The BBC’s Roger Harrabin gives the impression of working with the Guardian newspaper to intimidate businesses and other institutions into ridding themselves of their fossil fuel investments.

The Guardian’s editor, Alan Rusbridger, demands that Scientists must speak up on fossil-fuel divestment in a recent article in Nature which attacked the Wellcome Trust and the Bill And Melinda Gates Foundation for not offloading their shares in fossil fuel businesses saying ‘ these wonderful progressive foundations are failing to show the kind of leadership that could be transformative in shifting policy arguments and influencing others. The voices that will resonate loudest with the Wellcome and the Gates are those of scientists. I urge you to make them heard.’

The very next day Harrabin published this Are energy companies sitting on unburnable reserves? saying:

‘Are we approaching the twilight of the fossil fuel era?

The oil price remains stubbornly low. Renewables are becoming more affordable and moving into the mainstream.

On top of that, some investment managers are now beginning to question the value of their holdings in carbon fuels as the pressure builds for the world to limit climate change by reducing carbon emissions.

Some observers believe energy is at a potential tipping point.’

A pressure group, 350.org, began urging faith organisations, foundations and pension funds to withdraw funds from fossil fuels, arguing it is morally wrong to put your money in carbon fuels. So far, more than 220 institutions have taken the decision to divest.

Why did Harrabin feel the need to run this piece now when it is based upon a story run months ago?…

‘Vast amounts of oil in the Middle East, coal in the US, Australia and China and many other fossil fuel reserves will have to be left in the ground to prevent dangerous climate change, according to the first analysis to identify which existing reserves cannot be burned.’

 

Harrabin for some reason makes no mention that the Guardian is at the lead of the campaign to force investors to divest their shares….the Guardian which is in partnership with that ‘pressure group’ 350.Org on this campaign.

The whole article is entirely one sided, guess which side. Only at the end do we get a hint of any opposition and then Harrabin only quotes the Shell oil company’s CEO..

“With an exceptional effort, as much as 25% of the world’s energy could come from renewables by 2050,” said Ben van Beurden. “But non-renewable forms of energy will have to make up the rest.”

However that is dismissed by the following comment to finish the article:

‘The UK’s former climate change ambassador John Ashton has condemned his comments. The oil giants, he says, will have to choose which side of history they are on.’

Hardly an argument based upon facts, science or reason….more like the Inquisition….believe!

Funny thing about the Guardian’s Rusbridger, whilst urging these companies and businesses to divest themselves of some of their investments that many pension funds rely upon he and his paper don’t follow that advice.

He himself is heading off to Oxford University (and will be chairman of the Scott Media Trust, owners of the Guardian)…the same university that ‘is believed to have the largest investments in fossil fuel companies of any UK university.’ but is coming under pressure to ‘divest’.

Rusbridger has a mini fleet of cars, and like Cameron in his green phase sometimes cycled to work…with a taxi following with his paperwork. Many of your pensions will be heavily reliant upon the investments in the fuel companies that Rusbridger seeks to vilify…that’s OK for Rusbridger because the Guardian tops up his pension with large annual bonuses as he told Piers Morgan in an interview in 2012…one in which he is incredibly reluctant to answer any questions:

What’s your current salary?
It’s, er, about £350,000.

What was your bonus last year?
I got about £170,000 which was a way of addressing my pension.

The Guardian itself, no doubt printing off its paper using ethically sourced, planet friendly fairy dust was financed by the profits made by its car magazine, now sold, tax free for £619 million.…to ‘secure its future’…so still living off the wages of sin…petrol powered sin….and it wasn’t an ethically driven sale but one driven by financial necessity…“The situation was not sustainable as a business could not have this lingering over it and the Guardian needed the cash to survive.” 

The Guardian itself says it has divested its own fossil fuel investments…but its thinking is more business than green…..

‘Fossil fuel assets had performed relatively poorly in recent years and were threatened by future climate change action, while an ethical fund already held by GMG had been a “stellar” performer and renewable energy was growing strongly. “This means we can adopt socially responsible investment criteria without putting at risk the core purpose of GMG’s investment funds: to generate long-term returns that guarantee the financial future and editorial independence of the Guardian in perpetuity.”

In other words the Guardian has off-loaded fossil fuels because they were performing badly and their green investments were doing better…..profits all paid for by huge subsidies from the UK tax payer…so just how ethical is that…the Guardian padding out its profits from high energy costs imposed upon consumers rich and poor…forced into fuel poverty by Rusbridger and Harrabin?  Heat or Eat anybody?

The Guardian though has an investment fund abroad that it doesn’t seem to keen to reveal exactly what it invests in….I’m sure those hedge funds are green hedges….

‘The portfolio of assets in the investment fund is designed to spread Group asset risk over a wider base than the Group’s historical UK media sector focus. Investments are in a diversified range of assets, which are managed by anumber of specialist fund managers, including global and emerging market equity, fixed income, real assets and hedge funds. The investments are denominated in Sterling and overseas currencies, principally the US Dollar.’

‘Green’ hedge funds just as green propagandist Bob Ward’s paymaster runs…or doesn’t….

This is what Jeremy Grantham, Bob‘s ultimate boss and paymaster said about how he makes money:

‘Our first responsibility is to make money for our clients….and nothing is more important than oil.’

His first responsibility?…not to save the Planet…but to make money…from oil.

The simplicity, the Machiavellian naivety, the pious posturing from Rusbridger is astonishing….he grandstands with sanctimonious ‘ethical’ statements about the evils of fossil fuels, the Guardian ridding itself of their own investments knowing full well that the world cannot run without fossil fuels and their derivatives and that the Guardian’s stance is pure posturing as others will invest in energy companies and the oil will keep flowing and being used and that Rusbridger and Co will still be running their businesses on the back of that however much of a headline grabbing firewall they pretend to put between them and fossil fuel industry.

For instance they attack the Wellcome Trust and the Gates Foundation…and yet the Gates Foundation funds the Guardian….so the Guardian should divest itself of that funding…to avoid accusations of hypocrisy.

The Guardian is also funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation which has a huge variety of investments….all of which in some form or other are dependent upon fossil fuels from energy and pharmaceutical companies, mining and banking, Royal Mail with all its thousands of vans racing around the country belching out diesel fumes, and even Domino’s Pizzas…cooking on solar energy and delivering your pizza by pedal power…I’m sure.

The JRF says ‘In July 2014 trustees agreed that the Trust should be divested from all fossil fuels by 2020.’…but of course that is only companies that have an obvious fossil fuel connection.

Showboating about the obvious energy companies is pure hypocrisy when there is no business in the world that doesn’t rely upon fossil fuel in some shape or form however hidden that reliance is.

The benefits of fossil fuels far outways the disadvantages, the costs of stopping the use of fossil fuels is enormous, not just financially but in human terms. Rusbridger is condemning millions to lives of poverty and misery if not war, death and famine on a scale unknown before….but then again he has a track record there having recklessly published the Snowden material that has put lives in danger and meant that the fight against terrorism and gangsters like Putin has been made very much harder.

So does Rusbridger really put ethics at the forefront of his journalism and business or is he more interested, like Peston, in getting to the front of the pack whatever the consequences and whoever he treads upon on the way?

Is he, and Harrabin, more concerned about the environment than people?  Is he one of those who hates people?

His next campaign?  Save the planet….shoot yourself!  The ultimate divestment!

Here is a guest post by B-BBC commentator Nibor!

“Some societies in the world venerate their old  And some don’t .

The BBC I would say is in the latter category judging by their news and analysis programmes and especially their ” comedies ” . I don’t think its because the over 75s don’t pay the telly tax , it’s more serious than that .

They say the past is another country and autocratic regimes have forbidden their citizens from visiting other countries . Ideas and mores from other countries might be dangerous if you’re setting up a new society based on your own image , whether in Stalinist Russia or Portland Place and Salford .

The one advantage ,or danger , the old folk have is that they have lived in that past and can evaluate whether the whole past , or certain aspects of it , were better or worse than than now , and even worse for BBC types , better than the future . Well you can diminish the coffin dodgers point of view by categorising in bands who you think they are .

Band A ; The sympathetic case 
Very often on your local news , it shows an old person , sometimes in a hospital with tubes running from his/her nose needing treatment . This is the supplicant case , which callous people somewhere unspecified in local or national government aren’t releasing enough funds ensure proper treatment .

Band B The I’m Alright Jack case
Well to do with low or paid off mortgage , this person benefitted greatly from what was on offer in the past , plundered the Earth’s resources one way or another , and is leaving debt , pollution and other problems for Youth .

Band C the not well off 
The Left Behinders , living in areas that have seen better , this closed minded people canot see the benefits of the EU , globalisation , immigration or even satnav. I supposed pitied more than to be hated . Why wouldn’t anyone want their world, their location changed for the better .

There is or is it now was , a little band of old folk who who saw the error of the ways of people in the past and exhort Yoof not to make mistakes “they ” did ( for that read the others that were unenlightened ) and rid the world of prejudice , inequality , environmental vandalism and don’t guard your borders because that leads to genocide .
Unfortunately the heroes of the past who joined the international in the Spanish Civil War are no longer with us .

So you can see that if the BBC interview an aged person they want to hear about the long hours , bad working conditions , low wages , undue deference to upper middle classes and a complete disregard for Green policies . All of which happened sometimes , at different places ,in one way or another no doubt .

What they don’t want to broadcast is anything that hints that the past was better , or some aspects of the past was better , or people were happier to live with the disadvantages of the past rather than , shall we say, suffer the advantages of now or the future

How can you build a better future if you discount or condemn everything about the past ?

As said , the Past Is Another Country.  Would the liberal/left Gramscis BBC ignore every other country and not see where things are done in a better way?”

Let me be clear. I am not a member of any political party nor do I support any particular political party. But I am appalled by the way the BBC sets out each day to demonise Nigel Farage and his party, UKIP. The BBC meme is that support for UKIP is fading, that the Party is full of racists and bigots, and that Farage is a dangerous guy. Last year, in the run up to the European election in which UKIP topped the poll, the BBC meme was that UKIP were not to be taken seriously and that they would not make any break through. This time round, the mood has changes. The BBC is now either ignoring UKIP when possible or else insisting that the electorate are turning their back on the Party which only 12 months ago WON the European elections. Incredible bias.

Elections bring the bias out of the BBC. This General Election has certainly showed the BBC in its true colour – Red. Each day now we see the same thing. The Today programme on Radio 4 sets the agenda which is then ruthlessly followed the rest of the day and the narrative is clear. Miliband has proven himself as a capable leader; Labour can be trusted on the economy because everything is “fully costed” and the SNP under Nicola Queen of Scots would make the idea pact partners, especially as she is “sound on Trident”.  As polling day draw closer, the parties of the Left know that the BBC will use every tactic possible to spin in their favour. By contrast, the Conservatives and UKIP are marginalised. BBC bias is not just overt, it IS malignant and dangerous for our country. You just KNOW that the Champagne is being prepared should Miliband enter Number 10 and then we will have a new campaign designed to KEEP him there.

Sorry for the lack of a midweek thread but here’s a new one for you!

BBC1 ran the Election Debate tonight and my twitter feed is overwhelmed by people saying how BIASED the audience was. Nigel Farage was met by silence, whilst Sturgeon, Bennett, Green and Miliband were  cheered to the rafters. Thoughts?

The BBC’s Peston has been pumping out article after article that strangely enough seem to favour the Labour Party…his latest effort doesn’t buck the trend…

Tories’ curious message on work

Reading it you get the impression that Peston is desperately looking for something to say that is negative about the Tory manifesto.  He is tortuously constructing a case against the Tory policy to take the lowest paid out of tax claiming that it goes against all Tory principles…but it doesn’t….Low paid workers get allowances and tax credits and many other benefits….upping their actual pay will take the bureaucracy out of that…rather than being taxed and then having to reclaim that tax they get it direct.

Peston bizarrely moans that the Tories are too left wing…..

This is not a point about whether the state is too generous to them.

It is about the contract we all make with the state.

And he goes on and on in a similar vein...’And another thing…’….it does look like he is determined to attack the Tory policies in a very negative manner…after all, taking the poorest out of tax altogether must be a Labourite’s dream…apparently not, when it’s done by a Tory.

Anyway….here’s ‘another thing’ to keep you amused…some old history from the Guardian…enjoy….

Peston’s run

One of the more interesting parts of the new Banking Act is its abolition of the requirement for the Bank of England to issue a weekly financial return. Combined with a certain BBC journalist’s rational desire to get ahead, it was the knowledge that the Bank of England would eventually have to fulfil its weekly compulsion to tell the world what it was up to that was the chief cause of the Northern Rock bank run.

Theoretically, removal of the weekly return requirement allows covert intervention into the banking system, and may possibly be used by the Bank to prevent future bank runs. This would let the Bank better fulfil its role of ensuring financial stability – thereby serving the public good, rather than that of Robert Peston.

When someone at the Bank of England (or the Treasury?) leaked to him that Northern Rock was turning to the Bank for support, Peston rationally decided to reveal all to the public in the BBC’s Thursday 13 September 2007 evening broadcasts. Peston argues that it was in the public interest to do so. This is debatable.

It was quite clear to anyone who has studied any financial history that a bank run would ensue. Indeed, I was waiting at the entrance to my local Northern Rock branch early on the Friday morning to watch the queues as they started to form.

The big question is this: would the run have occurred without Peston’s broadcasts?

Peston’s broadcasts of his insider information meant that the Bank and the Treasury could only react to the run and did not have the time to proactively prevent it from occurring. A bank run could have been quite easily avoided altogether.

Peston has been blamed by many others for the Northern Rock bank run, most notably by members of the Treasury select committee. (Others have interesting ideas that the Treasury engineered the bank run itself in order to nationalise Northern Rock on the cheap, using Peston merely as a pawn.) Peston, of course, has vigorously defended his actions.

He had a role in causing sufficient panic among depositors for them to run on their bank. A defence that he didn’t know he would cause a run is not a very good one. 

 

Here…

Peston confronts his critics

The BBC’s Business Editor Robert Peston broke the story of Northern Rock’s descent into crisis and has been blamed for causing the subsequent run on the bank.

On a recent trip to the bank’s home city of Newcastle he was confronted by Doreen and Denis Shannon who lost £60,000 from shares in Northern Rock and with it their retirement savings.

 

 

Whilst as I said the BBC’s coverage of the Tory manifesto, that I saw, hasn’t been a bloodbath there have been a couple of moments when they let themselves down.

I was disappointed that John Humphrys, from a grounded, working class background and supposedly an experienced and professional journalist with integrity, should allow himself to become the frontman for the Labour Party peddling cheap sensationalist left wing smears on the Today programme instead of rigorous journalism when he not only attacked Fallon for his ‘stab in the back’ comment but went on from there to try and tar the whole Tory Party once again with the label of the ‘Nasty Party’ on the basis of that one comment when he interviewed Theresa May (08:10).

So once again let’s look at whether Fallon was justified in his comment or whether Humphrys is justified in decrying him.

Not so long ago the Left were crowing with glee when the BBC’s Eddie Mair launched his attack on Boris Johnson saying…

“And you, having heard that, tell your friend that that you will supply the address. What does that say about you, Boris Johnson? Making up quotes… lying to your party leader, wanting to be part of someone being physically assaulted – you’re a nasty piece of work, aren’t you?”

The Twitterati were delighted.…

Angi Mansi ‏@WorkPsychol Apr 2    Eddie Mair vs #BorisJohnson “You’re a nasty piece of work, and a liar”: https://youtu.be/ZAxA-9D4X3o  Irresistable interviewing Eddie.

The BBC were pretty proud of it themselves.

Or how about this...from the BBC in 2010?

If you ever doubted that class was still thought to be important in politics, just look at the number of times the words “Tory toff” appear before the name “David Cameron” in a certain left-leaning tabloid.

And if you want to get a feeling of how powerful this inverted snobbery is, just imagine it the other way round.

What if the Daily Telegraph always prefaced the name John Prescott with the words “Labour oik”? It would sound really mean.

So no problem for the Left when a right wing politician is the victim of a personal attack….why then the outrage when Fallon makes a perfectly reasonable and logical connection between Ed Miliband’s treachery and his possible future actions…selling out his brother for political power, selling out the UK’s defence in a pact with the ‘kingmakers’ of the SNP for the top job?

Does Humphrys have a very short memory or does he just conveniently forget things like this from the left wing Mirror in 2010?….

Ed Miliband’s unworthy of the top job

Ed Miliband – who only 22 per cent of voters expect to win the next election – has been told by the party’s former energy minister, Brian Wilson, he should quit to save the party.

“He should look in the mirror and honestly ask the question, ‘Will the electorate ever assent to me being Prime Minister?’” says Wilson.

Er, this is the man who shafted his own brother to get the Labour leadership, who was prepared to publicly and politically disembowel him in order to grab the top job.

That kind of bloke doesn’t give a stuff what’s best for the party OR the electorate.

And let’s face it – the party always wanted David Miliband, and nerdy little Ed knew that.

But he was desperate for power and was prepared to get into bed with the unions and sacrifice his brother on the altar of his own ambition to get it.

The very idea he’ll do what’s best for the country is farcical because he doesn’t actually know (or care) what the country wants.

And however much he stands on his soapbox and tries to “connect” with people, voters can’t ever get past the fact he betrayed his own flesh and blood in the cruel vindictive way he did. 

Someone who does that doesn’t give a toss whether people think he’ll be a good PM.

Pretty damning stuff from the lefty Mirror….Miliband so desperate for power that he publicly and politically disembowelled his brother!

Did anyone else think David Miliband was betrayed by his brother?

The Mail said…..

David Miliband’s wife who still can’t forgive brother-in-law’s Ed’s betrayal.

The sight of the two Primrose Hill-raised Labour apparatchiks engaged in political fratricide was astonishing, and in the subsequent two-and-a-half years, no amount of fine public words or behind-the-scenes finessing has healed that wound.

A black and yellow arrow is the vivid symbol of the International Rescue Committee. You will see it on flags flying over refugee camps from the Syrian borders to the Congo.

Yet it was the poison-tipped missile that thudded between David Miliband’s shoulder blades at the Labour leadership election which most informs his decision to abandon British politics for a place among New York’s glamorous charity elite. 

Younger brother Ed was the deceptively geeky assassin with the bow. He snatched the job David thought was his birthright.

The Express said…..

David Miliband’s wife urges him to quit over brother’s ‘betrayal’

Ms Shackleton, a concert violinist, is known to have become increasingly angry at Ed Miliband’s behaviour during the hard four-month campaign.

In the past, she had encouraged her husband to oust Gordon Brown and was angry when his brother talked him out of launching a coup. She regarded Ed Miliband’s unexpected decision to run for leader as a betrayal.

The Telegraph asked if Ed had betrayed Dave…..

I Did Not Betray My Brother, Ed Miliband Says

The Labour leader disclosed how he never believed David Miliband would return to front line politics following their fractious fight for the party’s top job in 2010.

Ed Miliband, 43, denied he had ever promised his 47 year-old brother a clear run to the leadership, a belief that has fuelled a sense of betrayal among David’s friends and family.

The election caused a major rift between the two and he refused to serve in Ed Miliband’s shadow cabinet.

So the evidence stacks up against Ed Miliband and the BBC’s narrative…..shame they put that cheap sensationalism before genuine journalism.

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