Ah well.
At the risk of being branded a vacillating soft brained double turn coat I am sufficiently persuaded to stick to my original commitment to three years membership and then decide if I want to continue.
The principal considerations which have impressed me to do so are (a) that's what I said I would do and I do try to be a man of me words..... all of them
"gulp" and (b) the fact that the head honcho has finally been prised out of his shell and taken the trouble to post on here to answer some of the criticisms. And made a pretty good fist of it, hasta be said.
May not agree with or accept all of what he says, but the chap has at least demonstrated that he has got the balls to do so. T'was a bad mistake ignoring online forums I think, even tho they are irksomely time consuming if you are faced (as no doubt he is) with replying to fifteen or so all at once. Sympathy due, but abdication of the battle field, not.
Mind you, he probably wouldn't have had to if the ATr had had the sense to deploy a few PR reps / volunteers / assistants capable of monitoring and posting on forums like this.
And I still think the subscription is too much and the increase stupidly wrong headed - I suggest that the ATr Google the headings "law of diminishing returns" and "marginal cost disincentive".
But there it is, that's their choice. Me, I'd cut the sub to a straightforward tenner a head per year and watch five times the present revenues flood in.... let alone the increase in membership numbers and increased political credibility as a result, leading to an increased perception of worth, and additional members joining. An upward spiral loop, what's not to like. Instead of putting the subs up by six times the rate of inflation.
