91热爆

Will David please promise to scrap his plan of raising flight taxes, and preferably scrap them completely. It is not right that poor people should be priced out of holidays - taxes only affect poor people and we are taxed enough.

People put us at risk... how much does Cameron care? Why would he?? People put us at risk to win careers where we don't matter...

Where parliamentarian employees put us at risk ...positions should be requalified and customer oriented with techniques suitable to get the job done...

Can those loyal to Cameron reposition anybody ...do they want to??

Who needs an MP? when they simply agree with established economies that fail...to get our work done...for sure they succeed in giving their mates the money...and peacefulising people off the planet

MPs should have to pay to have their gobsh!t edified..to the kind of class we love...Westminster at 拢1200 a day per head...

..And customer representation analysts should do the work required by the public...

The future requires an average chap who likes to outclass others with the best inspirations... controversial confrontation doer who wants suitable quality...

Common chat for civilised chaps:

...not Universities but Project Investment Centres..not theories but job descriptions
...not Behaviour schools but Positioning schools...preparing all to contribute more from their own point of view with their own portfolios...with headmasters preparing all with better socialist experiences not enforcing the beliefs of medieval menials
...not benefits..but limited personal debt
...not ID cards but Shareholders called Britons
...not income tax and council Tax..but Advantage Tax...
...not simple high house prices but ...property prices residence prices and location shares
...tradition for the individual not incentivised crime...
...congregational marriages and corporate sexual entertainment..not prostitution and coerce
...church buildings timetabled for any church of preacher not Jesus..eg the church of appreciation...preaching experience and common prayer..not questioning god
...not divorce pay outs like bank robber's takings..but common amounts for common jobs...with bonuses from caring fathers...
...care for the poor with VAT receipts...and VAT women's clothes at 120%
..let insurers pay for road quality..or introduce a tyre tax
... not a health service for medics..but a health and safety support system for the public...
...not a police force for one side to get political power or for the establishment to ethnically cleanse people..but Civilisers..for average underexperienced people in misunderstood situations...to get civilised...and for investigations to have new purpose...

Every Briton should have accurate substantiation for their character and experience for any conflict of justice....

But Cameron is a median a career mind ...not an average man explorer like most of us.. average men can do what they want and get on with anybody in any way ... medians live in fear and agreement...for economics ...not for advantages like most others...

We want a world without MPs without PMs..we love company life and family life... why do we need them or their peoples economy..when peconomics is the problem and civilisation is the solution...

When will any government actually take control of the country and deliver on crime, education, the NHS, pensions and actually deliver on all the promises they make (including referendums).

Have you noticed how Labour cannot accept any criticism at all and always make excuses. They tax, tax and tax again, then deliver very little. Then they wonder why so few people bother to vote. It's not rocket science!!

What will Mr. Cameron do, to encourage more of the electorate to vote at Local and General Elections, and what will he do to encourage future voters to actually turn up and vote?

Does Mr Cameron actually help his communities with long term projects or does he turn up, smile for the cameras and then move on to the next town on his eco-bike?

He may talk about what he wants to do, but where does he actually implement these things?

I was hoping that David Cameron might be willing to say something that I've never heard any politician say; namely that the other side have at least some sensibly thought out policies that work to an extent but he happens to disagree with, and think that there is a better way.
Is it really just me in the entire country that would like to see a debate about 2 sides of an argument, rather than simple mud slinging at the other bloke?
Still waiting, David...

have just turned onto your programme and heard Mr.Cameron talk about raising taxes on air travel.as a staunch conservative he has just lost my vote with that idea

Can Cameron please let me know what he will do about our young people who are roaming about the street and not wanting to work thereby wasting away useful talent. How long are we going to relent on foreigners to pay our pensions and drive our GDP?

david cameron should be told to give the interviewers to finish their sentance - awful programme because he was so eager and didnt let anyone else talk. the interviewers had to even stop him

great that 'ms' flanders 'wouldnt need' an additional 拢20 a week due to her obviously inflated salary, paid for by the tax payer, but there are thousands out there that this would make a difference to. The cheek of this lady...in all honesty cameron could solve world peace & she'd still dislike him

Would Mr. Cameron be prepared to bring back Nation Service to stem the tide of yob culture. Boot camp is an Americanisn and does not address the whole problem. Many of these youths who find themselves in bother and create havoc are not necessarily bad but more misguided and have lost their way. To carry out 2 to 4 years military service taking in the common military silibus then going on to learning a trade or profession within the British Army. Surely this will get young people out of prison who should not be there.

I have just heard Cameron committing to new aviation "green" taxes. He should know that his Quality of Life Group was told by experts that real world experience of taxes on air travel or cost analogues to them has shown that unless they are levied at very high levels they are unlikely to make any difference to aviation's emissions. So where is his evidence of effectiveness - or is this another case of identifying a soft target and calculating that air passengers can be soaked in order to deliver vote-winning family ta benefits?

Some of the panelists questioning comes across as school children bickering in the schoolyard, why is that? For example, the female talking about the poor people not being able to relate to David Camerons policies, yet she doesn't sound short of money and in rags. What designer clothes is she wearing by the way?

How bizarre is this country? Newsnight presenters repeatedly attack Cameron for the failures of this government: in particular the rise in the gap between rich and poor! It's like watching Orwellian double speak TV. Frankly odd. I've never seen Blair or Brown being grilled for their real failures in this way in Newsnight.

Increasingly journalists in the mainstream media appear to be very political, particularly in the 91热爆. Depressingly revealing for the wrong reasons.

Mr. Cameron amazes me. Apart from blaming the present government for all our ills he has spoken volumes but said nothing. Does he think that we will vote for him unless he tells us what he intends to do as a leader.

i said mr cameron didnt give anyone else a chance to talk and i got told it was abusive!! by newsnight

It's a shame that nobody picked Cameron up on the fact he fundamentally does not understand what the word "evidence" means.

Just because there is a correlation between single parent families and higher rates of anti-social behaviour with their children does not mean making those parents stay together will make their children behave better. A third factor could cause the correlation - such as parents who want to stay together being more committed to child baring. Indeed, there is plenty to suggest parents who are unsuited and continually argue are even worse for childrens' development than being in single parent relationships.

When Cameron says there is evidence that parents staying together is better for children he is either a) unfamilar with the meaning of a word that we teach to schoolchildren or b) plain lying.

He's also done exactly the same thing with his nonsense about violent games - there is no proof of causation of antisocial behaviour despite literally hundreds of millions of pounds around the world spent looking, and nor does he explain how he's possibly going to achieve it now the internet exists. Does Cameron support the same staggering waste of money that the Australian government does, having spent hundreds of millions building porn filters which can be defeated by school children in eight minutes?

What a pathetic display of political bias from the 91热爆. The 91热爆 is NOT an independent broadcaster but rather a left-wing gravy train! I agree with Jeremy Paxman, no more TV tax! (Ahem so sorry, 'licence fee')

Once again the 91热爆 shows its true colours regarding its hatred of the Conservative Party with its contempt for everything Mr Cameron tried to say.
It would be nice if just for once it treated Mr Cameron with the same respect it gives the unelected Gordon Brown or his predecessor Blair.
What the 91热爆 must remember is that not all of the licence paying public are Guardian reading left wing liberals and that they may agree with what Mr Cameron was trying to say.

It really makes angry when interviewers continually interrupt when the interviewee is trying to answer. I know politicians can move away from the question, but I found it intensely irritating to have David Cameron cut short when I was trying to understand his point. An interview is not for the benefit of the interviewer, it is for the benefit of the audience.

Also, I feel deeply insulted by the lady on the panel who has decided I am rich, just because my estate will now be subject to Inheritance tax. I can assure you that after a lifetime working and paying tax, I am far from wealthy but don't see why I shouldn't be able to pass on what I have saved to my son. I really don't know where the 91热爆 find these biassed interviewers who don't even have the courtesy to let the interviewee the chance to answer without interruption. No wonder the 91热爆 's name is going down the drain.

I have just watched the Newsnight DC programme. I am not a DC fan and am prone to vote Labour. I thought the presenters / journos were poor / weak. DC came across as very impressive and artiulate, and with something to consider, which was interesting. Unfortunstely the panel came across as weak / seeking to inflate their own egos or viewpoints and mostly inept. DC wasn't really put under the proper scrutiny and it came across as as a contest of unequals - DC looked vastly superior to the panel, which was was concerning + which is why I have sent this response. I want to see political accountability + honest issue based dialogue, not the clash of the egos + not personal preening & posturing, which is how the panel came across tonight. DC looked very good tonight, which may or may not be true. I think it is partly due due to the ineptitiude and short-sightedness of your panel. Please use your political heavyweights to provide some interesting debate please. Thomas, London

Just finished watching the David Cameron interview, and it was absolutely excellent. Well done, Newsnight, and all four of the interviewers. Careful, important questions were asked in a style which brought out very clearly what Cameron believes.
All the better for NOT having Paxman there, since he would have wrecked what was a first class piece of political television.
As for Cameron, for the first time I understand what he is about, which is using language very cleverly to disguise his true beliefs - which appear to be 100% neocon. His refusal to commit to using future tax changes to benefit the less well off was most illuminating, while his enthusiasm for all things American is frightening. The good thing is that at least Cameron has a go at answering questions properly, unlike Gordon Brown who just ploughs on regardless of whatever he's asked.

Having not been sure about David Cameron I was hugely impressed. He dealt with nasty, difficult, aggressive questioning remarkably well. He seemed honest and concerned. I'm liking what I hear. No politician will please all the people all the time but he is at least addressing some major concerns which this present Government is not.

I thought it was a very competent performance from Cameron. A year ago it was hard to see what he really stood for but I felt he was very clear on the programme and communicated well. Most of his comments made good sense to me.

I thought Mr cameron's interview was very brave. As a socalist I am extremley distressed with what is happening with this country. Whilst I believe in second chance and the fact that discrepancies can evolve from a disadvantaged upbringing, I also come from a disadvantaged background and have managed to achieve an education and a valued job ( welll as a police officer i may ask whether i'm valued !)but I believe that Mr Camerom dealt with an extensively socialistic panel very well. I do not agree with his stance on inheritance tax however I feel that with the increase in housing prices and the chance of futher gov revenue this will become less of a political issue
as both parties will gain from the revenue.

Otherwise as a Socialist I think that there is nothing wrong with punishing individuals that have committed crimes BUT THEY SHOULD SERVE FULL TERMS. Don,t forget socialism evolved from a Dictatorship.

I am tempted to change my vote because of the nonsense of Iraq and Afghanistan and all it would take is a strong stance on law and order and crime.
I/m not talking rhetoric, I'm talking a committment to build at least ten more prisons increasing the pos pop to 100,000, and being stricter when addressing gun crime . Anyone connected should receive 15 years min

There are also many more factors that I would like to include in terms of stricter punishments and a more carrot and stick approach to imprisonment and rehabilitation however they are perhaps not suitable to this short repost

h

Having just watched the Cameron programme,the first thing I had to do,was to have a drink of water,I was out of breath.
With hindsight,I would have had a clicker handy to record every time Mr Cameron either repeated himself or contradicted himself.It was a pity that he wasted the programme,it was not what I wanted to hear,it just reinforced the things my friends say to me,that Mr Cameron is just a slick salesman.

In tonight's interview the blood in Cameron's left cheek came to the surface (faintly) just the once - whilst responding to interjections from Crick; but other than that his demeanour was spot-on. He was totally in control of an immaculate vocabulary: 'ums' and 'ah's could be counted on the fingers of one hand: evasive tactics were not entertained and in my opinion at least, he certainly earned viewers' attention in full measure.

Compared to so many other intervieews given by politicians this one deserved a star plus rating. A thoroughly articulate and creditable performance - worthy of applause

There is a steel core within this man that I must confess to not having detected before tonight.

Excellent questioning from the Newsnight team.

David Cameron struggled to explain his "anarchy in the UK" remark, under robust questioning from Michael Crick, claiming that he's not scaremongering.

But he is. In fact, his talk of anarchy in the UK is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to exploit the fear of crime, and he is rightly challenged on this point in today's Guardian:

4th letter:

Ah...now I see... it's all making sense... thank you once again to a great politician on Newsnight. So, if I understand things correctly what we were told was that clearly we have to do this, and then send that message to them, and avoid using that kind of inflammatory language, and represent the country as a whole, and not tell individuals how to live their lives, but tell them they ought to get married and, lastly, if we want to solve the problems of poverty and anti-social behaviour and get to grips with violent crime we need to use carrots and sticks rather than one or the other... and they wonder why people are fed up with politicians... crikey

I turned on Newsnight expecting some examination of the prison officers' 24 hour strike and found myself watching a programme entirely devoted to a grilling of the leader of HM's opposition. There they all were; Esler,Crick,Flanders and Urban questioning Cameron about the state of the country as if the Conservative party were still somehow responsible for it all; current levels of immigration, the increasing gap between rich and poor, the role of the armed forces in the Middle East. When is Gordon Brown going to be subjected to this sort of interrogation considering that he has been in government for the past ten years. I should also like to know more about his personal beliefs as a Presbyterian - how much of the Calvinist creed about the 'elect' and predestination does he espouse and as a Scot, what he intends to do about the political marginalization of England brought about by devolution. If such a breakdown in relations between government and the prison service as we are witnessing now had happened under a Tory government, the steam would have been coming out of Jeremy Paxman's ears. Where was Jack Straw this evening?

I've heard & seen biassed interviewing before...but not on this scale.

If this is the best our 91热爆 Flagship programme can do ...is just trounce the man for the sake of hearing their own voices...it's a dam poor show.

Perhaps viewers can /have now seen the corporation leftish flunkeys at their worst or best. SF's 拢20..'no good to me mate' attitude was typical.

I have been no fan of the conservatives in recent years, but I was impressed by Cameron's performance. He was eloquent and spoke sense on many issues. At last a politian who will stand up for marriage and the family. Of course we must cuts superflous flights if we are serious about cutting emissions. Well done Cameron - even with four against him he was not at any point phased by their rather weak and predictable questioning. What for example has his wealth, eductation or background got to do with anything excect reveal the massive chip on the 91热爆's shoulder?

The three (not Mark Urban) old Liberals looked very dated with all their silly little grimaces.
Hey - God help the 91热爆 when the Conservatives get in!
Two yesterday's men - and one yeasterday's woman!

ON the question of rewarding marriage this affected me. My father was killed at sea in 1942 3 weeks before I was born but had not married my mother. Various gvt bodies ruled that there was insufficient proof my father intended to marry my mother and had not sent enough financial support home to her. So she missed out on a full widow's pension. But I still support DC's efforts to alter the climate back in favour of marriage which equates in my mind with long term commitment. When marriage was stronger society had more cohesion as I am old enough to remember. While there cannot be "shotgun" weddings, the policies which end up sustaining an underclass of NEETS and shotgun teenagers hardly appeals to me either, or Labour MP Frank Field for that matter!
Martin Tapsell (Son of single parent)

I believed everything Cameron had to say last night. The only problem is he does not believe a word of it.
This is Coulson at his best, Cameron was just the mouthpiece, Coulson the Puppet master, make no mistake about it, if proof is needed just take a long hard look at Cameron's voting record. What cannot speak cannot lie.
It is surprising what falling behind in the polls can do for one's character, in fact it almost looked as though David Cameron had acquired some principles at last.
I for one was not fooled this is lip service at it's very best.
Actions speak louder than words as far as I am concerned.
Cameron was well rehearsed for this, in fact he reminded me more of his Idol Tony Blair than it did the man himself and his voting record from which he cannot escape, there is no hiding place.
Extremely glib performance by a Spiv and Con-man. Say anything do anything get elected at any price is David Flip-Flop Cameron's battle cry.

I thought Flanders was there to question his economic policy? It appears she was there to question him about the fact she wasn't married and 拢20 would make no difference to her and that anyone who had a property over 拢300K was classified as rich.
Crick was also poor with his Yes/No questioning.

I was very impressed with Cameron's performance on Newsnight. He was articulate, did not get riled by any line of questioning, did not hesitate even when asked questions designed to trip him up. I am looking for a party who will put right the many ills which face this country at present. He ticked most of the right boxes. Of course we've seen Blair tick all the right boxes and then renegue on them. I just hope the country will give him the chance to deliver on his promises - and that he keeps to them. I have been waiting for somebody to have the courage of his convictions. Let's hope he does.

To put into context, I am a conservative, but by no means a complete Cameron fan - but last night he was excellent despite some appalling 91热爆 journalism.

Firstly, Stephanie Flanders was an appaling interviewer. Like so many columnists, they ask questions purely in the first person and on how issues will affect them, neglecting the bigger picture. It has been amusing, yet tragic (Ed Miliband, for instance), to see people of her average intelligence in both the media and the government try to oppose Cameron's family emphasis.

Is she really, genuinely, opposed to the family unit? Can she really deny this leads to greater stability. However she ended up as a single parent, surely objcetively she must think her child having a father figure would be in the child's best interests? The tax breaks are about encouraging a family unit as a wider benefit to society - economically, socially, whatever. No-one suggests that 拢20 a week will transform a family's financial well-being too significantly, but it's about the message it sends. Would she rather pay another stealth tax?!

Also, isn't it apparent how the 91热爆 has set the semantics agenda, and as a result the parties seek this "centre-ground" and denying the voters genuine choice? The term "right-wing", used to be used to describe a (legitimate) political position. Now, watching the Newsnight interviewers pathetically goading Cameron into admitting that he was "right-wing", it's clear it is now used as a term of abuse. (Note, in the French election, 91热爆 reported Segolene as a "socialist", whilst Sarkozy as "right-wing").

The 91热爆 also really needs to get over the fact he went to Eton. Does it matter? NO! When Britain was being bombed in WW2, did people care Churchill went to Harrow, or did they care about his leadership in crisis moments?

Crick's Yes/No answering was absurd. His reports are entertaining, and sometimes even informative, but as an interviewer, a complete joke - thank goodness for Mark Urban.

I thought that Cameron was very impressive last night. Well briefed but also in command of the brief. Typical 91热爆 concentrating on its socialist agenda and the constant interuptions were rather unprofessional - what is the point of asking a question and not allowing the interviewee to answer properly expanding on the context and background. It is a pity that the Conservatives can't be more radical and implement a flat rate of tax - but the 91热爆 seems to have fallen for the Labour line that tax cuts means cuts in services. All the evidence around the world shows if you reduce taxes you reduce the incentives to avoid it, and tax revenues surge.
Other than that well done Cameron - you now definitely have my vote.

I was impressed with the way David Cameron was prepared to be interrogated by Newsnight journalists.
Wouldn鈥檛 anybody like to see Gordon Brown take the hot seat? I wonder why he鈥檚 never been on the programme. I鈥檓 sure he鈥檚 been asked on many occasions.

I was impressed with the way David Cameron was prepared to be interrogated by Newsnight journalists.
Wouldn鈥檛 anybody like to see Gordon Brown take the hot seat? I wonder why he鈥檚 never been on the programme. I鈥檓 sure he鈥檚 been asked on many occasions.

So who was looking after Flanders child a Nanny? (Surrogate mother) who' own child or children don't see their mother because she's too busy bringing up ms flanders child.

No doubt 拢80 a month would allow this nanny more time to see her own child/ren (hopefully preventing them from joining gangs) thus forcing ms flanders to look after her own child (for a change) the added bonus is that we wouldn't see her on television as much.

unfortunately the 91热爆 have plenty more people like her.

as for Cameron he does have a hard time reintroducing conservative values to politics especially when all the media has a spasm when a proposed policy is 1 degree to the right of communism no wonder he doesn't want to out and out propose a policy 20 or 30 degrees to the right.

Please forgive my spelling and grammer as i'm dyslexic.

I thought David Cameron peformed brilliantly - if you wanted evidence of a Prime Minister in waiting, here it was. I was confused by the line of questioning over family policy however - there seems to be a deliberate attempt by some commentators to confuse the personal with the general. To say that there are many well functioning single parent families does not alter the general rule that children do best when brought up in a stable two parent household. Thus, Cameron's position on the family is perfectly coherent and logical.

When are the 91热爆 going to tell their highly paid supposedly professional journalists to leave their personality (and their personal issues) at home and ask objective questions?

Flanders and Crick came off looking like 3rd rate student debaters, Crick with his silly yes/no gimmicks, Flanders looking completely unprofessional by reflecting on her own personal situation. As for the dig at Cameron's wife, that was a real low point. None of the panel are short of a bob or two either, it came across as spiteful class envy and suggested a 91热爆 political agenda. I could detect a lot of chippiness in the questioning too.

Only Mark Urban came over as serious, thoughtful and considered in his very good questions. More of him on Newsnight please.

I want to watch a serious political debate and have serious answers given by someone who might be our Prime Minister. The 91热爆 panel despite a 4-1 advantage looked second rate last night, you must do better.

If this is the best Newsnight can do, no wonder it's Editor is less than happy with 91热爆 news output and direction.

As for Mr. Cameron's performance, it was consumnate, he was certainly justified to chastise these interviewers several times yet he opted to show coolness under pressure and he answered every question with good grace. There was a real command of his brief and showed some geninue intelligence, clear communication and passion for his beliefs.

As Esler said at the end, there might be contradictions in what Cameron was saying. There might but either Esler was ill prepared to challenge any contradictions or there simply were not any at all. He was mediocre at best last night too.

Interesting to note, in continuance of the 91热爆's blatant left-wing bias and agenda, that the headline from Cameron's interview on its website today is "Immigration - 'too high' - Cameron". Funny how it picks that as its lead amongst all the other potential comments Cameron spoke on.

It's an old, familiar stick to beat the Toris with, that stifles debate on a legitimate issue that concerns a great many, instead of encouraging constructive debate on it.

David Cameron: Leader of the Sixth Form Conservative Debating Society.

I found the panel to be a classic 91热爆 clique of liberal lefties asking classicly biased neo-liberal negative questions. When will we get constructive questioning. Look at the state of education crime and immigration today as predicted would happen by previous conservative leaders. The woman in the red dress was contrary and dislikeable to put it mildly.

The questioning on marriage was very silly. What matters to a child's upbringing is a stable and loving family situation, not a legal nicety about who said what to whom in what church, registry office, etc. (Well, these days - it did matter to the man whose mother couldn't get a proper pension, but surely those days have gone?) A family in which married parents are always having rows and behaving anti-socially and perhaps abusing their child is far worse for a child than one where two unmarried people feel a long-term commitment to each other.

What is the point in doing this special interview with your 3 very good newsnight journalists and then broadcasting it on news 24 6 hours early. We all know news 24 is useless but stealing newsnights interviews is just a joke. I thought newsnight was going to get itself back on track! Very dissapointing

Can someone give me a reason for the Licence Tax that in law we have to pay.

I would not financially support any left wing org. so why in Gods name do I have to finance the BarmyBC?

Another example of the selective 91热爆 propaganda was evident on the Panorama Programme covering Nazi's the SS etc.
Why was the whole story not presented?

Let me guess.

I must confess I have a bad habit of flicking channels due to a low boredom threshold but last night's program was compelling enough to keep me interested throughout.

Yes the questions were poor and amateurish, delivered with an animosity at times that made me chuckle but I think the 91热爆 did Cameron a huge favour.

He performed well under pressure, actually answered questions and came across well. By the end no one could have come away not knowing what he stood for.

Someone down the boating club bash said watch newsnight and you'll see David Cameron. 'Who's he?' i asked pouring out the champoo. 'A comedian' said Red Ted our liverpudlian steward. Well i oggled the whole bally hoo and all i can say is that for a comedian he didn't have many good jokes. Luckily the evening wasn't a complete wash out. I met Suzzana down at Razzles Wine bar and she never turns down 20 quid.

Just watched the interview on-line, Cor Blimey! I'vebeen highly Critical of David Cameron over the last few months, But DC came across very impressive, the interviewers on the other hand! The blatant bias of their questions and their attitude was simply staggering, and socialist venom of the female interviewer was astounding and hypocritical! Going on as if she is a "typical" single mother in her designer clothing and highly paid job, and talking about 拢20 quid as if money is of no meaning. Cameron 1 - 91热爆 0, But then knowing a few people who have worked at 91热爆 HQ I should not be surprised as the stories of the ingrained hatred for anything conservative is ingrained into the corporations ethos. But back to DC, well done sir, keep up the good work and you'll win my vote.

I'm glad to see that many of my fellow watchers of last night's programme, you were appalled at the standard of journalism demonstrated by Stephanie Flanders.

I've spent a lot of today wondering how on earth someone of such low calibre can get such a high profile journalistic job.

Then I saw her wikipedia entry, apparently she comes from a prestigious journalistic family...

All makes sense.

The interview on newsnight with Cameron, was a well thought through if poorly executed idea. The interviewers had clearly made their mind up that they thought Cameron too young, too tory and not one of them enough to have the right to run for Prime Minister. We the voters can figure out when someone is muddled and contrdaictory, it does not need the beeb to hound a politican to make obvious to us. Michael Crick's "Yes or no" line of questioning revealed this. Gavin on the far left of the panel continually implied he was incompetent, almost insulting him as he asked the questions, showing the 91热爆 to be a biased organisation, unfourtunatly compared to ITV and C4 they are the best of a bad bunch.
Cameron looked tired and is clearly at a make or break moment in his leadership. If he can be consistent on the themes he talked on last night , and show the opposition to be as vindictive and backward looking as the bbc, he will do well. He did have the courage to state airline tax would go up and cited social responsibility as the rationale for frequent flyers to vote tory. What he needs now are solid policies on poverty eradication and it will be a very close election indeed.

Until last night I had always thought that the Conservative party had made a mistake in choosing Cameron over Davies. However, the way that David Cameron dealt with the all too evident animosity of the 3 Brownite hacks, Flanders Crick and Esler. as well as his handling of the more incisive questioning of Urban has forced me to revise my opinion. In my view, given his recent mistakes, David Cameron entered that bear pit with a question mark over his suitability as leader and left it as a very credible future prime minister. As for the 91热爆 crew, only Urban walked away with any credibility as a serious journalist. Though even he betrayed his bias with the neocon comment !

Last nights interview trailed (the bbc are always helpful with such things)what will be one of labour's major attack weapons on DC at the next election, namely his privileged upbringing and relative wealth. I wonder if it is his loyality to the "Westminister Club" that prevents him from making the obvious and very powerful response, namely that his circumstance are the best safeguard we have of him not being in the job simply for personal financial gain and privilege - all at the tax payer's expense - like 99% of the third rate cabinet members we've suffered over the last 10 years.

R Baker
Shropshire

It would be interesting to know what the viewing figures were for last night's Cameron interview.

A few dozen blog comments mean nothing as such, but if the percentage of favourable comments from the handful posted here reflect those of the viewing audience as a whole, then Cameron should be highly pleased.

At 01:46 PM on 30 Aug 2007, steve wrote: What he needs now are solid policies on poverty eradication and it will be a very close election indeed.

It's quite simple Steve, work (not welfare) is the best way to eradicate poverty .

I don't know what Ms Flanders' case is. I think she's on a guilt trip or she's spent too much time in the cosy 3.5 billion pound a year licence fee cocooned 91热爆.

One comical element of last nights Cameron interview were the 3 faces and voices of Jealousy and Envy - poor souls, still believers in Socialism, the failed concept of the 20th century!
Taking money from the Poor (Licence Tax) to pay for their inflated unjustified salaries and no doubt flame proof pension.
But that is Socialism for ya - Champagne variety of course!

Programs are made to sell viewing time, and as result it is not surprising that the 91热爆 wants to introduce controversy.
Yesterday's Newsnight was a disgrace and another example of anti Conservative bias at the 91热爆. When will we see a balanced and fair approach on politics?
Cameron must be congratulated for a very human, honest and professional performance.
The interviewers were appalling with Flanders using her personal circumstances to try and destroy the argument that marriage is good for society. Her approach was hypocritical because she made light of a tax benefit that many would welcome.
The questions raised on the abolition of IHT failed to mention the benefits of creating ongoing wealth in this country. We need as much capital wealth as possible,because that will create jobs and confidence in our tax system. What we do not need is successful businessmen commuting from Monaco because they cannot stomach a 40% death tax on their assets! Have a look at Australia where the abolition of IHT has unquestionably had a positive impact on their economy. Have a look at Australia where they are encouraging pension saving. As I understand it,the proposal includes replacing the death tax (IHT) with capital gains tax. There was no mention of this fact.
When are we going to see an anti labour grilling of Gordon Brown? Or perhaps,we should ask the 91热爆 to ensure that interviewers/programme producers declare their bias.I know we will not get this but at the very least, we should continue to raise questions if we believe there is bias.
Whilst the viewing public is smart, there are inevitably some that wrongly influenced.

dear sir,

I watched your interview with David Cameron and found the question asked by Miss Flanders about his background very interesting . It is common knowledge that he went to Eton and Oxford. Miss Flanders seemed to argue that this should somehow disquilfy him from being the leader of the conservative party. I imagine her argument is his backgroud is to favoured for him to be considered.

However I understand that Miss Flanders went to St. Pauls and either Oxford or Cambridge. I also imagine that when she went for her interview with the 91热爆 the fact that her father was a quite famous person. When she was asked what her father did for a living and she said he was part of the duo flanders and swan it must of being a good answer.

The point is this she in her life is just as fortunate as David Cameron.

I also noted that M.Crick went to Manchester Grammer and Oxford . I could not look the other two up because I did not know their names.

My question is this we understand that Miss Flanders is supposed to be a very cleaver person and thus how can she make this argument.

I definitely agree with the criticisms of Flanders and Crick. Flanders couldn't hide her contempt for Cameron and Crick's yes/no line of questioning was pathetic. I also agree with the positive comments about Mark Urban. He came across as an impartial interviewer to me who was looking to engage in an intelligent discussion on policy. Flanders and Crick seemed more intent on trying to make Cameron look stupid. I thought Esders was also ok to be honest. He asked some awkward questions but theres nothing wrong with that in itself. I think Cameron can take a lot of credit from this and it is a good reflection on him that we seem to be spending more time discussing the line of questioning.

I am a regular viewer of newsnight but last night I had to switch off after watching only about 15 minutes because of the very nasty attitude of both michael crick and stephanie flanders when questioning david cameron. Their anti-tory bias was staggering and I couldn't believe what I was hearing when flanders was so dismissive of marriage, but I suppose life is relatively easy when you are cushioned by a well-paid job financed by the licence-payer and can afford a big house in west london or possibly N1, Oh and I don't suppose the family name has done her any harm at all!

Cameron 10 Newsnight O

Raising taxes to cut flights?

Hell yeah, I'm voting for you.

I could see a Prime Minster in David Cameron. he dealt with four aggressive journalists with competance and, when allowed to answer the questions, was clear and enthusiastic. To me the interviewees were obviously biased to Labour and this must run deep into the 91热爆 as its not the first time. By the way, the biggest news in Great Brittain yesterday was Godron Brown refusal to give public workers a fair deal, what was Newsnight response, 30 seconds of Gordon Brown sat next to Primary School children. Biased, Biased Biased. This has got to stop, all integrity is disappearing from our tax funded national television. Guess my comments won't reach the web!

I was absolutely disgusted that "Newsnight Scotland " was cancelled because of this David Cameron Interview.By showing the Cameron {as the leader of a party which has only 1 M.P. from Scotland, and a minority in the Scottish Parliament}interview in place of Newsnight Scotland just underlines how much 91热爆 Scotland is ruled by their masters in London

Cameron's Charlie Chaplin

Well one thing is for sure: We all know what the lighting director of Newsnight thought of David Cameron.
When David Cameron spoke to Crick and Flanders his nose cast a shadow onto his upper lip that gave the impression that he had a moustache last seen on Charlie Chaplin, and other, more sinister personalities of recent history.

Normally I find David Cameron "too smart by half" and he is struggling to row to a more tenable position than he first adopted. I am still waiting for full awakening of his senses, but do rather despair when I see that he seems to favour taxes on flights, still blathers about "stability" first before tax cuts. The latter does not preclude the former.
However, I was very pleased to see how well he came over when in the bear pit of 91热爆 bias on Newsnight. Stephanie Flanders was simply disgraceful, and clearly has no regard for statistics which have little obvious impingement on her fine life of grace and poll-tax paid prosperity. Her Sunday Times explanations were quite pathetic, as, clearly stunned by reaction to her own "too smart by half" performance, she presented fourth form debating club explanations for her selfish stance. Can we have this team of reporters, including Esler, take part in a Balloon debate to see who should continue to enjoy the poll-tax largesse?

The questions concerning moonlighting made me chuckle. Although it would be outrageous to dictate what the shadow cabinet can and cannot do in their spare time, it does raise this issue of how dedicated they are to their shadow jobs. It鈥檚 definitely not good for the party's image.