Yesterday Ed Miliband launched Labour’s comeback with a raft of proposals to bring riches and a sense of fair play back to Britain. A Plan C rather than Plan B, as he seems to have dumped most of what Balls proposes….lowering taxes and spending more.
This was a major speech from Miliband but it raised hardly a ripple on the BBC news front.
There is this but it hardly bothers to go into any depth on the matter…except for one telling insight from Iain Watson, BBC political correspondent:
‘Ed Miliband unveils ‘predistribution’ plan to fix economy….this is the bit Labour aren’t saying too much about at the moment – it is also means putting more pressure on employers to pay higher wages.’
Why is that the sole intelligent comment by the BBC? Such a policy is major game changer with huge implications for the economy…and yet…hardly a squeak out of the BBC.
The fact that this article received around 800 comments should suggest a level of interest that the BBC is not reflecting in its coverage.
This is Nick Robinson’s, the BBC’s senior political correspondent, offering:
‘Predistribution: The Labour leader’s latest Big Idea
The Labour leader’s latest Big Idea may not be catchy but it is interesting’
So Miliband’s ‘Big Idea’ is merely ‘interesting‘? Not interesting enough to actually examine it and what it actually means for business…which is essentially that if taxes stay the same higher wages will be paid by the businesses rather than ‘subsidised’ as they are now by big business and the highest earners in the country in the form of tax credits. Wage costs for small and medium businesses will skyrocket…and many will go out of business.
In effect they will be paying the price of the Labour Party funnelling funds into its own election campaign….ala Gordon Brown…and using them to buy votes by ‘funding’ the NHS or schools…but it is smoke and mirrors….it is a stealth tax on smaller businesses that is at present ‘paid’ by big business and the ‘fatcats’.
You can see why the BBC don’t want to look too closely at that proposal….it is in effect a huge tax increase…hardly something to encoursge business growth and a successful economy.
It didn’t even merit a mention on the Today programme…allegedly Britain’s premier political programme.
Here’s the full text of Ed Miliband’s speech at the Stock Exchange, in which he introduces a new idea to British politics: ‘predistribution’.
Here is some of that speech as given to the New Statesman in which he puts the boot into Brown, and of course Brown’s protégé Balls:
‘Ed Miliband: It would be “politically crackers” to spend like the last Labour government The comeback interview.
The next Labour government is going to take over in very different circumstances and is going to have to have a very different prospectus than the last.
And if we came along and said ‘look, we can just carry on like the last Labour government did’ – I mean it’s politically crackers to do that, because we wouldn’t win the election and we wouldn’t deserve to win the election. We can’t say: ‘Look, we just want to sort of carry on where we left off, you know, the electorate was wrong, we were right, thanks very much…” It’s not realistic.
Ed Balls is not going to go to the Labour party conference and say, ‘It’s going to be the old model where we have economic growth and then we’ll use lots of that money to spend lots, to spend billions of pounds.’It’s not realistic and it’s not credible.’
Here is a final rather interesting comment from Miliband:
‘Just as the pre-war consensus could not solve the problems Britain faced in 1945.
Just as the postwar consensus could not solve the problems of the late 1970s.
So the ideas of the last three decades will not solve the central economic challenges we face.
Instead we need a new agenda.
An agenda sufficient to the scale of the challenge, and to the demand of the British people for change.‘
The postwar consensus could not solve the problems of the late 70’s? We need a new agenda? Sounds an awful lot like he accepts Thatcherism was necessary to put Britain back on it’s feet.
Funny he should say that because just as the BBC ignore the present Labour Party they continue to harp back to the Thatcher era…..in The Reunion they delve into the Poll Tax Riots….
This week’s edition of ‘The Reunion’ covers the story of the Poll Tax, with contributions from:
* Kenneth Baker, Minister of Local Government and later Environment Secretary
* Chris Brearley, Civil Servant (Department of the Environment) who was part of the team devising and implementing the tax
* David Magor, then assistant Treasurer, Oxford City Council, who had to collect the tax
* Danny Burns, organiser of the Bristol Anti-Poll Tax protest
* Chris Moyers, founder of a protest group in Edinburgh against the Scottish Poll Tax.
Note the cast of players from the time.
Kenneth Baker, Tory, is vastly outnumbered. Two of the players being ‘neutral’ planners or administrators but who can be relied on to relate tales of woe in the process of introducing the Poll Tax whilst that last two are protestors against the Poll Tax….Baker is left basically alone to ‘defend’ the Poll tax…and even he isn’t too keen to do that…so it was all down to the evil Thatcher.
And apparently this was the final nail in the coffin of ‘Thatcher’s Britain’…..a term used as abuse rather than a mere descriptive.
You may think that such a tale is of interest from a historical point of view…and indeed it is, having different voices from the various ‘camps’ speaking.
If left at that it could have slipped under the radar but naturally, this being the BBC, every programme has a message…this one about what we can learn from the past to use in the here and now…..
Apart from the ‘fact’ that Thatcher was a symbol of the Rich attacking the Poor, the Big Message is that people can FIGHT BACK…and it looks like we are heading for another ‘Poll Tax’ with changes to social security and the introduction of Universal Credits….there is potential for disaster.
So listen up boys and girls, dust off the scaffold poles, dig out your balaclavas, get out your superglue, prepare for battle….stay tuned in for more guidance from your friendly caring BBC.
Not saying of course that the BBC would ever dream of inciting riots and civil disobedience in order to confront government policies that the old Marxists of the BBC find unpalatable but it does look that way doesn’t it?
The BBC practically ignore the Official Opposition’s major relaunch speech but take a leap into the past, a leap over 13 years of disastrous Labour misrule, continuing its obsession with all things Thatcher as if just the mention of her name will act as a sort of voodoo talisman to ward off present day Toryism and bring people out onto the streets in the hope of ousting Cameron as they claim to have ousted Thatcher.
Programmes like this are a prime example of why the BBC should be reformed so that it is the face of ‘responsible broadcasting’ or it is stripped of its license to print money and made to go out into the world and earn its living. Tunes might suddenly Change when They have to reflect real life and the real views of people on the street who then have the option of not ‘buying’ their politicised bilge.
Miliband’s “new” policy will still require public borrowing to rise even further, but the cost of the BBC’s new billion pound newsroom will never need to be repaid. Very fiscally prudent, BBC.
Just over a year ago the BBC offered would be rioters a helpful guide as to “Where’s Hot right now” , with helpful cameras showing which stores were currently being burned or looted (get down to Brixton Footlocker for free trainers”) and where the fire brigade were being held back from doing their job bcause health and saftey trained police couldn’t guarantee their safety.
BBC inciting rioting? To the student union bar lefties at the BBC it shows “the people uprising against the system”
Certainly the attitude seems to be ‘if you can’t say anything good, avoid saying much’, which epitomises the BBC’s complementing editorial propaganda plank to misinformation and re-education, namely omission.
Of course, backed by ‘tight control’ of all other comment..
‘Why is that the sole intelligent comment by the BBC?’
As noted, the comments in response suggested interest, and the most liked a variety of views, so one has to wonder why the plug was pulled on any more being allowed within 24 hrs.
And what informed the ‘Editors’ Picks’, lord knows.
Also interesting to see that, when raised under the odd banner of ‘what do we want?’ by the BBC political editor, despite ongoing public interest, this thread on the topic got closed pretty quick..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19508785
Something folk were in danger of saying, BBC?
I do not think many people listen to Miliband so did not pick up with what he was saying. My interpretation was ‘we (the Labour Party) will not be so obvious as to how we steal and waste your taxpayer money. But will now find ways of forcing the economy to redistribute wealth without you knowing it’.
I do not expect the bBC to illuminate the public with what Miliband really means, as they have never exposed how Labour’s actions, even the few that are well intentioned, are usually a long term disaster.
The ‘benefits’ culture being the blaring obvious example, then the false house price boom (house prices increased by X3 under Labour) to pay for the benefits, then benefits having to grow alarmingly to pay for the effects of housing increases. Labour is incapable of thinking through the long term effects of their policies.
I suggest the Labour Prty takes the Obama line – ‘Change’ whatever that means? People can be stupid enough to go for it. Obama is now saying ‘Change’ can be difficult.
The broadcasting wing of Liebour is giving this a good airing on Today this morning. James “When we win” Naughtie being talked at by Chuka “Socilism is great if you are rich” Umunna. No doubt they will go for a friendly breakfast after to celebrate another on-message discussion, unchallenged of course.
Heard it, chuckusyermoney says Labour wants to grow industry, Nauchtie did not ask him why 1.7M manufacturing jobs disappeared under labour and the sector declined from 20% to 12%.
Surely he challenged him on the lowering of wages in the private sector due to his government’s deliberate mass-immigration policy didn’t he? That didn’t do much for ‘predistribution’ did it!
“chuckusyermoney”
🙂
This needs to be spread around so it’s as common as ‘two jags’.
It sounded to me like a command economy by any other name.
Indeed it does. The simple fact is that these socialists did not give up when the Berlin Wall came down like we are led to believe by the experts. They are still p1ss3d off that Thatcher and Reagan kicked their butts in the 1980s. They regard that as only a temporary setback.
I too heard Chucky getting a toe sucking from Jim Naughtie.
No opponent for this Obama X-Facor facsimile either, lest the whole “predistribution” notion(borrowed from the Democrats in the USA I think) not survive the first nip of autumn.
A plant to be nurtured by the BBC…they talk to their plants you know!
When it has been hothoused in the BBC garden awhile, it will be back as what the Nordic countries do…and don`t mention Anders Breivik in the same breath will you?
Pathetic coccooning and featherbedding of Team Liberals “big oidea”…until they forget what it was!
Why no Tory opponent then for Chucky?…when and why do the BBC choose to get their devils advocates from academia/Labour HQ…and why never ask any half-baked Tory to deal with these flaccid thoughts of some Obama bagman ,doing lines in the gents bogs?
This sounds like a great opportunity for Nick to explain to us how this interview was just as challenging as any Today give to a Tory politician.
Over to you Nicked ‘didn’t hear this one so couldn’t possibly comment’ Emus.
There’s actually a fairly good article on this ‘pre-distribution’ wonkage over at LabourList (I know!)…
“This is Robin Hood politics, pure and simple. Labour needs to decide whether it is for equality of opportunity, with a sufficient safety net so that those at the bottom do not get trapped there, or for overall equality of outcome. Mostly, for the last twenty years at least, it has been the first. If we want to go with the second, fine, but we need to accept the result: we will ultimately need to try and get the British public used to borrowing more or paying more taxes as a long-term thing (i.e. not balancing the budget over the economic cycle), and that didn’t work out too well for Gordon Brown, did it?”
http://labourlist.org/2012/09/eight-reasons-why-labour-should-think-twice-about-predistribution/
No wonder the Beeboids are being cagey about this at the moment – they are like flies to anything that smells of the Brown stuff – but this is newly out and they seem not too sure how to sell it. I expect they’re waiting for cues from the makers as to how to wrap it most attractively for marketing.
So the BBC, supposedly pro-labou, fails to offer much coverage of a key Labour policy announcement and this in turn shows it is pro-labour because coverage might have embarrassed Labour?
You should be proud of that Alan. Very creative.
Well, even Naughtie seemed to realize it was daft, and played dumb so he could keep asking Umunna to explain the policy in a way that made it seem less embarrassing. So maybe it’s not such a stretch.
‘fails to offer much coverage of a key Labour policy announcement that has all the hallmarks of a lead balloon so far…”
Hence a nifty bit of damage control by the crisis management arm of Labour’s media PR team until the head office figures out some way to repitch to anything other than universal distain.
As noted by just about everyone, with supportive URLs to less than supportive articles even from the home team. Nothing kills a bad idea quicker than good publicity. It gets seen for what it is quicker and the wolves can strip it easier.
Quite why the BBC feels so protective is a wonder, but it has been noted that they appear frustrated at the calibre of the opposition to the Coalition, and hence often feel the need to ‘help’ when they stuff up. Again.
So ignoring all that and still trying to mock seems pretty much predictable as well as desperate.
Might have been worth waiting a while longer for that drive-by attempt.
‘So the BBC, supposedly pro-labou, fails to offer much coverage of a key Labour policy announcement and this in turn shows it is pro-labour because coverage might have embarrassed Labour?’
If the policy is an absolute bag of shite that even the dumbest of the electorate will see through, that’s exactly what the BBC will do.
Ehh, were t’ born yesterday, lad?
It’s called ‘bias by omission’ .
(With apologies to Wayne X in advance), I think a transcription of all Naughtie’s questions will show how he chose NOT to give Chukka a hard time and, as David P. said above, played dumb. (Unless he genuinely couldn’t think of any of the questions raised so far on this thread, due to…what?…not being capable of arguing from a devil’s advocate right-wing position?)
None of the hard questions were asked by JN. There was merely (I think) a game of pretending to ask hard questions (smoke and mirrors) while in fact fannying about asking bugger all about anything of any real significance (i.e. a substantial question), thus allowing Chukka a pretty clear run to present his case and attack the government:
Q1: “I’m still trying to understand what you’re on about here. Everybody wants to get a society where there are more skills, more highly-skilled people and better wages for high-skill…there’s no argument about that. What is different about the approach that you’re proposing?”
Q2 (interrupting, helpfully): “So people improve their skills and they’re not rewarded for it?”
Q3: “OK, it..I seem to understand you to say that..um..the policies of redistributing through the tax system haven’t done the job and you need to do something else?”
Q4: “How do you do that without having to use – an old word – a command economy?”
Q5: “No, I just want to interrupt otherwise we..you know, we need to try to move on with this. You say..what you’re describing there is an industrial strategy that works. Now sometimes it’s worked under Conservative governments, sometimes it’s worked under Labour governments…we could all think of moments, you know, that have produced something good and moments that haven’t…What I can’t understand is what the thinking summed up in this word ‘predistribution’ introduces that is new. I mean isn’t this simply a reworking of..you know, we can argue about whether something needs to be new or not, but if all you are saying is, look, we’ll try to work more closely with business and industry to make sure that we create the right kind of high-skilled, high-paid jobs…erm, that’s fine but that’s what every government has said to us for forty years.”
Q6: “In a sentence, what you’re saying is that..er..you should not be nervous about more government intervention?”
That’s serious interviewing of a Labour politician, Jim – but not as we know it!!
(There’s a permanent link to this, unusually:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9750000/9750032.stm).
On reading this, what appears to be Naughtie criticizing U-money’s waffle – a Beeboid criticizing a Labour plan! The BBC isn’t biased, yeah – is actually him sanitizing the whole thing. Miliband’s scheme is very much more than merely working more closely with business and industry. It’s almost dishonest for Naughtie to attempt to sum things up that way. And his other questions show he knows damn well what they mean to do.
No way is Naughtie going to be truly critical and suggest that forcing wage levels and all that won’t work. The thing is, he had questions prepared for the segment, but it seems he couldn’t really ask them because U-money’s answers were so dreadful. I wonder what they were?
Another three pages of inchoate waffle from Alan. To my amusement the main thrust of this fatally unfocused piece appears to be that the BBC is failing to pay the Labour Party enough attention – something that some of us wish it would rather *not* do. He accuses the Beeboids of not paying this ‘relaunch’ enough attention, but even though I’ve been too busy to turn the radio on much this week I feel I’ve had a bellyful of the ‘predistribution’ shtick. Miliband’s speech contained an outline of a political philosophy but barely a hint of how this might translate into policy, which is why so few commentators have yet had a go at it. Face it, if Cameron had unveiled a new idea and it had been dissected on PM before any policy announcement, you’d have been foaming at the mouth.
You’re wrong. It’s quite clear from what Miliband says what Predistribution means and Newsnight has already stated exactly what it does mean…’Nobbling companies’ with a massive increase in minimum wages…if that is so the economic consequences are serious and damaging….the much talked about ‘growth’ will be crushed….if this had been a Tory policy it would have been torn to shreds by now by Easton or Pienaar.
‘Another three pages of inchoate waffle
Blimey, printing ’em out now? That’s taking the ignoring to a whole new hard copy level. Not too eco either, so expect a stern note from the Heads of Sustainability.
‘I’ve had a bellyful of the ‘predistribution’ shtick…..Miliband’s speech contained an outline of a political philosophy but barely a hint of how this might translate into policy, which is why so few commentators have yet had a go at it.’
Rather making the point all interested in the topic have been making, vs. the ongoing petty obsession with playing the person all the time, especially with little other than fully-formed foot-in-mouthism.
It’s a Labour policy, so of course it’s all over the BBC like a nasty rash.
It’s also already shown as pants, so reference has mostly been in ‘uniquely’ (for once) unanalytical forms not usually accorded political policy announcements.
The BBC acting as a PR agency for the Opposition in what it pushes and what is seeks to suppress… is not professional, lacks integrity, and is hence counter-remit.
‘Miliband’s speech contained an outline of a political philosophy but barely a hint of how this might translate into policy, which is why so few commentators have yet had a go at it.’
Didn’t stop the BBC relentlessly taking the blind piss out of Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ idea – precisely because it was so poorly defined.
Let’s look forward to a bit of ‘edgy’ comedy from The News quiz on this one, eh? Not.
Good point, johnny.