Stephaine Flanders said this about George Osborne’s recent speech about the state of the economy:
“The chancellor isn’t declaring victory on the recovery just yet – he’s too careful for that. But he is declaring victory over Ed Balls”
The BBC report on the speech opened with these words:
The UK economy is “turning a corner”, Chancellor George Osborne has said in a speech in London.
Mr Osborne cited “tentative signs of a balanced, broad based and sustainable recovery”, but stressed it was still the “early stages” and “plenty of risks” remained.
Mr Osborne said that recent months – which have seen more upbeat reports on the economy – had “decisively ended” questions about his economic policy.
From that you can infer that Osborne didn’t say that the economic crisis is over, merely that the economy has started to recover, it is still a long term project and that many risks remain…but that the one solid conclusion you can draw is that his ‘Plan A’ has worked.
Osborne tells us that industry and productivity are being supported and encouraged for long term sustainable development and growth:
‘…as I said right at the start, in the long term, the only sustainable way to raise living standards is to raise productivity by tackling the underlying structural weaknesses in our economy that were exposed by the crisis……..
Our corporate tax system is now amongst the most competitive in the world, with companies that left the UK now bringing investment back home.
A new industrial strategy is finally providing the long term stability and leadership that is needed in so many sectors such as aerospace, automotive, agri-tech and bio-science.
And British science is scaling new heights with its budget protected for the future and rising capital investment in new facilities.’
All of which makes you wonder what speech John Humphrys was listening to as a basis for challenging Vince Cable who in a recent statement said pretty much the same things as Osborne but Humphrys interpreted the comments as an attack on Osborne.
Cable said this:
‘We can’t rest on our laurels. The kind of growth we want won’t simply emerge of its own volition. In fact, I see a number of dangers. One is complacency, generated by a few quarters of good economic data….It isn’t difficult to see evidence of confidence returning, and there are positive trends in production. Taken together with success stories like the car industry and export growth in emerging markets, we have the beginnings of a recovery story.
‘But there are risks, not least the housing market getting out of control. Recovery will not be meaningful until we see strong and sustained business investment.’
He said we are at the beginning of a recovery, so did Osborne, he said there are many risks still, so did Osborne, he said we shouldn’t take things for granted and become complacent….so did Osborne….
‘So the evidence suggests tentative signs of a balanced, broad based and sustainable recovery, but we cannot take this for granted.’
So why did Humphrys say (08:11) this speech was ‘Not a message that George Osborne would want to hear…you’re raining on his parade’?
Cable replied that Osborne had ‘Got the tone exactly right’ and that the comment about complacency was in regard to some in the Media especially.
Humphrys then questioned the ‘Recovery will not be meaningful until we see strong and sustained business investment’ comment suggesting that this meant the recovery was not a recovery in reality.
But Osborne said the same thing….the recovery is showing tentative signs of starting…and many risks remain….it is a long term programme to get the econoimy back in shape….and includes measures to help industry improve…just as Cable suggests.
Failing to make much headway with taht line of attack Humphrys then switched tack and tried to suggest this was a political stance, electioneering in effect, by Cable to put clear blue water between the Conservatives and the LibDems.
But if Cable’s comments were in support of Osborne, which they were, that isn’t a correct analysis.
Humphrys seemed to be working all too hard to make something out of Cable’s speech that wasn’t there and when he couldn’t succeed at that he tried a different approach…..which also didn’t hold water.
Altogether a waste of everyone’s time and yet another example of Humphrys believing the hype about his skill as an interviewer…those days are long gone in my opinion.
You can see from Flanders intepretation of Osborne’s speech that even she saw exactly what he menat….why couldn’t Humphrys?
A shame Humphrys didn’t feel the need to tackle Cable on his hypocrisy on housing, it could have been amush more prodcutive 5 minutes.
Cable has been praised on the BBC for his warnings about a ‘housing bubble’ being possibly caused by Osborne’s incentive schemes however just last year Cable said this in a speech about delivering growth whilst reducing the deficit:
There are now some interesting ideas out there for government guarantees that could trigger a significant volume of housing investment, replicating the recovery model of the 1930s and leading hopefully to a virtuous circle of new building lending to increased affordability and also increased private demand……
And like in the 1930s, there is no reason in principle why such innovative thinking should not be applied at a local level instead. There are already examples: some councils, Eastleigh, for example, use prudential borrowing powers – at negligible interest rates – to invest in projects with a commercial return.
So one year ago government schemes to encourage the housing market were a grand idea….what has changed?
Osborne says in reply to Cable’s self serving warning:
Some claim that Help to Buy will boost demand but not supply, but again the evidence suggests otherwise.
Not only are the government’s planning reforms already increasing the flow of new planning permissions, but the lack of mortgage availability at higher loan to value ratios has itself been one of the biggest factors holding back the supply of new housing.
That’s why a report last week by former MPC member Charles Goodhart, now at Morgan Stanley, estimated that Help to Buy could increase housing starts by more than 30% between 2012 and 2015.
‘said pretty much the same things as Osborne but Humphrys interpreted the comments as an attack’
What, an ideologically-driven tack to create heat over seeking to sensibly illuminate? By a senior BBC Labour PR man?
I’m shocked, I tell you… shocked!
The word ‘interpreted’ in terms of how the BBC goes beyond simply describing events of course was one I think first coined by Mr. Humphrys, who seemed to think added personal bias was a good thing.
This is of course the objective media monopoly who took the ysis out of analysis.
Osbourne said recovery had started but we must not be complacent. Cameron in PMQs said the signs were there but we must not be complacent.
With their usual tactic of repeating a lie, knowing that it does stick in people’s mind, Milliband and Labour at every interview accuse Osbourne and Cameron of complacency and pushing that point. I have not once heard the BBC interviewers challenge this claim or quote Osbourne or Cameron when they clearly warned against being complacent.
“……………… Osborne didn’t say that the economic crisis is over, merely that the economy has started to recover, it is still a long term project and that many risks remain…but that the one solid conclusion you can draw is that his ‘Plan A’ has worked.”
Does this sentence not contradict itself. If the economic crisis is not yet over how can you assert that Osbourne’s Plan “A” has worked?
Taking account the economic policy right turns, left turns and about turns taken by Osbourne over the last few years it would be interesting to know which version of Plan “A” is deemed to have worked.
‘Does this sentence not contradict itself’
Question, or statement? Hard to tell.
But good to have you back after your ‘break’.
Even if it returns again more to attempts at semantic detail tribal political distractions vs. substantive matters of BBC objectivity, accuracy and integrity.
Not if one takes it to mean that Plan ‘A’ was only supposed to get the economy off the ground, and wasn’t expected to fix everything permanently and quickly. Did anybody really think that was possible?
Unfortunately – as happens all too often – the BBC (in this case Humphrys) decided what it wanted to hear before the interview started so no matter what was said the BBC ears only hear what fits for them.
The figures for employment are for the last three months, the summer, remember that. Lots of temporary labour needed, but now we are into autumn, those jobs are done so what does the next three months hold. It could be totally different, especially as the cold weather looks to be starting early, bad news for the elderly and vulnerable.
especially as the cold weather looks to be starting early
Well, that’s global warming for you.
BTW what’s the prognosis for under bridge living this year? Should some of our flokkers be worried?
Several months ago, following a speech by David Cameron in which he said that the economy was ‘healing’ and after some encouraging growth figures, Miliband waded up to a BBC microphone to say that Cameron was dancing with delight, saying the economy was ‘fixed’.
Cameron never said anything of the sort of course…and of course the BBC interviewer never challenged him. It would have been refreshing to have heard him being asked to provide the evidence.
But remember that word ‘fixed’, and that claim. It has since been used by Gameshow and by others in the BBC, no doubt conveying and facilitating the Labour message of complacency. I have no doubt you will hear it a lot more.
It was used last night on Five Live when a caller rang in with exactly the same quote and criticism, coupled with the claim that we had had a double dip recession.
Needless to say, Stephen Nolan and John Pienaar failed to correct the caller.
Humphrys is using the tried and tested BBC method of ignoring what is actually said when it isn’t what the want to hear and stating the version that suits their agenda in the form of a question hoping that it is the BBC version which sticks in the public mind.
Forget what is actually happening with the economy, what you have to believe is the BBC’s wishful thinking that the Coalition have got it all wrong, the economy is still plunging to disaster, people are starving on the streets because of massive cuts on a scale never seen before in history and, if only they had listened to Ballsup, Millibland and the BBC we would all now be millionaires, living in the lap of luxury and the Country would be the richest in the world with all it’s debts eliminated.
That is the version you must believe and all indications, however well founded, are just an illusion created to fool you, even it the truth is right under your nose. Remember, you are wrong and the BBC is right.
Why do people rate Cable? He seems like King – wrong on almost everything he says.
The BBC sees Cable as a sort of finance/economics sage and occasional oracle, but it seems that he’s really more like Ronnie Corbett in that Two Ronnies Mastermind sketch.
It