ALTERNATIVE REALITY CHECK

*
Just when you thought BBC bias could go no further...
*
The BBC's new 'Reality Check' service began with Robert Peston suggesting that Conservative proposals on NI go against "the good society".
http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/04/unreality-check.html
*
The second 'Reality Check' moved from the Conservatives' stance on NI to their stance on efficiency savings. Hugh Pym promised to investigate. I wrote:

Well, we'll see where this leads but, given that it's a story based on a Labour allegation against the Tories, and seems to be concentrating on the 'tough goal' for the Conservatives, do you blame me for worrying that Hugh's willingness to "help (us) form a judgment" is going to lead him to cast doubt most heavily on the Conservatives' promises?
http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.com/2010/04/reality-check-for-reality-check.html
*
Well, he's done his work and, as I expected, he's judged heavily against the Conservatives. All the people he's spoken to agree, namely Gerry Gilbert of Standard Life and... "some independent academics" (independent!) who "have also questioned whether it can be done." Anyone else? Well, there's a video clip featuring a (previously unseen by me) attack on the Tories by...Prof Colin Talbot!!!!! (see previous posts!!!)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/parties_and_issues/8609135.stm
*
I wrote in my last look at 'Reality Check', "The BBC's new Reality Check page is only just under way but, following on from Robert Peston's strange post about national insurance yesterday, looks as if it might possibly be about to become a Conservative Check page." Has this really turned out to be the case?
*
Well, the third 'Reality Check' has arrived. An ominous rumble of thunder...it's by Mark Easton. A flash of lightning!...it's called Welfare: Can the Tories save billions in benefits?
*
I think I can sum up my reaction to this turn of events with this remark:

!!!!!!!!!

*

The article begins:
Welcome to Reality Check. Today I'm taking a close look at the Conservative pledge to cut billions from the welfare bill.
*
Can you guess what conclusions his investigations lead him too? I bet you can!!

*

So how much will their "three strikes and you're out" policy actually save?

We asked the Conservatives and they said "We can't say", so I have attempted to do the sums instead.

How many people have been convicted of benefit fraud three times? The Department for Work and Pensions tells me the answer is... zero. No-one. Ever.
.....
Even if we include those people cautioned as well as convicted, it is clear that this
proposal is not going to save much money.

The shadow work and pensions secretary, Theresa May, was asked by Reality Check if she knew there was no record of anyone being convicted three times for benefit fraud.

She declined to give a direct answer, but said the policy was intended to send out a clear message to benefit fraudsters.

It goes on:

The Conservatives' bigger promises on welfare rely on saving £600m within three years. Not by targeting cheats, but getting people off Incapacity Benefit (IB).
.....
But there's a problem with both figures.
.....
And Neil Coyle, of the Disability Alliance, believes the policy would hit the vulnerable.
......
But if the consequence of reform is thousands of vulnerable individuals with long-term health conditions being treated unfairly, it's a policy with built-in dangers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/parties_and_issues/8611173.stm
*
Three 'Reality Checks' from three top BBC reporters. Three 'Reality Check' that target the Tories and judge against them, ever more harshly. Easton's is the worst of the lot. He's worthy of his place in that line of anti-Tory BBC home affairs editors that included Polly Toynbee.
*
I didn't think BBC bias could get any worse. It's getting worse. How far will they go to stop the Conservatives winning this election?

A REALITY CHECK FOR 'REALITY CHECK'

*
The BBC's new Reality Check page is only just under way but, following on from Robert Peston's strange post about national insurance yesterday, looks as if it might possibly be about to become a Conservative Check page. See what you think.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/parties_and_issues/8609135.stm

Efficiency savings: Do the figures stack up?
By Hugh Pym
Chief economics correspondent, BBC News

Today I'm examining the parties' promises on efficiency savings and asking whether the figures stack up.

Labour says the Conservatives' economic plan is based on £12bn of "fantasy savings" this year which would put the recovery at risk.

The Tories say they would find the cuts in "government waste" without affecting
frontline services. They say it would allow them to cancel Labour's planned 1% rise in National Insurance contributions.

It's a tough goal because the £12bn Tory savings would have to come on top of the existing £35bn government savings target that hasn't yet been fully achieved.

This raises some interesting questions. Where exactly would the savings be found? Could efficiencies really target waste alone and not hit frontline services? Could it all be done this fast?

I'll be looking at the evidence, asking the experts and keeping you updated as I investigate the facts and help you form a judgment.

Well, we'll see where this leads but, given that it's a story based on a Labour allegation against the Tories, and seems to be concentrating on the 'tough goal' for the Conservatives, do you blame me for worrying that Hugh's willingness to "help (us) form a judgment" is going to lead him to cast doubt most heavily on the Conservatives' promises?

FIND THE BAD NEWS

*
This might be pure laziness on my part but I'm going to lift another article straight from Not a sheep. He puts it so well that I don't need to add a word (except for the ones I've already written):
*
Thursday, 18 February 2010
BBC in full hide the bad news mode

For the first time since records began in 1993, the government had to borrow money in January, a month that usually sees huge Corporation Tax income. Economists were said to have been expecting a small surplus of around £2bn in January's budget, allowing a small start to repaying the UK's huge debts. However tax receipts dropped 11.8% compared with January last year, when the government was able to repay £5.3bn.

Appalling news, really dreadful and so the BBC have been leading news bulletins today with the claims that Israel were behind the 'execution' of a terrorist (oops sorry militant) leader in Dubai and on Radio London behind the Nicholas Winterton story. Meanwhile on the BBC News website the parlous state of the UK economy doesn't even merit a place in the top three stories but currently sits at number 2 in the "OTHER TOP STORIES" section. Somehow I doubt that the BBC would have been so quick to minimise coverage of such "pretty ghastly" figures had they emerged under a Conservative government, indeed I seem to remember coverage of bad economic news being lengthy, in-depth and repeated ad-nauseum during the 1980s.

The BBC are moving towards full election mode at present and are concentrating on setting "the narrative" to be as pro-Labour and anti-Tory as possible. Unfortunately it seems that 5Live is to be the flag-bearer for this campaign and with broadcasters like Stephen Nolan on-board the bias will be heavy and hard to avoid.
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/02/bbc-in-full-hide-bad-news-mode.html
*tH
The World at One decided not to discuss the subject, prefering to dwell on the assassination in Dubai and private involvement in the NHS instead. PM did at least discuss the issue. After spending over 18 minutes on the assassination in Dubai, Hugh Pym came into the studio to tell Eddie Mair the news about the unprecedented borrowing. This section lasted just over 2 1/2 minutes. Hugh reported the words of Alistair Darling about how the government's economic forecasts remain 'on track' and added that "there are some economists who agree with that". Who doesn't agree with that, asked Eddie. Pym's answer? The Conservatives, who you wouldn't expect to - as he said. Anyone else Hugh? He wasn't saying. And are there some economists who agree with the Conservative Party's on the government's economic forecasts? He wasn't saying anything at that either. Hugh needs watching.
*