It must be tough for the BBC. With Labour in sustained meltdown after their trouncing at the General Election, it’s clear that the BBC needs to find another conduit to conduct its biased onslaught against the Conservative Government and the left-leaning IFS provides such. This morning we read the BBC trumpeting the “news” that… “Poorest graduates ‘will owe £53,000’ after grants cut” The source of this claim, the IFS, is treated as if it were the oracle of Delphi by the BBC and never once as there any acknowledgement by the BBC that the IFS carries a left leaning bias. Contrast how they salivate and accept the findings of an IFS study with how they caveat the findings of any study by Migration Watch! Had the BBC the integrity it claims to have then it would ensure that IFS reports are caveated with the statement that it is a LEFT leaning body. Instead, they increasingly hysterical claims of the IFS are treated as Holy Writ.
IFS – THE OFFICIAL OPPOSITION
Bookmark the permalink.
It’s funny how they trawl through anything they can find to criticise the Tories. With what is going on at the moment you would think they would be doing the opposite
also why should I care how much debt students get into? Business or media studies degrees are worthless so why should I pay for kids to bum around drinking for 3 years?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Johnson_(economist)
IFS Director Paul Johnson was a civil servant in the Blair/Brown Labour government. Nuff said
When we pay our Staff at work, if they have a Student loan it is taken from their earnings, but if they are being paid a low wage they usually don’t end up paying anything until they hit a certain wage band I think it is 20k then they have to pay around £20.00 per Month, hardly crippling debt.
I assume all Student loans are calculated this way, and the more money a person earns, the more they pay back. Watching the BBC you would be under the impression that Students need to find the money up front in order to gain access to higher education, its very misleading when the narrative seems to be that fees are stopping people from poorer backgrounds from getting a degree, when the fact is they don’t start paying back their loans until they are in work and then only when they are earning enough to hit the threshold.
Correct, and the BBC’s narrative on student fees flies in the face of the facts. The facts being that more people from poor backgrounds than ever are now going to Uni. Why? Simple.
They are gambling on their future with a guaranteed win.
If their degree lands them a good income, then they can easily afford to pay back the loan. If it doesn’t, then they pay back nothing.
It’s like going into a bookies and placing a bet on a horse to win, and only having to pay the stake money IF the horse wins and they take the stake money out of your winnings.
I think a lot of the problems these students have are self-inflicted by studying for meaningless degrees. I mean, how many opportunities are there going to be for somebody with a degree in Golf Course Management? Half a dozen at the most in the whole country at a guess. In the days when I was looking for a job, in all the years I was perusing the Situations Vacant columns in the local papers I never once saw a job advert for a sociologist.
You should have tried the Guardian!
Listening to Al Beeb this morning it sounds like labour are following hot on the heels of the Limpdems into ‘meltdown’. They failed to heed the voice of ordinary people.
It now appears that the only effective opposition to the Tory’s will be UKIP. They are listening and have been listening to the ordinary working people of the country.
Note how their policies eg immigration and the EU are being taken up by the other parties.
Added to that , Al Beeb have not been listening – only trying to ‘educate’ the ‘plebs’.
I agree Merched. But what goes round comes round and the BBC time has come with this Licence Review if the Government get their act together.
It is sheer ‘schadenfreude’ to note the stomping elephants in the room which are often attempted to be camouflaged by BBC commentators.
At such moments, all over our land there are thousands of us dropping our jaws with incredulity at the sheer brass neck of the BBC.
A lot of these issues are covered here:
http://news-watch.co.uk/category/bbc-bias/
For Stomping Elephants read, in order of importance to my objections:
Liberal Left agenda in so much news and current affairs.
Bias by Omission.
Unjustified, ginormous, Staff Pay-Offs.
Tax avoidance by staff and stars whose main income is the BBC.
The amount of ‘Saville’ type scandals originating from within the auspices of the broadcaster which could have been stopped or curbed drastically.
Gigantic costly IT Failures.
Plus so, many other gripes with BBC, if I only had the time to list!
It’s a good thing. There are too many young people studying for degrees that are not worth anything in the real world. We need more people in apprenticeships – the best (and easiest) way to secure a descent career and provide Britain with the skilled workforce it desperately needs.
If the prospect of a large debt makes people think twice about the courses they want to study and the courses they should be studying, then it’s a good thing.
I totally agree Edward. It is as though most of them would be mortified if they had to a job which involved getting their hands dirty. It seems to particularly apply to TV presenters who, when confronted with something even remotely scientific or mechanical, seem to think their ignorance is a badge of honour and something to be proud of. Now, the “ARTS” – that’s a different matter altogether daaahhrling. Could you imagine a presenter today of the calibre of Raymond Baxter? No, me neither.
25 of the BBC’s 28 ‘best scientific experts’ did not have any scientific qualifications, of the three climate scientists or maybe four scientists. Not a single causational or attributional climate scientist was present. Not a single atmospheric physicist or solar scientist was present at that BBC Climate science seminar.
The Consensus is a left-wing Political and Environmentalist consensus. And if you analyse the situation you will find that the more and more relevant a scientist is as regards the core basics of calibrating carbon dioxide warming in a planetary atmosphere, and the Solar causes of Climate Change. Then, the more likely you will find that the consensus is now on the side of what the lefties call sceptics. The only parliamentarians who are also scientists, who have complained about being censored by the BBC, have now joined the GWPF.
So it has become apparent that the left-wing Arts and Languages morons at the BBC are the “enemies of scientists”.
Yes. I think that loans or grants of any kind should be withdrawn from all HE funding, apart from degrees which are of strategic importance to the nation. If students are apparently ‘crippled’ by paying back their funding over periods of up to 35 years, at tiny, tiny rates, then it would be fairer and more honest with them to say
‘your degree is basically just a vanity degree – if you want to do it so much, save up first while you’re in genuine employment, then you will have shown that you really want to do it, however worthless the rest of society thinks it is, and moreover, you won’t be burdened with those repayments afterwards..’
The amounts of money saved by the government could all be put into bursaries at Russell-Group only universities, for STEM or other strategic qualifications. They could also be made conditional on undertaking to remain within the UK for, say, five years after qualifying.
BUT even when they get their hands on IFS material the BBC are selective in their reporting of it.
Several weeks before the election, The IFS critique of the Tory manifesto was reported in all its goriness on the BBC Ten o Clock news. In it’s critique of Labour, the IFS statement, ‘If you vote Labour you do not know what you were voting for’, was omitted from the same bulletin. Obviously the BBC didn’t want to tell people the whole IFS story.
And a couple of weeks later, as the election campaign neared its conclusion the IFS analysed the parties economic policies. They were clear that Labour’s proposal to reintroduce the 50p tax rate would go nowhere near to raising the £billions they said it would. The IFS estimate was around £100m, if that. The BBC also omitted that damning passage from their reporting.
Blatant bias, blatant dishonesty, blatant cheating.
‘‘If you vote Labour you do not know what you were voting for’, was omitted from the same bulletin.”
Whilst the Labour leadership issues are not ignorable, I do also notice the BBC a bit coy on individual matters.
So while David Lammy’s latest barking claim &these guys have positions of actual power?) seems so far spared, I do see on the Politics page this given prominence:
MP defends 9p car trip expenses claim
53 minutes ago
Have the wildest of guesses which party (the admitted twat) is from?
Danny Cohen would love to have the BBC lead an open crusade against the Tories, he is clearly working down that route with this ‘open’ letter to the press, and various cryptic utterances.
He sees himself as a latter day revolutionary very similar to that other deluded individual Brand.
It is farcical that he cannot grasp that the British are not instinctively ‘socialistic’ despite 30 years of media Marxist brainwashing. He is a megalomaniac just like something straight out of a ‘Bond film’.
Don’t know who Danny Cohen has got pictures with what with whom of, but it can only explain this market rate talent’s rise, embedding and planned DG-ship to come.
Long may he stay in place. He makes Ed M’s leadership of Labour seem as inspired as it was blessed.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/reham_khans_false_qualitications?
#grabspopcorn In the public interest as it is.
Equally:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/bbc_news_hospitality_201415
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/the_total_cost_of_sending_all_th?
So, families will lose on average £260 per year because of the tax credit changes – not an insignificant sum of money if you are on low income. Still, I’m sure they’d all love to pay the license fee poll tax, which, at less than 40p a day, represents tremendous value!
Maybe Osbourne should do a BBC, and pitch these tax credits as a reduction of less than 72p per day.
if you study this benefts cap carefully, it is not really aimed at the average british family who has 2 kids and lives in a 2 up 2 down,granted you have the odd chav scummy british family of slobs who have 11 kids and lives on benefits,but thats a rarity,this real and clever policie behind this benefits cap is to target these immigrant familys who seem to have a average of 11 kids with no means to support them,we all know what community they come from so there is no need for me to name them,but at the end of the day the goverment are sending out a message to certain communitys that if you have large familys dont expect the state or taxpayers to support them anymore.i have no problem with that at all.that is not right wing,that is just right.