Wednesday, 20th February, 2013
You get what you pay for
Readers of this week’s Western Telegraph may have noticed it’s had a bit of a content overhaul. And if they didn’t spot the new features on offer inside its pages, going by the recent slew of critical comments posted on the newspaper’s Facebook page, the new price on the front page certainly hasn’t gone unnoticed.
Readers are told that the £1 cover price has been brought in as a result of increasing production costs, reduced advertising revenue, and ‘legal and ethical considerations,’ but to make up for the one-third price increase, the new, thicker newspaper will host a raft of new features including band profiles, restaurant reviews, recipes, and a lot more focus on Pembrokeshire County Council and other public bodies, with “…a page dedicated to the goings on of our local authorities.”
An editorial piece on page two gives the low-down on the newspaper’s journalistic juxtaposition, and the rationale behind the changes. Quality journalism, we are told, comes at a cost, but on the other hand, is an ever-growing number of newsy-types demanding their content online, instantly, and, most importantly, without paying for it – or as they put it: “people expect to be able to get news and information for free.”
Tell me about it, WT. I’d bet that my subscribers are far more demanding than yours are as well. When they start talking about ‘payments’ and ‘quality of content’ in the same sentence, they think money should be flowing in their direction.
You wouldn’t believe the amount of emails I receive from readers demanding recompense for the time they’ve wasted reading the rubbish spouted here on jacobwilliams.com. If there was a logistical way to compensate blog-readers subjected to this sort of drivel, particularly in some of the recent comments, then I might give it consideration, but for now, they’ll have to take it or leave it.
Bigger competitions, the new gig guide, culinary contributions and a Wales news section are surely going to please some of the Western Telegraph’s readers post-revamp, and I certainly welcome the new weekly opinion column from one of Pembrokeshire’s sixty county councillors – I’m already looking forward to contributions whizzing in from all corners and political colours.
But what I am looking forward to most of all, and what really whets my appetite is that as part of this overhaul the Telegraph has pledged that it: “…will be talking to and hearing from your local councillors and representatives, and looking behind the headlines to see how their decisions impact on you.”
Good on the WT, I say. There’s a big appetite for this sort of reporting in Pembrokeshire, and, dare I say, the ability to ‘look behind the headlines’ has long been possible on websites like this one, and also, albeit historically, over on that other website.
As a reward for this promise of a refocussed scope of reportage, I’ve decided to do my bit for Newsquest’s finances and encourage my readers to purchase at least this week’s copy of the Western Telegraph. I can’t confirm, but I’ve heard on the grapevine that from next week onwards the cover price will be back to the old 75 pence. Apparently the 25 pence premium for this week’s edition was solely for the privilege of the lead article with colour photograph on page 23. Though I’ve also heard a conflicting rumour that it was to make up for the number of readers who would boycott the paper over the same story!
Written update
At the December meeting of Pembrokeshire County Council I submitted the following question:
At July’s Planning and Rights of Way Committee meeting, members voted in support of a recommendation of approval for an application for two wind turbines near Ludchurch.
In a draft application to the High Court for a Judicial Review, a barrister, acting in the name of the nearest neighbour to the site, alleges a catalogue of failings in the process which led to the recommendation for approval.
In light of which, the Council has agreed to submit to judgment, and has revoked the planning consent. The application will have to be re-determined, and I understand that the Council will bear the legal costs of the objector, as well as its own.
Could all Members be given a breakdown of the costs resulting from the alleged errors in the planning department and this legal challenge?
In response, I was reminded by the cabinet member that, whilst the legal grounds for challenging this planning decision were numerous, the council only backed down on one ground. The draft minutes from the meeting record:
“…one matter relating to the application of policy 84 in the Joint Unitary Development Plan (JUDP) had been identified as likely to be successfully challenged and, to avoid unnecessary further costs, the Council had agreed to settle that matter without continuing litigation.”
I was told that the council’s legal costs were £1,000 – for the services of the barrister who provided opinion for the authority, and that the costs of the claimant(s) would be covered but at the time of the meeting had not yet been agreed, though I would be provided a written update when this information was available.
I have now received a written update as promised, and the council has now settled the claimant’s costs – a legal bill to the tune of £13,051.51
Benedict for Burton?
The news that Cllr. Wildman was set to resign from the council triggering a by-election was out there a few days before it was reported in the press.
That other website originally broke the news on Thursday 7th February, and inside the following Wednesday’s edition of the Western Telegraph came official confirmation from the horse’s mouth that his resignation will take effect from 1st March.
During those six days of anticipation for the effective date of this departure, some other shock news of a similar nature and gravitas started to rock the world. It was the bombshell announcement from the Vatican that Pope Benedict XVI is to step down, leaving the top position vacant from, you’ve guessed it, precisely the first day of March.
Coincidence? You decide. I, however, will take some convincing that a bid for the papacy is not on the cards. Though I can’t help but feel Cllr. Wildman’s youth will be held against him. And if I start spotting “Benedict for Burton” posters cropping up in the vicinity of Rosemarket, then I’ll become even more suspicious!
‘Pembrokeshire Today’
Readers who’d like to keep abreast of Pembrokeshire County Council’s schemes, news and announcements can sign up to the council’s newsletter. If you haven’t subscribed already, go to the following link:
http://www.pembrokeshire.gov.uk/content.asp?id=22273
Enter your email address and whenever it’s released it will be delivered straight to your inbox.
21 Comments...
Have your say...
Check out and 'like' my Facebook page ↴
Recent posts…
What’s more important to me is the article on the bottom right on Page 6. ‘Council move to halt pay changes’.
Are you in a position to oppose the ‘Draconian’ implementation of these changes. Let’s not forget, the main focus of “wage cuts” are a direct attack on the lowest paid staff.
Let’s also not forget, this looks like a typical example of robbing Peter to pay Paul, managers on pay rises, minions on pay cuts!!!
Hi there. Councillors are receiving a presentation from union representatives tomorrow afternoon on this topic, and I plan on publishing a post relating to the pay and regrading exercise and its implementation tomorrow evening.
Thank you Jacob, I hope you can see through the smoke and mirrors that will come from the ‘Leaders’ in PCC. Especially for those who are on a small wage, who are facing a £1,400 pay cut, from £9k.
Excellent comment, Simply Stunned.
It never ceases to amaze me though how little our elected members know about the goings on in County Hall. Some 3 months after PCC withdrew from the negotiating table with the unions and decided to impose pay cuts on over 1,000 staff, some 3 weeks after staff received their notices, and only 1 week before the deadline for staff to accept or else, and our Councillors still appear to have not been briefed, let alone consulted.
I guess Jacob you also haven’t been told about the take it or lose it threats employed by PCC to force staff to accept draconian cuts, or threatening anonymous emails sent to all staff to stop staff objecting to the process in acceptance forms?
Or the 7% pay rise for Chief Officers, Directors and the Chief Executive, or staff car allowances being withdrawn while Chief Officers still get free cars, or staff being informed they are to be made redundant without any consultation?
I could go on!
Councillors have been given only very basic information on this whole re-grading exercise at a seminar delivered the week before last, which itself was only arranged by the leader of the council well after the letters started arriving on staff doorsteps and the topic started hitting the headlines.
I have since emailed senior officers of the council with concerns and questions put to me by a constituent, and, though I have given my constituent answers to the best of my ability with my limited knowledge, the email I sent to obtain further information has, as yet, not even been acknowledged.
I am not at all ashamed to say I have a limited knowledge, and my lack of information is certainly not for the want of trying. I do intend to cover this affair in a post tomorrow evening. In the afternoon, a union representative is to speak to county councillors, which was arranged for the benefit of all councillors by the leader of the Labour Party, Cllr. Paul Miller. It may help to make up a fuller picture.
On many issues, councillors are the last to hear, and it shouldn’t be this way. There is no excuse for it, and on that note, I’d take the notion (which has already been strongly suggested) that ‘certain councillors can’t be trusted with certain information’ as a serious slur. It says much more about the way “County Hall” fails to manage some of its affairs, and “County Hall” knows that’s the truth.
Thank you for the honest response Jacob. It may be too little too late in this instance, but it is somewhat reassuring for staff to know that even if those on the “top table” don’t care, at least some councillors are taking an interest in these issues.
Following the external criticism that elected councillors were so ill informed by officers that they were unable to carry out their statutory responsibilities, they, and we, were assured that things had changed.
Without pressure from the majority of councillors it looks as if certain officers will continue to keep councillors in the dark. Perhaps some prefer this for a quiet life and do not want to carry out the duties for which they get £13,000 p.a. for plus more if they get an SRA. Only Cabinet jobs are regarded as being full time.
Why are all of these information channels forced to be conducted in seminars and meetings that we, the paying public, are prohibited from attending?
Our Budget has been debated at two secret members only seminars. In the past when members have attempted to ask Budget questions at Council in public, Cabinet members and other IPG prominent members have moved debate on, as members had the opportunity to ask questions at the seminars.
I think you might have made a mistake in this post when you said :-
“…the ability to ‘look behind the headlines’ has long been possible on websites like this one, and also, albeit historically, over on that other website.”
Shouldn’t you have said:
“…albeit PREHISTORICALLY over on that other website!!!” ?!
Now even I can see that this issue is indeed very important and ‘matters’ deeply. The ensuing post this evening is awaited with great interest once Councillor Williams has had his briefing. How long has this exercise been going on then?
I would suggest that no one at County Hall is working for £9,000 per year if they are working a full week.
Come on councillors, everyone is aware the cost of County Hall and other public bodies has to be slashed as they are unsustainable. Councillors should spend more time looking what services provided by County Hall should cease.
Yes Malcolm but these wage cuts were never brought in as a way of saving money, or were they?
They are supposed to be about improving equality of pay, and not for reducing costs. I don’t disagree with what you say about cutting costs elsewhere but the council can hardly be better run with disenfranchised staff?
If there were better ways of doing this task it should have been considered, and I’m led to believe that the regrading process will actually result in an overall increase in wage costs.
Are Weasel and Quill related to mole? Who is Mr Toad? These questions need to be answered.
Mr Calver, I hope you don’t want to put money on your most recent comment. My wife is facing a pay cut of £1,400 from £9,500!!!
Her money comes from direct WAG funding of £1.6 million! PCC don’t pay her wage, they manage the money, yet slashed her!
Hi Jacob, could you put separate articles under separate ‘posts’? otherwise you see the headline and don’t realise there’s other juicy stuff to read within them.
You tend to find that the most coveted and valuable commodities on this planet of ours are hard to discover.
Think gold, diamonds…
…balanced, proportionate, non abusive commentary.
It’s good to see there are councillors out there who aren’t blown away by the leader’s spin! Though it will soon come clear what damage will be imposed on the people who sent their forms in by bullying and threats.
I do hope that even if employees do have to swallow the massive pay cuts to their wages, that each and everyone will lose! And I mean nobody gets pay rises, remember “We’re in this together”.
Some of those “big” wage earners should follow the advice given to me some 25 years ago, “You don’t join the public sector, if you want to be rich”.
Simply Stunned says his wife earns £9,000 per annum, which I calculate is approx £5 per hour for a thirty six hour week i.e less than the minimum wage. Surely that cannot happen at the council and if it does, how many others are on this salary?
The Pay Policy Statement 2013/14 considered by Council last week stated that the lowest paid employees are remunerated at Spinal Column Point 4 of the NJC national agreed rates. Does anyone know what this is?
Around £12k, I believe?
Lowest paid on £12k, is that right, and a council cleaner in schools, or County Hall? Playgroup assistants? Flying Start assistants? Also what about those who are shoved onto pro rata contracts?
What you’re told, isn’t what’s happening. Certain Generals seem to be lying through their back teeth. You cannot do a Pay Review on outdated information from 2005, then use that information to downgrade the lowest paid, instead of a level playing field, the closet Tories are making the rich richer and the poor poorer.
I’m amazed that nobody has condemned the backdated pay rises…April 2012! Not bad if you just had a rise of £7-10k is it!!!