Thursday 23 June 2011

Fulham Chronicle make Private Eye "Rotten Borough" column again

The Fulham Chronicle's coverage of our Council has made the "Rotten Boroughs" column of Private Eye for what must be approaching a record number of appearances in the space of the last few weeks.

Here they are again ....

1800 UPDATE - A senior Council member and our MP have crossed swords over this today, with one leaving a comment on this article and other giving me a quote. I reproduce them below:

Greg Smith, Cabinet Member for Residents Services, said:

"This is simply balls. How can anyone say the Chronicle has become editorially biased in favour of the Council? Last weeks front page wasn't only a massive attack piece, but actually used Andrew S laughter's own words as the headline. They've attacked Earls Court regeneration, they've tried to make out the council isn't democratic, the list goes on... just look at their website!

Let's look at the reality of the situation: Without the advertising contract the Council has with the Chronicle, the STATUTORY planning notices alone would cost £120,000. We get them for £75,000 along with free advertising for things like asking people to come forward as foster carers and the double page spread which we use for events listings, informing people of road closures etc.

The Council has absolutely no say over ANY other content in the paper. If the Chronicle editor wants to edit contributors copy, that's his choice: not anything to do with H&F Council
 
Let's look at the reality of the situation: Without the advertising contract the Council has with the Chronicle, the STATUTORY planning notices alone would cost £120,000. We get them for £75,000 along with free advertising for things like asking people to come forward as foster carers and the double page spread which we use for events listings, informing people of road closures etc. 
The Council has absolutely no say over ANY other content in the paper. If the Chronicle editor wants to edit contributors copy, that's his choice: not anything to do with H&F Council.
While Andy Slaughter, Labour MP for Hammersmith said:
"Does anyone seriously believe that they negotiated two editorial pages every week in the Chronicle to save money. Smith and co's problem is that having had H&FNews to print their Pravda-style fantasies for four years they can't tell fact from fiction any more. Very 1984".

8 comments:

  1. Don't forget the hat tip....

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is simply balls. How can anyone say the Chronicle has become editorially biased in favour of the Council? Last weeks front page wasn't only a massive attack piece, but actually used Andrew S laughter's own words as the headline. They've attacked Earls Court regeneration, they've tried to make out the council isn't democratic, the list goes on... just look at their website!

    Let's look at the reality of the situation: Without the advertising contract the Council has with the Chronicle, the STATUTORY planning notices alone would cost £120,000. We get them for £75,000 along with free advertising for things like asking people to come forward as foster carers and the double page spread which we use for events listings, informing people of road closures etc.

    The Council has absolutely no say over ANY other content in the paper. If the Chronicle editor wants to edit contributors copy, that's his choice: not anything to do with H&F Council.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Simple maths clearly isn't Slaughter's strong point. If the STATUTORY planning notices would cost £120,000 without an advertising contract; and £75,000 buys them with more (like the foster carers appeals) in our tendered contract, that is £45,000 less cost to local taxpayers. If he can't work that out it's no wonder he managed to leave the Council £169million in debt - which still costs residents of this borough £5million a year in debt interest.

    Indeed, it is extraordinary that we have a Labour MP who is attacking a newspaper which has done little else but take an anti-Conservative line for years; and a newspaper who used that same Labour MP's quote attacking the Council as their front page headline just last Friday.

    And what did he do when he ran the Council? That's right, a £400,000 a year propaganda mag, HFM: http://twitpic.com/5d6wvn

    How many press officers were there when he was Leader of the Council? 13 How many are there now? 7.

    Who doubled Council Tax when they led the Council? Labour. Who reduced Council Tax by 3% four years running? The Conservatives.

    Who has paid off nearly £50 million of the debt Labour left behind? The Conservatives.

    How many Assistant Chief Executives did Labour employ? Two. How many are there now under the Conservatives? None.

    There are some facts. Now I am sure we will be treated to some more Slaughter fiction.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ooh! This is a fun game!

    How many working Sure Start centres were there under labour? 16. How many will there be under the Conservatives? Six.

    How much funding did police in H&F receive from the Council under labour? Not enough. How much will they receive under the Conservatives? A lot less.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Whichever leftist is hiding behind the Anonymous tag - you are wrong on both counts.

    We are increasing the number of children's centres and on police spending, Labour spent £750,000 (well that's what their budget said, they never actually managed it) over THREE years on the Police. Under the Conservatives we are spending £1.3 million PER YEAR!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Greg has a point here - anyone who wants to have a pop but wishes to hide behind the anonymous tag can't expect to be taken seriously, really

    ReplyDelete
  7. Although the tag "leftist" sounds like something out of revolutionary 1980s latin america

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's funny how right wingers will use words like "leftists" to describe anyone who disagrees with them. Odd how they're not referred to as "rightists" by those on the left though.

    By the way, anyone who was described as a leftist in 80's Latin America was usually imprisoned, battered to death by government thugs or disappeared.

    Good point about the Sure Start centres though from the anonymous poster.

    Smudger said,
    "We are increasing the number of children's centres and on police spending, Labour spent £750,000 (well that's what their budget said, they never actually managed it) over THREE years on the Police. Under the Conservatives we are spending £1.3 million PER YEAR"!

    Really? That's odd, I thought loads of them had closed.

    ReplyDelete