I bet the BBC agonised over this one. In essence they had to choose between Vince Cable (previous BBC icon before he entered the wicked coalition) and Obama (perma-BBC icon) over the issue of State support for scientific R&D. Cable, sensibly, has pronounced that funds should be directed towards R&D excellence which has practical transfer. The BBC contrasts this with Obama’s extension of tax cuts on business R&D. BBC were quite strident in their opposition to the Cable model whilst implicitly supportive of the Obama model. But being the BBC means never being able to say the whole truth so they left out the tax rises on business that Obama is also introducing. Not quite the story put across by the BBC.
SAINT VINCE VS THE OBAMESSIAH
Bookmark the permalink.
If the government stopped channelling vast amounts of funds into half-a***d pro-AGW research, they would probably save all the ‘science’ research funding that they need in one fell swoop!
If they also scrapped the Climate Change act provisions they would also save an extra 18 billion a year or thereabouts!
If they scrapped the license fee and the BBC were thus forced to provide what people want, they could also save billions of NHS spending on apoplexy!
The BBC has form on this. Back when there was a discussion about whether or not Britiain should be following Germany’s lead on austerity measures or the US Democrats’ plan to ramp up the printing and spending of money, both Harriet Harman and the BBC proclaimed that, because The Obamessiah was behind the latter plan, that’s what Britain should do.
Did the BBC mention that the President has been hearing the cries of the peasants and is thinking about extending Bush’s tax cuts on the evil rich?
David Vance:
But being the BBC means never being able to say the whole truth.
That’s a classic, and so true.
But what they don’t say is that the people losing the tax cuts are generally the owners of the businesses which are getting the tax breaks.
Anyone see the logic in this?