The BBC leads the Radio 4 news this morning with the shock horror revelation that the June budget will hit poorest families hardest, or so alleges the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Yes, those Nasty Conservatives are back in power and instantly hurting the poor and disadvantaged, thank goodness we have the BBC to repeat this claim. Tomorrow. Tories eat their own babies? It strikes me that the BBC has become the official opposition to the Colaition, doing the work of Labour whilst it seeks to reconstruct itself.
THE NASTY PARTY…
Bookmark the permalink.
This is an old story being re-cycled.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10393585
Question is though, is the recycling evidence of pi$$ poor journalism, or anti-Tory editorialising?
Probably both.
The only sort of competition tolerated at the BBC is between shoddy standards in journalism and partisanship.
Nothing has ever hurt the poor (or the quality of life of all British people come to that) than Labour’s deliberate policy of swamping this country with immigrants for cheap labour and votes.
God, predictable or what ! I’m amazed that the beeboids are only mentioning it once in every bulletin !
They are coming back to it several times in a bullitin, all this morning, ie every 15 minutes.
If the poor are hit hardest by regressive taxes, why not get rid of the one that all households have to pay, regardless of income and on pain of prison, to fund the propaganda produced by the State Broadcaster? Simples!
This morning’s Today programme was a classic; the programme set an agenda and then attacked the coaltion government, tried to trick a minister and then let an ‘impartial’ expert explain the issue. And don’t forget this was all resulting form the trap laid by Harriet Harmanin the dying days of the Labour government that caused the financial problems the coalition are trying to solve – http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/08/bbclabour-agenda.html
A trap, by the way, that was welcomed by the present home secretary when she was opposition (I use the term “opposition” as an identifier not as a description of what the Conservatives actually did when not in power) spokesman for women, equality, whingeing etc. AFAI recall, the “Equality Bill” went through the Commons – and the Lords for that matter – with hardly a dissenting voice from the official “opposition” party.
Coming back to BBC bias, notice also, the first words used by Webb in the interview at 7:50 on Today this morning which were “you’ve been found out haven’t you?” An admirably un-nuanced opening to an unbiased and strictly impartial interview. Actually, it appeared to the listener that Webb had more airtime than the hapless interviewee.
Progressive = marxist
I don’t know…i think the left have unfairly taken the term progressive for their own. Michael Gove’s schools plan is fairly progressive, but it’s not marxist or socialist. What Thatcher did to free up private enterprise was progressive. We should fear the socialist brand of ‘progressive’ but the idea itself isn’t dangerous, it only is in the hands of left wingers.
I don’t listen to the R4 Today programme anymore, it’s so stuck in a lefty rut. The same subjects are hammered mercilessly. You are never far from winging union leaders, labour politicians, Muslims, gay campaigners, Palestinians, asylum seekers, Africans, gypsies, teachers, Public sector workers..…………………. just the occasional Tory baiting to give balance.
Our favourite dyke on News 24 has just been interviewing the vile fat Ed Balls about the ‘evil Tories’ and now we’re getting our favourite dyke to talk to the Fawcett Society (again) who of course think the budget is unfair to ‘wimmin’.
Funny that they didn’t seem to think millions of men losing their jobs is ‘unfair’ caused by the one eyed mong and his policies over the last 13 years.
But it’s funny, the BBC are doing what I often point out, the BBC using all their network output to hammer the Tories.
Personally I don’t care, the Tories deserve it, hardly any of them have the balls to speak up against the BBC’s leftie output, for example lezzer Hill didn’t ask Balls about how Liebour’s admitted 50 billion of cuts would have hurt the poor, she just excepted the fat slugs lies as facts, nodding away like a parcel shelf dog.
I Agree 100%, Martin. I even think that the so called ‘males’ working at the corp. are trans-gender females!
Not one decent ‘right’ thinking man/woman amongst ’em.
So News 24 have just interviewed some bint who co-authored the report. Then we had Ed Bollockchops, now we’re going to get Ed Millipede, no doubt all the Liebour leadership vermin will be getting a go today.
Funny thing is I haven’t see anyone from the Government except a very brief one sided interview with someone from the Treasury.
Of course, the real bias is actually not accurately explaining the context. Why is the budget severe? It’s not for the fun of it, to give George Osborne something to do. It might have something to do with the truly dreadful state of the nation’s finances – a fact that isn’t always mentioned in these stories, and yet is essential to mention.
My old mother watches these stories on the 24 hour news – university cuts (“oh these poor youngsters, let down by the government”) etc – and starts ranting about the cruel government. She hasn’t understood the background behind the cuts because the news rarely examines it in the way it should. A news item about ‘savage cuts’ that doesn’t mention or explain why there is a need for the cuts (record defecit etc) is irresponsible journalism as it is not informing people accurately.
The bBC going to town over this story what a surprise. However it would be nice to be told who commissioned the report and the written remit. Remember he who pays the piper calls the tune. So the report was commissioned by the the Child Poverty Action Group, so no axe to grind there.
Fred,
I posted the same thing on another thread here.
Grant, apologies I do not read all the threads, I have been doing some digging and the CPAG manifesto is signed by a Kate Green OBE, staunch socialist and newly elected Labour MP. Again, what a surprise.
Fred,
Sorry, I wasn’t criticising you, just agreeing with you. I don’t get time to read every post here either !
Maybe the BBC can find out how much the IFS were paid for the report !
The BBC all of a sudden seem to think the IFS is now some economic guru, so beeboids WHY are you not attackig Liebour for these comments made in your own favourite paper during the election?
The IFS give none of the parties high marks, saying 87% of Labour cuts are not spelled out, 82% of the Tories’ plans are unspecified and 74% of Lib Dems have not yet been detailed.
At a morning press conference today.Mandelson came under attack from the BBC political editor, Nick Robinson, and Sky News political editor, Adam Boulton, over his party’s refusal to provide details of his planned cuts. Boulton read out a list of cuts the Financial Times said was likely if Labour is to meet its pledge to halve the cuts within four years. Mandelson urged Boulton to calm down and said neither the FT nor the IFS were standing at the election.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/27/ifs-come-clean-cuts
Martin,
Yes. During the last government the IFS produced many reports critical of Labour, which the BBC just ignored !
Why not send a busload of tramps and poor people down from each town and city and send them to Bush House for tea and sympathy-and they will have board and lodgings too of course…muck out the barn at the Beeb and put those grand buildings and expense accounts to good use. Maybe a Naughtie or a Webb can adopt a couple each …a jobswap? They could not be any worse and would indeed be a good deal better!
Wasn`t the survey “commissionned ” by a Charity Quango that we are mug enough to stump up for..hope the increasingly useless Tories take an axe to the Beeb and its Qaungo Quackers before too long.