Political bias at BBC - something has to be done surely
Discussion
TTwiggy said:
That's not really the question that matters. That sort of question is only relevant to individuals and corporations. Countries do not operate on the same level. If 'things' are needed, they should be paid for. If a new road or rail network would improve the economy (for instance), then build it. Debt is not an issue for a country.
So why does the government need to collect any tax at all?Mr2Mike said:
Atomic12C said:
I am hoping that most people are of sound mind to link together the fact the the UK has had to endure a long period of austerity is because of the previous Labour government.
Unfortunately people have short and very selective memories.TTwiggy said:
andymadmak said:
TTwiggy said:
Countries are not subject to the same restrictions that people or commercial concerns are however. And the sooner we get a government (of any persuasion) in that realises that the UK is not a tea shop in Whitby that has to balance the books, the better off we'll all be.
What level of deficit is acceptable in your view?turbobloke said:
That sounds like BBC speak in support of Labour borrowspunkfestering.
The annual cost of interest on UK debt is around £40 billion which is approx 3% of GDP and getting on for 10% of tax receipts iirc.
Forget the bus, that's 500 new hospitals built. Or better still build fewer and staff/equip them well.
Or cut around 6.5p in the pound across income tax rates not just the basic rate (1p~£6bn).
Of course debt is an issue for a country. Problems of debt aren't binary...granted there's no precise rule for when debt becomes a serious problem but it's a problem as it has to be serviced and ultimately repaid which prevents other uses of the money, and even inflating away GDP denominated debt takes time - during that period working people and families will continue to pay the price.
While the UK is well-placed in having a long average maturity, we have a lot of inflation-linked debt. At worst it will go along the lines of inflate, stagnate, default.
I am sorry you have been brainwashed by the vile Tory corporations and the Man. The way out of a recession caused by government overspending is to spend MORE not less.The annual cost of interest on UK debt is around £40 billion which is approx 3% of GDP and getting on for 10% of tax receipts iirc.
Forget the bus, that's 500 new hospitals built. Or better still build fewer and staff/equip them well.
Or cut around 6.5p in the pound across income tax rates not just the basic rate (1p~£6bn).
Of course debt is an issue for a country. Problems of debt aren't binary...granted there's no precise rule for when debt becomes a serious problem but it's a problem as it has to be serviced and ultimately repaid which prevents other uses of the money, and even inflating away GDP denominated debt takes time - during that period working people and families will continue to pay the price.
While the UK is well-placed in having a long average maturity, we have a lot of inflation-linked debt. At worst it will go along the lines of inflate, stagnate, default.
When Jeremy gets in there will be education for people like you, so you learn how things really are. All the regimes he idolises have such programs.
nikaiyo2 said:
turbobloke said:
That sounds like BBC speak in support of Labour borrowspunkfestering.
The annual cost of interest on UK debt is around £40 billion which is approx 3% of GDP and getting on for 10% of tax receipts iirc.
Forget the bus, that's 500 new hospitals built. Or better still build fewer and staff/equip them well.
Or cut around 6.5p in the pound across income tax rates not just the basic rate (1p~£6bn).
Of course debt is an issue for a country. Problems of debt aren't binary...granted there's no precise rule for when debt becomes a serious problem but it's a problem as it has to be serviced and ultimately repaid which prevents other uses of the money, and even inflating away GDP denominated debt takes time - during that period working people and families will continue to pay the price.
While the UK is well-placed in having a long average maturity, we have a lot of inflation-linked debt. At worst it will go along the lines of inflate, stagnate, default.
I am sorry you have been brainwashed by the vile Tory corporations and the Man. The way out of a recession caused by government overspending is to spend MORE not less.The annual cost of interest on UK debt is around £40 billion which is approx 3% of GDP and getting on for 10% of tax receipts iirc.
Forget the bus, that's 500 new hospitals built. Or better still build fewer and staff/equip them well.
Or cut around 6.5p in the pound across income tax rates not just the basic rate (1p~£6bn).
Of course debt is an issue for a country. Problems of debt aren't binary...granted there's no precise rule for when debt becomes a serious problem but it's a problem as it has to be serviced and ultimately repaid which prevents other uses of the money, and even inflating away GDP denominated debt takes time - during that period working people and families will continue to pay the price.
While the UK is well-placed in having a long average maturity, we have a lot of inflation-linked debt. At worst it will go along the lines of inflate, stagnate, default.
When Jeremy gets in there will be education for people like you, so you learn how things really are. All the regimes he idolises have such programs.
I always find the best way of explaining it as
in 2010 the government took £450B in tax/income but spent £600B therefore was borrowing £1 for every £4 spent
Now in 2017 the government is spending £784B (austerity??) and income is £731B (taxing rich & corporations more??) and the Deficit has reduced to £53B (or put another way borrowing £1 for every £15 spent)
Never here these figures in the spend spend spend BBC news
Annoyingly ... This should have been TM's election message ...EVERY f
kING DAY it should have been look at these figures ... do you want to go back to borrowing 1 in 4?nikaiyo2 said:
I am sorry you have been brainwashed by the vile Tory corporations and the Man. The way out of a recession caused by government overspending is to spend MORE not less.
When Jeremy gets in there will be education for people like you, so you learn how things really are. All the regimes he idolises have such programs.
You will address him as "Dear Leader".When Jeremy gets in there will be education for people like you, so you learn how things really are. All the regimes he idolises have such programs.
T6 vanman said:
TB Completely agree with your sentiment but you are confusing government spend with GDP (2016=2.6T therefore 1.5%)
I always find the best way of explaining it as
in 2010 the government took £450B in tax/income but spent £600B therefore was borrowing £1 for every £4 spent
Now in 2017 the government is spending £784B (austerity??) and income is £731B (taxing rich & corporations more??) and the Deficit has reduced to £53B (or put another way borrowing £1 for every £15 spent)
Never here these figures in the spend spend spend BBC news
Annoyingly ... This should have been TM's election message ...EVERY fkING DAY it should have been look at these figures ... do you want to go back to borrowing 1 in 4?
so the government is redistributing the wealth.... how about they collect say £700B and spend £650B and you the £50 towards our national debt. Why can that not happen?I always find the best way of explaining it as
in 2010 the government took £450B in tax/income but spent £600B therefore was borrowing £1 for every £4 spent
Now in 2017 the government is spending £784B (austerity??) and income is £731B (taxing rich & corporations more??) and the Deficit has reduced to £53B (or put another way borrowing £1 for every £15 spent)
Never here these figures in the spend spend spend BBC news
Annoyingly ... This should have been TM's election message ...EVERY f
kING DAY it should have been look at these figures ... do you want to go back to borrowing 1 in 4?Is it too simplistic to restrict what the govt spends to be within the amount collected?
T6 vanman said:
nikaiyo2 said:
turbobloke said:
That sounds like BBC speak in support of Labour borrowspunkfestering.
The annual cost of interest on UK debt is around £40 billion which is approx 3% of GDP and getting on for 10% of tax receipts iirc.
Forget the bus, that's 500 new hospitals built. Or better still build fewer and staff/equip them well.
Or cut around 6.5p in the pound across income tax rates not just the basic rate (1p~£6bn).
Of course debt is an issue for a country. Problems of debt aren't binary...granted there's no precise rule for when debt becomes a serious problem but it's a problem as it has to be serviced and ultimately repaid which prevents other uses of the money, and even inflating away GDP denominated debt takes time - during that period working people and families will continue to pay the price.
While the UK is well-placed in having a long average maturity, we have a lot of inflation-linked debt. At worst it will go along the lines of inflate, stagnate, default.
I am sorry you have been brainwashed by the vile Tory corporations and the Man. The way out of a recession caused by government overspending is to spend MORE not less.The annual cost of interest on UK debt is around £40 billion which is approx 3% of GDP and getting on for 10% of tax receipts iirc.
Forget the bus, that's 500 new hospitals built. Or better still build fewer and staff/equip them well.
Or cut around 6.5p in the pound across income tax rates not just the basic rate (1p~£6bn).
Of course debt is an issue for a country. Problems of debt aren't binary...granted there's no precise rule for when debt becomes a serious problem but it's a problem as it has to be serviced and ultimately repaid which prevents other uses of the money, and even inflating away GDP denominated debt takes time - during that period working people and families will continue to pay the price.
While the UK is well-placed in having a long average maturity, we have a lot of inflation-linked debt. At worst it will go along the lines of inflate, stagnate, default.
When Jeremy gets in there will be education for people like you, so you learn how things really are. All the regimes he idolises have such programs.
IIRC it was 2015 with GDP as 2.8T USD and the coversion rate was 1.5 not 1.3 as now (ish) so the numbers work out better as approximations..The percentage was between 2 and 3 anyway.
turbobloke said:
I didn't think I was confusing the two - but you appear to be confusing USD with GBP and are we looking at the same year? GDP for 2016 was 2.6T USD and I can't recall for sure what year was being cited in the article I used as a reference.
IIRC it was 2015 with GDP as 2.8T USD and the coversion rate was 1.5 not 1.3 as now (ish) so the numbers work out better as approximations..The percentage was between 2 and 3 anyway.
Please don't let my figures be wrong Please don't let my figures be wrong Please don't let my figures be wrongIIRC it was 2015 with GDP as 2.8T USD and the coversion rate was 1.5 not 1.3 as now (ish) so the numbers work out better as approximations..The percentage was between 2 and 3 anyway.
D'oh ... just call me Dianne,
Blame my numeric faux pa on a 7:30 start and 18:40 finish........ You are indeed right and I throw myself on the PH forum mercy
I believe my borrowing to spend figures are correct and what boil's my piss is the abject failure of media to explain how Tory governments have spent more year on year and collected more income year on year but continue to promote the myth to draconian austerity
superlightr said:
so the government is redistributing the wealth.... how about they collect say £700B and spend £650B and you the £50 towards our national debt. Why can that not happen?
Is it too simplistic to restrict what the govt spends to be within the amount collected?
It's not to simplistic but where would you make the £100B (15%) spending cuts......."Strong & Stable" was a crap soundbite but genuinely with the hospital pass of an economy CMD inherited I do not believe we could have a better outcome for public services / private companies & Joe Public normal white van man workers like me. ... Is it too simplistic to restrict what the govt spends to be within the amount collected?
When will the media look at the basket case economies over in Europe and compare with the UK (eg France with 10% unemployment) ... You don't help the poor by making them unemployed...!
Anyway after my faux pa with TB I'll retire from this forum with my cocoa
T6 vanman said:
turbobloke said:
I didn't think I was confusing the two - but you appear to be confusing USD with GBP and are we looking at the same year? GDP for 2016 was 2.6T USD and I can't recall for sure what year was being cited in the article I used as a reference.
IIRC it was 2015 with GDP as 2.8T USD and the coversion rate was 1.5 not 1.3 as now (ish) so the numbers work out better as approximations..The percentage was between 2 and 3 anyway.
Please don't let my figures be wrong Please don't let my figures be wrong Please don't let my figures be wrongIIRC it was 2015 with GDP as 2.8T USD and the coversion rate was 1.5 not 1.3 as now (ish) so the numbers work out better as approximations..The percentage was between 2 and 3 anyway.
D'oh ... just call me Dianne,
Blame my numeric faux pa on a 7:30 start and 18:40 finish........ You are indeed right and I throw myself on the PH forum mercy
I believe my borrowing to spend figures are correct and what boil's my piss is the abject failure of media to explain how Tory governments have spent more year on year and collected more income year on year but continue to promote the myth to draconian austerity
As we agree on the sentiment the rest is mere detail
Mr. White said:
Radio 4 this morning, around 7:55am, interview with the chap from Euratom (German). He was very critical of the EU's negotiating stance. BBC were then desperate to spin it that he was basically the German Nigel Farage. Give it a listen - absolutely blatant.
Yes, they bumped him off air pretty quickly, just so that they could have one of the their own correspondents put the "right spin" on the story. andymadmak said:
Mr. White said:
Radio 4 this morning, around 7:55am, interview with the chap from Euratom (German). He was very critical of the EU's negotiating stance. BBC were then desperate to spin it that he was basically the German Nigel Farage. Give it a listen - absolutely blatant.
Yes, they bumped him off air pretty quickly, just so that they could have one of the their own correspondents put the "right spin" on the story. turbobloke said:
The BBC has long pretended its own editors and correspondents are presenting independent news and views when they're ramping entrenched biased perspectives.
Absolutely correct TB, the big question is what can be done about it?. I would love to see a programme being made and broadcast on one of the other big channels... BBC Bias and rampant propaganda, or a title to that effect, the BBC really need called to book.The problem is that many people still have no concept of what is happening and are so gullible, accepting every piece of garbage and
manipulated "news" stories they propagate as gospel.
On the BBC Scotland News its virtually every headline every single day... A doom story related to Brexit, the general Scots public are
absolutely f
king sick of hearing it, its relentless.Dindoit said:
That viewpoint isn't new, and it implies that the BBC's senior management and senior staffers/presenters want to see left-liberal bias - numbers of employees from these categories have confessed to it over time.The only evidence sources for bias are actual output and witness testimony from BBC staff relating to how the (biased) output arises e.g. producers handing a copy of the Guardian to presenters to follow in terms of their take on a story.
People see bias in various items from the Mail and Guardian and rightly so Their critical faculties don't stop working at the BBC's portals. To suggest otherwise is completely ridiculous.
The difference is that the BBC has a duty to be impartial and it's clearly failing.
superlightr said:
so the government is redistributing the wealth.... how about they collect say £700B and spend £650B and you the £50 towards our national debt. Why can that not happen?
Is it too simplistic to restrict what the govt spends to be within the amount collected?
It is possible for a government to cap spending at a specific level and then allow GDP inflation to overtake it and I believe this is the approach the UK Government adopted once Labour left office. That is why we see the battle on-going regarding Public sector pay, pensions and benefits. Is it too simplistic to restrict what the govt spends to be within the amount collected?
It is not possible for a government to cut spending without causing serious economic damage to itself and social unrest. The historic (and current: see Saudi, Venezuela, Greece) examples are too numerous to mention.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff