Monthly Archives: April 2015

As far as I can see the BBC’s coverage of the Tory manifesto launch hasn’t been a bloodbath though you could complain of the lack of a rounded journalism  in their reports, for instance when telling us about the right to buy from Housing Associations as if  this wasn’t already possible…the difference now is that the Tories are offering to subsidise that purchase….or indeed that many occupy such homes on a shared equity basis…ie they own part of the house and rent the rest….we are given the impression that this right to buy will denude the Housing Associations of stock..and yet that right is already there. Also it is rather odd that the BBC and others get worked up about the Tories trying to win ‘working class’ votes….allegedly stealing Labour’s clothes…that’s nonsense…many workers have always voted Tory….Thatcher won office because they backed her….the Telegraph’s cartoonist recognises that long history….

The BBC’s correspondents seem to like the imagined paradox of Labour claiming to be the party of fiscal responsibility and the Tories the party of the Working Class…however such distinct labels are purely in the minds of the Media who are looking desperately for something interesting and clever to say about a very long election run up.

Both Nick Robinson and Peston are amusing themselves with the supposed incredible new world turned upside down with profligate Tories and prudent Labour…Here’s Robinson’s skit…

This week of political cross dressing goes on.

David Cameron tried to re-brand the Conservatives as the party of working people – the day after Ed Miliband claimed that Labour was the party of economic responsibility.

Peston gives us this…

It is a topsy turvy fiscal battle between Labour and the Tories.

Hard on the heels of the Tories promising to increase NHS funding by £8bn a year in real or inflation-adjusted terms, without announcing spending cuts or tax increases to pay for it, Labour is characterising itself as the party that won’t make any unfunded spending increases.

And this....he’s keen to press the analogy…

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.

 

So…Labour are now prudent bean counters and the Tories are the party of the working man?  And that is a surprise?

Such ‘cross-dressing’ has always happened…but don’t let that fool you as Peston and Robinson have…..here’s what Miliband said in 2013 to the TUC…still working clas it seems..or they think they are……

As the Labour Party – the party of working people – we have a special responsibility to stand for a better politics.

So I want to build a better Labour Party.

Working people should be right at the heart of our Party.

What a contrast to the Conservative Party that stands for a few out of touch people at the top.

How about this…

We are the party of work. Labour – the clue is in the name

Stephen Timms MP is the Shadow Employment Minister

Or Labour’s Rachel Reeves (Yawn)…

We are not the party of people on benefits. We don’t want to be seen, and we’re not, the party to represent those who are out of work, Labour are a party of working people, formed for and by working people.

Thatcher and Tory governments before her were helped into power by the working class vote…as the Daily Mail recognises…

In a bold pitch to blue collar voters who delivered Lady Thatcher’s three election victories, the Prime Minister will call the Tories ‘the party of working people’.

Only last year the BBC were telling us that the Conservatives had been the party for workers…

The strange death of the Conservative working vote

Politics.co.uk also recognised in 2012 that the Tories had once had support from the Working Class…

Will the working class return to the Tories?

Party insiders concede that the Tories cannot win an overall majority in 2015 without winning over significant support from blue collar workers. Conservative historians point to the 1950s and early 1960s, and then the 1980s when ‘Essex man’ dominated Thatcher’s thinking, as periods when the Tories benefited from working class support.

“Our idea is to try and recreate that coalition,” John Stevenson, whose Carlisle constituency is dominated by blue collar workers, told politics.co.uk.

Here the New Statesman admits that Labour hasn’t been the Party of the Working Class for a long time…

Working class voters and the ‘progressive’ left: a widening chasm

The triumph of identity politics means too many progressives appear willing to dismiss the white working class as socially backwards and not worth listening to.

Unless the left is comfortable becoming a movement of upper middle class liberals and ethnic minorities (no shame in that of course), it ought to start listening a bit more to the concerns of its electoral base while it still has one. For, to paraphrase Bertolt Brecht, it isn’t possible to dismiss the working class and elect another.

Voting patterns have always changed…here’s a study from 1976 that suggests the ‘working class’ were already disenchanted with Labour in the 1960’s…

Here Peter Kellner tells us that more often than not people vote Labour purely out of habit or because their father did not because of ideology…

New polling for Progress shows that working-class attitudes are not what some in the Labour party imagine them to be, writes Peter Kellner

Labour remains more popular with working-class than middle-class voters; but that popularity derives far more from tribe and tradition than values and ideology.

So the ‘working class’ has always voted for the Tories in some measure and Cameron is not ‘rebranding’the Tories as the party of the working class…it has always had a reasonably large scale support from the ‘workers’…. but what of Labour suddenly having a death bed conversion to ‘prudence’?  Nothing new there either…though it never lasts of course…spend and tax is always coming down the road sometime soon...here’s Gordon Brown telling us that we’ll have no more boom and bust under his prudent regime….

May 20, 1997, speech by the chancellor to the CBI: Exploiting the British genius – the key to long-term economic success:
“Stability is necessary for our future economic success. The British economy of the future must be built not on the shifting sands of boom and bust, but on the bedrock of prudent and wise economic management for the long term. It is only these firm foundations that we can raise Britain’s underlying economic performance.”

Peston and Robinson are having some fun at our expense because of course presenting the Tories as ‘profligate’ with recklessly unfunded policies whilst Labour has carefully and responsibly costed all of its policies is tripe….as we know from what the IFS said and what we can read for ourselves in Labour’s manifesto…and the fact labour won’t commit £8 bn to funding the NHS despite promising to do whatever it takes.  The Tory pledge to fund the NHS to the tune of £8 bn if there is economic growth is a conditional offer not an ‘unfunded promise’…if the economy grows they will fund the NHS...not hard to understand….

Because of our long-term economic plan, we are able to commit to increasing NHS spending in England in real terms by a minimum of £8 billion over the next five years. Combined with the efficiencies that the NHS Forward View sets out, this will provide the funding necessary to implement this plan in full.

The BBC’s two expert economics gurus are presenting a skewed version of reality and what the parties really represent and what they are saying and promising, thus skewing what people think perhaps, and how they vote?…..hardly what you would expect from the BBC with all its resources, training, integrity and professionalism.

Just a few questions on the Manifesto for the BBC to ponder.  Miliband says of the Manifesto that…

It does not do what most manifestos do.

It doesn’t offer a list of promises.

A shopping list of proposals.

Just look below to see if that is true…a huge list of proposals…hardly any of them saying how they will be funded….Labour is going for a large measure of state control over industry….with price caps, caps on the size of businesses, controls on how businesses work and run themselves, even a control over a company’s objectives, state control of the railways and transport networks,  nationalisation by the back door of nearly every business big or small in effect.

Also on the agenda…breaking up the Uk whilst handing us over to Europe, votes for 16-17 year olds, state control of the Media, a massive reorganisation of the NHS (unfunded), mass immigration to continue, no borrowing, or is it massive borrowing, and they won’t tell us what cuts or taxes they intend to implement, no non-doms and no ZHC…exept, em, they will still exist, just much more cuddly under Labour, welfare caps (bedroom tax like?), guaranteed jobs, 200,000 houses a year, paternity pay up, classroom sizes down, free childcare extended…..and oh yes…..the NHS, the whole education budget and international aid budget will all be ringfenced.

Just some of the eyecatching, massively expensive proposals from Labour..and all done without borrowing a dime.

One of the biggest cheers of the day came when Miliband said in his speech that he would commit to another massive reorganisation of the NHS with …

The abolition of their terrible Health and Social Care Act.  

Andy Burnham last year said that the reorganisation process of the NHS was…

The biggest bombshell ever to land on the NHS.

We need to look at what has happened to the NHS in the four years since the reorganisation began.

I said it then – and I say it again today: this was the wrong policy at the wrong time.

We said the reorganisation would drag down the NHS – and so it has proved.

The King’s Find ponders about the disruption that would engender…..

‘It is hard to see how Labour’s plans to dismantle the Health and Social Care Act could be achieved without disruptive structural changes to the NHS.

Not a peep from the BBC about this stunning, hypocritical and contentious proposal.

Then of course we get to the funding of the NHS, Miliband said this in his speech…

Nothing is more dangerous to our NHS than pretending you will protect it without being able to say where the money is coming from.

You can’t fund the NHS with an IOU.

Hang on though…the King’s Fund has spotted that Labour hasn’t actually committed to funding the NHS at all…

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.

Miliband, Balls and Liz Kendall, Labour’s Shadow Health Minister all promised that Labour would ‘Do whatever it takes to fund the NHS’.…and yet they refuse to commit to spending, what they have already agreed is the necessary amount of £8bn, to defend the NHS.

Then we get to Miliband’s ‘Mission’ as Prime Minister….as reported by Nick Robinson…

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.

So what did Miliband actually say?….

For too long, you have been told something that simply isn’t true.

That’s what’s good for the richest and most powerful is always good for the whole of our country.

Who do you think will stand up to those powerful interests?Whoever is making their case, I will always stand up for you.

With me as Prime Minister, no powerful interest, will outweigh the interests of working people.

Giving power back to those to whom it really belongs:

The British people.

 

So Miliband will stand up to those powerful vested interests, he will fight against the lie that ‘what’s good for the richest and most powerful is always good for the whole of our country.‘  He will be ‘Giving power back to those to whom it really belongs:  The British people.’

Except of course he won’t…only two weeks ago he sold out the British people to Big Business and Europe and denied the British People their voice by denying them the referendum on Europe….

Ed Miliband will attempt to win over a reluctant business community on Monday by warning that an EU referendum proposed by David Cameron would trigger a bitter two-year campaign.

Labour gives more power to Europe and Big Business gets the last say…Miliband ‘Giving power back to those to whom it really belongs:  The British people.’?  Hardly think so.

Here’s what the manifesto also says about decentralising power…

People who live in this country know that too much power is concentrated in too few hands. Those who make decisions on behalf of others, whether they are in Westminster, the European Union, in business, the media, or the public sector, are too often unaccountable. Our over-centralised system of government has prevented our nations, cities, county regions and towns from being able to take control and change things for themselves. We will end a century of centralisation.

But Labour will deny you a referendum on Europe.. Labour makes that decision for you….

“It’s simply the wrong direction for our country”

Then there’s Labour’s big idea…its rebirth as a party to be trusted on the economy….

It is a manifesto which shows Labour is not only the party of change but the party of responsibility too.

So page 1, line 1, sets out Labour’s Budget Responsibility Commitment.

A clear vow to protect our nation’s finances.

A triple lock of responsibility.

First, we are the only party at this election which can show how every policy in our manifesto will be paid for.

No commitments requiring additional borrowing.

Not a single one.

That is the first lock.

Second, our manifesto writes the first line of Labour’s first Budget:

“This Budget cuts the deficit every year.”

And that Budget will only be presented when that has been verified by the Office of Budget Responsibility.

That is the second lock.

Third, the next Labour government will meet our fiscal rules: with the national debt falling and a surplus on the current budget.

A triple lock.

We have no proposals for any new spending paid for by additional borrowing. All of our commitments will be paid for by reducing spending elsewhere or by raising extra revenue.

 

So no borrowing?  Cuts and tax rises instead? But definitely no borrowing….On the current account at least….they allow themselves up to £32 billion or so for ‘infrastrucutre investment’….but can we even trust them on the current account….not likely as they won’t say when or how they will end the deficit…if we have a deficit we have borrowing…and interest to pay.

What of that cutting the deficit every year?  Really?  By how much?  It could be £1.  The Manifesto tells us nothing.

And that last… the national debt falling and a surplus on the current budget?  Again when?  And national debt falling that too could just be £1…unless they put numbers to these promises they are meaningless and makes Labour unaccountable for future failure to meet such promises…which is the idea of course.

What else is on offer…oh yes..control of the Media…just not the BBC…

No one media owner should be able to exert undue influence on public opinion and policy makers. No media company should have so much power that those who run it believe themselves above the rule of law.

Yet the current system for protecting against these threats is inadequate. Labour will take steps to protect the principle of media plurality, so that no media outlet can get too big, including updating our rules for the 21st century media environment.

Our system of public service broadcasting is one of Britain’s great strengths. The BBC makes a vital contribution to the richness of our cultural life, and we will ensure that it continues to do so while delivering value for money.

And climate change…Miliband’s favourite subject…

We will put climate change at the heart of our foreign policy.

[ We will have] a legal target to remove the carbon from our electricity supply by 2030.

 

What else?

We will continue the fight against ISIS, in partnership with our allies in the region and the world.

Because they are an evil organisation that must be defeated.

The same ISIS that Miliband helped create when he ducked the Syria vote.

How about getting personal?  Doesn’t that just discredit politics?  Only when you are called a back-stabber, however when you are peddling your immigration open door policy it pays to play to your roots….

I am the son of immigrants.

I stand here today, with deep gratitude and love for my parents and what they gave me.

And deep gratitude and love for what our country gave us.

I know immigration can benefit our country

What other titbits are there?

An £8 minimum wage.

Exploitative zero hours contracts banned….or will they be?…

The next Labour government will call a halt to the abuse of zero-hours contracts.

Instead, we will have a new principle: Those who work regular hours for more than

12 weeks will have a right to a regular contract.

 

We will build at least 200,000 homes a year by the end of the next parliament.

Devolution to Wales and Scotland has worked…..And we will extend it further.

We’ll reverse David Cameron’s tax cut for millionaires to help pay down the deficit.

Abolish the “non-dom” rule.

End the Conservatives’ Marriage Tax Allowance.

A legal target to remove the carbon from our electricity supply by 2030.

Labour will ensure that all parts of the country benefit from affordable, high speed broadband by the end of the Parliament.

We will reform corporate governance to protect our leading firms from the pressure to put tomorrow’s share price before long-term growth potential.

Institutional investors will have a duty to act in the best interests of ordinary savers. They will have to prioritise long-term growth over short-term profits for the companies in which they are investing.

We will improve the link between executive pay and performance by simplifying pay packages, and requiring investment and pension fund managers to disclose how they vote on top pay.

Labour will establish a British Investment Bank with the mission to help businesses grow and to create wealth and jobs.

We will support employers to pay more by using government procurement to promote the Living Wage, alongside wider social impact considerations.

Labour will cut tuition fees from £9,000 to £6,000 a year, funded by restricting tax relief on pension contributions for the highest earners and clamping down on tax avoidance.

We will introduce a Compulsory Jobs Guarantee, paid for by a bank bonus tax.

We will guarantee every school leaver that gets the grades an apprenticeship. We will create thousands more apprenticeships in the public sector, including the civil service. Every firm getting a major government contract, and every large employer hiring skilled workers from outside the EU, will be required to offer apprenticeships.

Labour will freeze energy bills until 2017, ensuring that bills can fall but not rise, and we will give the regulator the power to cut bills this winter.

The generation and supply businesses of the ‘Big Six’ energy companies will be separated.

We will bring down energy bills by making homes more energy efficient, delivering a million interest free loans for energy home improvements in the next Parliament.

A new National Rail body will oversee and plan for the railways and give rail users a greater say in how trains operate. We will legislate so that a public sector operator is allowed to take on lines and challenge the private train operating companies on a level playing field.

Rail fares will be frozen next year to help commuters while we implement reforms. A strict fare rise cap will be introduced on every route for any future fare rises,

City and county regions will be given more power over the way buses are operated in their area. They will be able to decide routes, bear down on fares, drive improvements in services, and bring together trains, buses and trams into a single network with smart ticketing.

Where private companies are involved in providing clinical services, we will impose a cap on any profits they can make from the NHS.

We will protect the entire education budget, including the early years, schools and post-16 education, so that it rises in line with inflation.

We will end the wasteful and poorly performing Free Schools programme, and switch resources to where they are needed, allowing us to cap class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds at 30 pupils or under.

We will help families by expanding free childcare from 15 to 25 hours per week for working parents of three and four-year-olds, paid for with an increase in the bank levy.

We will double the current two weeks of paternity leave to four weeks, and increase the amount of paternity pay from £140 to more than £260 a week.

We will unlock a Future Homes Fund by requiring that the billions of pounds saved in Help to Buy ISAs be invested in increasing housing supply.

We will cap structural social security spending as part of each spending review, so that it is properly planned and controlled.

There will be a guaranteed, paid job for all young people who have been out of work for one year, and for all those over 25 years old and out of work for two years. It will be a job that they have to take, or lose their benefits.

Half a million families have been hit by the Bedroom Tax, and two thirds of those affected are disabled, or have a disabled family member. It is cruel, and we will abolish it.

The system needs to be controlled and managed so that it is fair. Low-skilled migration has been too high and needs to come down. We need much stronger action to stop illegal immigration.

Most immediately we will work with our allies to counter and confront terrorism. ISIL’s barbarism and expansionist ideology, alongside terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda and Al-Shabaab, represent a particular threat to global security

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)

 

 

Here you go, an on-time and freshly manicured OPEN thread to start the week. Here’s where YOU detail the bias, in glorious technicolour.

Paul Johnson of the IFS stated in an interview on the BBC’s ‘The World This Weekend’ that:

I think both main parties are making up numbers here in terms of what they can get from tax avoidance and evasion. The Conservatives are committed to getting £5 billion a year extra;Labour are trumping that by saying £7.5 billion…

It’s almost impossible to know upfront what you can achieve by cracking down on avoidance and evasion.You can do so much that you begin to put off real economic activity… so you do have to be careful about exactly how you do this.

Guest Who (and H/T Dover Sentry) brought this to our attention…from the lefty Huffingtion Post:

Jeremy Hunt’s Woolly Answers Over The Tory £8bn NHS Promise Aren’t Going Down Very Well

Health secretary Jeremy Hunt has been accused of “making stuff up” after he seemed unable to explain how the Tory party would meet today’s commitment to invest at least an extra £8 billion a year into the NHS by 2020.

Despite saying the announcement was a “significant moment in the history of the NHS”, Hunt seemed rather hazy about where the £8 billion would actually come from, prompting a BBC Breakfast host to ask “Do you make this stuff up as you go along?”

Asked where the money would be coming from on BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme, Hunt said, “Well, it’s the right question to ask, because..”

“It’s the obvious question to ask, because you haven’t said so far,” replied presenter Mishal Husain.

So two interviews from the BBC that were the masterclasses into how to present a one-side picture of events have become examples of Tory evasiveness and economic incompetence….whilst Labour, who also haven’t told us how they would fund the NHS, are allowed to get away with murder….as we looked at in a previous post….Just saying you will fund the NHS by raising certain taxes in a policy that most experts think is very doubtful doesn’t in any way mean you have laid out a credible plan to fund the NHS…but the BBC is fully ready to accept Labour’s smoke and mirrors without challenge whilst at the same time tearing into the Tories.

The Huffington Post article demonstrates the power of the BBC to shape the political narrative and limit what information the Public get to hear and by doing that alter their perceptions and, they hope, voting patterns, especially when the BBC’s line on things is taken up by other media outlets and used as a stick to beat the Tories with….note there is no questioning of Labour’s policies in the Huffington Post.

Labour has just announced that it will collect £7.5 billion from tackling tax avoidance…does the BBC challenge that?  Does the BBC tell us that Balls is ‘making it up’?  Does the BBC go to their normal ‘goto’ guy at the IFS to dig into the fgures?  No, No and well yes….Mark Mardell interviews the IFS’s Paul Johnson(6 mins or so in) and they concentrate on the Tory inheritance plans….apparently it will be the richest who get taxed as a  result…and get this….that’s bad because it will have a damaging effect on the eocnomy as it will act as a disincentive to earn.  Couldn’t make it up could you?  It’s now bad to tax the rich.

Then we hear that Labour is to raise (in the news they now say ‘hope to raise’) £7.5 billion from tax avoidance measures…..

Here’s what Johnson said….

I think both main parties are making up numbers here in terms of what they can get from tax avoidance and evasion. The Conservatives are committed to getting £5 billion a year extra;Labour are trumping that by saying £7.5 billion…

It’s almost impossible to know upfront what you can achieve by cracking down on avoidance and evasion.You can do so much that you begin to put off real economic activity… so you do have to be careful about exactly how you do this.

Mardell ignored that completely and moved rapidly on…why does he do that when it is central to Labour’s, as well as Tory, policies…… how Labour will fund the NHS…it claims it will raise £1.1 billion of its £2.5 bn by closing down tax loopholes…..and yet they are just making that up…as well as guessing about the claimed £1.2 billion form the mansion tax.  Hunt was roasted by the BBC…and yet Balls is given the red carpet treatment…

Labour to raise £7.5bn from tax avoiders

But will they?  Who knows if you get your news from the BBC…will the IFS’s statement make it out into the BBC’s other reporting and analysis?  Listen out for it….somehow doubt it will be making as big a headlines as other IFS statements that laid into the Conservatives alone.

And that last sentence from the IFS was interesting…

You can do so much [cracking down on tax avoidance] that you begin to put off real economic activity… so you do have to be careful about exactly how you do this.

So Ed Balls was right in January when he refused to close down non-dom status….but now he’s fully on board that bus it seems…close em down!!! he says.

Think that will be picked up by the BBC when they interview him?

Oh yes and there’s this…

— Stephanie Flanders (@MyStephanomics) April 12, 2015

Sorry that @thesundaytimes follows Mail in raking over Miliband’s past today. We “dated” fleetingly in 2004. V costly few wks, it turns out.

A BBC economics correspondent going out with a Labour economics adviser….why would that be important….especially as later reporting from Flanders was consistently backing Labour’s Plan B and urging the government to borrow more and spend on infrastructure?  Is it just a matter of the Mail ‘raking over Miliband’s past’ or is there some real dirt to find?

Caught a bit of Pienaar today and, well, nothing’s changed.  He always seemed to have a soft spot for young Miliband and it’s rare that he will utter a critical word against him.

Now today’s snippet (around 11:20) may not be at all representative of the programme as a whole, I’m sure that the rest of it was a Tory propaganda fest, however there was a distinct narrative to this part where Pienaar visited the gloriously multicultural palace of diversity that is Brixton to sniff the air and imbibe the political vibes.

He took that most popular of BBC devices to give voice to public opinion…the vox populi….which allows the BBC to not only pick who they ask but also to edit out those who don’t give the right answers and then it is for the BBC to interpret the results.

First up was Rasta ‘Brother Culture’ who didn’t do politics and didn’t vote …however he then gave a masterclass in political messaging.   He says he only recently began to take an interest in politics in order to get rid of UKIP which is ‘dividing the nation’ with its racist message…the stakes are high, we must get out there and use the vote…oh and Miliband’s non-dom message was spot on, Blair’s message that leaving the EU would be terrible is important,   and by the way he will be voting Labour….any chance he was from ‘Operation Black Vote’?

Could this possibly be the very same ‘Brother Culture’?

UKIP Nazi party

 

Can Jon Pienaar really  just ‘happened’ to have met a well known reggae MC who hates UKIP and supports all the BBC favourite causes?  Maybe there’s a reason we had all the reggae music in the background.  Pienaar knew exactly who the guy was.

Next we had someone who thought that politics had just turned very nasty and personal…all very misguided….meaning of course Fallon saying Miliband had stabbed his brother in the back…a message that was apparently ‘orchestrated and unnecessary’….she seemed very instantly ‘on message’ there…was she really just a member of the public?  Curiously well versed and articulate on the subject.

Then we had, for balance, a Tory who said he would be voting Conservative as the Tories had done a reasonable job…Pienaar dismissed him as someone who heard the message but it went in one ear and out the other….no wonder he votes Tory…he’s so stupid!

Then we had two disabled people whom Pienaar asked ‘If I say to you Labour will tax non-doms what would you say?’   No leading question there at all.

The reply was that ‘Oh yes that’s good…tax the rich…the Tories have just stung us left, right and centre…making it very hard to live.’  She told us that she didn’t like Cameron….though she didn’t even know his name.

Pienaar then went on to say ‘Look the programme is all about balance…’   Of course it is Jon.

So we had one who hated UKIP, would vote Labour, wanted to tax non-doms and stay in the EU, another who thought Fallon was nasty, another who would vote Tory but was ignorant, and a disabled person who wanted to tax the rich and hated Cameron (whoever he is).

Balance…it’s out there somewhere.

I watched the Marr Show on BBC1 this morning and couldn’t help notice the contrast with the vigour with which he attacked George Osborne and the lethargy of his interview with Harman. As this interminable election campaign continues the BBC is more and more overt in its pro-Labour pro Leftist “pact” colours. It has no shame because it can afford to be biased.

PROGRAMME PITCH TO THE BBC

A guest Contribution by Graeme Thompson who posts as hippiepooter

Via the good offices of B-BBC, I’d like to make an open programme pitch to the BBC Documentary Commissioning Editors for a series on what those who have forged history have made of the world’s great religions. Let’s give it a working title, ‘RELIGION: THE HISTORYMAKERS’.

A mini-treatment below for a pilot to kick off the series starting with one of the world religions that on the BBC’s terms there never seems such a thing as ‘over-exposure’:-

WINSTON CHURCHILL ON ISLAM

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries ! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.  Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”

Winston S. Churchill, The River War, pp 248-250 (First Edition, Vol II, Longmans, Green & Co, 1899)

ADOLF HITLER ON ISLAM

Hitler had been much impressed by a scrap of history he had learned from a delegation of distinguished Arabs. When the Mohammedans had attempted to penetrate beyond France into Central Europe during the eighth century, his visitors had told him, they had been driven back at the Battle of Tours. Had the Arabs won this battle, the world would be Mohammedan today. For theirs was a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. The Germanic peoples would have become heirs to that religion. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament. Hitler said that the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire.

Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”

‘Inside the Third Reich’, Albert Speer, p96

What the makers of history have to say might of course lead viewers to think that the problems we’re having with Islam today are part of a 1400 year continuum, but for a BBC that abides by its Charter to present facts fairly and objectively to the greater good of our democracy, this should not be a problem.

If any B-BBC readers would like to help flesh out this programme idea by sharing whatever other insights of great historic figures they may be aware of, I’m sure it can only enhance this programme’s chances of being made (!).

This person would make a great presenter.

When Hitler was on the rise Churchill warned us time and time again in the Commons that the facts and what Hitler himself had laid out in Mein Kampf made it perfectly clear what the intentions of Nazism were. We chose instead to bury our heads in the sand until faced with war or surrender. 50 million people died.

No-one in the Commons today is warning us of the consequences of appeasement and ready to take the helm when we take our heads out of the sand. Hopefully that might change this election. If not, we are heading incrementally and unobtrusively to a reckoning that will eclipse the evil of Hitler.

The islamo-correctnick BBC is a full and active player in the propaganda axis of this evil.

Here is a guest post by Biased BBC reader Robin for your perusal.

“In the election , the satirical shows on the BBC will have a profound influence adding a reinforced message to the news and current affairs programmes like Today , WATO and Panorama and the discussion programmes like Question Time . So as the Beeboid comedians poke fun at the political parties ,their leaders and policies there is one party singled out for an extra dimension ,and you can guess who it is .

A general outline of the fun the BBC will provide

Conservatives ;
The leader is a bit thick , out of touch ,Bullington Club , the other luminaries as rich selfish and slightly stupid .
Policies will be self serving and destructive

Labour;
The leader is clever but not forceful enough and Could Do Better . The other luminaries need to put their backs more into the fight
Policies are not as left wing as they should be , watered down to avoid controversy from newspapers ( although not the BBC and Guardian ) .

LibDems
Leader should not have hitched himself to Tories . He should be strong against them but “constructive” if in bed with Labour
Policies are good , Principled and pragmatic especially about the EU .

Greens
The leader is a bit naive and we should feel sorry for her , they are all good people with humanity at heart
Policies , they mean well here but perhaps the world is not ready for them yet .

UKIP
The leader is a slippery character and the other luminaries dubious to say the least
Policies ; unless we BBC can find some gaffes , or changes from last week we won’t dwell on them in case they become popular , a cardinal sin in a democracy .

Now here comes the change . Unlike the other parties , we the BBC will traduce the supporters and voters of UKIP . So the average ukip voter is portrayed as old , confused by the modern world , resentful , a loser .

And that’s that . The BBC knows these people better than they know themselves .

It’s funny that the average Beeboid will think himself respectful of old folk . But that’s only if they have something like dementia and there is headline news about lack of funds for their care needs .

And it’s great film footage to let them speak about Hard Times in the past . But as for a say in the political here and now , unless the old codger or bint denounces the mistakes of the past and tells Yoof to make a new world free of prejudice , inequality etc he/she can just be butt of The Now Show’ s incontinence gag .

It’s also an anomaly that the BBC will try to make out that a Ukippers will want to return to the 1950s , but allow the Greens a free pass to what decade or even century they want us to return to . Or why the other main parties allow a project – the EU – that was founded in the First World War to be their guiding light in the 21 century . The Hapburgs Empire went down then , and the Ottoman Empire expired BBC , just as you were born . You moved with the times until the sixties , where your clothes fashion changed but not your minds .

The really serious issue is why the BBC is allowed to intimidate by psychological means so that some of the electorate won’t vote . Is this a full and fair democracy ?