Following the news that the UK house prices are rising at rates in excess of 8%, it is today reported that credit card borrowing for September was the highest for any moth this year - and we haven't even reached Christmas yet!
The assumption is that our "recovery" is being fuelled once more by our flexible friends just as it was under Brown and Blair. The government decision to inject money in to the housing market is beginning to reap it's rewards. The trouble is that we will all ultimately be right back where we started in 2008 unless steps are taken urgently to curtail this madness. Like the plastic which underpins it, this "recovery" is false and thus the house built on dreams will not stand.
When Gordon Brown proclaimed an end to boom and bust, I hoped that his failure would serve as a reminder to everyone the folly of spending outside of your means. It seems as though people have short memories. More worrying still was the revelation that unsecured borrowing rose by its fastest rate since before the crash in 2008.
The pressure for the Bank of England to raise interest rates becomes more compelling by the day. Yet the new governor has rather shot himself in the foot on this measure since he has pledged to reduce the rate only when unemployment drops below 7%. Due to the appallingly high numbers of NEETS, the chances of this figure dropping below the magic 7% any time soon are slim to put it mildly. Meanwhile, the out of control economic rollercoaster will continue it's relentless path to another fiscal accident in due course.
I know we've been here before but you'd like to think that people's memories could do a little better than that. Granted, human nature will not change as people continue to be drawn in by the promises of the marketing men but it's no less depressing for all that. If you saw somebody reversing their car slowly in to a tree, you'd like to try and warn them before the damage was done. Sadly, I suspect that we can shout all we like at some people but it won't make any difference if they don't want to listen. It's still not too late to put a brake on things and it falls to our new Canadian Governor of the Bank of England to make a bold decision. If he doesn't, the future is starting to look depressingly familiar.
Come back Mr. Micawber, we need you now more than ever...
Thursday, 31 October 2013
Halloween: The world's scariest places
Since it's Halloween, I would like to suggest a contender for the world's scariest place. In the absence of any better suggestions, I would like to put forward a country where the MPs vote to give themselves a pay rise of 15% while the majority of people receive just 1%. The same politicians deny us a free press and dictate what stories are acceptable to themselves. The same politicians were recently exposed by the press to be fleecing every last drop of tax payers money through their uniquely generous expenses sytem. The same politicians pay lip service to just six energy companies who dictate how much profit they would like to make. The same politicians argue for a high speed rail link which will ultimately benefit London and cost everyone else a debt which will take decades to repay.
This country rewards incompetence like few others. This week, an out of court settlement of six figures was agreed with somebody who was once head of children's services when a little defenceless boy died needlessly despite her department being aware of the abuse he was suffering. This country has some of the top universities in the world but a staggeringly high number of children can't read or write properly.
This country has jounalists who will record your telephone conversations to try and get a story. They worked for an Australian man who also sells satellite television to us by the millions. That man was allowed to shut down a newspaper and re-open it with a new name.
This country has one of the highest rates of youth unemployment outside of sub-Saharan Africa. It also has a health service free at the point of access to every man, woman and child which can't cope with the numbers coming through it's doors and can't care for them properly when they do. It also has outbreaks of measles despite having the vaccines to prevent it. It boasts a long history of care homes for the elderly which have neglected and abused the people in their care.
This country charges £9,000 per year for tuition fees for a student to study for a degree while the University staff go on strike. It also boasts one of the highest public sectors in Europe at a time when food banks are proliferating as never before.
This country also pays homage to the absolute power of four supermarkets who dominate our retail sector. These four buddies are allowed to promote whatever they like at any price while the Health Service continues to buckle under the strain of preventable illnesses such as diabetes and its less savoury complications. This countries sees it's pubs closing down by the thousand as these retail behemoths sell us booze at prices designed to foster our addiction to it.
This country is more carbon dependent than it needs to be despite having natural resources such as wind, waves and sun which it's European neighbours can but dream of. While this country's politicians toy with spending over £50 billion on a train service which will only benefit London, millions of old aged pensioners face the daily reality of a choice between eating or keeping warm.
This is currently the United Kingdom and for reasons which I don't understand, economic migrants want to come here to seek a better life. If they read any of this, they would be forgiven for thinking twice. The Scottish can sniff the fresh heather of independence and who would blame them for going it alone when faced with the alternative of staying in a Union as dysfunctional as this?
This country rewards incompetence like few others. This week, an out of court settlement of six figures was agreed with somebody who was once head of children's services when a little defenceless boy died needlessly despite her department being aware of the abuse he was suffering. This country has some of the top universities in the world but a staggeringly high number of children can't read or write properly.
This country has jounalists who will record your telephone conversations to try and get a story. They worked for an Australian man who also sells satellite television to us by the millions. That man was allowed to shut down a newspaper and re-open it with a new name.
This country has one of the highest rates of youth unemployment outside of sub-Saharan Africa. It also has a health service free at the point of access to every man, woman and child which can't cope with the numbers coming through it's doors and can't care for them properly when they do. It also has outbreaks of measles despite having the vaccines to prevent it. It boasts a long history of care homes for the elderly which have neglected and abused the people in their care.
This country charges £9,000 per year for tuition fees for a student to study for a degree while the University staff go on strike. It also boasts one of the highest public sectors in Europe at a time when food banks are proliferating as never before.
This country also pays homage to the absolute power of four supermarkets who dominate our retail sector. These four buddies are allowed to promote whatever they like at any price while the Health Service continues to buckle under the strain of preventable illnesses such as diabetes and its less savoury complications. This countries sees it's pubs closing down by the thousand as these retail behemoths sell us booze at prices designed to foster our addiction to it.
This country is more carbon dependent than it needs to be despite having natural resources such as wind, waves and sun which it's European neighbours can but dream of. While this country's politicians toy with spending over £50 billion on a train service which will only benefit London, millions of old aged pensioners face the daily reality of a choice between eating or keeping warm.
This is currently the United Kingdom and for reasons which I don't understand, economic migrants want to come here to seek a better life. If they read any of this, they would be forgiven for thinking twice. The Scottish can sniff the fresh heather of independence and who would blame them for going it alone when faced with the alternative of staying in a Union as dysfunctional as this?
Reasons to be cheerful?
Developed in the 1950s, vaccines against the polio virus were used to great effect to reduce the number of cases of polio. One of the most dreaded diseases of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, poliomyelitis bestowed a litany of health problems on the unfortunate people affected.
In 1988, there were 350,000 cases worldwide. By 2012, there were just 223 cases reported globally. It was sad but perhaps not unexpected then to observe that a polio epidemic is gaining momentum in war torn Syria. The irony is that the vaccine is given orally and is really easy to administer. It's heartbreaking to consider that such a simple solution is being denied to the children of that country due to the abhorrent behaviour of the adults. Polio is spread by the faeco-oral route so it's capacity to spread in a conflict such as this one is almost unlimited.
While I point to the problem of polio in war torn Syria, I also balance this observation by reminding myself of the current threat of measles to children in South Wales. There is no war in South Wales. People there do not want for food or shelter and yet we have the bizarre situation of measles cases arising from parental reluctance to immunise their children. Given the misplaced reporting of some local newspapers in that part of Wales, I have a degree of sympathy with some of these parents.
The point here is a wider one. Newspapers such as the Daily Mail pride themselves on their health expertise but frequently cause far more problems for the Health Service than they solve. The press have an enormous responsibility when reporting on matters of health to get their facts right. The same applies to the Lancet who first published the now discredited article linking the MMR vaccine to autism. This is dangerpous stuff.
Back to polio though. There were good news stories as well. The singer Ian Dury (A clever use of the word injury) gave us many memorable songs. As the punk era drew to a close, this former art school student arrived on the new wave music scene with his Blockheads to give us a fusion of punk, jazz and funk. Ian Dury contracted polio as a child growing up in post war London as did many others but managed to lead a successful life in spite of it.http://youtu.be/xoOjtNs9EOk
In 1988, there were 350,000 cases worldwide. By 2012, there were just 223 cases reported globally. It was sad but perhaps not unexpected then to observe that a polio epidemic is gaining momentum in war torn Syria. The irony is that the vaccine is given orally and is really easy to administer. It's heartbreaking to consider that such a simple solution is being denied to the children of that country due to the abhorrent behaviour of the adults. Polio is spread by the faeco-oral route so it's capacity to spread in a conflict such as this one is almost unlimited.
While I point to the problem of polio in war torn Syria, I also balance this observation by reminding myself of the current threat of measles to children in South Wales. There is no war in South Wales. People there do not want for food or shelter and yet we have the bizarre situation of measles cases arising from parental reluctance to immunise their children. Given the misplaced reporting of some local newspapers in that part of Wales, I have a degree of sympathy with some of these parents.
The point here is a wider one. Newspapers such as the Daily Mail pride themselves on their health expertise but frequently cause far more problems for the Health Service than they solve. The press have an enormous responsibility when reporting on matters of health to get their facts right. The same applies to the Lancet who first published the now discredited article linking the MMR vaccine to autism. This is dangerpous stuff.
Back to polio though. There were good news stories as well. The singer Ian Dury (A clever use of the word injury) gave us many memorable songs. As the punk era drew to a close, this former art school student arrived on the new wave music scene with his Blockheads to give us a fusion of punk, jazz and funk. Ian Dury contracted polio as a child growing up in post war London as did many others but managed to lead a successful life in spite of it.http://youtu.be/xoOjtNs9EOk
Wednesday, 30 October 2013
The lasting influence of Russian music and literature.
The first Russian music I listened to in earnest was the Nutcracker by Tchaikovsky. That was in 1983 and, looking back, it was as good a place as any to start. As I wend my way through the classical music greats, I frequently find myself being drawn back to the great Russian composers from that magical era.
Although I have been drawn to the great music which emanated from the Impressionists, I still gravitate to the dependable tones of Borodin and the anguish of Tchaikovsky and Mussorgsky. I consider Rimsky Korsakov to be the hidden gem from this era and never tire of listening to his music. As with all great composers, I take something new away every time I listen to him. His Rhapsody Espagnole in particular stands out due to its subtle Iberian evocation. His Young Prince and Young Princess from Sheherezade is exquisite. Of course, it was Rimsky Korsakov who orchestrated the great Pictures at an Exhibition. The latter is a magnificent piece which never fails to move me.
It has been suggested that to write great prose or great music, you must first have suffered. There can be no denying that the Russian people have suffered more than most over the years so it is perhaps unsurprising to witness the avalanche of inspiring music and literature which they produce. If the musical composers have left an indelible print on our musical landscape, the Russian writers have done just as well.
I adore reading Pasternak with his wry observations of human weakness but think that Dostoyevsky is the true master. Nobody can portray human frailty in quite the same way. His great novel, "Crime and Punishment" is a towering achievement of honesty. Latterly, I have come to appreciate the works of Solzhenitzsyn. His depictions of Stalinist life are heartbreaking in their clarity and you feel for the lives of each and every one of the marvellous characters.
But back to the Russian music. Can there be any piece more evocative of the genre than "The Steppes of Central Asia" by Alexander Borodin? Like the present Pope and Margaret Thatcher, Borodin was a chemist by trade but the differences end there. He was truly a giant of a composer and he would be the one I would always go back to. There is a truth to his composition which is like an dependable old friend. For all that I love other composers such as Chopin, Liszt, Schubert and Mahler, it is to the Russians I go when I seek solace and reassurance.
Although I have been drawn to the great music which emanated from the Impressionists, I still gravitate to the dependable tones of Borodin and the anguish of Tchaikovsky and Mussorgsky. I consider Rimsky Korsakov to be the hidden gem from this era and never tire of listening to his music. As with all great composers, I take something new away every time I listen to him. His Rhapsody Espagnole in particular stands out due to its subtle Iberian evocation. His Young Prince and Young Princess from Sheherezade is exquisite. Of course, it was Rimsky Korsakov who orchestrated the great Pictures at an Exhibition. The latter is a magnificent piece which never fails to move me.
It has been suggested that to write great prose or great music, you must first have suffered. There can be no denying that the Russian people have suffered more than most over the years so it is perhaps unsurprising to witness the avalanche of inspiring music and literature which they produce. If the musical composers have left an indelible print on our musical landscape, the Russian writers have done just as well.
I adore reading Pasternak with his wry observations of human weakness but think that Dostoyevsky is the true master. Nobody can portray human frailty in quite the same way. His great novel, "Crime and Punishment" is a towering achievement of honesty. Latterly, I have come to appreciate the works of Solzhenitzsyn. His depictions of Stalinist life are heartbreaking in their clarity and you feel for the lives of each and every one of the marvellous characters.
But back to the Russian music. Can there be any piece more evocative of the genre than "The Steppes of Central Asia" by Alexander Borodin? Like the present Pope and Margaret Thatcher, Borodin was a chemist by trade but the differences end there. He was truly a giant of a composer and he would be the one I would always go back to. There is a truth to his composition which is like an dependable old friend. For all that I love other composers such as Chopin, Liszt, Schubert and Mahler, it is to the Russians I go when I seek solace and reassurance.
Mickey Mouse to get a new neighbour?
In the latest installment of Brand Beckham, we learn that the erstwhile seller of football shirts par excellence now has his sights set on part ownership of a club in the USA. It was with no little mirth that I noted his preferred destination to be Miami.
I remember being in that part of the world in 1976 when the USA celebrated its bicentenary. My family were at Disney World on July 4th of that year and it was a memorable spectacle. I was struck though by the one charcter with whom Disney is so often associated and reflected how apt it is that Beckham seeks to set up a football club down the road.
Like Beckham, Mickey Mouse has also sold his fair share of merchandise and the comparisons don't end there. Both have become more associated with a particular brand than their actual talent. Both are time served at smiling for the cameras and neither knowingly pases up a good photo opportunity. Granted, Mickey might just have a slightly more high pitched voice but David's isn't too dissimilar.
Mickey of course has sold countless hats sporting his trademark big ears but David doesn't appear to have exploited this particlular revenue stream at the time of writing. Both have established charitable foundations to try and divert attention away from the millions they make out of marketing and both seem to be universally loved by their adoring publics. I hope they learn to get along together as new neighbours and look forward to seeing them both in a photo shot to see who can grab the most limelight. Watch out Mickey!
I remember being in that part of the world in 1976 when the USA celebrated its bicentenary. My family were at Disney World on July 4th of that year and it was a memorable spectacle. I was struck though by the one charcter with whom Disney is so often associated and reflected how apt it is that Beckham seeks to set up a football club down the road.
Like Beckham, Mickey Mouse has also sold his fair share of merchandise and the comparisons don't end there. Both have become more associated with a particular brand than their actual talent. Both are time served at smiling for the cameras and neither knowingly pases up a good photo opportunity. Granted, Mickey might just have a slightly more high pitched voice but David's isn't too dissimilar.
Mickey of course has sold countless hats sporting his trademark big ears but David doesn't appear to have exploited this particlular revenue stream at the time of writing. Both have established charitable foundations to try and divert attention away from the millions they make out of marketing and both seem to be universally loved by their adoring publics. I hope they learn to get along together as new neighbours and look forward to seeing them both in a photo shot to see who can grab the most limelight. Watch out Mickey!
Young man blues
Live albums are always a bit of a risk for major recording artists and have been disastrous for some. For others though, the live album has served to redefine the group in question and springboard them to global prominence. Recorded from a live show at Leeds University on St.Valentines day 1970, "Live at Leeds" confirmed what many already knew. The Who had become the most dynamic live band of their time and this album became the QED for that argument.
A live recording is risky because it doesn't forgive the mistakes which can be papered over in the studion setting. This makes the "Live at Leeds" album all the more remarkable. The legendary South African golfer, Gary Player, was once asked why he was so lucky. His reply was succinct, "The more I practice, the luckier I get". True for him and true for The Who. On the back of their critically acclaimed rock opera "Tommy" the year before, the band had toured extensively and honed their live act. The Leeds album gave them the opportunity to show the world how good they were live.
I remember wearing the cassette out on my Sony Walkman in 1987 and have since advanced to the vinyl album. It is an extraordinary album with a good mix of familiar chart material and hitherto unfamiliar blues standards. Of the latter, the first track always sticks in my mind. "Young man blues" had been written by Mose Allison as far back as 1958. Allison has perhaps never received the critical acclaim of his contemporary Bob Dylan but his influence is undeniable.
The lyrics of the song aren't too sophisticated but the message is clear enough. Young men had the power in the old days but now they have nothing. The old man has all the money. That is the message of the song and here we are in 2013 witnessing its relevance as the young in our society are having their aspirations dashed by a series of greedy, detached, socially ignorant governments.
Just today, Theo Mertz has highlighted the time bomb facing Britain's public health system. The NEETS (Young people not in education, employment or training) are here to stay and growing in number at an alarming rate. The day will come when our already cachectic health service is faced with the job of dealing with the health consequences. Instead of ploughing money in to youth training schemes which is all very well, this and previous governments have repeatedly failed to address the cause of this problem.
Alluding to the findings of an International Report, we learn that the UK is failing a generation of women, young people and children. While the Right Wing Press happily predicts the Armageddon of Eastern European immigration to the UK, this report concludes that the life chances for women, children and young people are actually better in those countries. It would appear they are in for a shock then.
While the main political parties squabble with each other over which form of HS2 to adopt, children in the UK continue to live in poverty. At this point, we really need to step back and have a long, hard think about the country we want to be. Is it more important to get from Birmingham to London faster or for children to actually be able to eat something resembling nutrition at the next meal time?
I have written many times before about early years and don't apologise for doing so again. The million plus NEETS who have the Young Man Blues of today, might have had some aspiration if we had first got their early years right. If they are lacking in literacy, numeracy or any of the other key skills, we need to recognise that and do something about it for the next generation. We are missing opportunites to optimise their education in terms of literacy, numeracy, play, social skills and plain old self confidence. Low income continues to accentuate the growing divide between the haves and the have-nots. The minimum wage has been a step in the right direction but early years provision remains too costly for the many.
For fear of sounding overly repetitive, Scandinavia views early years rather differenly. They are available to all at greatly subsidised cost because their governments rightly recognise the value. Put simply, we can't afford not to and yet we continue to ignore it as an option. The social inequalities which continue to dictate life chances for so many people are entirely avoidable through a responsible taxation sytem. The political reasons which prevent this are contemptible.
The day after Sharon Shoesmith is being awarded a mountain of money for unfair dismissal having been ultimately responsible for the organisation which led to the unnecessary death of Baby P, our government ought to hang its head in shame. Every child regardless of background has the basic right to feel safe. A roof over their head with food and heating can be added to that. On the subject of heating, am I the only one who is getting rather tired of the way this subject is being handled at a national level?
This isn't too hard to work out. The main problem at present is power and the big six energy companies have too much of it. Not the power we need for our lights and heating. The power which plagues our society in which certain individuals and organisations consider themselves exempt from the accountability which the rest of us have to face daily. If the government really cared about this issue, they would hold the energy regulator to account. I can't believe that in spite of the recent price rises, most of these companies continue to operate a rubik's cube of tariffs which are all but incomprehensible to the majority. At best this is lazy but at worst it is just plain cynical. What would it take for the government to insist on a simple tariff code? Switching is a joke because the big six make it nigh on impossible for you to switch and the "competition" is a bit of a misnomer. Ed Milliband was right when, as Energy Secretary in the last government, he proclaimed that energy costs would continue to rise. I don't think anyone disputes that claim but I do take issue with the way in which the big six are increasing the prices so far in excess of real term costs.
Social inequality isn't all about heating though because diet and nutrition are just as important. Today, two of the biggest food retailers go to court over a dispute concerning price comparisons between them. The reality is that they can bicker all they like. Thay are both overcharging us all daily as they must to support the cost base of such gargantuan organisations. Quibbling over pennies is frankly insulting to the millions who can't even afford to shop there even if they wanted to. Also, if their prices were as cheap as they claim, why do they feel the urge to reward us with bonus points for shopping there? Good nature or false pretences? I go for the latter bacause I spent long enough working in the food industry to know that they all have to make their profit out of you somehow. Isn't it better to just have a fair bottom line price without the gimmicks?
Mose Allison was right in 1958 when he wrote "Young Man Blues". The sad part is how right he remains as a generation of young people face a life without aspiration. HS2? No thank you - I think we could do better with that sort of money...
A live recording is risky because it doesn't forgive the mistakes which can be papered over in the studion setting. This makes the "Live at Leeds" album all the more remarkable. The legendary South African golfer, Gary Player, was once asked why he was so lucky. His reply was succinct, "The more I practice, the luckier I get". True for him and true for The Who. On the back of their critically acclaimed rock opera "Tommy" the year before, the band had toured extensively and honed their live act. The Leeds album gave them the opportunity to show the world how good they were live.
I remember wearing the cassette out on my Sony Walkman in 1987 and have since advanced to the vinyl album. It is an extraordinary album with a good mix of familiar chart material and hitherto unfamiliar blues standards. Of the latter, the first track always sticks in my mind. "Young man blues" had been written by Mose Allison as far back as 1958. Allison has perhaps never received the critical acclaim of his contemporary Bob Dylan but his influence is undeniable.
The lyrics of the song aren't too sophisticated but the message is clear enough. Young men had the power in the old days but now they have nothing. The old man has all the money. That is the message of the song and here we are in 2013 witnessing its relevance as the young in our society are having their aspirations dashed by a series of greedy, detached, socially ignorant governments.
Just today, Theo Mertz has highlighted the time bomb facing Britain's public health system. The NEETS (Young people not in education, employment or training) are here to stay and growing in number at an alarming rate. The day will come when our already cachectic health service is faced with the job of dealing with the health consequences. Instead of ploughing money in to youth training schemes which is all very well, this and previous governments have repeatedly failed to address the cause of this problem.
Alluding to the findings of an International Report, we learn that the UK is failing a generation of women, young people and children. While the Right Wing Press happily predicts the Armageddon of Eastern European immigration to the UK, this report concludes that the life chances for women, children and young people are actually better in those countries. It would appear they are in for a shock then.
While the main political parties squabble with each other over which form of HS2 to adopt, children in the UK continue to live in poverty. At this point, we really need to step back and have a long, hard think about the country we want to be. Is it more important to get from Birmingham to London faster or for children to actually be able to eat something resembling nutrition at the next meal time?
I have written many times before about early years and don't apologise for doing so again. The million plus NEETS who have the Young Man Blues of today, might have had some aspiration if we had first got their early years right. If they are lacking in literacy, numeracy or any of the other key skills, we need to recognise that and do something about it for the next generation. We are missing opportunites to optimise their education in terms of literacy, numeracy, play, social skills and plain old self confidence. Low income continues to accentuate the growing divide between the haves and the have-nots. The minimum wage has been a step in the right direction but early years provision remains too costly for the many.
For fear of sounding overly repetitive, Scandinavia views early years rather differenly. They are available to all at greatly subsidised cost because their governments rightly recognise the value. Put simply, we can't afford not to and yet we continue to ignore it as an option. The social inequalities which continue to dictate life chances for so many people are entirely avoidable through a responsible taxation sytem. The political reasons which prevent this are contemptible.
The day after Sharon Shoesmith is being awarded a mountain of money for unfair dismissal having been ultimately responsible for the organisation which led to the unnecessary death of Baby P, our government ought to hang its head in shame. Every child regardless of background has the basic right to feel safe. A roof over their head with food and heating can be added to that. On the subject of heating, am I the only one who is getting rather tired of the way this subject is being handled at a national level?
This isn't too hard to work out. The main problem at present is power and the big six energy companies have too much of it. Not the power we need for our lights and heating. The power which plagues our society in which certain individuals and organisations consider themselves exempt from the accountability which the rest of us have to face daily. If the government really cared about this issue, they would hold the energy regulator to account. I can't believe that in spite of the recent price rises, most of these companies continue to operate a rubik's cube of tariffs which are all but incomprehensible to the majority. At best this is lazy but at worst it is just plain cynical. What would it take for the government to insist on a simple tariff code? Switching is a joke because the big six make it nigh on impossible for you to switch and the "competition" is a bit of a misnomer. Ed Milliband was right when, as Energy Secretary in the last government, he proclaimed that energy costs would continue to rise. I don't think anyone disputes that claim but I do take issue with the way in which the big six are increasing the prices so far in excess of real term costs.
Social inequality isn't all about heating though because diet and nutrition are just as important. Today, two of the biggest food retailers go to court over a dispute concerning price comparisons between them. The reality is that they can bicker all they like. Thay are both overcharging us all daily as they must to support the cost base of such gargantuan organisations. Quibbling over pennies is frankly insulting to the millions who can't even afford to shop there even if they wanted to. Also, if their prices were as cheap as they claim, why do they feel the urge to reward us with bonus points for shopping there? Good nature or false pretences? I go for the latter bacause I spent long enough working in the food industry to know that they all have to make their profit out of you somehow. Isn't it better to just have a fair bottom line price without the gimmicks?
Mose Allison was right in 1958 when he wrote "Young Man Blues". The sad part is how right he remains as a generation of young people face a life without aspiration. HS2? No thank you - I think we could do better with that sort of money...
Tuesday, 29 October 2013
Not much of a retirement!
I wrote last week a piece reflecting on the contribution of Alex Ferguson to football. I refrained from writing one sooner to give him plenty of opportunity to fade in to background. The quest for yet more money with the release of his oddly named book, "Alex Ferguson: My Autobiography", thrust this man upon us once more just when we were getting used to life without his whinging presence.
I awoke this morning with dismay to see that he just can't stay quiet. Does he know what retirement means? Normally, what happens is that you retire gracefully in to the background to allow your successor the courtesy of some space to establish their own agenda. Poor David Moyes. If he had known that the former manager would be constantly chipping away in the background, would he have been quite as keen to take on the poison chalice? I doubt it.
The best retirements I have witnessed are those who leave the stage properly and have little or nothing to do with their former club. I would argue that ego alone precludes people from doing so. This appears to confirm what most of us have suspected for a long time. There was and is only one person bigger than the club at Manchester United. The challenge is for somebody to just issue him with a polite reminder to just go away and let his successor get on with the job. Fat chance me thinks. As I say, poor David Moyes - he's on a hiding to nothing!
I awoke this morning with dismay to see that he just can't stay quiet. Does he know what retirement means? Normally, what happens is that you retire gracefully in to the background to allow your successor the courtesy of some space to establish their own agenda. Poor David Moyes. If he had known that the former manager would be constantly chipping away in the background, would he have been quite as keen to take on the poison chalice? I doubt it.
The best retirements I have witnessed are those who leave the stage properly and have little or nothing to do with their former club. I would argue that ego alone precludes people from doing so. This appears to confirm what most of us have suspected for a long time. There was and is only one person bigger than the club at Manchester United. The challenge is for somebody to just issue him with a polite reminder to just go away and let his successor get on with the job. Fat chance me thinks. As I say, poor David Moyes - he's on a hiding to nothing!
Monday, 28 October 2013
Slaves to the Economists?
In a report today, the people who run our country and, by inference, our lives, are advocating that nobody works more than 30 hours per week. I refer of course to economists. This should go down well with the Left Wing press. Unison will be cock-a-hoop in theory. Reflecting on this suggestion, I considered that it may not be quite as half baked as it initially looks.
If people work 30 hours per week to earn their money, they could then work another 18 hours per week in the voluntary sector. They would still be keeping on the right side of those lovable rogues in Brussels with a permissible 48 hours on the clock. This way, 62.5% of a person's working week would be for their own income and livelihood with the remaining 37.5% given to those most in need in their local community.
But wait a minute, this smacks of altruism. Is it possible to imagine those city chaps giving up 18 hours per week to help others and forego their relentless money making? How would politicians spend their 18 hours? How would journalists spend theirs?
I think we might fall a little short in terms of tax revenues although life would become more attractive for the millions who despise their employers. At least this way, they would have to spend 62.5% of their working time to the organisation who pays them. The rest would at least be fulfilling if only from a standpoint of spiritual reward.
The environmental arguments for such a move are compelling. Less time spent in the car would mean more quality time with family and friends. Indeed, the advice suggests that employers give employees time off instead of a bonus. They acknowledge that the minimum wage would need to be raised for this to actually become reality. This needn't be a bad thing though as the pay gap between the haves and have nots is far too high as things stand.
The down sides aren't as bad as they initially seem. I had visions of our couch potato culture getting even worse but then realised that disposable incomes would be comparativley smaller. Maybe the government could operate TV like it used to be run in the 1970s. There would be little at all in the mornings with just a news bulletin at lunch time. TV in earnest wouldn't even begin until about 3.00pm and would be done and dusted by about 11.00pm. The national anthem would play and everyone would retire to bed ready for another 30 hour week with their employer. It makes you think. Maybe the economists have actually hit on something here. With more disposable time during the week, people might consider walking to their local shops instead of driving the ten miles to the nearest supermarket.
Hold on. That's better. I've just remembered I still had my rose tinted specs on. Back to the land of dreams...
If people work 30 hours per week to earn their money, they could then work another 18 hours per week in the voluntary sector. They would still be keeping on the right side of those lovable rogues in Brussels with a permissible 48 hours on the clock. This way, 62.5% of a person's working week would be for their own income and livelihood with the remaining 37.5% given to those most in need in their local community.
But wait a minute, this smacks of altruism. Is it possible to imagine those city chaps giving up 18 hours per week to help others and forego their relentless money making? How would politicians spend their 18 hours? How would journalists spend theirs?
I think we might fall a little short in terms of tax revenues although life would become more attractive for the millions who despise their employers. At least this way, they would have to spend 62.5% of their working time to the organisation who pays them. The rest would at least be fulfilling if only from a standpoint of spiritual reward.
The environmental arguments for such a move are compelling. Less time spent in the car would mean more quality time with family and friends. Indeed, the advice suggests that employers give employees time off instead of a bonus. They acknowledge that the minimum wage would need to be raised for this to actually become reality. This needn't be a bad thing though as the pay gap between the haves and have nots is far too high as things stand.
The down sides aren't as bad as they initially seem. I had visions of our couch potato culture getting even worse but then realised that disposable incomes would be comparativley smaller. Maybe the government could operate TV like it used to be run in the 1970s. There would be little at all in the mornings with just a news bulletin at lunch time. TV in earnest wouldn't even begin until about 3.00pm and would be done and dusted by about 11.00pm. The national anthem would play and everyone would retire to bed ready for another 30 hour week with their employer. It makes you think. Maybe the economists have actually hit on something here. With more disposable time during the week, people might consider walking to their local shops instead of driving the ten miles to the nearest supermarket.
Hold on. That's better. I've just remembered I still had my rose tinted specs on. Back to the land of dreams...
Pen and paper in 2013?
The review of NHS complaints chaired by the Labour MP Ann Clwyd has just issued its key recommendations. It's probably best I'm not told the cost of this investigation fior fear of me imploding with a cocktail of rage and disbelief. That said, the report recommends that all patients be issued with a pen and paper with which to write down their complaint.
Although it would be all too easy to collapse with mirth, this recommendation is actually fraught with common sense. Nowehere to run , nowhere to hide goes the old adage. There are pitfalls here though. What constitutes a valid complaint and how long will it take already overburdened staff to trawl their way through? This will need to be addressed to make such a system viable.
I do worry a little about the potential for patients to use the exercise as though they were the Daily Mail on the ward so to speak. "Doctor, my tea was too strong!". "Doctor, the bloke in that bed is watching Bargain Hunt but I want to watch Escape to the Country". "Doctor, that pen and paper are an infection risk!". The list goes on but the pioint is made. That said, if the NHS is to become truly accountable and bring to fruition the aims of the Francis Report, I fear that such measures will indeed become necessary. Although many of the complaints will be rather facile, some will doubtless be of a serious nature and will merit further action. It is for the latter alone that this idea will become a reality.
On a serious note though, pens and paper are indeed infection risks so this might have to be revisited. I can see that patients need a vehicle with which to express their concerns but wonder whether the associated health risk might defeat the object somewhat. It is sobering to reflect that the current system has failed to give NHS patients the voice which they deserve. Underpinning all of this is the key aspect of trust. Trust is integral to any doctor-patient relationship and failure to listen to patient concerns compromises this. Added to this is the obvious potential for patient harm so the measure being proposed by Ann Clwyd is not really up for negotiation. The format of her proposal appears to be a bit flimsy but to her credit, she has got the ball rolling so we are hopefully one step closer to restoring to trust to a badly bruised relationship.
Any relationship by definition has two sides and this is no different. Just as the patients must be afforded the right to complain if they receive poor treatment, the medical staff must also be afforded the right to highlight unacceptable patient behaviour. The latter isn't highlighted quite so often by the press. This is mainly because patient rudeness or bad behaviour seldom results in loss of life or injury. However, I would urge the report to seek more balance. It could do this by reserving the right to remove any tobacco being smoked by the front doors of hospitals. There are now nicotine replacement patches and the ban on cigarette smoking in public places was brought in for genuine health reasons. It cuts both ways...
Although it would be all too easy to collapse with mirth, this recommendation is actually fraught with common sense. Nowehere to run , nowhere to hide goes the old adage. There are pitfalls here though. What constitutes a valid complaint and how long will it take already overburdened staff to trawl their way through? This will need to be addressed to make such a system viable.
I do worry a little about the potential for patients to use the exercise as though they were the Daily Mail on the ward so to speak. "Doctor, my tea was too strong!". "Doctor, the bloke in that bed is watching Bargain Hunt but I want to watch Escape to the Country". "Doctor, that pen and paper are an infection risk!". The list goes on but the pioint is made. That said, if the NHS is to become truly accountable and bring to fruition the aims of the Francis Report, I fear that such measures will indeed become necessary. Although many of the complaints will be rather facile, some will doubtless be of a serious nature and will merit further action. It is for the latter alone that this idea will become a reality.
On a serious note though, pens and paper are indeed infection risks so this might have to be revisited. I can see that patients need a vehicle with which to express their concerns but wonder whether the associated health risk might defeat the object somewhat. It is sobering to reflect that the current system has failed to give NHS patients the voice which they deserve. Underpinning all of this is the key aspect of trust. Trust is integral to any doctor-patient relationship and failure to listen to patient concerns compromises this. Added to this is the obvious potential for patient harm so the measure being proposed by Ann Clwyd is not really up for negotiation. The format of her proposal appears to be a bit flimsy but to her credit, she has got the ball rolling so we are hopefully one step closer to restoring to trust to a badly bruised relationship.
Any relationship by definition has two sides and this is no different. Just as the patients must be afforded the right to complain if they receive poor treatment, the medical staff must also be afforded the right to highlight unacceptable patient behaviour. The latter isn't highlighted quite so often by the press. This is mainly because patient rudeness or bad behaviour seldom results in loss of life or injury. However, I would urge the report to seek more balance. It could do this by reserving the right to remove any tobacco being smoked by the front doors of hospitals. There are now nicotine replacement patches and the ban on cigarette smoking in public places was brought in for genuine health reasons. It cuts both ways...
Money for old rope
The present Health Secretary appears to be within touching distance of the elephant in the room which has thus far eluded each of his post war predecessors. This morning, Jeremy Hunt launches an attack on excessive pay within the NHS. Apart from wishing him luck in this ambitious venture, I feel that he still hasn't grasped the real problem. Certainly, pay restrictions for the high earners would be a great starting point. Who knows, such a measure might even allow him to employ more nurses. With care and compassion being the central themes of the Francis Report, it's hard to see how hospital managers and health consultants can help. Nurses on the other hand should be the priority.
To address levels of pay though is to avoid the the more logical solution. For fear of sounding like a long playing record, it is the subject of final salary pensions which must be addressed. If nobody is going to be honest and brave enough to dispense with them, they at least need to change the goal posts. It is just not sustainable as an economic model to promise these deals any longer. Granted, human nature dictates that current workers will demand what their predecessors had. Demands like this are not based on fair argument. Their predecessors had considerably lower life expectancies for one thing. Their predecessors were also not subjected to the European Working Time Directive.
The huge pension deficit will one day be the death of the NHS unless somebody takes the bull by the horns now. The problem is that we have a political system in which votes at the next General Election are the be all and end all. Herein lies the flaw. Its highly likely that the current Coalition will make way for the big spenders of Labour because the cuts have exerted levels of discomfort which people don't like. They don't like them because they've not had to live with them during the Labour administration. The truth is that the Labour years cost us. Nothing is for nothing. The years of plenty came on the back of huge levels of public borrowing. Not sustainable. We can either face up to that reality or continue to live in denial.
Aspiration is admirable. I'm glad to see a health secretary seeking to address the allocation of funds within the NHS. The problem is far bigger though than the one he is currently trying to fix. His proposals concern secondary care whereas he really needs to widen his focus to include primary care as well. It is the latter which will best alleviate the strains on the former. The world over, health systems which prioritise funds to primary care boast the best health outcomes. There used to be a game where a frog's head would pop up and you had to quickly try and hit it with a hammer. By the time you had done so, a new frog's head had emerged nearby. That is a fairly good analogy of the way secondary care currently runs in our country. Primary care seeks to sort the frog out before it gets to that stage.
If we continue to build bigger hospitals and close more comunity hospitals and GP practices, the new hospitals will quickly become filled. This is pointless and is sadly already happening. If we restore investment to local health provision, we stand a better chance of connecting back to local communities and, in so doing, address the problems with our patients before they get out of hand and require hospital admissions. If we see the light and adopt the latter approach, GPs will be able to continue working their current hours with out of hours services being handled on local rota systems.
Where Jeremy Hunt really needs to address his focus though is with the members of our society whose health outcomes can best be influenced. He needs to engage with health education of our children. Only then will the tripartate addictions of sugar, smoking and alcohol be addressed. We aren't doing enough about these three simple problems. Engaging with families needs to be the starting point with school engagement following on from that. It will also mean him coming down hard on the big food manufacturers who exert such profound influence on our existing society. Their penchant for lobbying will render such a task highly challenging.
Jeremy Hunt has asked bosses of Quangos to address the numbers of people being paid salaries in excess of £100,000. This almost says it all. It is plain wrong that so many people are milking the NHS cash cow. This has been allowed to carry on unchallenged for too long now so its great to see a government minister getting involved. Its easy to give people money but its the devil's own job to take it away so I wish him well. To give a scale of the challenge ahead of him, nearly 8,000 NHS managers and consultants were last year paid six figure salaries. Its the NHS not a charity. Nobody is questioning the committment and training required of a modern day NHS consultant, but there surely comes a level of pay above which reality is lost. It has to operate like a business like any other and the current model has frankly lost sight of reality. The national average wage is barely a quarter of that so its to time to wake up. If we don't, we simply won't have an NHS free at the point of access for all. Restricting pay at the highest levels like this might reap some other benefits. It is alarming how many people are now pursuing a medical career principally for the money. Restricting the wage of the high earners might just be sufficient to deter some of these. If we end up with a more altruistic, compassionate cohort of medics, Lord Francis might one day see the sort of NHS which his recent report called for. In the meantime, the measures needed are likely to lose votes for the party brave enough to take them. Only a moral approach will arrive at such measures. The alternative is more of the same political inertia and this will serve nobody.
To address levels of pay though is to avoid the the more logical solution. For fear of sounding like a long playing record, it is the subject of final salary pensions which must be addressed. If nobody is going to be honest and brave enough to dispense with them, they at least need to change the goal posts. It is just not sustainable as an economic model to promise these deals any longer. Granted, human nature dictates that current workers will demand what their predecessors had. Demands like this are not based on fair argument. Their predecessors had considerably lower life expectancies for one thing. Their predecessors were also not subjected to the European Working Time Directive.
The huge pension deficit will one day be the death of the NHS unless somebody takes the bull by the horns now. The problem is that we have a political system in which votes at the next General Election are the be all and end all. Herein lies the flaw. Its highly likely that the current Coalition will make way for the big spenders of Labour because the cuts have exerted levels of discomfort which people don't like. They don't like them because they've not had to live with them during the Labour administration. The truth is that the Labour years cost us. Nothing is for nothing. The years of plenty came on the back of huge levels of public borrowing. Not sustainable. We can either face up to that reality or continue to live in denial.
Aspiration is admirable. I'm glad to see a health secretary seeking to address the allocation of funds within the NHS. The problem is far bigger though than the one he is currently trying to fix. His proposals concern secondary care whereas he really needs to widen his focus to include primary care as well. It is the latter which will best alleviate the strains on the former. The world over, health systems which prioritise funds to primary care boast the best health outcomes. There used to be a game where a frog's head would pop up and you had to quickly try and hit it with a hammer. By the time you had done so, a new frog's head had emerged nearby. That is a fairly good analogy of the way secondary care currently runs in our country. Primary care seeks to sort the frog out before it gets to that stage.
If we continue to build bigger hospitals and close more comunity hospitals and GP practices, the new hospitals will quickly become filled. This is pointless and is sadly already happening. If we restore investment to local health provision, we stand a better chance of connecting back to local communities and, in so doing, address the problems with our patients before they get out of hand and require hospital admissions. If we see the light and adopt the latter approach, GPs will be able to continue working their current hours with out of hours services being handled on local rota systems.
Where Jeremy Hunt really needs to address his focus though is with the members of our society whose health outcomes can best be influenced. He needs to engage with health education of our children. Only then will the tripartate addictions of sugar, smoking and alcohol be addressed. We aren't doing enough about these three simple problems. Engaging with families needs to be the starting point with school engagement following on from that. It will also mean him coming down hard on the big food manufacturers who exert such profound influence on our existing society. Their penchant for lobbying will render such a task highly challenging.
Jeremy Hunt has asked bosses of Quangos to address the numbers of people being paid salaries in excess of £100,000. This almost says it all. It is plain wrong that so many people are milking the NHS cash cow. This has been allowed to carry on unchallenged for too long now so its great to see a government minister getting involved. Its easy to give people money but its the devil's own job to take it away so I wish him well. To give a scale of the challenge ahead of him, nearly 8,000 NHS managers and consultants were last year paid six figure salaries. Its the NHS not a charity. Nobody is questioning the committment and training required of a modern day NHS consultant, but there surely comes a level of pay above which reality is lost. It has to operate like a business like any other and the current model has frankly lost sight of reality. The national average wage is barely a quarter of that so its to time to wake up. If we don't, we simply won't have an NHS free at the point of access for all. Restricting pay at the highest levels like this might reap some other benefits. It is alarming how many people are now pursuing a medical career principally for the money. Restricting the wage of the high earners might just be sufficient to deter some of these. If we end up with a more altruistic, compassionate cohort of medics, Lord Francis might one day see the sort of NHS which his recent report called for. In the meantime, the measures needed are likely to lose votes for the party brave enough to take them. Only a moral approach will arrive at such measures. The alternative is more of the same political inertia and this will serve nobody.
Sunday, 27 October 2013
Cheaper TV?
A government minister today warned that the BBC stands to lose its automatic right to the licence fee if it continues to operate in secret. Grant Shapps warns that the BBC needs to regain public trust in order to justify their right to a licence fee which the independent sector would kill for. You can see his point but I can't help but wonder if he has actually missed the wider point.
Although the cost of heating bills continues to dominate our headlines as various political figures squabble for votes, it isn't my heating bill which causes me the most irritation. It isn't that my wealth renders my heating bill a stroll in the park because just like everyone else, it is a constant headache. For all that though, the bill which irks me the most is the TV licence fee. Once a year I pay the £145.50 and resent almost every penny. I wouldn't begrudge this fee if it were for the radio. I find the radio provision, on the whole, to be of decent quality. Radio 4 in particular continues to set the standard in broadcasting. The TV is another matter.
I shouldn't think I watch more than about 6 hours a month and really, honestly wouldn't miss it a jot if it wasn't. Much has been written about the effect of TV on our society. I don't think we can deny the way it has eroded freedom for adults and children alike. We fight tooth and nail to keep the TV in its place. It is situated in one of the least inviting rooms and would be laughed at by the average bloke owing to its evident antiquity. Put simply, it is not important because there is so much more to see and do.
This brings me to Grant Shapps and his idea to slash the licence fee. I couldn't disagree more with him. I would double it to begin with and assess how many people choose not to pay it. If people don't pay it, the TV will either be driven underground or people will seek other avenues of pleasure. As fewer people would hopefully pay the fee, the income to the BBC would be accordingly slashed. They would then be faced with weeding out the dross of which plenty. They would also be reminded of their role. They are a public service broadcaster, not a secret society. Just as we saw the appalling lack of good grace shown by the police in the aftermath of the Andrew Mitchell inquiry, the BBC has become an unaccountable mess with obscene salaries and pay-offs being paid on the back of an unchallenged licence fee.
We are told that all the Local Councils will be experiencing cuts of about 5% for the next financial year. Look at you local council. Do you think they could survive with such cuts? Of course they can. All this shows is just how over-funded they have been for so long. The last Labour government proved one thing. You can throw as much money as you like at public service, but it is of limited value unless you engage the people most in need of assistance - the public! This pointless trend of waste needs to stop and we all need to step back and ask, as President Kennedy once famously said, "not what our country can do for us, but what we can do for our country". I appreciate it sounds very cliched now, but its message is as relevant now as it was sixty years ago.
The word cut is emotive if not put in to context. Cuts compared to what? Would we all be worse off if we became involved in communites which came together and made things happen collectively for the good of the many rather than the few? The latter will never happen if we just watch TV all day and I'm not suggesting that the majority do. Spending my time in Knighton, I have been reminded of the beauty of rural life. When the working day ends at 5.00pm, a series of community activities spring to life and the people get together. There is little or no Local Council input. This is just people doing things collectively for the common good. In a way, they do so because they are so isolated geographically. If they can do it in a place like Knighton, they can do it anywhere. For that to happen, there needs to be the will and the need. The TV has its place but the community has to come first because the country just can't sustain life with the status quo. For all that is being written about the woes of the NHS, the argument really needs to get back to the grass roots. This is where the people come in. If we want a better system, we need to get back to a community level. This means more GP practices not more hospitals. Hospitals deal with people beyond the scope of General Practice. If more was invested in the latter, the hospitals wouldn't have their current strain.
Talk of HS2 is frankly obscene when you consider the libraries and day centres which have been closed. This isn't rocket science and neither is it about London. This is all about sustaining small communities. I'm sorry to say, the TV will only have a bit part in such a process. It is to our shame that many elderly in society admit that the TV is their best friend. We all need to play our part in this.
Although the cost of heating bills continues to dominate our headlines as various political figures squabble for votes, it isn't my heating bill which causes me the most irritation. It isn't that my wealth renders my heating bill a stroll in the park because just like everyone else, it is a constant headache. For all that though, the bill which irks me the most is the TV licence fee. Once a year I pay the £145.50 and resent almost every penny. I wouldn't begrudge this fee if it were for the radio. I find the radio provision, on the whole, to be of decent quality. Radio 4 in particular continues to set the standard in broadcasting. The TV is another matter.
I shouldn't think I watch more than about 6 hours a month and really, honestly wouldn't miss it a jot if it wasn't. Much has been written about the effect of TV on our society. I don't think we can deny the way it has eroded freedom for adults and children alike. We fight tooth and nail to keep the TV in its place. It is situated in one of the least inviting rooms and would be laughed at by the average bloke owing to its evident antiquity. Put simply, it is not important because there is so much more to see and do.
This brings me to Grant Shapps and his idea to slash the licence fee. I couldn't disagree more with him. I would double it to begin with and assess how many people choose not to pay it. If people don't pay it, the TV will either be driven underground or people will seek other avenues of pleasure. As fewer people would hopefully pay the fee, the income to the BBC would be accordingly slashed. They would then be faced with weeding out the dross of which plenty. They would also be reminded of their role. They are a public service broadcaster, not a secret society. Just as we saw the appalling lack of good grace shown by the police in the aftermath of the Andrew Mitchell inquiry, the BBC has become an unaccountable mess with obscene salaries and pay-offs being paid on the back of an unchallenged licence fee.
We are told that all the Local Councils will be experiencing cuts of about 5% for the next financial year. Look at you local council. Do you think they could survive with such cuts? Of course they can. All this shows is just how over-funded they have been for so long. The last Labour government proved one thing. You can throw as much money as you like at public service, but it is of limited value unless you engage the people most in need of assistance - the public! This pointless trend of waste needs to stop and we all need to step back and ask, as President Kennedy once famously said, "not what our country can do for us, but what we can do for our country". I appreciate it sounds very cliched now, but its message is as relevant now as it was sixty years ago.
The word cut is emotive if not put in to context. Cuts compared to what? Would we all be worse off if we became involved in communites which came together and made things happen collectively for the good of the many rather than the few? The latter will never happen if we just watch TV all day and I'm not suggesting that the majority do. Spending my time in Knighton, I have been reminded of the beauty of rural life. When the working day ends at 5.00pm, a series of community activities spring to life and the people get together. There is little or no Local Council input. This is just people doing things collectively for the common good. In a way, they do so because they are so isolated geographically. If they can do it in a place like Knighton, they can do it anywhere. For that to happen, there needs to be the will and the need. The TV has its place but the community has to come first because the country just can't sustain life with the status quo. For all that is being written about the woes of the NHS, the argument really needs to get back to the grass roots. This is where the people come in. If we want a better system, we need to get back to a community level. This means more GP practices not more hospitals. Hospitals deal with people beyond the scope of General Practice. If more was invested in the latter, the hospitals wouldn't have their current strain.
Talk of HS2 is frankly obscene when you consider the libraries and day centres which have been closed. This isn't rocket science and neither is it about London. This is all about sustaining small communities. I'm sorry to say, the TV will only have a bit part in such a process. It is to our shame that many elderly in society admit that the TV is their best friend. We all need to play our part in this.
Thursday, 24 October 2013
Not a good week for the Police?
News emerges that the Irish police have had to make a rather embarrassing u turn over the young girl taken from a Roma couple. Having placed the young girl in to care because she was reported as having blonde hair and blue eyes (as opposed to her purported parents), DNA tests have now showed that she is indeed their daughter. Well, fancy that!
The real issue here of course is one of xenophobia. Had the girl been living in a middle class Dublin family, I don't imagine for one minute the same steps would have been taken. In the same week as the Andrew Mitchell trial in London, this is turning out to be a week to forget for the police. They have shown themselves to be anything but unbiased and will not emerge from any of these incidents with great credit.
The obvious political angle in the Andrew Mitchell case is the more worrying in that it seriously undermines their impartiality. When their own chief officer refuses to acknowledge their shortcomings, you start to think that the power has gone to their head. They clearly don't feel remotely accountable to anybody and, on that basis, we should all be very worried.
At the centre of the Andrew Mitchell story is the word Pleb. It is the shortened version of the word Plebian and originates from Ancient Rome. It referred to the ordinary, common classes of people in Roman society. They were a good mixture of skilled and unskilled people and would have been shopkeepers, craftsmen and the like. I wonder how many of the officers on duty at Downing Street that day would have known what it actually meant? I don't mean to doubt their intelligence because they have clearly made the story up anyway. If they hadn't though, they should know that far from being a derogatory word, pleb actually referes to the mainstays of our society despite our modern world tending to misconstrue its real meaning.
But back to the Irish Police. Will they return the poor girl with apology and magnanimity or will they give the time served police cop out, "we were just doing our job". Heaven help us but we all know it will be the latter...
The real issue here of course is one of xenophobia. Had the girl been living in a middle class Dublin family, I don't imagine for one minute the same steps would have been taken. In the same week as the Andrew Mitchell trial in London, this is turning out to be a week to forget for the police. They have shown themselves to be anything but unbiased and will not emerge from any of these incidents with great credit.
The obvious political angle in the Andrew Mitchell case is the more worrying in that it seriously undermines their impartiality. When their own chief officer refuses to acknowledge their shortcomings, you start to think that the power has gone to their head. They clearly don't feel remotely accountable to anybody and, on that basis, we should all be very worried.
At the centre of the Andrew Mitchell story is the word Pleb. It is the shortened version of the word Plebian and originates from Ancient Rome. It referred to the ordinary, common classes of people in Roman society. They were a good mixture of skilled and unskilled people and would have been shopkeepers, craftsmen and the like. I wonder how many of the officers on duty at Downing Street that day would have known what it actually meant? I don't mean to doubt their intelligence because they have clearly made the story up anyway. If they hadn't though, they should know that far from being a derogatory word, pleb actually referes to the mainstays of our society despite our modern world tending to misconstrue its real meaning.
But back to the Irish Police. Will they return the poor girl with apology and magnanimity or will they give the time served police cop out, "we were just doing our job". Heaven help us but we all know it will be the latter...
Quality of Life
It was announced yesterday that considerable variety exists between the happiness of our citizens in the UK. Seemingly, those living in the country are happier than those living in the cities. As one who has lived various parts of my life in both, I can fully understand these findings.
Recently, a series of reports have highlighted the growing economic gulf between London and the rest of the UK. As long as this and subsequent governments continue to favour London, this gap will only widen. That is only the economic perspective though. The same survey which explored happiness also explored stress and anxiety. Unsurprisingly, the high earners in London were among the most stressed and anxious in our country.
There is always a price to pay. Money alone does not bring happiness. It certainly opens the doors to a more material lifestyle but it doesn't usually make for happiness. Happiness is, of course, rather difficult to measure because it is so subjective. I have said for a number of years now that even an offer of £1 million pounds per year would not persuade me back to London. To start with, it is prohibitively expensive both for a roof over your head and for day to day living expenses. More than this though is the distinct lack of cohesion. I couldn't look back and say that people were happy when I lived there because they were all too busy getting to the next job. I would rather be working to live than living to work.
One thing London does lack is head space. Granted, it does have some great public parks but unless you happen to live next to one, you are then faced with the transport system to get there. It seems as though the growth of London is basically sustaining our economy since a great deal of our national tax burden is paid by its denizens. We can't have it both ways. We need London for what it gives uf financially but it doesn't mean that we all have to go and live there.
Having returned to live in the country eighteen years ago, I couldn't imagine living anywhere else now. I do like to go back to London to visit but enjoy the moment when I have to leave for the less frantic environment of the country. The conundrum facing many is that London offers better employment opportunities at the expense of quality of life. Its a simple matter of choice.
One part of the report which was interesting was to note that Northern Ireland has become one of the happiest places to live. Although it is very rural and stunningly beautiful, its hard not to recall the troubles which beset the entire region until quite recently. It goes to show that there are always good times around the corner and I'm pleased that the folk in Ulster have weathered their storm.
Recently, a series of reports have highlighted the growing economic gulf between London and the rest of the UK. As long as this and subsequent governments continue to favour London, this gap will only widen. That is only the economic perspective though. The same survey which explored happiness also explored stress and anxiety. Unsurprisingly, the high earners in London were among the most stressed and anxious in our country.
There is always a price to pay. Money alone does not bring happiness. It certainly opens the doors to a more material lifestyle but it doesn't usually make for happiness. Happiness is, of course, rather difficult to measure because it is so subjective. I have said for a number of years now that even an offer of £1 million pounds per year would not persuade me back to London. To start with, it is prohibitively expensive both for a roof over your head and for day to day living expenses. More than this though is the distinct lack of cohesion. I couldn't look back and say that people were happy when I lived there because they were all too busy getting to the next job. I would rather be working to live than living to work.
One thing London does lack is head space. Granted, it does have some great public parks but unless you happen to live next to one, you are then faced with the transport system to get there. It seems as though the growth of London is basically sustaining our economy since a great deal of our national tax burden is paid by its denizens. We can't have it both ways. We need London for what it gives uf financially but it doesn't mean that we all have to go and live there.
Having returned to live in the country eighteen years ago, I couldn't imagine living anywhere else now. I do like to go back to London to visit but enjoy the moment when I have to leave for the less frantic environment of the country. The conundrum facing many is that London offers better employment opportunities at the expense of quality of life. Its a simple matter of choice.
One part of the report which was interesting was to note that Northern Ireland has become one of the happiest places to live. Although it is very rural and stunningly beautiful, its hard not to recall the troubles which beset the entire region until quite recently. It goes to show that there are always good times around the corner and I'm pleased that the folk in Ulster have weathered their storm.
Wednesday, 23 October 2013
St Brigids: People Power!
In a piece I wrote this summer, I highlighted the plight of St. Brigids school in Denbigh. The local Denbighshire council had announced plans to close it and merge it with another school by closing that school as well. They had planned to build a new one for reasons which nobody understood then and nobody understands now.
I'm delighted to report that the sheer volume of people who got behind this fight have seen the council off. They have just announced that they have shelved those plans due to the strength of opposition. This is a classic example of how localism can beat the big boys as long as everyone sticks together and puts on a united front.
The staff at St. Brigids who fought so hard to make this happen deserve special praise. This is what happems when a community closes ranks against the local government machine. The use of social media played a huge part and it was nice to see this happening in my home town.
The issue at stake here was faith schools. The council was determined to close two of them and make access to a new one even more difficult. As odd as it may seem to them, faith is really important for youngsters. Whether they choose to embrace it in later life is a matter for them but they can at least benefit from its basic messages in their formative years. This has been a victory for common sense, localism and true community spirit. A hearty well done to all concerned.
For their part, the council will need to come up with slightly less cynical ways to make cost savings. When we make cost savings, the process usually starts at home. I don't see why it should be any different for them. Judging by the high number of cars I see every day at the huge Council Offices, it seems as though they have room for maneouvre on their nown door step. Not that I expect them to consider that possibility for a second...
I'm delighted to report that the sheer volume of people who got behind this fight have seen the council off. They have just announced that they have shelved those plans due to the strength of opposition. This is a classic example of how localism can beat the big boys as long as everyone sticks together and puts on a united front.
The staff at St. Brigids who fought so hard to make this happen deserve special praise. This is what happems when a community closes ranks against the local government machine. The use of social media played a huge part and it was nice to see this happening in my home town.
The issue at stake here was faith schools. The council was determined to close two of them and make access to a new one even more difficult. As odd as it may seem to them, faith is really important for youngsters. Whether they choose to embrace it in later life is a matter for them but they can at least benefit from its basic messages in their formative years. This has been a victory for common sense, localism and true community spirit. A hearty well done to all concerned.
For their part, the council will need to come up with slightly less cynical ways to make cost savings. When we make cost savings, the process usually starts at home. I don't see why it should be any different for them. Judging by the high number of cars I see every day at the huge Council Offices, it seems as though they have room for maneouvre on their nown door step. Not that I expect them to consider that possibility for a second...
Alex Ferguson remembered
The BBC political editor Nick Robinson yesterday wrote a piece extolling the management credentials of the former Manchester United manager Alex Ferguson. He cites Ferguson's three core values of loyalty, control and discipline.
If I had to pick one person who best epitomises the odious, unsavoury aspects of modern day British sport, I would need look no further than this man. When I was growing up, we all thought that we would never see a worse loser than the American tennis player John McEnroe. How wrong we were. Ferguson is the man who petulantly refused interviews to the BBC for a number of years because one of their journalists had said things with which he didn't agree. It is therefore quite easy to see how he managed Manchester United.
The "My way or the highway" school of management is not a new phenomenon and will always have its place. Up to a point. By his own admission, his intransigence over the departure of Japp Stam cost him dearly. In the following seasons, the title was ceded to Chelsea because of his inability to compromise. It is revealed by Nick Robinson that Ferguson gravitated to Gordon Brown rather than Tony Blair. I bet he did. You've only got to recall how Brown imposed his Stalinist doctrine on his party to see why. Even though Brown managed to upset just about everybody within sniffing distance, Ferguson still admired his management style. Why? Control.
Of the three attributes referred to by Nick Robinson, it is the business of control which best sums up the Ferguson approach. Control freak would be more apt. Certainly he won a lot of trophies domestically but that success didn't translate to the European stage. What I most take issue with is the manner with which achieved his success. His was the mantra of success at all costs. The number of referees who were successfully bullied by him is just mind boggling. Are there no strong characters left anymore? He ought to have banished to the stands far more frequently than he was. His style was to rule by fear.
This is the bit where I take issue with Nick Robinson's assessment. You can't just judge good managers on results if the people responsible are petrified. The best managers I have worked for in Industry have never been the bullying type because they've never felt the insecurity to be that way. I just can't think of a more sore loser than Ferguson. When he was winning, all was well with his world but even when his team had been well and truly thumped, he still felt the need to identify a scapegoat. Great managers don't do that. Great managers look inside themselves and question how they might have done things differently. Great managers also achieve results on limited resources by maximising utility of the skill base at their disposal.
This is not a book which I would choose to pick up let alone read because I think some of us worked this man out a long time ago. Sure, he won a few trophies and spent a lot of money along the way but I have one question; how many of his former players speak highly of him publicly? Not that many for a purportedly great manager. The only thing that was great about him as far as I can see is that he made a sharp exit when he knew his luck was running out. His successor has inherited a disenfranchised ageing squad who are just coming to terms with the reality that the controlling Ferguson has eventually gone.
In short, Ferguson displayed most of the attributes which you would more normally associate with the great dictators. I'm sorry to say that this for me does not constitute a great manager. I have certainly encountered a great many who seem to think that it does, but they have much to learn about the art of management. Great managers inspire their colleagues. I don't believe Ferguson ever regarded his players as colleagues. In his world, they knew their place and he knew his. That is a million miles away from great management. Success is not the only measure of a manager. It is one measure. In Ferguson's case, it is not even a good measure because he spent such vast sums of money to get it.
I only hope that this is the last we see of him because he represnets the worst aspects of the Professional era. Thanks to him, win at all costs has superceded winning with style and good grace. Winning for him was the be all and end all. It didn't matter the lengths to which he had to go to get there - just as long as he won. I certainly won't miss him or his petulance but I fear his his style has become the prototype for a new generation of managers. That is the biggest shame of all.
If I had to pick one person who best epitomises the odious, unsavoury aspects of modern day British sport, I would need look no further than this man. When I was growing up, we all thought that we would never see a worse loser than the American tennis player John McEnroe. How wrong we were. Ferguson is the man who petulantly refused interviews to the BBC for a number of years because one of their journalists had said things with which he didn't agree. It is therefore quite easy to see how he managed Manchester United.
The "My way or the highway" school of management is not a new phenomenon and will always have its place. Up to a point. By his own admission, his intransigence over the departure of Japp Stam cost him dearly. In the following seasons, the title was ceded to Chelsea because of his inability to compromise. It is revealed by Nick Robinson that Ferguson gravitated to Gordon Brown rather than Tony Blair. I bet he did. You've only got to recall how Brown imposed his Stalinist doctrine on his party to see why. Even though Brown managed to upset just about everybody within sniffing distance, Ferguson still admired his management style. Why? Control.
Of the three attributes referred to by Nick Robinson, it is the business of control which best sums up the Ferguson approach. Control freak would be more apt. Certainly he won a lot of trophies domestically but that success didn't translate to the European stage. What I most take issue with is the manner with which achieved his success. His was the mantra of success at all costs. The number of referees who were successfully bullied by him is just mind boggling. Are there no strong characters left anymore? He ought to have banished to the stands far more frequently than he was. His style was to rule by fear.
This is the bit where I take issue with Nick Robinson's assessment. You can't just judge good managers on results if the people responsible are petrified. The best managers I have worked for in Industry have never been the bullying type because they've never felt the insecurity to be that way. I just can't think of a more sore loser than Ferguson. When he was winning, all was well with his world but even when his team had been well and truly thumped, he still felt the need to identify a scapegoat. Great managers don't do that. Great managers look inside themselves and question how they might have done things differently. Great managers also achieve results on limited resources by maximising utility of the skill base at their disposal.
This is not a book which I would choose to pick up let alone read because I think some of us worked this man out a long time ago. Sure, he won a few trophies and spent a lot of money along the way but I have one question; how many of his former players speak highly of him publicly? Not that many for a purportedly great manager. The only thing that was great about him as far as I can see is that he made a sharp exit when he knew his luck was running out. His successor has inherited a disenfranchised ageing squad who are just coming to terms with the reality that the controlling Ferguson has eventually gone.
In short, Ferguson displayed most of the attributes which you would more normally associate with the great dictators. I'm sorry to say that this for me does not constitute a great manager. I have certainly encountered a great many who seem to think that it does, but they have much to learn about the art of management. Great managers inspire their colleagues. I don't believe Ferguson ever regarded his players as colleagues. In his world, they knew their place and he knew his. That is a million miles away from great management. Success is not the only measure of a manager. It is one measure. In Ferguson's case, it is not even a good measure because he spent such vast sums of money to get it.
I only hope that this is the last we see of him because he represnets the worst aspects of the Professional era. Thanks to him, win at all costs has superceded winning with style and good grace. Winning for him was the be all and end all. It didn't matter the lengths to which he had to go to get there - just as long as he won. I certainly won't miss him or his petulance but I fear his his style has become the prototype for a new generation of managers. That is the biggest shame of all.
Tuesday, 22 October 2013
Sign of things to come?
North Wales is a good place to start assessing the current state of the NHS. It isn't often that you get three district general hospitals to supply the needs of a population as small as 675,000 people. That is the reality for people living in the North of the Principality. Given such comparitive luxury, you may be forgiven for expecting a Utopian vision of the NHS. You would be very disappointed.
It is revealed that ambulances turning up at Glan Clwyd hospital just outside Rhyl had to be turned away because the hospital couldn't take any more admissions. Instead, these ambulances were sent to the other two hospitals in Wrexham and Bangor, each being 33 miles away. I can only hope that there weren't any serious emergencies on board those ambulances because a delay of that order could easily be the difference between life and death.
All this comes in the aftermath of the decision to close community hospitals in Flint, Llangollen, Blaenau Ffestiniog and Prestatyn. As with other rural regions of the UK, the problem with a place like North Wales is its geography. We can change many thnings but distance isn't one of them. That is why North Wales has had such a robust distribution of smaller community hospitals. Campaigners correctly warned against their closure citing that patients would simply be relocated to the larger district general hospitals thus blocking bed space normally at hand for acute admission cases.
Nationally, the NHS pattern seems to be to build a massive central hospital and expect everyone to travel to it irrespective of the distances involved. This approach is riddled with flaws and moreso in a place like North Wales. Many of the population are reliant on a public transport sytem which is often more of a threat than a promise. Many live in rural communities miles from anywhere. The cost of fuel for those who do drive has inflicted yet another burden on already stretched resources. Big is not always beautiful and the standards of care in the smaller community hospitals is often much better because many of the staff are local and familiar to the patients.
This is simply a question of recognising the best setting for sections of our patient population. Up until the closure of the North Wales Hospital in Denbigh, most care of the elderly was looked after very well with the community hospitals picking up the pieces. Since the closure, the strain on the community hospitals has just become greater as our population continues its relentless feats of longevity. It therefore seems mad to close these vital units down because the district general hospitals will obviously bear the brunt. This is further proof of the folly of short sighted thinking. To ditch the vital resources which you already have is daft when the existing DGHs can't even cope with the numbers coming through the door as it stands.
In Llangollen, the folly has been taken to a new level. Following the closure of the community hospital which has served the town for 150 years, the powers that be announced plans to build a new one about 500 metres down the road. If I live to be 100, I will never understand the ratioanle for such an idiotic decision. This is madness followed by waste at a time when we are told there is no money. It's no wonder the NHS is struggling so much with decisions like these.
It is revealed that ambulances turning up at Glan Clwyd hospital just outside Rhyl had to be turned away because the hospital couldn't take any more admissions. Instead, these ambulances were sent to the other two hospitals in Wrexham and Bangor, each being 33 miles away. I can only hope that there weren't any serious emergencies on board those ambulances because a delay of that order could easily be the difference between life and death.
All this comes in the aftermath of the decision to close community hospitals in Flint, Llangollen, Blaenau Ffestiniog and Prestatyn. As with other rural regions of the UK, the problem with a place like North Wales is its geography. We can change many thnings but distance isn't one of them. That is why North Wales has had such a robust distribution of smaller community hospitals. Campaigners correctly warned against their closure citing that patients would simply be relocated to the larger district general hospitals thus blocking bed space normally at hand for acute admission cases.
Nationally, the NHS pattern seems to be to build a massive central hospital and expect everyone to travel to it irrespective of the distances involved. This approach is riddled with flaws and moreso in a place like North Wales. Many of the population are reliant on a public transport sytem which is often more of a threat than a promise. Many live in rural communities miles from anywhere. The cost of fuel for those who do drive has inflicted yet another burden on already stretched resources. Big is not always beautiful and the standards of care in the smaller community hospitals is often much better because many of the staff are local and familiar to the patients.
This is simply a question of recognising the best setting for sections of our patient population. Up until the closure of the North Wales Hospital in Denbigh, most care of the elderly was looked after very well with the community hospitals picking up the pieces. Since the closure, the strain on the community hospitals has just become greater as our population continues its relentless feats of longevity. It therefore seems mad to close these vital units down because the district general hospitals will obviously bear the brunt. This is further proof of the folly of short sighted thinking. To ditch the vital resources which you already have is daft when the existing DGHs can't even cope with the numbers coming through the door as it stands.
In Llangollen, the folly has been taken to a new level. Following the closure of the community hospital which has served the town for 150 years, the powers that be announced plans to build a new one about 500 metres down the road. If I live to be 100, I will never understand the ratioanle for such an idiotic decision. This is madness followed by waste at a time when we are told there is no money. It's no wonder the NHS is struggling so much with decisions like these.
Monday, 21 October 2013
What price a servant?
From the mirky depths of British public life emerges a monster in distress. I refer of course to the House of Commons whose members are outraged by proposals to cut expense claims. This is the same group of people who were recently exposed to be abusing the very same privileges on an unbelievable scale.
For fear of sounding overly old fashioned, I was always under the impression that a Member of Parliament was a democratically elected public servant. Unless anybody can put me right on this, it seems difficult to understand why their £66,396 is considered in some way insufficient. At more than double the national average of £26,500, this seems quite generous to me given that many MPs supplement their Parliamentary income with various directorships and consultancies anyway.
I can only hope that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) stands by their decision and brings the MPs in to the 21st century with everybody else. The absurdity of their objections really does take soem believing. Among the main complaints were a loss of hospitality tea and biscuits, a loss of £15 evening meals if Parliasment sits after 7.30pm, hotels before 1.00, taxi fares home before 2300, contents insurance for a second home and, if you can believe it, installing a TV in second home.
As public servants, I'm amazed they have time to watch TV - I don't and I'm not even earning. As for tea and biscuits, I am amazed by their cheek. If the removal of such privileges means we lose a load of self serving parasites, their replacements would presumably be grateful to do the same job sans biscuits - I would! Therev are evidently far too many people aiming to make a cosy career out of political life rather than serving the best interests of the constituents they purport to represent. Second homes? They're lucky they've even got one at a time when thousands of people can't even afford to keep the roof over their head. Now is not a good time for the politicians to be on the make. Their bargaining power was surrendered when the full extent of their greed was exposed by the Telegraph. The biggest scandal is the bare faced cheek. People like Cameron, Clegg and Milliband have never worked in the sense that you or I would understand and it sometimes really shows. The world owes them no more than it owes you or I so roll on the Parliamentary austerity. At least that way we will be left with those who really do have our best interests at heart.
They compare themselves to other professionals. The problem is that they don't behave like them.
For fear of sounding overly old fashioned, I was always under the impression that a Member of Parliament was a democratically elected public servant. Unless anybody can put me right on this, it seems difficult to understand why their £66,396 is considered in some way insufficient. At more than double the national average of £26,500, this seems quite generous to me given that many MPs supplement their Parliamentary income with various directorships and consultancies anyway.
I can only hope that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) stands by their decision and brings the MPs in to the 21st century with everybody else. The absurdity of their objections really does take soem believing. Among the main complaints were a loss of hospitality tea and biscuits, a loss of £15 evening meals if Parliasment sits after 7.30pm, hotels before 1.00, taxi fares home before 2300, contents insurance for a second home and, if you can believe it, installing a TV in second home.
As public servants, I'm amazed they have time to watch TV - I don't and I'm not even earning. As for tea and biscuits, I am amazed by their cheek. If the removal of such privileges means we lose a load of self serving parasites, their replacements would presumably be grateful to do the same job sans biscuits - I would! Therev are evidently far too many people aiming to make a cosy career out of political life rather than serving the best interests of the constituents they purport to represent. Second homes? They're lucky they've even got one at a time when thousands of people can't even afford to keep the roof over their head. Now is not a good time for the politicians to be on the make. Their bargaining power was surrendered when the full extent of their greed was exposed by the Telegraph. The biggest scandal is the bare faced cheek. People like Cameron, Clegg and Milliband have never worked in the sense that you or I would understand and it sometimes really shows. The world owes them no more than it owes you or I so roll on the Parliamentary austerity. At least that way we will be left with those who really do have our best interests at heart.
They compare themselves to other professionals. The problem is that they don't behave like them.
Newton's Third Law
In an attempt to grab a headline or two a fortnight ago, the Labour leader made a promise which surprised many. His promise to freeze energy prices in the event of him becoming PM in 18 months' time wouldn't have looked out of place in Tesco. Very appealing to the punters, it was, on the face of it, a good head turner. Up to a point Lord Copper!
Since that rather pointless promise, I have noticed how the laws of physics can be observed in all walks of life. Newton's third law dictates that "to every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction". Since Milliband made that speech, all of the major energy suppliers have issued their response in robust terms. Their mantra appears to have followed a "we'll get in first just in case he really is elected". If Milliband wasn't expecting their subsequent reaction, he is frankly even more naive than I thought he was.
Respectively, two of the big six energy providers have since announced price rises of 8.2% and 10.4%. Did he really not see that one coming? I bet their price rises would have been a fraction of these amounts but for Milliband's rash announcement. We can now say that he has so far succeeded in increasing prices for people far beyond inflation. Even if he were to be elected and enact his promise, the energy companies would still be way ahead of the game. I said at the time that this policy anouncement was silly and stand by that.
Had he attempted to tackle the real issues instaed of trying to grab a quick headline, he might have actually achieved something. Why are people using so much? Do they need to? Are the energy companies being adequately regulated? Is there enough competition? Could the tariffs be made easier for everyone instead of the just those withy internet access who can understand all the gobbledygook? Are their better alternatives to gas and elctric? He addressed none of these.
The energy companies have now delivered an equal and opposite reaction and Mr. Milliband I fear now has the makings of an ommelette on his face - of his own making.
Since that rather pointless promise, I have noticed how the laws of physics can be observed in all walks of life. Newton's third law dictates that "to every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction". Since Milliband made that speech, all of the major energy suppliers have issued their response in robust terms. Their mantra appears to have followed a "we'll get in first just in case he really is elected". If Milliband wasn't expecting their subsequent reaction, he is frankly even more naive than I thought he was.
Respectively, two of the big six energy providers have since announced price rises of 8.2% and 10.4%. Did he really not see that one coming? I bet their price rises would have been a fraction of these amounts but for Milliband's rash announcement. We can now say that he has so far succeeded in increasing prices for people far beyond inflation. Even if he were to be elected and enact his promise, the energy companies would still be way ahead of the game. I said at the time that this policy anouncement was silly and stand by that.
Had he attempted to tackle the real issues instaed of trying to grab a quick headline, he might have actually achieved something. Why are people using so much? Do they need to? Are the energy companies being adequately regulated? Is there enough competition? Could the tariffs be made easier for everyone instead of the just those withy internet access who can understand all the gobbledygook? Are their better alternatives to gas and elctric? He addressed none of these.
The energy companies have now delivered an equal and opposite reaction and Mr. Milliband I fear now has the makings of an ommelette on his face - of his own making.
Food Revolution
The saddest part about revelations which show that Tesco has thrown over 30,000 tonnes of food away in the last quarter is that I wasn't even remotely surprised. Certainly I was appalled but I wasn't surprised. The trouble is that this has been allowed to evolve over many years as Tesco has continued its obscene domination of the UK retail sector.
In these posts, I have long advocated the advantages and strengths of localism and this news just adds more weight to my argument. To understand these revelations better though, it is instructive to analyse the details.
We are told that one of the biggest items thrown away is bags of salad. There are two sides to this. Not everybody shops at Tesco so they will always be faced with buying challenges when stocking up their fresh produce offerings. That said, Tesco have Clubcard. Not so much to reward your custom as you may mistakenly believe, but rather to track your buying patterns and seek to supply them accordingly for the maximum profit. Therefore, they can't even predict with accuracy how much stock they need on their shelves even when armed with the buyinf patterns of their customers. They either have a sub-standard buying department or an over ambitious growth forecast.
Aside from the obvious point that we have increasingly become a nation of salad dodgers, the other possibility here is simply that people have seen through the Tesco vision and returned to the riches of localism to be found on their own high streets. Recent market research data would appear to confirm this view.
The Tesco disclosure also asserts that its customers also continue to waste large amounts of the food they purchase. The latter is well known and should be highlighted as a national disgrace. It is immoral that we complain about austerity while throwing so much food away when people in other parts of the world really are starving to death daily. While Tesco are quite right to point to household waste, I would remind them that the latter is made possible by companies such as themselves using every marketing tool in the book to squeeze every last penny out of its Clubcard clutching customers. Just this morning, their Commercial Director of Group Food asserts that Tesco is seeking to reduce the average £700 per annum currently being thrown away by their customers so that they have more money in their pockets - so that they can spend it in Tesco of course! Is it just me or is the strategy of this and its equally nauseous friends at Asda, Morrison's and Sainsbury's barn door obvious. Their entire business models are based on continued expansion to fund even more stores and rest assured, they couldn't care a fig how they do it just as long as they can show a profit to their share holders. Frankly, its a bit rich for a company like Tesco to be pointing to the amount being thrown out by the British consumer. They really should seek to get their own house in order first. They can't have it both ways. They want everybody's custom and to eradicate the competition but woe betide you if you buy an extra bag of salad from them (which they promoted in the first place) which then gets thrown away.
Nationally, our waste of food is morally repugnant. It is utterly inexcusable. If there was a huge snow storm today which meant that everybody was confined to their homes for a couple of weeks, do you think many would starve? Of course, there would be some that would but the majority have freezers and cupboards stocked up to the brim. We all need to just take a step back here and take a look at the people in the world (of whom far too many) who genuinely don't know where their next meal is coming from. Shame on Tesco and shame on us. This problem belongs to all of us. It is immune from Nimbyism and we all have some soul searching to do.
Wherever possible, my family now spends its money on our local high street. This supports local jobs. The local shopkeeper knows me and we know him. I don't have a Clubcard but I have a fair price and buy only the food which I need. I also know that much of the food I buy has been reared and produced locally so it hasn't travelled far. The Tesco apples being thrown away have been flown half way around the world and sprayed with sulphur dioxide to give the impression of freshness. My local grocer doesn't need to do that because my local apples are just that - local and fresh. Yesterday, we ate some rocket lettuce which will thankfully never see a plastic bag. We picked it fresh from our garden and it tasted like, well, rocket lettuce - as you would expect. As the saying goes, "you pay your money and you take your choice"....
In these posts, I have long advocated the advantages and strengths of localism and this news just adds more weight to my argument. To understand these revelations better though, it is instructive to analyse the details.
We are told that one of the biggest items thrown away is bags of salad. There are two sides to this. Not everybody shops at Tesco so they will always be faced with buying challenges when stocking up their fresh produce offerings. That said, Tesco have Clubcard. Not so much to reward your custom as you may mistakenly believe, but rather to track your buying patterns and seek to supply them accordingly for the maximum profit. Therefore, they can't even predict with accuracy how much stock they need on their shelves even when armed with the buyinf patterns of their customers. They either have a sub-standard buying department or an over ambitious growth forecast.
Aside from the obvious point that we have increasingly become a nation of salad dodgers, the other possibility here is simply that people have seen through the Tesco vision and returned to the riches of localism to be found on their own high streets. Recent market research data would appear to confirm this view.
The Tesco disclosure also asserts that its customers also continue to waste large amounts of the food they purchase. The latter is well known and should be highlighted as a national disgrace. It is immoral that we complain about austerity while throwing so much food away when people in other parts of the world really are starving to death daily. While Tesco are quite right to point to household waste, I would remind them that the latter is made possible by companies such as themselves using every marketing tool in the book to squeeze every last penny out of its Clubcard clutching customers. Just this morning, their Commercial Director of Group Food asserts that Tesco is seeking to reduce the average £700 per annum currently being thrown away by their customers so that they have more money in their pockets - so that they can spend it in Tesco of course! Is it just me or is the strategy of this and its equally nauseous friends at Asda, Morrison's and Sainsbury's barn door obvious. Their entire business models are based on continued expansion to fund even more stores and rest assured, they couldn't care a fig how they do it just as long as they can show a profit to their share holders. Frankly, its a bit rich for a company like Tesco to be pointing to the amount being thrown out by the British consumer. They really should seek to get their own house in order first. They can't have it both ways. They want everybody's custom and to eradicate the competition but woe betide you if you buy an extra bag of salad from them (which they promoted in the first place) which then gets thrown away.
Nationally, our waste of food is morally repugnant. It is utterly inexcusable. If there was a huge snow storm today which meant that everybody was confined to their homes for a couple of weeks, do you think many would starve? Of course, there would be some that would but the majority have freezers and cupboards stocked up to the brim. We all need to just take a step back here and take a look at the people in the world (of whom far too many) who genuinely don't know where their next meal is coming from. Shame on Tesco and shame on us. This problem belongs to all of us. It is immune from Nimbyism and we all have some soul searching to do.
Wherever possible, my family now spends its money on our local high street. This supports local jobs. The local shopkeeper knows me and we know him. I don't have a Clubcard but I have a fair price and buy only the food which I need. I also know that much of the food I buy has been reared and produced locally so it hasn't travelled far. The Tesco apples being thrown away have been flown half way around the world and sprayed with sulphur dioxide to give the impression of freshness. My local grocer doesn't need to do that because my local apples are just that - local and fresh. Yesterday, we ate some rocket lettuce which will thankfully never see a plastic bag. We picked it fresh from our garden and it tasted like, well, rocket lettuce - as you would expect. As the saying goes, "you pay your money and you take your choice"....
Sunday, 20 October 2013
Marinaleda: Myth or Reality?
Marinaleda is a village for our times. It is not universally well known as I write but I have a feeling that it soon will be. In common with many areas of modern day Andalucia, it has suffered more than most at the hands of the global credit crisis and the Spanish construction debacle.
The most bold and innovative human decisions are frequently executed when the chips are down. Marinaleda is a case in point. It claims, with some justification, to be a Utopian Communist village. Here, the people led by their mayor, joined forces to buy the local land. As with every story of radical change, it has to start somewhere and the starting point here was a local unemployment rate of 60%. Put simply, it was a farming community with no land.
The big irony in this story is that a self proclaimed Communist Utopia sprung up on the back of the facist years of General Franco. The story of Marinelda has evolved over thirty years in the most gradual of fashions. The mayor Sanchez Gordillo who led the mini revolution is unsurprisingly fond of quoting that great Communist hero, Che Guevera. To get a perspective of what unemployment is like for the under 25s in the UK it is instructive to consider their cousins in the Andalucian region of Southern Spain. In Andalucia, over 55% of the under 25s are unemployed. What hope for a future? This is fertile ground for a radical change of direction. Fortunately for the population of Marinaleda, they have already assumed their self sufficiency in which the whole is greater than the individual.
Spain had a construction bubble for a dozen years which burst in spectacular fashion in the immediate aftermath of the global credit crisis. Nationally, Spain remains in dire straits financially and lurches precariously from one bail out to the next. While Marinaleda was originally the subject of derision within its locality, many must now look upon their progressive society with more than a little envy.
In the end, we can build as many houses as we like, but we still need to grow produce and work the land. More pertinently, we need to get back to basics with our fellow man. The current system is laughably unsustainable and it looks as though a tiny village in Andalucia is now having the last laugh. Maybe the secret to their success is that they have kept their project small and local. Small and local are the by words for the progress of our society. History shows this time and again but will we listen?
The most bold and innovative human decisions are frequently executed when the chips are down. Marinaleda is a case in point. It claims, with some justification, to be a Utopian Communist village. Here, the people led by their mayor, joined forces to buy the local land. As with every story of radical change, it has to start somewhere and the starting point here was a local unemployment rate of 60%. Put simply, it was a farming community with no land.
The big irony in this story is that a self proclaimed Communist Utopia sprung up on the back of the facist years of General Franco. The story of Marinelda has evolved over thirty years in the most gradual of fashions. The mayor Sanchez Gordillo who led the mini revolution is unsurprisingly fond of quoting that great Communist hero, Che Guevera. To get a perspective of what unemployment is like for the under 25s in the UK it is instructive to consider their cousins in the Andalucian region of Southern Spain. In Andalucia, over 55% of the under 25s are unemployed. What hope for a future? This is fertile ground for a radical change of direction. Fortunately for the population of Marinaleda, they have already assumed their self sufficiency in which the whole is greater than the individual.
Spain had a construction bubble for a dozen years which burst in spectacular fashion in the immediate aftermath of the global credit crisis. Nationally, Spain remains in dire straits financially and lurches precariously from one bail out to the next. While Marinaleda was originally the subject of derision within its locality, many must now look upon their progressive society with more than a little envy.
In the end, we can build as many houses as we like, but we still need to grow produce and work the land. More pertinently, we need to get back to basics with our fellow man. The current system is laughably unsustainable and it looks as though a tiny village in Andalucia is now having the last laugh. Maybe the secret to their success is that they have kept their project small and local. Small and local are the by words for the progress of our society. History shows this time and again but will we listen?
Saturday, 19 October 2013
C'est la folie!
In a recent article, I wrote about the decision of the French Government to extradite a large community of Roma from their community located near to the Belgian border. Coming from a Socialist government, this decision seems to go against the grain. In my post, I berated them for the insularity of their approach and pointed out the lack of humanity in their decision.
It now emerges that the French students are bringing parts of the country to a standstill. This part of French society has a proud history of demonstration dating back to the turbulent years of the late 1960s. It is telling that it falls to French students to effect change when this should be the domain of the government.
The slogan of the French Republic is liberte, egalite, fraternite - liberty, equality, fraternity. They either need to adopt a newer more relevant slogan or pay heed to the common sense views of their youth. Fine words are all well and good but only if you can enact them. While the UK seems to have its entry lights permanently stuck on green, it seems as though our EU neighbours are not quite so welcoming.
As I write, migrants risk their lives daily as they try to find unattended vehicles in Calais bound for the UK. The aim is to find a lorry and try and hold on upside down underneath or hide in the trailer if it happens to be unlocked. The risks to life and limb are obvious. The obvious question though is why they see the UK as the promised land. It may have been before Iain Duncan Smith got to grips with the Welfare State but those days are over. I just wonder why it is taking so long for the message to get through. Innocent lives will be lost as economic migrants seek a better life in London.
Dick Whittington aside, there are few who come to London with nothing and make anything of themselves. The cost of living alone is prohibitive so quite how they seek to get by is puzzling. It's not that the UK doesn't want immigrants. Its just that there simply aren't enough houses and jobs for the ones who are here. This takes us a little nearer to the heart of the problem. I can well understand why people in war torn areas of North Africa are prepared to risk their lives for a better life elsewhere. The problem is whether a better life awaits them. The grass might look greener but appearances can be deceptive. When migrants are over here or in France, the country in question has a moral duty to provide for them the Maslowian basics. A roof over their heads, some money to buy food and support to seek employment. The latter isn't optional in a civilised society..
In May of 1968, French students began demonstrating in the Sorbonne. They were soon joined by 11,000,000 countrymen. My advice to the current Socialist government would be to cast their eyes over the history books. Even they would think twice about a return to those tempestuous times wouldn't they?
http://betweendenbighandkeele.blogspot.com/2013/09/a-local-town-for-local-people.html
It now emerges that the French students are bringing parts of the country to a standstill. This part of French society has a proud history of demonstration dating back to the turbulent years of the late 1960s. It is telling that it falls to French students to effect change when this should be the domain of the government.
The slogan of the French Republic is liberte, egalite, fraternite - liberty, equality, fraternity. They either need to adopt a newer more relevant slogan or pay heed to the common sense views of their youth. Fine words are all well and good but only if you can enact them. While the UK seems to have its entry lights permanently stuck on green, it seems as though our EU neighbours are not quite so welcoming.
As I write, migrants risk their lives daily as they try to find unattended vehicles in Calais bound for the UK. The aim is to find a lorry and try and hold on upside down underneath or hide in the trailer if it happens to be unlocked. The risks to life and limb are obvious. The obvious question though is why they see the UK as the promised land. It may have been before Iain Duncan Smith got to grips with the Welfare State but those days are over. I just wonder why it is taking so long for the message to get through. Innocent lives will be lost as economic migrants seek a better life in London.
Dick Whittington aside, there are few who come to London with nothing and make anything of themselves. The cost of living alone is prohibitive so quite how they seek to get by is puzzling. It's not that the UK doesn't want immigrants. Its just that there simply aren't enough houses and jobs for the ones who are here. This takes us a little nearer to the heart of the problem. I can well understand why people in war torn areas of North Africa are prepared to risk their lives for a better life elsewhere. The problem is whether a better life awaits them. The grass might look greener but appearances can be deceptive. When migrants are over here or in France, the country in question has a moral duty to provide for them the Maslowian basics. A roof over their heads, some money to buy food and support to seek employment. The latter isn't optional in a civilised society..
In May of 1968, French students began demonstrating in the Sorbonne. They were soon joined by 11,000,000 countrymen. My advice to the current Socialist government would be to cast their eyes over the history books. Even they would think twice about a return to those tempestuous times wouldn't they?
http://betweendenbighandkeele.blogspot.com/2013/09/a-local-town-for-local-people.html
Unfair GP exam?
The BBC Asian network today reveals that doctors from the ethnic minorities are four times more likely than their white (presumably British) counterparts to fail the clinical GP exam. This has been researched after ethnic minority doctors branded the exam as unfair. The Royal College of GPs has issued a robust defence and the debate lumbers on.
The exams referred to are mock situations in which candidates are required to demonstrate proficiency in all aspects of GP care. Thus, clinical reasoning, communication, patient management and a whole host of other criteria are being assessed. Professor Aneez Esmail is leading the argument which points to unfair bias against ethnic minority doctors in the UK.
While I can see the basis of his argument, I think he is missing a fundamental point. All medical students have to pass their exams to progress in their training irrespective of ethnicity. That is beyond doubt. What is missing in this argument though is the views of the estimated 60 million Britons who access GP care. The views of Professor Esmail and the Royal College are all well and good but it has to be the views of the patients which carry the most weight. As I write, I see no findings as to what patients think. That is probably because they aren't involved in the process of assessment. This I feel is a big mistake.
Given that patients come form all walks of life and all sorts of cultures, this would surely be a much better basis for assessment. Clinical knowledge and reasoning has to be professionally assessed and nobody would argue with that. But that is to assess the would be GP from just one side of the fence. Given the existing levels of distrust between the public and the doctors in the wake of so many prominent healthcare scandals, it would seem a trifle naive to continue this assessment process without some form of patient involvement.
To demonstrate my point, I'm pretty sure that I would struggle with an assessment in Spain or Italy or Germany because my proficiency in those languages is poor. My medical knowledge is not being disputed. It is my ability to convey it and implement it in another language and culture which underpins this whole debate.
The exams referred to are mock situations in which candidates are required to demonstrate proficiency in all aspects of GP care. Thus, clinical reasoning, communication, patient management and a whole host of other criteria are being assessed. Professor Aneez Esmail is leading the argument which points to unfair bias against ethnic minority doctors in the UK.
While I can see the basis of his argument, I think he is missing a fundamental point. All medical students have to pass their exams to progress in their training irrespective of ethnicity. That is beyond doubt. What is missing in this argument though is the views of the estimated 60 million Britons who access GP care. The views of Professor Esmail and the Royal College are all well and good but it has to be the views of the patients which carry the most weight. As I write, I see no findings as to what patients think. That is probably because they aren't involved in the process of assessment. This I feel is a big mistake.
Given that patients come form all walks of life and all sorts of cultures, this would surely be a much better basis for assessment. Clinical knowledge and reasoning has to be professionally assessed and nobody would argue with that. But that is to assess the would be GP from just one side of the fence. Given the existing levels of distrust between the public and the doctors in the wake of so many prominent healthcare scandals, it would seem a trifle naive to continue this assessment process without some form of patient involvement.
To demonstrate my point, I'm pretty sure that I would struggle with an assessment in Spain or Italy or Germany because my proficiency in those languages is poor. My medical knowledge is not being disputed. It is my ability to convey it and implement it in another language and culture which underpins this whole debate.
Friday, 18 October 2013
Ever so lonely.
I'm pleased to see Jeremy Hunt revisiting the debate on loneliness inour society. Make no mistake, the loneliness is not in our country; it is in our society. Already, the trigger happy finger of Labour accuses Mr. Hunt of blaming families. If they could just for once listen to what's being said, they might one day become more helpful. Far from restricting his blame to the families of the lonely, Mr. Hunt rightly asserts the problem to be one for all of us. That is the point.
While I'm aware that loneliness among the elderly is not an entirely new problem, it's certainly a growing problem as our lives become more insular. The current government and too many of its predecessors have all played their part in this. One of the biggest contributory factors to the growing cases of loneliness is the relentless erosion of small communites. The trend to move the retail sector out of town has been one of the biggest problems. A vibrant high street usually points to a vibrant community. There will be many reading this who, like me, live in a place where the high street has been systematically destroyed by the misguided decision making of local government. There will be a minority of the lucky ones too who have fought tooth and nail to retain the independence and, by inference, strength of their high streets. The latter are essential to sustain local community cohesion. The former have only destroyed cohesion.
The wider point here is that communites and true community spirit does not spring up overnight like a mushroom in October. Such communities evolve and grow over decades and centuries. They take time to develop. By contrast, they can be destroyed in months and rebuilding them costs both time and money.
Labour is right to highlight the importance of family in the care of their own elderly but would do well to heed the words of a famous Chinese proverb. In China, it is said that it takes an entire village to bring up a child. Similarly, in Scandinavia a new housing development begins with where the play area is going to be and where the elderly will be looked after. Rightly, the two ends of the ageing process are seen as key components of Scandinavian society. When I look around the UK today, we are getting better at childcare but still have far to go. When I look at care of the elderly, I despair at what has happened to us. These are the people from whom we can learn so much and yet become the most neglected members of our society. Its very difficult to make sense of that. In Spain, neglected dogs are rounded up and put down but their elderly are well looked after and receive frequent visits from family and friends alike. In the UK, we are revered as a nation of dog lovers and would rather clean the bathroom than visit an elderly relative or neighbour.
Mr. Hunt correctly points to Asian cultures from whom we can learn so much. For them, residential care is always the last option. This should be our aspiration too. If people intend to turn this in to a political debate centred around the cost of care, that is fine by me. The provision of care for the elderly does cost a lot. That cost would be greatly reduced if families and communities took greater responsibility and compassion. It is well known that the elderly tend to prosper far better with the continuity of familiar faces and surroundings. I've seen this myself countless times so wonder why we have developed such an aversion to the very people without whom we wouldn't even be here?
The preoccupation with self which has come to define our age will not be an attractive time to look back on for the next generation. We are in danger of becoming too insular and forget about the people around us who sometimes would just benefit from a bit of human contact. Care might only mean having a chat or putting the kettle on but even such small things are massively beneficial. I don't agree with most of what Mr. Hunt says but applaud him for bringing this issue to the fore. This isn't about money. This is about humanity. Oscar Wilde said "A cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing". We need to ditch the cynicism and recognise the value here. This isn't going to take money but it might take a few minutes out of our lives which we think are too busy but in reality, never are.
While I'm aware that loneliness among the elderly is not an entirely new problem, it's certainly a growing problem as our lives become more insular. The current government and too many of its predecessors have all played their part in this. One of the biggest contributory factors to the growing cases of loneliness is the relentless erosion of small communites. The trend to move the retail sector out of town has been one of the biggest problems. A vibrant high street usually points to a vibrant community. There will be many reading this who, like me, live in a place where the high street has been systematically destroyed by the misguided decision making of local government. There will be a minority of the lucky ones too who have fought tooth and nail to retain the independence and, by inference, strength of their high streets. The latter are essential to sustain local community cohesion. The former have only destroyed cohesion.
The wider point here is that communites and true community spirit does not spring up overnight like a mushroom in October. Such communities evolve and grow over decades and centuries. They take time to develop. By contrast, they can be destroyed in months and rebuilding them costs both time and money.
Labour is right to highlight the importance of family in the care of their own elderly but would do well to heed the words of a famous Chinese proverb. In China, it is said that it takes an entire village to bring up a child. Similarly, in Scandinavia a new housing development begins with where the play area is going to be and where the elderly will be looked after. Rightly, the two ends of the ageing process are seen as key components of Scandinavian society. When I look around the UK today, we are getting better at childcare but still have far to go. When I look at care of the elderly, I despair at what has happened to us. These are the people from whom we can learn so much and yet become the most neglected members of our society. Its very difficult to make sense of that. In Spain, neglected dogs are rounded up and put down but their elderly are well looked after and receive frequent visits from family and friends alike. In the UK, we are revered as a nation of dog lovers and would rather clean the bathroom than visit an elderly relative or neighbour.
Mr. Hunt correctly points to Asian cultures from whom we can learn so much. For them, residential care is always the last option. This should be our aspiration too. If people intend to turn this in to a political debate centred around the cost of care, that is fine by me. The provision of care for the elderly does cost a lot. That cost would be greatly reduced if families and communities took greater responsibility and compassion. It is well known that the elderly tend to prosper far better with the continuity of familiar faces and surroundings. I've seen this myself countless times so wonder why we have developed such an aversion to the very people without whom we wouldn't even be here?
The preoccupation with self which has come to define our age will not be an attractive time to look back on for the next generation. We are in danger of becoming too insular and forget about the people around us who sometimes would just benefit from a bit of human contact. Care might only mean having a chat or putting the kettle on but even such small things are massively beneficial. I don't agree with most of what Mr. Hunt says but applaud him for bringing this issue to the fore. This isn't about money. This is about humanity. Oscar Wilde said "A cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing". We need to ditch the cynicism and recognise the value here. This isn't going to take money but it might take a few minutes out of our lives which we think are too busy but in reality, never are.
Thursday, 17 October 2013
Easy Street in the UK
I've just read the piece by Cristina Odone and applaud her for her stance. While I don't agree with every tiny detail, the central thrust of her piece can be cut and pasted across virtually every part of the Public Sector in the UK today.
Stripping the argument right back to its roots, we find that greed has thrived at the expense of vocation and altruism. Perhaps this is a legacy of the Britain we have now created. We now have a minimum wage and I'm still not clear how exactly the figure was ever arrived at or costed. Much has been written about poverty in our country since the 2008 crash. Absolute rubbish. We need to wake up in this country. Cast your eyes abroad and you will begin to appreciate what true poverty means. Granted, we now have food banks in most towns and cities but that just means that we are affluent enough and lucky enough to have them.
Speaking after the David Cameron speech at the recent Conservative party conference, a prominent Tory cabinet member revealed that he understood fully the hardships being faced by Britons every day. To demonstrate his point, he said that in his childhood he had experienced the demise of his father's business which meant that they had to do without a new car or a foreign holiday for a couple of years. With the utmost respect, that is not poverty. The amount we pay our teachers today is not poverty. It might well be low when compared with house prices but that is a completely separate matter. By definition, anyone with a roof over their head, food on the table and clothes to keep warm has got the bare necessities. That is not poverty.
Instead of that, we have largely lost sight of reality as the consumer society takes hold of our common sense. Teachers have a reasonable amount of annual leave (understatement). They still enjoy a final salary pension scheme which the country can't even afford to pay. Almost to a man, they are all union members ready to down tools at the drop of a hat. Since the dark days of Brown at the Exchequer, Public Servants such as teachers are now better paid that their Private Sector counterparts.
Cristine Odone is absolutely correct. The problem is that human avarice dictates that they don't want to cede any of their existing privileges for fear some people might have more than they have. While I loathe league tables, I recognise the falling standards of literacy and numeracy and fear for the legacy. As an extension of the argument presented today, I would strongly suggest that parents also need to be taking a more active role in the education of their children.
We have become a docile load of consumers all too willing to turn to the state to run our lives for us. I don't really understand why because we are all quite capable of doing more for ourselves and our families. The State doesn't owe us. We owe things to ourselves. In their defence, teachers are all too often being measured on children with appalling skills. Teachers are at their best when dealing with a child who has had the right nuts and bolts put in before they get to school. This is the single most important area where we need to learn as a country and as a society. The State should augment our lives - not run them!
As employees like any other, teachers know full well that the job required of them is open to change from time to time. In Scandinavia, their counterparts are luckier because a succession of governments have all been singing of the same hymn sheet. In the UK, a new government means another bout of "All change!". I don't envy the teachers their jobs but then I didn't choose to be a teacher. If they are not happy, other jobs are available - only not as many as before 2008...As such, my advice to them and their unions is this: "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't". No, I'm sure its not perfect but in the great big scheme of things, its not a bad life. In the end, their job is to try and optimise the education of the children in their class. How that is delivered can be debated ad infinitum. The bare minimum though is that they can read, write and mentally calculate. If we can't even achieve these, we are all in trouble.
Stripping the argument right back to its roots, we find that greed has thrived at the expense of vocation and altruism. Perhaps this is a legacy of the Britain we have now created. We now have a minimum wage and I'm still not clear how exactly the figure was ever arrived at or costed. Much has been written about poverty in our country since the 2008 crash. Absolute rubbish. We need to wake up in this country. Cast your eyes abroad and you will begin to appreciate what true poverty means. Granted, we now have food banks in most towns and cities but that just means that we are affluent enough and lucky enough to have them.
Speaking after the David Cameron speech at the recent Conservative party conference, a prominent Tory cabinet member revealed that he understood fully the hardships being faced by Britons every day. To demonstrate his point, he said that in his childhood he had experienced the demise of his father's business which meant that they had to do without a new car or a foreign holiday for a couple of years. With the utmost respect, that is not poverty. The amount we pay our teachers today is not poverty. It might well be low when compared with house prices but that is a completely separate matter. By definition, anyone with a roof over their head, food on the table and clothes to keep warm has got the bare necessities. That is not poverty.
Instead of that, we have largely lost sight of reality as the consumer society takes hold of our common sense. Teachers have a reasonable amount of annual leave (understatement). They still enjoy a final salary pension scheme which the country can't even afford to pay. Almost to a man, they are all union members ready to down tools at the drop of a hat. Since the dark days of Brown at the Exchequer, Public Servants such as teachers are now better paid that their Private Sector counterparts.
Cristine Odone is absolutely correct. The problem is that human avarice dictates that they don't want to cede any of their existing privileges for fear some people might have more than they have. While I loathe league tables, I recognise the falling standards of literacy and numeracy and fear for the legacy. As an extension of the argument presented today, I would strongly suggest that parents also need to be taking a more active role in the education of their children.
We have become a docile load of consumers all too willing to turn to the state to run our lives for us. I don't really understand why because we are all quite capable of doing more for ourselves and our families. The State doesn't owe us. We owe things to ourselves. In their defence, teachers are all too often being measured on children with appalling skills. Teachers are at their best when dealing with a child who has had the right nuts and bolts put in before they get to school. This is the single most important area where we need to learn as a country and as a society. The State should augment our lives - not run them!
As employees like any other, teachers know full well that the job required of them is open to change from time to time. In Scandinavia, their counterparts are luckier because a succession of governments have all been singing of the same hymn sheet. In the UK, a new government means another bout of "All change!". I don't envy the teachers their jobs but then I didn't choose to be a teacher. If they are not happy, other jobs are available - only not as many as before 2008...As such, my advice to them and their unions is this: "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't". No, I'm sure its not perfect but in the great big scheme of things, its not a bad life. In the end, their job is to try and optimise the education of the children in their class. How that is delivered can be debated ad infinitum. The bare minimum though is that they can read, write and mentally calculate. If we can't even achieve these, we are all in trouble.
Wednesday, 16 October 2013
Graceful Aspiration
Last week I wrote in detail regarding the over reaction of Ed Milliband to articles in the Daily Mail. I repeat that we have a free press in this country. As such, we are all at liberty to read or ignore publications as we see fit. That goes for Mr. Milliband too. Granted, the articles in the Mail may have been contentious but that is what a free press does. It is not for politicians to become embroiled in the tittle tattle of the Press when matters of national importance go unattended.
The decision of David Cameron to enter the fray regarding police behaviour in the "Pleb" saga is a case in point. This is political mischief making pure and simple. There is a Commons committee before which the relevant parties will be summoned in due course to give their version of events. As things stand, they will need to pull a few white rabbits out of the hat because the evidence against them looks overwhelming.
Politicians demanding apologies by proxy is not the way to go. Politicians, as I have said many times before, should concern themselves only with the affairs of State. I do think that the recent police action in the case of Andrew Mitchell is a matter of State. That said, there is a committee whose job is to get to the bottom of the story. As such, it does not merit the intervention of the Prime Minister. Aside form anything else, he risks prejudicing proceedings. He should know better and is very well aware of the potential impact of his actions. It is difficult to recall a time in British Political history when more mud was being thrown. This does not reflect well on our country and brings in to the spotlight once more the behaviour of elected MPs. They have a job to do and would do well to remember that. An arbiter elegantiarum they are not. Theirs is not the moral high ground as evidenced by their activity in the expenses saga. People do remember such indiscretions and don't take kindly to them sitting in judgment on others when their own behaviour has been so palpably wanting.
Perhaps in 2015, the Britsh electorate might demand an apology from Milliband, Cameron et al for abnegation of duty? Due to the selective hearing of the polical elite, I suspect that might fall on deaf ears though.
For the record, it looks as though the police defence is going to revolve around them objecting to being secretly taped by Mr. Mitchell when he agreed to be interviewed by them. Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander and they simply can't have it both ways. There is a cultural problem at present which we desperately need to rid ourselves of. Time and again I see people happily throwing mud at their opponents irrespective of its factual basis safe in the knowledge that there will be no comeback to themselves. Its time we aspired to conduct ourselves with a little more good grace. In his novel "The Water Babies", Charles Kingsley created the wonderful character "Mrs. Bedonebyasyoudid". Perhaps its time she was held up as ideal because our politicians clearly need help.
The decision of David Cameron to enter the fray regarding police behaviour in the "Pleb" saga is a case in point. This is political mischief making pure and simple. There is a Commons committee before which the relevant parties will be summoned in due course to give their version of events. As things stand, they will need to pull a few white rabbits out of the hat because the evidence against them looks overwhelming.
Politicians demanding apologies by proxy is not the way to go. Politicians, as I have said many times before, should concern themselves only with the affairs of State. I do think that the recent police action in the case of Andrew Mitchell is a matter of State. That said, there is a committee whose job is to get to the bottom of the story. As such, it does not merit the intervention of the Prime Minister. Aside form anything else, he risks prejudicing proceedings. He should know better and is very well aware of the potential impact of his actions. It is difficult to recall a time in British Political history when more mud was being thrown. This does not reflect well on our country and brings in to the spotlight once more the behaviour of elected MPs. They have a job to do and would do well to remember that. An arbiter elegantiarum they are not. Theirs is not the moral high ground as evidenced by their activity in the expenses saga. People do remember such indiscretions and don't take kindly to them sitting in judgment on others when their own behaviour has been so palpably wanting.
Perhaps in 2015, the Britsh electorate might demand an apology from Milliband, Cameron et al for abnegation of duty? Due to the selective hearing of the polical elite, I suspect that might fall on deaf ears though.
For the record, it looks as though the police defence is going to revolve around them objecting to being secretly taped by Mr. Mitchell when he agreed to be interviewed by them. Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander and they simply can't have it both ways. There is a cultural problem at present which we desperately need to rid ourselves of. Time and again I see people happily throwing mud at their opponents irrespective of its factual basis safe in the knowledge that there will be no comeback to themselves. Its time we aspired to conduct ourselves with a little more good grace. In his novel "The Water Babies", Charles Kingsley created the wonderful character "Mrs. Bedonebyasyoudid". Perhaps its time she was held up as ideal because our politicians clearly need help.
Tuesday, 15 October 2013
Self Regulation: The dangers
As the worst kept secret in British Political life squirms its way out in to the public domain, we are surely now at the point of no return for self regulation. I refer of course to the news that the three police officers at the centre of the row which cost Andrew Mitchell his job, have had their honesty queried. That to me sounds like a euphemism: they were dishonest, they lied, they covered up, they fabricated. You can dress it up how you like but their behaviour has been a scandal. It is an even bigger scandal that they have been allowed to hide away for as long as this while their organisation sat on its hands and waited in vain for the story to blow away. That they were not even disciplined tells me all I need to know about the way the police force operates in the UK. Same as it ever was....
With revelations concerning the awful Hillsborough tragedy still creeping slowly out of the woodwork all these years later, the time has surely come to put an end to the police regulating and investigating itself. It is clearly not capable of impartiality. The IPCC has said that the police was wrong to say that the three officers had no case to answer. Understatement. In a typically succinct statement, the Police Federation has said it is "shocked" by the findings. We are not told why which is perhaps just as well. I observe that Andrew Mitchell remains out of a job while these officers have been allowed to carry on in the meantime. Shocking. This would not be tolerated in the private sector. This is yet more proof of how public sector power has well and truly gone to its head. They don't see themselves as being accountable to anybody and therefore do and say as they please. In this instance, they just made it up as they went along.
These are the services for which we pay our taxes. It is about time we started to examine the value of that. Aside from their honesty having brought in to question, worse still is the fact that serving police officers have lost their integrity. This always used to be the starting point for such a career. Things aren't what they used to be...To throw mud is easy enough. To accept the consequences is less so. Let's just hope that they are dealt with in the manner that Andrew Mitchell would have been had they had their twisted way.
With revelations concerning the awful Hillsborough tragedy still creeping slowly out of the woodwork all these years later, the time has surely come to put an end to the police regulating and investigating itself. It is clearly not capable of impartiality. The IPCC has said that the police was wrong to say that the three officers had no case to answer. Understatement. In a typically succinct statement, the Police Federation has said it is "shocked" by the findings. We are not told why which is perhaps just as well. I observe that Andrew Mitchell remains out of a job while these officers have been allowed to carry on in the meantime. Shocking. This would not be tolerated in the private sector. This is yet more proof of how public sector power has well and truly gone to its head. They don't see themselves as being accountable to anybody and therefore do and say as they please. In this instance, they just made it up as they went along.
These are the services for which we pay our taxes. It is about time we started to examine the value of that. Aside from their honesty having brought in to question, worse still is the fact that serving police officers have lost their integrity. This always used to be the starting point for such a career. Things aren't what they used to be...To throw mud is easy enough. To accept the consequences is less so. Let's just hope that they are dealt with in the manner that Andrew Mitchell would have been had they had their twisted way.
Still Crazy After All These Years!
A few years ago, I had the pleasure of interviewing people who had worked at the North Wales Hospital in the '60s, '70s, '80s and '90s. As the principal psychiatric institution for the whole of North Wales, it was an impressive building and a major employer to the town of Denbigh in particular. The conclusions of the many interviews which I conducted are borne out in the news today. Given that the North Wales Hospital closed in 1995, that does not reflect well on anyone.
One of the interesting disclosures was the way in which government inspections were carried out. If the inspectors arrived unannounced, as they did from time to time, the man at the gatehouse quickly phoned through to the main hospital. That bought just enough time for the wards to make the necessary changes to satisfy the inspectors. That is chilling because I was also told about practices which went on there which you wouldn't even consider for a wild animal. Patients were physically chained up and regularly found themselves on the receiving end of physical methods which are unrelated to the concept of care. Those practices were put on hold while the inspectors were there though. The advent of anti-psychotic drugs such as Largactil was also handy because challenging patients could be quickly sedated in time for the inspectors.
Proposals to install CCTV cameras in to Care Homes are therefore not surprising. Its a pity that we have to consider such measures but it reminds us of the cruelty of our species. Whether or not we are talking about isolated cases is not really the issue here. What matters is that such practice goes on at all. Even a CCTV camera can be covered up though. The capacity of one man to inflict misery on his fellow man should never be underestimated and the world provides us with daily reminders in case we should need them.
Caring for challenging patients calls for incredible dedication and patience. At the core of such care should be the clear understanding that such patients have very complex needs. If we don't invest sufficiently on the back of that in terms of high quality training and education, we are doing these patients and their families a great disservice. Worse still, we have failed to move on from practices which ought to have consigned to history a long time ago. The real issue here is to address just why the Caring Profession as a whole is so woefully undervalued by this and previous governments. The carers in our society whether paid or unpaid have always been at the back of the queue in the renumeration stakes. But neither is this argument solely about money. Indeed, I would argue that the best carers I have ever seen have been the friends, spouses, sons, daughters and parents who care for their own for no financial reward. That is where big brother might really be watching you! In some ways, this is the ideal because the motive to care is, in most cases, beyond question. Having said that, the country has a great many people dependent on care who don't have the luxury of that type of family support.
Perhaps we need to start to think about the concept of care at a much earlier stage. During my research, I found that the Care Profession and the people for whom it provides care are stigmatised by wider society. It's almost as if the NIMBY attitude is in full swing. The problem of course is that all of us will need some form of care at some stage in our lives so such denial is facile. By all means have CCTV cameras but it would be more productive to just engage with those people doing the caring. If there are strains and difficulties, it is surely better to be aware of them and act upon them before the strain becomes too great. All carers are human and all humans have a limit of emotional and physical endurance. That is an inescapable fact. We need to recognise this. I don't believe CCTV cameras are the answer any more than money is the answer.
When I spent three years caring a decade ago, what I really needed was to just have a break from time to time. A whole weekend would have been heaven. Yes, I was paid a pittance by the government but that is not my point. I was caring for someone I chose to care for so would have done so for nothing. What I would have really valued was some respite. From my experience, the day to day demands of caring are not great for a personal sense of well being. I can easily understand how some people would go on to develop mental health issues because the strain is immense. Either way, this is a problem which is only likely to get bigger as people continue to live longer thanks to the advances of medical science. What medical science doesn't always do though is to attach quality of life to those extra years. As such, the whole arena of care is now of paramount importance. To ignore that would be inhumane. To do something constructive about it would prove that we are capable of altruism even when we're short of cash. Governments always have demands made upon the monies available to them and I understand that. But faced with a choice between a fast train between London and Birmingham at a cost of at least £50 billion or getting to grips with the care sector, I know where my money would be. Care has languished for too long at the bottom of government priorities. Its time we grew up and started to act with real humanity. Bad practice will continue for as long as we allow care to sit on the sidelines.
One of the interesting disclosures was the way in which government inspections were carried out. If the inspectors arrived unannounced, as they did from time to time, the man at the gatehouse quickly phoned through to the main hospital. That bought just enough time for the wards to make the necessary changes to satisfy the inspectors. That is chilling because I was also told about practices which went on there which you wouldn't even consider for a wild animal. Patients were physically chained up and regularly found themselves on the receiving end of physical methods which are unrelated to the concept of care. Those practices were put on hold while the inspectors were there though. The advent of anti-psychotic drugs such as Largactil was also handy because challenging patients could be quickly sedated in time for the inspectors.
Proposals to install CCTV cameras in to Care Homes are therefore not surprising. Its a pity that we have to consider such measures but it reminds us of the cruelty of our species. Whether or not we are talking about isolated cases is not really the issue here. What matters is that such practice goes on at all. Even a CCTV camera can be covered up though. The capacity of one man to inflict misery on his fellow man should never be underestimated and the world provides us with daily reminders in case we should need them.
Caring for challenging patients calls for incredible dedication and patience. At the core of such care should be the clear understanding that such patients have very complex needs. If we don't invest sufficiently on the back of that in terms of high quality training and education, we are doing these patients and their families a great disservice. Worse still, we have failed to move on from practices which ought to have consigned to history a long time ago. The real issue here is to address just why the Caring Profession as a whole is so woefully undervalued by this and previous governments. The carers in our society whether paid or unpaid have always been at the back of the queue in the renumeration stakes. But neither is this argument solely about money. Indeed, I would argue that the best carers I have ever seen have been the friends, spouses, sons, daughters and parents who care for their own for no financial reward. That is where big brother might really be watching you! In some ways, this is the ideal because the motive to care is, in most cases, beyond question. Having said that, the country has a great many people dependent on care who don't have the luxury of that type of family support.
Perhaps we need to start to think about the concept of care at a much earlier stage. During my research, I found that the Care Profession and the people for whom it provides care are stigmatised by wider society. It's almost as if the NIMBY attitude is in full swing. The problem of course is that all of us will need some form of care at some stage in our lives so such denial is facile. By all means have CCTV cameras but it would be more productive to just engage with those people doing the caring. If there are strains and difficulties, it is surely better to be aware of them and act upon them before the strain becomes too great. All carers are human and all humans have a limit of emotional and physical endurance. That is an inescapable fact. We need to recognise this. I don't believe CCTV cameras are the answer any more than money is the answer.
When I spent three years caring a decade ago, what I really needed was to just have a break from time to time. A whole weekend would have been heaven. Yes, I was paid a pittance by the government but that is not my point. I was caring for someone I chose to care for so would have done so for nothing. What I would have really valued was some respite. From my experience, the day to day demands of caring are not great for a personal sense of well being. I can easily understand how some people would go on to develop mental health issues because the strain is immense. Either way, this is a problem which is only likely to get bigger as people continue to live longer thanks to the advances of medical science. What medical science doesn't always do though is to attach quality of life to those extra years. As such, the whole arena of care is now of paramount importance. To ignore that would be inhumane. To do something constructive about it would prove that we are capable of altruism even when we're short of cash. Governments always have demands made upon the monies available to them and I understand that. But faced with a choice between a fast train between London and Birmingham at a cost of at least £50 billion or getting to grips with the care sector, I know where my money would be. Care has languished for too long at the bottom of government priorities. Its time we grew up and started to act with real humanity. Bad practice will continue for as long as we allow care to sit on the sidelines.
Monday, 14 October 2013
A Very British Affair
The UK today sent two prominent politicians to China with their caps firmly in hand. The Chancellor George Osborne and the present Mayor of London Boris Johnson arrived in Beijing to plead for cash rich China to come to the UK and start spending. Perhaps an open letter might have been more apt?
Dear Li Keqiang
We have come to your country today because frankly, we're in a bit of a pickle. We are one of the most civilised democratic countries in the whole world but the old coffers aren't looking too pretty.
We'll try and get to the point but you're going to have to bear with us on this one. We may not get there together and we might die trying but we'll give it our best shot. Over many years, we have been taking the moral high ground in world affairs. The upshot is that we have probably been involved in more wars than we can afford. That was certainly true in 1945 but the fact is we rather like getting involved. The problem is that wars can be jolly expensive. Rather more expensive than they were in 1945 if we're going to put our cards on the table. In fact, we've only just repaid our debt to America for the money we borrowed to get involved then so you see, all the wars since then have been stretching the old purse somewhat.
Back home things haven't been too much better. As you may know, we have the best health care system in the world. It's so good that we let just about anybody access it completely free because we're rather good chaps really. You don't even need to have a British passport because we just take altruism to new levels. In fact, if we're going to be brutally honest about the whole thing, it wouldn't be so costly if we just had to deal with people from outside the UK. The problem is that we all rather like our grub and don't much like that exercise rubbish. We could really do with some new ambulances capable of taking the weight of our patients and were rather hoping you might come up trumps and trouser us a few quid in that direction.
Everyone seems to think we have a great education system and we're more than happy to go along with that if it means you'll send loads of your students over. Of course, you do understand we'll have to charge them about £30,000 per annum for their tuition fees but they will, after all, have a British degree at the end of it so you can't very well argue with that can you? Your students might take a while to adjust to the social life of our youngsters. Putting it bluntly, they quite like to let their hair down a bit. Well, rather a lot if we're going to be straight with you. They all seem to have great fun though and we're sure your chaps will soon get the hang of it. Basically, if they like booze, it'll be a doddle in the UK for them.
The other thing is transport. We've been a bit lax in that department. In the '60s, we paid a bloke a lot of money to tell us what to do with our trains. The trouble is, he did. Mr. Beeching took a pretty big hatchet to our train lines which was good for a while because everyone wanted a car instead. The problem is that there seem to be rather a lot of cars now. So many in fact that all our cars now come with just 2 gears because there's basically no need for third, fourth or fifth because the whole car thing has got so damned slow. The trouble is that everyone now has one and we need them to but petrol in so that we can tax the backside off them.
We believe your coffers are looking pretty good so thought you wouldn't miss it too much if it was spent over in the UK. We know we haven't always been the nicest to you in the past but well, let's let bygones be bygones shall we? Oh yes, about our Prime Minister and that Dalai Lama chappy. Complete misunderstanding that one we're afraid. He went to Eton but isn't much good at saying what he thinks so he has to be PM. Boris here also went to Eton but he's a bit of a straight talker and that wouldn't go down to well with the Civil Service chaps back in Blighty.
Come to that, we'd better fill you in on our Public Sector. In plain terms we like to look after them. Well, that's a little less than the truth actually. The trouble is they're rather strong in number so our hands are a bit tied. They're all on guaranteed inflation proofed final salary pension schemes - and there are milions of the blighters. So you see we're in a bit of a hole as the Americans are so fond of saying.
Contrary to what you might have read in the world press, we're not all that bothered about your Human Rights record as long as you bung a few quid in our direction. You don't even need to think about the whole of the UK because we certainly don't. All we want is for London to get plenty of dough. The other chaps are a resilient lot and quite capable of surviving on virtually nothing. Well, that's what we've been giving them up to now anyway.
We're rather keen on a new railway line because we used to be good at that sort of thing. We don't want all those silly branch lines like we used to have. All we really need is to connect London to Manchester and Birmingham. It'll just make the the people outside London think that we care about them. The trouble is that this new line is going to cost about £50 billion. Well, that's we've told the people back home anyway because they seem to believe most of what we say. Quite surprising really because we've been spinning them yarns for years now! You have to wonder how we ever won any wars - we do!
We'd better come clean with you. We're bloody desperate and if you don't agree to throw some money our way, I'm afraid we'll find ourselves in Queer Street. We've been there before and its starting to get a bit tiresome now so just name your own terms and we'll gladly sign on the dotted line. Oh yes, before we forget, do you remember that Post Office we used to have? Well, we sold it for a song last week because we needed the money. The trouble is that we're now running out of things to sell so thought maybe you needed somewhere to offload your dough. Tax? Don't even mention it. We'll say no more about it as long as you make it, let's say. £100 billion to get the ball rolling.
Pretty please. Pretty, pretty please. We've always loved the way you run your country.
Yours sincerely
George and Boris
We love you China (No, really we do - honestly!).
Dear Li Keqiang
We have come to your country today because frankly, we're in a bit of a pickle. We are one of the most civilised democratic countries in the whole world but the old coffers aren't looking too pretty.
We'll try and get to the point but you're going to have to bear with us on this one. We may not get there together and we might die trying but we'll give it our best shot. Over many years, we have been taking the moral high ground in world affairs. The upshot is that we have probably been involved in more wars than we can afford. That was certainly true in 1945 but the fact is we rather like getting involved. The problem is that wars can be jolly expensive. Rather more expensive than they were in 1945 if we're going to put our cards on the table. In fact, we've only just repaid our debt to America for the money we borrowed to get involved then so you see, all the wars since then have been stretching the old purse somewhat.
Back home things haven't been too much better. As you may know, we have the best health care system in the world. It's so good that we let just about anybody access it completely free because we're rather good chaps really. You don't even need to have a British passport because we just take altruism to new levels. In fact, if we're going to be brutally honest about the whole thing, it wouldn't be so costly if we just had to deal with people from outside the UK. The problem is that we all rather like our grub and don't much like that exercise rubbish. We could really do with some new ambulances capable of taking the weight of our patients and were rather hoping you might come up trumps and trouser us a few quid in that direction.
Everyone seems to think we have a great education system and we're more than happy to go along with that if it means you'll send loads of your students over. Of course, you do understand we'll have to charge them about £30,000 per annum for their tuition fees but they will, after all, have a British degree at the end of it so you can't very well argue with that can you? Your students might take a while to adjust to the social life of our youngsters. Putting it bluntly, they quite like to let their hair down a bit. Well, rather a lot if we're going to be straight with you. They all seem to have great fun though and we're sure your chaps will soon get the hang of it. Basically, if they like booze, it'll be a doddle in the UK for them.
The other thing is transport. We've been a bit lax in that department. In the '60s, we paid a bloke a lot of money to tell us what to do with our trains. The trouble is, he did. Mr. Beeching took a pretty big hatchet to our train lines which was good for a while because everyone wanted a car instead. The problem is that there seem to be rather a lot of cars now. So many in fact that all our cars now come with just 2 gears because there's basically no need for third, fourth or fifth because the whole car thing has got so damned slow. The trouble is that everyone now has one and we need them to but petrol in so that we can tax the backside off them.
We believe your coffers are looking pretty good so thought you wouldn't miss it too much if it was spent over in the UK. We know we haven't always been the nicest to you in the past but well, let's let bygones be bygones shall we? Oh yes, about our Prime Minister and that Dalai Lama chappy. Complete misunderstanding that one we're afraid. He went to Eton but isn't much good at saying what he thinks so he has to be PM. Boris here also went to Eton but he's a bit of a straight talker and that wouldn't go down to well with the Civil Service chaps back in Blighty.
Come to that, we'd better fill you in on our Public Sector. In plain terms we like to look after them. Well, that's a little less than the truth actually. The trouble is they're rather strong in number so our hands are a bit tied. They're all on guaranteed inflation proofed final salary pension schemes - and there are milions of the blighters. So you see we're in a bit of a hole as the Americans are so fond of saying.
Contrary to what you might have read in the world press, we're not all that bothered about your Human Rights record as long as you bung a few quid in our direction. You don't even need to think about the whole of the UK because we certainly don't. All we want is for London to get plenty of dough. The other chaps are a resilient lot and quite capable of surviving on virtually nothing. Well, that's what we've been giving them up to now anyway.
We're rather keen on a new railway line because we used to be good at that sort of thing. We don't want all those silly branch lines like we used to have. All we really need is to connect London to Manchester and Birmingham. It'll just make the the people outside London think that we care about them. The trouble is that this new line is going to cost about £50 billion. Well, that's we've told the people back home anyway because they seem to believe most of what we say. Quite surprising really because we've been spinning them yarns for years now! You have to wonder how we ever won any wars - we do!
We'd better come clean with you. We're bloody desperate and if you don't agree to throw some money our way, I'm afraid we'll find ourselves in Queer Street. We've been there before and its starting to get a bit tiresome now so just name your own terms and we'll gladly sign on the dotted line. Oh yes, before we forget, do you remember that Post Office we used to have? Well, we sold it for a song last week because we needed the money. The trouble is that we're now running out of things to sell so thought maybe you needed somewhere to offload your dough. Tax? Don't even mention it. We'll say no more about it as long as you make it, let's say. £100 billion to get the ball rolling.
Pretty please. Pretty, pretty please. We've always loved the way you run your country.
Yours sincerely
George and Boris
We love you China (No, really we do - honestly!).
Man's inhumanity to man.
Following the first defeat of Napoleon at Leipzig in 1813, he was exiled on the island of Elba. The first French Republic had formed in 1789 following the revolution. Three years later, Louis XVI was sent to the guillotine and thus the revolution achieved its ultimate objective. "Better the devil you know" is the idiom which might have been created with the French in mind.
Two hundred years later, we witness the legacy of the Arab Spring in which a series of revolutions have led to regime changes across North Africa. The high number of migrants drowned off the Southern tip of Italy recently reminds us all of the high price which has to be paid for revolutions. But what would we rather? Was Egypt better off with Mubarak? Was Libya better off with Gadaffi? Sadly, such questions can only be answered in hindsight as the French will testify. The fact is that dictators are not a new phenomenon. History is riddled with them.
Syria continues its bitter civil war as rival factions vie for dominance while the West resists the urge to take sides. And rightly so. Becoming embroiled in the internal affairs of other countries seldom reaps dividends. At least this way, the conclusion will be reached more quickly - no matter how unpalatable the methods employed.
John Arlott was perhaps the finest observer of cricket there has ever been. As England embarked on life after the Second World War, the English cricket team departed for a tour of South Africa. It was during this tour that the England captain George Mann was bowled by his South African namesake "Tufty" Mann. Artlott commented on "Mann's inhumanity to Mann" in his characteristic Hampshire Burr and an army of listeners reflected on the truth of his words both literally and metaphorically.
Of course, the greatest ideological revolution of the twentieth century saw Russia and its neighbours adopting communism. In 2013, North Korea stands alone as the only remaining example of the Communist dream with China about to embark on a spending spree which will culminate in them owning the lion's share of London. Whatever their record on human rights, they have achieved something which seems to have eluded us for an awfully long time - they have amassed a gigantic budget surplus in the form of their sovereign wealth fund.
Across the pond, the US stands on the brink of economic disaster unless the Democrat and Republican protagonists can set aside their differences and for once put the interests of the people first. Failure to do so might raise the possibility of a new venue for revolution. That would make the crash of 2008 seem more like a ripple..
Two hundred years later, we witness the legacy of the Arab Spring in which a series of revolutions have led to regime changes across North Africa. The high number of migrants drowned off the Southern tip of Italy recently reminds us all of the high price which has to be paid for revolutions. But what would we rather? Was Egypt better off with Mubarak? Was Libya better off with Gadaffi? Sadly, such questions can only be answered in hindsight as the French will testify. The fact is that dictators are not a new phenomenon. History is riddled with them.
Syria continues its bitter civil war as rival factions vie for dominance while the West resists the urge to take sides. And rightly so. Becoming embroiled in the internal affairs of other countries seldom reaps dividends. At least this way, the conclusion will be reached more quickly - no matter how unpalatable the methods employed.
John Arlott was perhaps the finest observer of cricket there has ever been. As England embarked on life after the Second World War, the English cricket team departed for a tour of South Africa. It was during this tour that the England captain George Mann was bowled by his South African namesake "Tufty" Mann. Artlott commented on "Mann's inhumanity to Mann" in his characteristic Hampshire Burr and an army of listeners reflected on the truth of his words both literally and metaphorically.
Of course, the greatest ideological revolution of the twentieth century saw Russia and its neighbours adopting communism. In 2013, North Korea stands alone as the only remaining example of the Communist dream with China about to embark on a spending spree which will culminate in them owning the lion's share of London. Whatever their record on human rights, they have achieved something which seems to have eluded us for an awfully long time - they have amassed a gigantic budget surplus in the form of their sovereign wealth fund.
Across the pond, the US stands on the brink of economic disaster unless the Democrat and Republican protagonists can set aside their differences and for once put the interests of the people first. Failure to do so might raise the possibility of a new venue for revolution. That would make the crash of 2008 seem more like a ripple..
Sunday, 13 October 2013
British Summertime
What a wonderful weekend! I spent yesterday exploring Denbigh Castle with my son. Built in 1294 during the reign of Edward I, it remains in fantastic condition when you stop to consider its troubled history. The last incarnation of Denbigh Castle was financed by Edward the first following the defeat of Dafydd ap Gruffudd in 1282. Dafydd was the last of the Welsh princes to hold the strategic site and Edward the first's entire reign was spent suppressing Welsh uprisings. This culminated with the eventual retreat of Owain Glyndwr in 1304. Yesterday was a lovely dry autumn day - perfect weather for exploring a medieval castle. CADW is the organisation which maintains the upkeep of these magnificent relics from our past. As town residents, we are granted free access but visitors are not afforded the same privilege. Two parents and a child would get 35p change from ten pounds. That is just scandalous . Aside from the fact that the entire visit only takes about an hour, there is nothing there to occupy children. At a time when we should be feeding their curiosity, children visiting with their parents are effectively being turned away by this exorbitant tariff. To understand our past is the key to working out our future. It is therefore unforgivable to be deterring children and their families in this way. You won't be surprised to learn that we had the whole place to ourselves! We also paid a £5 deposit to access the old castle walls and were treated to some of the best views you could ever hope to see. For any small child, Goblin Tower and its steep staircase is a must. The walls are remarkable intact and you can easily imagine yourself in the late 1200s. Of course, this being Wales and CADW being CADW, this is unfortunately another well kept secret. This should be the focal point of Denbigh but is being kept in the background while the existing High Street dies a slow death. If this were the responsibility of anybody other than the Local Council and CADW, that would soon change. We had a great day but I couldn't help feel that the experience was being needlessly denied to visitors to the town. If you are ever in Denbigh with an hour or two to kill, I urge you to take the opportunity and go to the castle (£3.40 per adult) or just pay a £5 refundable deposit for the key to the Castle Walls - well worth it and especially if you have children. This afternoon, we were at a rugby tournament for children mainly of Primary School age. It was great to see so many children running around being supported by coaches and parents. It was a credit to Mold Rugby Club. What was interesting was the variation in how the coaches of the different clubs embraced their task. Our coach has the attitude that the children should just enjoy the day. For other coaches though, enjoyment was not in the equation. The whole point of being there was to win. I stress that these were children of Primary School age. Interesting. Pressure comes along soon enough as we enter our adult lives so it makes no sense to me to try and introduce it any earlier. Childhood should be enjoyed, not suffered. By far the most enjoyable match was the last one in which both coaches only sought enjoyment. The atmosphere was great and unsurprisingly, the children were happy. You reap what you sow... In just a fortnight, we shall all enjoy the double edged sword of an extra hour in bed at the expense of darker nights and darker mornings. I fear we shall all be missing that wonderful summer as the winter months edge ever closer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)