Did you catch this VERY hostile and interrupting interview by Evan Davies of Iain Duncan Smith on the BBC this morning? How very dare Government try to limit Welfare! I’ll be on the BBC myself later today (BBC Birmingham around 12.40) discussing this topic. My view is that whilst the principle of a cap is a good one, £26,000 seems an excessive amount. What about those many people who earn so much less than this? Why did Evan Davies not pursue this line?
THAT WELFARE CAP
Bookmark the permalink.
Good luck with your appearance, David. One thought; is it not possible to ask the interviewer to shut up for a few seconds, if they are persistently interrupting you? Take the battle to them, don’t play by their rules. Or would that approach mean you are never again to be invited onto one of their propaganda shows?
In addition, I support your view that £26k is excessive. It’s yours and my money they are taking and I’m sick of them getting so much, when I know families where parents are working and who don’t have that amount of money coming in, and they manage to look after themselves without recourse to me having to subsidise them. I’d say the level of support should be no greater than £10k-£15k pa in total, and regardless of how many wives, children and other dependents there are in the family.
Any stick with which to beat the Tories is a good stick. The bBC has picked up the meme that “children will suffer” under the benefit cap. Ha. Children will suffer because some parents, incentivised by peverse welfare rules, have had (far) more than they can afford to raise from their own resources, which is somehow OUR fault. We must pay or we are evil. Damn the responsible caring parents, they have to support other peoples large families in addition to their own.
Needless to say no one dare mention which cultures brought to the UK habitually have very families. No one dares say that. That clever “race card” fashioned by utopian socialist lawyer Blair silences freedom of speech. The compliantly-Labour witchfinder bBC , ever searching for “racists”.
Flagrant lefty propaganda from the BBC on the benefits cap. A clapped out pants down Liberal and a couple of fools in frocks and it’s a ‘controversy’ worthy of the top of the Beeb 10 o’clock News.
Interesting to note that the official opposition (Labour) are keeping their heads down on this issue. Is this some innovative news management system cooked up by the BBC and their cringing Labour allies?
I thought IDS destroyed him. Very good performance indeed, with the hectoring bias of the BBC laid out starkly for all to see.
I found his comments on the true meaning of the official definition of “homeless” particularly interesting.
Yes, I agree. At one point IDS said to him, “You didn’t want to hear this.” Good for him.
Melanie Phillips has written about this, here.
Thanks Sue
And, of course, BBC *Economics* correspondant Evan Davies forgot to mention the key point that it’s 26K tax-free – or closer to 32K in real terms.
Poverty? Hey, some of us think that’s not bad for a career option with no work.
I agree with you re 26K. That is the average wage, no way should a beenfit cap be MORE than the average wage. Clearly THERE WILL BE EXCEPTIONS in every region that can be dealt with locally one example, a large family, both aprents always worked, just been made redundant, no savings etc. These exceptions mustn’t be allowed to be used as an excuse for delaying reform any longer.
I found it SO difficult to follow because of the repeated interruptions, and talking over poor Iains replies. Apart from being fucking rude, it was bad journalism, and we, the listeners, had difficulty in understanding the gist of what the interviwee was trying to say.
Evan Davies is an awful, awful man. Someone should chain him to a fence by his Prince Albert…
Why the hell would Evan care about whether children are in poverty or not?
He`s unlikely to ever have any…and he is in a settled relationship, so tomorrows “marginalised and vulnerable” youngsters won`t concern him one jot.
Justins kids are privately educated I`m sure-as are nearly all high paid Beeboids-so how does Evan puff up this show of faux-outrage.
A pathetic display a la Freisler, as IDS held forth…and even his own enemies would concede that he`s put a little bit of work into all this…and long before Evan got his piercings as well.
Leftist BBC journalists (the terms are nearly synonmous) on high salaries like to justify their salaries by being very generous with other people’s money.
It is their substitute for caring.
The interruptions are just ego.
They believe that their views are more important than the person they are interviewing.
Just listened to the entire clip and time after time Evan Davis went wholly in the wrong direction, pushing the one idea he had that morning.
When he finally was able to push all the pieces of his reforms into the snarling narrative ED wanted to portray, IDS ran rings around him and exposed Davis for the fool he is.
Wow. A very poor performance from Davis. IDS says the Government doesn’t think there will be an increase in child poverty, so Davis accuses him of not running the figures. When IDS says they have done, Davis assumes this means IDS can then tell him the increase in child poverty. What a joke.
And I think it’s a bit dishonest of Davis to try and shift the debate to the benefits cap hurting decent working people who are laid off, when it’s really about doing something to change the benefits lifestyle of people who have never worked. When IDS corrected him on this for the third time he sneered at it as an “officer’s discretion”.
Also, great point from IDS about the ridiculous notion that children sharing a room is a metric for poverty. By that definition, nearly everyone I know grew up in poverty.
Davis’s last desperate attack made me laugh out loud: doesn’t this reform mean your reforms aren’t working?
I listened to the whole thing, but really didn’t have to in order to find out if the interview went well or not. You can always tell when the producers think the Narrative they wanted didn’t quite come across when the blurb accompanying the clip is really long.
‘When IDS corrected him on this for the third time he sneered at it as an “officer’s discretion”.
BBC on-air ‘talent’ seem to be taking, and being allowed to take a lot more ‘discretion’ these days, which some may feel to be more rampant personal opinion pushing tribal agenda.
Then, when nailed on it, out comes a ‘spokesperson’ to justify their precious market rate’s lack of professionaiism with a flip ‘well.. boys will be girls’ as if this excuses anything.
I have now had a reply in this form from the Newsnight Producer on Mr. Mason’s ‘speaking for the UK public gob malfunction’ on the EU, and will share with my reply later.
26K is a lot of money, excpet to a beeobid of course. 26K just on housing is far more than most can afford.
Of course the left have a valid point that most of tihs money goes to private landlords, so my view is that in London there should be a max rent for landlords who want to take state paid benefits. Most private landlords like state paid benefits because the are sure of getting the money.
The Government could set a far lower figure by use of it’s effective buying power.
Just like a lengthy accompanying blurb betrays the Today producers’ desire to get a specific Narrative across when they feel the interview itself doesn’t, the BBC News Channel reporting on the issue also gives the game away. It was chock full of Bishops and others complaining about exactly the points Davis was incorrectly pushing.
Why, it’s almost as if there’s some sort of agenda on this issue they’re trying to spread across the spectrum of broadcasting.
The Beeb’s backed the wrong horse on this one. No-one in the real world can understand the fuss, given that it’s more than a good many could ever expect to earn. The Government just needs to tell the BBC and other whingers to f*** off and it’s on to a winner.
Whether the Tories are smart enough to realise that is another matter.
The News Channel did it again just now. Yet another segment about how wrong it is to cap benefits, poor people will now have to choose food over rent. But, Sopel asks, aren’t some actual working people going to think this is unfair when they have to make do on 26K? No, came the answer.
There is a perception that this is unfair, but that’s something we have to change.
Narrative? What Narrative?
Evan Davies no doubt cannot comprehend that anyone should have to rub along on a mere £26,000 a year. He probably spends more than that on cock rings.
Ugh! I’m about to have my tea, whilst Dez might like to think about ED’s puss filled cock, I’d rather not thanks.
‘puss filled cock’ – ah yes Hesten Blumenthal at his finest 🙂
Oh my god. You totally went there.
Don’t know if anyone else caught Dame Nicla Campbell this morning on the phone in, but some halfwit rang in who was (quelle surprise) was a self confessed marxist and just LOVED Nikki’s show (there’s high praise) but was devasted and couldn’t stand Talksport as it allowed all sorts of right wingers on (rather odd as it’s the station that gives fellow commie Galloway a voice every weekend).
When marxists ring in to praise Dame Nikki you know the BBC are doing well.
Don’t know if anyone else caught Dame Nicla Campbell this morning on the phone in, but some halfwit rang in who was (quelle surprise) was a self confessed marxist and just LOVED Nikki’s show (there’s high praise) but was devasted and couldn’t stand Talksport as it allowed all sorts of right wingers on (rather odd as it’s the station that gives fellow commie Galloway a voice every weekend).
When marxists ring in to praise Dame Nikki you know the BBC are doing well.
I did hear that moaning leftist. To be fair, he did say that he was 76 and sick of life. I felt pretty fed up just listening to him for a couple of minutes.
Yes Robin I was hoping he doesn’t make it to 77.
The other thing I thought was interesting from Dame Nikki this morning, was when he was talking about the opinion polls that show a large majority in favour of the governments cutting of housing benefit.
Dame Nikki’s ‘view’ was “if we believe these polls”.
If we believe? What so when a poll doesn’t fit with Dame Nikki’s view it should be treated with scepticism? When did that start? oh hang on when Liebore lost the election and Red Ed is shown to be as popular as a turd in a swimming pool.
Now the opinion polls can’t be ‘trusted’ well I bet unless it’s one in the Guardian.
‘Now the opinion polls can’t be ‘trusted’ well I bet unless it’s one in the Guardian.’
Amen to that.
Especially one done with the LSE, for the BBC, exclusively.
Love to have a cherry vulture explain that distinction other than ‘if it is the BBC then it is fine; otherwise not’ logic too often punted out still in the offchance some sap will buy it.
Might as well have said, “If we believe this Lisbon vote…”
I’ve just watched the six o’clock news, am I living in a parallel universe? Can’t wait to emigrate.
I noticed that BBC, ITV and C4 all interviewed single women with several kids living in large houses.
ITV/C4 used the same woman, but what I found interesting is we were never told what the fathers of these kids contribute towards maintenance of their kids.
I suspect this is not asked as the feminists who run the media don’t see men as relevant and that the state is the surrogate “father” providing all for these women to breed kids in large numbers.
The woman in the ITV/C4 piece claimed that she couldn’t get a smaller house, really? She was living in a very nice large house in Surrey, I’m sure she could easily get a house swap. If you have a mortgage and lose your job or have to take a lower paid job YOU have to downsize, so why shouldn’t these people?
Also, I notice that none of the media are critical of the bishops in the House of Lords sticking their nose into politics yet again. Where were all these bishops when child proverty GREW under 13 years of Nu Liebore? Where was the outcry from these bishops when the pay of chief execs expanded massively under Nu Liebore? Have these arseholes been in hibernation for the last 13 years?
Time for these morons to be removed from politics, as I pointed out the number of people going to church is decreasing year by year, the church is not relevent in society for the most part and certainly not in politics, the church seems to be little more than an offshoot of Nu Liebore and the BBC/Guardian
OMG I do hope none of their children will have to share a bedroom. i didn’t realize I had been raised in poverty untll the BBC told me this morning.
Why are the bishops so against the idea of kids sharing bedrooms? Because some one might see them when they sneak in.
Dame Nikki quote in reply to the marxist this morning.
“It’s great to hear a bit of heartfelt radicalism”
Pity the BBC didn’t ask its useful idiots in bishop’s mitres, who voted against benefit reform, whether their palaces should count as benefit-in-kind for tax purposes. Or whether they give their House of Lords attendance allowances to the poor and needy. Or why the biggest landlord in Britain, the Church Commissioners, can’t house the homeless.
I don`t know how much of a shortfall IDS is left with, after the bishops and the BBC got their result on saving thousands-nay, millions-of kids from being turfed out of their homes…mums, dads ,stepdad number 3, uncle of the week etc…breakfast club, heads office…wherever they choose really!
Whatever the shortfall is-hope IDS will ensure that the Church Commissioners will be taxed the exact same amount-and a few palaces set out for the vulnerable at Dale Farm.
Show us some of that compassion in action.
Then-just for fun-why not a one-off gasbag tax on all Beeb leeches earning more than £26,000 a year-make it 100% so we can see this famed Beeb colidarity with the marginalised and…but of course-the “vulnerable”.
Come on IDS-let them all put up or shut up!
Regarding the news today we see 2 issues that shows the real nature of the Church in today’s world.
That they will go to any length to avoid seeing the real problem where militant Islam is concerned, even if it means that many more Christians will die as a result of this blinkardness and cowardice. They will divert attention to this problem by claiming it is due to some bogus factors that we all know have nothing to do with it, in this case – unemployment.
To further promote the image that are in truth caring and concerned about the poor, they use the publicity that the BBC is only too happy to provide them, both to excuse Islamists ot to attack the government, by decrying the benefit cap as ‘being hard on the poor’. Naturally they are too stupid to see the existing benefit system is more likely to create poverty than alleviate it.
The likely continuing carnage done to Christians throughout much of the Muslim world aided by the silence of those afraid to confront it is examined here by Raymond Ibrahim. While referring specifically to Obama in his article, it applies just as easily to the BBC, our Church leaders, and politicians.
As for the BBC, we only have to see how they treat ANY FAMILY, regardless how poor, for not paying their licence fee, to know how ‘caring and championing their cause’ they really are.
“they are too stupid to see the existing benefit system is more likely to create poverty than alleviate it.”
It’s not that they are too stupid, it’s that they don’t care.
Caps and how to approach them:
Let’s get today straight, according to the BBC.
Capping Executive pay is a good thing; capping benefits payments is a bad thing.
On the former they may not say they are political, but how can reporting Chuka Umunna’s accusation of ‘not doing enough’ in the house and promptly cutting Cable’s swift response is sloppy to say the least.
#Scotumwatch
So ‘Newsnight’ mentions a report from the Resolution Foundation think tank about the plight of ‘The Squeezed Middle’, the Ed Miliband phrase used by reporter David Grossman.
The guy who appeared from the Resolution Foundation was Gavin Kelly. What Grossman didn’t mention is that he was Gordon Brown’s Deputy Chief of Staff as prime minister, having previously worked in Tony Blair’s Policy Unit.
That Resolution Foundation is the sort of think tank the BBC likes to call “independent“. How ‘independent’ is it?
Sorry I missed that when posting over at the other thread on thi sslef same thing.
Quite looking forward to asking my Newsnight producer for hsi views on this when he remembers he owes me an explanation on the last one, this time getting my name right and not blaming a junior for him writing a drunken ramble on his iPhone having dipped into the complaints pile and mistakenly thought he had an easy swat that ended up stinging him on the ass.
Gotta love this ‘Chief of Staff’ monicker.
Time was in the US when you had to be a retired 4 Star General with the ear of the President before you could call yourself, ‘Chief of Staff’.
In Once-Great Britain you just got to be a grasping thirty-something SPAD running an office of four people, and with a CV which includes the words, ‘The Guardian Newspaper’ (and/or The BBC), ‘leading public relations firm’, ‘PPE’ (aka Oxbridge Meeja Studies) and with no evidence whatsoever of ever having had a job in the real world.
They certainly like pluming themselves do the pretrendy left.
The disconnect between our poliotiucal classes who don’t serve anyone but themselves, and the media that serve anything that serves their narrow interests, continues.
Just heard ta SKY cadet intoduce a ‘debate’ tionight about the Arab Spring, which, according to him, is ‘turning out very differently to what ‘we’ all expected.
That would be him and all his media off world dwellers who actually can look at history, see what is going down in front of our eyes despite their PC attempst to massage messages, and see what is looking like coming down the line.
Berks.
Speaking of whom..
http://order-order.com/2012/01/24/exclusive-labour-call-in-the-pollsters-for-crisis-welfare-briefing/
With Newsnight in the deranged driving seat, inviting guests who serve the narrative and failing specacularly to mention rather relevant context aspects to opinions designed to mislead the public, it’s pretty much normal service being maintained.
Digging a bit more into that Resolution Foundation think tank, which ‘Newsnight’ was touting last night without letting on that their expert ‘talking head’ was a former advisor to Gordon Brown and that the BBC News website repeatedly presents as ‘independent’, reveals that they receive a fair amount of coverage from the BBC.
Looking back, when Miliband began his ‘squeezed middle’ campaign in November 2010, the BBC quoted a report by “the Resolution Foundation think-tank”, as if it were co-incidental.
When Miliband made a speech attacking Tory cuts in February 2011 he was reported by the BBC as addressing “the Resolution Foundation, a think tank”. By a remarkable co-incidence, Today interviewed someone from “The Resolution Foundation” on that very day on the very subject of Miliband’s speech, and so did 5 Live .
Cameron’s cuts threaten welfare reform, warned the Resolution Foundation, “a think tank”, back in May 2011. Labour’s Stephen Timms was on hand to agree with them.
“The Resolution Foundation says wage inequality is getting worse” on 5Live in October 2011.
Cuts in tax credits are under attack from “an organisation” called The Resolution Foundation last November.
In December 2011, Radio 5 Live has on someone from the “research group, the Resolution Foundation” to talk about living standards. 6 days later the same guy was back on 5 Live calling for regulation of letting agents, this time representing a “group, which represents people on low to middle incomes”. The same theme was brought up on the same day’s You and Yours, where the organisation was just given its name.
They’ve had lots of coverage this year, first in an article on inequality which calls them “a new independent think tank“, then getting publicity for their latest report on personal spending where they are called a “think tank” and “the independent think tank, the Resolution Foundation”.
The only programme that comes a little bit clean is The Week in Westminster, back in April 2011, where “Gavin Kelly of the think tank the Resolution Foundation” is described as “formerly an adviser to Gordon Brown”.
How ‘independent’ are they? Who are ‘the team’ behind the independent Resolution Foundation think tank?
Well, there’s chief executive Gavin Kelly, former advisor to prime minister Gordon Brown, for starters.
Then there’s Vidhya Alakeson, research and strategy director, who has worked for several left-leaning think tanks (some with links to Labour, such as Policy Network and the Social Market Foundation) and, like Mr Kelly. also worked in the prime minister’s policy unit under Labour.
There’s also James Plunkett, Secretary to the Commission on Living Standards, who has written for the Guardian attacking Michael Gove’s education policies as “tired old Tory ideology” and elsewhere attacking the “malevolence” of “the Nasty Party”. He worked in Gordon Brown’s strategy unit from 2008-09.
Then there’s senior economist Matthew Whittaker, who also serves as a “wise man” on the Labour-aligned IPPR’s New Era Economics panel.
Also Felicity Dennistoun, external affair assistant, who was a parliamentary assistant to Labour’s Emily Thornberry, andJoe Coward, research and communications assistant, who came from the centre-left Demos think tank.
Guido got the main piece of the jigsaw quite some time back. The man who founded the Resolution Foundation, insurance tycoon Clive Cowdery, is a Labour Party donor.
The Resolution Foundation looks set to join the IPPR and Demos as a favoured think tank of the BBC. Given the links so many of its key figures have to the last Labour government and their ties to other left-of-centre think tanks, would it be too much to ask BBC presenters/reporters to say things like, “A report today from the left-leaning think tank, the Resolution Foundation, found that….” or “Former advisor to Gordon Brown, Gavin Kelly/James Plunkett of the Resolution Foundation, said….”?
Do you articulate these as complaints, and escalate if replied to or sucked into the labyrinthe? If so, please do share.
I am finding it time-consuming but productive, as the one thing this world class objective news media seem to run into toruble with is simple facts when confronted by their rampant opinion pushing and edits by omission.
My Site, there are three ongoing at the moment – one on this, one on Paul Mason and one on Liz MacKean (a Newsnighty cluster!). I’ll follow your example and post the replies here when they come – if they don’t come up to scratch!