Jim Dandy (PBUH) has expressed some cynicism about the BBC’s lack of coverage of Miliband’s ‘Predistribution’ being actual pro-Labour bias.

New evidence has come to light. Item one for consideration is Newsnight, Item two is Jim Naughtie’s interview with Labour’s Chuka Umunna.

During the Newsnight report Allegra Stratton revealed what lay at the heart of Miliband’s new strategy for social harmony and equality…it was in essence the ‘NOBBLING OF COMPANIES’, but she didn’t expand on that any further, not saying what that meant for the economy.

Emily Maitlis went for a more technical explanation…stating that Miliband would be raising the MINIMUM WAGE…but again didn’t expand further other than to gush favourably….‘It’s such a simple idea…a wage that pays you a living wage so you don’t have to claim allowances.’  (Vote Labour NOW!)

Maitlis was asking what the government would have to do to bring down the cost of living….so merely dipping her toe in the murky waters of Predistribution, Labour’s New Grand Idea, is not enough…..this is meant to be Labour’s answer to that very question and yet the BBC fail to look at it in depth which is ironic really because….

What is strange about all that is that Labour and it’s favourite Broadcaster have been bashing the Tories, sorry the Coalition, for not producing GROWTH. Labour suddenly breaks cover and announces as the GRAND NEW IDEA, the central plank of their Comeback, a plan that ‘NOBBLES COMPANIES’, the very companies that produce the wealth that produces the growth!

And yet the BBC decide  to give no more than a cursory glance at this proposal to raise the minimum wage by what would be a huge amount that would cripple the very small and medium sized companies that Labour claims are the source of growth!.

Or is that what it means? If you were to listen to Chuka Umunna being interviewed by Jim Naughtie you get a different tale….To Umunna ‘Predistribution’ means that Labour will create a lot of high skilled jobs that pay high wages.

Now if that is the case this is not a NEW idea, every government since government was invented probably had the same intentions….the last Labour government certainly did judging by Brown’s Mansion House Speech in 2007…..

‘Today there are in Britain 5 million unskilled people. By 2020 we will need only just over half a million. So we must create up to five million new skilled jobs and to fill them we must persuade five million unskilled men and women to gain skills, the biggest transformation in the skills of our economy for more than a century.

And we will need 50 per cent more people of graduate skills. Yet, while China and India are turning out 4 million graduates a year, we produce just 400,000.

Quite simply in Britain today there is too much potential untapped, too much talent wasted, too much ability unrealised.’

 And this:

‘Long term decisions to ensure that because we unlock all the talents of all the British people, there is security and prosperity not just for some but for everyone.

To support world-leading industries so that we create not just jobs, but new skilled well paying jobs millions will need.

Our whole economic prosperity depends upon which competing vision of the future will win in the next few years.

One choice for Britain -the choice we reject- is a low skilled, low pay economy competing in a race to the bottom with China, India and Asia.

But if our choice – a high wage, high skills economy – is to succeed, then Britain, a small country, cannot afford to waste the talents of anyone.’

The question is of course if everyone is employed being doctors and engineers and lawyers who is emptying the bins and delivering the post? I guess that would mean Labour would be opening the floodgates again to more mass immigration…of low skilled workers on low wages…that need topping up by benefits….em…didn’t we come in here?

But the BBC happily ignore all such massive consequences that follow such a daft proposal.

Jim Naughtie failed completely to get a meaningful answer from Umunna, clearly the one he gave was pure evasive invention….or even he doesn’t know what Predistribution means.  Naughtie, as a professional, interested, reporter, must have known what Newsnight had said….he works for the same company after all….and yet he accepts an answer from Umunna that is totally different to the Newsnight conclusion about a higher minimum wage….If we pay him so much We expect a lot more from Naughtie than feebly allowing a politican to walk all over him.

Naughtie is probably one of the highest paid political inquisitors in the Media, Maitlis certainly is, and both being on Premier League political programmes should be expected to get right down to the core of any issue and not be fobbed off by slippery politicians…but no, what we get is muddled and half baked unexamined reports that don’t reveal anything much.

Watching the Newsnight debate it is hard to come away with any feeling that you have learnt anything and that any conclusion was reached…other than Predistribution means ‘nobbling companies with massive wage increases’.

Certainly no examination of the consequences of the economically highly damaging ‘Predistribution’ policy was offered.

The BBC presumably ignore it because it is so damaging to the economy that the BBC knows no one would elect Labour if they knew what they really intended to enact in government….and/or the BBC knows it is such a foolish idea that any close examination would reveal those flaws and Miliband and Balls would be, once again, shown to be the economically illiterate buffoons that we know they are.


So my answer to Jim Dandy(PBUH) is that such lack of will to press forward with a more rigorous investigation into the meaning and consequences of ‘Predistribution’ indicates the BBC are showing bias, and certainly incompetence, in their coverage of Labour’s Big Idea.

Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Ian Hills says:

    Raising the minimum wage to a level unaffordable by small firms would be entirely in keeping with EU (and therefore also Labour-BBC) policy.

    Just look at those Brussels directives, obviously sponsored by big firms to drive their smaller competitors out of businesses. Why else do thousands of commercial lobbyists work in Brussels?

    The unions don’t mind this corruption because small firms are hard to unionise, and the level of union subs goes up as some of the newly-redundant workers get jobs with the big firms.

    Add kickbacks from big firms to politicians into the equation and everyone’s happy….well, almost everyone.

    Bit of info on EU and Labour corruption of BBC –


  2. JAH says:


    As far as I know the coalition is in power, the next election is 3 years off so why on earth would anyone waste much time on a proposal that is as likely to sink rather than fly? That’s not bias, that’s not boring the audience to death.

    I really admire your dedication to bias. You must spend hours listening and watching the BBC for an infraction from the road of truth. The posts are detailed, indeed exhaustive. Where do you find the time? I note that David Vance has all but given up writing anything other the very off the cuff opinions he runs up on twitter, but he gets on dreaded BBC. What’s your reward for all this?


    • Jack Savage says:

      Reward? Perhaps the gratitude of people like me who needed to have the insidious nature of a considerable amount of BBC broadcasting pointed out to me before I could see it.


      • Doublethinker says:

        I wholeheartedly agree. Most of my friends think the BBC is great value for money and believe what it says without question. Of course if you don’t see the bias and proselitising, the BBC is good value.
        They think I am bonkers going on about the damage it is doing to the national culture and how it is the propaganda arm of the Labour Party and a wide range of other lefty causes. At least with this site I can back up some of my arguments with examples.
        It is deeply worrying that sensible folks, who aren’t leftish but just middle of the road, swallow all the BBC propaganda without a thought. The BBC must win the Labour Party loads of seats at elections and they have definitely succeeded in shifting the culture of the indigenous population to one which is increasingly multicultural rather than British.


    • johnnythefish says:

      ‘As far as I know the coalition is in power, the next election is 3 years off so why on earth would anyone waste much time on a proposal that is as likely to sink rather than fly? ‘

      Call me naive, but the BBC might do it to demonstrate lack of bias. When the Tories were in opposition and still formulating policy they were constantly challenged aggressively in the studio by the likes of Naughtie with ‘Well it’s very easy to criticise the government, but what would YOUR party do about it?’

      Do they do this with Labour? No they don’t. Bias, pure and simple (but I think you know that).


      • Chubbly says:

        @JAH – Personally I echo Jack Savage point in terms of gratitude in highlighting what a nasty and poisonous problem the BBC has become.
        I think the wider point is that it doesnt really matter whether individuals have an opinion whether or not the BBC is biased to certain idealogical beliefs and agenda’s. They key point is that by their own admission they are ‘unique’ and in that in enjoying that uniqueness they have certain responsibilities to be neutral.
        That means in presenting news we the audience should be just given the facts; that means there is no place for opinions from BBC “journalists” being interviewed by other BBC journalists then presenting it as fact. No room for ‘personal’ Twitter accounts being used in parts of a programmes content, no space for idealogical stand points on the debate being closed on climate change, not supressing or manipulating bad news when one group in society is found to be doing awful things to another.
        If the BBC cant collectively do that then the unique poll tax that funds them should be removed and they should fight it out with the rest, who may or may not have their own agendas and beliefs. They key difference being I can remove my subscription if I diagree with that view point.
        Persoanlly I find it crazy that in this day and age, where we have an almost endless choice of content to view live and on demand we are forced to subscribe to a particlaur suppier. Surely regardless of whether or not that organisation has a bias or not it is a backwards and a little bit sinster to enforce it on those that dont want it? I suspect that those with a pro bbc standpoint can see too or choose not to.


    • Pah says:

      What’s your reward for all this?
      You are BF Skinner and I claim my £5.


    • Guest Who says:

      ‘What’s your reward for all this?’
      It’s a fair question, and one I ask myself when the small but dedicated cherry vulture flock appear to tag team all day long, even on a Sunday when the sun at last seems to be shining (just letting the lunchtime sarnie settle with a coffee at the PC before hitting the garden again).
      A few (one currently excavating over at another thread) who are evidently not, yet, BBC employees, seem to pen endless defences as some kind of open job application. Oddly, despite clear qualifications across the board, the call appears yet to have come.
      The rest are either paid stirrers or OCD-afflicted contrarians, as little else could explain having the time to keep on coming to a niche blog… to say little other than how much ‘everyone they know’ ignores it or it serves no purpose.
      As a free, independent blog seeded with articles and managed by volunteers, while there can be opinion-based content (and why not? It’s anyone’s to have. Unlike the single-direction views foisted on the country by compulsion via the BBC’s endless new outlets), more often than not there is fact backed by substantiation.
      Which is why it is so striking when the cherry vultures decide to make a quick pass, usually at the person than anything they have said.
      And it’s striking where, and how often they are noticeable by their absence, which speaks volumes for the effectiveness of this site as you don’t dare go where your feathers would get plucked.
      If the ‘point’ of this site so baffles you, it might spare further anguish to simply go to more conducive areas and… get a life.
      But the reality seems to be that clustering here in some sado-masochistic obsession is actually all your little cabal have in those sad lives.


    • Brian says:

      So, the labour spin machine has realised that this Biased-BBC site could affect adversely the Labour Party’s long held allegiance with their BBC left-wing journalistic colleagues. They’ve realised that someone might actually try to bring in some measure of real balance in journalistic reporting and so launch personal attacks like this to try to undermine the truth. You have failed miserably JAH or whatever your real initials are. Some people actually care about the appalling BBC bias and consider that there is a need to monitor what is going on and highlight to those of us who don’t have time what we suspect in the hope that someone with courage will be able to redress the imbalance. But I guess that, just like the Communist Party (and its Labour Party members) of the past era, you’ll carry on trying while those of us who care about real democracy and truth will continue to highlight the unacceptable bias from our state-sponsored broadcaster. What a pity that this coalition government doesn’t realise what is going on too.


      • PhilO'TheWisp says:

        Is JAH a blog alias for Andrew Marr? Jackie Ashley’s Husband? Have to change it soon to JAEH. Ex husband.


    • Andy S. says:

      Jah, if George Osborne had come up with this same wheeze, do you think Naughtie, Maitlis, Flanders, Evan Davis or Humphries would have been so casual with their questioning? You know they wouldn’t – in fact they would have torn Osborne apart, and rightly so.

      You accuse those you disagree with as suffering from tunnel-vision regarding the BBC, yet you are worse with your attempts to divert the argument. You belong in the same group as Dez, Scott, Jim Dandy and all the other defenders of the indefensible.

      You all lose credibility because you will hear no wrong said about your precious BBC. Anyone with eyes to see will find some fault in any organisation especially one they work for. But you lot refuse to countenance that the BBC can do anything wrong or put its global broadcasting ability to pushing insidious political propaganda.

      When you have no other argument you use sarcasm or outright abuse against those posting comments you don’t like.


  3. London Calling says:

    JAH says: “why on earth would anyone waste much time on a proposal that is as likely to sink rather than fly?”

    Why indeed would Chukka waste our time, except as part of a long term narrative to rehabilitate Labour as a “Party of New Ideas” and electable, instead of what it is, the dead hand of Socialism around throat of Great Britain


  4. George R says:

    Compare and contrast BBC-NUJ’s positive coverage of
    Labour Party’s ‘Pre–distribution’, with negative coverage of Tories’ ‘Big Society’.


  5. Sir Arthur Strebe-Grebling says:

    As Labour is proposing a further shift of the boundary between the state and the private sector, I wonder when industry will fight back.
    I suggest that the obvious place to start is in education, where Labour’s dumbed-down schools, more interested in social engineering than in teaching, have sent many children into the workforce unable to read or write properly and without simple skills in mathematics, so that many companies are forced to provide this basic education themselves.
    If the state schools won’t educate children, why should companies have to pay tax for it?
    Incidentally, most universities also have to provide remedial tuition to poorly-schooled entrants, but there the students themselves are having to pay for it.


  6. PhilO'TheWisp says:

    So the BBBC used their lefty mouthpiece Marr (married to a Grauniad journo daughter of a former Labour MP) to act as a paid matchmaker between Cable and Balls this morning. It is too blatant for words!


  7. PhilO'TheWisp says:

    And no doubt when one cheats on the other they can follow Marr’s example and get a super injunction.


  8. George R says:

    “Predistribution is just a meaningless word in place of actual policy”
    by Atul Hatwal.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Naughtie knew that, and his questions were mostly aimed at helping the Labour mouthpiece prove it wasn’t.


  9. Jim Dandy says:

    I’m honoured A thread dedicated to me. It would be churlish to say anything to dampen the moment.


    • Mat says:

      aww bless so how do you get along in life called
      that name must be a hell of a problem at customs ?


  10. chrisH says:

    Would hate to fuel the paranoia accusations from the likes of Dez, Scott, Jah and Mr Dandy.
    That said, when Milibands damp squib of an announcement was made about his new word from Charlotte N.C…”predistribution”….it was as if somebody had farted in the lift….made no news at all on Wednesday or whenever he spouted it. Embarrassed silence and check the bottom of your hush puppies!
    Yet come the run up to the weekend and to Saturday….and they`d found Chucky….suddenly Naughtie really wanted to “tease out”; to “unpack”-this wonderful bucket list of guff from Jimmy Carters old spittoon.
    But Chucky needed a long lead time…as Jim needed a short lead…and so the latest empty box of tools for Marxist workshops needed us all to sit quietly,at the feet of Jim and Chucky…and to (altogether now!)…”Vote Labour”!
    The BBC will not rest until this is chipped into out brains with subliminal messaging and the red/green backdrop…this is a Revolution for life…not just Winterval….go that?


  11. Idontpaythebbc says:

    Great . here we go , Labour`s answer to economics ;
    Thus –
    Lumpenproletariat foreigners can do all the dirty , heavy , boring manufacturing jobs while our highly educated school leavers can oversee and supervise the world with the glitzy high tech ,banking ,computer , and lawyers careers (we dont do jobs ) .
    Not forgetting the civil service and Foreign And Commonwealth sinecures to spread our “influence ” .


  12. Umbongo says:

    I have no knowledge concerning gossip or plot-hatching in the BBC canteen but has anyone else noticed that our favourite commenters resident in the BBC groupthink studio have begun to pose the same question at the same time on the various comment threads. The question is “why do you lot post/comment on B-BBC since it has no effect and, consequently, you – the commenters/posters – are causing yourselves unnecessary suffering by viewing/listening to BBC output?”
    They have moved from denying BBC bias (a well-nigh impossible job admittedly) to attacking those who reveal it: or, rather, offering a solution to our angst which is to stop viewing/listening to the BBC and perforce cease commenting. AFAIAC thanks but no thanks.


    • Mat says:

      Good point ! but then they are very odd ? see on here we argue about stuff many of us don’t agree all the time but they do? they always they follow the same line and that’s on everything the BBC says I have yet to see one of our pro BBC hawkers argue with any post by one of their clan! ever ? now that’s just wrong even call centres don’t follow the same script every time !
      Plus if we are sad for this site which is kept going by volunteers and the spirited ! then what are they for defending the a 20.000 + unionised staffed, lawyered up to the hilt unaccountable untouchable Corporation ?


  13. George R says:

    TUC strikes.

    BBC-NUJ’s* political presumption:

    -Who should we ask about whether TUC strikes are justified?

    -TUC members only!

    “TUC delegate views: Co-ordinated strike action”

    [* Of course, National Union of Journalists is affiliated to TUC.]


  14. Scrappydoo says:

    If there was a very decent minimum wage of for example £500 a week, then you would find that the market would rob you of any improvement, prices would inflate and those at the bottom would be no better off in the long run.