BBC News - Darling 'must cut £36bn', IFS think tank says.
The sort of right wing drivel that the BBC now loves to put out
Paul Mason apart, is there anyone but profound right wing economosts at the BBC now?
Lots of prominence given to the IFS here - with no mention made that Stephanie Flanders is an alumni.
So we have:
Public spending is facing a £36bn squeeze from 2011 - with £15bn of the cuts needed yet to be identified, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said.
But Philip Hammond, for the Conservatives, said the IFS report "underlines the fact that the PBR yesterday was a political statement designed for electioneering purposes rather than to address the real needs of the country".
In its report, the IFS estimates the cost to families of paying back the national debt is £2,400 a year for eight years.
The IFS says whichever party wins the next general election will have to cut 6.4% per year between 2011 and 2014 if they want to protect schools, hospitals and increase overseas aid, as both Labour and the Conservatives say they do.
The think tank predicted "severe cuts" elsewhere, of the kind not seen in Britain since the late 1970s, potentially across departments such as housing, transport, higher education and even defence.
Cuts, cuts, cuts - it's all the BBC wants to talk about.
Oh, and then, right at the end they say:
TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber called for "radical new thinking" to avoid cuts to services and warned of possible industrial action over the "unfair" public sector pay freeze.
He said there should be a "fairer contribution from the wealthiest" to help pay off Britain's debts.
To which the response is:
But BBC Economics Editor Stephanie Flanders said the IFS analysis also suggested the tax rises in the pre-Budget report would "overwhelmingly" impact on the top 10% of earners.
"Their income, if nothing else changes, will be cut by 5% by 2012," she added.
As if to say "Brendan's got it wrong"
No he hasn't - but Flander's right wing bias is becoming very irritating.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
The problem with the pledge to safeguard health and education spending is that the implication is that other categories of spending are somehow not important – presumably both Labour and the Tories think we don’t need to spend money on public transport, or house people properly, or have a properly equipped army. Rather than making £36bn of cuts we should be looking to increase taxes by £36bn to fill the hole. The recent Compass report ‘In Place of Cuts’, which Richard and I both worked on, shows how it can be done.
I agree that BBC economic coverage (with the very honourable exception of Paul Mason) seems to be very lazy at the moment. They seem to take their main reporting lines from the Times and the Telegraph and they don’t bother to consider any alternatives to economic orthodoxy. It’s a sorry state of affairs.
It always makes me laugh how people say the BBC is pro Labour. Watch it,they’re almost the propaganda arm of the tories. They probably want to to cosy up to Cameron,expecting him to win next year.