How about the truth coming from the BBC for once instead of its flaming constant attempts to stoke up panic and promote propaganda !
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7807632.stm

Yes, it's useless to ask I guess.

So the BBC reports that a "dispute between Russia and Ukraine over gas supplies has raised fears that UK energy suppliers could delay long-awaited price cuts".

It continues to say "Russia's move to halt supplies to its neighbour has made wholesale market prices volatile", and quotes some guy who happens to have set himself up as a price comparison site to sell energy connections, as "an expert" in these matters. I mean, this guy, ( Joe Malinowski, from TheEnergyShop.com ), would be a mind reader would he, and be able to tell the world what price it will be paying for Russian gas which is under Russian control and not affected by the fact Russia has not stopped or cut supply of gas to anyone other than Ukraine!

There's no mention anywhere incidentally that Russia hasn't been paid any more than usual for its gas, or for the fact that Europe sells it to us for TWICE what it pays and then adds another lump for VAT when it gets here. Nope, none of that is relevant apparently, just the 'news' what the BBC want you to hear is relevant.

I wonder when the BBC would like the world to declare war on Russia, seize the Ukrainian pipeline, give it plenty of pictures and 5 star hotels for the 400 reporters it would no doubt send there to prey on the then "nasty west", or the then "even nastier Russians", or would it sooner not cover the truth for once and tell the world that Ukraine hasn't paid its gas bill, doesn't want to pay its gas bill, hasn't the money to pay its gas bill, and wants to buy gas at half the price it costs Russia to get it out of the ground and ship it along its pipelines to Europe and the Balkans?

Maybe it could 'advise us' of the fact we only buy 20% of our gas from Russia, that the amount it sends us hasn't been tampered with by anyone other than Ukraine, and that we shouldn't worry too much because the North Sea is full of it, and the bloke they have as an "expert" is the bloke in charge of a comparison SALES site ?

But I guess that would be too easy.

The pompous and over rated Cable (one of the BBC’s ‘one of us”) also got an easy peasy look in.

As I understand it Darling is getting another softball interview with lab pour luvvie Peston. I think its pretty clear where all Peston’s leaks came from.

Bradford and Bingley assets (deposits) sold off, shareholders get nothing. The debts now held by Government/Taxpayer and shareholders thus pay again.

Its a brave person that will invest in banks under these circumstances.

If you can ignore the “I’m not going to be drawn politically but really I’m obviously a raving Socialist” theme that runs throughout, it gives some very good insights.

Private Equity, Hedge Funds, Royal Mail, Government Pensions Fiasco and Philip G’s attempt at the takeover of M&S.

Disappointingly, I thought the Panorama interview and report was not a patch on Robert P’s book.

PS. If you read the book, ignore Chapter 1 as it will put you to sleep. Go straight to Chapter 2.

An International Monetary Fund (IMF) economist has criticised the UK's 2.5-percentage-point cut in spending taxes.

Olivier Blanchard, the IMF's chief economist, said that the temporary cut in VAT would not significantly influence shoppers' behaviour.

In an interview with French newspaper Le Monde, Mr Blanchard said he did not think the cut was "a good idea".

And this :-

Peter Jay, who was Britain's envoy to Washington between 1977 and 1979, said that the definition – two consecutive quarters of negative growth – had no basis in economic theory and was created by the US Government in 1967 to aid the re-election prospects of President Lyndon Johnson.

Mr Jay, who said he was "in the room" when the definition was established, said that Art Okun, the chairman of Johnson's economic council, acted upon "indications that there might be a recession that year", which he feared would dent the President's popularity.

He said: "Art had the neat idea that if we had a definition of recession which meant that people could say we are not actually in a recession, not technically, that would get the president out of a difficulty.

"So on the back of an envelope he invented the idea that in order to call it a recession you had to have had two consecutive quarters of negative growth."

Who is really slightly interested in watching Darling and his other lackadaisical minions and fudger’s patting themselves on the back in self admiration whilst caring ought for the repercussions of what they say?

As you say Mr Redwood the time is not now and nor is it welcomed at any other time, to jeopardise the early recovery of RBS and HBOS by making stupid unthinking remarks which they should know better not to make at even the best of times least of all for reason to simply give Robert Peston another so called news story.

We care only of the action now.
There are plenty of thing I’m sure many could have said before now of the actions they seek to glorify, but they haven’t. Why? Because they’re not stupid and know they’ll be dropping stuff on people toes by doing it.
Which leaves only one thought in my mind, which is when will this clown stop making a mess of our economy, and you can fit any name you like into that question.