Money Money Money

The BBC’s coverage of Labour’s Manifesto is extraordinary, the BBC is not just on a different page to everyone else but a different planet….what do we get from the BBC?  The Tories NHS plans are unfunded but Labour’s are fully costed and paid for…even when BBC interviews with Balls show that to be untrue…then we get the analysis of the Manifesto…well…mostly we get the ‘news’ that it is all about image, showing Labour to be fiscally responsible…really?  What about the contents…are they actually costed and paid for?  Hard to tell really from the BBC coverage which ignores the intense criticism Miliband has received from the likes of the IFS.  And then we get constant clips of what Miliband attacking the Tories rather than what he said about his own policies….which is a bit odd on the day he launches his manifesto….the Tories being dragged in to defend their policies rather than Labour politicians being questioned on their own manifesto.

Despite the fact that Miliband has been shot down by the IFS, not once but twice,  in BBC interviews, and Ed Balls has also been shown to be economical with the truth, again in BBC interviews, how is it that the BBC presents us with headlines like this piece of soft soaping…

Miliband says he is ‘ready’ to lead country

And follows it up with a report that was somewhat less than critical in its analysis with Nick Robinson telling us that…

Ed Miliband’s “mission” as your prime minister would, he said, be simply summed up: “I will always stand up for you.”

It was one of the most powerful speeches I’ve seen him make.

Contrast that with the Times which gets to the heart of the matter…

Miliband’s bid for economic credibility shot down by IFS

Or Politics Home….

IFS: Parties ‘just making up numbers’ on tax avoidance

Or City AM…

Ed Miliband offers no more clarity and electorate won’t know what they’re voting for, says IFS

Or The IEA:

Mark Littlewood, director-general at the IEA, says:

This manifesto does little to inspire confidence in Labour’s ability to manage Britain’s economy. With an annual deficit still running at a staggering £90 billion, vague pledges to merely reduce it each year are simply not good enough.

What little detail we have is exemplified by funding giveaways through price caps, fare freezes, levies and wealth taxes. This smacks of the politics of envy and is liable to reduce competition and investment in the UK.

 

You have to ask how so much of the BBC coverage manages to avoid such intense criticism of Labour’s policies especially as that ‘fiscal responsibility’ message is central to its manifesto’s claim that it can be trusted on the economy.

The BBC’s coverage is woeful, it can’t even report what it has ‘reported’ in other BBC interviews.

Ed Balls was given a complete battering on the subject of funding the NHS by Justin Webb this morning on the Today programme (08:10), and he was given similar treatment in this later BBC interview….but I didn’t hear thoat ‘battering’ referred to in any subsequent BBC news.

Webb asked if Balls was committed to finding the full £8 bn for the NHS….Balls replied ‘no’, Webb uttered a shocked ‘Really?’ going on to ask again about the commitment to fund the NHS fully especially as in the Manifesto it says that Labour will fund the NHS not just with £2.5 bn but £2.5 billion above whatever the Tories offer…..and Webb suggests that Labour supporters will be surprised to hear a Labour man refuse to say he will fund the NHS fully.

Webb says that must mean Labour couldn’t find the money…Balls replied that he will not commit to a figure until he knows where the  money is coming from….but as Labour has already agreed that £8 bn is the figure needed to save the NHS that must be up to being questioned.

Balls maintained that line in the other BBC interview…however he also repeated what Miliband and Liz Kendall, Labour’s Shadow Health Minister, said…that ‘We will do whatever it takes to fund the NHS’.

Which is great. Except the very next line he said…

‘The only promises we will make are ones we can show where the money is coming from.’

Now those two lines are not compatible….The NHS says it needs £8 bn a year extra to keep afloat…Labour offers only £2.5 bn claiming that that is fully costed and funded (it’s not)….but then says it will ‘Do whatever it takes to fund the NHS’.

That is a promise, not just to fund up to a level of £8 bn but to any figure, whatever is needed….and that is completely uncosted and unfunded.

Here’s the King’s Fund asking where’s the money from Labour?

The big question is about funding, with Labour now the only one of the three main parties not to have pledged to find the £8 billion a year in additional funding called for in the NHS five year forward view. Given this is the minimum requirement if the NHS is to continue to meet patient needs and maintain standards of care, this leaves a significant gap at the heart of its plans.

 

It’s good to see the BBC has finally caught up with Labour’s dodgy promises on the NHS although somewhat late after allowing the Tories to be smashed for a couple of days with claims that they are making unfunded promises whilst Labour escaped any such critical analysis with their supposedly fully costed and paid for policies…..that legend has now become truth in many people’s minds.

However the fact that Balls’ fiscal credibility was pretty much destroyed by Webb, as in the other BBC interview, wasn’t reflected in the subsequent the news bulletins.  After a couple of days of headlines about the Tories and the NHS not a mention that Labour hadn’t actually found the funds to pay for the NHS but instead referred to how Labour would deal with the deficit which was spoken of in the first part of the interview with Webb.

One of the biggest election themes for days, funding the NHS, was sidelined when it came to Labour’s own fiscal irresponsibility.

Then we had Miliband making his big speech launching the Labour manifesto. How did the BBC report that?  Did they concentrate on the contents or whether they were actually funded as claimed by Labour?

No, the BBC instead preferred to tell us that the manifesto was all about Labour presenting itself as the party of fiscal responsibility that could be trusted to run the economy.  Now I imagine most people will realise that a political speech during an election is all about sending a message and we don’t need to be told that repeatedly and at length by the BBC.

Once is enough, a quick nod in the direction but then the BBC should have been looking at the manifesto to see if the contents actually live up to that claim of being ‘responsible and credible’ on the economy.

In this report Nick Robinson skims over the contents and then says this…

Although this manifesto contains a clear retail offer with plenty of important policy promises – eg on the minimum wage and train fares and child care – it will be remembered for Ed Miliband’s attempt to convince the country that he embodies both Radicalism and Reassurance.

‘Plenty of important policy promises‘?  What would they be Nick?  And are they funded?

He then goes on to say…

If he succeeds he’ll govern Britain for the next five years. In which case you and I ought to get familiar with what the rest of that manifesto says.

Familiar with the contents?  Yes, that would have been nice…shame the BBC’s economics bod doesn’t give us the details himself…still we can always read it for ourselves I suppose.

Peston isn’t much better with this waffle which spends most of the time putting Labour’s case for them…here he is putting ‘Plan B’ before us…but not before spinning the tale about Tory NHS profligacy and Labour responsibility..

There is something a bit surreal about a Labour manifesto whose first page is a promise to borrow and spend as little as possible, in contrast to the Tories’ weekend claim that they would spend £8bn more on the health service but won’t say how to finance that spending.

Labour, if it wanted to, could make the case that although it is trying to be austere, it is less austere than the Tories – and that therefore the lesser spending cuts or lower tax increases that its fiscal rules require would be less of a brake on economic growth than Tory plans require.

A good number of economists would argue that Labour’s approach would not only protect funding of important public services but would also reinforce the momentum of growth in the economy.

In this report Peston seems entirely confused but is still pumping out pro-Labour messages…again he goes with the  ‘many economists support ‘Plan B’ line…

There are at least as many credible economists arguing for Labour’s approach of borrowing to invest

Again he tells us the Tories haven’t told us how they would fund the NHS…butu they have…through growth.

Labour has subjected itself to discipline which the Tories have decided they don’t need (largely because they think voters will give them the benefit of the doubt, based on the cuts they’ve delivered in the current parliament).

But hang on, whilst the Tories can’t rely on growth to fund the NHS Peston tells us that Balls can rely on that elusive growth to fund his claims of fiscal credibility…

…the deficit will be cut every year – would on current forecasts for economic growth allow quite a bit of additional spending: the overall deficit would still fall as a share of GDP so long as overall spending increased marginally slower than GDP, all else being equal; and it would also fall in absolute terms so long as economic growth generated an increment to tax revenues marginally greater than the spending increment. So this rule again wouldn’t tie the hands of Ed Balls desperately tightly, if he became chancellor.

Peston mentions the IFS saying Labour would need to make cuts of up to £18 bn but fails to tell us the rest of what the IFS said and is only usng the figure to illustrate how terrific Balls’ options are…the IFS said..

It allows them to say well we would be cutting very little, but also that we would be cutting. But it really makes a big difference, there’s a huge difference between £18bn of cuts over the next three years and no cuts. Literally we would not know what we were voting for if we were to vote for Labour.

Peston suggests the Tories would contest Balls’ plans….

Which will doubtless prompt the Tories to argue that Ed Balls isn’t committed to serious public service reform at all.

But Peston is able to put Labour’s case for them…saying…

To which he [Balls] would say three things…

Really?  Why not ask him and challenge him on his policy instead of defending him and putting his case for him?

Curious what emphasis the BBC chooses to go for when given the option….the news and presenters still insisting the Tories NHS plans are unfunded whilst all Labour’s are costed and paid for, still headling with the shiny new ‘fiscally credible Labour Party’ narrative and strangely reporting what Miliband said about the Tories’ spending plans rather than what he said about his own policies….here’s Sarah Brett on 5Live (about 13:38)

It is odd how Peston and Co keep referring to the Tories making unfunded promises on the NHS whilst Labour has fully costed theirs when the evidence, from other BBC interviews as well, shows Labour are dodging a bullet on this….even Eddie Mair has laid into Labour as Craig at ‘Is the BBC biased’ tells us…

Eddie’s questions were deeply unhelpful to Labour. He pressed them especially over their failure to match the Tories’ pledge to throw billions at the NHS (which, he repeatedly said, Labour supporters would expect them to do)