BBC gives phone hacking 7 times more exposure than the Euro crisis

Posted on July 20, 2011

The BBC are obviously smarting from the growing number of allegations that they have covered the phone hacking scandal so much that crucial issues like the increasingly likely collapse of the Euro have been neglected.

Of course many of those allegations are made by people who are themselves uncomfortable politically with the embarrassment being caused by the hacking issue, and of course the phone hacking scandal is absolutely rightly big news. However, if the Euro was to fall over next week with catastrophic economic consequences I suspect much of the public would be wondering how it all happened so suddenly, when in reality this crisis has been brewing for months and years.

The BBC’s Foreign Editor Jon Williams (who is, by the way, well worth following if you’re on Twitter) just said:

Surprised at claim #BBC covered #hacking to exclusion of other stories. Arab Spring, Italian Euro crisis & #eastafrica drought all prominent

It may be an exaggeration to say that other stories have been excluded entirely, but if you look at the evidence it’s pretty clear they’ve been eclipsed by the hacking coverage. Here are the results of searching the BBC News site for references to “hacking”, “euro” and “libya” over the last week:

Libya: 23 mentions

Euro: 32 mentions

Hacking: 246 mentions

As I say, hacking is a huge story and it does deserve large amounts of attention – but it’s hard to claim the BBC hasn’t taken its eye off other major issues while it’s been going on.

Unlike others I don’t necessarily think that’s solely because the BBC is threatened by Murdoch; it’s also because hacking is a media-village story taking place within the world most journalists inhabit. However the BBC in particular has a Charter responsibility to consider the public interest. That isn’t served by neglecting to cover the Euro crisis properly.

Raponomics

Posted on March 25, 2011

Guido drew attention yesterday to the new Andrew Lansley Rap, a viral hit that is storming its way across the internet thanks to the unexpected marriage of Grime and the politics of NHS reform:

As much as I disagree with its message, it’s a brilliant example of a pretty complex issue being communicated well and amusingly through Youtube. This is the shape of political campaigning to come.

While we’re on the topic, this is the perfect opportunity to plug the best example of a geeky topic being communicated in this way – the John Maynard Keynes vs F.A.Hayek rap battle:

Definitely the quickest and most catchy way to learn all about the economic divide…and worth it just to hear someone rhyme “Austrian perspective” successfully.

The Budget typo that could cost £5.4 million

Posted on March 23, 2011

Budget Day is always a weird day in the world of politics – everyone has a couple of hours to read, analyse and digest the most important economic document of the year before they then have to start communicating their flawless insight and analysis. Add to that the potential for so many tables and technicalities to fry your brain and by the end of the day everyone’s feeling a bit wiped out.

Occasionally, though, something jumps out at you from the mass of figures and rule changes.

Take for example the tax rise today on oil and gas companies. At the minute they pay 20% tax on their profits, and the Budget says that this will rise to 32%.

The question is when will it rise?

The outline introduction (PDF) says the change takes place “from midnight tonight” – ie Wednesday 23rd March. The detail, though, says “midnight on 24 March 2011″.  If I say we should meet at midnight on Tuesday, you’d assume I meant really late on Tuesday evening, not really early Tuesday morning. The Treasury seem to mean midnight on Wednesday, but that date detail implies it’s actually rising tomorrow night.

So what, you might (justifiably) ask? After all, it’s only one day. Well, here’s what: this tax rise is raising £2 billion a year, which is over £5.4 million a day. If you were a group of oil companies, wouldn’t you consider throwing fifty grand to a clever tax barrister on the off chance that your claim for the tax hike to be delayed for an extra day came off?

The Sword and the Shield: how to deliver growth

Posted on January 25, 2011

Bad headlines have a way of colliding at the same time. So it is on the economy this week – first the CBI’s Richard Lambert alleged that the Government don’t have a coherent growth strategy across Whitehall, now the growth (or rather, not growth) figures for the last quarter have come out.

Things may well not be as bad as they seem – indeed, Fraser Nelson has a good post warning the Left against undue glee and the Right against undue gloom as a result of the new economic figures. However in economics as much as politics perception is hugely important and cannot be ignored.

So what to do?

Figures are figures, and they’re rather hard to change. It’s natural that the Government should talk about the impact of the snow, but overdoing that is quite dangerous. Politically it opens the door to stinging rebuttals from the Opposition, in media terms there’s a risk it looks like gimmickry and economically the markets have become bored of numerous companies using this as an excuse for their own poor results announcements in recent weeks.

Nelson’s argument that previous recessions have seen a jittery recovery is much more powerful. It’s based in sound fact and it communicates economic understanding. It’s notable that Ed Balls has chosen a relatively complex argument in criticising the Government today, saying that the shrinkage is due to people reducing spending in advance of cuts due to fear, so Downing Street shouldn’t be scared of using a little bit of economic complexity themselves.

More can be done to address the allegations about a lack of a clear strategy. Understandably there’s confusion – in Whitehall, Westminster and business – about how the roles of the Treasury and BIS divide when it comes to responsibility for encouraging growth.

A clear statement of these responsibilities would be a good start, identifying the Treasury and BIS as the sword and the shield of economic growth.

The Treasury holds the purse strings, so it has the most pro-active role – the sword.

It should set promoting growth as a priority, to be implemented by lowering taxes (or, depending on your ideological and economic bent, spending wildly). As a direct result, consumers, investors and businesses should find more money in their pockets.

BIS should be the shield, acting as a guardian of business around the cabinet table – monitoring the activities of other departments to make sure they aren’t introducing regulation that hobbles enterprise, weighing in against anti-growth policies from other arms of government and pursuing an aggressive purge of the bad regulation that it currently oversees.

If both Departments are simply given a blurred role of sharing the aim of delivering growth then at best they will duplicate activity and trip over each other, or at worst neither will do the job and they’ll end up blaming each other. Dividing responsibilites and encouraging specialisms is the best and clearest way to get the job done.

Crisis in Dublin, Opportunity for Belfast

Posted on November 22, 2010

While all the focus at the moment is on dragging the Republic of Ireland out of the mire it stumbled into with the help of the Euro, Northern Ireland’s need for economic development is largely being ignored.

The Province has done a lot better in recent years but is still hugely reliant on the public purse and short on private investment.

We should be viewing the crisis in Dublin as a huge opportunity for Belfast.

For days now the speculation has been that the EU will demand as part of the deal that the Irish agree to raise Corporation Tax. Doing so would be lunacy, as it would cancel out one of the Republic’s few remaining selling points – its competitive business tax rates. However, since when has the EU been a stronghold of sensible economic policy, or acted in the best interests if its members?

Brian Cowen strongly denies that this might happen, but then again a week ago he was denying just as strongly that his country needed an EU bailout and look where we are now. As Bismarck said, “Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.”

If the Republic does increase Corporation Tax, the opportunity is clear. Plenty of companies will think about abandoning the country wholesale. A timely and drastic cut in Corporation Tax in Northern Ireland would persuade many of them to move across the border – boosting the economy and tax revenues in one of the most needy parts of the UK.

If anyone has any ethical qualms about the idea, ask yourself this: where would you prefer these businesses to go, Northern Ireland or Switzerland? It’s time to do our countrymen a favour. 

The real midterms result: Neo-conservatism is dead

Posted on November 03, 2010

The media are now engaged in a frantic exercise in tail-chasing over what the result of the midterms really means.

It’s certain that the Democrats took quite a drubbing – particularly in the massive swing in the House of Representatives and the strong swing to the Republicans in many gubernatorial races, though less so in the Senate.

It was also a good night for the Tea Party both electorally and reputationally.

Electorally, the real posterboys of the movement – Rand Paul and Marco Rubio (whom I drew attention to back in September) romped home. The movement’s detractors claim these two don’t count, because they were fighting for seats with Republican incumbents, but that misses the point. Yes, they beat the Democrats but more crucially they beat the Republican establishment. These were victories for the Tea Party over the whole political establishment – that is why they matter so much.

Reputationally, the candidates that the media and the Tea Party’s critics wanted to be the face of the movement – people like Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell – lost. There are some burned TPM fingers as a result, but that is a lesson learned: don’t pick weirdos. The ability of voters to be selective and sensible whilst still backing the Tea Party has been demonstrated.

The most important result of all, though, is that last night represents a crushing defeat – particularly on the fiscal front – for neoconservatism.

The British stereotype that neocons are all about foreign policy is mistaken; that was tacked on to a previously isolationist philosophy  after 9/11. In reality, the neocons’ most distinguishing ideological feature was a rejection of fiscal conservatism (opposition to deficits and support for balanced books, low tax and low spending) in favour of big spending, big debt and hang the consequences. That is why they and Obama are viewed as much of a muchness by most Tea Party activists and why the Tea Party began rolling in the Bush years, well before Obama’s election.

The Tea Party is an earthquake, and it is the neocons’ house that has come crashing down. The people have rejected big spending, government debt and deficit finance wholesale in favour of low taxes, spending cuts and an end to deficits.

The Republican establishment took a long time to realise this. Those who stuck to their deficit-financed guns have been swept away, and those who adapted are scrabbling to join the new consensus. Neoconservatism is dead – long live the Tea Party.

The Child Benefit proposal is a vote-winner

Posted on October 07, 2010

The child benefit hoo-hah over the last few days is understandable. It’s controversial, communications within the Cabinet clearly weren’t as hot as they should have been and – inexplicably – it was launched before obvious potential loopholes had been spotted and sorted out. As a result particularly of those unsealed loopholes it has been pretty roundly panned, particularly in the Mail, Telegraph and Express.

However, I think the media have called this one wrong – this idea has the potential to be a big vote-winner. In the words of one lobby editor I spoke to on Monday, the papers swiftly resolved to “pour a bucket of shit over the idea”. As Guido points out, this may in part be because many of those writing our papers are on more than £44k, so are themselves going to lose out from the policy. Whatever the reason, there is now definitive evidence that their assumption that this was an unpopular idea is mistaken.

According to YouGov there is massive 83% support for the principle of the policy. Interestingly, on its implementation (where there have been some screw-ups) the only real concern comes from the 46% of people who want fully-fledged means testing introduced – a much more radical suggestion. Instead of the predicted popular backlash, the Government’s real challenge is that they aren’t going far enough for many people.

Time for the IFS to come clean – they swing to the Left

Posted on August 25, 2010

I’ve written before about the duplicitous and ultimately meaningless term “progressive”, and its counterpart “regressive”. The distinction, as well as being dubious, is inherently political – a nice term for “socialist” and “not-socialist”. It’s not unfair for the Left to take up the term – after all, this is politics and language is a weapon in that war.

What is odd, though, is that the Institute for Fiscal Studies have become Britain’s leading cheerleader for the idea that progressive=good, regressive=bad, promoting the concept that particular types of economic policy are politically better than others.

The IFS’ pitch and reputation is that it is both non-partisan and politically unbiased – that it does not prefer one set of political ideas over another, but it just wants the sums to add up. As they say on their website, “our most cherished asset is a hard-won reputation for objectivity and impartiality”. Given that this status imparts such huge weight to their reports, particularly within the BBC, it is bizarre and misguided that they are increasingly moving beyond bean-counting and into flag-waving.

As Matt Sinclair at the TPA notes, the IFS’ latest criticism of the Government is founded fundamentally on the assumption that the best way of helping the poor is by handing them cash – that is a big, and controversial, political statement. They’re not just measuring who gets more and who gets less, they are expressing a subjective value judgement about the Budget’s politics.

There’s nothing wrong with being a think tank that comes from a slightly pinko political perspective – plenty do and are successful with it (although the conclusions of such bodies are of course often incorrect).

It is wrong, though, to purport to have no ideology whatsoever when you actually do lean one way more than the other. Maybe, like the BBC, they truly believe themselves to be blank slates in perfect political balance, but I don’t believe that is humanly possible. I believe they truly are non-partisan, but free of all politics? Not a chance.

It is telling that while those on the economic Left yell that the TPA is ideologically of the libertarian right – something it has never disguised – they are at pains to tout the IFS’ reputation as some kind of flawless, superhuman machine pumping our pure facts. It is nothing of the sort – and that is something the IFS should make clear.

India is the future, not Europe

Posted on August 02, 2010

The size and seniority of the British Government delegation sent to India shows that Westminster is at last waking up to the thing that everyone else knows – India is the great economic hope for the 21st Century.

With a rapidly expanding economy, a vast population and a well-functioning, liberal democracy, it is essential that we tap into India’s growing wealth.

The focus on the Old World, so typified by the British political class’ obsession with European integration, is worse than irrelevant, it is becoming dangerous. By bricking ourselves up in a protectionist Fortress Europe, we send the insulting signal that we don’t want to buy Indian goods, and we don’t want them to buy our products.

It’s quite encouraging that the Coalition are making the right noises – with David Cameron calling for trade barriers to be dropped and even Vince Cable saying:

There is no future for Britain looking inward and backward, or being trapped in a Eurocentric world. Our country must be open for global business.
 
This is a welcome change in rhetoric, particularly to hear a Liberal Democrat acknowledge the foolishness of trying to be little-Europeaners when Europe is falling behind the rest of the world. But when will it be matched by a change in action?

Britain has given up control of her own trade policy. Even though David Cameron and Vince Cable, the PM and Business Secretary, recognise that our future must lie in free trade with India, the decision is out of their hands.

Instead of being able to simply go ahead and drop our trade barriers to India – bilaterally or even unilaterally – they have to sit on their hands and wait for the EU to strike a deal that allows the corrosive regime of protectionism and subsidies in all sorts of industries to continue.

We have waited through four years of moribund EU-India negotiations – how much longer must we wait to do what we could easily simply do tomorrow if we controlled our own trade policy?

The argument for “pooling” sovereignty in the EU is supposedly that it gives us more clout – and Vince Cable amongst others has peddled the myth that we would be ignored if we negotiated alone. But Britain, not the EU, is ideally placed to deal with India; we share so many cultural, liguistic and even legal ties with them that we should be natural partners.

Frankly, it is shameful that while we wait on negotiators who never have to answer to the people for the harm their delays do to our economic prospects, other, smaller and more nimble economies like Canada have already taken advantage of those same links to get their share of the Indian dream.

If we aren’t careful we will find ourselves in a stagnant economic backwater where instead of musing on the possibility of free trade with India, we will be begging them to sign on any terms.

David Cameron and Vince Cable are right – it is time for free trade with India, and the abandonment of the “eurocentric” obsession. But that is all talk unless they actually do something about it.

The grim reality of the welfare system

Posted on July 22, 2010

From my (now former) colleagues at the TaxPayers’ Alliance comes a new video about the many problems with the welfare system:

I don’t know about you, but for me the most shocking statistic in there was that those who choose to work instead of living on benefits effectively only get to keep 26p per hour of the minimum wage. We have a system that could hardly do more to discourage work – a system that crushes aspiration - and that is a disgrace. The TPA’s proposals to fix that are online here (PDF).

The other thing to note is that the video looks great – thanks to the TPA’s in-house video-whizz Andy Whitehurst. It’s not very expensive to produce these kind of good-looking virals now, and we should see more think tanks and campaign groups doing the same sooner rather than later.