With lots of changes to Welfare coming in next month, the BBC has been to the fore in pointing out these will hut “the poor”. I was on BBC Three Counties earlier this week debating these changes with someone from the Resolution Foundation (A Labour front masquerading as a “independent think tank”. The issue under debate was the reduction in subsidy from Central government to local government in housing benefit. Basically, there is a 10% reduction and Councils either learn to spend less and so keep council taxes as they are (already way too high in my opinion) OR they ask those who currently make no contribution to council tax to cough up a few pounds. This is presented as Apocalypse Now by the BBC and the clear meme is “evil conservatives hurting the poor” It strikes me that the BBC really does behave as the official opposition to ANY change to UK welfarism and maybe that it because as the recipient of over £3 BILLION a year, it likes the idea of something for nothing?
TAXING ISSUES
Bookmark the permalink.
Agreed. The BBC has a liberal left view , and probably quite an extreme one on social matters, and it is determined that the country will follow that vision. Therefore it uses its power without any scruple, to support any liberal left friend or cause and to oppose any foe ( acknowledge JFK speech there) in pursuit of the liberal left view.
I used to think that the Tories must have calculated that taking on the BBC and cutting them down to size would be just too expensive in political capital terms as the BBC would mobilise the massive liberal establishment against them, and that the people would once again be conned into voting for the left.
But I think that this analysis, although undoubtedly true, missed the point. The BBC will oppose any policy that doesn’t fit with its agenda and narrative. It will NEVER support any policy that is even a tiny bit right of centre. The Tories must realise that the BBC is their deadly foe who will never support them not matter how cuddly and inoffensive to the left they make their policies.
No, the Tories should take on the BBC and get rid of it if they are ever to take Britain down the path to a bright future in a competitive world.
When the ordinary British people are told the truth they will not support Labour.
Labour who admit they got it wrong on two key policies immigration and on the banking boom and whom clearly massively overspent and produced an education system which is a laughing stock and not fit for purpose.
But getting the truth to the British people requires that the BBC be shut down or their strikes extended indefinitely.
The BBC is the broadcasting equivalent of one of those “free” newspapers that tell you how marvelous your local council is at spending your money.
Asking what right they have to take your money, or whether, if they have a right, they are taking too much, or if the reason they are taking too much is because they run things to suit themselves, is written out of the script.
In fact it is even worse, The BBC want to eliminate any alternative script. They are fundamentally opposed to a free society. The attack by the BBC on the free press is proof of this strategy. It is only a matter of time before they target the Internet.
The BBC is essentially a lobby organisation for the tax funded public sector paid for – you guessed it – by the taxpayer.
It is the enemy of a free (and prosperous and successful) society. So who imposed them on us? Who asked if we want to fund them?
The BBC should be de-nationalised. The BBC can perhaps re-launch itself as Labour Party TV. Nobody who is not a Labour Party member should be under any obligation to fund them.
With the fierce hostility of the BBC, the Tories also have the problem of the electoral system. The BBC is remarkably silent on the scandal whereby in 2005 Anthony Blair, with a smaller share of a smaller turnout than the Tories got in 2010, won a good majority while David Cameron could not. Another example of this was 1974 (Feb’) with Labour 301 seats v Tory 297 … but the Tories got 185,000 votes more! Edward Heath did lose ground compared to 1970 but hardly “lost” the election. Labour itself suffered in 1951 when its impressive 48.8% share wasn’t enough to beat the Tories, who gained 48%. Even in 1992, the problem was evident: a seven percentage point lead gave only a modest majority to John Major. With Nicholas Clegg blocking revision of the boundaries, the Left really don’t have to do that much to win an election.
How does your argument that the “Left really don’t have to do that much to win an election. ” equate with the Tory’s being in power (or sharing power) for around 38 years since the end of WW2 whilst the Labour party have held office for only around 29 years? In the October 1951 election Labour gained its highest ever share of the vote (48.8 per cent) but won fewer seats than the Tories. Seems that the current electoral system has quirks that go both ways.
Yes, I have already acknowledged that Labour were disadvantaged in 1951; and Cameron can’t complain too much about 2010, when he got 36.1% of a 65% turnout – not exactly setting the heather alight! But the fact remains that Labour get a better return for their (modest) share of the vote. Many examples: Michael Foot in 1983 got around 210 seats with 30%; and Michael Howard got <200 even with 33.2% in 2005. The BBC should make more of this if it believes in fairness.
Correction: a sentence went missing.
1983: Foot ~210 with 30%; Neil Kinnock in both 1987 and 1992 also did better than Blair in 2005, in terms of votes if not seats.
1997: Major 165 with 30-31%.
Anyone with a knowledge of our electoral system and an ounce of honesty will tell you that a simple fact. It takes a hell of a lot more votes to elect a Tory MP than it does a Labour MP.
The reason why the Tories have done so well in the past is because considerably more people voted for them than Labour. They were more popular!
It’s not difficult to see, unless you are blind.
I think this is, broadly, true. The figures for 2005 election were >40,000 electors to get 1 Tory MP and <30,000 to get 1 Labour one. But, if turnouts in Labour strongholds are low, this distorts the picture. Incentivised voting (e.g. £20 off your Council Tax) or compulsory voting might just lead to bigger Labour majorities and thus vote share, but not so many more MPs, because they win in their heartlands whether turnout is 40% or 75%.
Labour got it right on immigration but now re-writing history for congenital labour voters with short memories-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249797/Labour-threw-open-doors-mass-migration-secret-plot-make-multicultural-UK.html
It will never happen, Doublethinker. Publicly, at best, a handful of brave souls like Gove and Pickles will stand up to an agenda-driven interviewer. But if you think Cameron or anyone in a position to do anything views the BBC as anything other than a national treasure which has done so many wonderful things over generations, and that it needs to be shut down, you’ll be sorely disappointed every time. It’s inconceivable to them, because – as 28-Gate has proven – the biased News division is intertwined intellectually and emotionally with the wonderful dramas and wonderful comedies and wonderful children’s output. As long as Today and 5 Live remain tied to The One Show and the Proms, nothing can change. Radio 4 brought in Will Self in such a biased fashion that even Rod Liddle raised an eyebrow. Not a peep from the Conservatives. You should be asking yourself why that is. Do they not know about it, or do they simply not see a problem?
Radio 4 is something of a “national treasure” but I listen less nowadays, because the discussion and editorialising of the news on it, rather than the news itself, is not impartial.
I listened to “Any Questions” on R4 (20:00- 20:50). Not one of the worst by any means, the panel balanced with two Left females and two Right males, audience a little noisy at times but not too bad.
However, you realize how hard it is to have a sensible debate about the NHS when even mild comments get jeers from parts of the crowd. Lord Trimble and the “Sun” man hardly touched upon the long-term funding issue, concentrating on improving under-performance (e.g. Mid-Staffs and Leeds) – all very moderate. They also only spoke after Clare G and Angela Eagle had had a go, criticising the Coalition, of course, without any reference to funding and milking the naive applause.
If this was a cricket match, you would say that the Left speakers won the toss on a good pitch and decided to bat, making over 400 runs. The pitch remained fairly good but the Right speakers had to bat with the pressure of >400 runs on the board against them.
Maybe I’m reading too much into this but it would have been better to have two innings each in the order L-R-L-R.
Well those of us who are stuck here have to live in hope.If you deprive a man of hope you may as well condemn him to death.
As to the Proms and the One Show ( whatever that is ) and the rest of the increasingly awful stuff the BBC put out you can chuck it all in the bin and the country would be better off. The BBC is living on its reputation from years ago and this is slowly beginning to tarnish. So one day …. – please let me live in hope of seeing it!
“they ask those who currently make no contribution to council tax to cough up a few pounds.”
Alas if only this were true. We have a friend who has worked all his life, he was asked to go up on a factory roof, he didn’t know that the roof lights had been painted out and fell 45 feet onto a concrete floor hitting an industrial fan on the way down which saved his life.
He will never walk again
He lives in a band F home and the standard rate would be £2300
Because the area where I live has allowed a Bangladeshi Muslim to structure the amounts payable it has been done in a corrupt manner. His constituents all live in band A or band B houses, and they will only be required to pay 25% of the already low council tax, whereas someone in a band H home will be required to pay 90% of an already high charge. We have the ludicrous situation where in a worst case scenario a claimant could end up owning the council more in tax than they receive in benefit. This is of course illegal, and the council know it, but until someone rich challenges them they will carry on.
So thanks to what I perceive as corruption someone in band A will pay just £300 per year while someone in band H will pay £2880 an enormous amount when Jobseekers pays less than £4000 a year.
This is yet another attack on the people who have tried, they are being punished for trying while yet again the career scroungers and immigrants are as protected as they possibly can be.
It is lazy government on behalf of the Tories to have allowed town halls to structure their own schemes. Everyone receives the same amount under universal credit, and should pay the same amount.
This is why it’s unfair and this why it is so catastrophic and more than asking “those who currently make no contribution to council tax to cough up a few pounds.”
This is why the ” Community Charge ” was fair, everybody was to pay a local tax. But the media BBC called it a “Poll Tax” and the rest is history. Now they term a reduction in benefits a “bedroom tax”.
We’ve been over this a dozen times and established that its being called a bedroom tax is the governments fault entirely.
If you want to prove this to yourself then go find out what this cruel benefits cut is actually called.
The local TV news has whingers on every night competing as to who is suffering most with benefit cuts.
What do we want ? We want it now. Out side some town hall complete with posters and very very sad faces.
Perhaps the time has come when the American Revolution slogan of ‘No taxation without representation’ should be changed to ‘No representation without taxation’. I’m sure that saying this on the BBC would be like loosing a fox in a chicken run.
There comes a point when allowing people to vote when they only take will mean that the burden on those who give ( pay tax) becomes unsustainable. Are we there yet? Or will we need another Labour government to take us to that point?
Paying tax to support causes that you don’t agree with is part of living in a democracy but if there are more and more taxes and fewer and fewer things that you think are right, it begins to make you question why you have to pay so much.
‘I was on BBC Three Counties earlier this week ‘
How much were you paid?
Jack Ryan = Nicked Emus = Unemployed Freelance Journalist
That would be nice, if true. I’ve got a couple questions for him.
not enough.
I`m a big fan of IDS and all that he is trying to do.
But I`ll bet that the Tories will rue the day that they began to attempt this.
In 2010, the nation begged for the sifting of the deserving from the undeserving poor-and we all knew the BBC/Guardian/Labour take on that. We demanded different-especially with the awful economic situation as caused by Labour with the liberal broadsheets as sails/flags of convenients…truths that THEY concocted,and none of us bought at all.
IDS should have skewered them…not attempted a bureaucratic dogs dinner using Labours placemen in charge of the IT, the assessments, the legal safeguards etc.
This is going to be as much a dogs dinner as Browns WTC…but (unlike Brown) IDS will be hammered for it. Brown screwed this country over his tax credits shambles…but IDS is walking right into the trap.
The BBC and broadsheets will find their hard cases as ever-and the majority of sponging staffies with Stella and fries will ensure that the Tories will lose this one.
Why are the Tories so thick?…don`t they WANT power to do things…and why not castrate the f***in Labour Party and its cat litter press before they go the way of the Anglo-Italian Cup?
Je veux que chacun de soudure autre à la rupture d’une autre soudure à la rupture, je tiens également à l’autodestruction.Mince alors, précise lune neige schizophrène ah! Lisse, schizophrène, aiment dormir … Électrolyte application progressive de l’université,Lisser les maths, je tiens à vous envahir.
Je n’ai rien compris, ou peu s’en faut, sinon l’autodestruction et “je tiens a vouus envahir”.