Media Responsibility

This morning I read on twitter that a local journalist, for whom I have the greatest respect, has written an article concerning local authority budget cuts. In particular, this article encourages "the people of Greater Manchester to stand up against unfair spending cuts" by adding to a petition to central government - by purchasing the paper and filling out a coupon on the front.

The Manchester Evening News article claims that spending cuts are unfair because some local authorities will suffer higher percentage cuts to central government funding than others (reported to be 21% for Manchester City Council, 19.6% for Salford City Council vs a UK average of 15.2%). Whether you agree with cuts, or the general thrust of the article is very much up to you. My personal view is that this is a half-truth being pushed by Labour-led councils to make the public take a more lenient view their of their irrational spending decisions (£170m on a town hall extension, Manchester, or £700,000 on moving two cranes, Salford). The facts, as I understand them, are that the government has cut many of the grants upon which some councils are very much more reliant than others, while some of the direct funding (for example, to schools) has increased. This fact, it seems, will be somewhat off-set by additional government funding to the tune of £85m that will be used to help the poorest areas. However, whether or not any of this funding will end up in Greater Manchester, or the wider North West, is unclear. Therefore, I approach the government line and claims published in the paper with hesitation in equal measure.

My greatest concern is that I do not believe that a newspaper is the place for a party-political campaign and, for the second time in two weeks, I am bitterly disappointed by the standard of reporting.

Freedom of speech (and by cursor, freedom of the press) is not a license to say or print whatever an individual or group sees fit. Copyright and libel are the two most obvious manifestations of this fact, but there is, I feel, an unwritten responsibility or standard to which the media should hold themselves. The media has an incredibly powerful influence, particularly in modern society, and as Spiderman's uncle Ben says: 'With great power comes great responsibility.'

The job of the media is not to campaign. The job of the media is to inform. It is right that outlets like the Manchester Evening News should question and probe and criticise authority - both local and national - but they must do so in a fair and balanced way. When they fail to do so they sell-out and are willingly surrendering their right to press freedom. And for what? A cynical attempt to sell more papers! It honestly disgusts me how unbalanced modern media has become and how low the standard of reporting has fallen across the media spectrum. I hasten to add that I have often felt that local reporting and the BBC is the last bastion of honest reporting, which is perhaps, why I feel so strongly about this now as it seems to me that even my local press cannot resist the tidal wave of social irresponsibility that is plaguing us at the moment.

I can't change the minds of those responsible for the likes of the Daily Mail or Fox/Sky News who have long since whored their industrial freedoms in the name of turning of a profit, but I hope that this at least might influence those on the frontline and encourage them to hold themselves to a higher standard.

Oldham East and Saddleworth

Politics can be frustrating, particularly as you become more directly involved. It is true in life, but particularly true in politics, that everyone has their own agenda: Your opponents want to win, the media wants to sell their product (and advertising time/space) and commentators and pundits want to be heard. This fact means that getting a message across can be a challenge at the best of times. Actions and statements are twisted, misrepresented or misinterpreted and it can be difficult to get the truth across. Add to that a lazy electorate (not everyone, of course, but enough people) who don't make an effort to cut through all the rubbish to form a fully informed opinion and you've got one hell of a frustrating melting pot.

Of course, that challenge is all part of the fun!

On Thursday, the voters of Oldham East and Saddleworth went to the polls in the first parliamentary by-election since the general election last year. The profile of this event was further increased after the winner last May, Phil Woolas, was found to have deliberately misled the electorate in his campaign literature. It was touted as everything from a test of coalition cohesion, to a measure of Ed Milliband's leadership. Some individuals and news organisations are already trying to draw sweeping conclusions for future elections based on this result but while there is an element of truth to the rhetoric, the reality is that the election is only a snap-shot of one constituency based on the very specific conditions of this election alone and therefore, what it tells us about any future election is very limited. Based purely on the outcome with no supporting canvass or polling data, even what it tells us about the views of the electorate in OES are limited!

The outcome was as follows:

Debbie Abrahams (Lab) 14,718 (42.14%, +10.27%)
Elwyn Watkins (LD) 11,160 (31.95%, +0.32%)
Kashif Ali (C) 4,481 (12.83%, -13.62%)
Paul Nuttall (UKIP) 2,029 (5.81%, +1.95%)
Derek Adams (BNP) 1,560 (4.47%, -1.25%)
Peter Allen (Green) 530 (1.52%)
The Flying Brick (Loony) 145 (0.42%)
Stephen Morris (Eng Dem) 144 (0.41%)
Loz Kaye (Pirate) 96 (0.27%)
David Bishop (Bus-Pass Elvis) 67 (0.19%)

Comparing these figures to those of the May election, Debbie Abrahams, the Labour candidate, was the only candidate to increase the actual number of votes (slightly) and also increase her vote share. Elwyn Watkins dropped almost 3,000 votes for the Liberal Democrats but increased his vote share slightly, while Conservative, Kashif Ali, dropped a substantial 7,200 votes and lost a significant share of the votes.

Some have been quick to suggest that those who voted Conservative last year, voted Labour instead. I personally find it unlikely that Conservative voters shifted directly to Labour, which makes me wonder if the reality is that Elwyn lost some of support to Labour but gained support from people who previously voted Conservative. However, I find even this possibility a stretch. Those Conservative supporters who are most likely to be disillusioned at the moment are the hard right as their party has had to take a more central position in order to compromise with the Lib Dems. It's conceivable that there was a tactical vote - that Conservative voters recognised that their best chance to have a coalition MP was to vote Lib Dem - but I doubt this factor has influenced the voters enough to cause Ali to lose over 7,000 votes.

Another common perception is that this result represents a swing from Lib Dem to Labour. This is certainly more plausible as, for some time, the Liberal Democrat party has been a protest vote for disaffected Labour and Tory supporters. However, like all political parties, Lib Dems lean left or right. Left-leaning Lib Dems, and ex-Labour supporters will surely be irate about the coalition and the tuition fees debacle has upset many voters. Having said that, I wonder how much influence these two factors have had on the result. Right-leaning Lib Dems and moderates will almost certainly be supportive of the party's achievements in government and even those who previously voted Lib Dem, having switched support from Labour, might be completely disillusioned, rather than switch support back, particularly in the light of Phil Woolas' shame.

Therefore, it is my belief that ultimately the vote in Oldham East and Saddleworth hasn't changed that much. Although I am certain that some people have voted differently to how they voted in the general election, I believe that the most significant factor that has influenced this election is the turnout. I believe Labour successfully located and mobilised their vote (picking up some ex-Lib Dem votes along the way) while a large proportion of Conservative voters stayed home. The Lib Dem vote is, unfortunately, renowned as being somewhat unstable (some might say 'fickle') and it would seem enough voters either stayed at home or shifted their vote Labour's way, to result in a Labour win.

If that's the case, what does it mean for the Council elections later this year? Is this a good result for us local Lib Dems, or a bad one? Firstly, it seems to suggest that not much has changed in real terms. Where Labour are strongest, elections might be theirs to lose and the win in OES (particularly if it is reinforced with more by-election victories) might make Labour complacent. In areas where the party takes their electorate for granted, there could be some shocks but I'm not going to hold my breath. Ed Miliband's leadership is very weak, but fortunately for the Labour party, it is easier to be in opposition than in government because you only have to tell people what they want to hear and, I fear, that's exactly what Miliband is doing. The challenge for Lib Dems everywhere will likely be twofold: one, to convince those who voted Lib Dem in the past to continue to do so, and two, to find that support and transfer it to the ballot box. But then again, hasn't that always been the case?

Regardless of what the OES result means (or not), I'd like to extend my congratulations to the Lib Dem team out there for a well-fought campaign. It is deeply disappointing that Elwyn Watkins didn't win - he deserved it after the dirty campaign Labour ran last May and, judging by his tenacity and determination to see the right thing done, he would've made a great MP. Next time, maybe.

The VAT Rise ate my Chicken

Tuesday night... community committee meeting spent on a school bench... one of those things sadistic PE teachers turn upside down and make you balance on... sat in a draft and facing the same old brick wall  known as a lack of common sense. Needless to say, when the meeting eventually finished and we were about to head home, KFC was pretty spectacularly appealing, especially as neither Steve nor I had eaten before heading out. So off we puttered down to the local KFC and asked for a £9.99 Bargain Bucket.

It wasn't immediately obvious what the chap the otherside of the window was trying to say but we eventually figured out that he was reminding us about the VAT increase. The £9.99 Bargain Bucket is no longer the £9.99 Bargain Bucket it is now the 8 Piece Bucket. Fair enough... but £10.99? Really? Four times the actual VAT increase? What a cheek! Are they really that desperate to have products that end in 99p?

So, while the likes of the furniture and kitchen places, where a 2.5% increase is rather more of an item, offer to pay the VAT for you, KFC whacks a whopping 10% on the price.

At least they had the decency to throw in a selection of sauces for free. :o)