Funny what the BBC misses out of its news reports.
One of the big political battlegrounds is ‘fairness’….just how much are the Rich really suffering for instance…just how much are they paying in taxes?
That’s right at the heart of Labour’s attack on the Tories…accused of being the party for Millionaires and big business.
First of all though, no mention of this by the BBC in their report:
Growth expected to be 2.6% in 2014 …Growth of 2.6% would leave the UK amongst the fastest growing developed economies.
Yeah…definitely don’t want to mention that. Why let people know the good news?
Then there’s this…..from the Telegraph:
UK tax system is ‘punishing success’ says Institute for Fiscal Studies
IFS voices concern about state’s growing reliance on tax revenue from small number of high earners
“The Government might be concerned if the Exchequer becomes increasingly reliant on one particular revenue source, as it increases the risk that a shock to one revenue source would have serious implications for total revenues,” the IFS said in its annual Green Budget.
Politicians should resist the “knee-jerk” urge to tax the rich harder during downturns or risk them leaving the country, the economists said.
And the Daily Mail has this big old headline:
Top 1% of earners already pay almost 30% of all income tax as IFS warns half of spending cuts have still not been made
The BBC do not have that headline….and in fact do not mention the rather important statement by the IFS in their report on the IFS’s analysis:
Cost of living crisis to turn around this year, IFS says
Which is curious really because the BBC mentions everything else that is eyecatching except this one very politically relevant fact contained in this IFS press release:
Still not half way there yet on planned spending cuts
Harder to quantify are the risks associated with our increasing reliance on a small group of very rich taxpayers. The share of income tax paid by the top 1% of taxpayers rose from 11% in 1979 to 27.5% in 2011–12. The income tax alone paid by these 300,000 very high income individuals accounts for 7.5% of all tax revenue. These individuals will of course also pay a large fraction of VAT and capital taxes.
And it’s not the only time the IFS has mentioned this ….from a few days ago…here being more explicit that there is a risk:
The Exchequer is, perhaps worryingly, reliant on this very small group of individuals for a very large fraction of revenue: the 1% of income tax payers with incomes in excess of £150,000 pay somewhere between 25 and 30% of all income tax.
And income tax is set to become even more important as government’s switch from trying to impose corporation tax on will-o-the-wisp multi-nationals and raise it instead on the income of employees, VAT and NI….
‘….government is becoming increasingly reliant on the three main taxes–income tax, VAT and National Insurance contributions (NICs) –which will account for two thirds of all revenue by 2018–19‘
In other words we will be even more reliant on the top earners….so Labour scaring them off by imposing even more taxes (50p + rate?) is possibly not a good idea if you are reliant on them to stay and pay taxes…..see the effect Ed’s mate Hollande and his socialist tax has had on the French rich….they’ve all moved to London….along with their income tax.
Interesting the BBC doesn’t want you to know that the rich are paying such a huge sum of money that we are too ‘reliant upon it’….and that there are risks associated with (Labour’s policy of) relying upon soaking the Rich.
Not something Ed Miliband would like to have broadcast.
And note yet again the BBC concentrates on ‘real wages’…which the IFS tells us is misleading as a measure of the cost of living…as it does not equate to actual income received.
In other words even if ‘real wages’ are still rising only slowly it doesn’t mean there is a ‘cost of living crisis’…..sluggish wage growth appears to be a long-term pattern that has little to do with the recession or the current government.
“However painful falling wages may be, it is important to note that they may have been instrumental in preventing a much larger increase in unemployment,” is how the professors put it…..Labour has repeatedly cited the IFS’s research on falling wages without quoting them on this important point.
The BBC as well funnily enough.
‘……But never mind the facts, perhaps it really is how people feel that is most important to the politicians.
As Mr Miliband knows, 81 per cent of respondents in a recent YouGov poll said they believed prices grew faster than household incomes over the last year.’
One thing the BBC will not mention, nor will Miliband or Cameron, regarding the floods, is the revelation that the Somerset Levels have been allowed to flood on purpose.
http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=84683
This has links to the actual EU directives and the policy decisions and policy papers going back to 2004 regarding the deliberate policy of allowing farmland to flood, in order to boost wildlife.
All part of Agenda21 no doubt.
Now that their deliberate neglect of flood defenses has caused catastrophic conditions for hundreds of families, they are using it to promote climate change.
It makes my blood boil!!!
Spread far and wide. send to any locals from the Somerset Levels and let’s get the word out about the real reason for the catastrophic flooding!
Thanks for that. Reading between the lines of yesterday’s news I reached the conclusion that the Environment Agency is merely a body tasked to implement the diktats of the EU.
Try these that the BBC missed or flitted past:
– Not much (if anything) about the Falkirk report
– Not much if anything about the Lib Dems blocking the Tories proposed 1.5% Council Tax freeze
– Not a word, EVER, about September’s Jardine report into the considerable excess deaths in the NHS during Labour’s time (even C4 News led on that. Even the Guardian reported it)
– Nothing at all about Balls in Nazi uniform
– Nothing tonight (10 o’ Clock News) about what Cheryl Gillan really said about women and the Tories – we were told that she believed that there wasn’t a problem, but only showed the part of their interview saying their needed to be more women.
– Nothing tonight about where Cameron’s front bench women were today (it requires a bit of journalism)
– More generally, nothing at all about Labour’s civil war, their lurch to the left, or the purging of the Bliarites
– Nothing about the ‘small print’ and loopholes in Miliband’s much trumpeted new Trades Union relationship (they only needed to read Dan Hodges to find Miliband’s proposal were a smoke and mirrors job)
– Nothing at all about Miliband’s attempt to smuggle placed men and women from Which? into a ‘so called’ Competition and Markets Authority
– Nothing at all about the shadowy creatures behind ‘Hacked-off’, their links to Leveson and the gagging of the British press
– Nothing at all about the positive impacts and objectives of what they have chosen to call the ‘bedroom tax
– Nothing at all about the real number of Quangoista’s appointed by Labour in defiance of democracy
– Nothing at all about Brown and the other Miliband’s betrayal of Britain in Lisbon
– Nothing at all about Labour’s gerrymandering of constituency boundaries, giving them a 30 seat start in any general Election
– Nothing at all about Chukka Umunna describing Londoners as trash and wannabe’s (would they have let Boris get away with that?)
An excellent list, which should remain on the front page of this website as a permanent reminder of the bias. It should also be extended every time the BBC deliberately fail to report important pieces of political news.
An excellent post. With supression of news like this, can anyone really believe that the BBC is impartial?
The answer is: almost certainly not. But they will go on saying it anyway. Won’t you, Albaman, Dez etc etc?
Was astounded, astounded I say, to see the 10 O’clock news this evening reporting on the goings-on in PMQs today. Can anyone remember the last time the 10 O’clock news reported on anything from PMQ’s?
Well tonight they took time out to report on the lack of any lady MPs on the Tory front bench during PMQs. We all know there are some, in fact there are as many as there were in the last Brown government, but I think you’ll all be able to guess the slant that the BBC placed on the fact that all these ladies were out and about at the same time.
That was an astonishingly one sided, misleading and biased report. Appalling.
The story about PMQs and the issue “women MPs” (front bench or others) is an example of how the progressive world and media and out of step with the real world outside the metropolitan bubble.
Unless one is a left sided gossipmonger and political tokenism freak, no one gives a toss about how many women are on the front bench, or how many are resigning (If Rachel Reeves, Angela Eagle, Harriet Dromey (nee Hateman) and Theresa May are examples of their quality well who wants them).
Yet we have the media brattling on about this non story with the BBC evidently relishing it as a chance to attack Cameron and the Tories. The Progressive left worship tokenism (remember the UKIP poster that had no “ethnic” faces on it).
Quite agree. Seems to be like a school playground type of argument…. we’ve got more girls on our team than you. All extremely childish.
The BBC probably imagine that Milipede looks authoritative and statesman-like. I think he looks infantile. Reminds me of Pitt the Younger in Blackadder 3.
Or Pitt the even younger.
When there`s no policies, no philosophies, no discernible difference between shit shite, faeces, excrement apart from whether it comes in a bucket or a pail-then that is all we can expect.
The whole political class and their media campers rely on pointless rows over whether Miliband dresses to the right, Cameron to the left…or not.
It can`t and won`t stand long…couple of decades maximum.
This week’s Private Eye has unearthed an interesting fact about the BBC-Labour complaints of Tories appointing their own supporters to quango positions. In 2000, the Commissioner for Public Appointments officially criticised the Labour Health Secretary (Frank Dobson) for politicising the public service and appointing 288 Labour activists to public bodies over the previous three years, compared to 49 Conservatives, 28 Lib Dems and 2 Scottish Nationalists.
What the Eye doesn’t point out is that these appointees were the very people who presided over Labour’s Nationalised Death Service when it was killing thousands of patients despite being given bucket-loads of borrowed money to placate their unions.
I personally know one of those 288 – now removed from his post as ‘Chair’ of a Large NHS Trust. Never did a proper job in his life, just spent time being re-cycled around the local public sector ‘jobs for the boys’ roles.
He knew eff-all about the health service and like many of those on the opposition front bench yesterday, was the epitome of that old saying, ’empty vessels make the most noise’.
And it continues. Trougher, Jacqui Smith, she who reckoned that her main home was a bedroom in her sister’s property (so we paid for the family house that her family lived in, in the Midlands) , is now Chair of University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust. What, pray, does that hanger-on know about the health service?
Might be worth getting in for the pay-per-view stuff at the hospital though.
All part of a cost-cut to save on Viagra there perhaps?
The NHS is stuffed to the rafters with Labour placemen. And the results are there for all to see.
Here’s another one… the BBC are all over comments made by Danny Alexander that he will block any attempt to reduce the top level of income tax to 40%… a bit of a non-story since not attempt has yet been suggested, it would appear.
The IFS have come out with a report saying that the top 1% contribute about 30% of all income tax, something that is reported reasonably extensively elsewhere.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/10620555/UK-tax-system-is-punishing-success-says-Institute-for-Fiscal-Studies.html
I tried, not for long I admit, but I did try to find this on the BBC website, but sadly was unsuccessful. Now why could that be?
There`s the first FGM trial coming up today.
Jenni Murry tells me so on Womans Hour, so it`s going to be true.
Her Burkina Faso guest demands more action, more bringing of this scandal into the open..maybe like they do back in her village, I dunno.
Trouble is….the ten minute rant for joined up Action Plans, for more NHS/School/Social Services money, more awareness and less coyness didn`t actually extend to the “communities” doing this for fun.
Coyness and a conspiracy of silence were indeed denounced-no Action Plans like in France, Portugal or Holland-but for the life of me, I didn`t quite catch from Jenni and guest just WHICH community(or communities if the umma can be so described) were providing “the risk” to 65,000 young women?
Wouldn`t be Muslim girls in Islamosharia fascist homes from places like Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan would it?
I have to guess-for the coy BBC are being less than open in what the problem-or, more to the point, WHO the f***in problem is.
Wasn`t an issue in any war films or bra-burning 60s stuff…que passa`d BBC?
Omerta…that an Arabic word in the Gaurdian lexicon yet?
PS excellent posts above
#88 especially-we need a weekly list of these, and to get writing on them locally…and start teaching news studies(genesis, agendas etc) anywhere we can…
Front page of Telegraph about IFS report that the top 5% of earners pay 30% of income tax revenue and this is too fragile as they could leave, avoid, or go bust so unwise to raise tax threshold to 50%, the Labour policy. Front page of Telegraph but I can’t seem to find it anywhere on BBC “News” website. Editorial decision or nod and wink received?
These UN findings about Roman Catholic priests seems to have activated “deflector shields on full, Scotty”.
The republican guard of bBC Scotland has thrown the omerta blanket right over this one ……..coing hard on the heels
of the very curious case of the Cooperative bank and cheap loans to a football side.
There are oases of sanity and objectivity in the BBC
‘More or less’ consistently reports tax shares and rubbishes political statistics
Strangely this seems to be more of an echo of a dim and distant past when the BBC was a journalistic porgainsation rather than promoter of labour party and left wing activist policies and regurgitator of press releases
How about the lack of an A&E crisis?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100258704/whisper-it-labours-ae-winter-crisis-hasnt-happened-thats-big-news/