Stamp duty move 'brought £4,500 saving' per BBC news. An example of bias by omission

This BBC report is a masterpiece of BBC bias.

All the good news is as the result of things happening, passive voice, with no explanation of the recent history of stamp duty, actually it's stamp duty land tax. 

'Buyers purchasing a property in the last 12 months are typically £4,500 better off owing to the stamp duty changes of a year ago, a lender says.

Stamp duty was reformed to a more progressive system in England and Wales last December.

The changes saved tax for most buyers but dampened demand at the top end of the market, the Halifax said.

The lender said that the total tax levied in the UK rose to a record £7.5bn in 2014-15."The changes made to stamp duty a year ago have been of significant benefit to many buyers," said Craig McKinlay, mortgages director at the Halifax.

"Only those purchasing the most expensive homes are worse off. There is some evidence that the top end of the market has been adversely affected by the changes with sales over £1.5m falling by twice 

as much as the market as a whole."'

These progressive improvements just happened it seems. No explanation that it was George Osborne that ended the unfairness of the previous stepped rate system and introduced a more progressive system that helped out house buyers at the bottom of the market whilst penalising purchasers at the top of the market. 

Nor is there any explanation of who it was who introduced the massive in stamp duty back in 1997, it being the then Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown. It's almost as though the BBC want to give a reforming Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer no credit whilst protecting the reputation of a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer.

George Osborne does get a mention but only at the end of the article:

'In his Autumn Statement, Chancellor George Osborne announced a further reform of stamp duty. A 3% surcharge on stamp duty when some buy-to-let properties and second homes are bought will be levied from April.

This means it will add £5,520 of tax to be paid when buying the average £184,000 buy-to-let property.'

In BBC-land it's right to ascribe tax increases to a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer but not policies that might benefit others. Well unless the policies benefit millionaires of course, in which case the BBC amplifies the accusations from the Labour Party of the Conservative party only looking after its rich supporters. 

This sort of BBC bias is despicable but also endemic at the BBC. It sets the tone for debate and so should be stopped. A Conservative party with balls would do something about this BBC bias but they won't. The BBC is out of control and is too big to be stopped.

I'd feel sorry for Ed Miliband but he really does deserve every piss-take that comes his way

I'd feel sorry for Ed Miliband but he really does deserve every piss-take that comes his way.

And as for Ed Balls sitting next to him with that idiotic pretend shocked expression on his face, how he has the nerve to look at himself in the mirror after all that he's done to the UK economy, I just don't know.

When George Osborne can take the piss out of a Labour politician that easily then you know it's just to easy.

George Osborne puts Ed Balls in his place during the Autumn Statement today

"They can’t talk about their record because they had the biggest recession ever.
They can’t talk about the deficit because they’ve got no plan to deal with it.
He can’t talk about infrastructure and his much vaunted plan for a cross-party consensus because he was the person who tried to break the consensus on the biggest project of all.
He can’t talk about housing because there were 420,000 fewer affordable homes at the end of the Labour government.
He can’t talk about business rates because they went up 71 per cent under Labour.
He can’t talk about support for business because he wants to put taxes up on business.
He can’t ask about standing up to the powerful because this is the week they caved in to the trade unions.
He can’t ask about jobs because he wants more jobs taxes.
And he can’t ask about banking and financial services because the person they hired to advise them was the Reverend Flowers."

All pretty undeniable...

Quite a good line from George Osborne re Ed Miliband

"If you want to know the consequences of an Ed Miliband premiership, just look at the plan of the man who knows him best.
His brother - David Miliband:

1. leave Parliament
2. leave politics
3. leave the country
4. dedicate your life to 'International Rescue'

David and Ed Miliband, the greatest sibling rivalry since the Bible - Cain and not very Abel."

BBC biased reporting

When George Osborne made his 110% effort remarks the usual suspects at the BBC were in raptures at the mathematical stupidity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Oddly I have not seen the BBC even mention Barack Obama's rather similar error

Why the difference in coverage BBC? It's alright, don't bother answering I already know the reason.

What connects these people?

Marcus Agius, Chairman, Barclays PLC
Douglas J. Flint, Group Chairman, HSBC Holdings
John Kerr, Member, House of Lords; Deputy Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell
Richard Lambert, Independent Non-Executive Director, Ernst & Young
Peter Mandelson, Member, House of Lords; Chairman, Global Counsel
John Micklethwait, Editor-in-Chief, The Economist
George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer
Rory Stewart, Member of Parliament
J. Martin Taylor, Chairman, Syngenta International AG

They are all on the official list of attendees at this weekend's Bilderberg Group gathering. They will be joined by others including Henry Kissinger and Ying Fu the Chinese Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs.

According to InfoWars also attending are these gentlemen:

'#International Organizations
# Almunia, Joaquín, Vice President, European Commission
# Daele, Frans van, Chief of Staff to the President of the European Council
# Kroes, Neelie, Vice President, European Commission; Commissioner for Digital Agenda
# Lamy, Pascal, Director General, World Trade Organization
# Rompuy, Herman van, President, European Council
# Sheeran, Josette, Executive Director, United Nations World Food Programme
# Solana Madariaga, Javier, President, ESADEgeo Center for Global Economy and Geopolitics
# Trichet, Jean-Claude, President, European Central Bank
# Zoellick, Robert B., President, The World Bank Group'

I have no idea whether the Bilderberg Group is simply a collection of people, who meet once a year, mostly being 'people of influence in the fields of politics, banking, business, the military and news media.' I do know that 'The names of attendees are made available to the press, but the conferences are closed to the public and the media, and no press releases are issued.' Supporters of the grouping say that it is 'nothing more than a policy discussion forum and social club which only serves as a means to brainstorm, reach consensus, and create social cohesion within the power elite of Western European and North American nations, to better promote Atlanticism and a neoliberal form of globalization.'

Others claim that the Bilderberg Group are 'an all-powerful secret society fixing the fate of the world behind closed doors'.

I don't know which is true but I doubt that I will ever be deemed important or influential enough to be invited.

What does amuse/worry me are the various claims made about it, here's a few from the InfoWars site's comments:

'heathey2 says:
June 10, 2011 at 11:37 am

All you need to tell yourself right now is that things are worse than you could possibly comprehend or imagine. It’s worse than your worst nightmare you have ever had. It’s like something right out of the most shocking movie you have ever seen. At the same time don’t let this overwhelm you and make you feel beat and hopeless. Tell yourself every single day just how beautiful life is and how important you are and how important every good person you know and who lives around you is. You need to keep your soul and spirit intact in a time of such evil and wickedness. It is very easy to lose hope and sight of what really matters in life when you are being completely bombarded like we are right now. Listen to “don’t worry be happy” at the start of every day and give yourself that lift and that energy that you need to get you through the day and continue your quest to truth and informing your friends and family.

We are living on an absolutely stunning beautiful planet with so much wonder and magnificence. We don’t even understand how lucky we are to live on this planet that we call Earth. Nature is such a beautiful gift that most people no longer appreciate since they have become a cog in the wheel of mass madness that we call society. Look at all the species of animals that live around you. Just think of how incredible and stunning these animals are. If you don’t care about yourself and your own future then at least do something for the sake of these incredible animals who depend on this planet just as much as we do. Don’t go around blaming the average person for being who they have become. Blame the society that intentionally moulded them this way. Blame the toxins they consume on a daily basis that affect their ability to think and harm their natural survival instincts.

I often have to ask myself if I am imagining most of this stuff because it is quite frankly very difficult to believe that you have been lied to all your life about a lot of things and that there is a group of evil mindless criminals out there who care nothing for your welfare and your future and they have plans to make your life and the lives of your children and your grand children and your grand children’s children a complete misery with no hope and no equality. If you have given up on your core beliefs and values and don’t care about your freedom then you have to ask what you want from life. A time is coming in the very near future when you will have to cast all your fears aside and stand up for what you believe in because if you don’t you might as well say goodbye to your own future and that of your children. It’s that simple.


WeimarUSA says:
June 10, 2011 at 10:20 am

“The Elite, the ‘Great Game’, & World War III”

By Prof. Dr. Mujahid Kamran

h t t p : / / w w w . newdawnmagazine . com/articles/the-elite-the-great-game-world-war-iii

[Snippet]

“The elite is intent on conquering the world through the use of the abilities of the people of the United States. It was as far back as 1774 that Amschel Mayer Rothschild stated at a gathering of the twelve richest men of Prussia in Frankfurt: “Wars should be directed so that the nations on both sides should be further in our debt.” He further enunciated at the same meeting: “Panics and financial depressions would ultimately result in World Government, a new order of one world government.”

New Dawn Magazine Special Issue #16 :

“W h o ‘ s P l o t t i n g W o r l d G o v e r n m e n t ?”

h t t p : / / w w w . newdawnmagazine . com/special-issues/new-dawn-special-issue-16


Tellitlikeitiscan says:
June 10, 2011 at 9:26 am

Study AGENDA 21 ..there is alot to read..they are very adamant in thier plans these UN documents are not secret..

We are truth seekers..exposing the darkness with light..! and warning..

Very specific information …regarding De population (Genocide) and One World Government and economics etc..

Taking our rights away, our land, our homes..

Please google that and learn…AGENDA 21'

Finally there is this thread that shows me that however suspicious I am and however paranoid there are always people who make me look like a patsy of the system:

' *
readTheWordman says:
June 10, 2011 at 8:25 am

1st point—–> FACT: Bank of England owners started the Fed Rez. Who started the Bank of ENGLAND??? Where did that money come from??? THE BANK OF VATICAN (the WEALTHIEST bank/institution on the planet 10x over)

2nd point—-> When the NWO leader of man is announced….IT WILL be the POPE! AND it will be the antichrist. I know you non-bible types out their hate faith based discussion, but sorry the 1st amendment is still in effect. I mean no offense. Look i cant stand religion either because i too agree it has become an abomination and is as corrupt as our gov’t! I do believe in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and his Word, a KJV Bible. I believe in talking directly to Him just as I would talk to any of you over an adult beverage or cup of coffee. That is what “religion” really should be. Back to the vatican….go watch this documentary on youtube called the Last Pope by the user “UCAGIB.” It combines history, NWO, the vatican and everything that is going on today with a Biblical perspective and quotes scripture to every piece of history and what we see pending today. It is fascinating even if you dont believe in God’s Word, which you obviously have a right to. I will never belittle anyone for opposing beliefs and I would ask the same of all of you too. Regardless of our stance on the matter, it is quite an interesting, I believe accurate too, piece on history, today, and the future.
Log in to Reply
o
4wardlight says:
June 10, 2011 at 8:43 am

The AntiChrist will not be the Pope. The Pope will be the false prophet. Anyway, how do we know that someone from the Vatican ISN’T there? Someone “sick” flew in, had a red carpet rolled out from their private airplane and was put into an ambulence which then showed up at Bilderberg? Seems like their trying to hide someone VERY important.
Log in to Reply
+
redeemedwench says:
June 10, 2011 at 9:49 am

I agree, 4ward… The AC will be a peaceful man promising to pay everyone’ bills and will be a charming, supernatural guy claiming to be Christ. And most of the world will believe his lies, especially when the world thinks the AC will be some monster-demon looking thing is coming to eat their children and burn their homes. This chick isn’t going for it. And the Pope is a fraud, which is sad; I know some pretty decent Catholic folks. Putting a man so high on a pedastal is blasphemy. IMHO. RW
+
readTheWordman says:
June 10, 2011 at 10:28 am

go watch the docu i mentioned…the book of rev clearly shows that the pope will be antichrist.

Revelations says AC will come out of a whore (woman in prophecy = a church, a whore equals a dirty woman, against God Almighty, thus prophetic word “whore” = bad, dirty church) that has fornicated (dealings that God doesn’t approve) with the kings (prez, pm’s, dictators) of the earth, she will have a golden cup in her hands (every service in catholicism has the eucharist which involves every time a golden cup), adorned with precious jewels and stones (self explanatory, look at any photos out there), clothed in scarlet and purple (main colors of catholicism), the blood of many saints on her hands (some 500 million christians killed during the crusades for “reading their bibles”), sits on a city of seven hills (vatican city sits on seven hills), was a WORLD POWER–NO OTHER INSTITUTION COMES CLOSE TO THIS ONE– for 1269 days (in prophecy a day = year) and then loses it
(529-1798, clearly defined in video and history books), i could go on and on but dont take my word for it…go watch the documentary called “The Last Pope.”

The vatican is the ONLY religious institution that fits ALL of these requirements in the Book of Revelation….please research
+
Hayduke says:
June 10, 2011 at 11:18 am

Yup and Ms. Rodham is not on the list, but she is in Europe and even mainstream announced last night that she is asking to leave Suckretary of State to head the World fucking Bank…WTF???????? So to think that she is NOT at bildeberg is preposterous + if Obushma accepted her resignation she would not have to pay the Logan Act fine…AGAIN!…Maybe the Nazi Poop sits at the head of the table with Hillary tickling his holy balls!?!?!
o
standardissue says:
June 10, 2011 at 10:29 am

It is inevitable that the Vatican Bank would be drawn into the global bankster’s scheme. Anywhere there is wealth, expect the schemers and opportunists to pounce. The mystery of who killed one Vatican bank official and hung his body from a London Bridge is open…Think it was called the “Blackfriar’s” Bridge. There was symbolism in that act. Someone was telling tales out of school–about 25 years ago, I believe it was–and paid the ultimate price.

But the Pope and his Cardinals are ultimately responsible for what goes on during their watch. They can’t claim ignorance forever.
Log in to Reply'

I have written about the Bilderberg Group before, take a look.

The true face of the British left?

The above image is from Left Futures article entitled 'Labour should go for Osborne’s jugular'. It's a piece written by Michael Meacher who I assume will be disowning the image used...

People have complained to Left Future about the image but it's still there as is this comment from long time figure on the Labour left, Jon Lansman at 6:53 pm;

'...I didn’t imagine that the illustration would alone “create an atmosphere of violent hyperbole” or I wouldn’t have used it but I will take account of your views in future...'

When you remember the faux shock from many on the left at the 'target' imagery used in some of Sarah Palin's literature and how that was apparently to blame for the shooting of Gabrielle Gifford, you do wonder how they can even contemplate using even worse imagery themselves. Actually hypocrisy is the easy explanation.

Blame the bankers, always blame the banker and the UK's debt is not serious

Mark Littlewood, of the Institute of Economic Affairs, versus Paul Brandon of the Right to Work Campaign. One seems to be talking sense and one nonsense. However I really don't think that David Cameron and George Osborne are ready for the hell that the left are prepared to unleash on this government later this year. Neither David Cameron or George Osborne look like they will have the bottle that got Margaret Thatcher through the miners strike.

'Banker bashing' has consequences

HSBC has revealed plans to quit London for Hong Kong and it seems to be due to combination of factors: higher UK taxes & costs and of course regulation. On the matter of taxes my information is that moving to Hong Kong could deliver a 30pc premium to the HSBC share price overnight as operating expenses had soared to $37.7bn in the last financial year (a rise of 9.6pc on the previous one) and payroll taxes have risen as well. Meanwhile Britain's capital requirements are now amongst the toughest in the world and the introduction of the Basel III regulations from 2013 will raise the bar even higher. HSBC believe that the more relaxed capital requirements in Hong Kong would cost the company less and allow them to generate more profit by making greater use of its balance sheet.

Maybe Boris Johnson was right, maybe the UK does need to do more to keep big City banks in The City. Do David Cameron and George Osborne realise how much Corporation Tax HSBC pays in the UK, how much PAYE and NIc is paid by the bank's staff and how much money the bank's employees put into the UK and especially London economy?

Now why would that be? The BBC protecting Ed Balls from scrutiny.

The BBC hide away on their Business Pages, with no link from the front news page, the news that:

'Timothy Geithner backs George Osborne's spending cuts'

Of course being the BBC, as well as not mentioning the news on the front page, they also run it as a very short story with no mention of some key facts. Thus this line:

'He said Mr Osborne had been handed "problems not created by this government".'

A fuller quotation would run:

'What he did was a very remarkable thing. At a time when it was easier to make tough choices quickly, because they were not problems created by this Government, he locked his coalition and the Government into a set of reforms that were very good.'

As The Telegraph report.

Likewise the BBC manage:

'...Mr Geithner said the "light-touch approach to financial regulation" which was "designed consciously to pull financial activity from New York, and from Frankfurt and Paris to London" was a "deeply costly strategy for financial regulation".'

Would the BBC care to explain who devised this 'light-touch regulation', who boasted of their 'light-touch regulation'?
Well here's Ed Balls from 2006, transcript on his website:

' In my first speech as City Minister at Bloomberg in London, I argued that London’s success has been based on three great strengths – the skills, expertise and flexibility of the workforce; a clear commitment to global, open and competitive markets; and light-touch principle-based regulation…

Most recently in this decade we have been determined to respond to events and new challenges and enhance London’s global standing and light touch regulation…

Today our system of light-touch and risk-based regulation is regularly cited – alongside the City’s internationalism and the skills of those who work here – as one of our chief attractions. It has provided us with a huge competitive advantage and is regarded as the best in the world…

The Government’s interest in this area is specific and clear: to safeguard the light touch and proportionate regulatory regime that has made London a magnet for international business…

We must ensure that all new regulations are implemented in a sensitive and light touch manner…

...

[The Labour government] will outlaw the imposition of any rules that might endanger the light touch, risk based regulatory regime that underpins London’s success.'

Would the BBC not like to inform its paying customers who was in proudly in favour of 'light touch regulations'?

Oddly bearing in mind the 2006 speech quoted from above, during Conference Season 2008 Martin Kettle in The Guardian still managed to report with a straight face that:

'He is also driving the dominant Brownite line of the week – that you have to be tough to tame the financial markets. But while Brown hesitates to abandon his own long familiar commitment to light-touch regulation, and Alistair Darling in his conference speech argued for neither light nor heavy but effective regulation, Balls was reliably reported to have told friends on Sunday night that "I have never believed in light touch regulation." It's a very significant shift of pitch, and it tells you the sort of stance that Balls might adopt in a contest with the – on this issue – more cautious Miliband.'

So if Martin Kettle is correct, then in 2008 Ed Balls was claiming "I have never believed in light touch regulation", whilst in 2006 he was stating his support for "a clear commitment... light-touch principle-based regulation". Which statement is true Ed Balls? Maybe George Osborne could ask him at the next Treasury Questions, I am sure Ed Balls will want to set the record straight.

Using bad weather as an excuse for poor economic figures

"Then we had a terrible month of weather which hindered transport and communications in business in the country.Obviously it has been a difficult few months. But that just shows just how fragile the recovery is."

Not the words of George Osborne that the Labour/BBC coalition have been attacking today as bad-timed and a poor excuse, but those of Gordon Brown in April 2010 blaming the then less than encouraging rise in growth on the snow rather than his own taxation policy.

I don't remember the BBC giving Gordon Brown a hard time last April but then there was an election to try and secure for Labour at that time!


Thanks to Guido Fawkes for the quotation spot.

The news the BBC didn't think relevant to their PMQs coverage

Earlier today I blogged about today's PMQs and why the only background passage was this:

'The cables, obtained by whistleblowing website Wikileaks, also include a string of revelations about Bank of England governor Mervyn King's concern about Mr Cameron and Chancellor George Osborne's lack of experience ahead of May's general election.'

The Mail however reports:
'Gordon Brown falsely told President Obama that Britain could not commit extra troops to Afghanistan, WikiLeaks revealed last night.

But U.S. diplomats made their own investigations and discovered up to 2,000 troops would have been available as relations with the UK government became strained.

American attempts to go behind Downing Street's back and check what they were being told suggest the Obama administration did not trust Mr Brown.

...

U.S. ambassador Louis Susman warned that the Prime Minister was a ditherer who would attempt to use her (Hilary Clinton's) visit to bolster his general election campaign.'

So allegations that Gordon Brown lied and was described as a ditherer are not worth the BBC's time but the David Cameron and George Osborne allegations were; why the discrepancy?

The Shadow Cabinet and their pasts (postscript and preview)

It is odd that if a politician or opinion former is discovered to have been a supporter of a "far right" party during their youth then they are forever tarred with the brush of "racist" or "fascist" and yet those who dallied with the equally vile politics of the extreme left during their formative years are allowed to pretend this daliance is of no concern. Either mistakes made in one's youth are unforgivable or they are not, but let us at least be consistent. In my mind allying ones self with racists and fascists is wrong, but no worse than allying oneself with the murderous creed that killed more people than fascism, kept on killing them after the Second World War and enslaved & killed many millions after the war had ended. The Marxist creed was responsible for around 20 million deaths in Stalin's Russia, 40 million in Mao's China, and millions more in Cambodia and elsewhere that Marxists decided they could improve their countries by imposing the will of the collective good.

Thus the last Labour cabinet had four senior members whose background includes well documented dalliances with the extreme left of British politics; namely Peter Mandelson, Alistair Darling, Jack Straw and Alan Johnson. Yet I never heard their extremist backgrounds ever mentioned by the BBC. It is odd that Peter Mandelson's former membership of the youth wing of the Communist Party of Great Britain is never mentioned, whilst David Cameron and George Osborne's membership of the less relevant socially exclusive student dining club at Oxford University, The Bullingdon Club, is frequently brought up. It is odd that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer's former support for the International Marxist Group, the British section of the Trotskyist Fourth International is never mentioned despite the group, at the time Alistair Darling was a supporter, having completely rejected parliamentary politics and being found to have made "vicious, violent and unprovoked attack on the Police". Surely it is interesting that the man, allegedly, in charge of the UK economy was formerly a Trotskite, a member of an organisation which wanted to destroy that economy. Surely similar comparisons should have been made about Jack Straw and Alan Johnson, the men who headed the UK's government departments responsible for law and order & justice.

I wonder if the latitude given by the BBC to the "ex"-Communists of the Labour party has any connection with the number of people of a similar background within the BBC; now that would be interesting to find out.


In June 2009 I blogged about the political and working pasts of all the Labour Cabinet members and discovered that whilst just one, Liam Byrne, had had a previous job in the real economy, the background of the others was illuminating:

'ex-Marxist or extreme-Socialist backgrounds:
Peter Mandelson
Alistair Darling
Jack Straw
Alan Johnson


Only ever been in politics or related:
David Miliband
Alan Johnson
Hilary Benn
John Denham
Ed Balls
Ed Miliband
Andy Burnham
Baroness Royall
Jim Murphy
Yvette Cooper
Peter Hain
Bob Ainsworth


Media then politics:
Gordon Brown
Peter Mandelson
Jack Straw
Shaun Woodward
Andrew Adonis
Ben Bradshaw


Lawyer then politics:
Alistair Darling
Harriet Harman
Jack Straw
Douglas Alexander


Various third sector jobs before politics:
Tessa Jowell


Jobs in the real world before:
Liam Byrne'

I suppose that pretty soon I must wade through the biographies of such as Meg Hillier to see what lurks in their pasts... However here's a reminder of the political pasts of some of the people who have worked so hard to destroy Britain and its economy over the last 13 years (or maybe longer): 'Peter Mandelson - "in 1971 left the Labour Party Young Socialists (LPYS) to join the Young Communist League, then the youth wing of the Communist Party of Great Britain. This move was partly a result of disagreements with the Trotskyist Militant tendency that had just won a majority in the LPYS nationally.... director of the British Youth Council in the late 1970s. As BYC director, he was a delegate in 1978 to the Soviet-organised World Festival of Youth and Students in Havana, Cuba, with Arthur Scargill and several future Labour cabinet colleagues........"


Alistair Darling - "Before joining the Labour Party at the age of 23 in 1977, Darling was a supporter of the International Marxist Group, the British section of the Trotskyist Fourth International... He became a solicitor in 1978, then changed course for the Scots bar and was admitted as an advocate in 1984. He was elected as a councillor to the Lothian Regional Council in 1982 where he supported large rates rises in defiance of Margaret Thatcher's rate-capping laws and even threatened not to set a rate at all..."

Jack Straw - "Straw was elected chair of the Leeds University Labour Society at the 1966 Annual General Meeting, when the Society changed its name to Leeds University Socialist Society and withdrew its support from the Labour Party..."

Alan Johnson - "Johnson joined the Union of Communication Workers, becoming a branch official. He joined the Labour Party in 1971, although he considered himself a Marxist ideologically aligned with the Communist Party of Great Britain... A full-time union official from 1987, he became General Secretary of the newly-formed Communication Workers Union in 1993 following a series of union mergers... Just three weeks before the 1997 general election, Johnson was selected to stand for Parliament in the safe Labour seat of Hull West and Hessle when the previous incumbent, Stuart Randall, stood down suddenly. Randall was subsequently elevated to the House of Lords."

Peter Hain - "In 1972, a private prosecution brought by Francis Bennion in regard to his leadership of the illegal direct-action interference with the tours resulted in a ten day Old Bailey trial with the jury failing to agree on three charges and hence he was acquitted on those charges, but Peter Hain was found guilty of criminal conspiracy and fined £200. He appealed against the conviction in 1973. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal with costs. As reported in the Daily Telegraph of 23 October 1973, the court said his conviction was "fully justified". Lord Justice Roskill said Hain had not elected to give evidence, adding that "He gave no explanation of his part over the incidents with which he was charged."

Bob Ainsworth - "He first became active in politics as a trade unionist at the Jaguar Cars plant in Coventry, where he worked from 1971, and served in many capacities within the Manufacturing, Science and Finance Union there, including four years as the Branch President. During 1982 and 1983, he was a candidate member of the International Marxist Group, but he was never a full member of that organisation.


Analysis of the new Shadow Cabinet next weekend...

Is Ed Miliband so scared of his rivals that he made a man with no knowledge of economics Shadow Chancellor?

The UK is in dire financial straits so does Ed Miliband appoint as his Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls who for all his faults, and he has many, does at least understand some economics theory? No, he does not. Does he appoint Yvette Cooper who has previously served as Chief Secretary to the Treasury? No, he does not. Instead he picks Alan Johnson, a man who when interviewed last night said that his first task would be to pick up a book called "Economics for Beginners." Apparently aremed with that book he could "read into the job. You read, you talk to people and you study". Hmm good luck with that, I studied four years of economics and I doubt that I would have been ready to challenge the Chancellor of the Exchequer. So apart from intoning tribal arguments and opposing 'evil Tory cuts' what will Alan Johnson be capable of doing?

Surely Ed Miliband could see these problems, he's not stupid although he is terribly misguided. So why Alan Johnson? The Mirror claims that

'His appointment surprised the party but sources said he was Mr Miliband's first choice to take on the Chancellor.

The leader believes his wit, personality and working-class background make him the perfect opposition for privately educated George "Gideon" Osborne, son of a baronet with a multimillion trust fund, on the economy.'

Actually do read the whole of The Mirror's article, I had forgotten how nasty a newspaper The Mirror was - there is no crime bigger than being rich or well-educated or especially having notable ancestors.

Does The Mirror and Ed Miliband really think that a man who left school at 15, stacked shelves at Tesco before becoming a postman at 18 and who's only experience of te real world is Trade Union and then Labour Party politics is ideally suited to be Shadow Chancellor? maybe the key factor behind Alan Johnson's appointment is that whilst He joined the Labour Party in 1971, he apparently considered himself a Marxist thus ideologically aligned with the Communist Party of Great Britain. Ah another 'ex-Communist'...

So has Ed Miliband looked around for someone who has already declared himself not interested in becoming Prime Minister to be his Shadow Chancellor? Is Ed Miliband so scared of Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper that he would prefer someone with no knowledge of economics to be his Shadow Chancellor? Or is it worse than we thought and Alan Johnson's tuition in economics is going to come from a former Chancellor with time on his hands - Gordon Brown?

The bill for Labour's decade of irresponsibility...

"In the end all Labour Chancellors run out of money and all Labour governments bring this country to the verge of bankruptcy.... Labour has done it again"

Something that should be remembered when the cuts hit home, it's Gordon Brown's fault, and the Conservatives need to push this truth over ad over and over and over again.

Thanks to Tory Bear for the video.

The Budget aftermath

From listening/watching/reading the BBC's post Budget coverage you would expect the Country to be in a state of rage. However the first post-budget opinion poll (reported in The Sun) shows that 57% of those polled thought the Budget was right for the Country and 43% think that George Osborne was doing a good job. Just remind me what was Gordon Brown's approval rating in April?

The BBC are pushing the Labour narrative for all they are worth, the Conservatives need to lance that festering boil.

The Emergency Budget - some alternative views

1. Chris Stokel-Walker has some ideas regarding how 'To stick it to George Osborne'. It's a great piece, here's a few extracts:

'There are some strange anomalies in the food VAT system. Were I to buy a live horse (as my girlfriend would want me to – though presumably not to kill and eat later) I would have to pay the standard rate of VAT. If, though, a friendly farmer has already saved me the bother of killing it (I’m really really sorry – you know I would only buy live horses to give to you), then I can have a whole dead horse – or horse cutlets – vacpacked and sold to me as exotic meat, VAT-free. Why? Live horses aren’t considered a recognised food species. Dead horses, presumably, are.

...

Monkey nuts (peanuts in their shells) fall under the zero rate; the second you remove the horrible outer shell, they become KP nuts (or some other equally popular brand) and you have to pay VAT. It’s not even the roasting or salting that makes the difference – it’s the shell. Honest.

...

If you pop into your local bakery from today, eye up those gingerbread men with caution. If their little toes have been dipped in chocolate (because gingerbread men’s feet would get blisters if they had to walk without shoes), then the government has ruled them to be too extravagant. They’re parading around in their chocolate boots, while your average Tom, Dick or Harry Gingerbread has to make do with a pittance. ‘Gingerbread men decorated with chocolate’ come under the standard rate of VAT, ‘unless this amounts to no more than a couple of dots for eyes’. Bakers of Britain: let your gingerbread men and women run naked, free like pre-Lapsarian Adam and Eve! We’ll have no fancy winklepickers, thank you: this is austerity Britain.

...

Millionaire’s Shortbread is zero-rated while plebian chocolate-covered shortbread is taxed at the full rate. I don’t think I need to explain why that one is funny.'

2. Mr Eugenides has the killer phrase: 'Vince Cable looks like he's swallowed a shit-flavoured landmine.' Indeed he did.

Some thoughts on the Coalition's first budget

George Osborne's budget today was commendably brief and unlike those of Gordon Brown seemingly straightforward. It was also not soporific as Alistair Darling's have been.

Whilst the BBC have been very keen to push the 'narrative' that the VAT rise to 20% is the most important feature, I was more struck by the re-indexing of pensions to salaries, the breaking of this link being something that the labour party decried when it was done but then spent 13 years not restoring. I was also struck by the balancing act that George Osborne performed over Capital Gains Tax, very carefully played indeed.

Of course the real meat of the budget is the debt reduction plan, without which the UK would be in severe trouble. Before discussing the planned reduction I think it most important that it is stated why we are in the mess that we are. The last labour government left power with the situation of the government spending nearly 25 per cent more than it receives in taxation. Labour claim that this deficit is due to the recession, it is not. People spend much time agonising as to how much of the deficit is due to the recession (cyclical) and how much would be there anyway (structural).
So when George Osborne talks about cutting the 'structural' deficit, you know that he is tackling the mess left behind by Gordon Brown not that caused by the recession. We have a structural deficit because Gordon ran budget deficits when the country was at the peak of the longest boom in its history. Gordon Brown set in place a spending system to spew money into public services instead of paying back old debts and storing up money for the bad times.


The changes to income tax thresholds are also important and I was impressed by the first move towards a £10,000 threshold for paying Income Tax. It is a ridiculous state of affairs that people pay Income Tax and then receive various Credits and Benefits back from the government. This state of affairs was engineered by Gordon Brown as part of his plan to make as many people as possible dependant on the government for part of their income, thus increasing the power of the State.

The changes to CGT and VAT will be attacked by the Labour party and the left wing press, including of course the BBC. However they should look at the recent OECD paper that showed that consumption taxes such as VAT have the least effect upon growth for the money they raise. The two taxes that have the largest negative effect on growth compared to the amount they raise are capital taxes (such as CGT) and corporate profit taxes (such as Corporation Tax). Between the two extremes comes Income tax.

The pain starts today

But will George Osborne be brave enough to do what Labour, the Unions and the BBC have set their minds and words against? Burning Our Money has a good piece on this.

George Osborne or the World Cup?

I note that the time of the Emergency Budget has been moved forward from 15:30 to 12:30 next Tuesday. I wonder if George Osborne was worried about being overshadowed by Mexico vs. Uruguay and France vs. South Africa...

Now the BBC's budget coverage complete with ritualised shrieking about 'Tory slashing cuts' will only be able to be at full volume for less than 2 hours, so maybe a smart decision by George Osborne.