The Tories whining about the BBC coverage of the AS is utterly pathetic - the BBC haven't made up the story - it's backed up by hard analysis from the IFS. The whinging just keeps Ozzy's duff sums in the news for longer. Shambolic.
Because it's pure hyperbolic bullshit.
Government spending as a % of GDP may be predicted to be down to 35% - which is the basis of the claim that it is "back to the 30s".
But it is clear that the quality of life and the level of service provision by the government is vastly higher.
The BBC is trying to make the news. It shouldn't: it should report it instead.
It's defenders say that the licence fee is clearly well worth what you get in return, so let them prove that by giving people the choice.
You could say the same about the National Theatre, and infact most of the stuff the Arts Council pays for, plus it would give the Guardian endless mileage to scream about philistines in the government ;-)
@Socrates Here's a thought. Could it be that large parts of the of the media have a distinctly right wing agenda, reflecting the power and privileged of their owners, leading to the assumption that anyone less biased is a "shill" for the communistic elements?
The Tories whining about the BBC coverage of the AS is utterly pathetic - the BBC haven't made up the story - it's backed up by hard analysis from the IFS. The whinging just keeps Ozzy's duff sums in the news for longer. Shambolic.
Because it's pure hyperbolic bullshit.
Government spending as a % of GDP may be predicted to be down to 35% - which is the basis of the claim that it is "back to the 30s".
But it is clear that the quality of life and the level of service provision by the government is vastly higher.
The BBC is trying to make the news. It shouldn't: it should report it instead.
Ah Lib Dem incumbency. 11 of their GE2010 seats have a new candidate. That represents a potential loss of 19%. There may be 1 or 2 other retirements added to these. The main contenders in Lib Dem seats are realistically 30 Con and 27 others. Not mentioned in the main text in OGH's article is the elephant in the Lib Dem room. The rise of the Greens.
Conservatives need to realise that there will never be an impartial BBC. The institution is ingrained with a left-wing mindset to its core
Despite the endless agonies of thousands of rightwing fusspot blogs and columns, the case has never been proven because in the end it is a figment of the paranoid rightwing mind.
Wasn't what that renowned right-winger Andrew Marr said: "The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias"
While there are polling examples of a change in behaviour in a 2 stage question, the 2014 local election results did not show a special effect for LD held parliamentary seats.
"...on average the drop in the Lib-Dem vote in wards located in the constituency of an incumbent Lib-Dem MP was, at 13 points, much the same as elsewhere."
Well, a personal vote is a personal vote. It doesn't necessarily transfer to local candidates. In the USA, where they have a single ballot paper, encouraging voting by party down the line, it varies a lot: they call it the "coattails effect" if the person at the top pulls in votes for everyone else in the party, and far from everyone does.
If OGH's premis is true, then is it valid for all LD seats and also for all other seats in general (i.e the incumbecy effect of the sitting Party)? Somehow with a 4/5 party system, I think not. Why should LD seats be peculiar?
Or it it just valid for dying Parties?
It does seem to be a differential effect. I looked at this in detail a couple of weeks ago:
Really good article by antifrank. The LibDem tactical/personal vote in their seats shown by the polls is genuinely awesome.
But I do have a reservation about prompting for localness. If you prompt for any factor, it hints to the voter that when he thinks about that factor, maybe he'd like to think again about his vote. If you imagine saying "Now, thinking about what the parties have said on the NHS/the deficit/immigration, who would you vote for?" you can imagine varying results. Isn't it possible that many people think about all kinds of things when they vote, and not especially about the constituency and candidates?
This is arguing against my interest a bit, since I'd quite like Broxtowe voters to make a personal choice. Some do, but maybe not as many as prompting for it implies. The same applies, incidentally, when polls do a second VI question with leader names - again, it nudges the voter to have a think whether the leaders might make them vote differently, when he's probably factored that in to the extent that he wants to already.
So, when a two stage question is used, you think the first answer is more likely to predict voting behaviour?
I haven't heard the BBC interview that the Tories are grumbling about, but it's a general problem of the British media approach that the standard interview question is basically "Many people say you're talking nonsense. Aren't they right?" According to taste, it's either "challenging" or "biased". I don't like it much myself, but it's deluded to pretend that they only do it to Tories.
Mr. M, to be fair, it's worth recalling that a few years ago the IFS criticised a Coalition Budget or Autumn Statement for not being progressive.
The reasoning (I use the term loosely) was that less money was forecast to be spent on welfare. The fact this predicted decline was due to more people being in work and not receiving as much welfare on that basis did not alter the IFS view that it was not progressive.
"In the Telegraph, BBC correspondent Norman Smith's likening of the spending cuts required to meet Mr Osborne's aims to George Orwell's depression-era book The Road to Wigan Pier "smacks of partisanship" and is "preposterous".
If the Telegraph writers put down their champagne flutes got off their fat backsides and headed to one of the many soup kitchens just accross the river from where they work they might stop attacking the messenger and at the same time stop being a disgrace to their profession.
Despite our current problems, living standards are about 200% higher than in 1937.
The Tories whining about the BBC coverage of the AS is utterly pathetic - the BBC haven't made up the story - it's backed up by hard analysis from the IFS. The whinging just keeps Ozzy's duff sums in the news for longer. Shambolic.
Because it's pure hyperbolic bullshit.
Government spending as a % of GDP may be predicted to be down to 35% - which is the basis of the claim that it is "back to the 30s".
But it is clear that the quality of life and the level of service provision by the government is vastly higher.
The BBC is trying to make the news. It shouldn't: it should report it instead.
It would seem that the only thing the Beeb is guilty of is sound analysis - a key part of its role. It's supported by the IFS which has said the Statement would require massive cuts to public services.
Mr. W, Farage's party is third in the polls, and it's fair enough he appears. Why the BBC seems interested in the prolonged prattling of Brand is utterly beyond me.
I was expecting to answer "because he's funny", but he's not even that.
"because he's funny and a right-on leftie"
When Russell Brand makes a joke, it's no laughing matter.
Mr. M, to be fair, it's worth recalling that a few years ago the IFS criticised a Coalition Budget or Autumn Statement for not being progressive.
The reasoning (I use the term loosely) was that less money was forecast to be spent on welfare. The fact this predicted decline was due to more people being in work and not receiving as much welfare on that basis did not alter the IFS view that it was not progressive.
Its speaks volumes that the IFS advances any view at all, rather than just presenting the facts.
@Socrates Here's a thought. Could it be that large parts of the of the media have a distinctly right wing agenda, reflecting the power and privileged of their owners, leading to the assumption that anyone less biased is a "shill" for the communistic elements?
The BBC is the overwhelming dominant part of the media, accounting for the majority of news provision. And its bias is clear in objective terms, regardless of what anyone else is doing. That's why it's referring to spending going down to "1930s levels", despite the fact spending levels will be more than quadruple that, even in real terms. That's why a report that shows immigration being a £117bn loss over the last fifteen years gets reported as a £4bn gain by only taking the subset of EU immigrants. That's why they run an article about views from experts around Europen on the EU, and they only include Europhiles. The bias is clear, documented, and admitted by many senior BBC figures. Yet still, year after year, we're asked to fork over money to them for the privilege of watching other television media.
I haven't heard the BBC interview that the Tories are grumbling about, but it's a general problem of the British media approach that the standard interview question is basically "Many people say you're talking nonsense. Aren't they right?" According to taste, it's either "challenging" or "biased". I don't like it much myself, but it's deluded to pretend that they only do it to Tories.
I don't think that the Conservatives can complain about the focus on the projections that spending is to drop to the proportions seen in the 1930s. I do think that the Conservatives have a legitimate complaint about a reference in a BBC news report to The Road To Wigan Pier.
I haven't heard the BBC interview that the Tories are grumbling about, but it's a general problem of the British media approach that the standard interview question is basically "Many people say you're talking nonsense. Aren't they right?" According to taste, it's either "challenging" or "biased". I don't like it much myself, but it's deluded to pretend that they only do it to Tories.
The problem with much of this sort of questioning appears to be that "many people" really means "many people in the newsroom", or "many people in the staff canteen". In the same way as most of the media steadfastly avoid asking the man in the street, and only ask people who have polarised views, it might make for "interesting viewing" but its also paints a totally false impression.
Its not just politics, consider a story about say a member of the public killed in an incident with the police, you always hear from ACPO, the Police Federation and members of the victims family, all of which will give answers which would be covered by the covered by the famous reply of Mandy Rice-Davies "Well he would say that, wouldn't he?"
So, when a two stage question is used, you think the first answer is more likely to predict voting behaviour?
I don't know - in fact I don't think anyone knows. But my instinct would be to think the truth is halfway between the two questions on average, though the effectiveness (or not) of local campaigning will help magnify or reduce the impact.
"In the Telegraph, BBC correspondent Norman Smith's likening of the spending cuts required to meet Mr Osborne's aims to George Orwell's depression-era book The Road to Wigan Pier "smacks of partisanship" and is "preposterous".
If the Telegraph writers put down their champagne flutes got off their fat backsides and headed to one of the many soup kitchens just accross the river from where they work they might stop attacking the messenger and at the same time stop being a disgrace to their profession.
Despite our current problems, living standards are about 200% higher than in 1937.
I'm looking at data from the Angus Madison project, and that shows living standards are 316% higher than the 1930s average.
@Socrates Here's a thought. Could it be that large parts of the of the media have a distinctly right wing agenda, reflecting the power and privileged of their owners, leading to the assumption that anyone less biased is a "shill" for the communistic elements?
I'm sure they are. And so they should be. I'm entirely happy for the Daily Mail to be righty and the Guardian to be lefty if that's what their owners require. But the BBC is different. It's there for all including righties. And those righties are very poorly served by the Beeb.
The Tories whining about the BBC coverage of the AS is utterly pathetic - the BBC haven't made up the story - it's backed up by hard analysis from the IFS. The whinging just keeps Ozzy's duff sums in the news for longer. Shambolic.
Because it's pure hyperbolic bullshit.
Government spending as a % of GDP may be predicted to be down to 35% - which is the basis of the claim that it is "back to the 30s".
But it is clear that the quality of life and the level of service provision by the government is vastly higher.
The BBC is trying to make the news. It shouldn't: it should report it instead.
The IFS report was hyperbolic bullshit?
No. The IFS pointed out an interesting factoid and made a comparison (no doubt aimed at generating headlines).
But the real world experience of the "man in the street" is very different today than it will be in 30s.
The hyperbole comes from the prominence given to something interesting but not important. The bullshit is because it will leave ordinary people with a false impression.
I haven't heard the BBC interview that the Tories are grumbling about, but it's a general problem of the British media approach that the standard interview question is basically "Many people say you're talking nonsense. Aren't they right?" According to taste, it's either "challenging" or "biased". I don't like it much myself, but it's deluded to pretend that they only do it to Tories.
Yes, but that question can be asked from the right and the left. And the BBC always asks it from the left. Even when Labour were in power, they were challenged from the left. When you're lot were piling up debt in both the public and private sector faster than any other developed economy, it was barely ever challenged by the BBC. It was always is this really enough to help this group or that group. And hence why we're in the place we're in now.
The truth is that all those people out there who have a life are just not that interested but an optimist for democracy might think the reason there is little sign of a bounce from the Autumn statement is that the reality is breaking through the clever gimmicks that got the initial headlines.
The restraint (overall spending has still risen) in spending in this Parliament has not closed half the deficit and the economy is clearly not capable of generating the level of taxes once assumed. The assumptions in Osborne's figures would indeed change the nature and role of the State in a fundamental way if fully implemented. Basically our State would become a Health and Pension provider with a few incidental add ons.
Is this what people want or are they willing to pay more in taxes to maintain the sort of welfare state we have been used to? This is the real question at the next election but as usual Labour have nothing to say on the subject. The Lib Dems, interestingly, do and I expect Danny Alexander to have a bit of a star role in the next campaign as the media desperately search for some intelligent debate.
Good morning David - and a good post as ever. I wrote yesterday that the Statement had rapidly unravelled because the public knows that the government cannot afford it. And the cuts required are sheer fantasy - they simply cannot be realised. The celebrations from some on PB came, as is so often the case, way too loud, and way too early.
It's fine for the Cons.
They have talked the talk. The public as you say know that they won't be able to walk the walk but that's perfect.
Far be it for me to decipher GO & the Cons' strategy for you but in short, we saw a commitment to fiscal responsibility in 2010 which became impossible to implement (as someone else wrote: the Cons actually implemented the Lab plan of cutting 1/2 the deficit). But at least they talked tough which reassured people and the markets while reassuring people that it wouldn't be "that bad".
And they are doing the same again. Talking tough with everyone knowing that it won't be "that bad" and at least there is a plan.
Call it "Pragmatic Conservatism".
What does Lab have? They can't even work out if they want to cut faster (criticising the Cons for not reducing the deficit) or cut slower (their stated position).
@Patrick Quite often I think much the same, in that the BBC's coverage is far too "establishment". The middle ground of reportage does not always coincide with our personal viewpoint.
@Socrates They need to employ a right winger to head the organization and sort it out then.
They need to allow the BBC to go independent and raise its own cash, that's what they need to do. If we want specific "national interest" programming beyond that, we can have a funding body that gives out money on a program by program basis, according to the merits of its educational value. All channels should be allowed to bid.
The Tories whining about the BBC coverage of the AS is utterly pathetic - the BBC haven't made up the story - it's backed up by hard analysis from the IFS. The whinging just keeps Ozzy's duff sums in the news for longer. Shambolic.
Because it's pure hyperbolic bullshit.
Government spending as a % of GDP may be predicted to be down to 35% - which is the basis of the claim that it is "back to the 30s".
But it is clear that the quality of life and the level of service provision by the government is vastly higher.
The BBC is trying to make the news. It shouldn't: it should report it instead.
It would seem that the only thing the Beeb is guilty of is sound analysis - a key part of its role. It's supported by the IFS which has said the Statement would require massive cuts to public services.
No: sound analysis would be "we don't believe that the planned cuts in public spending are achievable because..." would be sound analysis.
"You're all going to starve to death in a freezing garret"* is not sound analysis. It's hyperbole.
* I personally think "Down and Out in Paris and London" is far more interesting and moving than "the Road to Wigan Pier"
The Tories whining about the BBC coverage of the AS is utterly pathetic - the BBC haven't made up the story - it's backed up by hard analysis from the IFS. The whinging just keeps Ozzy's duff sums in the news for longer. Shambolic.
Because it's pure hyperbolic bullshit.
Government spending as a % of GDP may be predicted to be down to 35% - which is the basis of the claim that it is "back to the 30s".
But it is clear that the quality of life and the level of service provision by the government is vastly higher.
The BBC is trying to make the news. It shouldn't: it should report it instead.
It would seem that the only thing the Beeb is guilty of is sound analysis - a key part of its role. It's supported by the IFS which has said the Statement would require massive cuts to public services.
No: sound analysis would be "we don't believe that the planned cuts in public spending are achievable because..." would be sound analysis.
"You're all going to starve to death in a freezing garret"* is not sound analysis. It's hyperbole.
* I personally think "Down and Out in Paris and London" is far more interesting and moving than "the Road to Wigan Pier"
I noticed George Osborne had a bit of a dig at the BBC in his radio 4 interview with Humphreys this week. In a way John Humphreys got it a bit unfairly as the real target I believe was Evan Davis who presided over a totally unprofessional interview with Osborne last year when he basically kept calling him over not answering the question when he wasn't even allowing Osborne to speak to answer the question and was very rude .
Evan Davis is OK on Dragens' Den and business stuff but he is unsuited to political journalism imo -He lets his own feelings come out and also believes he has some superiority in his own views. Newsnight was going to hard for anyone taking over from the great Paxman but Evan Davis FGS!!
The truth is that all those people out there who have a life are just not that interested but an optimist for democracy might think the reason there is little sign of a bounce from the Autumn statement is that the reality is breaking through the clever gimmicks that got the initial headlines.
The restraint (overall spending has still risen) in spending in this Parliament has not closed half the deficit and the economy is clearly not capable of generating the level of taxes once assumed. The assumptions in Osborne's figures would indeed change the nature and role of the State in a fundamental way if fully implemented. Basically our State would become a Health and Pension provider with a few incidental add ons.
Is this what people want or are they willing to pay more in taxes to maintain the sort of welfare state we have been used to? This is the real question at the next election but as usual Labour have nothing to say on the subject. The Lib Dems, interestingly, do and I expect Danny Alexander to have a bit of a star role in the next campaign as the media desperately search for some intelligent debate.
Good morning David - and a good post as ever. I wrote yesterday that the Statement had rapidly unravelled because the public knows that the government cannot afford it. And the cuts required are sheer fantasy - they simply cannot be realised. The celebrations from some on PB came, as is so often the case, way too loud, and way too early.
It's fine for the Cons.
They have talked the talk. The public as you say know that they won't be able to walk the walk but that's perfect.
Far be it for me to decipher GO & the Cons' strategy for you but in short, we saw a commitment to fiscal responsibility in 2010 which became impossible to implement (as someone else wrote: the Cons actually implemented the Lab plan of cutting 1/2 the deficit). But at least they talked tough which reassured people and the markets while reassuring people that it wouldn't be "that bad".
And they are doing the same again. Talking tough with everyone knowing that it won't be "that bad" and at least there is a plan.
Call it "Pragmatic Conservatism".
What does Lab have? They can't even work out if they want to cut faster (criticising the Cons for not reducing the deficit) or cut slower (their stated position).
"I don't think that the Conservatives can complain about the focus on the projections that spending is to drop to the proportions seen in the 1930s."
Antifrank makes a good point. Wasn't it Osborne himself who said this government was going to reduce the state to the smallest its been for 80 years?
Things sweet prove in digestion sour.....as always seems to be the way with Osborne's big moments. This could well form the basis of Labour's -until now rather skeletal- election campaign. I could suggest some iconic images.....
The truth is that all those people out there who have a life are just not that interested but an optimist for democracy might think the reason there is little sign of a bounce from the Autumn statement is that the reality is breaking through the clever gimmicks that got the initial headlines.
The restraint (overall spending has still risen) in spending in this Parliament has not closed half the deficit and the economy is clearly not capable of generating the level of taxes once assumed. The assumptions in Osborne's figures would indeed change the nature and role of the State in a fundamental way if fully implemented. Basically our State would become a Health and Pension provider with a few incidental add ons.
Is this what people want or are they willing to pay more in taxes to maintain the sort of welfare state we have been used to? This is the real question at the next election but as usual Labour have nothing to say on the subject. The Lib Dems, interestingly, do and I expect Danny Alexander to have a bit of a star role in the next campaign as the media desperately search for some intelligent debate.
Good morning David - and a good post as ever. I wrote yesterday that the Statement had rapidly unravelled because the public knows that the government cannot afford it. And the cuts required are sheer fantasy - they simply cannot be realised. The celebrations from some on PB came, as is so often the case, way too loud, and way too early.
It's fine for the Cons.
They have talked the talk. The public as you say know that they won't be able to walk the walk but that's perfect.
Far be it for me to decipher GO & the Cons' strategy for you but in short, we saw a commitment to fiscal responsibility in 2010 which became impossible to implement (as someone else wrote: the Cons actually implemented the Lab plan of cutting 1/2 the deficit). But at least they talked tough which reassured people and the markets while reassuring people that it wouldn't be "that bad".
And they are doing the same again. Talking tough with everyone knowing that it won't be "that bad" and at least there is a plan.
Call it "Pragmatic Conservatism".
What does Lab have? They can't even work out if they want to cut faster (criticising the Cons for not reducing the deficit) or cut slower (their stated position).
"I don't think that the Conservatives can complain about the focus on the projections that spending is to drop to the proportions seen in the 1930s."
Antifrank makes a good point. Wasn't it Osborne himself who said this government was going to reduce the state to the smallest its been for 80 years?
Things sweet prove in digestion sour.....as always seems to be the way with Osborne's big moments. This could well form the basis of Labour's -until now rather skeletal- election campaign. I could suggest some iconic images.....
@Patrick Quite often I think much the same, in that the BBC's coverage is far too "establishment". The middle ground of reportage does not always coincide with our personal viewpoint.
Agreed. I find their obsequious toadying of the Royal Family pretty hard to handle.
I haven't heard the BBC interview that the Tories are grumbling about, but it's a general problem of the British media approach that the standard interview question is basically "Many people say you're talking nonsense. Aren't they right?" According to taste, it's either "challenging" or "biased". I don't like it much myself, but it's deluded to pretend that they only do it to Tories.
Yes, but that question can be asked from the right and the left. And the BBC always asks it from the left. Even when Labour were in power, they were challenged from the left. When you're lot were piling up debt in both the public and private sector faster than any other developed economy, it was barely ever challenged by the BBC. It was always is this really enough to help this group or that group. And hence why we're in the place we're in now.
Again, when you're so far out on the unpopular Right, everything looks left wing I guess.
Before the General Election in 2010 every Labour minister was asked "well what would you cut?" mimicking the Tory campaign themes.
The fact we're now here 5 years later and Osborne is having to imply further cuts because the original cuts agenda didn't work is rightfully held up for questioning.
This is the kind of interrogation the Beeb did not show with the disastrous Health and social care act 2012 which passed without any scrutiny at all.
"In the Telegraph, BBC correspondent Norman Smith's likening of the spending cuts required to meet Mr Osborne's aims to George Orwell's depression-era book The Road to Wigan Pier "smacks of partisanship" and is "preposterous".
If the Telegraph writers put down their champagne flutes got off their fat backsides and headed to one of the many soup kitchens just accross the river from where they work they might stop attacking the messenger and at the same time stop being a disgrace to their profession.
Despite our current problems, living standards are about 200% higher than in 1937.
I'm looking at data from the Angus Madison project, and that shows living standards are 316% higher than the 1930s average.
Thanks. It's curious to think that our grandparents (living in one of the world's richest countries) experienced a standard living that would now be equivalent to a reasonably prosperous third world country.
There's simply no comparison (in material terms) between life in a slum in the 1930s (or even 1950s or 1960s) and life today.
"I don't think that the Conservatives can complain about the focus on the projections that spending is to drop to the proportions seen in the 1930s."
Antifrank makes a good point. Wasn't it Osborne himself who said this government was going to reduce the state to the smallest its been for 80 years?
Things sweet prove in digestion sour.....as always seems to be the way with Osborne's big moments. This could well form the basis of Labour's -until now rather skeletal- election campaign. I could suggest some iconic images.....
I think a lot of lefties think we are actually going back to 1930 rather than just the same ratio of government to private spending as in 1930.
But the ratio matters. People have much higher expectations of the public services. The NHS didn't even exist in 1930, never mind sophisticated police operations, mass higher education, school leaving age of 18, motorways etc etc.
@Patrick Quite often I think much the same, in that the BBC's coverage is far too "establishment". The middle ground of reportage does not always coincide with our personal viewpoint.
There is a substantial body of people who want to see the power of politicians and of the state generally reduced. The BBC serves them not at all. I, for example, would be delighted to see the Department of Education disbanded entirely and for every child to get a voucher the parents can spend at the school of their choice (the existing schools themselves having been 100% sold off). The market would immediately match supply / demand and schools would compete. There'd be a transformation in discipline, quality, etc - and, more importantly, schools would educate children according to the wishes of their parents not some untouchable in Whitehall. We would save significant money on education and at the same time significantly improve its outcomes. To me that is great. To some it is 'Wigan Pier'. But the BBC will never host such a debate. THAT is the problem.
The Tories whining about the BBC coverage of the AS is utterly pathetic - the BBC haven't made up the story - it's backed up by hard analysis from the IFS. The whinging just keeps Ozzy's duff sums in the news for longer. Shambolic.
Because it's pure hyperbolic bullshit.
Government spending as a % of GDP may be predicted to be down to 35% - which is the basis of the claim that it is "back to the 30s".
But it is clear that the quality of life and the level of service provision by the government is vastly higher.
The BBC is trying to make the news. It shouldn't: it should report it instead.
It would seem that the only thing the Beeb is guilty of is sound analysis - a key part of its role. It's supported by the IFS which has said the Statement would require massive cuts to public services.
No: sound analysis would be "we don't believe that the planned cuts in public spending are achievable because..." would be sound analysis.
"You're all going to starve to death in a freezing garret"* is not sound analysis. It's hyperbole.
* I personally think "Down and Out in Paris and London" is far more interesting and moving than "the Road to Wigan Pier"
The IFS has said it would require massive cuts in public services. It is of course nothing to worry about because, as even Tories like Mr Topping admit, the Statement is a work of sheer fantasy.
"I don't think that the Conservatives can complain about the focus on the projections that spending is to drop to the proportions seen in the 1930s."
Antifrank makes a good point. Wasn't it Osborne himself who said this government was going to reduce the state to the smallest its been for 80 years?
Things sweet prove in digestion sour.....as always seems to be the way with Osborne's big moments. This could well form the basis of Labour's -until now rather skeletal- election campaign. I could suggest some iconic images.....
I think a lot of lefties think we are actually going back to 1930 rather than just the same ratio of government to private spending as in 1930.
But the ratio matters. People have much higher expectations of the public services. The NHS didn't even exist in 1930, never mind sophisticated police operations, mass higher education, school leaving age of 18, motorways etc etc.
but then again the Empire did exist as did a bigger defence threat and the need for infrastructure (pylons ,roads etc) was just as much needed then as now! NHS granted but the rest of your examples its fairly dubious as to whether those things improve life or the country .
@Patrick The "market" has no conscience,and is therefore not a panacea for all ills. Anyone who thinks that it is, is delusional.
To anyone that thinks that Big Government has a conscience, one only needs to points at the disgraceful positioning and buck-passing around scandals such as Baby P.
F1: apparently part of the reason for the delay over Button/Magnussen getting their deal (or not) is over who'll run McLaren in a few weeks' time. Either Ron Dennis will claim control and do as he likes, or he won't, and he may depart as suddenly as he arrived.
@Patrick The "market" has no conscience,and is therefore not a panacea for all ills. Anyone who thinks that it is, is delusional.
And government central planning does? Who gets to decide 'conscience'? Lefties? My conscience tells me that generations of kids have been disastrously let down by an educational establishment that fetishises claptrap ideology over and above actually educating the little buggers. The DoE and NUT have no conscience whatever about forcing good outcomes. They're WAY more interested in protecting shite teachers or ensuring all the children know how to save a whale than how to multiply.
The left arrogates to itself a monopoly ownership of 'conscience' - but then displays none when in power. Let the parents' consciences rule.
@Patrick Quite often I think much the same, in that the BBC's coverage is far too "establishment". The middle ground of reportage does not always coincide with our personal viewpoint.
There is a substantial body of people who want to see the power of politicians and of the state generally reduced. The BBC serves them not at all. I, for example, would be delighted to see the Department of Education disbanded entirely and for every child to get a voucher the parents can spend at the school of their choice (the existing schools themselves having been 100% sold off). The market would immediately match supply / demand and schools would compete. There'd be a transformation in discipline, quality, etc - and, more importantly, schools would educate children according to the wishes of their parents not some untouchable in Whitehall. We would save significant money on education and at the same time significantly improve its outcomes. To me that is great. To some it is 'Wigan Pier'. But the BBC will never host such a debate. THAT is the problem.
The reason why no advanced country follows the purist voucher route is because the benefits for such a system you cite are a fiction.
And in terms of numbers of voters who agree with your preferred model? I'd say you're in a very tiny minority.
@Patrick Quite often I think much the same, in that the BBC's coverage is far too "establishment". The middle ground of reportage does not always coincide with our personal viewpoint.
There is a substantial body of people who want to see the power of politicians and of the state generally reduced. The BBC serves them not at all. I, for example, would be delighted to see the Department of Education disbanded entirely and for every child to get a voucher the parents can spend at the school of their choice (the existing schools themselves having been 100% sold off). The market would immediately match supply / demand and schools would compete. There'd be a transformation in discipline, quality, etc - and, more importantly, schools would educate children according to the wishes of their parents not some untouchable in Whitehall. We would save significant money on education and at the same time significantly improve its outcomes. To me that is great. To some it is 'Wigan Pier'. But the BBC will never host such a debate. THAT is the problem.
The reason why no advanced country follows the purist voucher route is because the benefits for such a system you cite are a fiction.
And in terms of numbers of voters who agree with your preferred model? I'd say you're in a very tiny minority.
@Patrick Quite often I think much the same, in that the BBC's coverage is far too "establishment". The middle ground of reportage does not always coincide with our personal viewpoint.
There is a substantial body of people who want to see the power of politicians and of the state generally reduced. The BBC serves them not at all. I, for example, would be delighted to see the Department of Education disbanded entirely and for every child to get a voucher the parents can spend at the school of their choice (the existing schools themselves having been 100% sold off). The market would immediately match supply / demand and schools would compete. There'd be a transformation in discipline, quality, etc - and, more importantly, schools would educate children according to the wishes of their parents not some untouchable in Whitehall. We would save significant money on education and at the same time significantly improve its outcomes. To me that is great. To some it is 'Wigan Pier'. But the BBC will never host such a debate. THAT is the problem.
The reason why no advanced country follows the purist voucher route is because the benefits for such a system you cite are a fiction.
And in terms of numbers of voters who agree with your preferred model? I'd say you're in a very tiny minority.
So let a public broadcaster hold the debate and explore the merits of the case in front of the public, and if you are right demonstrate it for all to see. The worst thing about the left is all the "no platform" horsesh*t about anything they dont like the sound of, or that doesn't fit in with their world view.
"I don't think that the Conservatives can complain about the focus on the projections that spending is to drop to the proportions seen in the 1930s."
Antifrank makes a good point. Wasn't it Osborne himself who said this government was going to reduce the state to the smallest its been for 80 years?
Things sweet prove in digestion sour.....as always seems to be the way with Osborne's big moments. This could well form the basis of Labour's -until now rather skeletal- election campaign. I could suggest some iconic images.....
I think a lot of lefties think we are actually going back to 1930 rather than just the same ratio of government to private spending as in 1930.
But the ratio matters. People have much higher expectations of the public services. The NHS didn't even exist in 1930, never mind sophisticated police operations, mass higher education, school leaving age of 18, motorways etc etc.
but then again the Empire did exist as did a bigger defence threat and the need for infrastructure (pylons ,roads etc) was just as much needed then as now! NHS granted but the rest of your examples its fairly dubious as to whether those things improve life or the country .
But do voters really want to lose them? The cutting back to 1930s meme might well cause the Tories some trouble in run-up to GE. I can't see Osborne being able to hold to this line about vague promises to spell it all out some time down the road. How is he going to cut the non-protected departments by the huge % that are required?
I think it's spot on, actually - I've been arguing about the salience point for some time, and it applies to all parties. That's a very illuminating chart.
@Patrick Quite often I think much the same, in that the BBC's coverage is far too "establishment". The middle ground of reportage does not always coincide with our personal viewpoint.
There is a substantial body of people who want to see the power of politicians and of the state generally reduced. The BBC serves them not at all. I, for example, would be delighted to see the Department of Education disbanded entirely and for every child to get a voucher the parents can spend at the school of their choice (the existing schools themselves having been 100% sold off). The market would immediately match supply / demand and schools would compete. There'd be a transformation in discipline, quality, etc - and, more importantly, schools would educate children according to the wishes of their parents not some untouchable in Whitehall. We would save significant money on education and at the same time significantly improve its outcomes. To me that is great. To some it is 'Wigan Pier'. But the BBC will never host such a debate. THAT is the problem.
The reason why no advanced country follows the purist voucher route is because the benefits for such a system you cite are a fiction.
And in terms of numbers of voters who agree with your preferred model? I'd say you're in a very tiny minority.
I agree with it.
So apply the ratio:
[(posters on PB who agree with a purist voucher route)/(posters on PB who disagree with purist voucher route)])
"I don't think that the Conservatives can complain about the focus on the projections that spending is to drop to the proportions seen in the 1930s."
Antifrank makes a good point. Wasn't it Osborne himself who said this government was going to reduce the state to the smallest its been for 80 years?
Things sweet prove in digestion sour.....as always seems to be the way with Osborne's big moments. This could well form the basis of Labour's -until now rather skeletal- election campaign. I could suggest some iconic images.....
I think a lot of lefties think we are actually going back to 1930 rather than just the same ratio of government to private spending as in 1930.
But the ratio matters. People have much higher expectations of the public services. The NHS didn't even exist in 1930, never mind sophisticated police operations, mass higher education, school leaving age of 18, motorways etc etc.
but then again the Empire did exist as did a bigger defence threat and the need for infrastructure (pylons ,roads etc) was just as much needed then as now! NHS granted but the rest of your examples its fairly dubious as to whether those things improve life or the country .
But do voters really want to lose them? The cutting back to 1930s meme might well cause the Tories some trouble in run-up to GE. I can't see Osborne being able to hold to this line about vague promises to spell it all out some time down the road. How is he going to cut the non-protected departments by the huge % that are required?
But you talk like we have a choice. Taxation demonstrably won't fill the gap. Any government of any color needs to cut 100bn from our annual spending over the next few years. Unless they follow the BenM view and want us to be the next Italy or Greece. Its not like advanced democracy hasn't done it before - Canada 1995.
@Patrick The "market" has no conscience,and is therefore not a panacea for all ills. Anyone who thinks that it is, is delusional.
The market also doesn't do sentimentality or mawkishness, which is to be greatly admired, as our politicians are drawn to sentimentality and mawkishness like moths to a flame. Usually at huge cost.
@Patrick Quite often I think much the same, in that the BBC's coverage is far too "establishment". The middle ground of reportage does not always coincide with our personal viewpoint.
There is a substantial body of people who want to see the power of politicians and of the state generally reduced. The BBC serves them not at all. I, for example, would be delighted to see the Department of Education disbanded entirely and for every child to get a voucher the parents can spend at the school of their choice (the existing schools themselves having been 100% sold off). The market would immediately match supply / demand and schools would compete. There'd be a transformation in discipline, quality, etc - and, more importantly, schools would educate children according to the wishes of their parents not some untouchable in Whitehall. We would save significant money on education and at the same time significantly improve its outcomes. To me that is great. To some it is 'Wigan Pier'. But the BBC will never host such a debate. THAT is the problem.
The reason why no advanced country follows the purist voucher route is because the benefits for such a system you cite are a fiction.
And in terms of numbers of voters who agree with your preferred model? I'd say you're in a very tiny minority.
Given the number of parents I've seen who don't actually care what school their children go to I really can't see a voucher scheme solving anything.
And its remarkable how often voucher schemes suggestions seems to come from poorer middle class people who can no longer afford to pay the school fees but still want to go...
@Patrick Quite often I think much the same, in that the BBC's coverage is far too "establishment". The middle ground of reportage does not always coincide with our personal viewpoint.
There is a substantial body of people who want to see the power of politicians and of the state generally reduced. The BBC serves them not at all. I, for example, would be delighted to see the Department of Education disbanded entirely and for every child to get a voucher the parents can spend at the school of their choice (the existing schools themselves having been 100% sold off). The market would immediately match supply / demand and schools would compete. There'd be a transformation in discipline, quality, etc - and, more importantly, schools would educate children according to the wishes of their parents not some untouchable in Whitehall. We would save significant money on education and at the same time significantly improve its outcomes. To me that is great. To some it is 'Wigan Pier'. But the BBC will never host such a debate. THAT is the problem.
The reason why no advanced country follows the purist voucher route is because the benefits for such a system you cite are a fiction.
And in terms of numbers of voters who agree with your preferred model? I'd say you're in a very tiny minority.
You sound afraid. Very afraid.
Yes I'd be afraid if such a blatantly destructive and useless policy was ever pushed by any mainstream Party.
Thankfully vouchers appeal to a very tiny number of ideologically blinkered voters so there is no danger of them being imposed here.
@Patrick Quite often I think much the same, in that the BBC's coverage is far too "establishment". The middle ground of reportage does not always coincide with our personal viewpoint.
There is a substantial body of people who want to see the power of politicians and of the state generally reduced. The BBC serves them not at all. I, for example, would be delighted to see the Department of Education disbanded entirely and for every child to get a voucher the parents can spend at the school of their choice (the existing schools themselves having been 100% sold off). The market would immediately match supply / demand and schools would compete. There'd be a transformation in discipline, quality, etc - and, more importantly, schools would educate children according to the wishes of their parents not some untouchable in Whitehall. We would save significant money on education and at the same time significantly improve its outcomes. To me that is great. To some it is 'Wigan Pier'. But the BBC will never host such a debate. THAT is the problem.
The reason why no advanced country follows the purist voucher route is because the benefits for such a system you cite are a fiction.
And in terms of numbers of voters who agree with your preferred model? I'd say you're in a very tiny minority.
So let a public broadcaster hold the debate and explore the merits of the case in front of the public, and if you are right demonstrate it for all to see. The worst thing about the left is all the "no platform" horsesh*t about anything they dont like the sound of, or that doesn't fit in with their world view.
Silly of politicians to complain about the media, let alone try to bully them, as all parties do and have done.
Any half-way competent politician ought to be able to deal with tough questions from journalists, regardless of any bias there is.
If anything I think a lot of the so-called tough questioning is rather misdirected and incoherent. The questions are also far too long. For instance, rather than go on about the 1930's the rather tougher question would be that the Tories are not being honest about what their projections would mean, if they're to be kept, and to ask them what sort of state they envisage having and what it will do. Too often the questioners are really having a debate and putting forward their own view and, as any good barrister knows, that is the wrong way to ask really tough or, indeed, lethal questions.
Even if some taxes rose (and doing it badly would cost us lost growth and jobs), spending must be cut. It's all very well bleating about it, but it's not optional. We cut, or we run a deficit until we run the country into the ground.
A few decades ago Argentina was about the 9th largest economy in the world. And then it fell off a cliff. The eurozone seems determined to sacrifice economic reason on the altar of a political fantasy. If we're going to have a chance of staying in good shape we need to get our house in order.
Universal high quality state provision of schooling is a settled issue.
Coming from the party that had British educational standards in free-fall down the international league tables through the whole of their tenure that comes as a bit of a laugh.
Still, if all this reference to The Road to Wigan Pier gets people rereading Orwell's excellent essays and reportage, that will be a wonderful outcome.
@Socrates News should be "commercially viable?.......It's definitely worth thinking about. What's the going price for a "grannie"* these days?
*A well used expression, "That bugger would sell his own grandmother given half a chance".
Again, that's not what I said. I said that sport was commercially viable, so would not need to compete for public broadcasting funds. Given that a lot of news might not be commercially viable, I think they should big for funding. You could then have a committee of people with a range of political views vote to award funding.
@Socrates News should be "commercially viable?.......It's definitely worth thinking about. What's the going price for a "grannie"* these days?
*A well used expression, "That bugger would sell his own grandmother given half a chance".
Again, that's not what I said. I said that sport was commercially viable, so would not need to compete for public broadcasting funds. Given that a lot of news might not be commercially viable, I think they should big for funding. You could then have a committee of people with a range of political views vote to award funding.
How much government funding does CNN, FoxNews, CNBC, MSNBC etc get ?
But I do have a reservation about prompting for localness. If you prompt for any factor, it hints to the voter that when he thinks about that factor, maybe he'd like to think again about his vote. If you imagine saying "Now, thinking about what the parties have said on the NHS/the deficit/immigration, who would you vote for?" you can imagine varying results. Isn't it possible that many people think about all kinds of things when they vote, and not especially about the constituency and candidates?
That's why Lib Dem target seat campaigns are so intensive. Their aim is to make sure that voters in that constituency are focussed on the local candidate and the local tactical position when they go to cast their vote.
Looking at the last ICM, 67% of the DKs voted for someone in 2010 (CON: 16% LAB:21% LD:30%), is the high level of DK for former LD voters an indication of disenchantment with their party? Or does it suggest that the LDs attract a high level of "uncommited" voters who in effect drift into the polling booth and select the LDs because they are the "Mateus Rose" party (not red and not white, not sweet and not dry, not still and not sparkling).
It's a bit of both, with a bit more of the former than would have been the case previously.
@Socrates News should be "commercially viable?.......It's definitely worth thinking about. What's the going price for a "grannie"* these days?
*A well used expression, "That bugger would sell his own grandmother given half a chance".
Again, that's not what I said. I said that sport was commercially viable, so would not need to compete for public broadcasting funds. Given that a lot of news might not be commercially viable, I think they should big for funding. You could then have a committee of people with a range of political views vote to award funding.
How much government funding does CNN, FoxNews, CNBC, MSNBC etc get ?
None, but I think there is a case for better quality news than Fox and MSNBC.
@Socrates News should be "commercially viable?.......It's definitely worth thinking about. What's the going price for a "grannie"* these days?
*A well used expression, "That bugger would sell his own grandmother given half a chance".
Again, that's not what I said. I said that sport was commercially viable, so would not need to compete for public broadcasting funds. Given that a lot of news might not be commercially viable, I think they should big for funding. You could then have a committee of people with a range of political views vote to award funding.
How much government funding does CNN, FoxNews, CNBC, MSNBC etc get ?
The US media is even more relentlessly pro immigration and pro Israeli than our own so I don't think it is a good example.
Like a lot of people my age I consume my news through the internet where special interests carry no weight. The times they are a changing and the dinosaur media is failing to evolve. When all is said and done the BBC does far too much and should focus again on just its core responsibilities which could be done for a fraction of the cost. The BBC is too dominant and it is unhealthy for a state broadcaster to be so.
It's safe to say the Autumn statement plans won't be implemented. I think even Osborne knows this. He is just trying to set a trap for Labour who will obviously now plan tax rises which Osborne will claim is a tax on aspiration to fund yet more Labour spending blah blah blah. However I think Osborne has misjudged this. It's clear as day how draconian his plans are. Whether or no the BBC overstepped the mark you can't call the IFS biased.
"I don't think that the Conservatives can complain about the focus on the projections that spending is to drop to the proportions seen in the 1930s."
Antifrank makes a good point. Wasn't it Osborne himself who said this government was going to reduce the state to the smallest its been for 80 years?
Things sweet prove in digestion sour.....as always seems to be the way with Osborne's big moments. This could well form the basis of Labour's -until now rather skeletal- election campaign. I could suggest some iconic images.....
I think a lot of lefties think we are actually going back to 1930 rather than just the same ratio of government to private spending as in 1930.
But the ratio matters. People have much higher expectations of the public services. The NHS didn't even exist in 1930, never mind sophisticated police operations, mass higher education, school leaving age of 18, motorways etc etc.
but then again the Empire did exist as did a bigger defence threat and the need for infrastructure (pylons ,roads etc) was just as much needed then as now! NHS granted but the rest of your examples its fairly dubious as to whether those things improve life or the country .
But do voters really want to lose them? The cutting back to 1930s meme might well cause the Tories some trouble in run-up to GE. I can't see Osborne being able to hold to this line about vague promises to spell it all out some time down the road. How is he going to cut the non-protected departments by the huge % that are required?
It's popular to cut taxes/not put up taxes. But people will eventually notice when money isn't spent. Roads were a good example of this, money was 'saved' by not repairing roads until things got so bad that money had to be found. Probably more money than if maintenance had been continual. Our politicians should draw the line in the correct place, that's what they are paid for. What the Tories are offering is coming across as too extreme and will probably backfire.
@Socrates News should be "commercially viable?.......It's definitely worth thinking about. What's the going price for a "grannie"* these days?
*A well used expression, "That bugger would sell his own grandmother given half a chance".
Again, that's not what I said. I said that sport was commercially viable, so would not need to compete for public broadcasting funds. Given that a lot of news might not be commercially viable, I think they should big for funding. You could then have a committee of people with a range of political views vote to award funding.
How much government funding does CNN, FoxNews, CNBC, MSNBC etc get ?
None, but I think there is a case for better quality news than Fox and MSNBC.
Fox news did bring some welcome diversity to US broadcasting, been a big commercial success, but as a Murdoch outlet it toes the neo con line on social issues, immigration and foreign policy so the American people are still only given one side of the argument.
Did they do it as a major news item like yesterday ?
Did they make reference to Wigan Pier?
Did you ask those thing? I thought you asked:
"Did the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation do reports based on the IFS when the IFS and others were warning about Gordon Brown's high borrowing?
No, thought not."
Have you agreed that you were wrong?
It was clear from my original inference that's what I was referring to.
I'm never wrong. Me being wrong is unpossible.
Careful, you're challenging ISAM as 'The Man Who Is Never Wrong'. But at least you're doing it with humour - 'unpossible' indeed.
It pains me to have to disagree with you/ correct you yet again, but just last night I was completely wrong in an argument with @chestnut and admitted it as soon as I realised. I also apologised and said I got it wrong for tipping under 50% turnout in Rochester
It's just that when you have tried to challenge me, it is you that has been wrong every time, so I didn't have chance to admit it
What the Tories are offering is coming across as too extreme and will probably backfire.
The cuts themselves aren't the problem. The problem is that we are spending 11 billion on overseas aid and 12 billion on EU membership at the same time as those cuts.
Its just too easy to attack. And voters get simple stuff like this.
The cuts themselves aren't the problem. The problem is that we are spending 11 billion on overseas aid and 12 billion on EU membership at the same time as those cuts.
The Tories whining about the BBC coverage of the AS is utterly pathetic - the BBC haven't made up the story - it's backed up by hard analysis from the IFS. The whinging just keeps Ozzy's duff sums in the news for longer. Shambolic.
Because it's pure hyperbolic bullshit.
Government spending as a % of GDP may be predicted to be down to 35% - which is the basis of the claim that it is "back to the 30s".
But it is clear that the quality of life and the level of service provision by the government is vastly higher.
The BBC is trying to make the news. It shouldn't: it should report it instead.
It would seem that the only thing the Beeb is guilty of is sound analysis - a key part of its role. It's supported by the IFS which has said the Statement would require massive cuts to public services.
No: sound analysis would be "we don't believe that the planned cuts in public spending are achievable because..." would be sound analysis.
"You're all going to starve to death in a freezing garret"* is not sound analysis. It's hyperbole.
* I personally think "Down and Out in Paris and London" is far more interesting and moving than "the Road to Wigan Pier"
The IFS has said it would require massive cuts in public services. It is of course nothing to worry about because, as even Tories like Mr Topping admit, the Statement is a work of sheer fantasy.
And the BBC is failing in its job to report and dissect the IFS report. They may be right, they may be wrong: let's have the debate.
Instead they are using it as a hook for a "we're all going to freeze to death" routine.
Antifrank had it spot on: the factual scaffold is a fair basis for criticism. The emotive approach to the reporting casts no light on the facts and is biased against one side of the debate.
What the Tories are offering is coming across as too extreme and will probably backfire.
The cuts themselves aren't the problem. The problem is that we are spending 11 billion on overseas aid and 12 billion on EU membership at the same time as those cuts.
Its just too easy to attack. And voters get simple stuff like this.
No, the cuts *are* the problem.
Neither Labour nor the Lib Dems are going to attack from the EU / Overseas aid angle. They're obsessions of the tabloid Right.
Comments
Government spending as a % of GDP may be predicted to be down to 35% - which is the basis of the claim that it is "back to the 30s".
But it is clear that the quality of life and the level of service provision by the government is vastly higher.
The BBC is trying to make the news. It shouldn't: it should report it instead.
@PopulusPolls: Latest Populus VI: Lab 35 (=), Con 33 (+1), LD 9 (=), UKIP 14 (=), Oth 9 (-1). Tables here http://t.co/gfq5nvIAYj
Here's a thought. Could it be that large parts of the of the media have a distinctly right wing agenda, reflecting the power and privileged of their owners, leading to the assumption that anyone less biased is a "shill" for the communistic elements?
11 of their GE2010 seats have a new candidate. That represents a potential loss of 19%. There may be 1 or 2 other retirements added to these. The main contenders in Lib Dem seats are realistically 30 Con and 27 others. Not mentioned in the main text in OGH's article is the elephant in the Lib Dem room.
The rise of the Greens.
http://times-deck.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/projects/a02ffd91ece5e7efeb46db8f10a74059.html
I haven't heard the BBC interview that the Tories are grumbling about, but it's a general problem of the British media approach that the standard interview question is basically "Many people say you're talking nonsense. Aren't they right?" According to taste, it's either "challenging" or "biased". I don't like it much myself, but it's deluded to pretend that they only do it to Tories.
The reasoning (I use the term loosely) was that less money was forecast to be spent on welfare. The fact this predicted decline was due to more people being in work and not receiving as much welfare on that basis did not alter the IFS view that it was not progressive.
Perhaps we need an independent body to scrutinize government figures?
Perhaps Dave and Ozzie could create one?
No, thought not.
They need to employ a right winger to head the organization and sort it out then.
Its not just politics, consider a story about say a member of the public killed in an incident with the police, you always hear from ACPO, the Police Federation and members of the victims family, all of which will give answers which would be covered by the covered by the famous reply of Mandy Rice-Davies "Well he would say that, wouldn't he?"
But the real world experience of the "man in the street" is very different today than it will be in 30s.
The hyperbole comes from the prominence given to something interesting but not important. The bullshit is because it will leave ordinary people with a false impression.
http://www.thurrockgazette.co.uk/news/11647539.VIDEO__UKIP_Tim_triumphant_in_Aveley_and_Uplands_by_election/
They have talked the talk. The public as you say know that they won't be able to walk the walk but that's perfect.
Far be it for me to decipher GO & the Cons' strategy for you but in short, we saw a commitment to fiscal responsibility in 2010 which became impossible to implement (as someone else wrote: the Cons actually implemented the Lab plan of cutting 1/2 the deficit). But at least they talked tough which reassured people and the markets while reassuring people that it wouldn't be "that bad".
And they are doing the same again. Talking tough with everyone knowing that it won't be "that bad" and at least there is a plan.
Call it "Pragmatic Conservatism".
What does Lab have? They can't even work out if they want to cut faster (criticising the Cons for not reducing the deficit) or cut slower (their stated position).
Quite often I think much the same, in that the BBC's coverage is far too "establishment".
The middle ground of reportage does not always coincide with our personal viewpoint.
"You're all going to starve to death in a freezing garret"* is not sound analysis. It's hyperbole.
* I personally think "Down and Out in Paris and London" is far more interesting and moving than "the Road to Wigan Pier"
"You're all going to starve to death in a freezing garret"* is not sound analysis. It's hyperbole.
* I personally think "Down and Out in Paris and London" is far more interesting and moving than "the Road to Wigan Pier"
You mean like Sky Sports and the Premier league?
I noticed George Osborne had a bit of a dig at the BBC in his radio 4 interview with Humphreys this week. In a way John Humphreys got it a bit unfairly as the real target I believe was Evan Davis who presided over a totally unprofessional interview with Osborne last year when he basically kept calling him over not answering the question when he wasn't even allowing Osborne to speak to answer the question and was very rude .
Evan Davis is OK on Dragens' Den and business stuff but he is unsuited to political journalism imo -He lets his own feelings come out and also believes he has some superiority in his own views. Newsnight was going to hard for anyone taking over from the great Paxman but Evan Davis FGS!!
Did they make reference to Wigan Pier?
Antifrank makes a good point. Wasn't it Osborne himself who said this government was going to reduce the state to the smallest its been for 80 years?
Things sweet prove in digestion sour.....as always seems to be the way with Osborne's big moments. This could well form the basis of Labour's -until now rather skeletal- election campaign. I could suggest some iconic images.....
http://masters-of-photography.com/images/full/brandt/brandt_going_home.jpg
Before the General Election in 2010 every Labour minister was asked "well what would you cut?" mimicking the Tory campaign themes.
The fact we're now here 5 years later and Osborne is having to imply further cuts because the original cuts agenda didn't work is rightfully held up for questioning.
This is the kind of interrogation the Beeb did not show with the disastrous Health and social care act 2012 which passed without any scrutiny at all.
At the 2007 Scottish general election the Lib Dems won 11 constituencies with 16.2% of the vote.
At the 2011 Scottish general election the Lib Dems won 2 constituencies with 7.9% of the vote.
So, although they only lost 51% of their national vote share, they actually managed to lose 82% of their constituency MSPs.
Punters take note.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament_general_election,_2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament_general_election,_2011
There's simply no comparison (in material terms) between life in a slum in the 1930s (or even 1950s or 1960s) and life today.
News should be "commercially viable?.......It's definitely worth thinking about.
What's the going price for a "grannie"* these days?
*A well used expression, "That bugger would sell his own grandmother given half a chance".
I thought you asked:
"Did the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation do reports based on the IFS when the IFS and others were warning about Gordon Brown's high borrowing?
No, thought not."
Have you agreed that you were wrong?
The "market" has no conscience,and is therefore not a panacea for all ills.
Anyone who thinks that it is, is delusional.
I'm never wrong. Me being wrong is unpossible.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2014/12/importance-salient/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=importance-salient&utm_source=Lord+Ashcroft+Polls&utm_campaign=19814a435e-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b70c7aec0a-19814a435e-66760489
The left arrogates to itself a monopoly ownership of 'conscience' - but then displays none when in power. Let the parents' consciences rule.
And in terms of numbers of voters who agree with your preferred model? I'd say you're in a very tiny minority.
So apply the ratio:
[(posters on PB who agree with a purist voucher route)/(posters on PB who disagree with purist voucher route)])
to "voters".
And that would be a non-trivial number.
And its remarkable how often voucher schemes suggestions seems to come from poorer middle class people who can no longer afford to pay the school fees but still want to go...
Thankfully vouchers appeal to a very tiny number of ideologically blinkered voters so there is no danger of them being imposed here.
The tiny Libertarian fringe might have a problem with that, but 99% of the population is getting on with their lives.
Any half-way competent politician ought to be able to deal with tough questions from journalists, regardless of any bias there is.
If anything I think a lot of the so-called tough questioning is rather misdirected and incoherent. The questions are also far too long. For instance, rather than go on about the 1930's the rather tougher question would be that the Tories are not being honest about what their projections would mean, if they're to be kept, and to ask them what sort of state they envisage having and what it will do. Too often the questioners are really having a debate and putting forward their own view and, as any good barrister knows, that is the wrong way to ask really tough or, indeed, lethal questions.
Even if some taxes rose (and doing it badly would cost us lost growth and jobs), spending must be cut. It's all very well bleating about it, but it's not optional. We cut, or we run a deficit until we run the country into the ground.
A few decades ago Argentina was about the 9th largest economy in the world. And then it fell off a cliff. The eurozone seems determined to sacrifice economic reason on the altar of a political fantasy. If we're going to have a chance of staying in good shape we need to get our house in order.
Like a lot of people my age I consume my news through the internet where special interests carry no weight. The times they are a changing and the dinosaur media is failing to evolve. When all is said and done the BBC does far too much and should focus again on just its core responsibilities which could be done for a fraction of the cost. The BBC is too dominant and it is unhealthy for a state broadcaster to be so.
Roads were a good example of this, money was 'saved' by not repairing roads until things got so bad that money had to be found. Probably more money than if maintenance had been continual.
Our politicians should draw the line in the correct place, that's what they are paid for.
What the Tories are offering is coming across as too extreme and will probably backfire.
But at least you're doing it with humour - 'unpossible' indeed.
It's just that when you have tried to challenge me, it is you that has been wrong every time, so I didn't have chance to admit it
The cuts themselves aren't the problem. The problem is that we are spending 11 billion on overseas aid and 12 billion on EU membership at the same time as those cuts.
Its just too easy to attack. And voters get simple stuff like this.
Instead they are using it as a hook for a "we're all going to freeze to death" routine.
Antifrank had it spot on: the factual scaffold is a fair basis for criticism. The emotive approach to the reporting casts no light on the facts and is biased against one side of the debate.
I don't think people mind the cuts as much as the left think. What they mind is cuts at the same time as spending many billions overseas.
The obsession with overseas aid that all the main parties seem to have is the least understandable thing about them.
Look on the threads below the articles on this topic in any newspaper. Overseas aid is mentioned time after time after time.
Neither Labour nor the Lib Dems are going to attack from the EU / Overseas aid angle. They're obsessions of the tabloid Right.