Today’s Any Questions deals with rent control and food banks amongst other topics.

Here’s some questions for Dimbleby to raise:

1.  The Labour Party wishes to impose rent controls on the private sector to limit rent price increases…..are those rent increases the result of Labour Party immigration policies when in government that have seen hundreds of thousands of immigrants pour into this country each year for the last decade?

2.  Is one result of that policy, not just the rent increases, but also the creation of a hidden ‘generation homeless’ who are forced to live with their parents whilst immigrants live in appalling conditions.

3.  Are rent controls merely a populist policy designed to win the votes of the unthinking, selfish mass, a temporary ‘solution’ that in fact makes things worse for people who need to rent? Is not the problem too many poeple chasing too few houses and the answer to cut the ‘people’ and build more houses?

4.  Foodbanks….foodbanks began under Labour’s jurisdiction…which would indicate that the need has always been there…..but is it not also true that the increase in use of foodbanks is a result of Labour’s own economic policies which destroyed the economy and created a ‘generation jobless’ amongst the young, and welfare cutbacks are just yet another result of that economic mismanagement?

5.  Is the Trussell Trust a Labour Party front, run by a Labour Party member whose aim is a political one…to change government welfare policies…and doesn’t he aim to do this by creating as many foodbanks as possible and use the ‘fact’ of the existence of the foodbanks as ‘proof’ that the government is creating ‘food poverty’?

All highly relevant questions…somehow I doubt they will make an appearance, at least not coming out of the mouth of Dimbleby.  Kelvin Mackenzie or George Eustice might raise a few points but only to have Dimbleby counter them with points seemingly designed just to muddy the water and make everything ‘relative’…will Dimbleby do the same for poverty campaigner Jack Monroe?  Doubt it.

One thing will be interesting…Jack Monroe (female) became famous for feeding herself for £1 a day.

Which raises a few questions about this from the BBC:

Affordable healthy diet ‘too expensive for many’

Many people do not have enough income for a “decent diet”, public health experts have claimed in an open letter to the prime minister.

The UK Faculty of Public Health said the situation had become so serious that an independent group should be set up by the government to investigate.

The letter pointed to rising food prices, falling wages and a boom in food banks as proof.

Professor John Ashton: ”If the current trends go on, we are going to have a malnourished generation”

FPH President John Ashton says: “we may be facing a public health emergency in the UK. The spectre of Oliver Twist is back”.

Professor John Ashton….oh…the Labour Party Stalwart!   Oliver Twist and a malnourished generation?  Nothing like a bit of over the top hyperbole to help people take you seriously.

And what about this bit?:

The letter pointed to rising food prices, falling wages and a boom in food banks as proof.

Well food prices are falling, as are fuel prices, wages are increasing and the ‘boom in foodbanks’ is a marketing success for the Trussell Trust…also run by a ‘Labour Party stalwart’.

Still, good of the BBC to be giving such uncritical coverage and promotion to the Labour narrative of  a ‘living standards crisis’.

Nothing about this on the BBC website:

An Muslim man dressed up like a ‘panto’ Englishman to taunt his neighbours boasting of his ‘joy’ over 9/11 and the murder of British soldier Lee Rigby, a court has heard.

But as said before the BBC publishes a long tract deploring a Wikiedia entry, removed instantly, that mocked Muslims, and tells us how offended Muslims are and how they have been victimised and demonised by actions such as this:

Wikipedia edit from government computer added Muslim insult

Anything that makes Muslims into ‘victims’ gets airtime on the BBC….anything that makes your everyday Muslim seem as bad as the ‘extremists’ is hidden away.

Perhaps a read of this week’s New Statesman might shed more light on such issues…the ‘frightened, self-censoring West‘:

COVER STORY: THE CHALLENGE OF ISLAM

David Selbourne: the “frightened” and “self-censoring” west can no longer ignore the Islamist threat

Mona Siddiqui: why moderate Muslims must speak out against hardliners and “battle for the very soul of Islam”

Question is…why are ‘hardliners’ not legitimate ‘Muslims’ and their version of Islam, the basic, fundamental version, continually presented as a ‘perversion’ of Islam by the BBC?

Surely, if anything, it is the purist form of Islam….and as there is only one version of Islam possible……it must be the real version.

Polly Toynbee let the cat out of the bag…after years of insisting that immigration  makes us wealthier Toynbee reveals that the real position is that a bigger population merely makes the economy bigger whilst not actually benefiting anybody:

“The whole economy has only got bigger because we’ve got more people.”

There might be a bigger economy but it’s not more productive and is shared out between more people, as she says…’growth per capita is virtually stagnant‘….so no overall benefit….which is what previous, non-partisan, reports have told us.

Sam Bowman, research director at the Adam Smith Institute, says that “rent control is a stunningly bad idea that could devastate Britain’s cities and clobber renters. To paraphrase the socialist economist Assar Lindbeck: the only thing worse for cities than rent control is bombing them.”

Labour bombing the poor?

Labour have been trawling their box of good ideas and come up with yet another wizard wheeze to lessen the dreadful impact of the ‘cost of living crisis’….no not improving the economy, or getting you a job,  or spurring on exports….as usual just more ‘poverty porn’ policies that unexamined sound great for the working man…but examined the gloss soon rubs off and the grubby underbelly is exposed….and the spin…but not by the BBC.

The BBC is reporting on Labour’s rent control policy…and reports that:

The threshold would be based on an industry benchmark of average rent rises. The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors is currently considering what an appropriate figure would be.

Guido reports that:

This seems to be the first RICS have heard of this. A spokesperson for RICS tells Guido that rent caps “were not part of our recommendations”, that “we are not working on rent caps” and that they are not helping Labour come up with a rent cap “benchmark”. Guido understands that RICS is “looking into” what happened and has contacted Labour to ask them why this was included in the press release.

From the Telegraph:

Labour ‘rent controls’ policy begins to unravel

Ed Miliband’s rent controls policy is in turmoil after an organisation that Labour claimed was helping with the plans said that it does not support the measures.

Labour claimed that the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) was working to establish what the “appropriate benchmark might be”.

However, the organisation has now said that it is “not developing proposals on rent benchmarks for the private rented sector”.

“We do not recommend that a government introduce a ceiling on rent increases,” a spokesman added.

Nothing from the BBC…oh except this:

Emily Maitlis: Predatory landlords targeted

The policy hasn’t even been spoken aloud yet, but already it’s been hailed by the Tories as “Venezuelan-style rent controls”.

Interesting, that. They’d love to paint Ed Miliband as a Hugo Chavez-style communist.

But Labour knows – I suspect – that the 9m people in England living in 3.8m rented homes will probably be hanging the bunting out

Sounds like a bit of pro-Labour glee there……and ‘predatory landlords’?  Or just landlords?

So the Tories are spinning against Miliband purely as an ideological, dogmatic reaction according to the BBC.

Nothing to do with the fact that most commentators say the policy just won’t work…Polly Toynbee, I’m sure, excepted.

Can’t help wondering at Maitliss’s ‘surprise’ at the Tories saying Miliband is a Commie stooge….‘Red’ Ed didn’t get his nick name for nothing, and he’s had it a long time.

The BBC seems to have a growing enthusiasm for all things Marxist and Commie recently:

The curious survival of the US Communist Party

At least one thing in that tale is the familiar sounding reluctance to mention the word ‘Communism’ by the people in the US CP whilst still practising its  doctrines…..

“We try to let our work speak for us, and not make it so much about the ‘C’ word.”

Other ideologies have a similar policy……for example practising Islam but denying anything they practise actually relates to Islam….a  policy defended by the BBC and the Establishment.

Should you wish to get the two parties together and ask them about this in person you have the opportunity soon:

Following the presentations from both BBC and the event sponsor Whittle Programmed Painting, a tour of the amazing building at Media City will be taking place explaining what daily challenges the BBC face, and ideas the BBC Facilities Management team created when Media City was being completed.

Followed by a buffet and a chance to network with other FM professionals in the region, come and join the North West Facilities Management Professional Group on this interesting and informative tour event.

Open to members, non members and students.

Price EXcl. VAT

£6.67 for RICS members

£6.67 for non-members

Book now

Labour leader Ed Miliband is expected to put forward plans to outlaw the exploitative use of zero-hour contracts.

 Len McCluskey, general secretary of Unite says….

Zero-hours contracts create a throwaway workforce.

They form a one-way street, whereby employers bear no risk, avoiding sickness and holiday pay and overtime.

Victoria Derbyshire was conducting a phone-in asking what it is you like about Zero Hour Contracts.

Plenty of people do  like them, like the felxibility and how they fit in with their lifestyle.

One question raised though was how large multi-national organisations could justify using them…say Sports Direct for example in its shops.

Derbyshire read out a text raising that issue and then ironically immediately a caller came on (11:23) who described his position as a ‘casual’ or freelancer…but he said the difference between that and a ZHC was merely from a tax point of view and he was effectively on a ZHC.

He ‘worked’ for a large international organisation, the BBC, amongst other independent production companies who operate the same system.

He gets no sick pay and no training and if he is booked by the BBC for example, every wednesday for 3 months and refuses other work because of that, and then the BBC cancels he has lost out on other work.

He gets notice of work from say 3 months to 1 day…but the work can be cancelled the day before he is due to start.

The BBC apparently has no policy statement on just what the terms of these ‘contracts’ are and how they should operate.

He said there were thousands of people being employed in the same way by the BBC on a daily basis and it is the usual practice throughout the industry.

He says there is no duty of care to ensure the people on ZHC are treated decently….the BBC has no written policy that sets out their duty of care to its army of casuals.

The BBC, being the BBC, you might have thought would have such a policy, in triplicate.  You can see why the industry employs casuals due to the way production works but when people get no sick pay, holiday pay, no training, work cancelled with no pay the day before it begins  you might have thought there might be a case for some sort of fallback system of payment to compensate…a retention fee or similar.

Sure Ed Miliband is on the job.  If Lenny Henry can get the DG’s ear sure the Leader of the Opposition can as well and the BBC Trust will issue recomendations asap.

The BBC, perhaps somewhat disengenuously, says in response to a FOI request:

Dear Mr Count,

Apologies if our previous response was not clear enough.

I can confirm that your statement below is correct; the BBC does not employ any staff at all on zero hours contracts.

Yours sincerely,

The Information Policy and Compliance Team

BBC Information Policy and Compliance
BC2B6, Broadcast Centre
201 Wood Lane
London W12 7TP, UK

It seems the BBC prefers to call them ‘flexi-contracts’…it does seem to have some sort of policy:

 ‘The BBC does not employ staff on zero-hours contracts.  We offer staff minimum hours contracts which differ as they specify a minimum number of days or hours work individuals are contracted for. 
 
By way of background information, it may be helpful to add that minimum hours contracts are 
commonplace in broadcasting and other industries across the UK. They are used to help with temporary 
fluctuations in workload.  A person engaged on this basis is free to accept or refuse work at any time.’

Our policy says: 
BBC Guaranteed Minimum Work contracts (also known as ‘flexi contracts’) 

This contract is suitable when the requirement for the individual is for a defined number of days or hours over a limited period which are to be worked as the business requires     (e.g. fixed hours per week/month cannot be predicted or guaranteed).  The contract is simply a form of the BBC Fixed Term contract. 
Managers are required to indicate the realistic minimum number of hours/days which can

be predicted over the contracted period  e.g. 30 days per year.  Managers should review the minimum number of contracted  hours/days regularly to ensure that the employee is contracted to the appropriate minimum.

The employee may be asked to work additional hours or days above those stated in their contract,
however there is no obligation on the BBC to offer the additional hours or days or an obligation on the employee to work those offered. Any additional hours or days worked do not count towards contractual benefits, e.g. holiday or sickness accrual.

It says ‘guaranteed minimum work contract’ but that isn’t how the caller described the way the operation worked…offered work being cancelled, sometimes the day before it was due to commence.

Perhaps this is the answer….a guarantee of some days by the BBC but additional days have no such guarantee:

BBC Contracts of Employment Policy

The employee may be asked to work additional hours or days above those stated in their contract, however there is no obligation on the BBC to offer the additional hours or days or an obligation on the employee to work those offered. Any additional hours or days worked do not count towards contractual benefits, e.g. holiday or sickness accrual.

In theory a ‘Guaranteed Minimum Hour Contract’ isn’t a ‘Zero Hours Contract’…because at least you have a guaranteed number of hours in a fixed period….however there seems quite a bit of wriggle room for managers to change that making nothing certain for an employee…and there is that ‘appropriate minimum’…which could be zero hours in effect.

Presumably you get paid for those ‘guaranteed minimum’ days even if you don’t work them…but it didn’t sound like that was the case from the caller’s description.

So all is not entirely clear just how the BBC uses ‘casual’ staff…..but in essence there seems little difference between the BBC contracts and ZHCs……there would still be a lot of uncertainty for any BBC casual/freelancer and a wage that is unlikely to meet the ‘living wage’ criteria…and of course there is no other option in the choice of contract if you are in a position that means this is the only work you have.

‘Support the Taliban’

‘Islam Will Dominate The World…Osama is on his way’ ”Kill Gordon Brown’

Not a word from the Muslim Council of Britain about those insults on the BBC….and yet when the BBC makes a frontpage splash with this:

Wikipedia edit from government computer added Muslim insult

……they’re all over it:

Nasima Begum, a spokeswoman for the Muslim Council of Britain, told the BBC: “It is these types of attitudes that create an unnecessary climate of fear and hostility.

“It is shocking and cause for great concern that inflammatory comments like these should be sent from someone within the government.”

Remarkable that the BBC continues to make such a big story out of this……especially when it completely ignored C4’s ‘Dispatches’ programme ‘Undercover Mosque’ which revealed some pretty nasty thinking based on Islamic values.

The BBC instead preferred to spend a week, the same weeek Dispatches was broadcast, attacking Jade Goody for allegedly being racist on another C4 programme ‘Big Brother’…so can’t claim to be embarrassed about investigating other channel’s programmes.

A very good indication of the BBC’s priorities and how it hides really dangerous news (ala Rochdale)  in favour of hounding  ‘stupid white trash’  as Goody was proclaimed to be by the self righteous  on many a BBC programme dedicated to exposing the ignorance and prejudice of such people that week.

And in fact I can’t even find a BBC story on the vandalism of the war memorial with ‘Islam will dominate the world’ sprayed on it….nor indeed for the memorial in Burton sprayed with ‘Support the Taliban’.    There must be some I’m sure….all with expressions of sorrow and anger from the MCB.

The BBC is losing quite a few heavy weights these days….Mason, Flanders and now Paxman:

Jeremy Paxman to step down as presenter of Newsnight

Jeremy Paxman has decided to step down as the presenter of Newsnight, a position he has held with great distinction for 25 years.

He informed Tony Hall, the Director General, and James Harding, the Director of News and Current Affairs, of his decision last summer, but with the appointment of a new editor and following a difficult period for Newsnight, Jeremy generously agreed to stay to help the new team bed down.

Bit of a reshuffle going on elsewhere as well:

BBC News announces four senior appointments

BBC News has today announced four senior appointments which will strengthen the BBC’s news coverage, both internationally and at home.

Jon Sopel has been appointed as North America Editor. He replaces Mark Mardell, who will become the presenter of Radio 4’s The World This Weekend and also present The World At One on Fridays. Katya Adler has been appointed as Europe Editor, taking over from Gavin Hewitt. Ian Pannell becomes International Correspondent, in recognition of his award-winning coverage of global affairs.

Interesting they have actually replaced Mardell with a real person…a tub of lard, ala Roy Hattersley, would have done a similar job to Mardell….for a lot less money.

No sign of the Glee Club at Today being given a bit of a makeover though….Bowen might also  be usefully redeployed elsewhere….and then there’s Roger Harrabin.

Work in progress?

Busy morning on the BBC. Every effort made to debunk claims by Sir Andrew Green’s MigrationWatch (with Evan Davies joining in the fun and games), then a strange thought for the day that seemed to claim teachers were like Christ, and of course a item on how Labour might win the Newark by-election. Just a normal day through the prism of the BBC.

Heard Peter Allen talking (18:24) about how the US and German economies were doing so much better than ours….because, Allen tells us, they didn’t have ‘austerity’…the ‘big cuts’…..we may be improving here…but you know what, says Allen…not so much…nowhere near where we were in 2007…..em….wasn’t that just about to go bust in the biggest crash in history!!

Got his backside kicked by the guest, who knew what he was talking about.

Germany of course was never in the bad position that the UK was in in the first place because it didn’t spend vast amounts of money in the good times.

The US’s first solution didn’t work…that is the much vaunted stimulus…Plan B in UK talk.

What did work?….well for one thing it wasn’t shackled to the Euro Zone like the UK is…the Euro Zone just doesn’t make sense…one of the reasons Britain is doing so well is because it’s not in the Euro Zone…and of course there’s shale gas making their industry so much more low cost.

Allen deflated pretty quickly…..guess the new ‘current affairs’ brief from the BBC Trust to be relevant, significant and insightful might be targeted at him.

Or it could be directed at the BBC’s economics ‘expert’ Evan Davis who a couple of weeks ago thought that ‘since 2010’ (when all things bad began for the BBC) the tax regime had become very light touch and allowed companies to get away with murder…hence the tax gap ‘increasing’.

Once again a BBC talking head got his backside kicked….the real expert put him right…the tax regime is in fact harsher than ever…..and the tax gap isn’t ‘bigger’ as the economy is itself bigger. The tax gap has in fact gone down percentagewise.

The BBC does seem to make a determined effort to play down any economic good news…whether it’s employment or GDP growth or exports or consumer sales or house prices rising…..there’s always a downside.

Still I’m sure if the moribund Miliband gets in they’ll be just the same.

Here’s the spin:

BBC News highly regarded and trusted but needs to act to maintain reputation with audiences, BBC Trust review finds

Here’s the actual report:

Review of BBC Network News and Current Affairs

Here’s the Big Changes acoming your way:

As a result of its findings the Trust has set out a number of actions for the BBC Executive, including:

• Developing its online and mobile news provision so that it remains relevant for audiences in a rapidly-changing market;
• broadening the agenda and tone of BBC News to address audience concerns that it can sometimes feel ‘distant’ from their lives. This includes making more use of regional and local reporters on national network news, and making further progress in creating  a more diverse workforce both on and off air;
• Increasing the impact of its current affairs output, with  commissioning decisions  driven by the significance and relevance of the subject matter and the insight offered to audiences;
• Ensuring that a wider range of international stories are available to audiences in the UK, making better use of the scale of the BBC’s foreign newsgathering resources.

Sounds like they had a good meeting.  Lots of good wine, good food, bit o’gossip, tips on tax efficient pay scams..er…. schemes….and oh yes…better dream up a few worthy management targetty type things to make ’em look productive, on the ball and with it.

Do like that bit about ‘current affairs’……improve their impact by making them significant and relevant…along with some insight…..do they really need to be telling the journos to do that?

Sounds like not a lot is going to change.

I wonder why this review of BBC news and current affairs has been made available to the Public….shouldn’t it be under lock and key?  Have they not heard that all such reviews are ‘eyes only‘ to be shrouded in secrecy behind the veil of ‘For the uses of journalism, literature or art’?

I wonder what the difference is between this review of BBC journalism and that conducted by Malcolm Balen.  Maybe the BBC, in this age of austerity, decided it couldn’t afford to spend £300,000 covering up its mistakes….or perhaps it’s just because no Israelis get killed as a result of the journalism examined in this report.