OneGuyFromBarlick

I don't know whether any of you listened to John Humphries interview with the DG Entwistle yesterday but it was savage. DG resigned last night after 54 days in office. I don't buy the fact that because he is 'editor in chief' he had to take responsibility. True he has looked incompetent but surely he is forced to rely on his management to use their heads and clear controversial material with a command chain? It looks as though the Bureau for Investigative Journalism played a large part in the Newsnight programme that wrongly accused Lord MacAlpine. (LINK) More to this than meets the eyeand I'm still wondering what role cuts in newsroom staff had in this affair. I wouldn't mind taking small a bet that the roots of it can be traced back to Lord Birt's meddling with the management structure.

Our MPs appear to be spending too much time voting on 'I'm a Celebrity' so no substantive news from Westminster.
Meanwhile, in Greece, parliament has incorporated even deeper cuts in the 2013 budget than those they agreed last week. Despite this, the EU has warned that the money will only trickle in and it looks as though Greece will have to sell incredibly high interest short term bonds to tied them over the next few months. The national equivalent of taking a pay-day loan. What a way to run an economic system, the problem appears to be that individual EU countries have to vote the bail-out through in their individual parliaments. Commentators note that the depth of the austerity cuts has now reached a level where Greece has no chance of clawing their way back as their ability to improve GDP is destroyed. How can a default be prevented? This train wreck must be the longest in history.

David Dimbleby interviewed by John Humphrys on the BBC/Entwistle/MacAlpine affair was interesting. Dimbleby defending the BBC as a great institution but pointing out that it has the same mis-management as the NHS.

DD seemed to be pushing for his own candidacy for the new vacancy at the BBC, very disappointing that the talk is always of a 'man' to lead, when maybe the problem is that too many 'men' have tried to lead.

Head of news and deputy have now stood aside

The issue appears to be the tenacity of the BBC media to rip things apart without any thought as to the damage that they are doing. On Today there was someone from the Grauniad telling Humphries how to run the BBC. It believes that it is too big to fail.

I Predict a printing of large numbers of P45, without anyone actually getting to grips with the real problems, no accountability, lots of money....then silence

Meanwhile the abused children are side lined and the prospects of others reporting is diminished

The US has it's own scandal. What looked like a simple extra-marital affair by general Patreus develops into a cause celebre as FBI raid his mistress's house.
Parliament votes against postponing the automatic fuel price increase.
EU 'grants' Greece more time to get austerity cuts in place. Actually there was only one alternative to this, chuck them out of the Eurozone and this is now not the favoured option. However they do nothing about reassuring Greece that bail-out money will get there in time to prevent bond sales at crippling interest rates or dipping into some very dodgy sources of capital like the Greek banks. In truth, Greece is bankrupt and the EU is desperately trying to prevent this leading to a default. Question is how long such a defective firewall can hold. Watch this space, the train wreck is still ongoing.
Abu Quatada walks out of the appeal court on bail. We pay heavy penalties for having an open and transparent justice system but it's worth the price. I have little doubt they'll get him to Jordan in the end.

Bit of a surprise for the government this morning, the rate of inflation (CPI) has risen 0.5% to 2.7%, the highest monthly rise for a long time. The chief factors are said to be vegetables, cost of transport and university fees. Not good news for the poor people, I've said for a long time that the inflation rate of essentials like food and energy bear down hardest on the least able to pay and this makes it even worse.

Some interesting comment this morning on the CPI figure. All the persons asked for comment agreed that this may not be a blip in the stats but perhaps a true indication of what is happening. They point out that inflation is far in excess of wages, indeed, the latest figures suggest that wages in the private sector are falling. This means less disposable income and the main factors giving the rise are energy and food, the sectors that bear hardest on the poorest people. Always bear in mind that the full effects of the austerity cuts haven't hit the economy yet, there are about 50% of them to come.
Meanwhile across in Europe the austerity cuts are causing trouble as well. The experience with Greece where the cuts are forcing them into a position which they can't possibly manage has triggered new thinking and Germany, the arch austerity disciple, is coming under attack. Even the IMF has admitted that they got the effects of cuts on growth wrong. Questions are being asked which were unthinkable a few years ago like can the Euro survive in its present form under the cuts? Funny thing is that this is what I said from 2008 onwards. Cuts are not the answer if you want growth. 85% of growth is generated in the domestic economy and of that the biggest proportion of spend is by ordinary people on the lowest incomes. This is exactly the sector that the Tory 'economic plan' is hitting and it will get worse. Even Angela Merkel is talking about another five years of reduced incomes and austerity, personally I think she is being optimistic, if there is no alteration to policy there is no end to it as far as I can see because the basic economic model is wrong. I heard a quote in a vox pop on austerity, "They bailed out the banks, it's time they bailed the consumer out now". That's about it actually, managing expectations but making sure that the core economy has enough disposable income to fuel the economy.
What would I do? Get whatever capital there is into the economy at the lowest level possible and get the multiplier effect going. The more local control of capital is the better, local councils are an ideal way of doing this. Forget cries of inefficiency and left wing thinking, the fact is that even if it's badly spent it is going into the economy at the local level. Let's face it, there is nothing more inefficient than allowing the market to run the economy in such a way that capital is exported or sterilised by ending up locked in the banks and the big pension funds.
Sorry, I'm going on aren't I but it makes me so angry watching a government driven more by Tory DNA than basic economic theory and in the process building up so many problems for the future. A plague on them!

Free market logic has always been considered a liberal principle.

The inflation from China has not worked through yet, and the only way to avoid that is for the plants to transfer the work back to UK shores

I agree about Councils being wasteful with money, and you should never allow politicians to gerry mander a situation by favouring certain schemes only which always happens with 'limited funds'

I see Mervyn King is reading my posts, either that or he is on the same lines. In terms of the length of the 'recession' he may be right but the longer term effects of the cuts on poor families will be with us for much longer. Think 'Thatcher's Children'. I'll repeat it, these cuts haven't yet fully bitten home and when they do people might waken up to what is really happening.
One phrase that keeps cropping up is "There are opportunities in crisis". Too right, go and read Naomi Klein's book 'The Shock Doctrine', a frightening account of the history of using crisis as a tool for social and political management. Well researched and totally credible. Every now and again I get the uncomfortable feeling that the series of economic problems we face have all the characteristics of such manipulation. Remember how the Thatcher government slighted manufacturing and used North Sea oil revenues to finance unemployment to attack the unions and put downward pressure on wages? Perhaps I'm not paranoid after all!

I am bewildered by Mervyn King. He is too busy watching banking and finance which has seen over 100k jobs lost in the last year alone, and the bonus pot at less than 3% of what it was in 2007

All those high paid jobs mean less tax revenue, all that lost revenue also means lost other taxes. Much of it has simply been off shored with Switzerland the current favourite.

Replacing with manufacturing is 'less productive' in terms of value, and thus you would see a decline in output.

On top of which the bank's own policies have not helped Industrial policy.

I agree about the cuts not having bitten yet. The welfare state demands money because it can not manage on less (it gets rid of the workers and keeps the bosses) and if the Treasury loses it from one sector then it has to come back to those who have no choice.

Very interesting debate on Business taxes the other day too on Radio 4, ensuring that it isn't a level playing field.

Merv the swerve should have been fired a long time ago

I'm also happy that the city do not want Lord Adair Turner as the new BoE chief, as that would again be rewarding failure.

Just been to cast my vote for the police something-or-other because I feel strongly that I should exercise my democratic right to vote.

However, none of the candidates had had the courtesy to give me any reasons to vote for them or provide any information whatsoever. Nobody I've spoken to has had any idea why we were voting or what for.

Apparently I had 1st and 2nd choices of candidate but there wasn’t a box to say “What a disgraceful shambles this whole election is”.

There’s likely to be a low turnout and then the officials will start bleating about how the public doesn’t give a monkey’s, and they get what they deserve blah blah.

Yours faithfully
Angry of Barnoldswick

Interesting H, not been yet but will be doing of course. I was unaware that this election was based on Proportional Representation (why ask for a second choice if not)? I fully agree that there should be an abstain and maybe a comment box at the bottom of all ballot papers. I am in favour of compulsory voting with a suitable opt out box, a point I have argued for some time now. Everyone should be expected to turn up and vote with an option to abstain with or without a comment.

I hope there is enough room on the ballot to have my say!

Very low on actual approaches I agree about the PCC, though I have followed it on twitter for some time, & Tim Ashton (Cons) followed me after the comments I made at a West Craven Area Committee Meeting.

I have seen the tories out leafletting in Barlick, though I didn't get any of it

The Lib Dem is the same bloke who stood in the General Election for the Pendle seat, and he wasn't convincing at those hustings at all (IMHO)

I voted a long time ago (postal)

PanBiker wrote:

I hope there is enough room on the ballot to have my say!

I understood that if you so much as squiggle anywhere on your ballot paper other than putting an X in the appropriate box(es), it counts as “spoiled”, so I forced myself to refrain from venting my spleen this time.

I agree there should be a comment/abstain box but in reality I suspect there wouldn’t be the time or resources for the comments to be collected and acted upon. Democracy doesn’t extend that far!

By the way, seeing as I’m logged in and apparently ‘freeloading' by making a comment on OGFB (according to one member), I've made a substantial donation to the BHF in lieu of the paltry £1 that would have turned my name Orange on this website. I hope my donation will benefit the likes of Doc, DW and many others. I made the donation with my own free will and wasn’t bullied or namecalled into it.

Just sayin’...

I have been at numerous election counts in the role of a scrutineer for my party when I was actively involved in local politics. You are correct in saying that comments on the paper will render that particular ballot void. Squiggles as you call them can be construed as a "mark" and all such ballots are collected for further scrutiny by the candidates and their agents. They agree between all candidates having an entry in that particular election which of these may be acceptable as valid votes for any particular party or candidate. Although it is generally accepted that a plain cross is required on the ballot, any distinctive mark, tick, line or whatever (as long as it is in a single box) is acceptable. All such potentially spoiled ballots (which include the ones with writing or maybe even rude words!) are looked at by said candidates so they are not necessarily useless. They will not count as a vote for the candidate but can carry a message.

Well,it has taken some finding but I have eventually arrived at a website that explains the voting system used for the PCC elections. There did not seem to be any mention on the Home Office site that this election would be run under the supplementary vote system rather than first past the post. I found the information on this site:

About My Vote

The tellers on duty at my polling station at the Sunday School at the Independent Methodists on Walmsgate said that they had probably processed about 10 people an hour so far over the 10 hours that they had been on station. Apparently that particular station was one of the busiest as well according to the coordinator who happened to be there when we went to vote. If that was the busiest the turnout will be abysmal I would think, the figures will certainly make interesting reading. Should be a quick count as well!

If BHF is the British Heart foundation well done you! However, as the 'certain member' who keeps nagging about donations I have to say you've missed the point. I make significant contributions to charities but don't see that as a substitute for showing solidarity with the other members who support the site because they appreciate it and recognise that it needs funding. If everyone did as you have done Doc would still be paying for the platform out of his own back pocket, in other words he would be subsidising your donation to BHF. I shall continue to nag.... Anyone who isn't a donor is a free-loader in terms of OGFB.
As for the Police Commissioner election. As there is no abstain box any deviation from what's on the poll card will be a spoiled vote and I'll bet it will take a FOI battle to find out how many there were. I simply abstained, the first time in my life I have declined a vote. The principle of more public control sounds fine but look how many political candidates there are. That's the danger as I see it.
Mervyn King is simply telling the truth and I applaud him for it. He is being cautious and gentle as he doesn't want to be accused of talking the economy down. I suspect that in private he's as appalled as the rest of us are with the shambles that is developing.
More questionable statistics yesterday on unemployment in the UK. Even the Tories are questioning why they are so out of kilter with what they see on the ground. Same could be said for the IMF forecast about Europe going into recession again, The estimate is totally skewed by the Mediterranean countries and should not be applied to the whole of Europe.
It's just been announced that the turn-out was miserable, estimates are between 10 and 15% at the moment but could well be lower when all the results are in. The turn out in the by elections is miserable as well, I wonder why? Could people be becoming disenchanted with politics, or more likely, politicians. Surely not.....

“...as the 'certain member' who keeps nagging about donations I have to say you've missed the point....”

No, you’ve missed the point. And you won’t or can’t see it.

I have happily donated to OGFB in the past. Voluntarily. Because I wanted to. Not because I was told to, and namecalled and bullied when I didn't.

At that particular point in my life I had no money to spare - absolutely none - and to be made to feel as though I was taking advantage of a website to which I like to think I’ve positively contributed to was unfair and counterproductive.

“Donating” by definition is a voluntary action - otherwise it’s called a subscription or fee.

You do Doc no favours by constantly harrassing, haranguing and insulting people who, for whatever reason, cannot make a donation at that particular point in their lives, because they then avoid visiting and contributing to the site in the future.

Happily my financial crisis has been alleviated a little, and the British Heart Foundation is now slightly better off for it.

"constantly harrassing, haranguing and insulting people". That's your view but it's not so, asking for members to support the site is none of those things. I freely admit to nagging! As for your argument, I still hold you have missed the point. OGFB is a service not a charity and it has to be paid for. Next time you get on a bus tell the driver you don't intend to pay the fare because you contribute to charity and see what the answer is. I repeat, if everyone took this line Doc would be paying the server costs himself and that is certainly not fair, trying to intimidate me won't alter that opinion.

Oh well. Cast my vote in the PCC elections for Merseyside. I felt I should. Not least to stop the English Democrat candidate getting in via apathy. Anyone who has their views on policing 'guided by God' is a bit iffy. I suppose it's his God that suggested he take Merseyside police to court for flying a gay pride flag from a police station 'without planning permission'. For that is what he's done. Clearly an inclusive 'democrat'. My goodness......

Like almost everyone I little real clue what each candidate stood for (which caused me to muse for some time as to whther I should bother). All I know is that they were in support of the police and against 'crime', which is hardly a radical platform. I had rather less information how with a finite and increasingly diminishing reasource they will target efforts? What evidence base will they use? 'Crime' is a multi-dimensional problem - where and how will they strike the balance? I suspect they are a clueless as me on this......

Turnout will be low but I make a plea for no questioning then of the mandate. We do not have compulsory voting and so the turnout is what it is and you are elected if you get a majority. Mind you, at least no Minister will be able, with a straight face, to question the legitimacy of a strike ballot. Which was anyway always a nonsense for the reasons mentioned.

Richard Broughton

You did better than me Richard and I confess I feel a certain guilt about not exercising my rights, it's dead against my principles but I didn't see any clear way of expressing my doubts.
I love your point about the questioning of turn-out in strike ballots!

The question of a ballot's legitamacy will always be pushed forward, because our general democracy has no way of accounting for those who refuse to take part.

In political elections it has always been said "people agree with the status quo", but then some will get upset if a certain action is pushed forward.

Much better to get more than 50% of those who can vote out, than just win by gaining more than 50% of those votes cast.

I understand that it was the Lib Dem part of the Coalition that wanted these elections in November, rather than with the locals in May. If you then force candidates basically saying exactly the same thing I don't understand how you are supposed to engage.

Very notable that there were no independents in Lancashire

Also, the turnouts in the parliamentary elections is very low too. Manchester was about 16% I think

Oh do stop it. I have just looked at the site's accounts, and see it needs £40 to meet this year's running costs. Well it doesn't now - as I have just donated that amount.
Right -the pressure is off so please all stop arguing, and get back to doing what you are all best at - informing, amusing etc.
Shall we say that's £1 each for the next 40 bona fide contributors?
If anyone wants to donate then do so -if not then don't. Not worth getting excited about. It's only money.

If the LibDems are so fond of coalition the best suggestion for Police Commissionars might have been for all the candidates whom wanted the job [ why , its clearly a role set up to fail as their budget will be restricted by central government leaving them to just with tinkering around the edges or attempting to enter into contracts with the private sector to save money ] , to be forced to work together in committee instead which , if what you say is true and they all want much the same outcomes of less crime and more law and order , cannot be a bad thing.

Tripps, thank you for your generosity.
As a pensioner I refuse to again donate to the site until some of those who regularly use the site make a contribution. I don't see why I should constantly subsidise others who are likely better off than me. Happy for my moderator status to go and my name to turn whatever colour. Please note Doc Nolic