Saturday, August 08, 2009

Hello, Reader

Hello, reader. (Who am I kidding? I know nobody reads this!) However, it is quite therapeutic to get my thoughts down somewhere.
It is about a month now since my last post. It just seemed so pointless. I made a decision at the beginning of June that I would post every day. It seemed in that month there would be plenty [and there was] to post about. Time, other responsibilities and lack of funds [means seeking work] and repetitive political and economic decisions by our ‘masters’ left me feeling that my responses would be equally repetitive. But hey, what the hell? If they [politicians] can be repetitive, why can’t I?
So watch this space. I’ll be back soon. Once my ‘responsibilities’ will let me be!

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Can Britain succeed in Afghanistan?

Afghanistan is we are told a terrorist (Al Qaeda) base. The Taliban is our enemy. That is why our young men are dying there.

Rubbish.

The Afghan people have never been defeated. Not by the mighty USSR. Not by the mighty USA who tried their hand in 2001. Now they bring us into a war that cannot be won. And we follow, like the 51st state we have become.

Leave the Afghans to run their own country. If they become a discernable threat to us, hit 'em hard. Until then, back off and use the money you are wasting to help English people in England.

And leave the USA to spend the billions they charged us for helping out in WWII.

Tuesday, July 07, 2009

MG Rover’s Phoenix Four Must be Beyond Reproach

Why, after four years of investigation is it only now that there are to be questions asked about the demise of MG Rover and the so-called 'Phoenix Four'?

Couldn't a QC and a forensic accountant see there was something wrong?

It might be argued they saw the evidence but wanted to investigate thoroughly before any public announcement. But surely it is/was their duty, even their legal responsibility to call in the Serious Fraud Office?

Whatever the outcome (and I suspect it will be the 'old boy network' cover up) the impression is that something is wrong.

It is not enough to be above suspicion- as Caesar's wife, all involved must be beyond reproach.

Monday, July 06, 2009

BT Offers Holidays for Pay Cuts

This seems to be a growing trend. Save your jobs by wage cuts. For those earning high wages, this might not seem so drastic. But what happens when this filters down to minimum wage earners? How will we stop unscrupulous employers using creative book keeping to reduce their wage bill? (For this read 'increase their profits').

I'm sorry, but this has all the hallmarks of a well thought out con. Use the recession to put money in our pockets.

How many industry chiefs have had to sell their mansions and country houses and move into a five bed roomed detached house? (An unattainable luxury for many of us- whether we are working or not.)

Will directors work for nothing?

Shouldn't a socially responsible employer be offering term-time employment for parents anyhow?

And what's innovative about cutting wages, making people (not jobs) redundant and short time working?

How is it progressive to blackmail workers with redundancy or pay cuts?

Leaving those left to work harder to cover the jobs of part time, short time and redundant employees.

And what happened to the Thatcherite privatised capitalist utopia we were all promised?

And don't blame New Labour. They've done nothing to change anything. Even the things they promised to change in their manifesto.

I cannot believe some of the BT employees' comments. Being grateful for wage cuts, short time and redundancy!

We might no longer wear a cloth cap to doff every time a wealthy industrialist raises his voice. But it is reincarnated in the form of the baseball cap. So grease the rim that it might slip off more ably. You never know when you might need to.

Sunday, July 05, 2009

Booth Hails Scottish Penal Reform (or Crime and (Lack Of) Punishment)

Cherie Booth QC (Mrs. Tony Blair) has praised Scottish penal reform. MS. Booth chaired the Commission on English Prisons, in which she singled out aspects of Scotland's prison system for praise.

The gist seems to be that short prison sentences don't work, so don't hand out short prison sentences. I agree. What I do not agree with is the conclusion that those who would have been dealt with by shorter sentences should be dealt with by using community punishments; unpaid work, tagging, probation and ASBO's. The sort of 'punishments' criminals laugh at and see as nothing more than a minor intrusion into their lives- when they can be bothered to follow the orders.

I say give 'em longer sentences- and make sure the prisons are so uncomfortable most won't want to go back.

I'm not suggesting we stop attempts to rehabilitate through education and training. But those that opt to train or learn should not see it as a soft option to working. Those that have no inclination to learn should be made to work and work hard. The work must be constructive- none of your rock breaking and moving rocks from one side of the yard for no other purpose than to make an inmate work hard.

The workshops to which prisoners are assigned or volunteer should be run on an industrial basis where the products can be sold at a profit, thus contributing to the costs of running the prison system. One might even consider paying a proper wage the bulk of which could be sent to families and thus remove the need to pay benefits.

Governments can use statistics to tell us prisons don't work. They can produce statistics to show community sentencing reduces offending and re-offending. But statistics can be manipulated. ("He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts' for support rather than illumination."-Andrew Lang (1844-1912)) Many of the people who make penal reform decisions are statistically less likely to be the victim of 'low level' crime. The sort of crime we or our friends and relatives and our communities become victims of every day. Most of the people I know are in agreement. Prisons should be harsher and sentences longer. Most of what I read and see in the media from ordinary folk is in agreement. Prisons should be a place to which offenders do not wish to return. In our presumed democracy (which is actually a plutocracy) why are the minority sitting on these quangos and our supposed representatives able to ignore the wishes of the majority and continue the liberalist policies of community sentencing?

We might see some change when MP's and the wealthy are regularly the victims of burglary. When it is their sons who are meaninglessly attacked in the street and their daughters are assaulted.

Along with these proposed changes I believe there must also be a change of social and economic policy. While there will always be those who prefer to take rather than earn, we must ensure that ordinary people have well paid secure jobs. The balance should be quick, easy money with the risk of severe penalties and a real chance of being caught against a respectable well paid job with security. Most reasonable thinking people would choose the latter.

With these social and economic changes we should encourage employers to take on released prisoners if they have shown a commitment to change. Jobs to take when they leave prison not straight back on the dole, with the temptation to reoffend.

We need a complete rethink, accepting parts of the old penal system were reasonable and effective and that parts of the modern system are equally reasonable and effective. But neither system has a monopoly on effectiveness and we must accept that no system ever will. As with most things, we can only hope for the best penal system while we retain our humanity when dealing with those for whom we may temporarily wish to suspend that humanity and at the same time punish and rehabilitate effectively.

Saturday, July 04, 2009

Rogue Traders

A rogue trader at London oil broker PVM Oil Futures has cost them $10m (£6m).

First, these traders make billions off the backs of consumers, keeping prices artificially high by sitting on oil (or any other product) until the price is right.

Second, one might argue that these futures investors are fraudulent themselves, since they never physically hold the product. PVM could not take a prospective buyer to a thousand barrels of oil and say 'here's what you're buying'. It's all done on paper.

And finally, they lose $10m and there is no suggestion of financial difficulty, never mind bankruptcy. How many real businesses that actually produce something besides profits have $10m to lose, never mind stand the loss!

That's what I want to be when [if]I grow up!

Friday, July 03, 2009

One ‘Flu’ Over the Cuckoos Nest


 

The Welsh Assembly Government has many devolved powers, one of which is their health service. Yet they want the UK treasury to foot the bill for the swine flu vaccination program.

The Welsh wanted devolution. They got devolution, as far as I am aware essentially on their terms. Yet at the first sign of trouble, they run back, charity tins rattling for help.

I am an Englishman with a Scots and Irish heritage. My Irish ancestors originally settled in Wales early in the 19th century.

Now, I believe in devolution. I really believe the Irish, Scots and Welsh are a different race being of Celtic descent as opposed to Saxon. As such, they should have home rule and be treated as individual nations. But if they want it, and have it they have to live with it, taking the rough with the smooth.

There may be an argument to say England's imperialist expansionism, however long ago has left them unable to function as a separate country without a transitional period. But let them say that, not claim the flu issue is an exceptional emergency situation.

Because let's face it, swine flu is flu. Each 'new' flu is a genetically modified version of a previous flu. There is no emergency. The problem lies not in the new flu being particularly virulent, but in the lack of new, effective vaccines. The new flu is dangerous during the period a vaccine is being developed.

Thursday, July 02, 2009

Gordon Brown - Dishonest or Misguided?

Gordon Brown may be honest about his spending plans, but is he right? He says "making big efficiency savings in government and selling state-owned assets" could meet targets for cutting debt and still improve frontline services.

Well, how does selling services (state-owned assets) improve them? The mythical efficiency the Tories told us about throughout the 1980's? Just look at the private water companies.

If a private company can run these services efficiently, pay shareholder dividends and make a profit, why can't government run them and use the dividend payments and the profits to reduce costs to the consumer or further increase efficiency?

We need to turn away from the privatisation and the myths associated with it and re-nationalise the utilities, major manufacturing and stop the ingress of privatisation through 'partnerships'.

And we need to do it now.

Wednesday, July 01, 2009

Doctors want right to talk faith

Doctors and nurses want the right to discuss spiritual issues with patients. I think this is wrong. The National Secular Society has said "If we say it is ok for doctors and nurses to provide spiritual care and pray for patients it can all too quickly get out of hand and we will have staff preaching on the wards". I agree.

Reading the article the emphasis seems to be on Christians discussing Christianity. Doctors and nurses should stick to medical care. If we allow this will we see patient care suffering because a nurse is discussing religion with a patient while I wait for medical attention? Do I want a doctor telling me how I should be a Christian? (Or a Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist for that matter?) And what about atheist doctors and nurses? Will the same doctors and nurses who want this right be happy to have a colleague telling a dying patient there is no God, no afterlife?

I can envisage major conflicts when a Christian nurse tries to tell a Hindu patient to convert, and might this lead to segregation according to faith?

And besides, don't hospitals have chaplains of various faiths to satisfy the religious needs of patients?

I go to my doctor for health care and if I were religious I would go to my church or temple for spiritual guidance. Keep the two separate or we will be entering a moral minefield.

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Cancer in the NHS

Patients in England suspected of suffering from cancer are to have the right to see a specialist within two weeks; and quite rightly so.

However, primary care trusts will be required to pay for private consultations if the timescale cannot be met.

There could also be financial penalties for failing to keep to the two-week limit, described at the moment as 'only a target'.

So, the underfunded, ailing NHS is given another target it has to meet. Failure will result in financial penalties, not just once but twice. Effectively the NHS will have to pay for its own demise, backdoor privatisation, and be fined to do so!

I believe the funding issue for the NHS has two root causes.

First, a significant proportion of the NHS budget pays managers and book-keepers whose focus is (financial) efficiency and cost cutting. This is not compatible with a non profit, state owned institution and is morally indefensible where healthcare is concerned.

Second, direct taxation, particularly for the wealthy has fallen significantly over the last 30 years resulting in less money to spend on the public services most of us, and in particular the poorest of us rely on. Hence the introduction of managers and book-keepers trying to cut costs but actually contributing to them through bloated salaries with no advantage to treatment.

These issues did not exist pre 1980 when hospitals were run by doctors and nurses and funding was adequate.

What the government should do is sack the managers and book-keepers and let the doctors and nurses run the hospitals on clinical grounds and direct employment of cleaners and other ancillary staff who will be directly accountable to the NHS.

This will mean more funding going to treatment rather than non-clinical staff and any shortfall should be paid for by those most able to pay, the wealthy through direct taxation.

Monday, June 29, 2009

Pontcysyllte aqueduct

At last, some good news to comment on. The Pontcysyllte aqueduct has been given World Heritage status.

This is a magnificent piece of engineering, carrying the Llangollen canal over the valley of the River Dee. Built of cast iron and caulked with flannel dipped in boiling sugar and then sealed with lead!

The amazing thing is, as far as I am aware, this original and inventive caulking is still what holds the water in to this day, 204 years later.

Built by Thomas Telford and William Jessop it is over 1,000 feet long and stands on 120 foot tall masonry piers. Again, amazingly it is a mere 11 feet wide!

Some of today's engineers and architects would do well to take a leaf from their book and stop building concrete and glass horrors that might last 50 years.

Sunday, June 28, 2009

More Power for the Bank of England?

George Osborne, Shadow Chancellor and MP for Tatton suggests that a Tory administration would give more powers to the Bank of England to oversee financial institutions. Mr. Osborne says "The tripartite system between the chancellor, the Bank of England and the FSA has simply failed."

That may be so, but giving more control to the Bank of England will in my view create more problems. The Bank of England is a financial institute and quite rightly is wholly or at least mainly concerned with financial affairs. (Quite advantageous to rich Tories, I suggest.)

Better the Bank of England should be given control over financial considerations, but where these financial considerations have an impact on the social structure and the poorer members of society who have no means of controlling the decisions that impact on them, a body of politicians (multi party), charitable institutions, sociologists and independent thinkers should be a party to those decisions with a power of veto if the majority disagree with the Bank of England.

Each member of this committee should show they have no personal interests in the policy and decisions of the Bank of England over and above those of the ordinary citizen. To declare an interest should not be enough.

I consider that this committee should consist of volunteers who will not benefit from being a committee member. No wages, no expenses, merely a commitment to fair play and policies to benefit the people, not the rich people.

To prevent the super rich commandeering the committee, being the only ones who can afford to do it for free a reasonable allowance could be allowable for those that can show genuine hardship.

And how about a sub-committee of us plebeians, elected to the job by local people to whom the committee report and take a remit?

This is my suggestion for a fair system of financial and economic decision making. The mechanics of how it might work must be decided by those more able than I in such matters.

Saturday, June 27, 2009

£16m Rover Report

An independent report into the collapse of MG-Rover has been handed to the government. It cost £16m and took four years.

In 2005 Andrew Johnson and Steve Bloomfield for The Independent asked MG Rover Closure: 'What happened to all that money?'

The cost of support packages had £171m allocated and a projected likely spend was £146m. (Figures are from the National Audit Office. (Download Links in PDF format.)

It seems while the workforce were working overtime, seven days a week to try to make the plant and the company profitable and save their jobs, the 'Phoenix Four' were busy lining their pockets as quickly as possible in advance of the collapse.

When you look at the amount of money spent on closing the plant with the loss of 6,000 jobs, at least £187m (not counting the extra costs to the NHS treating depression and related problems, neither the lost revenue from 6,000 taxpayers or the impact on local communities, both financial and social.) it really doesn't seem to make economic, political or social sense. Even if they all got a job at Tesco's (suggested by Margaret Hodge, work and pensions minister at the time) the difference in wages, and therefore the tax they would pay would be considerable.

It seems to be just another case of the workforce making all the effort, the bosses taking all the credit and profit and the workforce paying the price. Oh yes, while the government stand back, with their gold-plated unassailable wages, expenses and pensions doing nothing but spout rhetoric and commission expensive 'independent' reports that give their pals a 'raison d'être'.

And I ask, what good will the report be? Will it highlight how things might have been done better, perhaps saving jobs? Probably not, but too late if it does. Will it highlight the failings of the Phoenix Four? Maybe, but will anything be done? Doubtful. Will it change government attitudes or produce a different strategy to save jobs in future? Well, ignoring the fact that this was the last big employer, certainly in the car industry, definitely in the West Midlands and so a similar situation is unlikely it won't change government attitudes until there is a change in political, social and economic thinking. The recent closure of LDV with a refusal to help from New Labour proves this. The banks got billions, changed little though this was a requirement of the funding and are now shedding staff. Yet the relative pittance LDV asked for as a bridging loan while takeover negotiations continued was refused.

This country was once great because of the industrial revolution; because of its strong manufacturing base and because of engineering skills this manufacturing base produced. This country is now collapsing socially, economically and politically because we are allowing these strengths to fail Lack of investment has led a decline (often blamed on unions and the workforce). In the 1970's I was milling cylinder heads on pre-war milling machines, drilling sumps on pre-war radial drills. We need to reverse this trend by injecting money into engineering and manufacturing alongside new technologies. It will be expensive and painful. But we might once again lead the world and make a better future for our children and our children's children.

Friday, June 26, 2009

Michael Jackson R.I.P. (Please!)

I am fed up of it. Every time I turn the TV on or go on the internet it's all Michael Jackson. Somebody has just likened his death to that of Elvis or Diana.

Now I didn't like the bloke. I didn't like Elvis or Diana. I accept there are those who do and they feel a loss at their passing. Grieve, but don't force it down my throat. But it isn't really news. It certainly isn't news now. We've all heard, now move on and do some real reporting and give us the news!

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Smoking Ban

Birmingham MP John Hemming is calling for the smoking ban to be relaxed. It seems to be because of the number of pubs closing which has been associated with the ban.

I agree. The law as it stands is draconian. Much better, as was suggested would be smoking only rooms with staffed by employees who smoke themselves. One could also make it an option with the final say going to the landlord/lady.

If the government wants to ban something, ban chewing gum. It is everywhere, sticks to everything that comes into contact with it and probably harbours a plethora of bacteria and viruses.

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Business Managers for Schools

Schools minister Vernon Coaker says a business manager could help schools ride out the recession, claiming they could save schools thousands of pounds per year.

The claim is that they can save head teachers up to 20% of their time to devote to teaching.

Well, I think it is just another bureaucrat creating bureaucracy to give jobs to the boys.

Margaret Thatcher did this in the 1980's. While she destroyed manufacturing, she created thousands of non-jobs paying intellectuals huge salaries to sort out finances and to manage in the National Health Service. Most weren't worried about people. The onus was on cutting costs. We've all seen the result of that.

Not only is this an issue, but also the move to privatise public service industries by the back door by introducing such jobs. Once the principle of 'business management' is accepted, we are on our way to privatising education. And isn't it odd that this idea has been thought up at a time when the government is meeting strong opposition to their attempt to introduce private academies?

Here are a few figures I have put together. Not scientific or statistically accurate. But accurate enough, I believe to give some idea of what we are heading towards. I got my figures by a Google search any one of you could try.


 

  

Average Salary

Minimum Salary

20% of Salary

Head Teacher

£ 100,000.00

£ 70,000.00

£ 20,000.00

£ 14,000.00

Business Manager

£ 50,000.00

£ 25,000.00

  

  


 

So you can see that even paying a business manager the minimum salary of £25,000, while saving 20% of the average salary of £100,000 of a head teacher (£20,000), the difference is £5,000 which presumably the business manager will have to save (cut) from the budget just to break even.

Pupils are already buying their own books. Where will it come from? Education is non-profit making and one of the most important public services we have. Do we want to see it brought to its knees like the health service?

So is this just another 'jobs for the boys' and/or a 'make it look like we're doing something' exercise?

Either way, we have seen what managers did to the health service. Do we want it to happen to our schools?


 

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

BNP... Banned or Marginalised?

There is talk of the Government banning teachers from being members of the BNP. Police officers are already not allowed to be members of the BNP. But I think this is a very dangerous road. While I do not agree with much of the opinion of this group, or their methods we are a democracy and like it or not they are a legitimate political party within that democracy.

If we are to ban certain groups from party membership then it must be across the board. Teachers and policemen should be banned from being members of any political party.

It is that or remove legitimacy and legal status from the party in question. Effectively, ban the BNP.

The problem is there are no legal grounds to do so. And so, in my opinion, there should be no grounds to ban certain groups from membership unless the ban extends to all political parties.

This leaves us in a paradox. Allow the BNP to use the democracy they despise to gain ever greater electoral gains, or destroy that democracy by banning a group because we don't like what they say.

However, I have a third way. The British people are rarely extreme in their views. So if the other political parties listen to us, curb immigration and remove undesirables I honestly believe the BNP will fade back into the obscurity they came from.

Monday, June 22, 2009

Iraq War Inquiry

It has been decided the Iraq War Inquiry will held in private and suddenly senior politicians are saying they would be happy to have a public inquiry. I ask why they didn't make their feelings public earlier. Why, now the decision is taken they are willing to speak publicly?

I suspect this is another attempt to undermine Gordon Brown. While not enamoured to the man or his politics, neither do I like underhand tactics from those that might wish to take his job.

Sunday, June 21, 2009

MP Beaten by thugs

Tobias Ellwood, Tory MP for Bournemouth East has been beaten by thugs. Will we see a change in policy and an end to kid gloves when dealing with yobs?

Or more likely a new law to protect public servants.

Saturday, June 20, 2009

EU agrees Irish treaty compromise

Political wheeling and dealing knows no bounds. Not moral bounds or physical boundaries. Not even political boundaries. Both left and right of the EU conniving to get a second referendum in Ireland for the Lisbon treaty they have already rejected. Concessions, called 'protocols' by the EU that guarantee Ireland freedom from EU interference in military neutrality, tax and abortion policy. This will only apply to Ireland but it is thought it will likely be attached to Croatia's EU accession treaty.

This must stand as one of the most manoeuvred and manipulated pieces of legislation in the history of politics. The EU were determined this would go through. The promise of a referendum for the British people was removed by renaming the Maastricht Treaty. They knew the vote would be against so they renamed it and denied us a vote, claiming it is a different treaty.

When the Irish valiantly insisted on a referendum and the referendum went against the treaty (remember, all member states must ratify the treaty) they asked the Irish to have another referendum. They refused so we see the latest manipulation to try to get the Irish on side.

This also highlights the lack of democracy in the EU.

My hope is that the Irish people reject the treaty in their second referendum in October.