As has been brought to my attention, the BBC hate reporting any good news for the Coalition! The headline here is that Government cuts have proven to be more effective than planned, resulting in even lower spending. However the BBC’s desire to spin this as a negative has resulted in them posting an opinion piece in place an objective report. Everything from the seventh paragraph from the bottom is just political slant. The entire section subtitled “finances vs growth” is conjecture intended to re-balance a positive story for the coalition.
Hat-tip to Sam.
Plus ca change…even the Balls Brown news wa sreported ass Osborne not blaming Balls (the whole article is against Osborne except for the one sentence of the 2nd paragraph. A tour de force of bias writing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18716828
BBC = Stalinist Slimeballs
Cuts? The nancies don’t know the meaning of cuts. Make Freddy Krueger DG instead of Entwistle and watch the license fee plummet.
Interesting sub-text to the Murray-Federer match, and ultimate Federer win. The BBC appeared to spend much more time talking to the tearful Murray and wringing its corporate hands about why the win was snatched from Murray’s grasp. But why?
Well, not difficult really. Even the most cursory examination of the two counties tells us why the BBC was so upset to have its Murray narrative trashed.
Switzerland, population 7.8 million, 2011 per capita income 81k USD. Fiercely independent, non EU, mandates firearms ownership as part of military obligations, makes money from Five Star tourism, banking and high value exports.
Scotland, population 5.2 million, 2011 per capita income (based on UK average) 38k USD. Almost completely dependent on handouts from England and EU, bans most firearms, screws up banks, makes money from shabby tourist industry and booze.
Or perhaps the first “B” in “BBC” had something to do with it.
I’d never considered the failure to own firearms as being a reason for underperformance in tennis.
Supporting anything British,that would make a change.
The BBC will usually support anything British in sport, as it doesn’t conflict with their ideals of a multicultural world where we all live in harmony with the Religion of Peace and a debt crisis can be solved by borrowing more.
I’m sure they’ll turn on Murray just as soon as they find he’s been reducing his tax bill.
Gratefull to the BBC this morning for imaging a typical mugger, not once but twice. Just like their prefered image of a typical rioter or a typical pupil in a failing school.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18739151
Notice it is a stock photo from a image bank. Also reverse every image the bBC projects and you are much nearer the truth.
This has also not been reported by any MSM….
“Britain has become a more equal society, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, in important research published three weeks ago, on 15 June, which went almost entirely unreported.”
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/07/07/we-are-all-in-this-together-after-all/
Credit to Rentoul for mentioning this. Unfortunately since Rentoul is an unabashed apologist for leftism and state control of, well, everything, his article is actually a paean to the 13-year Blair/Brown administration and a damning of the Thatcher years (when “inequalities” rose dramatically). Rentoul is attempting to create the impression of a “golden legacy” to the coalition by Darling similar to the genuine golden legacy gifted to Brown by Clarke in 1997.
Thus, in the best traditions of the Polly Tendency any credit for the creation of an “equal society” (which is, although undefined, accepted as an unalloyed “good thing”) must go to Labour and any change for the worse (again, “worse” in the context of an undefined and protean concept such as “equality”) must be laid at the door of the coalition.
Note also that Rentoul – along with the writers and financiers of this report – is an advocate of the “relative poverty” school of political reflection. I would also note that the report is aimed at highlighting the fall in incomes since the glory years of 1997-2010 rather than the debateable (in terms of Rentoul’s intro to his comment piece) equality of income result.
Also, far be it from me to be a mite cynical, but this report was carried out by the IFS at the behest – certainly with the money – of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. IMHO this report is aimed at portraying the economy as failing and especially failing those deemed “poor” in the Rowntree narrative.
There were good – in terms of the way the BBC edits the information transmitted to its audience – reasons why the BBC seems to have ignored this one: first, it’s saying very little that’s new; second, it’s just another report from the biens pensants damning any realistic response to the crap we have been landed in by Labour; and third, the BBC, as we know, is not impartial and seeks to convey its own narrative untarnished by the possiblity that there might be a different interpretation of the statistics. Rentoul might have stumbled on such an interpretation and, as such, the report was entirely unwelcome to the BBC (unlike this one with which the BBC damns the coalition for a holocaust of poverty started in May 2010).
social mobility declined from 1997 to 2010, Labour were all about increasing the amount of poor people and increasing their dependence upon the state and thus breeding a large labour voting underclass.
Don’t forget the unannounced – and probably the only successful (for the years 1997-2010) – Labour policy of changing the electorate through uncontrolled immigration from the sub-continent.
Do not pay the license fee.
The entire section subtitled “finances vs growth” is conjecture intended to re-balance a positive story for the coalition.
There are 8 pars:
1. Fact x 2
2. Fact
3. Fact.
4. Fact x 2
5. Conjecture
6. Fact but should be sourced – says who that “Unemployment and job prospects are the single biggest factor in determining household confidence to spend”?
7. 1st sentence is a fact. 2nd sentence should be sourced. (“not enough to have made a significant impact on high unemployment levels.” – says who?)
8. Fact.
So of the 8 pars one is possibly conjectural (“A shrinking economy risks putting more pressure on government finances as spending on unemployment benefits and income support rises, whilst tax receipts tend to fall in line with household incomes and company profits.”)
an opinion piece in place an objective report.
Of the 16 pars in the story only one is not fact-based. Which of the 16 contains this “opinion”?
Nicked, you may have the superficial details right, but I think you’re missing the big picture here. This is clearly a spin piece. The whole thing is written in a way that calls into question the very concept of keeping spending down.
The rest of the money, which includes a £1.4bn reserve, will be clawed back for reallocation by the Treasury.
“Clawed back” is an editorialization, making a value judgment on the Treasury reserving money rather than spending it as previously planned.
The biggest underspend was in the National Health Service, which came in £1.7bn under budget.
“Underspend” is also a value judgment, giving the impression that the amount spent is less than it should be, rather than simply less than it would be otherwise. The term is repeated two more times. Why not rephrase this and use the term “saving”. There are other, more impartial ways to phrase this as well.
Then we get to the “opinion is divided” bit. Of course it’s divided when you’re talking about two opposing political parties. But this gives the impression that the Treasury could be incorrect, once again detracting from the piece as being merely factual.
Most important of all is that the piece is of course talking about GDP, which includes government spending. When it says “economic wealth as measured by (GDP) shrank”, this is Labour/Left-wing thinking. Again we’re left with advocacy for ever-increasing government spending.
There may be facts presented in this piece, but it’s definitely ideological spin from a Labour perspective. I suppose this means that Alan is technically incorrect when he calls it an opinion piece, but it’s definitely an ideologically-driven piece, which is more or less revealing of the same kind of bias he’s talking about.
Clawed back is a technical term as is underspend. A claw back is simply the taking back of money allocated in a budget.
Underspend is an accounting term and does not mean saving.
When it says economic wealth as measured by GDP shrank that is an irrefutable fact.
They’re technical terms with connotations. I know “underspend” doesn’t mean “saving”. That’s my point. Yes the bit about economic wealth and GDP is a fact. Again, that’s the point. It’s used for ideological effect.
I know “underspend” doesn’t mean “saving”.
Then why did you say “Why not rephrase this and use the term “saving””? They are not the same thing.
But this gives the impression that the Treasury could be incorrect, Firstly it doesn’t, and secondly is factually incorrect? Or are you suggesting that the Treasury is never incorrect? If so I have some money trapped in a Nigerian bank account which I would like some help with.
Again we’re left with advocacy for ever-increasing government spending.
Where?
Yes the bit about economic wealth and GDP is a fact. Again, that’s the point. It’s used for ideological effect.
So using facts is now done for ideological effect? What would you rather the BBC use?
The article is not an opinion piece, it is not full of conjecture, and there is no evidence that it is ideologically driven. The post, and your defense of it, is riven with ideology. But then you already know that.
I suggested rephrasing it precisely because the meaning of “underspend” has ideological connotations in this context, which shouldn’t be there. They could have said “saving”, because not spending money is saving it. From a corporate/bureaucratic/profligate point of view, yes, a budget is there to be spent in its entirety, and those are the kind of people who use the term “underspend”. But that’s only one way of looking at things. Another way of looking at things is spending less and saving the rest. I also realized the ideological connotations of the term “saving” and so suggested that there were also more impartial ways of saying it.
In this case, the BBC is speaking from that corporate/bureaucracy/profligate/budgets-are-made-to-be-spent-in-full perspective. This is bias.
You don’t see ideology in the BBC report because you agree with the perspective. It comes from the position that all the money must be spent, that public sector spending is key. This is an ideological position.
So you want to replace a word that has a very clear and precise technical meaning with a word that doesn’t mean the same thing and is incorrect because you think the technical, and correct, term has “ideological connotations”? That is some mighty strange logic going on there.
“You don’t see ideology in the BBC report because you agree with the perspective.” I don’t see ideology in the BBC report because there isn’t any to be seen except by you and David Vance who are like children with hammers — everything looks like a nail.
This whole post, and your bizarre defense in which you claim using facts and the correct and precise terminology is some how evidence of bias, has taken this curious blog to a whole new place.
‘The government cut 270,000 public sector jobs last year. Some of those have been replaced by new jobs in the private sector but not enough to have made a significant impact on high unemployment levels.’
Impact of immigration on jobs over the year? Nothing to see, move along.