Phew - An End to Austerity

Government borrowing now in surplus pronounced the trusted Kamal Ahmed on the BBC news last night, helpfully making the left-wing case and siren voices for “an end to austerity” and more spending by public bodies. No mention of the possibility of additional funding for defence, of course. Neither is it all good news because borrowing figures, by not considering Government liabilities, only tell a part of the whole financial situation. The BBC’s Micawber-like simplification conveniently overlooked the potentially crippling burden of, for example, hundreds of billions in future public service pension liabilities, the illusory treatment of student debt and PFI smoke and mirrors balance sheet treatment.  Otherwise, it is generally assumed that our National Debt amounts to a manageable 87% of our GDP, on which basis, people are happy to continue to lend us money to fund our lifestyle. However, as Philip Aldrick, writing in the Times, points out, once future liabilities are taken into account, the debt to GDP ratio almost doubles to 161%!  It’s the sort of fantasy accounting normally reserved for County Cricket Clubs.  A proper appraisal of the UK financial situation would look at both profit and loss and assets and liabilities. In this case, the bottom line would make salutary reading and support the, diminishing, band of voices who believe we should live within our means now and for the benefit of our successors.

London Murders

The array of liberal experts, regularly paraded by an enraged media, portray a common theme on the causes of the increase in murders in London. Usually, after their opening, “what we need is,” the witness blames Tory cuts, from police numbers to social, education and recreational provision. The social fabric of our “Commune E Es” is being torn apart, they wail. Nobody acknowledges the work the government has done over recent years to stabilise finances and, at least, avoid bankruptcy and national humiliation and that we cannot continue to live beyond our means. Some sacrifices and prioritisation of expenditure is inevitable. Neither does anyone mention one thing that has not been cut at all – the numbers of parents responsible for their offspring.

Appeal to the BBC

As I said, I am not going to accept the BBC's patronising rejection of my complaint, so this is what I have sent them:

"Thank you for your CAS-4791065-BM0P84 sent to me by email at 1533 on 27 March 2018 about BBC News at Ten broadcast on 14 February 2018.

I do not think you have given a satisfactory answer to my complaint.  To be clear, I chose “bias” as “the category that best described my complaint” and qualified the headline by “inaccurate EU export figures and selective statistics.”  Your reply did not address these central issues.

In my submission, I pointed out, according to the House of commons Library, in 2016 UK exports to the EU were £236 billion or 43% of total exports.  Actually, taking account of the “Rotterdam Effect,” the figure would be nearer 40%.  In the broadcast, Kamal Ahmed claimed “nearly 50% of our exports go to the EU.” In your reply to my complaint you asserted, somewhat disingenuously, “Kamal mentioned that “nearly 50% of our exports go to the EU” – so we didn’t suggest that it receives a majority of the UK export trade.”  If we accept that was your editorial intention, then you could have chosen either of these two true generalisations:

• Less than half of our exports go to the EU
• More than half of our exports go to countries other than the EU

But you didn’t and since neither of these statements would have supported your editorial line, the clear implication is that you deliberately chose to generalise “nearly 50% of our exports go to the EU” to give the impression of, at least, equal weight to the two export destinations.  Quite apart from the silly notion that these exports would, somehow, cease post Brexit, I contend that this non sequiter was deliberately contrived to give a speculative impact to the following discussion on GDP growth divergence where your clear intention was to suggest that we had better stay close to the EU to prevent our respective position deteriorating further, along the lines of “Project Fear.”

Turning to the content about respective GDP growth rates, I note that you, “appreciate I felt the overall picture was misleading,” and that “a different angle could have been offered if the data had been handled differently.” Indeed, it could, and that was the basis of my complaint which you appear to have, somewhat arrogantly, declined to discuss.  You refer to a report from Eurostat by which I assume you meant data sourced from the EU Open Data Portal?  As you know, but most viewers will not, the EU ODP was set up in 2012, following European Commission Decision 2011/833/EU on the reuse of Commission documents.  All EU institutions are invited to make their data publicly available whenever possible (note, “whenever possible” and there does not seem to be any “warts and all” obligation).  Given that, invariably, the BBC preface any information from right of centre organisations with a “health warning” statement of their political colours, it was odd that you did not say clearly, that the figures you used to support your report came straight from the EU without independent scrutiny.  In this regard it is important to note the significant errors that have been exposed in EU accounts ever since they were first audited in 1995.

The basis of your statistical justification appears to be your contention that your report from “Eurostat” covered only the timeframe from the crash of 2008 and that that, therefore, was the timeframe and scope of your report.  Furthermore, you stated that you had “no intention to pose a negative angle,” which, presumably, ruled out seeking alternative viewpoints?  Nevertheless, if your statement of scope is accepted, it seems strange that you subsequently claim, in contradiction, to have “featured a range of statistics, expert statements and commentary on policy which look at the pros and cons of different Brexit scenarios for the UK economy,” none of which were referenced in your report.  The clear implication is that you ignored any contrary statistics and opinion in the interests of presenting an anti-Brexit conclusion.

Notwithstanding my original complaint about the timescale you chose to make a GDP growth comparison, a graph of the period from 2007/8 is equally misleading.  A more studied analysis would, indeed, have shown the UK growth rate outstripping the EU immediately after the crash.  Thereafter, the UK did fall behind the EU and there are sound, but probably temporary, economic reasons for this.  Nevertheless, the truth is that the recent outperformance of the rest of the EU over the UK is scarcely significant in the bigger picture of the UK’s overall margin of outperformance over the EU during the whole period since 2007 or 2008.  Your report tried to give the impression of the recent cross-over of fortunes as diverging and indicative of the UK’s post-Brexit prospects.  You provided no evidence for this sleight of hand.

Whilst I am disappointed that you have ignored the factual side of my complaint, I am dismayed by the almost casual dismissal of my position.  Whilst you claim that you “hear a range of outlooks over time,” you appear to deflect my grievance as simply a “missed opportunity to tell a different perspective” rather than address the factual points at issue.  Your tone suggests it is me who is out of step and, by implication, that it is the BBC that holds the monopoly of truth.  Such, it appears, is the topsy-turvy world of BBC editorial policy.  My personal disappointment apart, in the interests of fairness and balance, I expect the BBC to publicly acknowledge and correct the misleading impressions you have given."

 
AND ANOTHER THING!

I note from an article by Matthew Lynn in the Telegraph today that far from powering ahead of the UK the "Eurozone is already heading back into recession," so Ahmed's distortion is even more blatent.  The BBC would, doubtless, like to have reported (gleefully) that: "Retail sales are falling sharply. Industrial production is slumping.  Construction is sluggish and the governement is weak and clueless with little idea of how to respond to falling demand."  Unfortunatley, this assessment belongs to Germany, the Eurozone's strongest economy, and not the UK!