A recent post on Black Star Rising has attracted a lot of attention, and I find myself fuming because of the illogical responses of so many commentators. I feel like screaming out “get over yourselves!” For some reason photography attracts a type of person who feels they have a God given right to be a professional photographer, and they regard the fact that they don’t earn a living as everyone’s fault except theirs. The reality is that not everyone who wants to be a photographer can be one. That might seem harsh, but it is no different to saying that not everyone can be a Premiership footballer or Oscar winning actor. The problem is that it is almost impossible to “pose” as the footballer or actor, but so easy to pick up a camera and say “I am a photographer”. All you need to do is show evidence of your work and you’re all set, right? Well it might be, if you charged. And there is nothing worse than hearing “photographers” complaining that there is no money to be made – there is, you just have to ask for it, like any other business.

The last exchange of comments between “Jonathan” and me, were, I thought, worthy of publishing on Blue Filter. Interesting to see what others make of it all:

This sounds like someone who is quite bitter. It’s not the 80′s anymore folks! Budgets are smaller! It’s sad – but right now, NOBODY knows what the photo budgets of the future will look like. Who knows if they will exist at all… All the bitching in the world is not going to stop the YOUNG, TALENTED, and PASSIONATE photographers of tomorrow working for $0. In terms of gear/money, all you need is a consumer level camera and cheap computer…

@ Jonathan. Your comment is astonishingly ill-conceived.

Yes budgets are smaller than they were. True, no one knows what the budgets of tomorrow will look like. BUT, there is always going to remain a demand for professional photography in whatever form that it exists. As long as there is media of any type, there will be a demand for professionally crafted images. The key word in that statement is “professionally”. If a person or organisation approaches a photographer to ask them to produce images (be they social, editorial or commercial in nature), then they exhibit a demand. It is, always has been, and always will be the case that anyone expressing a demand for a commercial transaction should be prepared to pay for the service. Absolutely every other person involved in the provision of a website, brochure, magazine, advert, TV programme, print etc will have been paid for their input. For some reason it is ONLY photographers that seem to labour under the misapprehension that it is OK to work for nothing. Why? Primarily because they go to college to be taught how to take pretty pictures of trees and leaves and rusting car wrecks, but no one thinks it is necessary to teach them anything about running a business. As a result, when they enter the big bad world of commerce they feel as though they shouldn’t really be there, and are embarrassed to talk about money.

I have lost count of the number of times I have heard “photographers” start a negotiation by saying “my rate is $xxx, but I am prepared to negotiate”. For goodness sake, don’t undermine yourself by offering to negotiate before the client has had a chance to respond to your “rate”.

Jonathan, you state: “All the bitching in the world is not going to stop the YOUNG, TALENTED, and PASSIONATE photographers of tomorrow working for $0.” My response to that is that if they are not being paid, they are not working. Remember, there is a qualitative difference between working for nothing and working for free. It is normal for photographers to approach others and offer to work for free for someone because it gives them access to something tangible and significant that helps their careers. But if someone approaches you there have to be very very compelling reasons for agreeing to work without pay.

It’s all very well saying that all you need is a consumer level camera and a cheap computer. I disagree with that statement, but even if I agree with it, these things still have to paid for. How exactly are the “YOUNG, TALENTED, and PASSIONATE photographers of tomorrow working for $0″ going to pay for these things (and that is without mentioning PI, PL, EL, and equipment insurance, or all the other costs of business, and don’t even think about paying rent, feeding yourself, having a life etc etc.)

The real reason that this problem exists in the industry is there is a perception of glamour. There are so many people who want to call themselves “photographers” and they just can’t get a break by charging, so they prostitute themselves instead and do it for nothing. But that act undermines the industry they want to see themselves as a part of. It is more of an issue since the digital revolution because they can strafe the subject and hope they get a few acceptable hits. When I started out you actually had to understand exposure and composition and film characteristics because you could not afford to waste materials. I used to have an annual lab bill of $40,000. You can only afford that if you are charging to do the work. Just because there is no film cost does not mean that there are no costs. My pro spec cameras get worn out in about two years. In practice, every time I press the shutter release it costs about 3 cents. If you buy a consumer level camera it will actually cost more, not less. Then start looking at storage costs, backing up, software and computer upgrade costs. How are you going to pay for that if you work for nothing?

In the UK for the last few years there have been 10,000 people annually gaining some form of photographic qualification, chasing at best 500 jobs (and that is being generous). The competition is already really huge. Neither I, nor any other good photographer I know, has any problem with competition. But the reality is that whether you charge or not, if you are setting out, the likelihood is that you will NOT succeed. It is not enough to be a great photographer, you have to be a good business person too. In fact, the vast majority of successful professional photographers are not and never will be considered to be “great”, but they are good business people. That, whether you or anyone else reading this post likes it or not, is an absolute irrefutable fact. Where there are exceptions, those people employ agents or managers to look after their business affairs – and you show me an agent that sells their photographer to a client for free. In fact, it is well known that the reason for using an agent is that they will get a MUCH higher fee for their photographers than the photographers would get themselves. So much higher, that even with a 50% commission the photographer is usually better off.

So, where to do we stand with this whole working for free thing? I’ll tell you where I stand: a customer approaches me and asks what I charge. I tell them. If they say that they cannot stretch their budget that far, I will discuss with them what they can pay and what, realistically I can offer them. If we cannot reach a compromise, I walk away. I know that they will go to someone who works for less, and I have no problem with that. What I hope is that they do not go to someone who works for free, but if they do, in the long run it is ALL photographers that suffer.

There will be some people who read this that will disagree in a very visceral way. If you are one of those, ask yourself why you feel like that. Then ask yourself if you would do a different job for free. The fact that you like being a “photographer” is not a justification for doing it for nothing. The only justification for doing it for free is as a pastime, in which case the client is you, not some third party.

For myself I am busy and well paid, and I KNOW that that is because I conduct myself professionally and produce good work. I employ professional services to assist me (lawyers for contracts etc), and as a result clients know that I am serious and in business.

Yes I negotiate, but in a business like manner.

For example, I have just taken on a commercial job that the client thought was three days, I made the case strongly that it was simply not possible in so short a space of time, and told them it was at least six days, more likely eight days. After negotiation they agreed to eight days, and I made some concessions on the rate, but they are paying more than three times what they originally thought it was going to cost. Why, because they see that the value I can add to their project will pay them back at least a thousand fold what I am charging them (and trust me I am earning well from it) – in short it makes commercial sense.

And that, in a nutshell, is what every photographer should be asking themselves before they commit to a job: does what I am about to engage in make “commercial sense”? If the answer is always yes, then with luck you will still be a photographer 20 years from now. If not please post back in a few years time and tell us all what you are doing instead… and whether you do it for free.

If you don’t like the term “working” than consider the term “volunteering”. Whatever you wanna call it, I speak truthfully when I say that I know of many many cases where a photographer has produced images for a commercial body or magazine for nothing other than a photo credit and bragging rights.

Here’s a pink elephant, my vision of the future (I’m sure this will be very unpopular): Out of all of the folks who call themselves “professional photographers” about 0.1% will be actually paying for all of their costs of business, their mortgage, their assistants, (everything) and turning a profit to boot. They will be shooting for big business clients, ones who want the very “best of the best”. Then there will be about 5% of the “professional photographers” out there who work another job to make ends meet (such as IT) and shoot jobs about once a month. They will be paid, but poorly. Why? Their competition will be so fierce from about the other 94.9% of “professional photographers” who shoot for free or next to free. Oh wait, I’m not talking about the future anymore but rather the present… Hmm..

M, maybe we are coming from different worlds. I shoot fashion. I assisted some quite well known fashion photographers in the early 2000’s. After looking at your site, I see you shoot different things than I do. I like your pictures and I can see your talent would be an asset to a commercial client. However, the fashion budgets are horrific right now. I am assuming that the rest of the markets are not doing so well either, judging from the comments above.

All you really do need is a consumer level camera and a cheap computer. These kidos generally already have a computer. The camera can be gotten. The part time job maybe could finance it? Bank of mom and dad? Or Visa? What about the cost of doing business? Well, you said it yourself; these people are not actually working. So, they’re not actually doing business. Equipment insurance? Why insure a $1000 camera? Paying rent? Feeding yourself? Uh, thin is in… Bottom line is though, these kids are talented and produce images at no cost to clients. So yeah, “clients” are happy and (most importantly) not using the other “professional photographers” (who cost more).

Hey, it sucks. This is what’s going on in my world though and all the photographers out there who read this take warning, it’s coming your way. Try and be in that 0.1 percentile and you’ll be OK. OK?

“It is more of an issue since the digital revolution becasue they can strafe the subject and hope they get a few acceptable hits. When I started out you actually had to understand exposure and compostition and film characteristics because you could not afford to waste materials. I used to have an annual lab bill of $40,000. You can only afford that if you are charging to do the work. Just because there is no film cost does not mean that there are no costs.” You sound just like the guys I assisted and I totally agree with you. However, it also sounds like you’re upset. Again, I don’t blame you. But please, don’t contest what I’m saying. I’m living it. You don’t have to understand film exposure anymore and composition is subjective. Even though pixels do cost money, a lot of people don’t know they do (like a lot of clients) and let’s be honest – they are cheaper, less than a $40,000 lab bill. Storage costs? Computer upgrades? Uh, my MacBook Pro (the 2004/5 model) along with my pirated copy of Photoshop can handle a file from a P45 no problem let alone my digital Rebel. Yeah, it’s a little slower than your MacPro but who cares?! I can’t afford a new computer and it works fine!

“You show me an agent that sells their photographer to a client for free” – I could, but we’re in public. OK, I couldn’t tell you how much the client paid the agent, but I could tell you that the photographer shot the job for free/bragging rights.

“What I hope is that they do not go to someone who works for free, but if they do, in the long run it is ALL photographers that suffer.” Already happening, see pretty much all the comments above as proof.

“The only justification for doing it for free is as a passtime, in which case the client is you, not some third party.” True. We’re going in circles. The clients, in the end, gets nice HighRes photos for free. Neat.

I think you have a good business sense (probably better than mine!) but you are a little in denial about what is happening and where we are going. I know I sound very defeatist. I just hate surprises. I mean, there’s a reason this blog post got written in the first place.

Michael said:
July 27th, 2010 at 6:37 pm
Jonathan, you suggest that I may be upset and in denial. I am far from upset, my business is lean and efficient and turns a decent profit. I own my own house and have a wife and three children, all paid for by photography. My business is growing, and every year I improve my margins by finding more efficient methods of practice. My software is legit, my equipment is top end. In the next three months I expect to upgrade my studio lights, my computer system, my data archives, and my cameras and some lenses. All of this is paid for through a profitable and reasonably well run business. There are still things I could do more efficiently and I address each issue that bothers me in turn. In short, I am far from upset. The digital revolution has been difficult, but I have come through it well placed. Next up is the stills/HD video revolution. Where will that take us I wonder?
As for denial, I have no illusions about what is going on in the industry, and like I said, there are occasions when shooting for free (not for nothing) can make commercial sense. For example, you say you are in the fashion world. Well, I know a photographer (very well known in the fashion world) who shot an entire campaign for a top drawer designer for free. Actually, the shoot cost him about $20,000. It involved A list models, sets, makeup artists, retouchers etc. Why did he do it? Because the designer was so high profile that he was GUARANTEED a ten page spread in every edition of Vogue in the world. It was a loss leader that generated an enormous amount of business for him. Naturally it was a contractual obligation that the designer did NOT tell anyone that he had shot for free. The thing is, he was already shooting for some of the biggest names in entertainment and fashion anyway, and that is how he got the chance to pitch for such a big account.
So what then is my problem? What is it that is making people write blogs like this one? It is the simple fact that I feel like I have come across a group of people who are complaining that their house is burning down, and yet their solution is to pour gasoline (petrol) on the flames!
I am fed up with hearing people moan that there is no money in photography anymore, and then blaming the market, the editors, the art buyers, the PR people… everyone they can think of except themselves. The simple fact is that the people who are screwing the photography industry and making it impossible to earn a living are the photographers, not the buyers. The buyers are responding rationally to a situation created by the glut of people who want to call themselves photographers so much that they will pay for the privilege. Every time a photographer agrees to work for free, or starts a negotiation by saying that they can negotiate on price before the client has responded to the quoted rate, they hammer the nails into the industry’s coffin a little further. It is that that pisses me off.
It is time for photographers around the world to wake up and smell the coffee. It is not that the business has gone sour, it is that they are not treating it as a business. Instead of going to another free Photoshop seminar they should be paying to go to a negotiations workshop. I know of one company that was approached by one of the biggest companies in the world to do some work for them. The company’s response? “You can’t afford us!” Red rag to a bull. It made the approaching party more convinced than ever that they could NOT afford NOT to use them.
Stand outside the world of photography for a moment and look at it dispassionately: none of the arguments make any sense. Yes budgets are getting tighter, that is the reality of the world we are living in at the moment. But in every other industry it mean restructuring to meet the changing climate. Some companies will fail, and others will actually grow through recession. But in no other industry will you see companies working for free – it is a luxury that they cannot afford. As a result, although most sectors have seen falling demand, the industries themselves remain properly balanced. Now consider photography, lets consider fashion specifically, since that is the area you mention. Budgets are constrained, but they still exist. Designers are still trying to run a business, the fashion magazines are still selling and drawing advertising from design houses and companies with lifestyle products and services. Fashion shows are happening, models are being paid, as are set builders, chandlers, make up artists, lighting companies, events coordinators, caterers, security companies, PR agencies… I could go on. All of these people are being paid. So how come when it comes to the photographs – the very things which the fashion industry absolutely needs in order to maintain consumer interest and as a result cash flow – there is suddenly “no budget”. Of course there is budget. But if you were in their position and you KNEW that “young talented and passionate photographers” would work for nothing, what would you do? You would say you have no budget, book someone, and then laugh about their gullibility with your colleagues over a bottle of Bollinger paid for out of the money you saved by not having to pay the photographer. I repeat: it is not THEIR fault, it is OURS.
The facts are these: not everyone that wants to be a photographer can be one. Just like not everyone can be a Hollywood A-lister or drive a Bentley. If ALL photographers stopped this working for nothing (not free) bullshit at once, and started to behave professionally, the future of the industry would start to look very different very quickly. Do you seriously think that if we all charged or refused to work that we’d just have no pictures anywhere anymore? Of course not. The budget would suddenly appear because it was always there, lining the pockets of the clients that should be giving it to you.
You gave me a vision of the future. I’ll give you mine. The number of “professional photographers” will shrink, but there will be plenty of paying work for all of us that treat it as a business, not just as an art. Even the art photographers I know that are successful treat marketing and business very seriously, that is why they are publishing books every year and getting funding. That is why I have signed a commercial contract in the last three months that is worth a quarter of a million dollars over the next three years. What will it take to make my vision come true? It will take everyone that is a photographer, or wants to be a photographer, starting from the basis of believing in themselves and believing that what they do is important and adds value. Know your worth and stick to it. If you think the state of the industry sucks, then do something about it, because our future really is in our hands.

Dear Michael Cockeram (sic),

Digital Economy Bill

Thank you for contacting me about this important Bill.

Labour left it disgracefully late to bring this Bill to the Commons, and they are now rushing it through in two days – normally a Bill of this importance would be scrutinised in detail for two months.

Faced with this, our shadow Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, has set out the Conservative position. Because we hope to form the next government, I thought you would like to have as much detail as possible, so I am enclosing copies of his speech and of his letter to fellow MPs.

With all best wishes,

Sincerely,

Michael Fallon

From the tone of the letter you could be forgiven for thinking that there was an election in the offing! In all seriousness though, given the degree to which this Bill has caused alarm in the photographic community here and abroad, I thought it was worth sharing these items with you, as well as some thoughts that arise from them.

Firstly, Jeremy Hunt’s letter to his fellow MPs:

Dear Colleague,

I know that a great many of you have been contacted about the Digital Economy Bill. I wanted to get in touch to set out our position on a number of its different aspects as I realise many of them are controversial.

Firstly I share a number of concerns about the constitutional aspects of rushing this Bill through in wash up. It is deeply regrettable that the Government was unable to prioritise Parliamentary time in the House of Commons. It says a great deal about their support for the creative industries that despite considering many of these issues as far back as 2006 they have only now just brought this piece of legislation forward.

Despite these concerns there are a number of very important aspects of this Bill that are needed as soon as possible. Online piracy is a rapidly growing problem for our creative industries and one that we need to tackle. The measures within the Bill designed to block access to websites promoting illegal downloading and tackle illegal peer to peer file sharing set up a relatively weak regime that could, following repeated warnings and due process, lead to people having their internet connection temporarily suspended. It will not, as many have suggested, lead to people being disconnected without an appeal. Even if people are disconnected they will be able to sign up to another ISP immediately without penalty.

Blocking these measures in their entirety would have risked hundreds of thousands of jobs in the TV, film, music and sports industries and therefore not something we are willing to do. However the substantive point to make to your constituents is that widespread concern over these measures would have been assuaged if a committee stage had been allowed for the Bill prior to wsh up. I have no doubt such scrutiny would have improved these measures, a point I made strongly in this afternoon’s debate on the Bill.

There are a number of other aspects of the Bill that we do not find acceptable and we will be doing all we can to remove these during the wash up process. Clause 1 adds an unnecessary duty to the regulator Ofcom which will make little difference to the way they operate. Clause 29 will prop up regional news with tax payer subsidy when we should be looking at long term financially sustainable measures to support local news. Finally, clause 43  tries to create a system that would unlock a large amount of digital content primarily held by the BBC and the British Library whose ownership is unknown. Unfortunately this has been drafted so badly that many rights holders would find their content automatically defined as an orphan work – as such they would lose control over their content. We cannot support these provisions but will return to this issue after the General Election.

I am very happy to discuss any of these issues should you find it helpful.

Yours sincerely,

Jeremy Hunt

Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

The key point to note from Mr Hunt’s letter is that they are not against the premise that gave birth to clause 43, only that it was so badly drafted it would create unacceptable problems for people creating content now. Indeed, in his speech during the debate, and in response to a question posed by Dr Julian Lewis (Conservative MP for  New Forest East), Mr Hunt said, “We would like to support the objectives of [clause 43] on orphan works, but unintended consequences occur unless the wording is right.”

On one level photographers should find his statement reassuring, assuming that the Tories find themselves in power in a month’s time. However, when taken with two other statements he made, I suspect we may not be out of the woods yet.

The first is when he said, “We are stating categorically that we reserve the right to review anything that becomes law as a result of the wash-up, if we win the next election, and we will indeed review it if it turns out that the legislation is flawed. … Legislation is urgently needed to protect jobs, and their competitive position. It has taken this Government 13 years to bring these issue before the House, and the industries are worried that if the whole thing is killed now, they might have to wait a very long time…”

The second statement, a little further on: “We agree with the Secretary of State about the critical importance of the digital and creative industries – the largest independent television production sector in the world, the second largest music exporter in the world and,… the third largest film and video games industries in the world. When we desperately need to rebuild a broken economy in proven areas of British competitive advantage, what way is this to treat those industries?”

The question that naturally arises from this position is if Her Majesty’s Opposition is of the opinion that this legislation is so vital in principle, that the industries it affects are so strategically important to the UK economy as a whole, and that the Bill as presented by the government is so fundamentally flawed, why did they not opt to block its passage and commit to introduce a suitable replacement for proper considered debate and detailed committee analysis immediately after the election once they had assumed the reigns of power? If the industries affected have been waiting 13 years for legislative help, surely another six months to get the legislation right is not unthinkable.

It seems reasonable to suppose that they are merely paying lip service to the importance of the legislation and the industries it affects and that they would not find it that urgent a problem to address after the election, although I could be charitable and suggest that they recognise the fickle nature of the electorate and did not want to chance the possibility of not being returned to office and Labour just ignoring the issue altogether if the Bill were blocked at this stage.

In truth, I suspect the former is more likely, in which case one wonders what the impact on the creative industries will be when the new Secretary of State starts to pick over the flawed legislation and try to make the proverbial silk purse. He has already gone on record saying that the idea of clause 43 is laudable, but has given no indication as to how a Conservative government might address the considerable problems it might cause for working photographers. And if their approach is that bad legislation is better than no legislation, it does not bode well for an easy few years ahead as we try to protect what remains of an industry that some already consider to be in crisis.

“The UK government wanted to introduce a law to allow anyone to use your photographs commercially, or in ways you might not like, without asking you first. They have failed.”

But it is clear that the issue of copyright in the digital age is not going to go away. Dominic Cooper, the General Secretary of the Chartered Institute of Journalists has just sent me through this:

Google’s sweeping digital book settlement is facing extra complication and delays as photographers and illustrators prepare to file a fresh class action lawsuit against the internet company over images used in the publications it has been digitising.

The American Society of Media Photographers and a number of related trade associations are expected to file the case against Google on Wednesday in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The action is separate but similar to a class action that is the subject of a pending $125m settlement filed against Google by authors and publishers related to the Google Library Project, which aims to scan some 18m books on to an online database. Photographers and illustrators were not allowed to join the existing class action suit, and have opted to file their own case.

“Google is scanning in books and publications with visual images, which impedes the rights of the copyright holders of those images. We are seeking compensation for that,” said James McGuire, founding partner of law firm Mishcon de Reya, who is leading the case.

The reality is that the rapidly changing business models for photography are resulting in increasing numbers of amateurs being content to earn a few bucks here and there through sales of images via photo-sharing sites like Flickr without being overly concerned about tracking usage and third party syndication  or other copyright infringements. Many are simply chuffed to see their images in print, and while there is nothing wrong with this in principle, it is leading to a wholesale dilution of the market’s expectations of how “photographers” regard their intellectual property. As a result, while many professional photographers are learning to shift their business strategies and diversify by playing the amateurs at their own game with frequent submissions to similar sites and microstock agencies, they are having to fight a rearguard action to protect their work from big business which has the power to ride roughshod over photographers as a whole.

For any amateurs reading this, the moral is simple: there is more than enough room for you and the often excellent work you produce, but if you don’t place a realistic value on it then others will treat it as worthless, and in the end that makes photography as a whole all the poorer.

So on the subject of photographers protecting their jobs, it seems a good time for some more What The Duck:

Job Security © Aaron Johnson 2010

UPDATE: Have just discovered that Michael Fallon MP (whom regular readers will recall I had written to on this issue) voted against the bill as a whole. Thank you Mr Fallon. I would like to think my letter had some influence.

Went to Focus yesterday. The annual trudge to Birmingham to fight my way through the throngs of hobbyists who insist for reasons best know to them on walking round the show festooned with every camera they own. What the hell they expect to photograph I don’t know. The irony is that they seem to do so in the hope that they will be taken seriously by the exhibitors because they wear their cameras like a badge, when in fact the “serious” photographers are instantly recognisable by virtue of not carrying all their cameras.

Sadly, some years ago the specialist retailers realised that there was money to be extracted from these people, so they started being more proactive in selling at the show. As a result those that go to ask questions of manufacturers and distributors, or make supply deals that could save them tens of thousands of pounds a year, find that they are constantly fighting against the tide of equipment and gadget freaks.

The result? Well, I bumped into a friend, a respected photographer, publisher and writer on photography, and asked him how he was. “I’m at Focus doing my penance. What do you think?” came the reply.

Anyway. A productive show for me. Answered all the questions that I needed to address, has given me food for thought and opened new opportunities, all of which I will write about in good time. One thing I will share with you quickly though is Canson Platine Rag. Got hold of some samples, and just made a test print of this picture on it. Exquisite paper!

The show finished, I wandered back to the station (went on the train this time – so much easier), got a beer in the bar, and the phone rang. It was an editor with an assignment. So exciting an assignment (for me anyway) that I nearly dropped my beer. Just a couple of days to go, but if it comes off as planned, you can be sure I will be telling you about it!

Anyway, a little belatedly, I have had a reply from Michael Fallon MP. I assume from the tenor of his reply that he is seeking reelection:

Dear Michael Cockeram (sic),

Thank you for your email of last week about the Digital Economy Bill. My apologies for not replying earlier.

This Bill is in the House of Lords and has yet to reach the Commons but we are already aware of the substantial concerns about authors’ rights and “orphan” works. The Conservative Party wants to ensure that the Bill does not damage the exisiting rights of content creators, not least those of professional photographers, and that it prevents identifying information from being stripped out from a digital image.

Some amendments are due to be made in the Lords next week but we shall want to scrutinise this part of the Bill very carefully when it reaches us, and improve it if necessary.

I am copying your concerns to our Conservative spokesmen here.

With all best wishes,

Michael Fallon

Well, the good news is that he appears to be on the side of professional photographers (I wonder how many reside in his constituency, and if you’re one and you didn’t notice apparently he is Conservative and there is an election?), although I am a little troubled by the “improve if necessary” bit. I think most photographers that have taken an interest would say that it was necessary, so no ifs, just improve, please. I might then even forgive your spelling my name wrong.. poor that, really poor, and there is an election soon too!

I figured it might be nice, from time to time, to embed strips that have a relevance to the preceding posts. If you love photography and have a keen sense of humour, click on the strip to be taken to the What The Duck site and sign up to receive the newsletters and strips.

Here’s the first:

The Audacity of Hope © Aaron Johnson 2010

Dear Mr Cockerham,

The reality is that the government will get its way on the Bill unless the Opposition manages to block it during the winding up of the present Parliament.

As an individual MP there is no way I can prevent this measure making progress so I hope your professional association has made the points you have given me to the Conservative and LibDem spokesmen.

Kindest regards,

Derek Conway TD MP

So much for representing the interests of your constituents! I never thought for a minute that he personally could stop it. But surely it is incumbent on him, however long he remains in the House, to hold the Executive to account? He could reassure me that he would ask probing questions and make a valid contribution to any debate. But apparently his attitude is, “what’s the point”?

It occurs to me, that with so many MPs declared to be standing down, that many, if not all, will be taking a similar approach. If so, we – the people – are no longer being represented at all, and there can be no greater justification for a call that Parliament be dissolved and a general election called immediately.

I await Michael Fallon’s response. In the meantime, this has been published today by the British Journal of Photography.

Anyway, someone has seen fit to publish the documentary on YouTube, so I am delighted to bring it to the attention of my readers. Enjoy.

PS   I know that Part 7 appears to be missing – I shall keep a look out for it.