Choosing the loosing side in a revolution

The moment appears with great excitement. People around you are making their decisions and urging you to join them. In a moment of euphoria you do something you would never do if you were sober and resign your position to join the revolutionaries on the barricade.

Its a familiar story.

A friend of mine in our joint first year at University was chosen to kick of a food fight. Everyone went in in their old clothes, ready to re-enact that scene from Animal House. Up stood (insert now senior manager at blue chip company name here) a shouted the immortal lines "Food Fight" just as the chief cook, a formidable West Indian Lady known as Lucy turned the corner.

Everyone saw Lucy, except my friend who started distributing food. Everyone else staid quiet and seated. Everyone else knew Lucy was not to be messed with.

Lucy's retribution was a swift as it was sure - a bottle of tomato ketchup was emptied over my somewhat sheepish looking friend, and the legend of Lucy had a new chapter to add. ( Like the time that I still can't explain when she chased a bunch of guys dressed a Vikings out on the last day of Summer term. )

But what's some harmless fun is now looking deadly serious in Libya.

Many foreign diplomats resigned, believing the BBC's euphoria and disgusted with the violence of the Gaddafi regime. But they must now consider the possibility that Gaddafi might hold on, and if he does his revenge (whatever is spoken of amnesties and forgiveness) will be sure and terrible.

The UK has now turned from Labour's policy of appeasement to one of almost open hostility. Our colours are now nailed to the mast also.

Everything now hangs int he balance. Delay favours the Mad Dog - which is why Venezuela's Chavez is busy trying to create one with the old kicking the ball into the diplomatic long grass ploy ( after all it has worked so well for Iran and North Korea over their nuclear weapons programs ).

Add into the mix that fact that the UK was planning on taking a break from wars for a decade or two, and we have a very real and painful dilemma that will impact all our lives.

It all hangs in the balance - the west must decide if it will kill off the dictator whom it has dared to wound, or let him recover and find ways of extracting revenge when he is strong again.

Remember the Marsh Arabs and the rebellion in Basra after the first Gulf war, or the initial ineffectiveness in the Balkans. But also remember the protection of the Kurds with the no-fly zone & UK Marines on the ground ( a friend of mine was a volunteer Doctor on that exercise - she asked her husband if something shouldn't been done and the next day got a letter through the door asking for volunteers and was at the end of the week in Northern Iraq - moral be careful what you wish for .)

The BBC and its cheerleader friend would do well to remember this is far from over and the stakes are frighteningly high for many.

Can you trust the BBC's Emma Jay ?

Read this post on the Biship Hill Blog and be careful of her reassurances if your views deviated from the BBC left wing and warmist world viewpoint.

The BBC's leftwing mindset explained by Peter Sissons

Many of us go on and on about the political bias inherent in the BBC's output. ( And not just the news - everything from EastEnders to the Archers get the Guardian reader seal of approval. )

Well Peter Sissons is telling like it is over in the Daily Mail.

Its time someone woke up in the Coalition and started treating the BBC like the threat to democracy it really is.

It was Labour that cancelled the Sea Harrier and made reinvasion impossible

Again we have the selective amnesia of left wing supporting BBC reporters giving a false impression on radio reports this morning.

Lord West ( a govt. minister under Gordon Brown ) is banging on about the scrapping of the remaining ground attach Harriers in the context of our being unable to retake the Falkland Islands again.

What he's not telling you is that the scrapping of the Sea Harrier by Labour removed from UK Carrier operations the only half capable air defence and air superiority fighter available. This decision alone effectively stopped any future operations to retake the Falklands. ( The ground RAF ground attack harriers in the Falklands suffered painful loses as the had to press aggressive attacks against targets that could and did shoot back. )

Remember - if a new Argentine invasion were successful they would have two airfields ( one with full air force facilities and able to operate fast jets with large range ) to operated their recently modernized air force from against our vastly reduced Navy with only the air defence that type 45 destroyers could provide. Frankly we couldn't retake those islands even with ground attack harriers on Invincible class carriers.

Before that point Britain would have suffered its biggest defeat since Singapore and our Govt would have fallen.

This time the Argentines would be properly prepared to strangle our very long and poorly defended supply lines.

In short lose the airbase at Mount Pleasant and recovery by conventional military action would be impossible - with or without ground attack Harriers.

About the only useful role of Harriers slender to be already deployed to the Falklands so that destruction of our runways would not mean complete loss of counter invasion strike capability. ( Remeber this is all about deterrence of attack - on which subject it was unfortunate that the coalition forwent the first use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear power as that removes another uncertainty from Argentine military planning. )

Things are, as you see, not even close to as reported by the BBC.

The long and short is, as in Crete, lose the airbase and lose the islands. Everyone understands that which is why its so precarious. The Argentine military will know it needs to have a plan which will lead to the denial of the Mount Pleasant airfield from day one without a warning build up of forces. A special forces attack and stand off missiles would seem to do the trick - and Argentine military equipment is rumoured to have been found on beaches not far from the airbase. Thus one morning the British people will wake up to find the Falklands can't be resupplied or defences bolstered, but the end of the week they will have the surrender of the Falklands and the fall of the UK Govt to cope with.

It will take a lot more than three RAF Typhoons to prevent this and the current Harriers being retired would not impact the invasion unless they were ground based in the Islands ( which would be by far the best use of them ! ).

See also Decision to scrap Sea Harrier comes back to haunt, Threat to the Falklands and Sea Harrier over the Falklands

BBC Admirals urge rethink on Harrier and Ark Royal cuts

Further: My guess is the Admirals real target is the preserve the fast jet capability of the Fleet Air Arm - which whilst the FAA is a very admirable organisation ( indeed one of the UK's best and could teach the RAF a lot about running a tight ship - couldn't resist the pun ) it is a selfish motive that does not serve the country.

It is also possible that this is part of the low level snipping that Labour are trying to carry out to question and take the gloss off every Coalition decision.

( Will edit this latter - no doubt typos etc are over this pda typed post )

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5

Biodiversity - the new Climate Change, the same green marxism

Its not just Vince Cable who's been leaving policy skid marks. The political world is cooling on Global Warming Climate Change front. The failure and the fraud have become to widespread knowledge to be sustained in the minds of the public.

So how are the international systems of laws and obligations that allow the left to determine how we are governed and live our lives to be created now then ?

The answer looks like Biodiversity - a word the BBC's news outlets will be programming you with as often as they used to casually mention global warming climate change.

I'm guessing their grace period will be a lot shorter this time.

They will have to try something else than eco-fascism shortly. I wonder what they will come up with ?

Update: I see James Delingpole is getting with the program here. The Green marxists are going to have a hard job pulling this one off.

The scandal - Lab ministers influenced by ex Lab minister for sale, except on the BBC

The problem:
The Sunday Times and Channel 4's Dispatches program have caught ex Labour ministers out offering to sell their influence over other Labour ministers. They cite examples of where policies have been changed thanks to such bought influence. One ex Labour minister even describes himself as a taxi for sale. The boasts rely on undue influence over serving ministers.

This story will soon move to investigations against Lord Mandelson and Lord Adonis - which will be bad for socialism and the funding of the BBC.
The Challenge
The BBC must report this story, it would be too blatant an example of their left wing bias not to. But equally with a hung parliament in prospect they no longer have to be impartial as they may be able to get Labour ( assisted by the Lib Dems ) back into power.
The Answer
Use the old BBC trick of reporting not the event or its implications in the headline, but Labour's reaction. So go with "Minister condemn...." - making it appear that Labour are acting positively, when in fact its "Ex Labour minister selling their influence over current Labour ministers" ( not not MPs ) that's the scandal.

This is yet another example of the BBC's institutional bias and why it must be abolished as soon as a future Conservative government comes to power. ( Just imagine how the BBC would have treated this if it involved Lord Ashcroft for example. )

Update:

I see the BBC headlines have changed - still the real story isn't being pursued - did Mandelson and Adonis change policy as a favour to ex-Ministers and friends ?

If so its not just the ex-Minister who should be in trouble.

Much of the country have the same problem as Unite's BA cabin crew - they are just in denial about it

Through twitter I've been very critical of the Unite's BA cabin crew members who are planning on striking.

It looks like suicide - the airline is barely solvent due to pension commitments ( though I note BA has made some significant progress this week here ) and BA crew have the best pay terms and conditions in the industry - or at least very close to it.

Don't they know they're born ?

Add to that the rage felt by the public as their once in a life time holiday, honeymoon etc is spent instead in the purgatory of an over crowded terminal queuing for days to go no where with only the thought of what they had been looking forward to distract them.

Its political dynamite.

No wonder CCHQ has chosen this moment to highlight that "Labour has become a wholly owned subsidiary of the Unite Union" - a quote from the former Labour Party Chairman by the way !

But let me put a different angle on all this .....

The BA cabin crew are in the same sort of denial that most of the UK general population is in !

Reported in yesterdays Telegraph is an IPSO Mori poll that shows:

• 50% of the voters don't think that any public spending cuts are necessary.
• 75% think that "efficiency" savings will do the trick.
• 48% think government spending should increase.

Oh dear.

None of the main three political parties - not even the smear and lies driven Labour party - are proposing this. They are all proposing real cuts ( and of course "tough choices" which are never spelt out ).

As a country we are broke - we have a continual diet of more borrowing from other peoples to pay for today, saying our children will pay them back. But everyone knows soon they will stop lending to us. ( Though the ever Labour party supporting BBC doesn't believe our AAA rating is in danger - everyone else does ).

The British voters seem to have no idea of reality at all ! They haven't even internalised the falsehoods ( based on assumptions that most people would call straight lies ) Labour are peddling.

So the great British public should pause before condemning the cabin crew members who are planning on joining Unite suicide strike, because the speck in their own eye is greater.

How can a proper election debate be held when so much of the population won't face the facts ?

PS I think this shows one of the greatest failings of public broadcasters like the BBC. They should have noted that the clear and uncontested financial facts just haven't been internalised by the electorate and tried to help them understand - but I guess they are too busy putting across their left wing world view and promoting the Warmist religion to have time to do their job.

BBC R4 take note the deficit is not the national debt !

Man in a Shed must be nurturing a heart condition that the BBC has secretly discovered and is trying to push over the edge. from What else can explain their transposing the spin and line-du-jourMandelson about reducing the deficit and have them announcing that Labour will reduce the National debt.

They are two different, although related things.

The Deficit is the amount the country's spending exceeds its income over one year.

The National Debt is absolute and is a product of the historical deficits and occasional budget surpluses in the past.

So BBC pay attention..... and save me having to risk high blood pressure shouting at the radio.

If I halve the deficit the National debt continues to go up each year.

Have you got that ?

It is not true that if you promise to halve the deficit sometime in the future that you are promising to halve the national debt ! ( Not that we'd believe Labour even if they said so ! )

Labour are just promising to sell our children into debt slavery at a slightly slower rate, not to redeem them.

Draining the BBC swamp

Listening to the radio yesterday lunch time I heard some fellow from the BBC Trust trying to tell an interviewer how the public would rather be given their money back than to allow the sacred BBC licence fee to go to other organisations. ( To get the full dose of arrogance you need to listen to the programme ).

Today we here the BBC thinks it might have to do less - but James Murdoch is very wrong to say the BBC makes life impossible for other and anyway isn't Sky a near monopoly anyway.

What I see happening hear is right from the New Labour ( the BBC's soul mate ) play book. Change can no longer be stonewalled any more. They now know that their beloved Labour party may be forced from power soon and its Conservative likely replacement has a large number of scores to settle for the way the BBC has campaigned against it and its world view.

Their solution ?

Declare you are for change yourself. Have lots of consultations, focus groups and opinion polls showing that the public is on your side followed ( and this is yet to come ) by threatening to get rid of very popular things that they know there will be a public outcry against - local councils do this when told to make cuts by councillors - rather than making those cuts they say no Christmas lights this year until the councillors relent.

The BBC and Guardian sustain the careers of those damaged individuals who will go on to become the next cheerleaders and actual participants in socialist politics.

Its time to drain the Guardianista's swamp - or at least make them pay for their own.

Scrap the BBC - vastly reduce the licence fee to just technical support levels. Yes everyone will protest for 6 months and then they'll get over it and left wing propaganda funded by taxation will be off the airways.

Thats my opening suggstion for reform.

Brown - all tactics, no strategy.

Its getting grim out there. Today's attempt by Gordon Brown to get the focus of his failings as a leader just go on to expose more.

He can see that the Conservative education policy is going to be very popular, but this time he can't copy it as it goes against the control needed to ensure that everyone suffers socialism to the same extent.

His analysis is a tactical response to the opposition. Not an idea driven by any strategy Labour might have ( or that Vision he pathetically tried to convince us he wasn't going to run and win the election that never was for ).

The solution to bad schools ? Get local authorities more involved after checking the views of parents whose kids don't go to those schools yet.

The uninformed parents are supposed to be better judges of a schools capability than say Ofsted, and the LEA is of course the salvation for education.

There will be school improvement plans, armies of education consultants ( different ones every month if the experience I've seen is anything to go by ), federations of schools, confederations of schools - with no doubt hit squads redoing whats meant to happen anyway.

If you think that's going to work, then perhaps its time to start suing the education authority that provided your own supposed education.

The Conservative education policies are some of the most exciting aspects of a potential new government. They are very much over due as this tired tactical response of an exhausted, discredited and useless government shows full well.

PS For once the BBC does a very good job of reporting this. See here if your not to easily shocked.

Hurray, Stephanie's back !

The good news is (as my son is apt to say when try to put top spin on some less than good news) Stephanie Flanders is back from maternity leave.

Now whilst she seems to me to subscribe to the standard issue left wing BBC world view, indeed her question to David Cameron on that infamous Newsnight interview gives evidence for that as does her CV (which she doesn't try to hide ), this doesn't get in the way of thoughtful and knoweldgeable commentary and trying to introduce to the rest of us some of the deeper issues of what's going on.

I've always got time to listen to her - and now read her blog - as I expect to learn somethign by doing so.

Thats not always the case elsewhere on the BBC. ( And certainly not in the newly dumbed down Panaorama programs).

The bonfire of Gaza-DEC vanities

There's an interesting little spat going on right now. The BBC has refused to provide air time for the disaster emergency committee (DEC) to do its usual appeal after a high profile humanitarian disaster for the people in Gaza.

There clearly has been a lot of suffering and need is Gaza since the Israeli attempt to stop Hamas firing missiles at its people, and Hamas' human shield policy causing so much destruction.

But then perhaps the BBC knows a little more. They know all the aid will be controlled by Hamas ( already aid lorries are being hijacked by Hamas ). Hamas supporters will get first call, and building materials are as likely to be used for military purposes as anything else.

Equally Hamas have been behaving like the Fascists many claim them to be. People suspected of being sympathetic to Israel or being Fatah supporters are being tortured, having eyes gouged out, kneecapped and summarily executed as a matter of course.

The towns of Gaza may be in the state that some of Europe was after WWII, except in their case the fascist's are still in power.

So its no longer a clear cut issue. In addition some of the aidlack;" >aid agencies have shown themselves to be a long way from impartial.

These major appeals are also major feeding times for the professionalised charities with their career charity workers and high over heads. Remember their over kill for the tsunami and for Burma ? In the current climate some who work for these charities may lose their jobs if the money doesn't start rolling soon.

Hence sending aidlack;" >aid to Gaza has a highly political and self interested element to it. And on this basis the BBC are right to block it. Though they might like to do something about some of their reporting. When they finally got into Gaza some of their bone headed reporters where going round asking people if they still supported Hamas ! I saw one man, his eyes pleading with the camera at being asked such a question - which is really just an invitation for suicide - bravely saying he had no opinion.

But all this has been manner manna from heaven for wee Dougie Alexander who can try to put Labour on side with its Muslim floating voters by demanding action etc ( which also confirms the political nature of this appeal ). Its hypocrisy from the government who really gave the green light for Israel's actions.

I suspect the BBC will cave to pressure, political pressure, which will just confirm they were right in the first place.

But what of the victims of Hamas' human shield policy in Gaza ?

My advice is to chose your charity carefully. I sent money during the fighting to one that works with the diminishing band of Christians in Gaza ( estimated to be about 3000 ) who are persecuted at the best of times.

There will be other good charities, just do your home work and avoid those like the UN who are compromised - and do give something. Because the one significant truth of all of this is that a lot of people are suffering.

Further The BBC reporting on itself here and the news that ITV and Channel 4 intend to go ahead with the DEC broadcast.

Further background:

The BBC explain their case here.
Janet Daley argues for no censorship on our news and broadcasts here.
Everywhere else people are laying into the BBC and this decision.

Except apparently Andrew Roberts of the Times who argues that the charities themselves are biased. He makes a good case that is very much worth reading.

Did Evan Davis blow his interview with Brown ? (or did Brown blow his chance ?)

The Mole has been quick to report criticism on Evan Davis interview this morning with Gordon Brown on radio 4's today program, here.

Personally I don't think Evan Davis will be too pleased with this interview. His biggest mistake was trying to jolly Brown along by saying he agreed with him and allowing Brown to summarise the interview by saying we have agreed in this discussion ( not even an interview ).

Also Evan Davis seemed to think that Brown should not be blamed for the debt bubble ( because we now know that what its is ) because he, Evan Davis, didn't spot it either. [ Notice the presumption that Gordon Brown didn't know about the debt bubble - I doubt that's true, and if it is the Treasury should be sacking most of its staff ]. There are plenty of people who warned, including on this blog. As Guido reported some economists even kept pestering the Treasury, but where fogged off.

But the political impact, in my opinion, isn't advantageous to Labour. The public are getting fed a series of horror stories about the Banks bottomless debts and their taking ownership of them, the developing Sterling crisis, the new pensions crisis, the recession and jobs and housing crisis.

Brown's yet another repeat of his Tractor Stats announcements that we've been getting for the last 6 months just confirms to the public that he is either a charlatan or not up to the job. I would expect support for the Conservatives to have gone up the longer people listened to the interview.

Some discussion on the interview is also available at Conservative home here, where Tim Montgomery describes Brown's performance as self evident nonsense - and that is the problem for Labour dwindling band of narrative believing apologists .

Personally I think Evan Davis just had a bad day. He did challenge Brown on his attempt to use the "Do Nothing" spin against the conservatives - pointing out the Tory policies that Brown was implementing, and also trying to skewer him at the end by comparing the state of the Economy Brown inherited with that he'll be leaving the next government. ( There are some colourful rum ours about what Brown said on taking office in 97 on discovering how great the UK economy at the time was . )

But Brown had a worse morning as he was handed enough rope to show just how empty and out of touch his handling of the crisis is.

Update: See also Burning our money where Wat Tyler was actually listening tot he details of what von Brun was saying.

Further: Somebody (possibly not a Labour supporter - but the post is tolerated ) on Labour Home thinks Gordon may not be playing with a full deck, see here. Welcome to the programme Labour homies - many of us have thought Brown's bonkers for some time ! Now what are you going to do about it ? Its also intresting how they have picked up on how negatively people react to Brown's complete failure to engage in the interview.

What the BBC won't tell you about the School deaths in Gaza

Melanie Phillips makes some very strong accusations in here coffee house blog here.

In short she says that Hamas fired from within the school compound and that it was the triggering of Hamas explosives that caused the causalities in the school.

Also the UN knew about the use of their facilities for firing weapons. ( I heard a fairly unconvincing dance of words last night by a UN official who kept saying on Newsnight that he had no evidence that something like this had happened - which is not the same as saying it didn't - and Jeremy Paxman let him get away with this deliberate ambiguity ).

Now I don't expect the BBC to buy this version of events, but I do expect some scepticism about the UN/Hamas line and also that the claims of each side are stated equally.

The BBC to adopt the governments spin as official policy

Apparently the BBC is to ban the word crisis and recession, and instead to use the terms Labour minister have been using to try and hide from the public the true horror of the mess they have created. ( I understand that ultimate credit here belongs to Matthew Paris , though I tip my hat at Conservative home also).

So Economic crisis becomes "global financial challenge”
Recession become "downturn"
And BBC Impartiality becomes "Vote Labour"

We no longer live in a free country.

Some questions for Robert Peston

I'd put these on his blog - only for some reason my sign in on the BBC doesn't seem to work anymore, I wonder why that is ;-)

1. Have you had any conversations with Labour party officials or politicians about your accusations against George Osborne ?
2. Has either the Number 10 press office or people representing the Labour party phoned you to discuss this matter unsolicited ?
3. Have you phoned the Labour party or the government to discuss this issue ?
4. When in the last two weeks have you had contact with Peter Mandelson - please cite times, subjects of conversation, and any witnesses that can cooperate these conversations.
5. Have you recorded any of the conversations above ?
6. Is this not revenge for complaints made about you recently by Conservative politicians ?
7. Why are you commenting on politics rather than business ?

Perhaps a journalist would like to follow up.

Update: Even better looks like the public has been. The BBC has been hit by a wave of complaints about political bias see here !

Yet again Radio 4's Today lets Labour off the hook

On waking up this morning I was listening to Radio 5 Live's interview of Alistair Darling. The question of national debt came up and Darling tried to blow smoke in the eyes of the interviewer by excluding Gordon Brown's various off balance sheet tricks from Debt ( and Northern Crock naturally ). R5L's man responded quickly by questioning this directly and citing other estimates in the press today which are considerably at variance with the Chancellors words.

Now Darling just refused to accept that, and may possible have said something he shouldn't have on PFI ( someone needs to check those words). But the question was asked.

Over at the Radio 4 Labour Supporters Club know as the Today programme ( where only Conservative politicians have their answers interrupted ) the same Chancellor, who must have just walked up or downstairs to the new studio, the same question but a completely supine response from Today's interviewer.

On being questioned on Debt Alistair Darling saw the danger of the follow on question and went for standard New Labour punishment of the interviewer mode. You know the one where the answer goes on long enough that you've forgotten what day of the week it is by the time he's finished, let alone what the question was. If interruption ( always so gentle and polite for Labour ministers ) then the "I think this is important" " you need to know" or such are used. And the answer is always finished with a change of subject to avoid that follow on question.

So the Today prog completely failed to ask about the staggering levels of debt in the economy that Labour have built up - because they are just no good at their jobs or its naked political bias. If they want to know how it should be done then they should tune into Radio 5 Live.

Update: For an example of alternative debt calcs see Trevor Kavanagh in the Sun who says:

He kept billions off the books by using costly and badly negotiated “Private Finance Initiatives” to build hospitals and schools.

That piled an extra £150BILLION on to State borrowing — taking the total to 45 per cent of national earnings.

And add on another £1,300billion in unfunded public sector borrowing — and £1,000billion in private borrowing for mortgages, credit cards and overdrafts.

That lot works out at around £2,500billion — or £40,000 of debt for every man, woman and child in Britain, now and for years to come.

No such challeneg on the Labour loving BBC Today prog.

Update: Guido reports (and summarises) the BBC's Robert Preston who takes the easy ride Brown was given by Marr (again) to task, and makes some key points on debt. See Guido here and Preston here. The BBC left wing machine will now move to punish Preston no doubt ...

Preston says:

As a biographer of Gordon Brown and a former FT political editor, I have kept a fairly close eye on our prime minister and on HM Treasury for many years. So, for me, there were a number of jaw dropping moments in his BBC interview yesterday with Andrew Marr.....

Its the financial apocalypse, so where is the BBC's Stephanie Flanders on her bicycle ?

Just wondering where the BBC's economics correspondent is on a day like yesterday ?

Paul Mason has been popping up and down everywhere, when he can spare a moment from appearing on Trotskyite platforms.

Well here she is recording a web cast on the "Cost of the Iraq War" on an odd network called "The Real News Network". The page that has the recording is dated 15 Sep 08, but perhaps its was recorded a while ago ?

Well at least we know she's OK - its always possible someone's badly ill or such.

But what a day to go on a hobby type assignment ! (The other people involved in this enterprise look well left of centre also ! )

Anyone know what's going on ?

OK perhaps its not seen as economics. I guess that could be the case, but its seems a bit odd. Could the BBC be over staffed perhaps ?

PS The Real News Network looks pretty left wing to me - make up your own mind here ... Surely our ever neutral and not institutionally left wing at all BBC. The Frontline organisation seems to be some sort of Journalists talking about each other type outfit. Not sure of their political leanings - yet.

The BBC ignors English governmental issues

Here's the proof:

The UK Section headlines (top billing to an England only issue - the BBC helpfully uses the inaccurate term Britain )

The England section headlines ( What - no mention of the England only issue ???)
Now hold on a minute - the care of the elderley only applies to England as its a devolved matter for Gordon Browns Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath constituents (whom I need not remind you get free care as somehow the Scottish Executive seems to have a massive pile of cash despite paying little income tax in comparison to the rest of the UK).

PS I would have no problem with the most dreadful story of the murder of Jimmy Mizen an upright English 16 year old man ( the maturity of his actions show that he deserves that epitaph ) being the headline in both cases. But you notice that the English issue of care of the elderly is dropped from the England section.

Update: The BBC has now removed the word British and replaced it with English in the text of the article showed at the front page stage - better, but still no mention in the England section of this English only issue .... ( as of 10:57am 12May08).
Compare with the version earlier this morning (top)

How honest is it to talk about house price inflation at 1.1% ?

The BBC is finally catching on to what is actually happening to house prices. A few months ago they were supporting their government by reporting the yearly average - without taking into account what is actually going on.

We've been here before when the last but one Labour government started choosing the time period to calculate inflation over, to keep the headline figure down.

House price inflation is reported at 1.1%. Doesn't sound that concerning, until you consider CPI inflation is at 2.5% and RPI in excess of 4% ( many people are experiencing far higher rates on inflation ).

So house prices are dropping over the last year at about -1% to -3% (roughly).

But the look at the data over the last year and you see something far more alarming.

I posted on this a few months ago in Nov and predicted house prices could drop by 7% (others have predicted 10%) - that's still not making the BBC's reports yet, but its just based on the current rate of change. I attach the graph again to show how this could have been easily foreseen 6 months ago - but too many people have an interest in maintaining denial about property prices. They refuse to accept something fundamental has changed.

The greatest fury will be in the South of England where people are mortgaged to the hilt - dropping Bank of England interest rates aren't translating into lower mortgages and vindictive council tax rises (Labour moving money to its core voters in the North) and vindictive stamp duty rates will cause rising anger.

But the greatest losses will be in the North and West, just as some of the greatest gains have been there.

No wonder Gordon is getting his brown pants and bicycle clips ready for addressing the PLP in panic mode next week !

PS Man in a Shed has decided to spend much of next week over at the National Statistics web site - as he thinks its going to be a good hunting ground for right of centre bloggers for the next year or two and probably contains lots on information that left wing journalists will be trying to ignore.