Home » Posts tagged 'Shibley Rahman BBC'
Tag Archives: Shibley Rahman BBC
David Cameron is wrong on the NHS corporate restructuring for these reasons
In an interview where David Cameron tried to tell John Humhrys he was wrong, Humphrys identified that Cameron was showing no leadership on the bankers.
The interview can be heard here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9363000/9363655.stm
David Cameron is wrong about the NHS restructuring for the following:
It is wrong simply to focus on outcomes at the treatment end; much more could and should be done at the diagnosis end (health policy analysts find outcomes useful, but what they’re actually measuring are objective benefits). Much of the fundamental issue for the next decade will be the early diagnosis of the disease especially cancer, and there needs to be some focus on the efficacy of screening methods at the other end too (e.g.for colon cancer, breast cancer, COPD).
It is no good just talking about length of survival times, because there has to be a proper analysis of the quality-of-life and well being of patients with chronic morbidity including dementia.
The Doctors were not asking for the changes – the BMA is opposed to it, and to my knowledge the Royal College of Physicians shows little interest in it in a very positive direction. The King’s Fund certainly think it is a calamity.
2-3 years is a very short time to produce ‘the biggest reorganisation’ in the first time; it will involve £1.4 bn in the first year. John Humphrys was right to correct the figures that Cameron produced on the basis of actual evidence from the Kings Fund.
Satisfaction is at an all time high now with the NHS – this cannot be divorced from the record spending by Labour in the last parliament.
David Cameron denied the NHS IS getting better. This must means that he thinks that all aspects of it are getting worse. THIS IS A LIE.
John Humphrys asked that the NHS was in fact changing to a Federal Health Service. Cameron saying that there are already regional variations is frankly irrelevant. Humphrys is correct saying that an analogy between GPs and free schools is an extremely poor analogy; I am shocked that David Cameron is idiotic enough even to suggest it.
There’s no point Cameron trade-union bashing, as there are many ordinary nurses, doctors and other health-professionals who are non-Labour members who are highly critical of his insane policy.
If Andrew Lansley is so well respected, why does the whole of RCN disagree with him? The man is not well respected amongst the health professionals.
Dr Shibley Rahman Queen’s Scholar; BA (1st Class), MA, Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery, Doctor of Philosophy, Diploma of the Membership of the Royal College of Physicians (MRCP(UK)); FRSA, LLB(Hons).
Member of the Fabian Society.
PMQs, the Banks and Dave's jokes
And it was again time
The questions were:
1. In opposition, the Prime Minister said, “Where the taxpayer owns a large stake in a bank, we are saying that no employee should be paid a bonus of more than £2000.” Can the Prime Minister update us on the progress of this promise?
2. Let me say – The country is getting fed up with the Prime Minister’s pathetic excuses on the banks. He made a clear promise: no bank bonus over £2000. It’s still on the Conservative website. It’s a promise broken. He can’t answer a question about bankers’ bonuses. Let’s try a question on the bankers’ tax. Can he explain to the British people to explain why he does he think it is fair and reasonable to be cutting taxes in the banks when he is increasing taxes for everyone else?
3. He just needs to look at p.91 Office for Budget Responsibility report published in November last year. Labour’s payroll tax on the banks raised £3.5 bn in addition to the corporation tax that they pay. His corporation levy is just raising. £1.2 bn. In anyone’s terms, that’s raising less money and a tax cut for the banks. Why doesn’t the Prime Minister just admit it?
4. That is the closest we get to an admission from the Prime Minister that the Conservatives are cutting taxes this year. The OBR is very clear. Now – he can’t answer on bonuses or taxes, and so we move on transparency. He should listen to the Business Secretary. We know the Business Secretary is not a man to mess with, he is a man ‘with a nuclear weapon in his pocket, and he’s not afraid to it’. He said, “if you keep things in the dark, you go fungus”. He wasn’t talking about the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for once. Why doesn’t the Prime Minister listen to his Business Secretary.
5. You know he’s got no answers when he starts asking me the questions.He is now in the absurd position of being a defender of the banks than ever the banks themselves. Steven Hester, the Chief Executive of RBS went before the Select Committee just before Christmas, said that if the Walker report is implemented, “I would have no problem with it”. The Prime Minister has had eight months to hold them to account. When’s he going to start?
6. And what was he saying during that time? Deregulate the banks more! So this is life in 2011 for Planet Cameron. One rule for the banks, and one rule for anyone else. His Health Minister says in the privacy of his surgery, “I don’t want you to trust David Cameron. He has values I don’t share.” We have a Health Secretary who knows he’s out of touch, and now because of his failure on the banks, we have a country that knows he’s out of touch.
David Cameron’s jokes and insults were bad. This week they revolved around:
- Wallace and Gromit
- Alan Johnson not being able to count (5 times)
- getting Ed Miliband to focus on a television career
- “he just knows that this isn’t working“
- Even the Shadow Chancellor can agree that 2.5 is bigger than 2.3, and 9 is bigger than 2.
- “No one will ever trust Labour on banking or the economy”
The Tory deceit of VAT and the ‘Jobs Tax’: Ask a straight question, don’t get a straight answer
Andrew Marr interviewed David Cameron on his show broadcast live on the morning of 9th January 2011. Recently, people have been beginning to mutter very loudly how deceitful David Cameron and Nick Clegg have been in framing their explanation of the UK economy – and especially the ‘jobs tax’.
This excerpt is a shining example of David Cameron’s evasive nature in answering a simple question, such that you have unfortunately forgotten the question by the time you’ve got to the end of the answer.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00xmh5g/The_Andrew_Marr_Show_09_01_2011/
(begins at 35:40; ends at 37:10)
Andrew Marr:
You’ve mentioned jobs several times there. You must have had an estimate from your own Office for Budget Responsibility about the ‘jobs effect’ of the VAT rise to 20%. Roughly speaking, how many people are going to lose their jobs because of that?
David Cameron:
Oh look – look, of course, putting up VAT or any tax has an impact on the economy. You have to ask yourself the question – what would be the impact of not dealing with the deficit? We wouldn’t be sitting here talking about growth and jobs, we’d be sitting here saying, ‘you’re in opposition, sitting in a hole like Ireland, like Greece, and you’ve got the IMF knocking at your door. You’ve got credit downgrades, your interest rates are piling up, confidence is sapping out of the economy, the economy…
Andrew Marr:
Sure, but ..
David Cameron:
No, but this is very important. Any tax rise has an impact on economic growth, I can’t deny that for a minute. Economic forecasts are now done independently by the Office for Budget Responsibility. But you have to ask the question, what if you weren’t dealing with the deficit, which would be (I think) economic madness, and the second question you have to ask is, if you don’t do VAT, what tax would you do? The first category there would probably be National Insurance, that’s what Labour have committed to, and putting up National Insurance, as I’ve said, when you’re trying to get the economy growing and get jobs growing would be a very very perverse thing to do.”
Andrew Marr:
And nonetheless, [VAT] is a regressive tax. You yourself have said VAT is a regressive tax. Is it at 20% there for the long haul; there for good?
You can see at this point Marr simply waving the white flag after an exhausting non-answer.
A simpler explanation is provided by Stuart Adams, Institute of Fiscal Studies’ senior research economist, who has told Cathy Newman’s FactCheck that:
“VAT tends to weaken work incentives much like income tax or national insurance would. Rather than reducing the amount of take home pay that you can get for working an extra hour it reduces the amount you can buy with your take home pay. So VAT acts as a tax on jobs if you like – just like Income Tax and National Insurance do.”
Source: Channel 4 website
However, this is only part of the story. Indeed, estimates vary widely on the effect VAT has on jobs, from minimal to a lot. However, one aspect is definite – to miss out of the discussion altogether, as George Osborne and David Osborne have desperately tried to do in spinning their ‘jobs tax’ Tory Story, is grossly deceitful.
Shibley Rahman’s regular political blog is at http://shibleyrahman.com
Animation: "Cable's "loose lips" put coalition ship into choppy waters" (non BBC version)
This was the version presented to the table of the British viewing public on Christmas Day.
This was instead the Japanese version:
Student protests are doomed (guest article by @fatcouncillor)
Guest article by @fatcouncillor
The recent student protests, have been a case study, in how not to win an argument.
At first glance, the students had a strong case. Certainly, trebling student fees would appear to be, grossly unfair. However, the contra-argument, goes that, as everyone else’s suffering cuts, it’s only right that the students themselves shoulder some of the burden. There are certainly valid arguments on both sides of the student fees debate.
For students, this was always going to be a difficult argument to win. The UK is now governed by a majority Conservative coalition whose mentality certainly appears to be one of ‘you pay for what you use’. So in order to win the argument, students needed to have a clear, focused campaign strategy in place, whereby they both garnered public support, and maintain pressure on the government.
Sadly or happily, depending on the side of the argument is that you are on, the wheels came off the student bandwagon, during the very first protest in London, when viewers of the BBC News Channel and Sky News were treated to the sight of students throwing missiles at the police, lighting fires, and breaking into buildings causing tens of thousands of pounds of damage. Those scenes were replayed time and again over the following 24 hours.
The students, through their leader, Aaron Porter, and other NUS representatives, then further undermined their argument, by claiming that the rioting and violence were carried out by a handful of anarchists, and that students were not involved. This argument was proven to be untrue by, amongst others, the Daily Mail, and the blogger, Guido Fawkes, who published photographs of NUS representatives and students clearly taking part in the riots.
Additionally, the assertions made by Aaron Porter, were contradicted by the rolling news video, which showed a significant number of placard carrying students directly involved in violence, fighting the police and property destruction.
It seems to me, the students were particularly badly let down by the NUS. When it became clear that it was indeed students who had rioted, Aaron Porter lost credibility, and I for one believe that Mr Porter was more concerned about his future political career than representing students.
After the first protest, the NUS should have taken time to develop a new strategy whereby the argument could be made without the protests disintegrating into violence and destruction. Instead the NUS stepped back from the protests and were replaced by a myriad of local committees and activists. While this clearly removed the focus from the NUS nationally, it also caused the fragmentation of the protests and a loss of focus.
There was no clear leadership, no strategic aims were being articulated, and the message was lost as student protesters began to conflate the tuition fees process with the general UK uncut anti-cuts protest. There are those on the left, such as Laurie Penny, writing in the “New Statesman”, who argue that this is a movement without leadership, and the old structure is no longer apply, and that in effect the world is a different place, and we had all better get used
to it.
However, it should be as plain as the nose on your face, that a group of people with a shared goal, need to have a leader and a strategy, in order to achieve that goal.
To fail to understand this causes two problems. Firstly, the people involved in the movement need leadership, so in that face of a vacuum, they create their own leadership structures. But, people being people, some of these leadership structures will be more about the leadership than the goal. The stated aims and goals of the movement will become difficult to recognise as each leadership group develops a subtly different set of goals.
Secondly, as the aims and goals of the movements are no longer clear, and in some cases contradictory, both the public, and politicians, will be confused as to what students are demanding. In these circumstances, all the government has to do, is to put forward a reasoned argument as to why the changes are necessary. The student argument is then lost, and the media focus moves away onto the next set of government cuts.
Quite how the student protest this is anyone’s guess. But one thing is for sure. The argument is lost, and the focus has shifted to books and laptops for children, how dreadful BBC’s Christmas programmes are been, and the weather.
There are those within the student leadership (the leadership of the group which has no leadership, remember?) Who are arguing that this is a repeat of the poll tax riots. In short, they are deluded. The poll tax riots united the electorate, with hundreds of thousands of people from all walks of life protesting and fighting the government. This has not happened in the students fees protests.
There is no broad support for protests. We did not seem masses of people taking days off to go to London to protest. It did not happen, and it will not happen. This argument is lost. The people on the streets required to get this government to revisit legislation which has already passed through both houses of parliament, will not materialise.
At best, we will see a ragtag of unions, the Socialist Workers Party, and students. And any future protest will be set in the context of violence and property destruction. It will achieve nothing.
Students have been betrayed because the people who they saw as their leaders are looking after themselves. And the people who are sprung up in place of the leaders are simply trying to make a name for themselves, and are using students and the protests to that end.
At some point, students will recognise this. But by then no one will care. This is not, and never has been 1968 all over again. Neither is it the poll tax riots. this is a group of students who have been badly let down by the leadership. At a time when they needed that leadership, what they got was self-interest and the usual suspects looking to make a name for themselves.
The argument is lost, but students don’t realise it yet
Shibley Rahman would like to thank the Fat Councillor for the effort that he put into writing this excellent article.
Media pluralism: Cable, Murdoch and the BBC
This is how BBC reported Vince Cable’s now famous ‘outburst’.
Vince Cable, like Nick Clegg, appears to have developed a bit of a Messiah syndrome recently, despite being 8% in the polls. Vince appears to have developed curious delusions of grandeur, thinking that he can make or break the coalition, and also that can break the Murdoch empire. This scoop was brought to the BBC by a whistleblower to the BBC Business Editor Robert Peston who to all intents and purposes appears to have practiced responsible journalism. Concerns remain that inside information from time to time leaks into the market, whether accidentally or intentionally, and may be misused: this is a particular issue in relation to inside information about mergers and acquisitions.
On the day the bid was announced in June, most commentators thought it would go ahead without much difficulty, subject to agreement on price. BSkyB was already seen by government and regulators as part of the Murdoch empire, even though News Corp held only 39 per cent of the shares. However, in September, there began a fierce campaign in the press and parliament arguing that the Murdoch empire would have even more power if it owned all the BSkyB shares. The plain facts are that today European Commission has unconditionally approved News Corp’s bid to acquire BSkyB. In a statement, Joaquin Almunia, EU Competition Commissioner, said: “I am confident that this merger will not weaken competition in the United Kingdom. The effects on media plurality are a matter for the UK authorities.”
To any reasonable observer, Vince Cable calling for war on Murdoch’s successful empire is rather extreme to say the least. Presumably, one shouldn’t read too much into his lack of impartiality by dancing with Alesha Dixon on the Christmas Day special of BBC ‘Strictly come dancing’.
The judgment which came back from Europe today had an emphasis on cross-border media pluralism. Traditionally, Europe’s media companies focused their activities on their national markets. However, in the last 10-15 years a number of media companies have grown significant business outside their primary markets. It has given rise to concerns that it will damage the freedom of expression and information in Europe that are vital both from a democratic and a cultural perspective. Cross-border media concentrations include several phenomena such as media conglomerates distributing their products in many countries, including broadcasts, companies operating directly or indirectly in the media market of more than one country and legal entities owning media companies in several countries. This is the issue which was primarily of concern to Europe. Presumably the BBC falls within the definition of a media conglomerate, and is not expected to partake in cartel and abuse of dominant behaviours itself.
News Corp wants to by the 61% of the pay-TV operator that is does not already own for £7.8 billion. However, independent directors at BSkyB, which operates the 24-hour channel Sky News and provides pay-TV, broadband and telephony services, have previously rejected News Corp’s offer as too low. News Corp officially notified the European Commission of its planned takeover bid on 3 November. The commission conducted an initial investigation before responding today. OFCOM will now examine the deal to investigate media plurality issues in the UK, focusing on content types, audiences, media platforms, control of media enterprise and future developments in the media landscape. Business Secretary Vince Cable will stay in cabinet despite “declaring war” on Rupert Murdoch, says Downing Street. However, he will be stripped of his powers to rule on Mr Murdoch’s bid to take control of BSkyB, which will be handed to Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt. Jeremy Hunt will though the final say over whether the takeover should be allowed to go ahead amid concerns about press freedom and consumer choice. Note – OFCOM will analyse the legal and public interest issues carefully – not Jeremy Hunt on his own. OFCOM is expected to report back to Jeremy Hunt by 31 December 2010.
Jeremy Hunt will then decide whether to refer the issue to the Competition Commission. This is an independent body, which conducts in-depth inquiries into mergers, markets and the regulation of the major regulated industries, ensuring healthy competition between companies in the UK for the benefit of companies, customers and the economy. It is not the case that the Competition Commission can only block it altogether for Rupert Murdoch. Where an inquiry is referred to the CC for in-depth investigation, the CC has wide-ranging powers to remedy any competition concerns, including preventing a merger from going ahead. It can also require a company to sell off part of its business or take other steps to improve competition.
This was never going to be solely an issue for Vince Cable or Jeremy Hunt. However, it could be that Jeremy Hunt feels that this merger does not pose a threat to UK media competition. It has long been argued that the BBC that what the BBC offers is distinctive from commercial media outlets. If Jeremy Hunt then decides to side with the BBC, it could well be that Jeremy Hunt and the Conservatives do not get the media backing from the BBC and the main newspapers including the Sun that they desperately need in 2015 to gain public support and to win the 2015 General Election (assuming that the coalition lasts that long). Therefore, whilst Jeremy Hunt can overrule the decision by the Competition Commission, he will have to have very strong reasons for doing so – Rupert Murdoch may be very happy, or not.
As it happens, I hope sincerely that Rupert Murdoch wins this media battle, as I feel the people who should be taught a lesson they won’t forget are the BBC, not the News Corp. Not as inflammatory as Vince Cable’s message, but meant with the same conviction, I’m afraid.
(c) Dr Shibley Rahman 2010. Dr Shibley Rahman is an academic lawyer and company director who works in London.
Dr Shibley Rahman, PhD FRSA LLB(Hons)
Dr Shibley Rahman is an academic whose specialist interests include the behavioural variant of frontotemporal dementia, dementia generally, commercial law and business. He is a Queen’s Scholar, and obtained the second highest First Class Honours degree in 1996 at the University of Cambridge in neurosciences. He is disabled, having survived six weeks in coma in 2007 due to meningitis.
Stella is hired in the BBC The Apprentice Final 2010
I have cried twice many times this year, but I was genuinely delighted when Alan Sugar hired Stella English this evening. A very astute choice, in my opinion.
Video : "9/12/10 Tuition Fee Protest – What The BBC Didn't Report" by Xanna Ward Dixon
“9/12/10 Tuition Fee Protest – What The BBC Didn’t Report” by Xanna Ward Dixon
shibleyrahman.com is backing Stella English for BBC The Apprentice final 2010
shibleyrahman.com is backing Stella English for BBC The Apprentice final 2010
