‘The richest fifth of the population are worse off now in terms of disposable income than they were before the 2007 financial crash, but the poorest fifth have typically become better off, according to official figures.’

“The economic downturn “had a negative impact on the incomes of all but the poorest fifth of the population”  ONS

 

Remember this from last year?  How times change…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGCp82eDlZg

A plan for working people, one purpose, one policy, one nation.  Hurrah says IDS.

What hasn’t changed is the BBC narrative about austerity, tax cuts ‘for the rich’ and welfare cuts punishing the poor and that of austerity being a political decision not one based upon economic necessity….the BBC believing that we should borrow to spend and stimulate….Labour’s very own narrative….as the Telegraph amusingly suggests….Sketch: Labour should have chosen Iain Duncan Smith as leader, not Jeremy Corbyn

In fact here’s little Owen Jones, and Yvette Cooper, spinning that very line in 2012….note the subject, disability…note who defends the government and says he is proud of what the government is doing…

IDS has, as you may have noticed, resigned from his government post, and then gone nuclear much to Labour’s and the BBC’s delight.  They, no doubt, cannot believe their luck that the former Work and Pensions Secretary should be parroting their narrative.  Is it stupidity, foolishness, immense bitterness or a conscience driven self-immolation taking the Tory Party down with him?

Looking at the evidence it would seem to be a combination of all those things…he must know that all the points he states are Labour’s favourite attack lines and that the BBC would leap instantly upon them as indeed they have.

What do we have?   The government is increasing unfairness and inequality, that it is not a one nation government, that austerity is a political decision and not a necessity, that reducing the deficit is important but the burden should be shared out more evenly, that the rich are not being made to pay to reduce the deficit.

Andrew Marr got the first interview.

Sue at is the BBC biased? says I thought Iain Duncan Smith was treated fairly.  Personally I don’t. Marr didn’t really have to say anything just let IDS dig an ever deeper hole for the Tory Party.  However Marr thought he could speed up the burial process..his first question being to ask IDS if he thought the disability cuts were immoral.  This of course immediately indicates the Labour supporting Marr’s thinking….nowhere does IDS suggest the the disability reforms are immoral and yet throughout the interview Marr continues to frame the question in that way until IDS has to deny his position is based upon morality, however you would define that.

Did IDS really think the disability cuts were unfair?  No, he supported them all the way…..read his letter and he merely says that he objected to the presentation of the cuts alongside the tax cuts for the better off….this made it hard to justify the disability cuts….but he still thought the cuts should go ahead….it was all a matter of perception.

IDS dodges about eluding the blame for any of the welfare policies it would seem despite, as Marr points out, having defended them and not objected to them at all vociferously.

IDS tells us that the welfare cap was ‘arbitrary’…well no, it’s not.  There is a budget and that limits spending…the question then is how much of that budget does each department get…that decision is based upon a whole range of factors and can in no way be described as arbitrary, the money pot is not bottomless and cannot possibly meet all the needs or wants of all the people, therefore a cap has to be set at some point.  IDS talks as if there is a limitless pot of money.  All spending caps on such terms are ‘arbitrary’….who gets what is a judgement not a science.

IDS says that we must get rid of the deficit but the money must come from others and not just from working age benefit cuts….and finishes on the claim that the government is in danger of dividing the nation becasue of their policy of only using the benefit cuts to fund deficit reduction.

But how true is that?  Marr wasn’t keen on questioning the claims so intent was he on claiming that ‘what’s happening now is immoral’ and that the government must change its austerity policy.  How can he suggest the government’s policy is ‘immoral’ when they have raised the lowest paid’s disposable income, got millions more into work and made the rich pay far more than they were paying before?

We’ve seen IDS cheering madly the introduction of the living wage for the poorest in society, we’ve seen the lowest paid being taken out of income tax and we’ve seen millions of jobs created taking those reliant on benefits off those benefits and into the workforce along with higher tax credits and job seeker’s allowance. But what of the rich?  They get away with it don’t they?

Did you ever see the BBC splashing the headlines with this in February?

Richest fifth in the UK worse off since financial crash, official figures reveal

The richest fifth of the population are worse off now in terms of disposable income than they were before the 2007 financial crash, but the poorest fifth have typically become better off, according to official figures which could spark controversy among anti-austerity campaigners.

The data from the Office for National Statistics, published on Tuesday, also reveals a generational split, with the average disposable income of retired households now higher than in 2007-08 – in stark contrast to millions of working households, who are typically around £900 a year worse off.

According to the ONS, in 2014-15 the typical household paid £7,700 in direct taxes, which includes income tax and council tax. After these are taken into account, the average income enjoyed by the richest 20% of households is around five and a half times that of the poorest 20% – £67,000 and £12,300 a year respectively.

However, the department said the economic downturn “had a negative impact on the incomes of all but the poorest fifth of the population”. It said the least well-off 20% of households were the only group whose average disposable income did not fall between 2007-08 and 2012-13. In 2014-15 the typical income of this group was £700 (5.8%) above its 2007-08 level.

By contrast, the average disposable income of the richest fifth of households fell the most following the downturn: by 3.2% between 2007-08 and 2014-15. It remains £2,000 below its previous peak.

The ONS said the increase for the poorest fifth was mainly due to an increase in average levels of pay for this group, along with higher benefit payments such as tax credits and jobseeker’s allowance.

How can IDS get that so wrong?  The ONS says that “The economic downturn “had a negative impact on the incomes of all but the poorest fifth of the population”  So the poorest in fact have been given a pay rise not a cut.

Even the BBC, in 2009, wanted to present the rich as paying their fair wack…a cynic might suggest they wanted to present Labour as a Party that made the rich pay…..but the Tories have made the rich pay even more and raised the disposable income of the poorest….and yet that’s ‘immoral’?…….

The people with the top 1 per cent of incomes pay very nearly a quarter of all the income tax, as the chart shows. So option d – the highest available – gets points. The other options are at best half the true amount.

We can also see from the chart that people with the top 10% of incomes pay more than half the income tax.

The Office for National Statistics’ annual publication about the effect of taxes and benefits (see internet links, above right) suggests that most people actually pay a similar share of their income in taxes when all taxes are taken into account, even up to the top 10 per cent as a whole.

It also says this….

Data suggest that people receive services from the state greater in value than the tax they pay up to about 70 per cent of the way up the income scale.

Here is the IFS, best beloved of the BBC, which asks, in 2010 just before the election..

Do the poorest really pay the most in tax?

The Liberal Democrats have, once again, claimed that the poor pay more of their income in tax than the rich, and that this gap has got larger under Labour.

The poorest fifth of households were clearly net beneficiaries from the tax and benefit system, to the tune of £2,151 a year, on average. At the other end of the scale, the richest fifth of households received £1,666 a year in income from the state, and so they are net contributors to the Government’s coffers, to the tune of £24,259 a year, on average.

These figures show what one would expect: the tax and benefit system as a whole takes money from the rich, and gives it to the poor.

In other words the poorest didn’t pay the most tax even as a proportion of their income…and you know what, that’s still the situation.

IDS seems to be as stupid as Osborne thinks he is, and the BBC is jumping for joy pumping out headlines like this…

Duncan Smith warns government risks ‘dividing’ society

Iain Duncan Smith has warned that the government risks dividing society, in his first interview since resigning as work and pensions secretary.

He attacked the “desperate search for savings” focused on benefit payments to people who “don’t vote for us”.

As I’ve said, it is curious that Marr never once challenged IDS’s claims and indeed went further trying to use them to portray the government as immoral.  IDS has utterly betrayed the Tory Party and handed massive ammunition to its enemies in the Labour Party and at the BBC who are not at all eager to question anything he has said, happy to go along with the nonsense…..and the BBC were enthusiastically dodging the EU question on Saturday in relation to this but have since been forced to raise the matter as it is seen as central to the resignation by so many one way or another.

Finally here is IDS vigorously defending benefit sanctions as Labour claims people die due to them….

Huge Penis and the little Jeremy Hunt fronted the Now Show with the usual litany of lefty laughs…so-called.

Why did a ‘comedy’ programme bring on a left wing polemicist from lefty Der Spiegel to talk about Brexit?  What did we hear?  ‘What the hell are you thinking!?’  Apparently it is all too mad to contemplate Brexit….oh and any anti-EU opinion in Germany is the government’s fault not the EU’s.

We heard that it is barking mad for George Osborne to keep blaming Labour and poor old Gordon Brown for the state of the economy…after all that was all of 6 years ago.  This from the BBC that blames Thatcher for the 2008 crash…and Mark Easton who blames Thatcher for some people being sad and depressed oop north.

Gordon Brown was not, not you understand, in any way responsible for the crash…it was all the American’s fault.  Apart from the British bank RBS which went belly up for handing out too many subprime mortgages under Brown’s regulatory eye…the same Brown who ruined Lloyds and HBOS…

Gordon Brown broke Lloyds, and it should break him

The disaster of Lloyds-HBOS could cost us £130 bn. So how come it isn’t a bigger deal, asks Iain Martin

The same Gordon Brown who wanted a light touch, risk based financial sector that would provide a golden age of banking….and at the same time end boom and bust….how’d that work out then?

The same Brown who went on a spending spree and lumped us with excruciatingly expensive PFI funded, or not so funded, hospitals and schools.

Comedy or just propaganda when based upon a lie?  A lie that of course feeds into Labour’s own propaganda and the idea that they didn’t win the election because they didn’t squash the ‘lie’ that they were to blame for the Crash…looks like the BBC is working to set that right and provide a sound basis for Corbyn to set out his stall at the next election.

Lord Hall Hall is bemoaning the BBC’s poverty and inability to compete with the commercial companies…

The BBC must look beyond its traditional competitors of ITV and Sky as it seeks new audiences.

Lord Hall describes it as a “flight to quality”, and says that the corporation cannot hope to match the spending of an organisation such as Netflix, which plans to spend $5 billion (£3.5 billion) on original commissions this year.

“We can’t win against a Netflix or an Amazon, because their budgets are just so much bigger,” he says. “They can concentrate their firepower on one or two or three things a year, whereas we’re delivering a service 24 hours a day.”

Likening the battle to the fight against the Spanish Armada, famously won by Sir Francis Drake’s nimbler, smaller vessels, Lord Hall said: “We have to think differently. We have to think like Drake’s ships. We’ve got to think lighter, simpler.”

Always thought Hall’s line of defence was that the public service BBC was unique and only it could provide the cultural uplift for Britain that its quality programming exemplified…along with its independent, impartial and unbiased news service.  LOL.

Apparently Netflix has 75 million subscribers….can’t help thinking that if the BBC were to become a subscription service it could make far more money and rake it in from abroad as well.  Why the BBC opposes subscription is beyond me especially as Lord Hall Hall keeps reminding us of the unique benefits of the BBC that help “make Britain the greatest cultural force in the world”.  He needs to put his money-raising where his mouth is….does he not really believe that BBC is so unique and valuable that nobody will buy its programmes?

Oddly Lord Hall Hall’s comments are pretty much in line with the government’s…that the BBC should be smaller, smarter and concentrate on what it does best.

Schools are required to report on racist incidents and Surrey has produced annual reports on the information provided. We know from this information that racist incidents can occur in any school in any part of Surrey. It is important to report racist incidents as this enables both schools and the County to identify trends and work together to address the issue. Schools should recognise that reporting these incidents will be seen as evidence of their capacity to confront this problem and not as a reflection on their effectiveness.
Developing our capacity to respond effectively to racist incidents and reducing the likelihood of their occurrence are essential to the achievement of Every Child Matter outcomes. Schools can make a positive contribution and help improve all children’s lives by creating a safe learning environment where all children feel valued and can enjoy and achieve.
By taking the lead in sending a clear message that racism will not be tolerated, schools can help improve their pupils’ lives and contribute to community cohesion and to a healthier society in general.

Surrey County Council

Why does the NUT not find anti-racism reporting offensive but action to prevent the radicalisation of Muslim pupils is? Why would the NUT oppose a programme of safeguarding Muslim pupils designed to ‘help improve their pupils’ lives and contribute to community cohesion and to a healthier society in general.’

The Islamists of Cage approve of the NUT stand…

The National Union of Teachers (NUT) have accused the PREVENT strategy of conflating “a notion of British values and an elastic notion of non-violent extremism that is shutting down that debate.” A senior member of the NUT executive added it was a “blunt instrument”. Moreover the guidance requiring schools to report any concerns about pupils, has been described by the NUT as heavy-handed and could see teachers facing prosecution for failing to report to police any suspicions they had about pupils.

The Reverend Adrian Goldberg has another sermon today…this time on the iniquities of the Prevent programme…as always the BBC doing the work of the Islamists by attacking the anti-terrorist/radicalisation programme…why would Muslims, and it is not just the ‘radicals’ who are at war against Prevent, want to close down this check on Islamist recruitment and thought?

Goldberg suggests that too many Muslim children are being referred by teachers for possibly being susceptible to being radicalised.  The NUT of course is disgusted at the Prevent programme that is apparently stigmatising Muslims….never mind that it is actually attempting to rescue them from being radicalised…and the younger they are the more susceptible they are.

The NUT however has no problem about similar programmes to prevent racism, and especially, guess….yeah…Islamophobia….the NUT is delighted to ‘Show Racism the Red Card’.

The NUT is delighted to support this research which makes some very interesting findings about the barriers to challenging racism in schools. The NUT is totally committed to ensuring that our schools are safe places for all children.

Here’s the NUT on how children must be educated about the Middle East…not to prevent radicalisation but to protect Jewish, and of course Muslim, children from racism.

Advice from the National Union of Teachers
Conflict in the Middle East –issues for schools

They quote this…

“If we are to have real peace, we must begin with the children.”
Mahatma Gandhi

Perhaps begin with the children by preventing them from becoming Muslim extremists….so often due to biased reporting about the Middle East and how the West behaves?  NO to that says the NUT.  The NUT comes up with some worthy rhetoric but why then does it oppose Prevent?…..

The life of a school is strongly influenced by such outside factors and poses a challenge to teachers.
Teachers at some schools, for example, face the sensitive task of responding to pupils’
reactions, more so Muslim and Jewish pupils’ reactions to the events. The NUT is confident
that members will continue to rise to the challenge of educating individuals who can
contribute to a more peaceful future.

The NUT thinks that pupils may need ‘conflict resolution’ services to deal with racism…..conflict resolution?  And the NUT doesn’t think there is a problem with radicalisation?……

Schools should be vigilant for any signs of
graffiti, name calling, abuse and bullying,
particularly of Asian, Middle Eastern,
Muslim or Jewish pupils, and for any signs
of tension between pupils and take
appropriate action.
• Schools should reiterate to teachers, pupils
and parents their policies and procedures
for tackling racial or religious harassment.
• Any taunting or abuse on grounds of
assumed or actual membership of an ethnic
or religious community should be firmly but
sensitively dealt with as part of the whole
school approach to tackling discrimination
and racism.
• It may be appropriate, if tensions are
observed, to hold a school assembly or class
discussion so that pupils can voice their
feelings in a controlled and secure
atmosphere. The situation may require
opportunities for individual pupils to receive
counselling away from the classroom on a
one-to-one basis. Support should be offered
to both the recipients and the perpetrators
of religious or racial harassment.
• Counselling, mediation and support.
• Take advantage of curriculum opportunities
such as, Citizenship education and religious
education about world faiths.
• It may be helpful to hold discussions and
undertake activities around conflict
resolution.
• Pupils should be reminded of the respect
due to all ethnic and religious communities.
Schools should reiterate to teachers, pupils
and parents their policies and procedures
for tackling racial or religious harassment.

The BBC is responsible for much of the anti-Western, pro-Islamist propaganda that feeds the Islamist narrative…why wouldn’t it also be opposed to the government’s anti-radicalisation programme?

Listening to Sunday this morning and we were apparently going to have a look at the Pope Tweeting what we actually got was the talk hijacked by, given over to,  a Muslim who went on to tell us how wonderful the internet is for Islam.  This may have backfired for the BBC who undoubtedly thought this was a good opportunity to show how modern, connected and integrated Muslims are.  In fact what we got was a message that the internet enables Muslims to become even more devout and of more interest, in these days of the Islamic State, how the internet enables Muslims to become one ‘Muslim Nation’, the Ummah, not just an idea but a reality.  So just where do the loyalties lie especially as we noted in a previous post Babar Ahmad told Victoria Derbyshire that no Muslim would believe a non-Muslim in preference to a Muslim even if that Muslim was someone like Osama Bin Laden?

Then we had a piece about a woman only Mosque in Bradford…Stourton did ask if this only perpetuated the idea of women being segregated but this was brushed aside and then we had a lecture from a female Imam, or is it imama?, [who can only preach to women] from Denmark on how empowering this is for women and of course how it will pull the rug from under the ‘Islamophobes” feet as they see how independent and invincible Muslim women are…in their separate little mosque….how is it any different to having the backroom in a Male dominated mosque?  She went on ironically to proudly tell us of her campaign to tweet photos of mosque backdoors where women are allowed to enter the mosque to pray, so modern and progressive, to raise awareness of how Islam treats women.  Isn’t that Islamophobic?

Anti-Semitism?  Stourton did a piece on this but not exactly challenging or indepth and the PSC and anti-Zionist Jews were given a platform to spout their stuff without any questions asked and to justify and hide the reality of their campaigns….nothing anti-Semitic about them, we love Jews and anti-Semitism is terrible.  No BBC journalist hauled into ask them about the rise of anti-Semtiism and how their reporting from the Middle East has helped to drive that.

Why I’m becoming a Jew and why you should, too

Nick Cohen

Bertolt Brecht said: “Do not rejoice in his defeat, you men. For though the world has stood up and stopped the bastard, the bitch that bore him is in heat again.”

Describe the fantasy the Tsarist and Nazi empires developed that bluntly and it is impossible to understand how the Labour party is in danger of becoming as tainted as Ukip by the racists it attracts.

But consider how many leftwing activists, institutions or academics would agree with a politer version.

Western governments are the main source of the ills of the world. The “Israel lobby” controls western foreign policy. Israel itself is the “root cause” of all the terrors of the Middle East, from the Iraq war to Islamic State. Polite racism turns the Jews, once again, into demons with the supernatural power to manipulate and destroy nations. Or as the Swedish foreign minister, Margot Wallström, who sees herself as a feminist rather than a racial conspiracist, explained recently, Islamist attacks in Paris were the fault of Israeli occupiers in the West Bank.

One institution Cohen fails to mention is the BBC.

Time for a new one of these. This is where to detail the bias. The floor is yours!

Glory be, the sainted Obama is soon to leave us…bu his place in history as a great American President is surely cemented.

The BBC is here to ensure it is.

Inside Obama’s Whitehouse

A month after his victory, Barack Obama discovered America was on the verge of a great depression. He puts his plans for change on hold to pass the largest stimulus in history.

Obama promises to close Guantanamo within a year – and it is still open. His attorney general admits that evidence against many of the prisoners could not be used to prosecute because they had been tortured.

And at the Copenhagen summit, the president crashed a meeting between three fellow heads of government in his desperation to do something about climate change.

So episode one of this hagiography the great Obama is on hand to mend the riven US economy, is handed the poision chalice of Guantanamo Bay for him to sort, and he is desperate to do his bit to save the Earth.  What a hero.

Episode two he cures leprosy with a touch of his hand and walks on water….oh sorry…it’s about his greatest legacy…Obamacare….brought in in spite of fearful opposition from the nasty, far-right fanatics of the Teaparty.

There are two more episodes as yet unnamed but let’s think what they could be….they have to paint Obama as the great hero winning through against all odds or failing heroically in the face of massive and overwhelming opposition from unpleasant and selfish vested interests.

Any bets one is about white policemen ‘executing’ innocent black youths and the racism inherent in white America?  Any bets that one will be about Obama’s foreign policy, not of course his actual policy of burying his head in the sand and claiming that that is the sensible and peaceful option not risking his ‘legacy’ by actually taking responsibility and proposing solutions to world crises, but the one where he has battled on against the warmongering hawks and come out victorious having brought Iran in from the cold and judiciously avoided war in Syria, by withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and Iraq he of course ended those wars, didn’t he?  Oh and of course there will be slipped in his love of all things Muslim and immigrant as part of that.

Or did his actions, or rather inactions, actually empower a brutal and dangerous Iran, kick start the rebirth of the Taliban and ISIS and allow events to tumble so out of control that 11 million people have fled their homes in Syria and who could head towards Europe in the end destabilising and destroying Europe in the process?

What was Obama doing whilst other’s fought for their country’s survival?

Little different today though I’m sure the BBC will see things a little differently.

Astonishing how the BBC can skirt around a subject and not mention it even as they talk about it….when they want to.

Anyone think the Budget was all about not upsetting the punters before the referendum and keeping them onside with the pro-EU government?  Lots of people have that opinion….maybe even the BBC, but it’s not letting on.

Even in this report that is specifically about Osborne mentioning the EU during the course of the Budget the BBC manages to avoid saying his actual budget is designed to further the pro-EU vote…

Budget 2016: Osborne sparks row with EU warning in Budget

The BBC manages to get in one quote three times in the space of a short article telling us how the OBR thinks staying in the EU is for the best…

1. Mr Osborne quoted the OBR as saying a vote to leave “could usher in an extended period of uncertainty regarding the precise terms of the UK’s future relationship with the EU”.
2. OBR chairman Robert Chote said: “But what we have also pointed out is that if you look at the things City economists and other economists are saying, if there were a vote to leave, then people expect a period of uncertainty while the new relationship with the EU is negotiated, and that could have implications for consumer and business confidence, and financial markets.
3. The OBR said its comments on the EU referendum were not an attempt to quantify the impact of a possible exit as this was outside its remit. Mr Chote said the watchdog thought it was sensible “to recognise the fact this is a risk” given the extent to which it is being discussed in the referendum debate.

And then there is this from Laura Kuenssberg..

A Budget conspiracy?

Surely, just surely she will mention the machiavellian ploy to fool the voters and buy their votes with some cheap, short term baubles.  Er, no.

Here is her thinking about George’s thinking…

From time to time, you know I like to pass on some of the conspiracy theories that do the rounds in Westminster.

If that’s not your bag, then please don’t proceed any further, I won’t take it personally.

Of course today, most people in SW1 are firmly in the Budget day two phase, quite rightly poring over the detail as think tanks and independent number crunchers get their hands on it, and in this case, as Tory backbenchers’ tempers rise over some of the proposals.

But one question that remains unanswered is why did the chancellor decide to undertake what’s been described as the biggest ever reduction in borrowing right at the end of the Parliament to magically meet his political target?

Maybe you need a conspiracy theory to answer that.

Yes, yes, yes…but what’s the conspiracy theory, why’d he do it?

The theories centre around George Osborne’s ambitions to move into Number 10.

One minister told me, this is all about “next generation George”, by pushing cuts and consolidation to the last possible moment in the Parliament.

He would therefore be trying to secure the top job when people are feeling more flush due to income tax cuts and the pain from last minute austerity hasn’t yet been felt. This is “fixing the leadership when the sun is shining”, they suggested.

It’s all about personal ambition to be PM…or is it?  Is it the pro-EU ‘fix’?….

But another source suggests something even more devilish.

Is it a desire to join the EU, join the Euro and fling open the borders even more by joining Schengen?…er no….in fact it’s just more George wanting to be Boss…..

It’s pointless, they suggest, being bemused by the seemingly strange timing of it all.

Traditionally governments are tough on spending when they are fresh from election victory, then softer towards the end.

This time, it’s the other way round.

No need for confusion though, this conspiracy implies. The simple reason is that this Parliament is never going to make it to the end of its fixed term in 2020. And that means the cuts, that pain in 2020, is simply never going to happen because there will be a general election long before. And, a different man or woman with their hands on the Red Box.

The theoretical prize is an early election after the Tories have settled their leadership succession, before Labour’s unhappy MPs have had the chutzpah to sort out theirs.

The argument goes, George Osborne newly installed in Number 10, doesn’t have to make the big cuts, dissolves Parliament, goes to the country and beats Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour to a pulp.

But hang on, Kuenssberg finishes with this…

Try raising any of this on the record with any politician? You don’t get very far.

Try raising it off the record, you don’t get that far either.

But there are people who believe this conspiracy could well be the Tory leadership’s dream.

So on the record and off the record she can’t find anyone who can give the slightest bit of credence to her conspiracy theory…in other words this is pure BBC hokum spinning a wild tale to attack Osborne when the real story about his manipulation of the budget to serve the ‘Remain’ campaign’s purposes is ignored.  Consider that before the last budget the BBC were insistent on telling us that Osborne was the most political of all chancellors odd that in two reports on the budget’s ‘politics’ they miss out on the biggest bit of ‘politicking’ going.

Wilful blindness?  Old fashioned bias?   Maybe you need a conspiracy theory to answer that.

Today we were reminded that the BBC was a member of the CBI, and may still be one.

Today we were also reminded that the BBC owns half of UKTV via BBC Worldwide which brings us channels such as  ‘Dave’ and ‘Gold’ …

UKTV, which operates channels such as Dave and Gold, is understood to have been offered six years’ worth of rivals’ revenue and spending data, which would have allowed the digital broadcaster to gain vital insights into other broadcasters’ programming budgets and income streams.

Ever think the BBC might just be too big?

Fascinating watching the BBC at work as 4 of its finest tried to get to grips with the budget, sifting desperately through it in a frantic search for the big ‘un, the scoop that would blow Osborne away.

The best that they could come up with was that he had failed to meet his target of reducing debt as a proportion of GDP….Huw Edwards said sagely that this was ‘significant’. [at 3 hrs 16] unfortunately Paul Johnson from the IFS was in the studio and pulled the rug from under Edwards by saying it was ‘economically not signifcant at all’…Edwards looked chastened and rolled his eyes but recovered with a ‘I meant politically significant of course’...and all his workmates chimed in with a similar line to help him out of his embarrasment, and funnily enough the BBC’s Kamal Ahmed made no mention of its ‘insignificance’ in this report.

Odd that the BBC should now think this figure significant because last year they were dismissing this way of measuring debt out of hand telling us it was an Osborne trick to cover up a failure to lower the deficit.

Huw Edwards wound back the clock as he interviewed Matt Hancock and stated that it was wrong to continue with austerity when the world economy was so weak when instead the government should be stimulating the economy.   Heard that before from the BBC…in fact we heard it everyday for 5 years…it was called Plan B…and it was Labour’s policy.

He also thought it ‘illuminating’ that much of the surplus would come from cutting government spending and not massive growth….hmmm…this from the BBC that was warning us of massive cuts to come in this second Parliament for Cameron, cuts so bad they would take us back to the Thirties and the road to Wigan Pier…..the cuts were going to be ‘utterly terrifying‘….never mind that they would actually take us back to the level of government spending in 1998 under Labour….not the terrifying Thirties then?

To achieve the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast of a budget surplus of £23bn by 2019-20 would require “spending cuts on a colossal scale ..

If reductions in departmental spending were to continue at the same pace after the May 2015 election as they had over the past four years, welfare cuts or tax rises worth about £21bn a year would be needed by 2019-20, at a time when the Conservatives were committed to income tax cuts worth £7bn, according to the IFS.

We have always known that the surplus would come from cutting spending…it is not a surprise nor ‘illuminating’ to rediscover this today….the BBC wants us to think that Osborne’s plans are in chaos and that he is flailing around using ‘magic’ as Edwards suggested…..oddly the Guardian also uses that line….Budget 2016: magical thinking from charmed world of the chancellor.

As for the sugar tax….the jury is definitely out on that one, effectiveness wise, despite the BBC’s assertion that Mexico provided proof positive that a sugar tax works……however the studies done were funded by the people who lobbied the Mexican government to impose the sugar tax….and the New Zealand government has looked at this and concluded there is as yet no proof to suggest the tax works.

The Science Media Centre also casts doubt on the findings.

Even the Guardian admits….The evidence that a soda tax can reduce obesity and disease, however, comes largely from theoretical models.

The BBC though were delighted for Jamie Oliver…..as I am.

Guido is not so sure about the hypocritical little chap….

Jamie Oliver is all over the BBC celebrating his punitive sugar tax – but this is sweet hypocrisy. On his website, Jamie offers a series of recipes aimed at children. A bowl of granola for a child’s breakfast, advertised as “a healthy and delicious start to the day”, contains an unbelievable 20.9g of sugar. That’s 23% of an adult’s daily recommended intake, and this is supposed to be for a child.

Experts recommend 4-8 year olds should have 12g of sugar per day, teenagers should have 20-32 grams. A single serving of this Jamie recipe surpasses the maximum recommended teenager’s sugar allowance, and three times that of 8 year olds…

Oh and there’s this from Guido’s site…..gotta love it…..