Newspapers and their dependence on council advertising revenues

Owl says: Recent research and Freedom of Information requests revealed that around 90% of EDDC’s advertising budget goes to Archant titles (Midweek Herald, Sidmouth Herald, Exmouth Journal), up to 5% with Express and Echo and up to 5% to View from … titles.

Most major controversial or contentious news stories involving EDDC seem to emanate from the Express and Echo and View from … titles (though the Daily Telegraph revealed the explosive story of disgraced ex-Councillor Graham Brown’s conflicts of interest on its front page in March 2013).

“853 exclusive: Greenwich borough’s newest local paper scrapped its news coverage after Greenwich Council objected to “negative” stories and considered withdrawing its advertising, sources have told 853.
The free Greenwich Weekender launched in May this year after publisher Southwark Newspaper successfully bid for a contract to carry the council’s public notices – official notifications about planning applications, traffic restrictions and other council functions.

Public notices used to appear in the council’s own weekly, Greenwich Time, which closed in June 2016 after government restrictions were put on “council Pravdas”.

33,500 copies of the what’s-on paper are delivered door-to-door across Greenwich borough, with a further 8,500 available at collection points across the area.

As well as covering culture and leisure items, early editions of Weekender devoted space to straight news stories, following a template set by its sister paper in Lambeth. Ahead of its launch, reporter Kirsty Purnell made contact with local community groups to introduce herself and get stories.

An editorial introducing issue one, signed by managing directors Chris Mullany and Kevin Quinn, promised “local news, town hall events and all your community events and campaigns”. And Purnell’s efforts paid off, with Weekender featuring many stories missed by other outlets.

But this didn’t go down well with Greenwich Council.

The first edition gave space to people concerned about Greenwich Council’s plans to redevelop the old Woolwich covered market and neighbouring buildings. Later editions saw traders in Greenwich Market get space for their fears over business rates, while residents in Woolwich grumbled about council staff taking their parking spaces. …

In short, Greenwich Weekender was doing the job of a proper local paper. Indeed, it even planned to run columns from local political leaders, again echoing a feature in Lambeth Weekender. Hartley was among those approached, but the columns never apeared.

This website understands leading figures in the council were angry about the paper covering “negative” news stories – and were also unhappy about Efford’s coverage in the paper during June’s general election campaign.

A proposal to scrap Greenwich Weekender‘s ad contract – which would effectively close the paper – was discussed. But councillors voted down the measure at a meeting of the council’s Labour group in mid-June, which is said to have descended into a “huge row”. One idea discussed was to place the ads in the London Evening Standard instead, 853 has been told.

Instead, it was decided that the council would tell Weekender to stop covering news stories.

News stories disappeared from the title at the end of June, and the only “news” in Greenwich Weekender – which still bills itself as “an independent weekly newspaper” – since have been advertorial pieces paid for by Greenwich Council. …

The three-year Greenwich Weekender deal is worth up to £1.2 million to Southwark Newspaper. It also means the paper can be distributed from libraries and other council-affiliated locations.

But in the council report recommending taking up the contract, it said it wanted its public notices to be “published… in the context of engaging local editorial content which helps to positively inform local residents about the measures that their neighbours and local service providers are undertaking to make the borough a great place to live, work, learn and visit”.

It would appear that Greenwich Council believes this means snuffing out scrutiny of its actions in any outlet that carries its ads. …

Greenwich’s newest local paper drops news coverage after council pressure

Transport charities may not be allowed to compete with non-existent bus routes!

The government is proposing that, if a charity such as TRIP, which provides has salaried employees or carries out services under contract it could be considered as a competitor to bus companies and might lose its licence – even if there is mo bus company doing the same thing.

Wonder which MPs have bus company shares!

“The manager of a Honiton community transport charity says a proposal to change how legislation is enforced could ‘stifle’ many of the services it offers.

Neil Hurlock, who oversees TRIP in New Street, has expressed his fears about the impact of proposed government changes detailed in a letter from the Department for Transport (DfT).

The letter revealed that the government is currently consulting on a raft of alterations to existing legislation for all groups using a Section 19 permit under the Transport Act 1985.

This permit, under which TRIP operates all of its vehicles, allows charitable and not-for-profit groups to provide transport services at a reduced cost.

But in its letter, the DfT warned that an operator whose activities mirror that of a bus company, in that it employs salaried drivers and carries out services under won contracts, cannot be regarded as carrying out its activities ‘exclusively for non-commercial purposes’.

As a result of this, the DfT added, operators can not operate any vehicles under a section 19 permit as it ‘falls outside the scope of the derogation’.

This means TRIP could be forced to consider the way it is run if it wants to carry on with any commercial work.

Mr Hurlock says if the proposed alterations are approved, the regulations could greatly increase the charity’s vehicle operating costs – potentially forcing its ‘essential’ rural transport services to be axed.

Mr Hurlock said: “This could be the kiss of death for older people who use our service.

“A lot of these people are only able to live in their homes because they can rely on us to help maintain their ability to stay there by taking them shopping and to other vital appointments.

“If our services were forced to be axed due to this legislation, it will massively impact on our users, who could be left high and dry.”

Mr Hurlock says the charity is unable to afford the extra expenditure that it would face if the legislation is passed.

He is urging the community to rally behind a national campaign to ensure that the services can continue without extra cost burdens being placed on them.

Mr Hurlock added: “Devon has already lost three important community transport providers. We want to make sure this does not happen to others.

“The DfT is holding a consultation on these proposals during the autumn and I strongly urge people who rely on our services to write to them and emphasise the importance of affordable community transport in their own words.”

A spokesman for the DfT said: “Community transport operators provide vital services that encourages growth and reduces isolation by linking people to existing transport networks, jobs, education, shops and services.

“We are committed to supporting community transport operators and have no intention to end the permits system.

“We will carry out a consultation later this year, which will set out the changes needed to the guidance on the issue and use of permits.”

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/fears-that-legislation-changes-could-damage-honiton-transport-charity-1-5194867

“Coastal communities among worst off in UK, report finds”

“The UK’s coastal communities are among the country’s worst off for earnings, employment, health and education, a report for the BBC has found.
The Social Market Foundation said the economic gap between coastal and non-coastal places has grown.

Average wages are £3,600 a year lower in these “pockets of deprivation”, according to the think tank.

Meanwhile, the minister for coastal communities has announced £40m in funding to help coastal areas.

The report, produced for BBC Breakfast, found that five of the 10 local authorities in the UK with the highest unemployment rate for the three months to March 2017 were coastal. These were Hartlepool, North Ayrshire, Torridge, Hastings, South Tyneside and Sunderland. It also found those in employment in coastal areas were likely to be paid less. Of the 98 local authorities on the coast, 85% had pay levels below the UK’s average in 2016.

… The report found the economic gap between coastal and non-coastal areas has widened from 23% to 26% from 1997 to 2015.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41141647

“Five areas in England to pilot voter ID checks” – unfortunately ours isn’t one of them

“Voters in five areas in England will be asked to take identification to polling stations at local elections next year as part of a pilot scheme.
People in Woking, Gosport, Bromley, Watford and Slough will be asked to take different forms of ID with them to see which works best.

The Electoral Commission recommended three years ago that voters be asked to prove their identity.

Minister Chris Skidmore said the aim was to ensure the system was “secure”.
Reports of “personation” in polling stations – votes cast in someone else’s name – increased from 21 in 2014 to 44 in 2016.

Mr Skidmore said the current situation meant it was harder to take out a library book or collect a parcel than it was to vote in someone else’s name.
He told the BBC: “We currently have a situation where people can go into the ballot station, point out their name on the register, don’t need to provide any information to prove who they are.”

He said it was corrosive to democracy if people did not believe the system was secure.

“At the moment we simply don’t know if people are impersonating one another or not. We just need to make sure that the system is secure enough.”
For some years, voters in Northern Ireland have had to prove their identity at polling stations.

But Tom Brake, for the Liberal Democrats, described the latest proposals as “a completely unnecessary move that risks undermining our democracy by preventing millions of people from voting”.

“Evidence from around the world tells us forcing voters to bring ID won’t stop determined fraudsters, but is likely to led to even lower turnouts amongst young people and minority groups.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41287240

Charities politically gagged by Tory government

Note that professional lobbyists have no restrictions – only charities and non-governmental organisations.

“Charities have condemned ministers for rejecting changes to the Lobbying Act which were made by a government-commissioned review body. Campaign groups say they will be left unable to speak out for vulnerable and marginalised people in society because the law has a chilling effect on freedom of speech.

The Lobbying Act restricts what non-governmental organisations can say in the year before a general election.

As a result of an outcry from the charities sector, the government commissioned a review of the recommended amendments.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts called for the scope of the act to be reduced to include only activity intended to influence how the public vote. The Conservative peer also called for the period during which its rules apply to be reduced from a year.

But the Cabinet Office has said in a statement it would make no changes to the law. In a statement the Cabinet Office said: “The rules on third-party campaigning in elections ensures that activity is transparent and prevents any individual, company, or organisation exerting undue influence in terms of an election outcome.

“We recognise and value the role that charities play in our society and are keen to work with voluntary bodies to ensure the rules are well understood.”

Charities and NGOs said this amounted to a blanket rejection of recommendations made by by Hodgson’s review.

The Cabinet Office decision comes a few weeks after more than 100 charities sent a letter to the civil societiy minister Tracey Crouch to put pressure on ministers to overhaul the act.

The charities and campaign groups who signed the letter represented a wide range of domestic and global issues including health, social care, global poverty, human rights, environment, and vulnerable groups. They included Greenpeace, Girlguiding, Deafblind UK and Action for Children.

Greenpeace was the first NGO to be fined under the Lobbying Act.

Tamsyn Barton, chief executive of Bond, the UK network of organisations working in international development, said: “How are charities supposed to speak up for the most vulnerable and marginalised people in society, both here and globally, when they are at risk of being penalised by the Lobbying Act? The government is legislating the sector into silence at a time when our voices are needed the most. This is a terrible day for British democracy.”

Greenpeace fined under Lobbying Act in ‘act of civil disobedience’
The Conservative government led by David Cameron passed the act as a result of high-profile corporate lobbying scandals. It amended existing rules on non-party organisations introduced in 2000, requiring groups to register with the electoral commission if they plan to spend more than £20,000 in England or £10,000 in the rest of the UK on so-called “regulated activities”.

Critics say the government’s definition of these activities is so broad it can include any activity that could be interpreted as political.

Vicky Browning, chief executive of the charity leaders network Acevo, said of the government’s decision: “Charity leaders will be dismayed by the Cabinet Office’s decision to ignore wholesale Lord Hodgson’s recommendations to reduce campaigning restrictions. This decision is in direct contradiction with the views of not only Lord Hodgson but the cross-party Lords select committee on charities and over 100 charity leaders from across the country.

“Lord Hodgson insisted that his reforms would ensure the clarity and definition of campaigning boundaries. Without them, the Lobbying Act’s restrictions remain deeply intimidating.”

“Government spends four times more subsidising private housing than building affordable homes” – Study shows 79 per cent of total housing budget is spent on higher-cost homes for sale

“The CIH report reveals that the number of affordable homes being built with Government money has fallen by 50 per cent since 2010, from 56,000 to 28,000.

Instead, money has been diverted to help middle- and high-income households get on the housing ladder. For example, around £5bn of loans have been given to buyers via the Help to Buy Scheme established by George Osborne in 2013.

“The CIH called for a shift in spending to help people on lower incomes afford homes.

Its chief executive, Terrie Alafat, said: “People on lower incomes are finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet as they experience the impact of stagnant wages, rising inflation and welfare reform cuts. These factors and the shift towards ‘affordable rent’ all mean that housing is becoming increasingly unaffordable in many parts of the country.

“We know we need to build more homes to get to grips with our national housing crisis – our UK Housing Review briefing highlights that annual supply remains at least 30,000 homes short of household growth. But it’s not just about building more homes; it’s about building more affordable homes for people on lower incomes. The Government needs to take an urgent look at rebalancing the housing budget and investing more in genuinely affordable homes for rent.

“The November Budget gives the Government a golden opportunity to rebalance investment away from the private sector towards affordable housing without having to increase its overall commitment to housing.”

Critics say that, because affordable homes can cost up to 80 per cent of market value, they are not affordable for millions of people on low incomes.

However, Conservative ministers have prioritised building affordable homes over social homes.

As a result, since 2010 the number of new social homes has plummeted by 97 per cent, from almost 37,000 in 2010 to just over 1,100 last year.

The CIH called for more investment to maintain existing social homes – a need it said had been exposed by the Grenfell disaster. It said the Decent Homes Standard, which is used to measure whether a property is of an acceptable quality, has not been updated for ten years and that funding for helping landlords to maintain their properties has been scrapped.

“Essentially, investment in the existing social stock has been left for landlords to finance from rents, while government has been cutting their rental income and will continue to do so for another two years”, the report said. …”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/affordable-housing-spending-private-tory-government-a7945616.html

Rebellion in the shires – no affordable homes in MY backyard (acres) say Tory MPs

“Proposals to force some of the most affluent parts of England to accept up to 40 per cent more homes are bringing the prime minister into conflict with Conservative MPs.

It emerged that Theresa May successfully fought against plans for new homes in her constituency just weeks before unveiling the increase. She supported the Save Poundfield campaign to stop dozens of new homes in Cookham, a greenfield site on the Thames in Berkshire.

Berkeley, the housebuilder, withdrew its planning application without giving a reason about two weeks ago. Mrs May is believed to support another development which is not in the green belt.

The plans announced on Thursday will force several cabinet ministers’ constituencies in the southeast to accept the maximum 40 per cent increase in housing. The number of homes that must be built will rise from 250,000 to 266,000 annually from April.

Crispin Blunt, the Conservative MP for Reigate in Surrey, told The Daily Telegraph: “We need to incentivise more homes in regions and cities in need of development, whilst ensuring that those areas of the country unsuitable for large-scale housing expansion are under less obligation.”

Cabinet ministers affected include James Brokenshire, Justine Greening, and David Lidington.”

Times, paywall