It seems to me that like Labour, the BBC does not understand why an increase in NIC is a tax on jobs.Perhaps Statism erodes the capacity for clear economic thinking but I listened in amazement to the BBC “Today” interview with Sir Stuart Rose, he of M&S fame. When Rose pointed out that the NIC increase with Brown and Clegg think so virtuous is a direct impediment to business growth, he was ignored on the substance of that argument and instead presented with the Labour attack line that IF government does not jack up NIC it will have to increase VAT. A false choice and talk of reducing Government efficiency was dismissed. Rose rightly pointed out that if VAT did rise, it would be a tax on consumption and therefore one has the choice to avoid it by limiting expenditure whereas an NIC increase hits all, this was met with silence. Then, most disgracefully, Humphrys suggested that Rose was saying these things because he would be offered a peerage to the Lords. Rose denied this but the impression was aimed at listeners, not Rose. More BBC attack dog stuff dressed up as news.
A TAXING PROBLEM…
Bookmark the permalink.
With the general election campaign underway, here are some ideas for questions to ask candidates about Common Purpose: http://tinyurl.com/yj6gtqm
To be expected really, standard BBC protection of McFailure. The BBC just spout typical Liebour rubbish, like this morning they were showing us one of those ‘brilliant new shiny schools’ built with my wasted taxes.
Firstly, the morons being churned out of these schools are incapable of doing anything useful
Secondly the BBC ALWAYS talk about ‘skoolz and ozpitals’ when talking about public spending, but never 1 millions of useless Guardian reader non jobs like the tool that was on Radio 5 the other day who had a degree in some pointless subject and was a “schools sports co-ordinator” whatever that is. On 50K a year I’m sure.
It is interesting though that McBust is still hammering this NI story (with the BBC’s backing) McFailure is on the wrong side of this argument. I notice that ST Vince is very quiet on this, perhaps he wasn’t worked out how to flip flop every way on it yet.
Rose interviewed on R5 by their “business” correspondent. The Beeboid was approaching hysteria, his voice thick with scorn over Rose’s questioning of Brown’s remedy. He suggested that public sector workers could/(should?) boycott M&S for Rose’s urging of public spending cuts rather than tax rises.
All this over the employment effects of £6bn of cuts, when will the fact of a £170bn pa deficit be grasped?
The more the BBC attacks the judgment – or the bona fides – of leading businessmen, the more of them are likely to join the 60+ already attacking the NI increases.
Agreed Mandelmong and Mr Eyebrows are digging an even bigger hole for themselves right now. Keep digging McBust.
I agree. I heard it and I was shocked at how he and Campbell went mental at him asking him questions as to whether he was a member of the Tory party, asking him specific questions about where he would cut and when, questions which he naturally couldn’t answer.
Listeners were left with the impression that he was a fat cat and his motive was purely self interest and actually his opinion wasn’t actually that important.
Tom Bradby at ITV tips a bucketful over the one eyed idiot. If only the BBC could get their tongues out of Brown’s arse for a few seconds to give us some simple straight truths about the one eyed liar.
It’s a subject little discussed that interviewing Gordon is unlike interviewing any other politician.
Most encounters with party leaders or MPs form a distinct pattern. We come in. We sit down. We chat pleasantly. We do an interview, which is probing, highbrow or a bit brutal, as circumstances demand. Then we exchange more pleasantries as we shoot a few ‘wide’ shots. And we go away.
End of story.
Simple, huh?
Tony Blair was like this. David Cameron is. So are Alastair Darling, Nick Clegg, George Osborne and just about every other front rank politician I can think of.
Not Gordon. He’s not a bad man. I’m not saying that. In fact, on the contrary, I often feel what I see behind the grumpy manner and those hooded eyes is a deep well of humanity.
But interviewing him is emotionally complicated.He doesn’t seem to understand that we are here to ask difficult questions and test his arguments by establishing contrary positions. He nearly always tells us we are wrong, both on and off camera, and that we have not done our research. He often gets angry, sometimes sulks and from time to time looks brutally hurt.
I really don’t know what to make of it. It’s not politics as we know it.
http://blog.itv.com/news/tombradby/?p=232
” He nearly always tells us we are wrong, both on and off camera”
I thought Adam Boulton of Sky News was yesterday wrong when interviewing Brown over the NI storm. But Brown couldn’t “educate” Boulton because he couldn’t bring himself to say the words borrow or debt, he kept repeating that the Conservative proposals “would take £xbn out of the economy”. Boulton seemed to be thinking that the cash was either in the government’s pocket or that of the taxpayer, not that it would be found from BOE funny money or the gilt market.
Blatant bias, Humphreys took Brown apart on Radio 4 news this morning. On the BBC news clip is only a 2 minute section showing a Brown rebuttle. Goebbels would again be proud of his apostles.
To be fair to John Humphrys – yes he did take Brown apart this morning. With plenty of derision in his voice.
John Humphrys did indeed take Brown apart BUT the BBC choose what elements of the interview to show and the elements shown are positive to Brown. Tomorrow’s interview with David Cameron will be at least as confrontational and the excerpt shown will not be as positive for the Conservatives.
I hope Been Bias Craig is conducting in-depth analysis of the two interviews for us…
“Humphreys took Brown apart on Radio 4” Not on my wireless although Humphrys appeared to get heated. The problem here is that, as usual, Humphrys droned on about “boom and bust” etc etc. We KNOW Brown’s answers – we’ve heard them a hundred times before. Brown is teflon (at the BBC) on this because he ALWAYS responds in the same way with -usually – the same words: it was a global problem – it was those greedy bankers – the regulators “didn’t know”. Humphrys even conceded – at the very beginning of the interview – that Brown had responded magnificently to the emergency. There were no surprises for Brown – he KNEW what was going to be asked and prepared accordingly.
If the BBC or Humphrys wish to discomfit Brown (unlikely I know) he should be tackled on those things for which he is undoubtedly and directly responsible. For instance: 1. the ruin of private pension arrangements in the UK and 2. selling gold, not only at the bottom of the market but in a way that guaranteed that the BoE would get the minimum for the gold sold. If Humphrys was a decent journalist (big if!) he would try to nail Brown by springing surprise questions not by bringing up the same old same old stuff we’ve heard – and been bored to death with – so many times before.
This morning’s web news headline – let’s see how long it lasts.
TORY PLANS BUILT ON MYTH – BROWN
The blurb beneath spins us a dynamic Brown, who “tells” the BBC that Conservative economic policies are built on a ‘myth’ – “tells” not “claims”! – and “hits back at criticism of his tax plans” – “hits back” not “defends”!!
Conservative economic policies are built on a “myth”, Gordon Brown tells the BBC as he hits back at criticism of his tax plans.
This would perhaps be more a more accurate way of describing what actually happened:
Conservative economic policies are build on a “myth”, Gordon Brown claims in a BBC interview as he is forced to defend his tax plans.
I have also noticed the BBC devious use of “claim” and “say” etc. The BBC will report that the conservatives “claim” … which suggests that they have no authority and no one else agrees with them. labour statements are introduced with authority, labour rarely “claim” anything according to the BBC.
Another headline misuse is ‘accuses’, which allows the BBC to stick up in 48 pt whatever rubbish Mr. Brown or Labour may claim, only without a shred of evidence for any validity behind such a statement being pointed out.
Another good one is to work up a ‘row’ over something, when even casual surfing tends to show that it has been initiated and maintained by the BBC itself to try and create another front of attack. No one else cares.
On the plus side, the cast of HIGNFY last night, which might get watched by a few, did rather dump on quite a lot of the Labour project last night. Even managed a few good snipes at the BBC hierarchy.
So in the cheque-signing upper echelons that constitute the upper echelons of Aunty, I imagine a few contracts may get reviewed.
If it’s anything like the NI increase “will not cost jobs” headline, it will be there most of the day.
Do the BBC honestly think that a business leaders opinion could be bought off with a peerage?
I remember when that peerless businessman Alan Sugar was elevated to the Upper Chamber the BBC was touting him as the man who would turn us around but his show on the Beeb wouldn’t have to stop as there was nothing political about the appointment.
Someone talks out in favour of a Conservative rather than Labour policy and all of a sudden it’s a cheap political stunt to get a peerage.
Well whaddya, whaddya, whaddya? Of the 16 audio links on the page DV links to, the only one that isn’t working is the ‘interview’ with Sir Stuart Rose.
Whaddya, whaddya, whaddya.
However, if you click to the right on ‘latest programme in full’ you can hear the interview @ 1hr 16 mins in. Only available today though. Let’s see if the BBC can fix that problem with this particular interview on the running order list before though, shall we?
Note also the gratuitous comment about Sir Michael in the running order list: “Marks and Spencer is due to replace chief executive Sir Stuart Rose with the former Morrison’s chief Marc Bolland on 1 May”. What on earth has that got to do with the interview. Not trying to prime the listener to buy into Humphrys’ screel that Sir Stuart is only speaking out because he’s looking for a peerage? I’m sure that if they do get that audio-link up and running, in the interests of impartiality they’ll want to take that gratuitous comment out.
Well whaddya, whaddya, whaddya, the links now been fixed!
But, Sir Stuart announced he was leaving M and S about 6 months ago. The BBC’s use of the word “replaced” makes it sound as if he is being sacked !
Sir Stuart is one of the most respected men in business. But the thickos at the BBC wouldn’t know that as they know nothing about business.
Yeah, from what I’ve read Sir Stuart was behind choosing Marc Bolland his replacement and deciding how much he gets paid. If the Conservatives win I’m sure there’s a job for Sir Stuart as BBC Standards Commissioner with a remit to kick out everyone working for the BBC who do not have the professional integrity to uphold standards of impartiality. Bye, bye TODAY programme; bye, bye Newsnight; bye, bye at least half the people working for BBC News & Current Affairs.
Why expect the BBC to understand economics?
It’s given a guaranteed £3.5 billion per year.
It hasn’t a clue about the real world of money, like the rest of the public sector.
BBC’s Radio 4 ‘World at One’ (with the superficial Ms. Kearney) and its cynical notion of political ‘impartiality’ today.
This is how the sneaky BBC works it on N.N contributions:
1.) Get an uninterrupted, unchallenged soundbite from Labour’s G. Brown on ‘Tory deception’ repeated;
2.) Get an uninterrupted anti-Tory soundbite from N. Clegg;
3.) Don’t get a separate soundbite from a Tory criticising Labour;
4.) Get a Labour Cabinet Minister (Bryne) to confront Shadow Tory Minister (Hammond) on NI contributions.
Yes, it was just one long attack on the Tories. There was also an interview with a former Labour advisor who attacked the Tories over NI, a professor who is a BBC regular who attacked the Tories over NI and an interview with the only employers’ organisation who doesn’t support the Tories over NI.
Then, for a change, Martha moved on to the Tories’ plans for a National Citizens Service, which is going to be funded by diverting money away from the government’s Respect strategy (the one directed at young Muslims). Who was her only interviewee here? Hanif Qadir from one of the organisations that gets money from the government’s Prevent programme!
Guess what is THE TOP STORY on Radio 5? Some lesbian who I’ve never heard of and who resigned from the Tory party 18 months ago is ‘upset’ that Cameron didn’t tell Grayling off for his gays comment.
Yes that is the top story on Radio 5.
The BBC so desperate to smear the Tories.
That is outrageous.
<img src=”http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif” border=”0″/> Labour hit back over tax plan row
It the fast moving dynamic 24 hour news cycle, the BBC’s song remains always the same.
Buried in that report is this little “development”:
The BBC understands senior civil servants have met to discuss how Conservative plans to cut £6bn in the coming financial year could be achieved.
Presumably if the Tories’ savings idea is sheer fantasy, as Labour and the BBC would have it, the report would be that senior civil servants were laughing at the idea instead of meeting to see what can be done about it.
The results of this will be key. How will the BBC handle it?
All this fuss over £6 billion – but everyone recognises that ANY cut in tax on the private sector is good, ANY cuts in wasteful spending in the public sector is good.
So there should be little public anxiety iof the |BBC was told to cut its bloated spending by, say, £1 to 1andahalf billion ? Giving every UK household a reduction in the BBC tax of £50 a year. Not to be sneezed at, and the BBC has harped on so much about the £6 billion it would be delicious to see them hoist byb their own petard.
But cutting the license fee in half would take £1.5 billion out of the drugs and alcohol economy!
Which of the following does the BBC choose to report?
Prescott click through twitter fraud
Brown lies to parliament about Wheelan’s pass
Transport minister caught with fraudlant reciept to fiddle expenses
Unknow lesbian in a sulk with David Cameron
Baroness Scotland in court being accused of lying !
On the BBC “live text” Laura Kuennssberg is excited that there are no less than 5 ministerial cars parked outside Church House, where the Labour Party manifesto is being finalised (“Balls + DMiliband tweeting from in there!” she gushes). Given that they have used their ministerial cars (and presumably have chauffeurs waiting for them) they clearly regard writing the Labour Party manifesto as ministerial business.
And the rat faced Laura is wetting her knickers.
Slightly off topic, but Michael Caine’s endorsement of the Conservatives in ‘Michael Caine backs Tories’ youth citizen service plan’ on the BBC website is just downright negative towards a great idea and one that Sir Michael says is already working. Sorry BBC – its a great idea – BE POSITIVE. We should be helping youngsters out in this way.
Everything positive from the Tories is just greeted with a stack of negativity. You know it is negative because EVERY ARTICLE ENDS ON A NEGATIVE NOTE TOWARDS THE TORIES. Sure put the criticisms in the body of the text, but finish off on something good.
Why aren’t the BBC doing a proper analysis of what 13 years of NuLabour has done to the country?
Because
1. The BBC backs Labour
2. The BBC know that the one eyed idiot would look like a total failure as a human being.
The BBC website’s live election coverage features this bit of anti-Tory gossip, which the BBC were clearly motivated ebough to make enquiries about:
1639: The question “Is Michael Caine a non-dom” has been circulating on Twitter and was posted to the BBCElection Twitter feed after the actor backed the Tories. A Conservative spokesman told the BBC that since Sir Michael Caine is neither a party donor nor a Conservative Party member, his tax status is his own business.
Standard BBC/Liebour/Unite/Guardian smear tactice.
Labour would be stupid to try and smear a national institution/national treasure like Michael Caine, the public will not take kindly to that little game at all.
This is the BBC all over – a postive message is put across which people may agree with, so lets try and dig some muck on the speaker.
So much for the BBC directive handed down on high that they would be impartial during the election. The BBC have taken all their “dirty trick” tactics from Wheelan. They are beneath contempt.
Altogether now: It is the Gordon preservation society!
I wonder if the BBC would like to be decimated- in the old Roman sense- that is sack every tenth employee at random. Everybody included from cleaners to top execs.
We could do the same throughout the state sector. Tell the rest to do the work of the decimated ones and give them a pay rise.
Repeat as often as necessary . Would it work?. Of course it would and we could soon deal with the debt .
Just a dream I had.
I see that Kudos, the makers of Ashes to Ashes for the BBC have now complained to both Labour and the Conservatives about their use, without permission, of the Gene Hunt / Audi Quattro images in their recent poster spat.
What’s the betting that the BBC, under instruction from Mandelson, encouraged Kudos to issue the complaints?
Then, what’s the further betting that if the Tories had not responded with a version of their own and had left the Labour version standing, Kudos and the BBC would not have made such an issue?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/7567910/General-Election-2010-Labours-Ashes-to-Ashes-advert-causes-more-embarrassment.html
That poster campaign was a PR disaster for labour and I can imagine that labour would be desperate to see it pulled ASAP, the poster was peddled as a design from a member of the public when in fact the designer was a lifelong labour supporting activist.
However the damage is done, the Millibrain dumb and dumber act looked like mongs when they unveiled the poster and they must have wasted thousands on it so its not all bad news 😀
I won’t take that bet. I saw the final episode of the previous series where Sam Tyler warned against a future female Prime Minister. Not to mention the overall premise of the entire series.
The producers of the show are Labour through and through.
Cassandra…Beeboids, ‘bloody fousands of ’em !!
Not for much longer 😉