Can’t say I am in the least surprised to read that the UK has lost its triple AAA credit rating. After all, when the Coalition follows Keynesian follies and refuses to cut the size of the State then it is highly likely growth will be sluggish, and as former Conservative Deputy PM Michael Heseltine stated the other evening, no government will cut spending on Welfare and the NHS since that is just not politically expedient. So, Osborne deserves all he gets, But IS IT a big deal? For example, we have Ed Balls touring BBC studios this morning explaining how “humiliating” it is for the UK to lose its AAA rating. Nobody from the BBC asked him was it “humiliating” for Obama when the US was stripped of its AAA rating last year. Nobody from the BBC asked him if it was “humiliating” for Monsieur Hollande when France as stripped of its triple AAA rating last year. It appears that humiliation accrues only to Conservative Chancellors and the BBC is quite content to leave it that way.
The sheer cynicism of Labour, and Ed Balls in particular, is staggering and yet he gets such an easy treatment at the hands of the BBC who obviously agree with Balls that we solve our Debt by splashing more cash and taxing the “rich”.
Maybe George Osborne is missing his former aide Claire Perry?
Incidentally, there’s a great story of a journalist infatuated with the delectable Perry in: My Evil Temptress” at::
http://john-moloney.blogspot.com/
I genuinely worry for this country now, DV. When Liebour get in, aided by the BBC, immigration will rise exorbitantly, debt will spiral and civil strife will hasten the demise of any semblance of a once unified national society. I worry for my children’s future and their English identity which is being wiped out by Labour.
The silver lining here is that if Labour win in 2015 I will be able to wallow in schadenfraude watching them cope with it.
Assuming that we still have electricity by then, of course.
If Liebour do get in 2015, expect another 5 to 7 million immigrants.
That’s an understatement. With the impeding collapse of Egypt (80 mil inhabitants) the number will probably double thanks to Labour but also EU laws.
I’ve wondered for some time how we can break the status quo. If we keep the same old political and democratic structures there is no hope for England and the English and our nation and our identity will be damaged beyond repair.
The present British parliament in London cannot deliver the change the English need, so we must campaign for a parliament for England. Only when we have MPs who are elected by the English to speak for England can there be any renaissance in our nation. The present MPs are part of the British Establishment which has divided loyalties and often acts against our interests. Scottish Welsh and NI MPs can vote against us if it suits them.
Another campaign should be to break up BBC news so that England can have its own national broadcaster. It’s unlikely that it will be dissolved and replaced by another organisation so until it is we should demand a BBC England.
The same should happen with the other national broadcasters who far too often, like the BBC, treat the English nation as if it were invisible.
Immigration will rise exorbitantly? I doubt it ! Immigration despite Tory promises is proceeding at much the same rate as it did under the previous government. You have to remember that where issues like this are concerned Cameron is way over on the left of the Milliband brothers. To get immigration higher they’d have to be paying them to come!
“To get immigration higher they’d have to be paying them to come!”
They do already.
I genuinely worry for this country now, DV. When Liebour get in, aided by the BBC, immigration will rise exorbitantly…
I agree. I am afraid Labour will actually drive the economy to collapse and thus see us into an EU superstate, where the indigenous will rapidly be consigned to ethnic minority status to hinder the rise of any dissenting nationalist movement.
If Scotland votes for independence, then the Labour Party will find it extremely hard to gain a majority from that day forward in the rest of the U.K….That’s simply based on the voting patterns of the last hundred years, when only twice did England overwhelmingly return a Socialist government…1945 and 1997…
Hence bBC Scotland reporting on Salmond et al, although the choice between a socialist SNP and p*ss poor socialist Labour Scotland into the EUSSR ubersocialism is cigarette-paper thin.
What the BBC seems to be avoi… redacting is what the credit agencies would have the UK on by now if their choice of economic genius had still been in the saddle (down Flanders; not this time).
In fact most reports I see from our most trusted PR shill start with ‘Labour says…’
For some reason.
According to the editorial selection on Radio 4 News this morning the BIG news is Ed’s criticsm of Osborne. Meanwhile, in its avoidance of the real issue, Today‘s interviews with Balls and Alexander failed to explore – or even mention – that no aggregate expenditure “cuts” have actually been implemented. Accordingly the question of why the country’s economy and its borrowing profile remain in their parlous state was not discussed. This lacuna suits the coalition, Labour and the BBC since the coalition can pretend to the electorate that “something is being done”, Labour can absolve itself from any responsibility for the original financial crash (and its consequences) and the BBC can lend its support to
impoverishtax, borrow and spend. It’s an all-round triumph for the political class and only private-sector Joe Shmoe whose taxes are wasted and whose savings are constantly devalued suffers.In the darkest days of the seventies, at least people could say:’wait until the North Sea oil starts flowing.’ Now the government can’t even be bothered to try and expedite the exploitation of our reserves of shale oil. It’s astonishing how effete British administrations have become.
The Government are obliged to resist the exploration for shale oil. The BBC have told them it is controversial. And Cameron cannot tough it out with the BBC.
Spot on. The BBC runs the country.
To be fair to John Humphrys, he actually declared this week that the BBC is the dominant cultural force in this country
‘To be fair to John Humphrys, he actually declared this week that the BBC is the dominant cultural force in this country’
—-
Given the revelations via Pollard these last few days, that is hardly reassuring.
John, do you have a source for that quote? It’s worth preserving for the next time some defender of the indefensible claims it isn’t. I tried using a quote from a Today producer who said that they drive the day’s news agenda for the country with the departed Jim Dandy, and he dismissed it by saying the man was a liar or delusional.
Having watched BBC, Sky plus read Telegraph, coverage was same in all. Having clung to AAA as a virility test quite legitimate to point out what’s happened. Not a lot in reality which is also what Balls and BBC said. But probably finished Osborn’s credibility.
No bias here unless the entire media is in some plot to turn us into bankrupt caliphate.
What the creditability that no one but the BBC and their playmate Balls attached to this ? the rating was dropped because we didn’t cut hard enough how does that work for the credibility of ‘ no cuts’ balls and his ex at the BBC ?
What Moody’s actually said was
“challenges that subdued medium-term growth prospects pose to the government’s fiscal consolidation programme, which will now extend well into the next parliament”.
Nothing about further cuts but growth. You can’t cut to growth! You try and keep expenses low but need to stimulate some growth. We aren’t, hence the downgrade.
Every Pound the government takes is a pound less to spend in the private sector to build growth. That is why the call to tax wealth is wrong, because that money gets lost in government spending rather than invested in industry. We need people to save and for that money to be lent to companies to stimulate growth.
What do you think a “fiscal consolidation programme” is Colditz? Your quote contains no criticism of ‘cuts’ at all, but a concern that they may not be met because of sluggish growth
Tell me, if you are spending 115% of your income every year is it wise to pay for your bills on a credit card? Which is the Labour Party’s “borrow your way out of debt” strategy”.
a) State expenditure is overwhelmingly revenue expenditure and not capital investment with tangible cash returns. Gordon Brown ‘invested’ hundreds of billions of borrowed pounds in revenue expenditure that had no ROI, and will attract interest charges for ever more as there is no conceivable strategy possible to pay down the debt. The cost of all those phone top ups/kebabs/packets of fags/cans of lager purchased by the ludicrous Educational Maintenance Allowance (Vote Labour, we hand out the cash!) par example has been added to the national debt and cost us 5% of their value – forever
b) Real growth is driven by primarily by private investment, this is encouraged by low cost, low regulation, low taxation environments that provide high cash return on investment. How much did the Govt spend on creating the incredibly profitable, complex and comprehensive UK 4G mobile telecommunications network?
On a positive note, I suppose AA is still better than BBC!
Actually Aa1 – you did notice that the big BBC banner removed AAA to AA – which is several steps down. The cut is only 1 notch (and at the same time we get a forecast that UK growth next year will be substantially higher than any other EU country – which was lauded (not!) by the BBC.
Probably not. I think credit agencies rank the BBC as a pretty strong credit, awash with government backed revenues.
This all started in America under the evil George Bush.
Then along came Gordon Brown and saved the world. I mean the banks.
Just then the Tories joined in and ruined everything with their evil cutz!
They’re cutting too far and too fast.
Did I mention Margaret Thatcher? She’s to blame for all this.
Please stay on narrative or you’ll be sent for re-education.
Steph will be along later to explain it all to you again.
I guess you are being sarcastic with “They’re cutting too far and too fast” since one of the issues highlighted in the rational that accompanied this action was that the government waas not progressing far, or quick, enough with fiscal consolidation – so in fact Moody’s seem to be saying the government hasn’t cut far or fast enough yet.
When the PLP have finished, Professor Flanders will get off her hands and knees and recite their latest plan for the economy.
“Note to Labour MPs: Stop celebrating now. Moody’s downgrade is for not cutting public spending fast enough”
By Toby Young.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100203992/note-to-labour-mps-stop-celebrating-now-moodys-downgrade-is-for-not-cutting-public-spending-fast-enough/
The UK economy is going to the wall. When Liebour get back in, they’ll finish it off. Then will follow mass civil unrest and the breakdown of law and order. The lefties will blame Thatcher!!
Strange. I don’t what Balls is getting all giddy about.
When he was an adviser to his big chum Gordon in the treasury I recall one major report describing Britain’s economic performance in the global upturn as being akin to driving a car with the handbrake on.
Contrary to the much repeated Labour/BBC line that George Osborne is cutting too fast and too deep, the credit ratings agency criticises George Osborne for the slower than expected ‘pace’ of ‘deficit and debt-to-GDP reduction’, for ‘mounting debt levels’ and the failure ‘to reverse the debt trajectory’ of the last Labour government (of which Ed Balls was a leading economic figure).
Why don’t the BBC report and explain that? What reason is there other than that they actively support the Labour line?
Even more damning is the fact that Moodys threaten to downgrade Britain even further if the Chancellor shows any signs of a ‘reduced political commitment to fiscal consolidation’.
The BBC and Labour, who are two sides of the same debased coin, cannot use the Moodys downgrade to attack George Osborne for cutting too fast and too deep, when Moodys warn against softening the UK’s fiscal stance and prescribe more debt reduction.
The BBC’s role in covering this news story exposes them once again as blatantly biased in favour of the Labour party. A strong Conservative Prime Minister would take action, unfortunately David Cameron is a liberal wimp.
Loved the ‘Today’ programme this morning. Ed Balls, interviewed by John Humphries at 08:10. Humphries had Balls on the rocks with two questions – namely ‘…so, you’re bemoaning the fact that we’re not reducing our deficit and debt, but at the same time your plan would be to get the UK further into debt by borrowing more…. ? and “….you’ve just reeled off a half-dozen fiscal policies you think the government should adopt from your plans – so what is the cost of these policies, and how would you fund them ?….
Balls bumbled and obfuscated, and when pressed by Humphries, did what he’s best at (he thinks) – he rolled off into a Party Political Broadcast on behalf of the Labour Party – attacking the current government. And Humphries, as is the BBC’s wont – just let him do it. There was no ‘..so you are saying that you would get us further into debt, and you have no idea how you would fund these policies…’ No constant interruptions and talking over the interviewee, and after a few weak attempts to get Mr Balls to answer the questions, Humphries just shut up and let Balls run the show. Thank you very much Mr Balls…. Job done.
At 08:50, Danny Alexander was allowed by Evan Davis to answer a couple of questions first, then Davis kicked off by interrupting Mr Alexander countless times, by loudly talking over him when he tried to answer again, and basically headed off on a Labour Party Political Broadcast once more instead of actually asking a question and listening for at least a couple of seconds to the answer. Then he had the bloody cheek, in an interview where he, the interviewer had almost talked for longer than the interviewee, to tell Mr Alexander he would have to be brief on his next answer because they had run out of time!
Compare and contrast the two approaches …… ’twas ever thus with the BBC, and it looks like, with the Pollard report being basically ignored as having any message for the BBC, ’twill ever be !
On the subject of Pollard, I listened to a BBC radio news presenter yesterday mention that there had been some negative publicity for the BBC, then going on to say (and I kid you not) “..we asked for a representative from the BBC to come on the programme, but they said they did not have anyone available to speak to us, so let’s just talk to our (tame) BBC media reporter…..’ whoever.
My dear, YOU and your colleagues ARE the BBC – talk about trying to take yourself and your organisation out of the frame ? …’nothing to see here, move along now like a good flock of sheep’.
Why oh why doesn’t someone just tell Davis to shut up so that they can answer the question properly as the listeners want to hear the answer not Davis spouting off.
Because then Davis would turn the questions to the accusation of interuptions thus further derailing the interviewee.
It’s what they do.
@ Doublethinker: They’d be accused of ‘homophobia’.
‘My dear, YOU and your colleagues ARE the BBC – talk about trying to take yourself and your organisation out of the frame ? ‘
—-
Any veteran of BBC CECUTT will permit themselves a wry smile at this one, as the higher up the greasy pole you get, the more the BBC employees being dealt with attempt to create some mythical separation between the entity that uniquely pays their wages and the one they are po-faced claiming to be sitting in independent, impartial judgement upon.
It would funny if the whole facade is not accepted or given a pass by the entire politico-media establishment… Including all who should be holding this incompetent collection of ferrets in a sack to proper account and not just ratings-flares like Pollard/Savile.
As a ferret owner and an admirer of said creatures, i am somewhat offended by the blatant ferretism expressed in your comment. To even equate ferrets to those that work at the BBC is a heinous slight to Mustela putorius furo the world over. I trust you will reflect on your bigotry and not make disparaging comments of this kind in future. Thank you
admit it -they’re just tame polecats
The Danny Alexander interview was appalling – he could hardly get a word in edgeways. It was cut for an obituary feature on the Rhubarb and Custard cartoonist . With all due respect to the late man I would rather have heard more on the economy from someone at the cutting edge.
Yes. the “interview” with Danny Alexander was even worse than the atrocious standard Evan Davis usually sets. Davis spent more time on his questions and interruptions than Aleander was allowed for answers.
You could “hear” the smirk on Davis’ face.
Davis must be the worst ever presenter of the Today programme.
As biased as Humphrys and Naughtie undoubtedly are, at least they have gravitas.
Evans is a lousey interviewer. Still, his commitment to bias gets him the gig, and his homosexuality of course does him absolutely no harm.
What we’ve had at the BBC for the last 30 years are overgrown adolescents like Davis squeezing their zits all over society till it runs with their puss sores.
“Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander told the Today programme that this was “disappointing news”, however the ratings agencies are “one benchmark amongst many” with which to judge the state of our economy.”
Contrast this with is “pro-union” view last August:
“HOMEOWNERS could face a £1billion rise in mortgage payments in an independent Scotland, Treasury axeman Danny Alexander has warned. The world’s leading credit rating agencies earlier this year warned Scotland would not be guaranteed the UK’s AAA borrowing status.”
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/danny-alexander-in-warning-over-1bn-1130135
Forensic Richard D.
You’d be a good contributer on here.
Ed Balls was 27 when he was writing Brown’s speeches and his lack of experience is self-evident in the attempt to impress through the use of jargon such as “endogenous growth theory.” Sounds impressive but in fact is a rather simple concept (see wikipedia). Put it in a speech and people assume you know what you are talking about even though the information content is near zero.
It just means higher public spending, er I mean “investment”.
Shoot the messenger time is it? Osborne has to join Brown (no more boom or bust) in having shot his foot off by picking the AAA rating as a totem. Add in the omnishambles budget, triple dip recession and the room tax own goal and what do you expect? Universal praise for the Govt.
Diesel could hit £1.50 a litre by Easter. Is the BBC behind this? Or a govt bereft of ideas?
The real omnishambles was the cataclysmically poor economic governance of this country from around 2000 to 2010. I say around 2000, because that was the point where Messers (I know how to spell both !) Blair and Brown thought it would be fun to deviate from an economic policy they had inherited, and which was serving the country very well indeed, substituting it with debt growth (note, NOT real economic growth) which contributed very nicely, thank you, when the anticipated crash occured. (And there were people who were trying to tell Mr Brown that his actions would result in one almighty mess when the wake-up call came along).
And, unbelievably, Ed Balls, having been one of the key instigators of these failure-driving policies has the gall to claim that there never really was a problem, and we were already on our way out of the mess when Labour lost power. Unfortunately, the BBC constantly gives Mr Balls the platform to make these claims, and never, ever, presents him with any realistic challenge to his economic ramblings.
Balls is Shadow Chancellor and constitutionally entitled/obliged to query the Govt. It’s called the Opposition! And the BBC has to provide equal time to Govt and Opposition. So it’s not a “platform” but a BBC charter requirement. (And both parties time how much network time they get!) Which you knew but of course forgot. Unless you think any opposition be banned?
The BBC is not, as far as I am aware, obliged in its Charter to provide equal time to Government and Opposition at all.
It IS, however, supposed to provide us with un-biased coverage of the news. It should treat both government and opposition politicians with the same level of respect and courtesy. Take a listen to the two interviews I mentioned above and tell me that this happened today ! And as usual you head off in tangents the second your fingers hit the keys. Who mentioned the network time they get ? Only you. The difference is in the ‘quality’ of the airtime each party gets. The Labour Party gets almost unquestioned freedom to avoid questions and the opportunity simply to air their Party Political Broadcasts, without any constraint – almost precisely the same treatment they got whilst in Government. The current government representatives are shouted over, interrupted, and generally accorded no civility by the BBC – just about the same treatment they got whilst they were in opposition. So perhaps the BBC is consistent, then – unfortunately just not un-biased.
And stop trying to impute that, in any way, I want the BBC NOT to be impartial and un-biased (‘Unless you think any opposition be banned ? ‘ – in fact being fair, impartial and un-biased is precisely what I DO want – but probably will never see, since the BBC is so obviously so far up the anal tract of the Labour Party and its minions that its impartiality hasn’t seen the light of day in decades – but you knew that, of course, and probably didn’t forget it.
‘as usual you head off in tangents the second your fingers hit the keys’
With the human wave of the last few days now cooking off quietly outside the stockade, it was almost pleasant to see some attempt at civilised, if poorly structured ‘correction’.
If frankly coming across as one of the characters in those bizarre MAS TVCs, muttering away on the comfy chair in the corner.
Only without the chance of learning much of value, like most pols and media might actually ponder the odd notion expounded of cutting your ambitions to the cloth at hand.
Colditz defends the BBC by defending the economic analysis supplied by the Labour Party – he presumably views them as two branches of the same entity. He then asserts that we should all be forced to pay for the BBC because it is politically impartial.
Colditz is clearly a Labour hack on a mission to maintain BBC bias through obfuscation and the usual black arts of deceit and manipulation that act as a substitute on the subversive left (ie 80%) for principle and belief.
Still, at least he’s able to mount his self-interested defence of the BBC without the vitriol and hate of others such as scez.
Comforting that they feel so threatened by the ability of this site to expose BBC bias that they feel the need to post here.
I don’t recall the BBC giving the Conservatives equal time to Labour 1997-2008.
it’s great to see balls on tv
just to watch him stick his big size 10’s in his gob every time he opens it
is the bbc behind it?
no
will they feel the effects?
no also-as they’ll be able to claim it on expenses
next stupid point……..
Cowperthwaite “free market capitalism” with very low taxation, has the track record of being the best example of producing an economic miracle.
This economic system was so successful in impressing the Chinese Communists that they adopted this idea of capitalism from Hong Kong.
Of course this is the exact opposite of the constantly repeated failed examples of socialist economics, which the socialist morons never learn lessons from. That includes the controlling half of the present day Tory party.
Socialists have inferior intelligence. As they admit, these are the people that they where founded to represent, and especially now that we are living in a meritocracy.
But it seems that Cameron does not want to be nasty to these morons, that is why he is bereft of ideas.
What gets me is why anyone pays any attention to the manipulating, incompetent charlatans that run the rating agencies. They should, first, be rubbished by a collective world leadership, then banned. Markets are all about confidence. Here’s the EU Internal Market Commissioner, Michel Barnier twigging that fact: “Ratings have a direct impact on the markets and the wider economy and thus on the prosperity of European citizens. They are not just simple opinions. And rating agencies have made serious mistakes in the past.”
Stacks of mortgage-backed securities – the investments that were backed by mortgages that were either never going to be paid back or were even fraudulent – were given the very best grade by these cretins.
These financial products turned out to be virtually worthless. And the sudden realisation that they were rubbish triggered the worst financial crisis in decades.
And as for the kindergarten AAA, AA marking. Give me a break. The world has gone mad.
The trouble is that Barnier wants to manipulate rating agency figures to suit the eurozone agenda.
Balls are very close to the anus(self explanatory for ED and the people of the BBC come to that)
David Vance for Chancellor!
If only he could get elected.
One thing you will never hear mentioned on the bBC is the real cause of the credit crisis – socialism & political correctness. They will continue to spin the lie that the cause was ‘greedy bankers’ even though the reality is something very different.
Way back in the days of Jimmy Carter the seeds were sown in the establishment of the Community Reinvestment Act. This act was established to force backs to lend to poor blacks & hispanics who could not normally afford to buy their own homes – this is the basis for ‘sub prime’ .
It had no teeth and was largely ignored, that is until Bill Clinton decided to give it some and then banks could not trade across states unless they suspended normal banking practice and lent an ‘appropriate amount’. A failure to lend could result in prosecution – and one young lawyer involved in the prosecution of the banks? Barak Obama !
George Bush tried to suspend the CRA but was forced to retreat under the usual use of the leftie bully word ‘racism’
Along comes the global warming brigade and calls for renewable energy resulted in farms normally producing crops moved to biofuels, this in turn forced up food prices resulting in food riots and also a rise in the cost of fuel. Poor people were dissproportionately affected by this, and the thing to suffer was their mortgage repayments.
At the same time the credit reference agencies were rating these debts as AAA safe, and are now being prosecuted by US authorities for getting it so wrong. If any proof were needed that this is the cause this is it!
So nothing to do with ‘greedy bankers’ who bought collateralised debt obligations which didn’t give huge returns and appeared to them as AAA safe.
This has everything to do with absolutley stupid blinkered left wingers, and the most frightening thing is that Barak Obama is attempting to revive the CRA and force the banks to end to high risk borrowers again.
it really should be called socialist correctness
Reasonable analysis, thoughtful, but one that the left in the UK and the US will never accept – it’s always somebody else’s fault with left-wing parties, always the fault of anyone who’s dared to become successful, and always somebody else’s money they run out of.
Sometimes I almost feel sorry for Socialists. Everything they believe and hold dear fails the test of working in the real world, so they have to prop up that view with lies, halftruths, and to relentlessly smear opponents. Underpinning it all is narcisism: “I am a good person, because I affect to care for the poor and the planet; you are evil and greedy because you care only about yourself” It is called Projection. All Socialism has ever done is enrich the Socialist elite and impoverish everyone else.
Never feel sorry for Socialists, all they care about is themselves. They have nothing to offer except their hatred. You would struggle for example to find somebody who is more racist than Diane Abbot, and yet she has built her whole career on her advocacy of anti-racism. You will struggle to find somebody as greedy as Cherie Blair, and yet she has built her whole career on advocating equality. The alpha and omega of Leftist politics is not their ideology it is their bottomless narcissism.
To be fair I only said “almost”. Sadly a lot of my friends proudly declare they are “Socialists” though what they mean is they were Socialists at the age of twenty and can not be arsed to catch up with the world or change their rancid intellectual underwear. The greatest proof of their beliefs is their consistency “I have always been a Leftie” – translation- “I have learned nothing”.
You obviously haven’t heard so I will enlighten you. Black people cannot be racist and millionaire socialists break their hearts over people less fortunate than themselves. How very cynical of you to suggest otherwise!!
When you think that we’re competing with emerging economies like China and Singapore who don’t saddle themselves with cretinous costs like ‘compulsory paternity leave’ nor allow businesses reasonable gender discrimination on grounds of women get pregnant and men dont, we can see why the West is going tits up.
The more ‘educated’ we get, the more stupid we become. Communist China’s learnt how capitalism works, maybe there are some aspects of it’s cultural revolution we need to learn from too.
I’m a bit late catching up with this thread.
That is an excellent summary, Thoughtful. Clinton’s/Obama’s role in creating the sub-prime debt crisis has never, ever been covered by the BBC, and nor has the Community Re-Investment Act.
As with Labour’s ‘end to boom and bust’ and ‘all the money’s gone’, the BBC’s favoured politicians are never brought to book.
Well said. The exact opposite of how the BBC keeps explaining it all. Robert Peston is known for his occasional calls for banks to start lending more, and we often here on the BBC criticisms of how banks aren’t lending enough, businesses are having a hard time getting loans, and young people can’t get a big enough loan to buy the kind of dream home they do on BBC shows.
Has it not occured to Osborne that he could make up some of the 4G shortfall by selling off the BBC? Just a thought. Tell Sid.
Whereas Thatcher took on the miners because it needed to be done. If she was in power now I believe she would tackle the BBC because unlike Cameroon, she had balls.
Millibland has Balls. Just ask Steph ‘two eds’ Flanders!
Magic
I’m no expert on economics but we are in serious trouble if we don’t do something about this.
….and that is precisely what a lot of people were saying through the years 2005-2010. But we continued to build the juggernaut that encompasses uncontrolled immigration, borrowing at incredible and unsustainable levels at every level of government from central to local bodies, the creation of a benefits system whose costs are in runaway mode, and the hidden debt burden of the PFI initiatives so beloved of our dear chancellor, Mr Brown.
Like any juggernaut, it is extremely easy, on a smooth path (built by your predecessors), to develop a real head of steam, even to the point of loss of control – but, also like any juggernaut, incredibly difficult and long-term to change that. The vested interests created and encouraged during the process of getting us into the situation will see to it that getting out of the situation will not be achieved any time soon.
But somehow, the BBC (which, of course, is part of the problem) never seems to be able to grasp the nature and scale of these problems at all – but embraces the mistaken choices wholeheartedly, as being the right way to go.
Its all the Muslims fault.
Yawn. They’re really out in force lately. Weird for a site that nobody reads.
We all read this site and media city Salford.
How sad you are.
Yes I am.
I have a non-job at the BBC.
I don’t contribute to this country but take from it.
I want to live in a Marxist state but if that ever happen I would shot because I am a useful idiot.
You’re early. The full moon comes out tomorrow.
Full moon thats what my boyfriend has when we get it on.
Intellect on display. You’ve proved us wrong, haven’t you! Your mother must be so proud.
Not so sure about the adjective, ‘useful’, but the rest of the self-description is probably apt. And your analysis is completely wrong. Socialists/marxists would never shoot ‘useful idiots’, thye’re integral to the long-term plan. As is ably demonstrated by your posts !
You mean I was invite to all those parties in Islington because I needed?
The saying goes that some people should just let suspicions of idiocy lie, rather than leaping into print and confirming it.
Your membership of that club has clearly been approved.
For INBBC:
currency collapse under conservative rule –
“The Collapse of Iran’s Rial”
by Steven Plaut.
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3597/iran-rial-collpase