Whatever the outcome of the Leveson inquiry into media standards, and the many other investigations into the conduct of News Corporation, one thing for certain is the Tories will emerge with their reputations battered. Although David Cameron's asserts that all parties got too close to the Rupert Murdoch machine, there is no doubt the Tories are coming away with more muck on them than the others. It is hardly a surprise - they have showed themselves to be the party of the few and out of touch with the many.
The phone-hacking scandal and the subsequent fallout relating to Murdoch's undemocratic influence in Britain, is the gift that keeps on giving. This week, the Prime Minister resorted to personal jibes in the House of Commons, targeting veteran MP Dennis Skinner with a legally dubious remark about his age. This is because he had no robust defence of Skinner's question about Jeremy Hunt being given more employment protection by the PM than the average worker gets.
Past Labour Prime Ministers may have tried to gain some of that Murdoch stardust, but this is hardly surprising given the supposed impact his populist paper had on their 1992 election defeat. However, it is becoming clear some serious back-scratching must have occurred for Cameron to get such Murdoch support for the 2010 election (not to mention the fact the BBC and Sky News coverage of the election was also very unfriendly towards Gordon Brown). Cameron's Tories certainly need these media giants: the unelectable one still could not win an election off the back of almost universal media support, and had to beg Parliament's biggest bunch of chameleons to form a working majority. Embarrassing.
The list of Murdoch-related calamities so early in his tenure as PM reflects badly on Cameron, and he knows it. Firstly, Andy Coulson, the former News of the World editor, was recruited by Cameron, despite having to resign due to phone-hacking concerns as early as 2007. Following his necessary resignation as Cameron's communications director, he was arrested by police investigating the phone-hacking scandal.
Secondly, there is the question of David Cameron's own links with the Murdochs and Rebekah Brooks. It has now claimed that he DID discuss the BSkyB bid with James Murdoch - something that had been repeatedly denied.
Thirdly, Cameron is developing a fast-growing reputation as notoriously inefficient when it comes to sacking ministers who are clearly on borrowed time. First Liam Fox, now Jeremy Hunt - it is not good enough. Jeremy Hunt's office faces an onslaught due to its underhand support for the Murdoch's bid for BSkyB. The way Vince Cable was shifted from his role in assessing the BSkyB bid in favour of someone whose office have apparent Murdoch sympathies is suspicious to say the least.
Finally, it has emerged today that four Conservatives wasted their time sitting on the Culture Committee to question journalists. They refused to endorse the report that followed, dismissing it as "partisan" because it reached the conclusion Rupert Murdoch "is not fit to run not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company". This is the same Murdoch who either would not or could not do anything about systematic phone-hacking at one of his newspapers. As the Coulson example above demonstrates, the phone-hacking has been in the background since at least 2007. This will do nothing to extinguish the heat that is rising against the Tories, or the suspicion that they represent the wealthy, the elite and powerhouses like the Murdoch machine. It simply adds to the distaste of the saga.
Hopefully voters will find recent Tory performances equally as distasteful on May 3rd.
Showing posts with label Business. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Business. Show all posts
Tuesday, 1 May 2012
No pride in how we manage our water supply
Ever since the day it was announced that parts of Britain were facing a drought, it seems to have rained relentlessly. Now parts of Britain are facing flooding.
The drought warnings and the hosepipe bans are now coupled with the threat of having to use sandbags to protect property from floods. Water companies are going to great pains, in addition to rather unhelpful messages discouraging hygiene, to remind people that the drought threat remains.
It is understood that one month of almost incessant rain is going to do little to make up for a two year shortfall in rainfall, but the message from the water companies remains warped.
Try explaining to people who live in the driest parts of America, that a country like this one ever has to place restrictions on its water supply. We do not hear much about leaky pipes anymore. It would be interesting to learn how much of our water supply vanishes in that way.
The key question is whether we should trust privatised water companies to invest in the infrastructure. The drought we face is partly down to the dry winters, but to be facing a drought concurrently with the risk of floods says a lot about the way this country manages its water supply.
The drought warnings and the hosepipe bans are now coupled with the threat of having to use sandbags to protect property from floods. Water companies are going to great pains, in addition to rather unhelpful messages discouraging hygiene, to remind people that the drought threat remains.
It is understood that one month of almost incessant rain is going to do little to make up for a two year shortfall in rainfall, but the message from the water companies remains warped.
Try explaining to people who live in the driest parts of America, that a country like this one ever has to place restrictions on its water supply. We do not hear much about leaky pipes anymore. It would be interesting to learn how much of our water supply vanishes in that way.
The key question is whether we should trust privatised water companies to invest in the infrastructure. The drought we face is partly down to the dry winters, but to be facing a drought concurrently with the risk of floods says a lot about the way this country manages its water supply.
Monday, 29 August 2011
Where has all the money gone? (Part Two)
Almost a month has passed since I pondered the causes of all the seemingly missing money in the world. Apart from the reminding ourselves countries have run out of cash, that banks are not flush with cash and the general public certainly have little in their pockets, nothing is clearer. As a self-certified non-economist, the best I can do is produce crude theories. Here is one such theory.
I see the world as a massive game of poker. And it follows logically that there are only so many chips on the table. We all know that governments try to avoid printing money because it makes bad things happen, such as hyperinflation. So there is always a limited number of chips.
Eventually one person ends up with all the chips in the game of poker. As far as I can make out, something remarkably similar has happened to the world financial fluidity. Of course this game of global poker is so large no individual ends up with all the chips as they would in poker, but some definitely end up with greater piles than others. Worse than that, just as with poker, when someone has a big pile of chips, it becomes easier for them to take a great deal more chips from others.
It is enough to convince me that the theory of economic success is in fact a fallacy. A successful company is based on a flawed notion that those industries and companies (who, in poker analogy, have most of the chips) must keep increasing their income year-on-year. For example, company X may make a £275m profit on the year, but this is considered failure because the previous year they made £300m. What happens when all this money is lying around static in corporations? What happens when someone retires as a Chief Executive with more money than he or she will ever be able to spend?
The answer is we end up with money that is fenced out of the system and leads to a constraining of future economic success, as well as the limitation of the economic capability of those who have to share the rest of the shrinking pot between ourselves.
What does everyone else think? Have I got it completely wide of the mark - as Tories with economic qualifications will take great delight in saying I have? I may not be an economist but I do not think so. More to follow on this no doubt....
I see the world as a massive game of poker. And it follows logically that there are only so many chips on the table. We all know that governments try to avoid printing money because it makes bad things happen, such as hyperinflation. So there is always a limited number of chips.
Eventually one person ends up with all the chips in the game of poker. As far as I can make out, something remarkably similar has happened to the world financial fluidity. Of course this game of global poker is so large no individual ends up with all the chips as they would in poker, but some definitely end up with greater piles than others. Worse than that, just as with poker, when someone has a big pile of chips, it becomes easier for them to take a great deal more chips from others.
It is enough to convince me that the theory of economic success is in fact a fallacy. A successful company is based on a flawed notion that those industries and companies (who, in poker analogy, have most of the chips) must keep increasing their income year-on-year. For example, company X may make a £275m profit on the year, but this is considered failure because the previous year they made £300m. What happens when all this money is lying around static in corporations? What happens when someone retires as a Chief Executive with more money than he or she will ever be able to spend?
The answer is we end up with money that is fenced out of the system and leads to a constraining of future economic success, as well as the limitation of the economic capability of those who have to share the rest of the shrinking pot between ourselves.
What does everyone else think? Have I got it completely wide of the mark - as Tories with economic qualifications will take great delight in saying I have? I may not be an economist but I do not think so. More to follow on this no doubt....
Wednesday, 3 August 2011
How much will the new football season cost?
The new football season is approaching and once again the clubs are ripping off fans with admission prices that would make eyes water across continental Europe. Even fans of League Two side Port Vale can expect to pay a minimum upwards of £20 for a ticket.
The BBC website researchers have been hard at work, producing a summary of ticket prices based on information given to them by the clubs in the four top English leagues and the one relevant league in Scotland. I will let you draw your own conclusions about the obvious methodological flaw, but needless to say in 2011 there are still some football clubs attempting to claim their lowest priced tickets are a mere £10, often based on concessions and special offers.
The issue of admission fees is a topical one. Miniature earthquakes could have been caused in west London by the amount of feet stamping by supporters of Queens Park Rangers because of the increase in their ticket prices. They have been raised to a minimum of £47 for an adult ticket. Ouch.
It could be argued the increased fare to climb aboard the QPR Premier League bandwagon comes with the premium product now being offered at Loftus Road. Last season their visitors in the league included Scunthorpe. Next season they will be hosting Manchester United.
The downside of course is the home team is still QPR, so no fixture will have the same appeal as a match between any two of Manchester United, Manchester City, Arsenal, Liverpool or Chelsea. £47 for QPR versus Wigan? You decide.
The price of football continues to rise because we mugs pay above the market value for tickets, and football clubs in turn pay above the market value for players, the latter being the only winners in all this. Some prices, especially £47 to watch a probable relegation battle, is outrageous. The day will come when fans of all clubs cannot do it anymore.
The BBC website researchers have been hard at work, producing a summary of ticket prices based on information given to them by the clubs in the four top English leagues and the one relevant league in Scotland. I will let you draw your own conclusions about the obvious methodological flaw, but needless to say in 2011 there are still some football clubs attempting to claim their lowest priced tickets are a mere £10, often based on concessions and special offers.
The issue of admission fees is a topical one. Miniature earthquakes could have been caused in west London by the amount of feet stamping by supporters of Queens Park Rangers because of the increase in their ticket prices. They have been raised to a minimum of £47 for an adult ticket. Ouch.
It could be argued the increased fare to climb aboard the QPR Premier League bandwagon comes with the premium product now being offered at Loftus Road. Last season their visitors in the league included Scunthorpe. Next season they will be hosting Manchester United.
The downside of course is the home team is still QPR, so no fixture will have the same appeal as a match between any two of Manchester United, Manchester City, Arsenal, Liverpool or Chelsea. £47 for QPR versus Wigan? You decide.
The price of football continues to rise because we mugs pay above the market value for tickets, and football clubs in turn pay above the market value for players, the latter being the only winners in all this. Some prices, especially £47 to watch a probable relegation battle, is outrageous. The day will come when fans of all clubs cannot do it anymore.
Sunday, 10 July 2011
Phone hacking and our fickle tabloid friends
So now you know who your friends really are – and it is certainly not those at the British tabloid press.
They do not provide public service, though they might like to think they do. They do not act in the interests of the people, though they might say they do. They are there to make money by selling copies. They sell copies by digging out stories. They get stories by leaving their morals at the office door when they arrive for work.
The phone hacking activities revealed to have taken place at the News of the World were beyond contempt. Each revelation was worse than the one which preceded it. The newspaper, and around 200 careers associated with it, laid in ruins as owner Rupert Murdoch brutally closed down the beleaguered publication following a string of destructive headlines as the newspaper suddenly became the big story.
Phone hacking was always a scandal, even when the victims were ‘just’ politicians and celebrities. To learn that the phone of a dead Milly Dowler had also been hacked, as well as the phones of dead servicemen, is sickening. To cap it all off, we learn that the police were paid by News of the World journalists for information. As George Monbiot pointed out, when the dust settles, the police collusion will be equally as big a story as the hacked phones.
Make no mistake, the News of the World became more than a newspaper. It became a criminal network. Until the muddy waters clear, nobody knows who knew what, who is guilty, who is innocent, who will be charged, and who will be released. However, a law qualification is not required to realise the crimes listed above are serious enough to ensure someone is going to jail – and that someone will probably have more than just a few ex-colleagues for company.
The most depressing aspect of all this is the News of the World actually turned out to be the enemy of those it tried so hard to be a friend of. It was this newspaper that led aggressive naming and shaming campaigns of child molesters, often leading to its more uneducated readers to mistakenly attack the wrong targets. All the while, it campaigned on behalf of victims’ families.
I have no doubt the News of the World anti-predator campaigns had the best of intentions. But behind the scenes its investigators were violating the same families of those violated by the likes of Levi Bellfield and Ian Huntley. The newspaper, far from being the victims’ mate, added to the misery already heaped upon those families. It was the newspaper which promised so much, but could only deliver a pack of sordid lies.
Out of this darkness however may come light. The model of cosy relations between our party political leaders and the key people in the print media is now discredited. And while the allegations against the News of the World are strong and clearly with foundation when considering the defensive stance of its management, few people believe the News of the World was alone in unscrupulous practices. When considered as a whole, the days of a free press are over – and the loss of that freedom may not be a bad thing.
No longer should publications with such large circulations be allowed to tell people how to vote. This would bring it in line with broadcast media, where a plurality of views must be represented. This is the only way to cut the strong bond between politician and press. Headlines such as The Sun’s 1992 “lights out" if Kinnock wins must never happen again. A balanced democracy needs a balanced media with balanced levels of freedom as opposed to total freedom. Gone are the days when people can write whatever they like.
We must also take our share of the blame for legitimising the misdeeds of the press. We laughed, smirked and sneered when the complicated private life of a certain Ryan Giggs was released on websites, then in the House of Commons, then in the press – drip-by-drip. Will we ever know how all the incriminating evidence was collected? Given the events of the past week, it is not unreasonable to assume more than just a sprinkle of skullduggery.
Then there was the parliamentary expenses scandal. We applauded the ‘outstanding journalism’ which exposed Members of Parliament. We chose to overlook how the data came into the hands of journalists, because it was inconvenient to our collective sense of outrage at the time.
It is easy to full into the trap of thinking those who bring us the exclusives are our friends. They are not. They make money. They set the political agenda. They get Tories elected with the minimum of fuss. Now it is time for change.
They do not provide public service, though they might like to think they do. They do not act in the interests of the people, though they might say they do. They are there to make money by selling copies. They sell copies by digging out stories. They get stories by leaving their morals at the office door when they arrive for work.
The phone hacking activities revealed to have taken place at the News of the World were beyond contempt. Each revelation was worse than the one which preceded it. The newspaper, and around 200 careers associated with it, laid in ruins as owner Rupert Murdoch brutally closed down the beleaguered publication following a string of destructive headlines as the newspaper suddenly became the big story.
Phone hacking was always a scandal, even when the victims were ‘just’ politicians and celebrities. To learn that the phone of a dead Milly Dowler had also been hacked, as well as the phones of dead servicemen, is sickening. To cap it all off, we learn that the police were paid by News of the World journalists for information. As George Monbiot pointed out, when the dust settles, the police collusion will be equally as big a story as the hacked phones.
Make no mistake, the News of the World became more than a newspaper. It became a criminal network. Until the muddy waters clear, nobody knows who knew what, who is guilty, who is innocent, who will be charged, and who will be released. However, a law qualification is not required to realise the crimes listed above are serious enough to ensure someone is going to jail – and that someone will probably have more than just a few ex-colleagues for company.
The most depressing aspect of all this is the News of the World actually turned out to be the enemy of those it tried so hard to be a friend of. It was this newspaper that led aggressive naming and shaming campaigns of child molesters, often leading to its more uneducated readers to mistakenly attack the wrong targets. All the while, it campaigned on behalf of victims’ families.
I have no doubt the News of the World anti-predator campaigns had the best of intentions. But behind the scenes its investigators were violating the same families of those violated by the likes of Levi Bellfield and Ian Huntley. The newspaper, far from being the victims’ mate, added to the misery already heaped upon those families. It was the newspaper which promised so much, but could only deliver a pack of sordid lies.
Out of this darkness however may come light. The model of cosy relations between our party political leaders and the key people in the print media is now discredited. And while the allegations against the News of the World are strong and clearly with foundation when considering the defensive stance of its management, few people believe the News of the World was alone in unscrupulous practices. When considered as a whole, the days of a free press are over – and the loss of that freedom may not be a bad thing.
No longer should publications with such large circulations be allowed to tell people how to vote. This would bring it in line with broadcast media, where a plurality of views must be represented. This is the only way to cut the strong bond between politician and press. Headlines such as The Sun’s 1992 “lights out" if Kinnock wins must never happen again. A balanced democracy needs a balanced media with balanced levels of freedom as opposed to total freedom. Gone are the days when people can write whatever they like.
We must also take our share of the blame for legitimising the misdeeds of the press. We laughed, smirked and sneered when the complicated private life of a certain Ryan Giggs was released on websites, then in the House of Commons, then in the press – drip-by-drip. Will we ever know how all the incriminating evidence was collected? Given the events of the past week, it is not unreasonable to assume more than just a sprinkle of skullduggery.
Then there was the parliamentary expenses scandal. We applauded the ‘outstanding journalism’ which exposed Members of Parliament. We chose to overlook how the data came into the hands of journalists, because it was inconvenient to our collective sense of outrage at the time.
It is easy to full into the trap of thinking those who bring us the exclusives are our friends. They are not. They make money. They set the political agenda. They get Tories elected with the minimum of fuss. Now it is time for change.
Sunday, 13 March 2011
Murdoch to take full control of Sky - what next?
So Rupert Murdoch got his way and was able to win approval by the government for News Corporation to take full control of BSkyB.
It left me feeling a little disorientated. In one respect, I was annoyed because I felt he had won - again. In another, had it not been for his travails, I would not have known that he did not have full control of the broadcaster. For some reason I always assumed BSkyB was his pride and joy anyway.
I certainly was not aware that his share was a mere 39 percent.
Assuming the takeover goes smoothly and Murdoch ends up in full control, the concern is regarding what will happen next. The sweetener that appears to have paved the way was Murdoch's agreement to only hold a maximum of 39 percent of Sky News and keeping it separate from the rest of the company.
There is one caveat, which is the concern as to whether any safeguards have been put into place that would prevent Murdoch from launching a Fox News for the UK, a channel which he would have a full share in. Considering I have not heard about any such safeguards, I can only assume the answer to that is 'no'.
It left me feeling a little disorientated. In one respect, I was annoyed because I felt he had won - again. In another, had it not been for his travails, I would not have known that he did not have full control of the broadcaster. For some reason I always assumed BSkyB was his pride and joy anyway.
I certainly was not aware that his share was a mere 39 percent.
Assuming the takeover goes smoothly and Murdoch ends up in full control, the concern is regarding what will happen next. The sweetener that appears to have paved the way was Murdoch's agreement to only hold a maximum of 39 percent of Sky News and keeping it separate from the rest of the company.
There is one caveat, which is the concern as to whether any safeguards have been put into place that would prevent Murdoch from launching a Fox News for the UK, a channel which he would have a full share in. Considering I have not heard about any such safeguards, I can only assume the answer to that is 'no'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)