I thought that was the strongest soundbyte from the strongest section of Harriet Harman’s interview with Hugh Edwards, and sure enough it was that section the BBC excerpted for their webpage. Edwards clearly showed he was not up to the job when he responded to Harman’s insistence that the problems of the country/Brown/the Labour party were exclusively the consequence of external economic factors by agreeing “all of those factors are clear”. Anyone with the slightest scepticism of the Labour Government would have harried Harman on economic gems concerning Northern Rock, the sale of gold by the Treasury, the growth of the public sector (combined with waste), public debt- including off balance sheet stuff like PFIs- and persistently low interest rates during a housing boom (which, btw, would cast shadows over how independent the Bank of England really has been). All questions which Hugh Edwards allowed Harman to dismiss as though non-existent. The BBC not only would like to save Gordon, but they and their Labour friends are looking well beyond that to the public narrative of the Labour legacy.
Hugh Edwards sounded tough when he was asking Harman about intrigues against Gordon- in fact he was painting the situation as a purely political or personal one. Most sceptical license fee payers will consider the matter one of governmental incompetence on multifarious grounds- rather than just a question of Gordon’s being the Prime Mentalist.
Even ‘The Guardian’ had this recently:
“This is the end of Brown era of economics, say Tories”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jul/18/economy.economicgrowth1
It is clear to me at least that the Bank of England can never be independent, whatever that means, even if Gordon Brown or any other PM or chancellor never spoke to them, either secretly or not.
The Bank of England is a PRIVATE corporation owned by its OWNERS. As most have absolutely no idea who these unelected and therefore unaccountable owners actually are, we are all back to square one and beyond.
Back in 97 the then Conservative government claimed it intended to make the BofE independent. Labour did it anyway with out as far as I know the electorate even been given a clue. I do not read Labour manifestos so maybe someone else can enlighten me?
I smell a giant conspiracy to inflate the housing market to busting point, and then to bust it.
I am surprised no one else does, because to me this is as obvious as the nose on our faces.
The people that run banks are not stupid, they are among the most well payed and intelligent beings on the entire planet. They do not therefore make giant cock-ups, they make long term often highly politically motivated plans.
Our banks do not lend real money, they lend created from thin air money. Often only as little as .05% of bank lending is backed by investor deposits.
If this does not frighten the life out of people, it most surely should do. This because it makes all of our savings and wealth an almost total illusion. An illusion that can quickly evaporate even faster then it arrived.
Ask anyone who lived though the crash of the 1930s. If you can find one, or read a book on the subject, always remembering to read between the lines, as the real truth is partially and deliberately hidden from view.
Capitalism works, truly free market capitalism works even better, but it only works well for the greater benefit of ALL humanity when despots, socialists, fascists, and other internationalist psychotic maniacs do not get their hands entirely on the system. Which they have had for the best part of 95 years.
All people in the know, which includes ALL chancellors, know this. The public do not thanks to the BBC and the rest of the MSM. Which is why we get periodically well and truly buggered and they still run the world.
The whole Bank of England thing was a political stunt designed to get the fat one eyed jock off the responsibility of blame when interest rates went up.
The job of the Bank of England was to control inflation. I thought that was the job of Government?
The only tool the Bank has is interest rates.
It has NO control on public spending, taxation or public sector borrowing.
It was a failure as for about a decade interest rates in europe have been stable as well.
To blame the Bank (which is what the BBC does) is a joke. The blame for our economic mess lies with the fat one eyed jock.
The BBC can spout all the crap they like. No one believes them.
Hence the 22% lead the Tories have in the polls (and in reality it’s higher than that)
debt as a % of GDP in the last recession under Mrs T:
20%
debt as a % of GDP now under ‘prudent’ Broon:
40% + Northern Rock + PFI + £1tn public pension liability
Thankfully it will become a necessity to privatise the BBC to pay for this folly.
Ah! the famous Golden Rule that the one eyed jock was so proud of. Gone up in smoke like everything else NuLabour touches.
This is hilarious. Just look at the last sentence:
Current deputy leader Harriet Harman said Labour was focusing on leading the country, not plotting against Mr Brown.
Mr Brown’s experience as chancellor meant he was the best person the lead the country through the current economic problems, she told BBC One’s Andrew Marr Show.
“You know, people ring up Gordon Brown to get advice from all around the world on economic circumstances,” she said.
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7527725.stm
TPO- yes, I was thinking about all those financiers to whom UK plc owes money! Bet they want to ring Gordon quite often. That was the kind of piffle that Edwards allowed Harman to spout though. Credibility = 0.
I just now read the linked article. After listening to a little radio earlier, and watching both clips, I can only come to one conclusion: the news Beeboids know that Mr. Brown is now the kiss of death for Labour. Their new task, which they seem to have begun with relish, is to figure out a way to sell Labour under a new leadership, and help ease the transition to that end.
The last line from Vicky Young is a give-away, as is the overall context of the coverage of the whisper campaign to unseat Mr. Brown.
What got me thinking along these lines was this comment by 1327 on the “what was the moment…” thread:
By 2000 I realised this was minor as by then it was obvious the BBC was coluding colluding with the nu-Lab project in quite a crude way. Days before a new law would be announced the Beeb would run horror stories about the need for such a law. Then after the law had been announced the Beeb would run stories on why it was such a good idea.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/5170285671938033481/#411026
I think I’ve seen a similar pattern which might point to the BBC’s shift towards presenting the current economic noise as a problem outside of Labour’s control. Others have commented here about that, and in this instance Marr allowed Harman to dictate the context:
She said: “At the conference this weekend that we’ve been having, I have to say that people’s focus has not been on trying to create a political crisis out of an economic problem.
So it’s only a political crisis if Labour decides it is? Or maybe only if the BBC is willing to show them in a panic? No. Instead, I think we’re seeing the BBC gently nudging viewers towards believing Labour is still sailing in the right direction, no need for Tory distractions or needless scare-mongering.
Sure, they allowed William Hague to lay into Labour, letting him say they are “increasingly losing the authority to govern”, etc. But the BBC thinks very little of Hague (maybe some do here as well), and figure whatever he says has no effect on anyone. If they really wanted to get a quote which they felt would have any impact, we would have heard from a Lib Dem as well.
The BBC even showed their hand in the one question they have from the Hague segment:
“But the worst thing they could do for you would be to choose a new leader who’d be more popular than Gordon Brown”
Which might lead one to the conclusion that the BBC wants you to think it’s not really a Labour problem at all.
After the clip ends, a couple of links appear in the player window, with the title “More Like This”. The choices:
“Harriet Harman backs Brown”
“PM’s leadership in question: Senior Labour figures have thrown their support behind Gordon….”
More like what, exactly?
I think the BBC can see the writing on Hadrian’s Wall. Send the Scot home, and keep Labour strong. If the Conservatives were in power in a similar situation, the reporting focus would be on the Party, and the BBC would not be working so hard to promote the idea that a change in leadership is all that’s needed.
One other sign that the BBC knows Mr. Brown’s number is up: there hasn’t been any featured photo op with him and the Obamessiah.
From the BBC News: Former deputy PM John Prescott warns no potential successor has “anywhere near” the right skills to replace Gordon Brown.
So in effect he is telling us that, no matter how bad Brown is, the rest of the party are useless (including himself obviously).
Wonder how the Beeb let that one slip through, or maybe the irony is lost on them?
“You know, people ring up Gordon Brown to get advice from all around the world on economic circumstances,” she said. ”
Quite true,I rang him last year to ask him what the fuck he had done with my pension.
“Harriet Harman backs Brown” Just like Cassius and Brutus backed Julius Caesar.
The BBC are starting to panic – they don’t want to show that no matter who the leader of the Labour Party is, it is Labour that is the problem. They will grab at any loose straw to try and paint this as a leadership thing and not one of bad government full stop.
What’s so funny about the BBC and it’s endless spinning for Labour, is that they do not realise that it now just makes things worse for their socialist chums in government.
The endless spin and manipulation of information, that NuLabour was built on, only works with the more gullible parts of the electorate and only in the short to medium term. It is now apparent that a light bulb has suddenly been switched on in the minds of the electorate, and they can, at last, see Labour for the utter incompetent, corrupt, lying old socialists they always were.
The more Labour try to spin their way out of shit, the more it infuriates the electorate who now think “why are these bastards lying to me again?” Labour have woven such a large web of deceit for 11 years and now the lies are all coming into view, Labour find themselves fenced in by their own bullshit, as they can’t admit that they were lying for so long and that Brown’s claim of economic miracle was all smoke and mirrors, so they just have to keep lying to try and get out of it, but now, nobody is getting fooled by that again.
The BBC are helping to dig Labour’s grave now and they don’t even realise it because the cloud-cuckoo-land closed environment in which they exist has no idea about what real people actually think. They still think that viewers and listeners as a load of gullible fools, who will believe anything, purely because the sodding BBC tells them to believe it, but they don’t anymore!
So who would be more popular than the pension thief? David Miliband, another ‘towering intellect’ who failed his ‘A’ level physics yet presumes to lecture us on ‘global warming’? How about Harriet Harman, who really does hate (white) men – except her beloved – to such an extent that she enacts legislation aginst them/us? Ed Balls who, in common with the rest of the potential successors, has never done a real job in his life. Get the message BBC, it’s NuLab that’s the problem and not just Gordon!
Here’s the good news: Any party that has an Ed Balls in their ranks is doomed. 🙂
The BBC helped labour win in previous elections by blatant misrepresentation and willful omission. If the conservatives win next time, it will be their one and only last chance to clip the BBC’s wings.
Laughably, having watched Harman get such an easy ride, then some seriously stoned record producer boring us to death about sea shanties and plugging some boring record, and a few minutes of Hague having to answer questions about Obama, the summary of the world news was Harman spouting rubbish again.
What a waste of a carbon footprint screening any of this garbage
Get the message BBC, it’s NuLab that’s the problem and not just Gordon!
Quite so, and here is the thing; Without Scottish Labour seats England would be free from Socialist rule forever. If Labour cant win in Scotland (evidence Glasgow East), and cant win in England then perhaps Socialism in England is soon to be of no more importance or interest than say………………….The Legalise Cannabis Alliance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalise_Cannabis_Alliance and I`m sure that the Dumbo BBC can all get behind that.
Don’t get me wrong, Lurker, I don’t smoke grass but I’d rather vote for the Legalise Cannabis Alliance than NuLab or their equivilents. Al Beeb’s efforts to save their socialist buddies are pretty pathetic. I guess they believe they have dumbed down the electorate enough already.
Equivalents! I need a smoke!
But like the colour of his skin, Obama’s good looks cannot fully explain the adulation. Few handsome men and fewer beautiful women claw their way to the top of politics. A panting BBC presenter interrupts the rolling news to tell the nation that Obama’s flight has actually touched down at Heathrow, not because of the senator’s race or charm, but because Obama is riding the crest of the global wave of relief that Bush is leaving. A wave that is about to break. It doesn’t know it, but the liberal-left in Europe and North America has been lucky to have Bush.
The Guardian can do it, shame on you BBC.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/27/barackobama.uselections2008
The trouble the country is in is down to just THREE reasons. As manufacturing jobs went Brown took on more public servants to the tune of approx 900,000 in eleven years. He also made over 1000 quangos. Lastly the amount of useless state consultants has gone through the roof. These costs the country 300-400 billion a year, this is why we are in such trouble. The housing market and benefits are peripheral problems. The BBC must be aware of this but are afraid if they bring attention to it it will effect their funds.
I thought that the Huw Edwards interview of Harriet Harman was quite disgraceful. I must admit I’d previously thought of him as a reasonable journalist, but I have nothing but contempt for him now. His entire role was to feed her easy questions and then sit there reverentially nodding his head until she’d finally finished reading out the appropriate Labour Party press release.
One example: he allowed several minutes to explain why the Conservatives didn;t have any policies, couldn’t provide any answers, etc., even though this was completely irrelevant to the question asked.
The Licence Fee has to go. I’m quite happy for Huw to treat pond-life like Harman like Royalty and flay the Conservatives, but I’m not prepared to pay for it any more. Either the BBC must radically rethink how to eliminate bias, or it should be immediately sold off and paid for through advertising.
The BBC has reported that some senior Labour Party figures, including former ministers, are considering possible options for unseating Mr Brown.
And numerous reports of plotting in the party following the by-election defeat at Glasgow East early on Friday have appeared in the press.
It’s the way you tell ‘em, I suppose. These two reports are apparently about the same meeting. One has Gordon toughly keeping the unions in their place, the second has Gordon cravenly surrendering to them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7527738.stm
Labour rejects union strike calls
The Labour Party has rejected trade union demands for less restrictive strike laws at its National Policy Forum at Warwick University.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4413354.ece
Weakened Gordon Brown gives in to union demands
Gordon Brown has caved in to unions, allowing a series of concessions – including an extension of the minimum wage – in a move that sent shudders through the business community.
The Times report is thick with worried comment from business folk. The BBC has no comment from them at all.
Since public debt in the USA is higher than in the UK, wouldn’t harping on about it have been equal to Bush-bashing?
‘But like the colour of his skin, Obama’s good looks cannot fully explain the adulation.’
Good looks?? He resembles a chimp in a suit.
Anon, that’s probably the main reason why most respected unbiased commentators think Bush has been pretty hopeless, so quite why it should now be ok as a target for the UK is beyond me.
You won’t find that criticism on the Beeb though because they’re too busy banging on in an extremely unfocused way about the war (whilst ignoring recent positive developments), slating Bush’s pretty sensible really climate change policy, rambling on about issues which mean precisely jack sh*t in the UK and are no business of ours (abortion, death penalty), and making hopelessly unamusing monkey jokes.
@Lurker
Thanks for the tip – another interesting piece from Nick Cohen.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/27/barackobama.uselections2008
Some of the comments are a bit scary – there are some seriously weird and deluded peeps out there.
“The Bank of England is a PRIVATE corporation owned by its OWNERS.”
Really? And who might the owner of those shares be then???
The Bank of England is a PRIVATE corporation owned by its OWNERS. As most have absolutely no idea who these unelected and therefore unaccountable owners actually are…
The Bank of England was nationalized in 1946.
“Since public debt in the USA is higher than in the UK, wouldn’t harping on about it have been equal to Bush-bashing?”
US debt was 36.8% of GDP at the end of 2007. This compares to 43.8% for the UK.
As Cockney states many fiscal conservatives are unhappy with Bush for his ramping up of debt, the BBC’s ignorance of these particular complaints about Bush is telling.
The US GDP numbers out Thursday will require an awful lot of spin from beeboids. Expectations are for growth of between 2% and 3%.
moonbat nibbler | 28.07.08 – 2:01 pm |
US debt was 36.8% of GDP at the end of 2007.
Not so. It was 60.8% of GDP.
Here are 3 sources for that:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
Maybe you are mistaking total US govt debt with debt held by the public.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
The percentage of debt to GDP continued to grow until 1996, when Mr. Clinton began to get government spending under control. The US debt peaked at 67.3% of GDP under his administration. By the end of the Clinton administration this percentage had dropped to 57.6%. Debt as a percent of GDP dropped almost 10% in four years under a Democratic President with a hostile Republican Congress. Mr. Clinton showed steadfast fiscal leadership against all odds and in spite of right-wing attacks and misinformation.
Mr. Bush II inherited a shrinking government and debt in 2001. With his first budget he managed to increase the debt to GDP ratio to 60.0%, by cutting taxes but not spending. By 2004 this ratio had risen to 63.7%, as a result of additional tax cuts but no significant corresponding cuts in spending. Government estimations (which are notoriously low) predict that the debt to GDP ratio will grow to 69.3% by 2008, two percent higher than the previous peak in 1996. Mr. Bush will completely wipe out the gains we made under a fiscally responsible Democratic President.
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
Anonymous | 28.07.08 – 3:52 pm |
You’re trying to compare apples to oranges. The US Government Account figures include trillions that are simply off-balance-sheet here in the UK.
An example: your (and the CIA World Factbook’s) comparison includes the Railroad Retirement Account for the US while the UK government figures don’t include the £20bn debt of Network Rail nor the current £600m Railway Pension Scheme deficit.
moonbat nibbler | 28.07.08 – 7:37 pm
This may be true – but there are other differences the other way.
The US doesn’t have an NHS to pay for. The US figures are for Federal Govt debt only – in the UK the national govt funds all kinds of expenditure that in the US would be managed at State level etc etc.
You made the comparison to start with.
“record deficit for next us president”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7529372.stm
subtext – the us economy is in poor shape for obama
you can look in vain on beeb website for something in a similar vein re the UK economy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/07/18/bcnbrown418.xml
“Roger Bootle of Capital Economics warned that the size of the goverment’s annual budget deficit could hit a record £100 billion if the UK does suffer a recession this year or next.”
this is the biggest deficit since records began and beeb don’t even give it a page that i can see.
if you type “deficit” into the bbc search engine you get this:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7497140.stm
“We expect to see an improvement in the trade deficit over the next six months,” said David Page, an economist at Investec.
Anon: “The US doesn’t have an NHS to pay for…”
Per capita government expenditure on health at average exchange rate (2005):
US: $2862.0
United Kingdom: $2668.0
http://www.who.int/whosis/database/core/core_select_process.cfm?strISO3_select=ALL&strIndicator_select=nha&intYear_select=latest&fixed=indicator&language=english
Hugh | 30.07.08 – 8:04 am
Amazing. Didn’t know that.
So, without providing a universal health care system free at the point of delivery, the US federal government still manages to spend more of its taxpayers’ dollars on health spending per capita than the UK.
And that’s with 84% of the people holding private insurance cover.
What kind of lunatics are running that asylum?
I hadn’t realized Obama’s health pitch would be so simple: all he has to do is deliver what the US taxpayer is already paying for but not getting.
Anonymous | 30.07.08 – 5:36 pm |
Actually, I believe Hugh is misleading you a bit. I don’t know whether that’s on purpose or not. That number he is quoting you includes everybody’s expense on health as a percentage of GDP, not just what the government spends.
Explanation for those categories in the report here:
http://www.who.int/whosis/indicators/compendium/2008/3exo/en/
So if you want to make a real comparison, compare the quality of health care an average US citizen gets with the average care you guys get. I’ll gladly pay the extra $197 per year just for superior dental care, and for not having to drive around in an ambulance for four hours in Wales while trying to find a bed when I’m having a heart attack, thank you very much.
“That number he is quoting you includes everybody’s expense on health as a percentage of GDP, not just what the government spends.”
You probably know better than I do, but I have to say I don’t see how that can be: the WHO heads it “Per capita government expenditure” – look at the table. How can that possibly mean “government expenditure plus private expenditure”? Where in the document you link to does it suggest that it does?
Hugh | 30.07.08 – 6:28 pm |
Level of total expenditure on health (THE) as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), and per-capita health expenditures in US dollars and in international dollars.
Distribution of public and private sectors in financing health and their main components, such as the extent of social and private health insurance, the burden on households through out-of-pocket spending, and reliance on external resources in financing health care.
It’s a combination of private and public expenses. Not just government expenditure.
They sure aren’t trying to make this very clear, though, especially part about out-of-pocket and private expenses.
Since that document doesn’t seem to be written in English, I remain confused. If that’s the case, what’s the point of the separate column headed “Per capita TOTAL expenditure on health”?
The document you link to defines that: “Total expenditure on health (THE) comprises the funds mobilized by the system, being the sum of General Government and Private Expenditure on Health”
The other column – the one I referred to – is headed “Per capita GOVERNMENT expenditure on health”. It can mean only that, surely?
The closest definition given for that column in your document is this: “General government expenditure on health (GGHE) is the sum of outlays for health maintenance, restoration or enhancement paid for in cash or supplied in kind by government entities, such as the Ministry of Health, other ministries, parastatal organizations or social security agencies (without double counting government transfers to social security and extrabudgetary funds). It includes transfer payments to households to offset medical care costs and extrabudgetary funds to finance health services and goods. The revenue base of these entities may comprise multiple sources, including external funds.”
I don’t really understand much of that, but it doesn’t seem to mention private payments.
I might be being thick, and as I say I don’t doubt you know more about this than me, but I still don’t get it.
Hugh/David Preiser
I think Hugh is right. This wiki page says total per capita spending (public+private) is :
Per capita spending was $7,026
also see:
… Per capita spending on health care by the U.S. government placed it among the top ten highest spenders among United Nations member countries in 2004.[7]
An analysis of the 2002 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey published 2008 found that public spending represented slightly over half (56.1%) of US health care spending.
One analysis of international spending levels in the year 2000 found that while the US spends more on health care than other countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the use of health care services in the US is below the OECD median by most measures. The authors of the study concluded that the prices paid for health care services are much higher in the US.[25]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States#Health_care_payment
I guess the per capita number is higher, but what does this actually mean? Is the UK tax rate taken into account with all this? If not, that discounts a nice chunk of the out-of-pocket expenses.
I can’t tell if this number is government expenditure, or a combination of government and private. This thing gets more confusing the more I try to understand the definitions.
Either way, I suppose you’re right, Hugh, that the US does spend far more than the UK. But based on the experiences of everyone I know over there, I wouldn’t trade US health care for any of it.
Going back to the economics of the UK, really, don’t worry what the BBC say on the subject.
The UK economy is in the process of imploding in on itself. The housing, construction and retail sector are just the first dominoes to fall, to be followed by the general economy and, last but by no means least, the public sector.
The UK banking system is bust, taxpayers money (or what there will be!) will continually be used to prop it up and, once inflation takes hold (in the official figures that is!), interest rates will simply have no option but to be ratcheted up to 1988 levels.
At that point, we’ll have riots on the street for the BBC to report.