100 business chiefs: Labour threatens Britain's recovery

nicko wrote:Just watched report on BBC where announcer agreed with the 100 business men.


If the left leaning BBC agree with it, it must be true-------- mustn't it?

risingsun wrote:Erm no, Nick Robinson was even Leader of the Oxford Uni Conservative Association.   The majority of the Board of Goverors are Conservaties, they run the joint.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/guystagg/100063259/the-bbc-is-more-conservative-than-the-right-admits/

The BBC is “a publicly-funded urban organisation with an abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic minorities and almost certainly of gay people, compared with the population at large”.
All this, he said, “creates an innate liberal bias inside the BBC”.

“It’s a bit like walking into a Sunday meeting of the Flat Earth Society. As they discuss great issues of the day, they discuss them from the point of view that the earth is flat.
“If someone says, ‘No, no, no, the earth is round!’, they think this person is an extremist. That’s what it’s like for someone with my right-of-centre views working inside the BBC.”

By far the most popular and widely read newspapers at the BBC are The Guardian and The Independent. ­Producers refer to them routinely for the line to take on ­running stories, and for inspiration on which items to cover. In the later stages of my career, I lost count of the number of times I asked a producer for a brief on a story, only to be handed a copy of The Guardian and told ‘it’s all in there’.

 “In the BBC I joined 30 years ago [as a production trainee, in 1979], there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people’s personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left. The organisation did struggle then with impartiality. And journalistically, staff were quite mystified by the early years of Thatcher.
“Now it is a completely different generation. There is much less overt tribalism among the young journalists who work for the BBC. It is like the New Statesman, which used to be various shades of soft and hard left and is now more technocratic. We’re like that, too.”

“I do remember… the corridors of Broadcasting House were strewn with empty champagne bottles. I’ll always remember that”

I absorbed and expressed all the accepted BBC attitudes: hostility to, or at least suspicion of, America, monarchy, government, capitalism, empire, banking and the defence establishment, and in favour of the Health Service, state welfare, the social sciences, the environment and state education. But perhaps our most powerful antagonism was directed at advertising. This is not surprising; commercial television was the biggest threat the BBC had ever had to face.

“Liberal sceptical humanists tend to dominate television”.
The “default position in broadcasting” – when covering issues such as gay marriage and the Roman Catholic position on IVF – revolved around human rights, and that opponents should not be treated as “lunatics”.
“All I’m saying is, if you have at the centre of News an editor, he could explain why people in particular areas…are motivated, why they behave as they do and I think that would just increase understanding.”

“And, in the tone of what we say about America, we have a tendency to scorn and deride. We don’t give America any kind of moral weight in our broadcasts.”

“We need to foster peculiarity, idiosyncrasy, stubborn-mindedness, left-of-centre thinking.”

Handy Andy wrote:In fairness, Nick Robinson, James Lansdale and Robert Peston always appear to be balanced and neutral with their reporting.
The same cannot be said for Kay Burley , Jeremy Tampaxman or any of the Mail political editorial team.

This March, America's AIIB diplomacy suddenly and dramatically collapsed, as the United Kingdom — over the objections of the UK's own Foreign Office — said it would join the bank. And that opened the floodgates. Germany, France, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, Spain, Korea, and Brazil are now all on board. The US is isolated, America is sniping at its closest foreign allies, and the Obama administration has been dealt a humiliating diplomatic defeat.

veya_victaous wrote:Again you want to Know how pointless IMF is
Where is China on it's list ?
China Officially became the worlds largest economy last year
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30483762

veya_victaous wrote:And the IMF is international renowned as stuck in the 90's and Eurocentric racism denying 'coloured' nations like China and India their place even though they are MUCH larger than the UK or any European nation
China alone is about 7 times larger than any European nation Yet according to the IMF it is not  “major advanced economies” because it isn't or European heritage.

while China controls just 5.71 percent of the voting stock in the World Bank, the AIIB is being structured so that China will have the largest voice by far in its affairs. The bank will raise somewhere between $50 billion and $100 billion in initial capital, but with non-Asian contributions capped in a way that essentially ensures a dominant role for China.
That contrasts with the World Bank and the IMF, which were set up by the USA and Western European countries in the wake of World War II and were designed to give the US and Europe dominant roles. By informal agreement, the US and Europe coordinate to ensure that the World Bank is always led by an American and the IMF is always led by a European. The United States regards the AIIB as an effort to undermine the World Bank, and takes the view that issues with the Bank — both lack of funds and underrepresentation of newer economic powers such as China — should be tackled through a reform process.

as the United Kingdom — over the objections of the UK's own Foreign Office — said it would join the bank.

veya_victaous wrote:Well Actually it is the opinion of most of the world that is why
EVEN the UK announced this week it will be join the Chinese World Bank
It looks like the IMF will be defunct as only the US will be remaining in it.

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/1/8311921/asian-infrastructure-investment-bank

while China controls just 5.71 percent of the voting stock in the World Bank, the AIIB is being structured so that China will have the largest voice by far in its affairs. The bank will raise somewhere between $50 billion and $100 billion in initial capital, but with non-Asian contributions capped in a way that essentially ensures a dominant role for China.
That contrasts with the World Bank and the IMF, which were set up by the USA and Western European countries in the wake of World War II and were designed to give the US and Europe dominant roles. By informal agreement, the US and Europe coordinate to ensure that the World Bank is always led by an American and the IMF is always led by a European. The United States regards the AIIB as an effort to undermine the World Bank, and takes the view that issues with the Bank — both lack of funds and underrepresentation of newer economic powers such as China — should be tackled through a reform process.

as the United Kingdom — over the objections of the UK's own Foreign Office — said it would join the bank.

Handy Andy wrote:Odd how Didge went quiet when confronted with hard evidence that the Conservatives have buggered Britsin as badly as the bankers did. His only reply was the tired story of the 100 CEO's.
It has already been shown that the majority of those 100 are either Tory peers, tory doners or members of the Conservative party, and the letter  was only posted in the Tory Dailygraphy, which donates to the Conservative party.

The tory spin machine is now in overdrive - Lynton Crosby is working overtime to buy the right wing press. The owners might be blindly supporting the Conservatives, but one only has to dip into the Mail online comments pages to realise it's readership are deserting the tories in droves.

Lone Wolf wrote:

100 BIG business "chiefs" are surveyed and interviewed by a Murdoch Press flagship...

AS IF anyone in their right mind will ever trust what either of these groups have to say !