political brain on the scene today or is Paxman the weakest political commentator?

Definition of a "rude journalist": one whose ego has become bigger than the story.

Well done David Milliband. I applaud politicians who who say "I don't know have particular statistic" over the Jack Straws of this world who think they can bluff their way through every question without a clue as to what the real answer is.

Congratulations to the Newsnight camera crew for showing Jeremy Paxman pretending to ignore his interviewee - how rude is that?!?

Jeremy Paxman: you were unforgivably "rude" and, as far as I am concerned, you are history.

Newsnight 25/9/07
David Milliband ten out of ten, Jeremy, zero. Jeremy, Why not have some lessons in courtesy and good listening. Instead of looking at the ceiling, (what on earth is on the ceiling?), scribbling with your pen, rolling your eyes, or fidgeting, why not try listening for a change, with total connectedness. I applaud David Milliband for doing what I have always waited for; someone with the courage to treat Jeremy with the same disdain which he shows to whosoever he interviews. Time indeed to move on Mr Paxman.

Despite the problems that you have described, you managed to put on an interesting programme tonight.

Liberal Intervention when you think about it is an odd phrase. I suppose, when compared with Conservative Intervention, Liberal Intervention is like a Liberal portion of Ice Cream rather than a Conservative portion.

I have not been able to watch this or the last few nights programmes via the online streaming service but can watch other online broadcasters.

Is there a problem with the ±«Óătv servers at present?

Where do we find the promised revelations on whether Paxman or Milliband had the right facts?

Did not enjoy seeing Paxman apparently taking no notice of Milliband's replies..just waiting to put his own spin on the situation.

Where do we find the promised revelations on whether Paxman or Milliband had the right facts?

Did not enjoy seeing Paxman apparently taking no notice of Milliband's replies..just waiting to put his own spin on the situation.

Yes where are the facts Milliband promised?

And why, after the fifth thing Milliband said he didn't know and wasn't in his briefing paper, did Paxman not ask him 'Is there anything you DO know about Burma?'

It's a disgrace that at a time when UK government actions could mean life or death for people in Burma, our Foreign Secretary is point scoring about Iraq and the EU Constitution. What a waste of space.

Regarding the Miliband interview, why *don't* we hear more from (and seek the support of), Germany, France, Italy etc with respect to Iraq and Iran if support of the EU *is* so vital for the UK's foreign policy?

Could it be that they all have a better sense of perspective as to what their duties are to their own people? Whose interests are we really serving in the Middle East? We deploy about 5% or our regular army there and yet it's the focus of our foreign policy according to the media (even more so than Afghanistan where we deploy nearly twice the number of troops, and yet the population isn't clear what we are doing there either).

Both of these countries border Iran (East and West) and our presence irritates the CIS, China and other nations. Look how Iran's leader was treated at Columbia:

If one looks closely, our nominal presence seems to be more about support of Israel's regional interests. Is Israel playing a critical strategic role in the UK's (and West's) defence or economic interests, or is that just an excuse to support Israel in what is essentially a Islamic part of the world?

The most cynical reason for the UK's involvement would appear to be that most people in the UK don't care enough about their own country, so the very few who do care much about *anything* (many effectively have dual nationality, and a natural allegiance to state of Israel), naturally have the loudest voices (at least in the media). But perhaps we should remember that they comprise no more than 0.4% of the population and that ex Commonwealth Muslims comprise well over 10x that.

In a democracy, shouldn't the people's interests be proportionately represented by the elected government?

I'm not suggesting that we should not (or should) be supporting Israel, or that the Jewish minority in the UK should or should not campaign for support of Israel, I am just asking why Israel is so central to UK and US foreign policy but not to those of other EU states. When the EU does act, it appears to try to put the brakes on Israel's harsh economic sanctions on the Palestinians whilst the UK stands with the USA. When some in the UK do try to make themselves heard (e.g. in the recent Israeli academic boycott), it's accused of anti-semitism (even in Parliament) and its university staff are threatened with bankruptcy.

Isn't Ahmadinejad correct when he points (see video below) to these curbs on freedom of speech through what appears, prima facie, to be an abuse of Human Rights and anti-discrimination legislation to serve one group's interests at the expense of others?

It would be good to hear Miliband and other New Labour (and Conservative) politicians explain to us how their foreign policies are in *all* of our intersts.

I too am pleased that David Miliband is able to discomfort Mr Paxman by being logical and articulate.
The problem is that Jeremy Paxman assumes he can intimidate everyone he interviews. When he comes up against someone clever he becomes uncomfortable. "Don't patronise me" were his comments at one point.

I hope Newsnight will be able to accomodate Miliband's offer to place on their website, the facts re British investment in Burma.
I fear however, that this might not be resolved, because the Foreign Office probably monitors major British companies (as opposed to small entities operating from Under-the-Arches at Shepherds Bush).

Where are the facts/information that David Milliband promised?

Just curious if our next-wave of foreign policy includes intervening humanitarianly in the Ogaden where the Ethiopian dictator is killing innocent civilians on regular basis. Why the Newsnight isn’t highlighting the human tragedy that is happening in that part of the world?

Just curious if our next-wave of foreign policy includes intervening humanitarianly in the Ogaden where the Ethiopian dictator is killing innocent civilians on regular basis. Why the Newsnight isn’t highlighting the human tragedy that is happening in that part of the world?

Yes, I came here to try to find Milliband's promised input for the newsnight website. Where is it?

Just curious if our next-wave of foreign policy includes intervening humanitarianly in the Ogaden where the Ethiopian dictator is killing innocent civilians on regular basis. Why the Newsnight isn’t highlighting the human tragedy that is happening in that part of the world?

Yes, I came here to try to find Milliband's promised input for the newsnight website. Where is it?

When I try to get the Newsnight home page to see if the facts are there about British investment in Burma, all I get is a notice that the site is forbidden. Has Miliband clapped Paxman in the Tower of London?

As a supplement to #31, did anyone *not* find Lee Bolliner's introductory speech a rather sad indictement of Columbia University's understanding of what reasoned debate and freedom is? Note the reference to the use of sanctions against those who disagee.

I thought Miliband was unnecessarily rude and irritable. Paxman asked a very serious question, pointing out the hypocrisy of Labour's foreign policy, in ignoring the views of many EU countries on Iraq, and yet calling for EU co-operation over Burma. And Miliband dodged it, instead pushing this 'second wave' of foreign policy, which could be seen as a very subtle admission of the mistakes of the first wave. His answers about Burma were very unsatisfactory.

I thought Miliband was unnecessarily rude and irritable. Paxman asked a very serious question, pointing out the hypocrisy of Labour's foreign policy, in ignoring the views of many EU countries on Iraq, and yet calling for EU co-operation over Burma. And Miliband dodged it, instead pushing this 'second wave' of foreign policy, which could be seen as a very subtle admission of the mistakes of the first wave. His answers about Burma were very unsatisfactory.

Still no sign of the promised information from the Foreign Office. Can this be mentioned on tonight's programme please?

The Miliband interview was excellent, precisely because the two contenders were actually quite well matched.

The government has for some time now adopted a pick-n-mix attitude towards EU policies. It pretends to be 'at the heart of Europe' when it suits them and otherwise opts-out or ignores/boycotts the views of most other European states. It looks like Miliband's trying to convince us that Britain's leading Europe again - except for the Treaty of course in which the government opted out of most major policy reforms...

The EU (and UK/USA) want regime change in Burma and pitch this in terms of freedom, Human Rights, and democracy, but the reality is that authoritarian control (the military regime is, of course, a socialist regime), as we've seen elsewhere (old USSR, Iraq) obstructs free market penetration, so, of course, the West encourages protest, dissent and tries to get the UN to agree to economic sanctions. Our press presents it all in terms of a noble campaign for freedom and democracy. Predictably, Russia and China use their veto to prevent any sanctions via the UN.

As said in the panel debate last night, the PNAC has a lot to answer for (cynically, mainly to shareholders no doubt). Any country adopting an authoritarian/socialist infrastructure immediately becomes a target for 'liberation' just as the USSR did (just think of the 'liberation' of the UK in 1979).

Human Rights, freedom and democracy sound noble, but in reality these comprise a package of euphemisms which just make it easier for multi-nationationals to get their hands on developing countries' natural resources (cf. Total and Chevron).

Whilst there is nothing whatsoever to be gained in allowing personal animosity to colour one’s abstract appreciation of another’s ability to articulate, it is, nonetheless, extremely unwise to lower one’s guard as a consequence.

People should not be fooled by the fact that during the Paxman interview Milliband was apparently comfortable within himself and could articulate his responses fairly readily.

The skills of all successful confidence tricksters are built on a bedrock of articulation, mendacity and duplicity, coupled with affected sincerity; and Milliband has spent the last ten years honing and fine-tuning those skills under the ever-watchful eye of his mentor, super-con Blair.

Milliband’s evasion tactics were more subtle by far than those to which viewers have become accustomed during interviews with most other politicians, but there were one or two instances where his body language was at odds with his words. For example he had obviously disciplined himself not to be lured into saying the word ‘referendum’ and almost choked when he nearly did: – a quick gulp and out came ‘vote’. Question – Why? – if he was being open and sincere!

Although the EU and the ‘reform treaty’ formed only part of the interview there were snippets that Paxman could have rattled off, which would have left Milliband stuttering: his articulation plummeting like a stone.

J.P. might have asked :-

1. If you, together with your boss Gordon Brown, maintain that the EU ‘project’, launched by Monnet and Salter in the ‘twenties’, and promoted through the decades with the help of Spaak, Spinelli and many other fanatical euro-federalists, has NOT got as its ultimate objective SUPRA-NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, then why was it structured in the way that it was - and still is
.i.e. A COMMISSION – A PARLIAMENT – A COUNCIL OF MINISTERS and A COURT OF JUSTICE?

2. If you disagree with the remarks in 2004 of Guy Verhofstadt, Belgian Prime Minister that “The Constitution is the capstone of a European Federal State” and as the power-ceding components of the ‘reform treaty’ were all incorporated within that Constitution (not the other way round), why do you insist on denying the Nation its demand – not request - for a referendum.

3. Saying that the signings of previous CM/EEC/EU treaties, with one exception, were not decided by referenda and that there is therefore no need for one now, is an arrogant play on words; intended to deceive; and precisely the reason why one MUST be held.

4. What precisely and in detail, is meant by ‘ACQUIS COMMUNAUTAIRE?

5. Do you deny that one of Monnet’s fundamental principles for the establishment of a Government of Europe was that once that Supranational organisation had been granted by the Nation States, a ‘competence’, or for want of a better word ‘power’, that it can NEVER be claimed back or returned.

6. Transference of power can be one way only and once that ‘power’ has been ceded either by treaties or passing laws over policy it becomes the EU’s inalienable possession 
. The acquis communautaire!

7. On perhaps a lighter, but nonetheless serious note, why should Douglas Hurd have said of the Maastricht Treaty, “Now we’ve signed it, I suppose we’d better read it”?

That’s probably enough to be going on with.

Second wave of Labour Foreign policy? The first one was enough to wash away any diplomatic influence we ever had.The only thing a second wave will do,is wash away all of the lines you have already drawn in the sand[you don't want me to count them, do you??]then the wave will retreat back to the cold and dirty sea of corrupt politics,leaving the beach clears to draw even more lines.WHEN ARE YOU GONNA GET REAL? We thought Miliband would get the Chelsea job.He certainly has no idea of how much British investment there is in Burma today.In fact that's a life raft he's clinging to

THE SILENT KINGDOM

What was wrong with Miliband during this interview? He couldn't answer so many sensible questions and acted like some naughty schoolboy being told off! I was so surprised and I hope he is not as inexperienced as this interview seemed to indicate.

Some food for thought given that Miliband* said that there wouldn't be a referendum regarding the EU Reform Treaty:

and given that Hague has made the point that it is very much like the shelved Constitution:

"Speaking at the Conservative party conference in Blackpool, Mr Hague said: "If this [Labour] government has its way, the new EU treaty, which almost every EU leader admits is in all essentials nothing less than the old, rejected EU constitution by another name, [will be] passed into
law..".

"The attempt to portray this treaty as fundamentally different from the EU constitution, when 240 of the 250 provisions are exactly the same, is one of the most bare-faced and deliberate misrepresentations in the modern annals of political deceit."

I thought I'd make a few tentative points regarding a) the EU Charter of FUNDAMENTAL Rights:

(not to be confused with b) the EU CONVENTION on Human Rights (ECHR)

or the c) the 1998 UK Human Rights Act, or d) the ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT despite the fact that the reform treaty cross references these in one way or another ;-)) to highlight why there does need to be more public 'consultation' about all of this. The following is just to stimulate a little debate..

Here's the stimulus. Whilst the UK has made it clear that 1) will not be law in the UK (we have an opt out), if one looks at Article 3(2) on the selection of persons (eugenics), it is asserted that this refers to 'Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted in Rome on 17 July 1998 Article 7(1)(g). But this pertains to WAR CRIMES, not medical routine peacetime practices.

The point I wish to make here is a subtle one, as in 1995, China passed what's been described as 'eugenics' legislation to reduce dysgenesis within its population (the key point being that there is an element of compulsion to it, we offer terminations but don't make them compulsory).

Here are some references for any sceptics about the Chinese eugenics (anti-dysgenics) legislation 1995. Although this has not had time to work through the population yet, given the high heritability of IQ this will surely be why China's current mean IQ of 108 (8 points higher that most European countries) will continue to rise, as will their GDP which is highly correlated with mean IQ as one would expect. We will have no hope of competing (with their population of 1.2 billion to our 60 million, proportionately, they actually only send half the size of our cohorts to university incidentally, why does New Labour think we will make people brighter through education?).

Returning to Article 3 (and others covering mass expulsion and equality note China does not have an immigration problem) of the EU Charter of FUNDAMENTAL Rights, I just wonder whether (if by chance that opt out should slip) what one might call the 'cascade effect' of such legislation into 'guidelines' will become a problem for us all, just as we've in recent years viz Human Rights and Equalities legislation, so often abused to serve more dubious Political Correctness/Cultural Marxist interests where minority groups gain affirmative action at the expense of the population's general welfare.

The price would be increased differential fertility and therefore further general dumbing down of the population, and ultimately GDP and civil order (see other countries with dictatorships and high, low mean IQ populations).

In fact, one could cynically suggest that New Labour's prima facie laudable 'education, education, education' policy, which now has the top 42% of the nation's females delaying having children and going into the workplace (so lowering the birth rate, whilst the lower half of the IQ distribution reproduces at a higher rate. Over 5 generations this *could* (if it has not already) have a devastating effect at the top of the distribution (relative to say China), skewing the UK IQ downwards, and therefore GDP and badly affect social stability, given that the lower group will helped through Tax Credits and other benefits etc).

is actually 'genocidal' as (tongue in cheek of course) it falls under Article 6(b, and especially d) of the ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT........

Just some cynical food for thought. One doesn't always have to have a revolution to bring about radical change.... One can just use Human Rights legislation etc.

* incidentally, is Miliband (and New Labour generally) Trotskyite with a makeover? Is this what the "New" in New Left really means these days? Might they be trying to build a Workers' Democracy rather like Solidarnosc initially tried to do in Poland? Was it that odd that the anarcho-capitalist Thatcher praised Solidarnosc, or that the public sector in the UK (now New Labour got rid of the Stalinist Clause Four) is now being ever more farmed out to the Third Sector under New Labour? (Mrs Thatcher (in a 'red' dress, as guest of honour at No. 10 too):

What's the world coming to?