The IFS, the BBC’s favourite economics thinktank……
Paul Johnson, Director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies.…..was at Oxford with Ed Balls…
Johnson studied PPE at Oxford University between 1985 and 1988, when his tutorial partner at Keble College was Balls. Both got firsts.
He also worked for the Labour government at the…
Department for Education and had three years at the Treasury while Gordon Brown was chancellor.
Just of interest, the BBC’s other goto think tank, the King’s Fund, is headed by Chris Ham…the man who advised Labour on their NHS reforms….so does he have a dog in the fight when he criticises the Coalition’s reforms…reforms which might suggest his own weren’t up to scratch? I think he might….especially when he gets headlines like this from the BBC...’NHS reorganisation was disastrous, says King’s Fund.’
Never mind…Overall public satisfaction with the NHS increased to 65 per cent in 2014 – the second highest level since the British Social Attitudes survey began in 1983. Dissatisfaction with the service fell to an all-time low of 15 per cent.
Not as if Ham bigs up Labour policies now is it?...“Andy Burnham has set out an ambitious and wide-ranging vision for the NHS and social care. It throws down the gauntlet to the other parties to set out their plans ahead of the general election…His prescription for change is ambitious and his vision of delivering integrated care, co-ordinated around the needs of the individual, will be widely welcomed “
The IFS and the King’s Fund are guaranteed a favourable report from the BBC whenever they utter something but I’m not sure why….they do seem ultimately more Labour friendly than they should be, giving Labour policies far more credence than they merit whilst being highly critical of the government.
The IFS were very quick off the mark to attack the Conservatives over their claim of a £3000 tax hike by Labour and yet the IFS admits it doesn’t know what either party intends….and the figures that are available back up the Tory estimate. The IFS can certainly say the claim is an estimate but can’t dismiss it using any actual figures…as indeed they weren’t able to merely suggesting the Tory claim was ‘unhelpful’….certainly unhelpful to Labour.
Everytime I hear the bBC mention a new report from any source I scream at the TV “What is their agenda? What are their political leanings? How are they funded?”. Why is this never mentioned? Hmmm.
Common Purpose innit
Pretty sure that one Niall Dickson went from his BBC “Social Affairs Correspondent” job-and straight over to the other side of the “liberal nutcracker” as Spokesman for the Kings Fund way back.
Maybe the first migrating swallow or tit to so easily blather the same “Common Purpose” schtick as “reporter” or “quangocrat”.
Niall-like Purnell or Abbott, Johnson or Pryce-won`t care which side of the trough pays him…license fee or general taxes and grants?…as long as he doesn`t actually have to earn his money.
Just open the maw and go.
Something wrong ere! Either David Vance or Evan Davis is lying since Evan on Newsnight was arguing robustly with Grant Schapps that the IFS is independent and trustworthy?
I know who my money is on!
About 9:50 mins in:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b05q0vgp/newsnight-30032015
The left wing statist bias of these ‘independent’ think tanks is clear. Watch over the coming weeks how Beeboids are scripted to associate the word ‘independent’ with whichever state funded leftist organisation they have on to guide the public’s understanding.
Once you have an eye for the BBC scripting techniques and emphasis on ‘independent’, you can spot the left lobbyists before they speak. Quick follow up research of who funds these organisations isn’t hard nowadays with the interweb ‘n all.
Log it here!