MPs - They Work for Who? Well it appears many don't work for You

There is an excellent Website called TheyWorkForYou that tracks the Parliamentary Activities of UK Politicians in the Assemblies, Commons and Lords. Unfortunately it does not track their other activities, their second, third, or even fourth jobs, their trips paid for by overseas Governments (which in some cases it appears has meant certain MPs have become 'agents of influence' ) and playing the expenses game so far outside the relaxed rules that some face criminal proceedings.

It makes you wonder how they find the time to represent the people who elected them. Well of course if you have multiple jobs and are busy on junkets paid for by foreign governments, whilst fiddling your expenses, you have to fit the representing of your constituents and helping to decide on what is best for the Nation into whatever time is left over (not much)!

I have for a long time now viewed British Politics as a trade, rather than a profession and certainly not an elite. I also have long realised that as in some other trades the number of 'dodgy operators' is significant, but even as a hardened cynic, I am stunned at how bad it has become.

I was brought up on the principle that even if you cannot respect the Man (or Woman), respect the Position they hold.
The inability of Parliament to self regulate it affairs, to stamp out corruption and to remove the corrupt, means I cannot respect the institution, the position of the members nor the members themselves. I used to believe that most MPs were reasonably honest, and attempting to do the job well (even if not actually that good at it) and from this group a few would make good Ministers of the Crown. Belief has now been replaced by hope and prayer, not helped by David Cameron replacing Tony Blair in the Murdoch Bed.

How long before Nigerians begin to view their Politicians as being more honourable than their British Counterparts?
The ways things are going not long,

BBC Review - BBC Trust and DG Running Scared!

The remit of the BBC is to Inform, Educate and Entertain. In pursuit of these objectives the BBC has become the most trusted Broadcaster in the World. It is also an innovator, or at the very least an early adopter of new forms of media from Television through to today's Digital World, but at the same time continuing to develop its base in Radio and Print Publishing (the Radio Times started back n the 1920's), in the process it has become not just a National Icon, but one of the few British Institutions that are respected, trusted and admired worldwide.

The BBC like the Royal Family has to be seen to be apolitical (above politics, unbiased) and also or ensure niche audiences are catered for. In the modern era the need to be seen as 'apolitical' has meant that Politicians of almost every shade of opinion consider the BBC is biased against them (good it means the BBC is doing its job). Increasingly Commercial Broadcasting, Internet and Publishing Companies led by Rupert Murdoch's News International have launched ever more virulent attacks against the BBC. This has led to the BBC being attacked on two fronts.

Why because the BBC is good at what it does and they cannot compete? Well yes of course, but the Commercial Media spin their inability to compete because the BBC's is publicly funded through the Licence Fee, whilst they, who are more interested in Profit for their shareholders are not. Well, if you cannot compete with a Broadcaster that has to provide programming you would NEVER consider because it would never make a profit, provide coverage which you again aren't interested in and because of its remit do many things that you would not do, because it would harm your advertising revenue and therefore damage profits, then maybe the problem is that you are just not good enough to compete in the areas where you and the BBC meet head on!

Britain's Politicians have always had an uneasy relationship with the BBC, but as being a Politician has increasingly meant you also have to be a Media Personality the relationship has worsened. Normally I would see this as a case of if you want to be a Political Leader then facing for instance, Jeremy Paxman in Rottweiler mode is part of being in the trade.
But it is obvious that the Conservatives in particular are gunning for the BBC and now they have climbed into bed with Rupert Murdoch, the BBC leadership and in particular its oversight organisation the BBC Trust appear to be running scared.

The BBC's Independence from Government and Politics is paramount if it is to meet its remit, running scared is not the answer but fighting back does present a conundrum. As an apolitical organisation the BBC has it hands tied and cannot galvanise the public in its defence, because to do so would obviously be a political bias. So it is left to those outside the BBC to defend it
But this also is not as easy as it should be, because of lax management the BBC has been shooting itself in the foot ranging from Blue Peter Competitions through to employing the 'over aged juveniles' Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand and even allowing a discredited reporter back on air occasionally. Also being in the news itself over what it pays executives and talent (Jonathan Ross is deemed talent?).

Mark Thompson may be reaping what others had sown, but is he the right man to be Director General in this time of crisis? Probably not, but he is the man on seat and it is his forthcoming Strategic Review that will, assuming it passes through purview by the BBC Trust determine the future shape of the BBC and this fact concerns me greatly.

Although less high profile, the Conservatives, if they win the next election also plan to scrap Ofcom the independent regulator for Communications and bring it back under Government Control. Whilst not a fan of quanos in general, in the case of independent regulators I am willing to make an exception. I would prefer a more aggressive, proactive Ofcom, but would rather have the current less satisfactory version than let Politicians control the regulator, especially Politicians in bed with a media mogul!

Whilst the BBC must always try to achieve balance, companies like News International set their own agenda. When Murdoch switched his political support in the UK from Labour to the Conservatives his UK media empire followed the Bosses New Party Line (it is an old Press Baron's trick, which has evolved to the Multi-media Age). Elsewhere in the world I always found Fox News in the US a source of amusement because of its reporting bias, but amusement would turn to a great deal of concern if that type of News Channel gained any prominence in the UK.

Personal Note to the Right Honourable David Cameron MP:
Dear Dave.
Your Candidate for the Constituency which includes my West London Hilltop appears to have the qualities I want in my parliamentary representative. It is therefore sad that based on current evidence of your policies she will not be getting my vote. Your party has some good policies (but then so do the others) and some I disagree with (as do the others), but on the list of reasons why I shouldn't vote Conservative in the next election following Tony Blair into the Murdoch Bed earned your party a lot of bad marks and the orchestrated sniping at the BBC from both the front bench and even backbench, but front bench wannabees like Doug Carswell have earned you even more. The desire to drastically reduce quangos is good, but Ofcom and indeed other independent regulators should not be brought back under political control, but instead given sharper teeth and told their role is to protect the consumer and business against the Privatised excesses of the often foreign owned Utilities and in the case of Ofcom the Telecoms and Media. Profit is good, excessive profit, when the consumers are effectively captive to the service provided, with limited or no choice is unacceptable.

I look forward to your party Manifesto which I shall read several times along with those of the other parties. But at the moment mine is one vote I wouldn't count on and in this constituency that 1 vote could be important.
End Personal Note

Moving on to what the leaked elements of the Strategic Review would affect:

1. Reduced Spending on imported Programmes: Not against that in principle, but as Torin Douglas wrote in a BBC article 'But would anyone else show Mad Men, which has attracted critical acclaim but few viewers'. Hmm good one Torin as it is an excellent series and maybe the viewing figures are due scheduling rather than anything else.
   
   
2. The Teenage Market. I am not a teen, so cannot comment on how good the BBC is at satisfying that market. But it is part of the remit of the BBC to fill niche audience needs and teens are an important group!
   
   
3. Radio - Dropping 6 Music and the Asian Network. Well for me the music died with John Peel, so I cannot comment on 6 Music. As for the Asian Network, well I am not Asian and as audience figures are in decline, it is obviously not doing its job. It's another Niche Audience and again under the remit should receive some coverage, although whether as a
   separate Radio Network, I think not!
   
   
4. Cease UK Magazine Publishing. In this case, as with so much the BBC has become a victim of its own success. BBC Worldwide who are responsible for the Publishing arm were told by the Government (not the BBC Trust) go forth and make more money and they did, very successfully, with UK titles like Top Gear and the Radio Times.
   
   Guess what Commercial Publishers are now screaming foul. Ahh bless! the publishing arm is an effective commercially run organisation, so if you cannot compete then get out the market. But according to the leaked Strategic Review instead of defending this money maker the BBC is planning to outsource, or sell off titles. Yes their running scared!
   
   
5. This brings me to a Jewel in the BBC Crown, The BBC Website, or rather sites. The BBC Sites form a massive National Resource of History, Programmes Past and Present, Articles and quirky side sites like h2g2 the online encyclopaedia, similar in idea to Wikipedia, used by those who know about it but mostly ignored.
   
   Yes the BBC Sites both UK and Worldwide have grown like Topsy. Yes there could be some restructuring, but not cost cutting, instead, revamp and grow the site, News and Sports areas are basically fine, but in areas of Science, Technology and indeed any specialist subject provide links to sites that cover a given subject of an Article in-depth (some of this is does already happen, but arrange with publishers that if an article is accessed by BBC site referrer then the full article is available without a separate log-in, although any intro Advertising remains). Expand the Programme archive, restructure the Historical Sections.
   
   Commercial Online News Services in specific areas such as Computing already provide back links to the BBC and often quote BBC Website Entries in their articles (sometimes
   ironically, but mostly factually). Leverage these types of relationship.
   
   Downsizing, or in any negative way messing with the BBC Websites is
   worth going to the Barricades to stop. Improve and restructure, but
   don't anyone dare even consider slowing the growth of what is probably
   the most useful Website in the World!
   

United Airlines Did Him Wrong so a wrote a trilogy of Songs

When United Airlines Loading Staff broke singer/songwriter Dave Carroll's $3,500 Taylor Guitar by throwing it about (along with the bands other instruments) and then wouldn't pay compensation. Well in his final email to them, he advised he was going to write and produce three songs which then form the Music to three Videos which would then be posted online. The third song was released on the 2nd March:

United Breaks Guitars Song 3 - "United We Stand" on the Right Side of Right

To see all three videos in one place go to: United Airlines did him wrong, so he wrote a song (or three)!, Originally posted in July 2009 with the first Video, updated with the second video and now the final one in the trilogy!