Biased BBC

OPEN THREAD

2012-02-13T09:41:00.001Z

Good Morning. Monday morning arrives and so does a new Open Thread to take us off into this new week. BBC annoying you? Please do tell....

A GREEK TRAGEDY

2012-02-13T09:33:00.000Z

MSM coverage of events in Athens last night was lamentably slow, with Sky and the BBC sharing honours in putting BAFTA trivia ahead of a major European capital in flames. Then again, when a broadcaster like the BBC is in receipt of ££millions from the EU, perhaps the images of Athens ablaze is unhelpful? Of course in the end they HAD to show the scale and depth of public unrest but not without the repetition of this soundbite from Lucas Papademos ""Vandalism, violence and destruction have no place in a democratic country and won't be tolerated". I am surprised that the BBC were unable to find anyone who could point out that unelected technocrats imposing Germanic austerity against the will of the Greek people is not really "democracy" in the first place.

WHITEWASH

2012-02-13T08:44:00.007Z

Back in November, the BBC begrudgingly admitted that some of its greenie/current affairs programmes broadcast on BBC World News and made by an outfit called FBC Media (UK) Ltd had been illegally sponsored by influence groups including the Malaysian and Egyptian governments to the tune of at least £18m. This was no small beer, and I sensed it was the tip of an iceberg because also drawn into the net of accepting inappropriate sponsorship was the Television Trust for the Environment, an organisation made up of green nutters who boast about having the largest library of such material in the world and who supply dozens of programmes to the BBC.

As I reported in November, trustee Richard Ayre was duly appointed to investigate. This was a bit like putting a fox in charge of a hen house because not only is he an ex-BBC journalist of 30 years, but also he is a member and past chairman of the militant rights group Article 19, which believes fervently in warmist claptrap. In other words, he's about as impartial on green issues as his boss, Chris Patten, is about the EU.

Mr Ayre has now published his report. This is what he says:

“A small number of programmes broadcast on BBC World News between February 2009 and July 2011 broke BBC rules aimed at protecting our editorial integrity. These rules ensure that programmes are free, and are seen to be free, from commercial or other outside pressures. Three current affairs programmes were sponsored, which is nota allowed. Three other programmes were partly sponsored by external organisations with a direct interest in the subject matter and this too broke our rules. In one other programme, the financial relationship between the sponsor and the production company was acceptable but was not made clear enough to viewers. In the case of eight other programmes, all of which featured Malaysia, we found that the production company which made the programmes appeared to have a financial relationship with the Malaysian Government. This meant there was a potential conflict of interest, though the BBC was not aware of it when the programmes were broadcast. Nne of the programmes breached the BBC guidelines on impartiality and none of the BBC's news bulletins was affected."

So what Mr Ayre has done is nail the production company for all the blame, and to say that's it. Move along, there, nothing to see, it was only a little localised problem and we have dealt with it, even though it wasn't us to blame, it was careless, nasty outsiders. Tell me if I am wrong, but this - like most such BBC inquries - stinks of one word: whitewash.

But meanwhile, as I noted in November, TVE has mysteriously vanished from the web without a trace, and the corporation continue to churn out greenie nonsense on a monumental scale, as well as being directly involved in propaganda. I note, for example, that the BBC is working hand in glove with EDF Energy - one of the power giants specialising in spreading hypothermia - in brainwashing kids about climate change and greenie moonshine. And who are among the principal paid advisors of EDF? Why the BBC chairman and his deputy of course.

REAPING THE WHIRLWIND

2012-02-12T09:32:00.004Z

Putting the BBC in charge of a project to arbitrate the accuracy of weather forecasting organisations in the UK is a bit like Josef Mengele running research into the science of eugenics. They (from the Trustees down) long since made their collective mind up that man-made global warming is definitely happening, and that the warmist fanatics at the Meteorological Office are therefore to be believed in their fantasist modelling. Nevetheless, Roger Harrabin persuaded his bosses to shell out a bucket-load of our cash on such a project, no doubt spurred on by the corporate missionary zeal to prove wrong the hated "denialists" who dare to question warmist weather orthodoxy. Last month, as the linked report shows, Mr Harrabin announced that his pet scheme was on the verge of going ahead, and he listed an impressive array of weather organisations and forecasters who were poised to take part.

But, as the Mail reports today, they aren't. If the report is accurate, all of the forecasters on Mr Harrabin's list who might reasonably called sceptical about warmist zeal - including the impressive but deeply sceptical Jo Bastardi and Piers Corbyn - are instead turning their fire on the BBC for their pre-determined political views on the topic. Independent forecaster David King is quoted as saying the BBC organisation is "factional".

Irrespective of what actually happens, it does not take a genius to work out that the project will struggle to persuade anyone that it is objective or valid. The BBC has been outrageously partisan on the subject of the weather so systematically and for so long that the corporation's credibility in this arena is entirely shot. Andrew Montford's masterful analysis of the warmist hijacking of the Royal Society emhpasises yet again the key role in the spreading of warmist propaganda played by Roger Harrabin - as does Autonomous Mind here. As you sow, so shall you reap.

IN THE BLUE BUT OFF THE SCREEN!

2012-02-11T20:07:00.000Z

A B-BBC reader asks;

"During the milder than normal November/December of 2011, I saw a weather report on the BBC which used a graphic comparing temperatures to the average for the time of year.

From memory, the graphic and the temperature line used nice warmish colours and was on an upward trajectory. This indicated the temperature was above average for the time of year, and that it would be rising for the rest of the week in question.

I've been waiting to see a similar graphic with blue colours on a downward trajectory. Maybe I've missed it, but I wonder if any of your other eagle-eyed readers have spotted one?"

Over to you...

FILE UNDER HIDDEN...

2012-02-11T20:04:00.001Z

Biased BBC's Alan reports;

2The truth of the allegations against Jimmy Saville are not proven in any way and that is not the point of this.....here the BBC felt that the mere accusation was enough to 'tarnish' the BBC's reputation and so they filed the report away never to be seen.
BBC 'buried Savile sex abuse claims to save its reputation’
The BBC shelved a Newsnight investigation into allegations that Sir Jimmy Savile sexually abused a teenage girl in his dressing room at Television Centre, it has emerged.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9073142/BBC-buried-Savile-sex-abuse-claims-to-save-its-reputation.html
It makes you wonder why they have similarly 'buried' the Balen Report and spent £300,000 in legal costs ensuring the public do not get to see its contents. What does it tell us about the BBC's coverage of Israel and the Jews? Can't be good news can it?It was Mark Thompson who told us that 'we provide a bridge to the world, a bridge to freedom, it is very important that the story of Gaza is told around the world.' So we know whose side he is on anyway.

AT THE GOING DOWN OF THE SUN...

2012-02-11T20:00:00.001Z

BBC seem pretty happy about this news! They rolled the NOTW and it seem to me that they would just love to ensure that The Sun sets. Thoughts?

The BBC Will Not Be Discussing This Republican

2012-02-11T06:02:00.001Z

Here's one for you. Spend a moment or two studying the "Issues" page of the Mia Love for Congress website. Ms. Love is a Republican candidate for the US House of Representatives from Utah.

Issues - Mia Love

Notice the issues listed, and her positions on them. Note especially the ethnicity of all the people in the accompanying photos. Also notice how close her positions on certain issues tie in with those of the Tea Party movement. Now, try to guess Mia Love's background.

Once you have a good guess, check out the main page. How well did you do?

Does anyone think the BBC US President editor will be discussing Mia Love's candidacy any time soon? He's all about politics, you know, a well-traveled, experienced political junkie, finger on the pulse of the country. The BBC expects you to trust his take on US politics and the feelings of the people. If Mardell doesn't find a moment to bang out a short blog post about her in the next few months from the hotel bar while on the road following a Republican ~~joke~~ candidate for President, he's useless and biased.

SNOOZEQUIZ

2012-02-10T19:57:00.003Z

Once upon a time, I enjoyed the News Quiz! Barry Took was a decent cove as Chairman and the likes of Alan Coren provided acid wit and intelligence. Fast forward to this edition broadcast today with Sandi Toksvig in the chair and charmers like Jeremy Hardy and Phil Jupitus on the panel. I was really quite surprised to hear Toksvig tell Her Majesty "to get over herself" as concerns the Diamond Jubilee. How pleasant. Lots of anti-Monarchy jokes followed. Harry Redknapp was also speared by the panel despite his recent legal acquittal. I wonder if his lawyers were listening? It seems that the possibility of England having an English man as manager is upsetting to this BBC crew. I gave up listening about half ways through but couldn't help but reflect on how this once entertaining programme is a hollow sham of what it once was.

Evil White Man And His Fire Water

2012-02-10T19:50:00.002Z

The BBC never ceases to push a Nanny State agenda and often stumbles across some ingenious angles to use:

An American-Indian tribe in South Dakota has sued some of the world's biggest beer firms over severe alcohol-related issues in the community. The Oglala Sioux Tribe are asking for $500m (£316m) for healthcare, social services and child rehabilitation.

Okay, so is anyone thirsty around here?

The lawsuit also names the nearby town of Whiteclay, Nebraska, which has four beer shops that sold nearly five million beer cans in 2010 despite having only about a dozen residents.

Alcohol is outlawed on the reservation and the nearest town which allows alcohol is 20 miles (32 metric thingy) away

So why has this sorry excuse of a story made it onto the BBC site?

Nebraska State Senator LeRoy Louden has said that after struggling with the problem for years, the state has introduced legislation that would impose restrictions - on the types of alcohol that can be sold and business hours.

Ah, there we go. Legislation is normal in BBC-land. Personal responsibility isn't. Alcohol is already banned and they are planning further restrictions? The BBC is playing the victim card as usual. Just look at all of the pro-price fixing 'medical reports' and lobby group press releases released without rebuttal by the BBC for similar policies in the UK.

The reservation has grappled with alcohol problems and poverty for generations......includes Shannon County, the third poorest county in the US

The BBC - never reporting the grow-a-pair-and-sort-yourself-out point of view. Well, they are ~~Red Indians~~ Native Americans after all...

THE ROTTING APPLE...

2012-02-10T19:40:00.002Z

Yes, this one did catch my attention and B-BBC Alan lays out the indictment;

"A squirmingly coy Evan Davis attempts 'clever' but finishes looking 'stupid'.

Here Davis thinks he can work a fast one on Mark Toner from the US State Department asking him if the US would ever veto a UN security council resolution to defend an 'ally' in the Middle East.

Davis believes this is a 'cheeky' question....implying that Toner would not know that the US does veto such resolutions and that the 'ally' is of course Israel. The line of questioning has nothing to do with Syria and Russia....but it tells us that Davis thinks Toner is too stupid to know the US uses vetos and that Davis would happily compare Israel with Syria which has happily gunned down peaceful protesters and tortures many of its own people, and that the US is comparable to Russia.

The payoff was of course that it was the US's position on Israel that caused the violence in Syria....by being a bad example it led allowed Russia to veto the resolution and Syria to continue its violent strategy...if only the US would stop supporting the nasty little Jewish state we could have peace in the Middle East.

So in the end it's all Israel's fault really. The democratic Israel which has defended itself against 60 years of Muslim attacks is comparable to a Syrian dictatorship which slaughters its own people. Israel being allowed to fight its corner and defend its borders and its very right to exist is in fact the instigator and leading protagonist of violence in the Middle East that gives cover to other regimes that fight viciously against the will of the people.

Israel is the rotting apple that turns all other nations bad. Israel supplies arms to other equally appalling regimes, it supplies nuclear technology to dangerously unstable countries and trains and equips terrorist organisations whilst the corrupt political class ignores the plight of its own massively poor and illiterate population....oh no that would be Pakistan. But Pakistan is Muslim....so that's OK."

OPEN THREAD

2012-02-10T15:44:00.001Z

Friday and a new one of these. Am rather busy hence lack of posts, it would be helpful if a few others could post to try and keep momentum going.

Question Time LiveBlog 9th February 2012

2012-02-09T18:32:00.000Z

Tonight Question Time comes from London.

David Dimbleby is joined by Defence Secretary Philip Hammond, Alastair Campbell, Shirley Williams (apparently not dead yet, it seems), ~~Alan Partridge~~ Steve Coogan and journalist Ann Leslie.

Just an observation - only one elected person on the whole panel? Really?

As with last week, please remember that humour is good, sarcasm is fine, biting wit is even better but direct threats of violence and disgusting language are not acceptable. We will not add such comments. Have fun - but be good now...

Your Moderators line-up consists of David Vance, David Mosque, TheEye and, hopefully, John Ward.

It's a 10:30pm kick off and we'll be staying open for This Week too. See you here later!

Question Time 9th February 2012

THE WORLD'S LARGEST LIBERAL ECHO CHAMBER

2012-02-08T20:09:00.002Z

Interesting post HERE on the DT from Ed West concerning the BBC;

"The difference between the makers of Fox’s political programmes and the BBC is that the former believe they are in a battle of ideas while the latter genuinely thinks their beliefs are “the” default correct ones. That is why the BBC – which is still a first-class broadcaster – is so keen to respond to criticism of bias, because they really do not believe they are. Yet bias it is, and the BBC remains the world’s largest echo chamber.

OPEN THREAD

2012-02-08T17:07:00.002Z

OK, this is a NEW Open Thread for your use! Enjoy.

Sticky Spot

2012-02-08T12:50:00.002Z

Mark Mardell addresses the difficult subject of US foreign Policy without committing the new BBC crime of “Value Judgement.”

Poor Obama is in a sticky spot. In a period of of electioneering, he must wrestle with the tricky problem of who to suck up to.
Should he choose the disproportionately influential Jewish lobby, which is conspiring to suck America into another of their selfish Jewish wars?
Or should he courageously plump for pleasing the good American people who are “tired of foreign conflicts” and consider it expedient to appease the Iranians.

Carefully avoiding any Value Judgements, Mark Mardell turns to some important experts on the Middle East to find out more. He approaches Cliff Kupchan and Michael Scheuer for their interesting views on the matter. Or should that be interested views.
Professor Matt Kroenig does inject some sense into the mix at this point, but Mardell has not been entirley open about the earlier two spokespersons. We are told is that one is a ‘maverick’ but, what are their political leanings?

“Republicans regard any hesitation in backing Israel as unpatriotic,” says Mark Mardell. His impartial opinion appears to be that good folk vote Democrat.

Seriously, the online article is a little more nuanced, and they did link to a Ronan Bergman NYT article I linked to myself the other day.
To many listeners the Today item I heard this morning would have been a stand-alone item, and that would have been a definite value judgement crime of the first degree.

MODERATE ISLAM

2012-02-08T09:34:00.000Z

Here's a story that the BBC seems to a tad reluctant to cover for some reason. B-BBC contributor Alan observes;

"No mention of this story on the BBC website despite it being on 'Drudge' hours ago and the Daily Mail having picked it up....wonder why not? (Though the BBC does find time to complain of Iranian intimidation of its own staff: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16874177)

Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate
Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel
Iran lays out legal case for genocidal attack against 'cancerous tumor'

"The Iranian government, through a website proxy, has laid out the legal and religious justification for the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of its people. The doctrine includes wiping out Israeli assets and Jewish people worldwide.Calling Israel a danger to Islam, the conservative website Alef, with ties to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said the opportunity must not be lost to remove “this corrupting material. It is a “‘jurisprudential justification” to kill all the Jews and annihilate Israel, and in that, the Islamic government of Iran must take the helm.”

SMACKDOWN!

2012-02-08T09:02:00.000Z

There are moments when you listen to the BBC when the clouds suddenly part, the sun breaks through and the person being interviewed layeth a smackdown on the BBC interviewer. Such was the case this morning when RBS CEO Stephen Hester was interviewed here on Today by James Naughtie. What a cracking performance from Mr Hester. Naughtie pursued the usual dismal biased BBC narrative which seems to reduce to; 1/ The Banks were solely responsible for the financial crisis 2/ Bonus payments are wrong 3/Fairness should be the central nostrum for capitalism. Each time he tried to get Hester to agree, the RBS Chief effectively dismissed the proposition put forward. When Naughtie compared Hester to a Doctor, implying the latter did what he did without bonus payment, Hester compared Naughtie to a Nurse (!) and batted the point straight back. This was a seamless performance and even at the very end when Naughtie resorted to making a cheap point using Hester's parents, this too was dealt with. If you haven't bought shares in RBS, you should. It's a pity we are forced to buy into the BBC. Well done to Mr Hester.

DON'T MESS WITH THE MISSIONARY MAN...

2012-02-07T22:07:00.002Z

Richard Black attracts a lot of attention in these pages. Biased BBC's Alan notes...

"You have probably heard that the science is settled, that the debate is over....because the consensus is that AGW is real. However that may not be the case...it seems the consensus is only of importance when it ostensibly backs up your own case...or in this case, Richard Black's case.

As the remorseless tide of public opinion and mounting evidence says the science is far from settled Black has decided that the consensus is irrelevant...what counts is the truth:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16906738

'The numbers tell you precisely nothing of value....and may not matter very much.
A couple of years back, at one of the UNFCCC meetings in Bonn, I had a long chat with Viscount Monckton. As a scholar of Classics, he was able to detail with Classical derivation the reasons why consensus matters far less than simply being right. And he is surely correct; after all, in more recent times, Galileo, Darwin, Einstein and Hawking are among those whose work broke with the consensus, yet turned out to be correct. But if the presence of a consensus is irrelevant, so, logically, is its absence; which makes the continued use by sceptics' groups of the "consensus is cracking" meme a bit mystifying.'

So you see when the consensus is no longer a consensus....it no longer matters what the numbers say.

So you see the BBC's refusal to allow sceptics a fair hearing based on numbers of scientists who oppose them is, according to Black, wrong....what matters is what is right....so before it seems that if enough people claimed something was true the BBC science journalists would print the legend as fact!

Black is very definitely on the defensive now....he firstly reduced the amount of space for comments on his blog...presumably because that makes it so much harder to rebut his fallacious claims, and now he has retreated behind Twitter from where you have to track down his blog.

I guess he doesn't really want to engage with the public because the public were having great fun shooting 'fish in a barrel'...namely his journalism, so called.

BBC SCOTLAND

2012-02-07T22:02:00.004Z

A B-BBC reader from north of the border has this cry of despair for BBC Scotland;

"The BBC Scotland is an organization that is so biased to one religion & a minority community in Scotland that is has no fear of hiding this bias any longer. The vast majority of BBC Scotland's employees are from the Roman Catholic community. There is nothing wrong with following any religion but when that community is only 16% of the country and has the running of the country then something is very wrong. Please see continued attacks on the Protestant community in Scotland (mainly the west of Scotland) as evidence of this bias. The BBC Scotland has now convinced a large portion of Scotland that sectarianism is a one way steet in this country. The message that the BBC send out is Catholic = good & Protestant = bad.

Rangers football club have pulled all communication with the BBC in Scotland for continued attacks on the club & it's fans. The Rangers family have had enough of this organization which we are forced to pay for. All that is asked for is an even playing field on reporting. Example: Celtic manager (Neil Lennon) supposedly had bullets sent to his home address. The BBC reported this from outside Ibrox stadium (home of Rangers FC, why not outside Celtic park?) when in fact this had absolutely nothing to with Rangers football club. This is only one small example of subliminal reporting that the BBC Scotland has been involved in over a least a decade on the Protestant majority & Rangers football club in Scotland."

RADICAL, NOT EXTREME

2012-02-07T21:39:00.000Z

Thoughts?

"The BBC has told its journalists not to call Abu Qatada, the al-Qaeda preacher, an “extremist” in order to avoid making a “value judgment”, the corporation’s managers have ruled that he can only be described as “radical”. Journalists were also cautioned against using images suggesting the preacher is overweight. A judge ruled this week that the Muslim preacher, once described as “Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man in Europe”, should be released from a British jail, angering ministers and MPs. Adding to the row, Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary, yesterday insisted that Qatada “has not committed any crime” and said his release has nothing to do with the European Court of Human Rights.

Meanwhile in the gravity based community a British court has called Qatada a “truly dangerous individual” and even his defence team has suggested he poses a “grave risk” to national security. Some might say that by pretending this Jihad preacher is NOT extreme the BBC is a "grave risk" to the Nation.

OPEN THREAD

2012-02-06T14:38:00.001Z

Monday and time for a new one of these! The floor is yours....enjoy.

The Right Threat

2012-02-06T09:36:00.005Z

So the BBC is focusing on right-wing terrorism Today. That’s nice. ( link )

Dr. Matthew Goodwin has created a nice politically correct name for Islamic inspired terrorism. “A.Q. terrorism.” Doesn’t that sound nice and respectful? A.Q. stands for Al Qaeda, the distorted version of Islam.
In the unfortunate event that we must mention such a thing on the BBC, say, when a bomb goes off somewhere, for balance we must also mention its equivalent. Right wing terrorism. We haven’t created a cute name for that yet.

We know there are:
“47 international (Islamic inspired) terrorist organisations are proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000.
Of these, two organisations are proscribed under powers introduced in
the Terrorism Act 2006, as glorifying terrorism.

14 organisations in Northern Ireland are proscribed under previous
legislation.”

Typical of the right wing are..... Anders Breivik, Oslo and Timothy McVeigh, Oklahoma?
Oh well. There’s the EDL. And the BNP. We realise they’re not proscribed (yet) but we’re working on it.
We insist that the underpants bomber wasn’t influenced at UCL,(very much) but people are being radicalised by right wing websites.

“Large numbers of citizens remain deeply concerned about immigration, feel anxious about the cultural compatibility of Muslims, and are threatened by rising diversity. In fact, in recent years the Brits have become equally if not more concerned about these issues than many of their European neighbours. These voters are also extremely dissatisfied with the response of the main parties to such trends”

So, because immigration is the game and multiculturalism is the aim, we must find a way of dealing with these pesky citizens who are 'more concerned'.

“The key issue is how to respond to voters' profound anxiety about this issue.”

We’ll ban the lot of it! Shut down The Gates of Vienna! Internet Service Providers must consider removing right wing websites!!

We must make sure that people don’t "get their news from JUST ONE source." No, not the BBC. We meant the internet.

A COMMERCIAL BREAK....

2012-02-05T21:04:00.001Z

Let's be clear. This is a blog concerning itself with BBC bias. It is also a blog that is entirely self funding and which does not advertise or clutter the space. So, in a blatant instance of opportunism - I bring you news of the perfect Kindle or IPAD download - my little canter through the uplands and valleys of the appeasement process here in Northern Ireland! For a trifling £2.63, you can enjoy the thrills and spills of what happens when terrorism is indulged and then rewarded - all in the name of peace. And now back to the main feature....

STEPHANOMICS?

2012-02-05T20:10:00.001Z

Ed Balls' and Labour's whole line of attack on Coalition economic policy has been blown out of the water by the IFS 'Green Budget' report but strangely enough this is not considered 'headline news' for the BBC's economic guru Stephanie Flanders.

Biased BBC's Alan notes;

"Balls claims that Osborne's economic policies have cut growth and increased borrowing because of that. The IFS report resoundingly shatters that delusion saying that Labour would have caused borrowing to skyrocket by an extra £200bn in 7 years:

'In a blow to shadow chancellor Ed Balls, the IFS undermined Labour’s argument that cutting ‘too far and too fast’ has driven up borrowing by choking off growth. The watchdog said that under the plan proposed by former Labour Chancellor Alistair Darling before the General Election, the deficit would be £76 billion in 2016-17 rather than the £24 billion currently forecast. In total, a Labour government that followed Mr Darling’s plan would have borrowed around £200 billion more over the seven year period than planned by the Coalition.'

But what does the BBC tell us in the shape of Stephanie Flander's 'Steph'n'Nonsense' blog? She fails to mention Labour's extra £200bn borrowing at all though she does deign to tell us that perhaps the extra Coalition borrowing is not caused by the austerity policy....but this is merely 'a small poke in the eye' for Balls...not headline stuff!

'Is Ed Balls right to blame the government for this poor performance? The IFS doesn't answer this directly. Labour would say that the extra tax rises and spending cuts introduced by the coalition have been a waste of time - indeed, may even have hurt borrowing by tanking the recovery. There's a complicated answer to that question in this report, but the bottom line is that the IFS does not really buy the Ed Balls version of reality. The think tank does not think the extra borrowing has been caused by the extra austerity, or not very much of it. Not a great headline, perhaps - but another small poke in the eye for Ed Balls from the guild of independent economists.'

A major plank of Labour's attack is torpedoed and Flander's thinks this is not headline news...in fact not news at all...as she doesn't mention the £200 bn albatross. However credit where credit is due...she does reveal this!

'Kevin Daly from Goldman Sachs noted recently, the official story that we have permanently lost at least 7-8% of our national output in this crisis implies that the past few years have done more lasting damage to our economic potential than either World War II or the Great Depression.'

'More lasting damage than WWII or the Great Depression'! And note the weasel phrase 'past few years'.....the Coalition has been in power for nearly 2 years...is she suggesting that they are to blame?

She seems reluctant to state the unvarnished truth, namely that economic stability and potential has been destroyed by Gordon Brown and his team of Treasury advisers....that is Ed Balls and Ed Miliband....currently the two main players in the Labour Party car crash now....and of course both ex boy friends of the BBC's very own Stephanie Flanders.

This (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16829768) is the official BBC report on the Green Budget...and is intent on claiming the IFS supports Ball's policies of more borrowing and 'stimulus'...and of course fails to mention all the above.