Had to laugh at the BBC this morning doing its very best to cast cold water on further signs of at least some modest economic recovery. First the bad news for the comrades..
The UK economy grew by 0.6% in the three months to June, according to official figures. The figure was in line with market expectations, and is up from 0.3% growth in the previous quarter.
Thankfully, renowned economist Nick Robinson is here to tell us that it is “Growth but not as we know it” As if that was not enough then we have this ” The view from the shop floor” On the Today programme, caution was thrown to the wind and a veritable barrel of cold water was thrown over the positive news. It’s going so WRONG for Labour’s meme that we are all doomed and so the BBC has to resort to dousing every green shoot of recovery with its own toxic pesticide.
The Robinson/Flanders axis on “Today” also ensured that Mr Balls got as many name checks as the Chancellor – he’s in New York you know, continuing to save the world( © G. Brown 2008)
And if you notice no reference to the state of the economies of the rest of Europe – our supposedly trading partners whose economic strengths or weaknesses have an effect on our economy.
Yes, By the evening news the BBC were in full “Save Balls” mode proclaiming that just because the Tory policies had provided the current level of improvement didn’t mean that Balls-Up had got it wrong.
Funny how when the Tories get it right the BBC are in a rush to claim it doesn’t mean Labour’s policies would have got it wrong yet when Labour appeared to be getting it right I don’t recall even the slightest hint from the BBC that it didn’t necessarily mean the Tories’ policies would have got it wrong.
To the BBC only the Tories can get it wrong, even when they are obviously getting it right. Not that the BBC, heaven forbid, are anything other than scrupulously political impartial. They can’t be because they constantly keep telling everybody that they aren’t. Aye, right.
Paul Mason kicked off the negative spin on Newsnight. All so darned predictable.
Looks like the BBC is conducting a preplanned coordinated attack on the government. Every mention of positive growth figures has been couched with lots of warnings about “how it doesn’t reflect the true state of the economy”, with more focus on potential bad news. BBC2 last night, and radio 4 and 5 this morning all adopting the same tactics of spinning the growth figures as somehow bad news.
I’m not against the BBC adding caveats to figures like this. It is just a shame that they didn’t when Labour was in power. Probably all too busy covering up for child molesters.
Not just that Ralph, when the news is bad they give very full analysis all on the bad side; lay it on thick with interviews, context, comment etc to stick the boot in, never anything that might suggest a good side/green shoots/silver lining; and of course when it’s good news it’s full attach mode: 3 or 4 words about the good bit then the rest of the time with why it isn’t good. Today I was driving down the M1, M42 and M5 listening to radio 2, with each bulletin the bad got worse and worse, it would be funny if it weren’t so bloody wrong.
Yes quite noticeable scorched earth retreat from the BBC. It really does seem like they’re the broadcasting arm of the Labour party at times.
Why does the government take this institutionalised bias from a supposedly neutral ultimately state controlled body?
Yeah, I had to switch over this morning from BBC 24. Some incredibly young BBC number cruncher was earning his BBC stripes by highlighting every negative possible: ‘yes, but these figures are very low compared to… these figures aren’t reflective of the stall in manufacturing… businesses still aren’t getting the credit they need… ‘ etc. Now I am not an economist and cannot debate with any depth in this area but what I do know through my recollections is this: when Labour were in power before and during the recession the BBC were always the positive and solution-focused whereas under the Coalition any growth always has to be taken with a massive pinch of salt. I am no Tory or fan of the banks but I just genuinely hope that this might be the first step in the road to recovery, for the benefit of Britain.
I second the hope that this is a concrete step on the road to recovery.
But contrast Al JaBeeBa’s constant repetition of NuLaBor’s lying accusation of Tories ‘talking down the economy’ when NuLaBor were in power (but not responsible of course for the banking disaster on their watch), with HM Opposition’s, and their own, real talking down of the economy now!
(Are you the same ‘Alex’ on Guido?)
No, not me I’m afraid… have been over on Guido a few times but never really engaged. Perhaps I should, though 🙂
The BBC also like to remind us that wages are not increasing much, despite good GDP news. What they really mean is that public sector wages are not rising much, in line with private sector rises.
As an anecdote: I have a relative who was on the same wage for several years leading up to the credit crisis. She’s a private sector worker; below average income. The BBC didn’t seem to care then about private sector workers because their beloved chums in the public sector always enjoyed salary rises every year.
I agree with your sentiments, but there is some evidence that public sector pay continues to rise faster than the private sector (due to pay scales & annual increments?)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325451/Public-sector-pay-gravy-train-gets-rolling-Pay-freeze-private-firms-continues-state-wages-rise.html
I have been working in the same company in the private sector, a software company, and I have not had a raise at all for the last 5 years as trading has been very difficult internationally in all our markets.
We are beginning to see an upturn and more optimism in the market now.
I have not notice the BBC complain that private sector wages have fallen quite a long way behind the public sector and even behind state benefits in a lot of places.
The private sector are lucky to have been guaranteed a 1% rise every year. The chief exec level grades have had freezes and cuts. There has been NO acknowlegement whatsoever of the fact that the richest are now slowly getting poorer and in realtive terms have been hit harder by tax changes overall than the poor. Or that the poorest workers are better off due to tax changes and that social mobility is increasing again.
Getting away from the left wing dogma and examining the facts shows that the gap between rich and poor is shrinking and the economy is improving and labour have no answer for that whatsoever. The actual figures show that there was no double or tripple dip recession. In fact the economy was in the deepest and longest recession for generations under labour. The Bank of England stopped the rot, not labour. Now things are improving again, hopefully based on productivity and export growth, not unsustainable debt fueled growth.
Labour always wreck the economy. Every single time they have been in power, they have left office with a worse economy than the one they inherited. Every single time.
The BBC would have you believe the opposite.
What the BBC never mention is that public sector workers get incremental salary increases until they reach top of grade, in addition to any cost of living rise. So the 1% figure is, in most cases, a complete misrepresentation, and particularly for the ‘lower’ paid (but, as you rightly point out, average public sector salaries are now significantly higher than in the private sector – then there are the pensions etc etc).
The BBC is so blatantly pro Labour as to be laughable. In fact I suggest that even the most intellectually backward listener can see what they are about.
Good economic news is now impossible with the BBC. Whatever the figures may be some intrepid Paul Mason figure will discover at least one redundent gaslampfitter in a suburb of Salford. You see ‘in the real economy people are hurting!’
Comes over as if it were a Party Political Broadcast? Funny that. This is now BBC house-style. At least until there is a change of government. And a happy resolution to the next Licence Fee.
Paul “Money Box” Lewis was actually proposing a corporation tax based on turnover on Twitter the other day – there are so many things wrong with this that I scarcely know where to begin but most obviously I means that a company that operates and makes a loss still pays tax, thus driving it further into loss. Idiocy of the first water from someone paid by the Beeb to talk about financial matters.
How about a Twitter users tax. (TUT)
I’m in favour of that. BBC news might improve as a result of less Twitter use.
Firstly, I want to clarify that I personally am against taxation as a general principle, as I think it leads to bigger government over time and on-going erosion of property rights (property rights being one of the fundamental cornerstones of civilisation).
Having said that, I don’t think its as clear cut as you’re making out. The key advantage of a tax on turnover for corporations (as with an analogous policy of a flat rate tax for all income) is that it simplifies the tax accounting, and makes it much easier to administrate. In theory, this should reduce the cost linked to tax compliance for corporations, and give them less incentive to create ‘inventive’ tax avoidance schemes.
From a financial perspective, all you’re doing is taking taxation into the gross margin calculation rather than the net margin calculation, and are therefore making it less susceptible to creative accounting practices. Businesses might in fact have an easier time in planning and budgeting, because they could link taxation directly to each sale made without having to worry about whats allowable and whats not for tax purposes.
The key questions about how this policy would work are really no different than in the current set up:
i. do we treat all companies equally, or do we favour some at the expense of others (the former is purer capitalism, the latter veers into corporatism)
ii. what is the overall tax take – if its relatively high, we will stifle the ability for new companies and industries to start, affecting development and growth over time
iii. how much do we compromise the integrity of the approach by creating exceptional circumstances – the more we do this, the more leeway for accountants and lawyers to find loopholes and corrupt the main reason for having this treatment
Of course, my expectation is that when a leftie suggests this approach, its because they want more taxation in general rather than a streamlined approach that would reduce the size of government. On that basis, I can understand your criticism of Lewis’s tweet.
If a company is producing goods with a small mark-up, say 5%, but with a turnover of £5m, and another company has a large mark-up, say 40%, and also has a turnover of £5m they will pay the same amount of tax notwithstanding the vast differences in profit. As the Colonel says it is a completely bonkers idea, therefore totally worthy of a Beeboid.
A different (simpler) way to look at the turnover tax is that it is a de facto sales tax, like VAT.
Hopefully that makes it easier to see how it applies – you effectively tax all transactions at a standard rate (whether you count this as being a tax on what a person spends or the company’s turnover itself is just a matter of perspective).
Tax is effectively taken out of corporate performance analysis by doing this, it just becomes a flat sales cost that applies to all things.
I appreciate the simplicity argument but how does one define what an appropriate rate is for each company? Amazon makes a net profit of around 0.5% of turnover because it ploughs almost every penny of profit back into developing the business. From memory Tesco makes about 6%. One man consultancies might make net profits of 70% or more of turnover. What percentage is appropriate and how does one avoid companies gaming the system to ensure that they’re classified in a way that minimises tax?
But this causes it own distortions when you think about it. Amazon ploughs profits back into R&D rather than pay out dividends because its more tax efficient to do so. Its quite probable that it actually misallocates money to R&D purely to avoid tax.
The appropriate percentage is a pure flat rate on all transactions, whatever their nature.
I’m not saying this is ideal, and the way its set up (e.g. would it apply to business to business sales, or purely to the end consumer as VAT does) would affect how companies themselves structured (e.g. if B2B was not excluded, this would promote megacorporations in order not to have tax during the value chain), but in essence all taxation distorts how companies operate.
To simplify things and get rid of huge swathes of Inland Revenue bureaucrats as well as overpaid tax accountants and lawyers might be a net positive, provided it was set up correctly.
But again, I reiterate, I doubt that making capitalism work better was the intent behind Lewis’s original tweet.
“Its quite probable that it actually misallocates money to R&D purely to avoid tax.”
I think a comment such as this may be of interest to Amazon’s lawyers and their accountant’s lawyers.
Might be best if Alan uses his “editorial privileges” and removes it.
Alan is welcome to edit my post if he sees fit.
To clarify a couple of things:
i. tax avoidance is perfectly legal, and in my opinion a moral obligation for directors of companies who are tasked with acting in the interests of their shareholders
ii. I use ‘misallocate’ in the austrian economics sense of the word, i.e. an allocation that is not optimal in the context of a purely free market, but instead is determined by legal or compliance frameworks that are placed on that market by government.
Do you really think that their shareholders would allow such a “misallocation”.
If Amazon are spending on R&D solely to minimise their taxation liability and not as a means to ensure continued or enhanced profitability then the Directors are not acting in the best interests of the shareholders.
No matter which way you want to spin it your allegation could be construed as libelous.
Taxation frameworks promote certain activities at the expense of others.
For example, if a certain type of spending is tax deductible, and another is not, the full cost to the business of the former is lower than the latter.
By creating a taxation framework therefore, governments funnel activity in particular ways.
A director who actively manages his companies affairs so as to most efficiently utilise the taxation framework he is subject to is maximising de facto shareholder value.
However, one can consider the counterfactual position, and analyse what activities would generate maximal value under a different tax regime.
Under the current regime, my understanding is that certain types of activity, including R&D (which is often promoted via taxation legislation), can overall enhance shareholder value. Even where the marginal utility of incremental spend on R&D is questionable, the reality that it is subject to tax deductibility may result in higher shareholder value than to simply pay the money back out as dividends.
The shareholders would be fine with this arrangement, as their total returns are in fact
capital increase (via share price) + dividends
In this case, its possible or even likely that whilst the dividends returned fall, the capital increase due to assets generated by the R&D spend more than offsets this.
However, my point is that in a world where R&D was not favoured, e.g. with a top-line tax rate (on turnover), its possible that companies would spend less overall on R&D.
I think you misunderstand how Austrian economics defines ‘misallocation’ and consequently you don’t understand the point I’m making here.
You obviously know a thing or two about tax and it’s good to have this level of intellectual and technical prowess on the site but PLEASE why don’t you use it to help us expose the BBC’s economic bias as opposed to wasting finger-energy on arguing with Albaman (he’ll never accept he’s wrong, anyway!)
You are a grade one numpty sir!
Listen Albie…you traipse in here, only when you`re at a loose end and have finished rumbling in those big pockets of yours.
Here`s one for you-how come the BBC/yourself have never thought of doing something on the regressive, anti-information, anti communication block on improving the life chances of the poor that is the compulsory tax on knowledge that is the BBC Licence fee.
Imagine-£145.50 straight back into our pockets to swill away on Red Stripe-far better value that pissing it up at the BBC or its many agents and quislings.
I would then not need to come here to this site-who knows?…we might all get on with our lives, and not get riled at your popinjay on a dunghill musings.
£145.50 to get us gone-surely you`d think that this would be money well-spent!
If not-why not?…regressive, and an anachronism like the dog licence.
Yet no Flanders, Robinson or you to “suggest” that this might be a good thing, electorally popular etc…why not?
Close the door on the way out,, you spongebob!
Another to add to the list of insulting attacks from this sites “chosen few”.
Such bravery to sit at a keyboard making comments about someone you do not even know. You must be so proud of yourself.
But it was a dumb arsed and pointless interjection into what was other wise and interesting exchange of views
What was the point, old man, what was the point?
What is your point?
Just an observation
Kindly meant ,old man, kindly meant
If you are such a sensitive soul, Albaman, you are free to visit other sites more in tune with your own ignorance.
But you are not really that sensitive, are you? Your faux outrage is becoming boring.
You like dishing out ad hominems and outright abuse, but you can’t take it when posters respond in kind.
You’ve achieved what you intended, disrupted the thread. Now go and have a few benefit funded bevies while the sun is still shining. There’s a good boy.
“You like dishing out ad hominems and outright abuse, but you can’t take it when posters respond in kind.” – Evidence?
“Now go and have a few benefit funded bevies while the sun is still shining.” – Sorry to say that I don’t receive any benefits and it is also raining here.
So I take it that if you don’t receive benefits you are in some sort of gainful employment?
Judging by the number of times you post during the day, you must be using your employer’s computer. Is that what he pays you for?
As for evidence of ad hominems we just have to look at any one of your posts.
To Andy S.: Despite protestations to the contrary, it would appear that Alby is a BBC employee. At least, a “self-employed” business being paid oodles of Poll-Tax money to attack this site and the decent, honest people on it.
“Insulting language”
Numpty?…spongebob?
Glass of water for the poor lamb.
Do`nt suppose you`ll be able to help out at Tolpuddle, Bournemouth, Brighton over the coming year will you?
Not related to Walter Wolfgang are you sir.
And- I promise you it`s not the slightest bit personal…sometimes it gets boring playing the ball a la Benn when all the lefty abuse and canards come from your teammates(if not always you-and yet?)
And-I nearly forgot to add-NO ADDRESSING of the issue of the BBC Licence fee, as I raised!
Nearly got away with that , dis you not ?
I assumed that you knew:
“The TV Licence fee amount and any concessions is determined by the Government and approved by Parliament, and not the BBC.
The TV Licence fee is imposed by law (the Communications Act 2003) enacted by Parliament. The licence fee amount is prescribed by Parliament in regulations made pursuant to the Communications Act 2003.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is the responsible government agency for broadcasting in the UK.”
Take it up with the Government, not me.
Look, any chance that we could stop the playground name-calling, egotistical tax and libel A Level lectures and get back to the topic, please?
Clearly those in that organisation funded by threat of imprisonment out of the public purse cannot possibly comprehend that ALL government spending comes from the leftover profit from the private sector. (tax) Without that profit there would be NO public sector at all.
It is now time that those people cushioned from reality in the cushy BBC had a dose of reality and time for the BBC to be broken up and turned into specialist voluntary subscription only channels. Let them compete with the private media on a level playing field.
If they are successful, then the profits from their commercially viable packages could subsidise the other “special” stuff that the BBC now do (due to the extortionate way they are funded) that other commercial providers would not do.
The idea of taxing turnover would be commercial suicide for the UK. Businesses the length and breadth of the country would be folding overnight and millions more would be added to the unemployment lines with less and less commercial activity to create tax to pay for it.
Would that come under the Tweet Wielders Appropriation Tax Scheme?
That was a reply to AsISeeIt July 25, 2013 at 12:04 pm …
Snarf!
More worrying is Nick Robinson’s spreading of misinformation with this line:
‘Today’s figures tell a simple story. This is growth but – as they used to say on Star Trek – not as we know it.’
So wrong…. I explain here but in short I presume that Nick Robinson is grasping for the line “It’s life, Jim, but not as we know it.”. However this, to the best of my knowledge, was never said in the original Star Trek series.
Dammit Jim! I’m an overpaid leftie windbag, not a professional journalist
Was at Tolpuddle the other day.
Lots of oversized red balloons go by me,and your Robinson comment makes sense.
I have noticed the balloons getting redder and bigger every year…the unions are all words like Unisommunity, but no-one knows what they do(including their members who just pay up, get pie eyed,and let the missus iron those pristine banners from 1984).
Robinson, McClusky, Flanders, Balls Brothers…anybody else spot the other 94 red balloons…none of which would have been brave or willing enough to dare to cross the Berlin Wall.
Send for Captain Kirk indeed Nena, my dear!
I do wonder where reporting morphs into ‘analysis’ and then seamlessly into propaganda.
Mr. Robinson seems a particularly dire example, and even may be getting more daring yet, as his usual SOP is to hide behind a #sourcessay when sticking in the boot for his ideological masters.
Nick Robinson:
However, Ed Balls and Labour will be quick to remind us that a recovery in one measure of national economic output is not the same as a recovery in living standards.
No Nick, this the same Ed Balls who has been haranguing the Tories for ages about ‘getting growth’ or formulating ‘a plan for growth’. To Balls and Labour, growth was all important. Why don’t you wait for Labour to say something rather than say it for them?
What was that Carry On film where Joan sims is berating Sid James for being unemployed for so long and accuses him of laziness?
Sid replies ‘I’m a street gas lamp fitter – I can’t help it if I’m a craftsman!’
I always remember that scene when the likes of Paul Mason insist with that slogan of his that ‘people are hurting’.
Think I`ve got me a banner to march under for Tolpuddle next year!
I`ll affiliate to Labour of course, and hope to get a few million votes as a result.
When my TV Licence expired at the end of May, I cancelled my Direct Debit and wrote to TV Licensing informing them that I wouldn’t be renewing it. Knowing that I’m no longer paying the BBC to spit in my face has enormously improved my sense of well-being!
Yes, I know longer pay their bully-boy, Marxist tax. I just watch the internet these days and I said that to them on the phone, although they were trying dupe me into believing that I still should pay. I told them not to contact me again and hung up 🙂
I haven’t had a T.V. license now for 6 years. What I have now is an extra £870 in my pocket and a wad of snotty letters telling me that my address is under investigation. Worth every penny I’ve saved. 😎
I would prefer if it was not a criminal offence to opt out of funding the [Stalinist wankers] at the BBC.
Snippets I’ve heard today on the growth figures from the BBC comrades:
– It’s growth, but still weak compared to the US and EVEN Germany.
– There was no double dip recession as feared (actually promoted by Labour, ad nauseam, but let’s not mention that) but there has been a double dip in construction (so there has been a double dip after all – ner ner ner ner-ner).
– Musing whether the growth is at the expense of people putting away savings (never heard this one on Labour’s debt-fuelled miracle boom watch did we?)
– Balls’ mantra of living standards not improving echoed repeatedly – still below where they were before the crash (but no acknowledgement that the country was living well beyond its means on borrowed money at that time, so an adjustment was inevitable).
– We shouldn’t dwell on the causes of the crash (nothing to see, let’s move on – but what can we still blame Thatcher for after 20-odd years?)
– No challenge to Labour’s economic strategy (do they have one? what about the oft-rpeated question when the Tories were in opposition: ‘But what would YOU do about it?).
Labour’s poodles. Biased bastards all.
Yes. The ‘living standards’ mantra is high on Labour’s grid, has been for months. And as part of Labour’s awareness strategy the BBC seem to have picked up the batten, repeating the Balls / Miliband message and recently running a ‘Cost of Living Season’. If you’d come from Mars, you’d think that the whole thing was co-ordinated!
I also notice that the BBC have been reluctant, all day, to tell us that these figure were ahead of expectations (they instead say that they were twice those of last quarter).
Now imagine if the growth was 0.1% LESS than expected. Do you think that the BBC would have let that go?
You will note the very careful selection of data points by the BBC. It announces that the UK economy is still 3.3% below pre-recession figures. Well, you need to add at least one word to that – our economy is still 3.3% below the pre-recession PEAK. (Note – the PEAK prior to the ONLY recession this century, under a Labour government.)
In addition, UK GDP (adjusted for inflation) is, if my calculations from the relevant chart are correct, around 6% greater than it was when the Labour government was eventually booted out.
But the BBC would be unlikely to admit to these sorts of data, preferring to slant the news towards the negative, rather than shine any sort of daylight on its Labour comrades’ disastrous management of our economy when they were in power.
Its the Economy stupid’ if it continues to get better and the Tories win an outright Election in 2015, cannot wait to see the glumness of the Beeboid fraternity.
the BBC charter is up for renewal in the next parliament.
Hopefully the tories will grow a pair and take the BBC down.
Has anybody noticed the BBC film sequence which often precedes the hourly news on BBC News 24?
At one point it cuts to Stephanie Flanders who looks as if she is floundering in the wind! Is there a fifth columnist at the BBC with a sense of humour?