What the Labour/BBC alliance don't tell you

'Much highlighted by the BBC and others last week was the centrepiece of what Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor, called his "tough" plans to reduce our public-spending deficit: his promise to scrap the £200 winter-fuel allowance to higher tax-rate pensioners. This, he proudly claimed, would save £100 million a year. What was not explained – by him or the BBC – was that, since our borrowing is running at £120 billion a year, this saving would only cover seven hours of the year. That leaves a mere 8,753 hours in the year for which Mr Balls has to come up with another "tough" plan.'

From here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/10107478/MPs-want-to-turn-your-lights-off.-A-shame-no-one-told-you.html

Thank you BBC I really needed a laugh this morning and you provided me with one

The BBC reports with a straight face, as their second top story this morning, that:

'Ed Balls will pledge to end winter fuel allowances for richer older people in a speech, while promising "iron discipline" on spending

Ed Balls promising "iron discipline" on spending, come on that has to be a joke. Ed Balls, the man who as Gordon Brown's right hand man oversaw a massive increase in public spending is now promising "iron discipline"!

In case you've forgotten the profligate spending by the last Labour government, and the BBC/Labour alliance would rather you did forget it - they are certainly not going to remind you of it, here's some facts to remind you:

During the years 2001-2007, there was a sharp rise in government spending. In real terms, government spending increased from just over £400bn (2009 prices) to £618bn in 2008-09.

As a % of GDP Government spending also increased from 36% of GDP in 2000 to 46% of GDP by the end of 2008-09

This increase in government spending contributed to budget deficits and higher public sector debt.

During the period 2000-2007, the UK economy was growing strongly (at an average of around 2.5%). Therefore, the fact government spending as a % of GDP increased shows that the increase in government spending was at a greater rate than the increase in national income.

Health care spending. The biggest beneficiary of the government’s higher spending was health care. Health care spending almost doubled in real terms between 1999 and 2010


The BBC don't question Ed Balls's promise, provide no background as I have done, nothing... Ha ha ha, except it's not funny really, is it.

Ed Miliband finally admits Labour WOULD borrow billions more | Mail Online

No great surprise but at least Ed Miliband has lined up alongside Ed Balls on favouring more borrowing in the attempt to boost the UK economy.

More here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2316998/Ed-Miliband-finally-admits-Labour-WOULD-borrow-billions-more.html

Labour governments always end up borrowing to pay for the expansions of state and benefits, any future Labour government would be no different.

Wise words indeed from Mrs Thatcher

"The state has no source of money other than the money people earn themselves..."

"There is no such thong as public money, there is just tax-payers money"

"Prosperity won't come by inventing more and nmore lavish public expenditure programs"

"You don't grow richer by ordering another chequebook from the bank"


Watching this short video should be compulsory for all politicians, once or twice a day...

I didn't agree with everything Lady Thatcher did BUT bearing in mind the state of the nation in 1979 there really was no alternative, she was a necessary, sometimes unpleasant, medicine for the Country. At the end of her tenure as Prime Minister the country was no longer the sick man of Europe and was considerable better off. Without her governance I wonder how the UK would have looked in 1990.

Those savage cuts in perspective

The BBC and the Labour Party, connected as they are by a common agenda, have spent the last three years railing agianst the 'savage Tory cuts', 'too deep, too fast' they cry.

Do remember that Labour under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, asisted by such as Ed Balls and Ed MiMiliband increased state spending by 50% in a decade and the BBC never thought that extrvagent or unwise. Now the Conservative lead coalition have dared to reduce spening by a measly 2.7% we are meant to believe that that is evil?

What spending cuts

The Labour party and their propaganda arm, the BBC, are up in arms about the deep cuts to public expenditure being made by the Conservative lead coalition - "Too deep, too fast" is the mantra that they are still trying to embed in the British public pre the next general election.

There's just one trouble with this narrative...

This graph shows Public Expenditure from 1967 to date and the predicted next four years.

You'll see the regular slow rise in Public Expenditure massively increase in rate in 2001 when Gordon Brown abandoned the prudent policies that he had inherited from the last Conservative government and opened the public spending floodgates. The tiny decrease in public spending from 2010 onwards has barely touched the massive increase under the last Labour government, yet it is portrayed as 'savage' and 'uncaring'.


Thanks to Burning Our Money for the graph and for returning to the blogging scene.

Was Ed Balls misleading the public on Newsnight last night? And a challenge for Ed Balls.

"By having the fastest cuts of any country in the world, he (George Oborne) is running a huge risk"

That's a claim that Ed Balls made during his Newsnight interview with Jeremy Paxman last night. Jeremy Paxman did not pick him up on this claim but I will.

First an explanation that cuts in UK government spending are not fast or huge:

'In 1999-2000, government spending was £343bn. Had this merely moved in line with inflation, total expenditure would have reached £450bn in cash terms by 2009-10. Yet actual spending in that year had jumped to £669bn, an entirely unaffordable 53 per cent increase in real terms. The spending plans outlined in George Osborne’s emergency budget reduce real terms outlays from £697bn this year to £671bn in 2015-16. Remarkably, spending in real terms then will still be much higher than it was in 2008-09.'

Secondly I have a challenge for Ed Balls: I presume that Ed Balls would not have made a misleading claim on last night's Newsnight and so will be able to prove the veracity of his claim by comparing planned spending cuts in the UK with those of the countries he compared the UK with - Greece, Ireland and Portugal - and also with Spain, Italy and the United States. so come on Ed, compare the planned spending cuts in the UK and those other six countries for the next year, two years, three years and beyond if you can. Then give me the figures. Do the figures back you up? If they do then I will admit that you were quite correct on last night's Newsnight and publish that fact on my blog. If they do not back up your claim, will you admit that you were wrong and go on Newsnight to admit that you were wrong? I am sure that Newnight would be only too happy to give you the airtime to make that admission.

Labour paying off its historic debts "bit by bit", unfortunately not the country's

This morning I hear that Harriet Harman has said that the Labour party is paying off its historic debts "bit by bit".That's good to know but it is a shame that they cannot also be called upon to pay off the debts they built up for the country "bit by bit". The last 11 years of the last Labour government saw an increase in public spending that was beyond anything the UK has seen before. This expansion of the state was supported by a bubble of debt and the policies of above all Gordon Brown and his right-hand men Ed Balls and Ed Miliband. This triumvirate of wasters should never, ever be allowed to forget or be forgiven for their role in screwing up the UK economy. However their friends and allies in the BBC will do their best to ensure that the Labour mantra that it was all the fault of bankers and the US economy becomes the accepted truth.

How essential?

Thanks to Theo Spark for the spot.

Which Gordon Brown decision will cost this country the most?

Your choices are:
1) Selling 400 tonnes of British gold reserves in a pre-announced sale that helped drive the price received paid for the gold down to a 20 year low. Gordon Brown managed to receive under $300 an ounce for the gold, the price of gold closed last night at $1,456 per ounce. Gordon Brown and his advisers Ed Balls and Ed Miliband have lost the country around £9.1 billion - that's £9,1000,000,000 - so far on this deal.

2) Signing Britain up to the EU Stabilisation Fund during that period when the electorate had determined that labour was not the largest party in The Commons and so was unlikely to form the next government. How much this will cost the country is as yet unsure but £6 billion is at risk so far. Who was responsible for this decision? Blame is being placed on Alistair Darling but could he really make such a decision without the go ahead from Prime Minister Gordon Brown? And would Gordon Brown have said yes without conferring with his key ally Ed Balls?

3) Doubling public spending between 1999 and 2008, so burdening the country with debt that will take generations to pay off and could have meant us losing our triple A credit rating. What will the total amount of extra interest on the national debt be that can be laid at the feet of our former Prime Minister and his economic advisers, including Ed Balls and Ed Miliband?


It is tough to know which decision will eventually cost this country the most  but it is clear that having taken these decisions, Gordon Brown, Ed Balls and Ed Miliband should have forfeited the right to pontificate on economic matters. At the very least their record should be pointed out to them in every interview they give.

Are the Labour party really complaining about the choice of terminology?

The BBC report that:

'Officials complained that a BBC London News report concerning NHS budgets used the word “savings” instead of “cuts”.

Labour claims the report, broadcast on BBC One after the News at Ten on Monday night, was biased in favour of the Coalition’s spending programme, an allegation strenuously denied by the corporation.

Officials are reportedly angry that cuts were described “savings” on at least half a dozen occasions during the bulletin, with an accompanying graphic also using the phrase.'

I am sorry, excuse me, but is that the Labour Party, the party that re-branded 'spending' as 'investment' complaining? Do they really have the brass necked cheek?

Raising the Debt Ceiling explained

Barack Obama's policy skewered rather nicely I think.


Thanks to Theo Spark for the spot.

Putting the figures into perspective

The BBC report that:

'More than 50,000 NHS jobs will be lost because of government spending cuts, a new anti-cuts campaign group says.

Trades Union Congress-backed False Economy said its study showed that NHS trusts were planning to cut 53,000 staff over the next five years - more than double previous union estimates.'

Let's put that figure into perspective; even if we accept the 50,000 jobs figure, this is over four years, which means 12,500 a year. In 2009 official figures showed that the NHS employed 1,432,000 people which is a third more than when Labour came to power in 1997. Taking 12,500 a year off of the payroll means an annual staff reduction of 0.87%. I believe that the average natural wastage figure in the public sector is around 6% per annum. So the 'savage cuts' will account for less that 10% of the jobs lost by natural wastage.

The above assumes that the 50,000 jobs figure is correct but is it? I have my doubts and even if it is why should any of the jobs be front-line jobs, surely there are plenty of administrators and others of the Labour client state who can be eased out of non-productive work first. Surely these administrators will be only too happy to sacrifice their jobs for the greater good of the 'envy of the world' that is the NHS.

When local councils cut front line services remember this - 'Local authorities have taken on an extra 180,000 workers since 1997, with the total number not employed in traditional front-line roles now standing at almost 750,000, according to ministers. '

The Telegraph reports that:

'Local authorities have taken on an extra 180,000 workers since 1997, with the total number not employed in traditional front-line roles now standing at almost 750,000, according to ministers.

...

Bob Neill, the local government minister, said: “These figures reveal the explosion in town hall jobs and bureaucracy under Labour and reinforce the need for some councils to start cutting out middle management.

“Crazy non-jobs like cheerleading development officers and press officers tasked with spinning propaganda on bin collections provide no value to the public.

...

According to the data, the number of people employed by local authorities in Britain stood at 2,728,000 in 1997 when Labour came to power. Last year the figure was 2,907,000.

There were 741,702 people on council payrolls who were not in traditional “front- line” jobs such as those in education, social services, recreation, libraries, planning, environmental health, culture, heritage or trading standards.'

This rise in the numbers of back-room staff employed in local councils and other state owned enterprises (especially the NHS) was a deliberate policy of the Blair/Brown axis of evil. They were trying to create as large a client-state as possible and that included paying people to do politically correct non-jobs as well as feather-bedding the unemployed. Of course Labour councils will try and cut front-line jobs as that affects the local residents more and, they hope, will create more anti-Conservative sentiment.

The con that is Wind Power

'We expect that over time we will be able to reduce support for wind power and other renewable energy technologies as they become more economic, but it is not possible to put a specific timescale on this.'

'Coalition' Energy Minister Charles Hendry has told MPs that UK governments had spent £2.2 billion supporting wind power over the last eight years and that it was impossible to predict when Wind Power would prove profitable without grants. If this is the case, why are we wasting the money; it's not as though Man Made Climate Change is real.

'What is most striking about the past two years is the sheer scale. Some nine hundred billion pounds, a sum unprecedented in British history, was allocated to the bank bailouts and stimulus programmes. Suppose that, instead, the country had been given an 18 month holiday from all taxation. No income tax, no VAT, no corporation tax, no stamp duty, no council tax, no NI contributions, no inheritance tax, no CGT. Just think of the stimulus effect that would have had.'

'What is most striking about the past two years is the sheer scale. Some nine hundred billion pounds, a sum unprecedented in British history, was allocated to the bank bailouts and stimulus programmes. Suppose that, instead, the country had been given an 18 month holiday from all taxation. No income tax, no VAT, no corporation tax, no stamp duty, no council tax, no NI contributions, no inheritance tax, no CGT. Just think of the stimulus effect that would have had.'

Daniel Hannan  in The Telegraph wonders if there might have been a better way...

Did you know that Labour were committed to scrapping the EMA (Educational Maintenace Allowance)

You'd be hard pressed to guess it given all the heat generated by Labour about how the government's plans to replace the EMA with different support for 16-18 year olds. But here, from 2007 and being passed around on Twitter and Facebook today, is what Labour was planning to do:

An incentive scheme that rewards 16- to 18-year-olds for staying in education post-16 will be abolished when the leaving age is increased to 18.
The Secretary of State for Education said last week that education maintenance allowances (EMAs) would no longer be necessary when the age is raised in 2015.
Giving evidence to the Education and Skills Select Committee inquiry into 14-19 education, Alan Johnson said: "The EMA is there as an incentive to stay on. We will not need to incentivise after 2015."

Not that anyone who gets their news from  the BBC would know this a they have a pro-Labour narrative to spread.

Many thanks to Mark Pack for the spot.

Will the BBC report this news story, a news story that doesn't fit their pro-Labour 'narrative' (update)

Further to this post from earlier this evening, I see that Sky News have some more detail (new in bold):

'Sir Nicholas Macpherson, Permanent Secretary of the Treasury, had been giving evidence to the Public Accounts Committee on changes to Whitehall governance.

He said spending at the Ministry of Defence under the last government was "out of control", adding it had been put into "special measures" and ordered to report on a month-by-month basis on spending.

The committee then asked if this had been the case at other departments and Sir Nicholas admitted the Department of Health and Department of Education had problems with their finances during the last decade.

Looking back to the previous system, Sir Nicholas said: "There was a point in the last decade when the Ministry of Defence lost control of public spending."


Challenged by Conservative MP Jo Johnson over whether he would say the MoD was the only major department to have lost control of its spending, Sir Nicholas replied: "No, I wouldn't."


Sky's Deputy Political Editor Joey Jones said the comment was "very important", adding: "The reason that this is significant is because this is absolutely at the core of the economic argument that is going on at the moment.


"Ed Miliband has acknowledged there were certain failings in the way in which the Labout government ran the economy, notably in terms of their lax regulation of the banks.


"But he absolutely refuses to admit spending was not under proper control, saying national debt was at a low level and the deficit was running at a low level before the banking crisis.


"This is important because he is such a senior figure and civil servant."'

Earlier I said:

'So far no mention of this story on the BBC. I wonder if they will report the story and if they do then where they will bury the story and who they will quote to contradict Sir Nicholas Macpherson.'

As of 18:36 I can see nothing about this story on the BBC news website yet, I wonder how long it will be before the BBC will cover the story or will they really ignore it...

Will the BBC report this news story, a story that doesn't fit their pro-Labour 'narrative'?

Sky News are reporting that:

'A top Treasury civil servant has said Government departments "lost control" of public spending under Labour.

Sir Nicholas Macpherson, permanent secretary of the Treasury, had been giving evidence to the Public Accounts Committee when he made the comments.

He was firstly asked about spending at the Ministry of Defence under the last government and said it was "out of control".

The committee then asked if this had been the case at other departments and Sir Macpherson admitted he had concerns about the Department of Health and Department of Education.'

So far no mention of this story on the BBC. I wonder if they will report the story and if they do then where they will bury the story and who they will quote to contradict Sir Nicholas Macpherson.

Why is the UK deficit so large?

Guido Fawkes reports that:

'Ed Miliband told the Times this morning that: “Labour is not to blame for Britain’s debt mountain and accuses David Cameron of peddling a “great deceit” about the previous Government’s record to pursue a damaging programme of cuts.”

He claims:

“What is this deceit? It is that the deficit was caused by chronic overspending rather than a global financial crisis that resulted in recession and a calamitous collapse in tax revenues.”

Last time he made such absurd claims the Spectator provided Red Ed with this (see top of this article) handy graph. Perhaps he could explain then why the last government was spending more than it was bringing in from 2002?'

If you'd like to hear Ed Miliband making the same points on the Jeremy Vine show and being taken apart by Jeremy Vine then you can here for the next 7 days. It is nice to hear a BBC presenter actually tackle a Labour politician about their economic policy past, present and future.